Lords Sitting of 1 July 1976

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

CARRIAGE OF DANGEROUS GOODS IN SHIPS
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their forecast of the number of ships carrying —

(a)radio-active materials; and

(b)liquefied, natural or petroleum gas,

which will pass through British waters (out to 12 nautical miles) during the next 20 years; whether they are satisfied that no special policing, pilotage or other arrangements are necessary for these appallingly dangerous cargoes, and if so, why.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it is not possible to give a valid forecast, though we are taking full account of the potential risks. Comprehensive safety requirements for the carriage of such materials are contained in the official publication, Carriage of Dangerous Goods in Ships. These requirements are reinforced by the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Rules 1965 and are kept under constant review by an expert Standing Advisory Committee. Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of the need to pay special attention to all aspects of safety, including ship design, navigation and pilotage, concerned with the carriage of dangerous cargoes in ships, and will continue to play an active role in encouraging the formulation and improvement of regulations, international Codes of Practice and safety standards generally in this important field.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Do these regulations bite on the ships which
864
go through British waters without touching British ports? Do the Government remember that even three years ago the National Physical Laboratory estimated that 34 per cent. of ships going through the Channel were carrying dangerous cargoes? Are the Government aware that 60 per cent. of all accidents at sea take place in North-West European waters? Why are the Government letting slip an opportunity which may not recur for 20 years to introduce during the course of UNCLOS proper regulations which will bite on innocent passage through territorial waters?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's first question is, Yes. I would reject any suggestion on his part that the Government are in any way complacent on this matter, including the question of the control of traffic through the Dover Strait. In conjunction with the French, we monitor traffic by radar and give safety forecasts and there has been a considerable improvement over recent years. However, I will look at the points which my noble friend has raised and, if it is helpful, I will write to him about them.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, following up the question of my noble friend, may I ask whether there is any provision under the Dangerous Cargoes Act that the countries under whose flags those ships are sailing should notify the Government of the toxicity of the cargoes they carry? Also, is my noble friend Lord Oram aware that, for instance, in the Adriatic there are already some most noxious and toxic barrels of material which were dumped there on the Borders of Yugoslavia and Italy and which could endanger the whole Mediterranean unless they are recovered ? Could not some international organisation recover such toxic cargoes which may have been sunk in coastal waters?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am aware of the suggestion that notification under an early warning system might be helpful in this matter, but my noble friend should be aware that any such system would involve an enormous application of resources. This has to be weighed against the very real safety needs, but I do not think that, when they are examined, that extent of effort is considered to be necessary or possible.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, as the years go by, there will be increasing traffic in these substances, particularly in liquified natural gas and petroleum? Have not the Government been rather complacent about this? The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, suggested that the Government were letting an opportunity slip by: is monitoring really the same as taking charge of the situation and dealing with it?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, of course there is the prospect that this kind of traffic will increase. The Government are fully aware of that prospect and are looking to that situation. That is why, far from being complacent about it, we are particularly active in the international fora concerned with these matters and are taking a lead in seeking improved regulations.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, are the Government paying attention to the fact that the risk of accident almost certainly goes up by at least the square of the volume of traffic and that, consequently, if one doubles the traffic one does not merely double the risk but one multiplies it by at least four?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure that those who are examining these problems in detail are aware of the kind of proportions that my noble friend has illustrated to the House.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is not the position really a matter of accepting a continuation of great patience and great pressures? In a democratic world, faced with the fact that all these various countries are independent and have to be persuaded, we must continue that international persuasion relentlessly, even as in this country we have to go on persuading the trade unions?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, without particular reference to the last few words of the noble Viscount, I agree with him that success in these matters depends on international collaboration, and that, in this as in all fields, is necessarily a slow, painstaking business. I sought to indicate to the House that we are successfully engaged on that slow and painstaking exercise.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, in view of the concern over this matter, the British Council of Shipping, which represents the vast body of shipowners in the United Kingdom, has after consultation with the Government expressed its satisfaction with the arrangements?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I cannot give any specific answer to my noble friend, but I shall make inquiries and let him know.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord look back by way of analogy at the situation as regards the safety of oil rigs? I know that this point is not covered by this Question, but there is an analogy, because two years ago the noble Lord opposite, occupying that seat on the Front Bench, said that the safety of rigs was really no problem at all; it did not matter. Now he is taking it very seriously. We are asking the noble Lord to take this matter very seriously and to get a move on with it.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have given the House the assurance that we take this matter very seriously and we are getting a move on, subject to the considerations of international collaboration which, obviously, are not entirely in our control. We are playing our part.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's statement that the dangerous cargo regulations bite on ships going through British territorial waters but not touching British ports, can he tell the House how many such ships have been stopped and searched in order to enforce those regulations?
Lord ORAM: Not without notice, I am afraid, my Lords.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the seamen's organisations have expressed any views upon this matter?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have no doubt that they have, but I have not had them drawn to my particular attention in connection with this Question.

NORTH SEA: CONFERENCE PROPOSAL
3.15 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any British local authorities are taking up the proposal of the chief Burgomaster of Hamburg for a conference of cities having access to the North Sea.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, there has not yet been a firm proposal from the Burgomaster. If a conference were convened it would be up to local authorities to decide whether to accept any invitiation they receive.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, do the Government agree that, subject to obvious limitations of expenditure, this would be a useful idea and that British cities might hopefully take it up, if invited?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords; in general we think — and I certainly think — that the idea is extremely attractive and interesting. But the proposals are not yet well enough advanced for me to he able to comment on them in any detail.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that the City of Hamburg is notorious for certain of the amenities that it provides, and that it would not be a good idea to contaminate the minds of our own councils?

HOMELESS YOUNG PEOPLE
3.16 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: 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 to state when they propose to publish the views of the Government's Inter-Departmental Working Party on Homeless Young People.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said in another place on Tuesday last, 29th June, that he will make a Statement regarding publication of the Report of the Working Group on Homeless Young People in the near future.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he consider having the Report published for the general public and persons like myself who are interested in running centres for homeless people, so that we may have full knowledge when it comes to discussion of the final paper?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the point of view of the noble Baroness, and this matter had been discussed at some length. I wish to remind your Lordships that six Government Departments were involved in this Working Group, together with a representative of the local authorities association, plus a number of people representing voluntary effort in this field. The Report covers a very wide area of discussion and the discussion has been in depth. It raises questions such as the housing aspect, the provision of hostel accommodation of various kinds, and it involves local authorities. There is the question of manpower expenditure, and my right honourable friend feels that he must give his colleagues in the other Government Departments an opportunity of considering in detail what the Report says, what recommendations it makes, and how best to implement them, before publishing the Report for general discussion.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that we are supposed to be engaged in open Government and that the more interesting this Report is, and the wider it goes, the more important it is for the public to know what it contains. I quite understand that he no doubt feels that he must give the Government Departments concerned first look, but will he not accept that the scope of the Report and the urgency of this problem make it abundantly necessary that the Report should be published at the earliest possible opportunity?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Report has been in the hands of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services for only about a month now, and therefore it has been in the hands of other Government Departments for the same period. Bearing in mind what Government Departments have to do in a variety of fields these days, that is not a long time. I should have thought that there is some merit in my right honourable friend getting the views of his colleagues in other Departments, so that when the announcement is made with regard to publication he will be in a position to give some comments and observations on the recommendations and what is to be done to implement them.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, pending that publication, has the Minister any further information to give the House on the subject raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in this connection concerning the co-operation, or non co-operation, of British Rail in providing proper information services for the homeless, particularly at Euston Station?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the right reverend Prelate, I have to say that the British Railways Board have said that they are unable to agree to the proposed establishment of an information booth at Euston. The situation, in view of their decision, which we regard to be a situation of some urgency, means that we have had to do some re-thinking. I would hope that your Lordships will feel, because of my reply, that I should not he pressed further at this stage on this matter.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, does not the noble Lord understand that his last answer will cause very deep concern in many quarters of the House? Will the noble Lord draw special attention to the problems of Euston and the metropolis raised by the book Johnnie Go Home, and will he not ask British Rail to accept the sort of social responsibility that we always used to be assured would he shown by nationalised industries?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble and learned
870
Lord's intervention on this matter. Their decision causes us some very real concern, and I will convey to my right honourable friend precisely what the noble and learned Lord has said.

BUS FARE INCREASES
3.21 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and, in case it is not clear, the word " prices " refers, of course, to the price of tickets; that is, fares.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the 26 per cent. average increase in prices referred to in notices displayed in London buses falls within the Government's guidelines for containing the cost of living to the consumer.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords. In accordance with the counter-inflation legislation, London Transport notified the Price Commission in April last of its intention to increase bus fares by an average of 26 per cent. from the 20th June 1976. The Commission have considered the case, and they found no cause for intervention under the Price Code.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may we take it from the noble Baroness's reply that the further sentence on these notices, that:
"This increase is to meet increased costs",
applies right across the whole field of industry, in their view?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I can answer only so far as London Transport is concerned. I would remind noble Lords that most London Transport bus fares were frozen between January 1972 and March 1975, and that in November 1974 it faced an anticipated deficit of some £52 million. The GLC were then forced to abandon their fare freeze, and they agreed on an average overall fare increase in the ordinary fares of 30 per cent. from the 23rd March 1975. Despite this, the deficit continued to rise, and further increases averaging 26 per cent. took effect from the 2nd November. Even with these increases, it was necessary

871
for the GLC and the Government to make grants totalling £93 million towards fares relief.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness correct in saying that London bus fares were frozen between 1972 and 1975? Is she aware that that is not my experience? I recall being asked to pay increased fares on several occasions.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord travelled outside London Transport areas, but my information is that the fares freeze was between January 1972 and March 1975, and that fares did not keep abreast of costs, which rose substantially.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, by reason of his years, which are even more advanced than my own, entitled to travel free on London Transport?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware, and also the noble and learned Lord, that I never take advantage of concessions?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we shall remind my noble friend of that later.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will repeat a Statement on the disclosure of Cabinet Documents.
STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY AND MACKINTOSH SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3 a, and passed.
RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL [H.L.]
Considered on Report.
RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
THEATRES TRUST BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

ARMED FORCES BILL
3.26 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of this Bill, as provided for in Clause 1, is to renew for another five years the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. These Acts may be collectively referred to as "the Service Discipline Acts ", but they encompass more than discipline in the narrow sense of the term. The provisions of these Acts help to provide a general legal framework within which members of the three Armed Forces spend their Service lives wherever they may be; and civilians accompanying our forces overseas also fall within their scope.
There is general agreement, I hope and believe, that the quinquennial system of Armed Forces Bills works well. It provides a regular and well-spaced opportunity for looking at the operation of the Service Discipline Acts, and for updating or amending them where such a need is indicated. In addition, the quinquennial system helps to ensure that, as far as possible, the rules that determine how indiscipline is dealt with in the Services reflect and keep pace with civil experience and practice. Within each five-year period, continuation in force of these Acts is made subject to annual renewal by Affirmative Resolution. The annual continuation order system provided in Clause 1 accords with past practice, although a slight alteration of the timing, whereby the annual continuation orders will be required to be passed by the end of

873
August, will now lend greater flexibility to this procedure within the timetable of the Parliamentary Session. The need for annual renewal gives to Parliament an additional opportunity to debate matters more widely related to Service discipline.
The examination of the Service Discipline Acts that preceded this Armed Forces Bill suggested a number of areas, of varying significance, where changes are desirable. The rest of the Bill is devoted to these changes. They are generally designed to improve the working of the Service Discipline Acts, and thus to benefit those subject to them. Some of the provisions are minor — seeking to clarify areas of possible legal ambiguity, to rationalise various administrative or judicial procedures, or to rectify certain anomalies in the different Services —and I do not propose, unless noble Lords wish it in any particular instance, to discuss them in detail now. I would prefer, instead, to dwell on what are considered the more important provisions of the Bill.
I should like first to mention Clause 4 and Schedule 2, under which members of Queen Alexandra's Royal Nursing Service and of the Women's Royal Naval Service are to become fully subject to the Naval Discipline Act. For the first time they are included legally as members of "Her Majesty's Naval forces ". Their status will therefore broadly accord with that of their sister Services in the Army and the Royal Air Force. I hope noble Lords will agree that the QARNNS and WRNS, both of whom continue to perform a valuable and distinguished role, will benefit from these provisions.
In 1971 the Armed Forces Act made a significant change in the law. Under it the offence-making sections of the Army and Air Force Acts and of the Naval Discipline Act were made virtually identical. Thus the specific argument formerly used for the WRNS and QARNNS to retain their own voluntary codes —that is, because the Articles of War in the Naval Discipline Act were to harsh to be applied to women —no longer applies. We are therefore using the first opportunity since 1972 to make the appropriate changes.
Under the present disciplinary codes of the QARNNS and WRNS, their members can suffer from a number of disadvantages
874
as regards legal rights. For example, they lack the protection afforded by the Naval Discipline Act, having no immunity from trial in the civil courts for an offence that in substance may already have been dealt with administratively in the Service; and they currently have no statutory rgiht of complaint. These disadvantages —other than those rehearsed on pages 32 to 33 of the Select Committee Report produced in another place —will disappear when the current provisions are enacted.
The proposals are in line with the results of the general review of the future of the WRNS that was completed last year. Noble Lords may be aware that last July the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Navy said in another place:
"The WRNS continues to make an indispensable contribution to the efficient work of the Navy. Its role and organisation have recently been thoroughly reviewed. It has been decided that it should in future be more closely integrated into the naval Service, so sharing both the greater opportunities and the fuller obligations of such Service. We are actively considering what new jobs it could undertake, and we shall lay before Parliament proposals to bring it and the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service — with all its fine traditions —within the ambit of the Naval Discipline Act. I believe this to be a logical and timely step which will bring the WRNS into line with the women of the two other Services." —[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/75; col. 552.]
The present proposals are, as I say, in line with the greater opportunities my honourable friend was then speaking of. I would emphasise that they in no way go against the proud and illustrious traditions and history of the QARNNS and WRNS; they should rather be seen as a part of the continuing development of their notable contribution to the defence of the nation.
My Lords, I turn now to Clause 5, which seeks to increase the summary powers of commanding officers in the Royal Marines, the Army, and the RAF. In 1971 the Select Committee which examined the last Armed Forces Bill recommended that the Department consider the desirability of increased powers for such commanding officers. Since 1971, a thorough examination, involving consultation at various Service levels both in this country and overseas, has taken place, and has resulted in the proposals now before the House. These are justifiable on several grounds. There are at present a number of essentially Service

875
offences, such as absence without leave, which, though legally straightforward are tried by court-martial. In 90 per cent. of such cases the accused pleads guilty. The seriousness of such offences does not always justify the full panoply of court-martial proceedings with the inevitable delays, formality and man-hours they involve. Your Lordships will be aware of the tendency in civil courts for cases to be taken in the lowest appropriate level of court. The proposals in Clause 5 follow this trend by permitting summary disposal as a more suitable way of dealing speedily, effectively and justly with a number of those disciplinary cases that are presently tried by court-martial.
It is difficult to forecast accurately the annual savings in courts-martial that these provisions will effect since in all cases where the extended powers might be exercised the accused will have the right to opt for trial by court-martial. Tentative estimates based on past figures suggest a possible annual saving of some 300 or more Army and RAF courts-martial. This would represent in the region of 15 per cent. of the annual number of courts-martial, and in the interests of the best use of resources would contribute a useful saving in administrative efficiency and officer time.
However, these proposals are not advanced merely in the interests of administrative savings, nor is there any intention to try to get justice "on the cheap ". If we felt that continuation unchanged of the existing system was vital to ensuring that the disciplinary arrangements continued to work in a just way, there would be no hesitation about deploying whatever resources were required to that end. But we believe, on the contrary, that the new arrangements will hold significant advantages for the accused as well, especially since he will, in any case where the extended powers might be exercised, always have the option of trial by court-martial. We consider, however, that in many cases the accused will prefer to be dealt with more quickly and less formally by his own commanding officer: by an officer whom he knows, and who knows him and his circumstances. If he chooses so to be dealt with, he will additionally avoid the greater stigma that trial by court-martial, in the enclosed Service community, inevitably incurs. Thus, we be
876
lieve—and the Select Committee of another place endorsed this belief — that the accused himself will see the advantage of and benefit from the proposals in Clause 5.
In advancing these proposals the Department has been fully conscious of the need to safeguard the rights of the accused at summary proceedings. As I say, there is no intention to erode these rights, or to by-pass the demands of justice. I have already mentioned —and I do not apologise for repeating myself, since the right is of paramount importance —that in cases where the summary powers may be exercised, the accused may opt for court-martial trial. In addition, where the extended summary powers of detention may be applied new safeguards are to be introduced as follows: first, an abstract or summary of evidence is to be prepared; secondly, legal advice on the case is to be obtained by the commanding officer; thirdly, higher authority must have granted the commanding officer permission to use the extended power of detention; fourthly, the extended power shall be used only w here the accused does not dispute that the material facts alleged against him are true, or that such facts constitute the charge brought; and, finally, any case where the extended power of detention has been used will be reviewed under Section 115 of the 1955 Acts.
These safeguards will always apply where the extended summary powers of detention might be exercised. I would remind noble Lords that we are talking here about Service detention, and not about imprisonment. And the difference is not one of mere terminology. Sentences of detention that might be awarded under Clause 5 of the Bill may be contrasted with the maximum sentence that a court-martial may impose for most Service offences under the Army and Air Force Acts: which is of two years' imprisonment. In this context the powers now proposed for commanding officers are not at all excessive; and, of course, the more serious instances will, in any case, always be tried by a court-martial.
The provisions in the Bill, and the safeguards that will be introduced in regulations and administrative instructions, were scrutinised very thoroughly by the Select Committee of another place. They concluded that:
"…it was right to make these changes "

877
I commend this view, on the merits of the case I have just outlined, to noble Lords. The Royal Navy is not affected by the proposals contained in this clause. The level of powers held by Naval commanding officers were accepted by the Select Committee of another place as being appropriate, and the Government are happy to accede to that Committee's suggestion that they be reviewed when Armed Forces Bills are presented to Parliament.
The proposals in the Bill that received the most extensive examination from the Select Committee —and quite rightly, since they are the most significant innovations in the Bill —are those that concern civilians, and particularly juveniles. I refer to Clauses 6 to 9 and their accompanying Schedules. As your Lordships may be aware, these civilians accompanying the Services overseas are already subject to the provisions of the Service Discipline Acts. They are liable to trial under those Acts by court-martial, and summarily by Naval commanding officers, or by appropriate superior authority in the Army and RAF. The penalties available at present under the Acts are limited to imprisonment or a fine, and in practice these have been found to be too inflexible, in particular when dealing with cases involving juveniles. It is therefore proposed to take a new range of powers to deal with civilians in general and juveniles in particular, modelled as far as possible on the corresponding provisions in English law. The powers, including their closeness to the comparable civilian power, are more fully set out in the Supplementary Memorandum M6 which is printed on pages 74–78 of the Select Committee Report.
These powers will be available to deal with civilians who are brought before courts-martial, but it is also proposed to establish a Standing Civilian Court which will be available to deal with precisely those cases for which present arrangements leave something to be desired. The new court, which will be set up at present only in Germany, will be akin to magistrates' courts in England and Wales. The civil departments concerned have been fully consulted over the proposals, both for the new powers and for the court, including the Lord Chancellor's Department as regards the appointment of magistrates
878
to the new Standing Civilian Court. All concur in them and the relevant German authorities see no objections to the Bill's proposals.
The "civilians" provisions of the Bill, so far as the Services are concerned, are innovatory. The parallel with corresponding United Kingdom arrangements is not precise, but it is as close as is possible at this stage; it was not felt desirable to embark immediately on the whole of the more complicated or specialised areas with which courts in this country may concern themselves. However, the workings both of the Standing Civilian Court and of the new awards will be kept under close review, and refinements which might be found desirable in the light of experience could be introduced in the next Armed Forces Bill. We are determined to remain flexible about their operation, just as the need for flexibility prompts their introduction now. The "civilians" proposals constitute a timely and valuable contribution to the way in which civilians accompanying the Services overseas are treated, and I commend them to the House.
My Lords, I could go on to discuss various of the Bill's other proposals: for example Clause 2, which will allow regulations to be made enabling a reduction in a Serviceman's term of service in cases where a man proves unsuitable for a particular trade, and it is desired to transfer him to another where the period of engagement is less; Clause 13 and Schedule 6, which provide for imprisonment in default of payment of a fine, or Clause 16 and Schedule 8, which provide for the registration in certain civil courts of a financial penalty imposed under the Service Acts. All these, like the Bill's remaining provisions, are useful —and, I hope and believe, uncontroversial —measures. Your Lordships however will, I am certain, wish to examine the Bill in your own time, instead of listening to me describing it. You will be aware that all the provisions of the Bill have been carefully looked at by the Select Committee of another place. That Committee produced a most useful Report including the oral and written evidence taken. In it the Committee endorsed the general principles of the Bill, and made several recommendations, all of which have been accepted by the Ministry of Defence. I have no doubt however

879
that your Lordships will wish to consider the Bill and its provisions with your customary care.
In the Government's view this Bill makes a valuable contribution to the working of the Service Discipline Acts, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a — (Lord Winterbottom.)

CABINET DOCUMENTS: UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURE
3.44 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement about the disclosure of information in Cabinet papers to the author of the article in the magazine New Society about the child benefit scheme.
"I should first inform the House of the result of the investigation carried out by Sir Douglas Allen and will outline the further action that is being taken.
"Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry has been very thorough. It has included interviews with Ministers and with all Political Advisers who had access. All civil servants who had access, including those concerned solely with the custody and handling of the relevant material, have also been interviewed. Sir Douglas Allen has also followed up all the suggestions and leads put to him by those who have been interviewed and most of those that have appeared in the Press. He also interviewed Mr. Frank Field, the author of the article, who refused to disclose the source of his information.
"As I informed the House earlier, there is no doubt about the authenticity of the quotations in the New Society article. The manner of the disclosure is however more doubtful. Thus while some of the quotations are accurate, others contain minor textual errors. The article was also wrong in saying
880
that there was a meeting of the Cabinet on 4th May. Sir Douglas Allen considers that the likely explanation is that the author of the article did not possess a copy of the papers from which he quoted, but that someone who had access to them made extensive and possibly rapid notes from them which were subsequently handed over.
"Sir Douglas Allen concentrated his inquiry on those who had access to the Limited Circulation Annex recording the discussion which the Cabinet had on 6th May. This record falls into a category which is given a restricted circulation and very strict rules exist for their handling. Departments are not permitted to copy them, in whole or in part. They are not to be sent to individuals in a Department but must be read, on a strict "need to know" basis, only in the Private Office concerned. In the case of this particular Limited Circulation Annex 34 copies were issued and it was hoped that by concentrating the investigation on it the scope of the inquiry could be focused on a relatively few people. Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry revealed however that the strict procedures for handling this document were not fully observed by all Departments. Three Departments copied it and in others the original document was shown to individuals outside the Private Office concerned. This failure to observe the rules regrettably made the task of identifying the sources of the disclosure more difficult by increasing the range of access and thus the number of people involved. However, no conclusive evidence has been found to show that this failure to observe the proper procedures was itself responsible for the disclosure.
"I have to inform the House that despite his very thorough inquiries Sir Douglas Allen has been unable to discover the source of this leak.
"The problem of leaks is by no means new and it would be misleading to pretend otherwise. They have taken place for many years. They are part of the enduring relationship between Governments and the Press in the course of which the interests of the two parties will sometimes be different. What was disturbing about the disclosure to the author of the New

881
Society article was that it involved the unauthorised passing over of extracts from the papers of the Cabinet itself, which the recipients had formally undertaken not to do. This is an abuse of trust which cannot be in the public interest ; and it is in a different order of gravity from some of the stories and allegations which have been made about the disclosure of some relatively innocuous documents.
"The House will recall that I invited whoever was responsible to come forward to say so. He or she has not done this, with the result that this leaves a large number of persons under suspicion, including one or two whose names have been published in the Press without supporting evidence. I regret this very much.
"The following further action is therefore being taken.
"First, one or two matters came to Sir Douglas Allen's attention which could not be wholly explained. I have therefore decided after consultation with the Attorney-General to invite the police to carry out an investigation into these matters and into any other material in Sir Douglas Allen's report which may appear to them to justify further probing.
"This investigation will be directed towards discovering who was responsible for the disclosure. I informed the Attorney-General of this decision and he has considered the matter. He informs me that he has had regard to all the relevant factors, including Mr. Field's voluntary admission, and he authorises me to say that he is informing Mr. Field that he will not be prosecuted in respect of any offence under the Official Secrets Act arising out of this matter. He is giving the same undertaking to those concerned with the publication of the article in New Society.
"Secondly, there is the matter of the procedures for handling Cabinet documents. As an immediate measure I am issuing fresh directions that the existing rules are to be scrupulously observed. I think however that the rules themselves should be examined by a small Committee of Privy Counsellors. I am glad to inform the House that Lord Houghton of Sowerby has agreed to be chairman of this body
882
and that the other members will be my right honourable friend the Member for Kilmarnock and the right honourable gentleman the Member for Grantham.
"Finally, this episode has raised once again the question whether the present definition and classification of official secrets and the arrangements for their protection are right. This is ground that has already been covered by the Franks Report which the Government have been considering. The Government hope to bring forward their own proposals as soon as possible for reforming the Official Secrets Act in a way which will make its coverage both more limited and more effective.
"The House will be informed of the result of these further steps."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Statement made in another place. In the course of two weeks, Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry appears to have discovered certain breaches of the rules but has thrown no light on how in this case extracts from recent Cabinet documents were published. This situation must remain most unsatisfactory, since information in this category could have been on confidential defence or other matters involving national security.
We think it right that the police should be asked to come in and carry out investigations; and indeed we suggested this two weeks ago from this Bench. It is very distirbing that three Departments should have transgressed against the rules regarding the copying of Cabinet documents. It is surely right that the proposed Committee of Privy Counsellors should examine the present rules, and I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is to be in the chair. Presumably they will make recommendations about these rules, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether he could tell us whether it is proposed that a report from them should be published or given in your Lordships' House.
There are clearly differences of view of what subjects should be strictly confidential, concerning not only Cabinet papers but other documents. The noble

883
and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has repeated the Statement which, towards the end of it, states that the whole question of the Official Secrets Act will he considered. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us when this is likely to be ? I do not need to remind your Lordships that the Parliamentary programme is somewhat congested. For the moment, while the rules exist, and unless or until they are authoritatively changed, they must surely be observed: and if the present system of free and frank discussion within the Cabinet is to continue, then Cabinet documents must be safely protected.
The next stage appears to be this police investigation, and I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can tell us when we might expect a further report —if necessary an interim one —in respect of the police inquiry and whether this will be before the Summer Recess.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, this is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and not least, as the Prime Minister has said, because of the suspicion which still hangs over a number of people, most of whom are undoubtedly innocent.
We welcome the setting up of a committee of Privy Counsellors to examine the rules, and I hope that the principle will be accepted, so far as the review of the Official Secrets Act is concerned, that the fewer documents that are classified, the better. But, once they are classified, no-one should be allowed to use his discretion about whether or not confidentiality is to be maintained. I believe this is the kernal of the matter. This is not open Government, to leak Cabinet secrets: it is anarchy.
3.57 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, I must put one question to him. Obviously as the noble, Lord, Lord Byers, has just said, a number of people, most of whom are wholly innocent of any breach of trust, are put under suspicion. What I want to put to the noble and learned Lord is this: There are three categories of person who
884
will have had access to these documents. One covers members of the Cabinet; one covers their political advisers and one covers career civil servants. Will the terms of reference of the Committee of Privy Counsellors entitle them to investigate the whole policy regarding the employment of political advisers with access to secret documents, since these people are bound neither by the career obligations of the civil servants nor by the oath of the Privy Counsellors?
3.58 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I understand the practice is for me to reply to Front-Bench questions before dealing with anything else, even when there are two questions from a single Front-Bench. I am grateful for the general response of noble Lords to the Statement that has been made in underlining the crucial importance of maintaining security, secrecy and protection of Cabinet documents. Government would be intolerable if that became an open sieve. The date of publication of the report of the Privy Counsellors' committee will depend on when their inquiry is completed. I think they will be conscious of the sense of importance and urgency attached to the matter. I doubt very much, if I may say so with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hail-sham, whether the point that he raised would reasonably come within the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry; but no doubt that is a matter we can look into when the precise terms of reference are determined.
The reform of the Official Secrets Act, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his Statement, has been under the consideration of the Government since the Franks Committee reported. All I can say at this stage is to repeat what he has said already: that the Government hope to bring forward their own proposals as soon as possible. Part of this consideration, I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will be a review of the classification of documents because over-classification merely weakens the shield of security, and the criminal law should be directed to the areas where the protection of the public interest is most required.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked whether and when an interim

885
report would be published by the police. That is certainly a suggestion that will be considered. As noble Lords have said, as the reputation of a large number of people are to some extent at stake —in the sense that all who have had connection with this matter may be deemed to be under suspicion —it is important that there should be speedy consideration of this matter. But if the interim report seems helpful and in the public interest, that will be forthcoming.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this question? In the course of his Statement he referred to Mr. Field, who was involved either by writing about this classified document or by providing the information. But he also mentioned that the Attorney-General, after consultation — I am open to correction — had decided to inform Mr. Field that he would not be prosecuted. I seem to have a recollection of a case several years ago when a matter arising out of the Official Secrets Act was under review, and the person who refused to disclose information was prosecuted. Can we be told the reason why Mr. Field is to be immune if it is discovered — as, apparently, it has already been — that he was involved by providing the information?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Mr. Field has, of course, frankly admitted that he was the author of the article and it may well be that that was one of the factors which my honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General had in mind. It is his decision that there should be a grant of immunity from prosecution. No other Minister has made that decision and I cannot probe it further, except that, presumably, he came to the conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute and I assume that that is why his decision was made. But I cannot take that matter further. It is strictly a matter within the responsibility of the Attorney-General.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask this further question? Could this not be a matter of Privilege brought before the Speaker of another place, and action taken accordingly?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the question of breach of Parliamentary Privilege is an entirely different matter. This has been considered within the context of the Official Secrets Act, and in so far as it raised a matter of Parliamentary Privilege it would be the Privilege of another place and not of your Lordships' House.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor take it into account —and, certainly, my noble friend Lord Shinwell will —that this decision which he has announced, and which he says he cannot probe, raises uncomfortable memories of the Campbell case long years ago? It may be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor cannot probe it further, but will he take it that some of us who are getting on in our years remember the sad outcome of the intervention of, I think, Sir Patrick Hastings who decided that somebody should be immune from prosecution? I share my noble friend's concern about anybody being given a guarantee that he is immune from prosecution, having admitted that he had received papers which he should not have received from a source which he refused to reveal. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor please to convey to his colleagues that this disturbs many of us, who feel that proper behaviour in public by those officers of the Cabinet responsible for the enforcement of the law is essential for the maintenance of a democracy.
May I now ask a second question which bothers me also? I could not understand why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dismissed so out of hand the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, because I simply cannot think other than that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, put his finger right on the button. Civil servants are one thing, and, in my day, if one took personal assistants or advisers into the office it was required that they should be admitted to the Service. This happened to me both in the Home Service and in the Foreign Service. If the Service would not admit them, then one did not have them. We now have —if your Lordships will forgive me —a bastard system under which Ministers have advisers who are not admitted to the Service, who see all the papers and who do not owe any

887
allegiance anywhere, except to those to whom they feel themselves tied. I happen to feel that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, put his finger right on the button of something that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, should in fact be going into.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on the latter point which the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has raised, of course political advisers are as much subject to the Official Secrets Act as anyone else who has access to Cabinet and secret documents, and are similarly bound by all the sanctions of the law in regard to them. The other matter which the noble Lord raised is something with which, if I may say so, I had reasonable familiarity in my six years as Attorney-General. One has, of course, to be scrupulously careful in Government that no pressure is brought to bear upon the Attorney-General in the making of his decisions. If my memory serves me right what was complained of or alleged, which would be a more accurate word to describe what happened, was that Sir Patrick Hastings, as Attorney-General, having decided to launch a prosecution was made subject to Cabinet pressure and a Cabinet decision to withdraw the prosecution. That, at any rate, is what was alleged and, of course, it lost the then Labour Government a General Election. I am not going into the historical merits and whether that brief synopsis accurately describes what took place, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, that there has been no pressure, no interference with the Attorney-General, in this decision. The basic principle that all Attorney-Generals have applied —certainly, within my recollection and knowledge of them — is whether a prosecution would be in the public interest, and I have little doubt that in this case the present Attorney-General has come to the conclusion that it would not be.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that I think he has put his finger right on the essential point of comparison between this case and the Campbell case? At the time of the Campbell case in 1924, I was in close association with Sir Patrick Hastings and with the Prime Minister of that day in a journalistic and Party-journalistic capacity. It is my recollection that the wheels of prosecution had
888
been starting to revolve, and the Attorney-General then cancelled and stopped the whole proceedings, which is quite a different matter from deciding in advance not to take proceedings.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are precedents for the grant of immunity, and my last and most immediate recollection of the grant of immunity from prosecution, which is often done to facilitate inquiries, was during the term of Office of the last Conservative Administration, when it was decided in relation to the inquiry into the Vehicle and General Insurance Company to grant immunity from prosecution to the person responsible for the leakage of information from the Department of Trade and Industry. There, I have no doubt activated by the same principle of the public interest, the Conservative Attorney-General decided to grant immunity.
Lord HALE: My Lords, did the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say, in response to the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that there would be an opportunity of discussing the terms of reference of the inquiry, and of the conditions under which it operates, in a debate in this House? Also, may I say in a single sentence that the noble Lord who spoke last was quite correct, and in the Campbell case there was a prosecution which was withdrawn. It was unfortunate that the gifted advocate who was then Attorney-General had little political experience and gave all the wrong reasons for his action.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not going to pursue further an inquest into the misfortunes of Sir Patrick Hastings, but may I point out to my noble friend Lord Hale that I did not say I was proposing that we should have a debate on the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry. There will be discussions between the Government and the members of the committee as to the most convenient and appropriate range of their inquiry which, as I have said, will be directed to examining the existing rules relating to the handling of Cabinet documents. Frankly, this does not seem to me to call for a wide-ranging debate. That is the purpose of the inquiry and it is a useful purpose, and I have little doubt that those who are charged with conducting the inquiry will do their job effectively.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may I not press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about this matter? This leak was of a size which the Statement virtually admits was of unprecedented gravity, although previous leaks have occurred. Admittedly not only political advisers but everybody else is bound by the terms of the Official Secrets Act. Here, though, we have a novel situation of great gravity. The new factor which has been introduced into public security by the present Government is the appointment of political advisers. Will not the noble and learned Lord seriously bring it to the attention of his colleagues that if the inquiry by Privy Counsellors does not include this new factor within its terms of reference, in the eyes of the public, their efforts will be entirely valueless?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I greatly doubt that mournful conclusion which the noble and learned Lord has reached and I am not quite sure that the slight implication, that guilt points necessarily towards political advisers in this matter, is wholly justified. Perhaps that implication was not intended. However, it is very important that the further inquiry into the matter by the police should not be trammelled by previous unfounded suspicion without full examination of the facts. I agree, of course, that there is room for discussion as to the role of political advisers in Government. It would be an interesting and important subject for debate and if the usual channels can arrange it and it is thought to be appropriate, no doubt a debate can be held. However, the remit of the Committee of Privy Counsellors will be the practical one of protecting, by appropriate rules, the handling, and the procedures for handling Cabinet documents.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, first may I disclaim any connection with the Campbell case! We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having dealt with a wide range of questions, but I think that he misunderstood my first question about the Committee of Privy Counsellors. I did not ask about the timing of the inquiry: I asked whether it is intended that its report should be made public.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not in a position at the moment to answer that question. It depends upon what is contained in the report and on the degree of confidentiality that will be involved. As there will he a recommendation about an improvement in procedures, prima facie it may well be that it will be thought right to publish the report. However, as the whole object of the exercise is to increase the security of Cabinet documents it might be very inexpedient indeed to give publicity to the methods of protecting that security. Therefore I will preserve what I am pleased to call an open mind on this matter. At any rate, I can assure noble Lords that it is not a closed book.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I hope that there will be no leak during the course of the inquiry. We have been dealing with this Statement for 30 minutes, so perhaps it is now time to move on.

ARMED FORCES BILL
4.14 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, if we may return to the more mundane world of the Armed Forces — that is, discipline in the Armed Forces as opposed to what may well turn out to be Cabinet discipline — earlier this afternoon we heard the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, explain this Bill to us in very full terms. The Bill appears to be somewhat complicated at first sight. However, we believe that its intentions and, indeed, its provisions are straightforward. Noble Lords will agree that by the nature of their work and duties defence forces are often compelled to lead a very different life from those of us who are civilians. Thus the House will not be surprised to find that to a great extent the Bill concerns itself with the problems of Service discipline and, just as importantly, with Standing Civilian Courts and with juveniles who, for one of any number of valid reasons, must be dealt with abroad.
As we have already heard, the Act begins by continuing the various Acts which are concerned with discipline in the Armed Forces, and we are glad to know that the position of the Royal Marines

891
has been clarified in one or two aspects. However, to many of us the provisions of Clause 5 are the most important: those relating to the trial and punishment of airmen or private soldiers. We understand that such alteration as is made in military disciplinary procedures meets with the general approval of the Armed Forces. Until now a commanding officer has been able to award a maximum of 28 days' detention for any military offence. The raising of this limit to 60 days may appear to be a trifle harsh but we have to remember that Service life is totally different in character from civilian life, both as to the manner of interdependence and as part of a separate community. It is not that Service personnel have become more prone to crime or, indeed, to error. It is merely that commanding officers should have more power as well as, we hope, more discretion over various offences which are committed by airmen or private soldiers who are under their command.
We believe that such a change would be welcomed by all concerned, since one of the consequences, as we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be to reduce the numbers of courts-martial. Hitherto any offence punishable by a term of more than 28 days' detention had to be dealt with by a court-martial, with all the delay, complication and trouble that that involved; and there was always the possibility that where a more serious offence was alleged to have been committed the punishment would be more serious than if such an offence had been summarily heard and the case concluded by the commanding officer.
There are risks for the private soldier, but he will continue to have the option of trial by court-martial if he so wishes. Under this Bill he will have the option to be tried summarily by his commanding officer. In my opinion, the commanding officer will know the private soldier and the relevant facts of the case much better than any court-martial. We believe, and many of our colleagues in another place also believe, that such a procedure is a great improvement upon the present procedure. Certainly none of us considers that there should be one set of laws or procedures, or even a concept of law, for Service personnel and another for the rest of us in
892
civilian life. But where offences are of a military nature, surely it is right for them to be taken summarily.
Clause 6 of the Bill deals with what many of us consider to be another important development. These are Standing Civilian Courts. Much of what has been said on Clause 5 applies to a great extent also to Clause 6. There are more anomalies where civilians are concerned, especially where civilians are working with the Armed Forces abroad. In many cases the proposals contained in the Bill are sound, but should any of these proposals prove to be unworkable both this House and the other place will have the opportunity to change such courts and their procedures.
Clause 10 of the Bill deals with juveniles who may commit offences while overseas. Many of us will recognise that the various manifestations of youthful unrest in this country must to some extent spread among the children and dependants of our Servicemen abroad. It is gratifying that domestic problems among our Armed Forces personnel are so rare, in view of the terrible strain that their military duties, particularly so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, imposes on all ranks and, indeed, on their family and domestic life. Where any domestic problems are apparent, it is gratifying to know that the Bill devotes so much trouble in its provisions to ensuring the same treatment of young offenders as would be applicable within the United Kingdom. I believe there is, and indeed there will be, a great deal of morale boosting where Servicemen can know that should any problem occur in their domestic life when they are away on duty, wherever they may be, everything can he done that would be done if they were in the United Kingdom.
There is one small point that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, may be able to explain to us now, or perhaps at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill. It is a small military detail and it occurs in Clause 12, concerning the taking of the oath by shorthand writers. It seems to many of us that such personnel at courts-martial should be bound by the usual rules of confidentiality and possibly of security and secrecy, and we would be most grateful to have the noble Lord's comments as to why it is planned

893
to dispense with this procedure. It is a minor point, but we consider it relevant and we hope the noble Lord can help us with it.
In general, the Bill is concerned with tidying up various administrative problems and details. It seeks to bring aspects of Service life into line with those aspects of civilian life. We are encouraged by the general welcome that the Bill has received from the various sections of the Armed Forces. There is of course one section of the Armed Forces of which my noble colleague Lady Vickers has a very specialised knowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, mentioned earlier; namely, the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service. It is gratifying to know that various provisions are applicable to these two valuable Services to bring them into line with Service life and discipline generally.
The Bill could be said to comprise a very weird amalgam of legal procedure, child care and welfare, of course not forgetting aspects of Service discipline which are quite separate from the way in which we order our lives as civilians. As noble Lords will know, our Armed Forces are all highly motivated and very dedicated, and we believe they are most effective. This Bill adjusts some aspects of their life and, we hope, in the way in which they would wish their lives to be improved. For this reason we welcome the Bill and we thank the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, for explaining it and its rather complicated provisions.
4.23 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on the points he has raised and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for putting so clearly before us a rather complicated Bill. I should like to start by reminding the House of the magnificent work done by Her Majesty's Services since the last war. After all, we have not had a major war for many years and one rather forgets the part taken by the Services between 1945 and 1946 in Indonesia — then known as the "Forgotten Army "— and in Malaysia; in action against the Mau-Mau in Kenya; in Aden, Sarawak and Sabah. I venture to say that they served with magnificent
894
success in all these spheres. Then we had the "Cod War " and Ulster. I should like to place on record my belief that the Services have done a wonderful job in any country in which they have served. In my opinion we have the best Armed Forces in the world and I should like to have the assurance that we are going to keep them so.
At the present time recruiting is very good and therefore I should like to turn to the Select Committee and their remarks of 3rd March, 1976. As I understand it, they accepted all seven recommendations of the Select Committee set up in 1971. In particular, I should like to deal now with the question of Clause 4 and Schedule 2 which make the WRNS and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service subject to naval discipline. Whether or not this is wise, whether or not it is progress, I am not at all certain. It may help the WRNS in future to go to sea if they wish to, and should it be deemed necessary they could become combatant. These are the only two advantages I can see.
I am not at all certain why the nursing service should have military discipline. It makes a complete difference from what has happened in their past service life and they will now be under the Naval Discipline Act. Perhaps I might recall the excellent service they have given previously. The service was originally started by Dame Katherine Furse in 1917 and in 1919 it was disbanded and then there was the voluntary association of the WRNS. Dame Vera LaughtonMatthews founded the present Service in 1939 and the WRNS were the first women to be sent overseas; and regrettably in SS "Acquilla" they were torpedoed and all — I think about 35 of them — were drowned. Since that time the WRNS have served in their present capacity all over the world. At the present time there are Leading WRNS serving in ten different countries including, for example, Peking, New Delhi, Hong Kong and in Malta, where regrettably — and I am sure they regret it too — they will soon be leaving. They are also, of course, in Gibraltar and they have exchanged drafts in Holland, Canada, the United States of America and also NATO, SHAPE and MONS.
Recruiting is excellent and advertising for the WRNS is not necessary. As I understand it, it is the job that matters,

895
and nothing else. Therefore it is rather difficult to understand why there has to be this change. I realise that there has been considerable discussion and debate about this and one has read the Report of the Select Committee of 10th March — and may I here pay a tribute to the excellent way in which the Select Committee did their work; I have read all the documents and they really went into all the matters in great detail. On page 33, speaking of the WRNS and the nurses, the Report states:
"It is judged that their being made fully subject to the Naval Discipline Act will be seen to have little significant practical effect on the day-to-day life of the Service."
I hope that will be so; otherwise I think it is a great pity to make the change.
During the period when I was in the other place I took the opportunity of visiting the Services overseas, of course including a special interest in the WRNS. I have seen them in action in Britain and overseas and I have visited their headquarters at HMS "Dauntless" near Reading. When I read the Bill I realised that there was going to be a major change. I made several inquiries as to what was going to happen in the future in regard to their training. I believe noble Lords may know that it was suggested some time ago that their headquarters should be at HMS " Dryad ", but I gather that this is now not possible, and to my regret I understand, having recently been down to the West Country, that HMS "Raleigh" is being considered. I do not know whether the noble Lord has visited this establishment but is is very cut off, being right down in Cornwall. One has to go to Plymouth and then cross by the ferry in order to get there, and I consider that it is not at all a suitable place for new recruits. Surely it would be possible to leave them, perhaps on a smaller establishment, at HMS "Dauntless" or attach them to HMS "Mercury" where they would be really in a naval atmosphere. I understand that HMS "Dryad" will not be ready for some considerable time, if ever.
Another reason why I am rather worried about this change is that there are of course male cadets training at HMS "Raleigh" and I do not think it is considered fair to train the young boys and the young girls there at the same time. I am not being rude to the young boys,
896
but I understand that they are, on the whole, younger than the girls and the girls are, as a whole, brighter. Another point is that the WRNS are not kitted out for the first few weeks, so if they cannot remain at HMS "Dauntless", where I would prefer them to be, they might go to the Portsmouth area.
The noble Lord spoke about their future. If this change is going to be made, I hope that either he or the Minister will understand that what I have been advocating for some time is the enlargement of their grades of work. For example, they have been promised for some time that they can learn to fly helicopters, and the fact that they will serve on the hydro-graphic survey ships was also pointed out. The reason for this type of work being particularly suitable for these women is that they do not mind going on long trips overseas, whereas married men are not so keen to go on so many long trips. As I understand it, there is a long waiting list to join the WRNS. The standard is very high; many of them have "0" and "A" levels and are university graduates. I should like the noble Lord the Minister to consider enlarging the intake. I do not want him to reply that this will be more expensive and that I am asking for extra money, because if the intake is not enlarged many of these people will be unemployed and will have to be paid unemployment compensation. The reason for my suggestion is that when the economic situation improves there are likely to be fewer men entering the Services, and more women will be needed. There will be fewer men because a great many men get married at an early age and their wives are not keen for their husbands to go overseas for a long period.
My Lords, like my noble friend, I have read the various clauses, and I would mention Clause 5. I should like to know why at least 28 days detention must be given, as I understood it when I read this clause. So far as one can see, it is not economical to have a period of less than 28 days. To a certain extent, I agree that courts-martial should be done away with, and the officers given more powers. But I was glad to hear the noble Lord say, as I understood him, that there can be an appeal to a court-martial should they wish, because one

897
sometimes gets incompatibility of temperament. This would be the better way of dealing with it.
If the officers are going into detention I should like to know whether it is intended that WRNS should also go into detention now that they come under the Naval Discipline Act. If they are, what is the position now at Portsmouth and Colchester for these men, because when on previous occasions I visited Colchester, I was not at all impressed. One must not over-exaggerate the question of discipline. Looking at the figures, I was impressed by the small percentage of the Services needing discipline.
My Lords, with regard to the increased powers of the officers, are they to get any legal advice? It seems to me that many of them may need this, and it would be very helpful to them. I was rather worried about the reply given by the Minister in the other place that further magistrates are needed for these other civilians, particularly overseas. The Minister said that he thought the best types of magistrate would he headmasters or social workers who serve in the community areas. I do not think it is desirable to concentrate on appointing headmasters and social workers as magistrates. First of all, headmasters have ideas of their own with regard to discipline, and social workers are overworked. It would be much better to recruit as magistrates the ordinary person with common sense.
With regard to legal aid, I notice that it was said in the other place by the Minister that he hoped that the Bar and the Law Society would continue a very proud tradition of affording representation for all who need it. What is going to happen with regard to legal aid?
I was pleased to see in the previous clause that the deductions for the maintenance of children was to go up from 16 years to 17 years. When these maintenance orders are made while the men are in the Services, this works very well indeed, but I am wondering what happens when the men leave the Services. Are the firms or the work places to which they go to be informed? — because very often there is a large gap. While a man is in the Services, the wives and children get the maintenance quite regularly, but when he leaves the Services they then find themselves entirely cut off and often have to try to find the man.
898
My Lords, as appears from Clause 19, I do not understand why penal deductions under the Air Force Act 1955 can be taken from the pensions in respect of offences which have been committed. Does this also concern the other Services? As I read it, it would appear that it is only to those in the RAF that this applies. I should like to know whether when any penal offence has been committed the deduction is to be made from the pensions or from their pay.
May I ask about Clause 21, with regard to the Greenwich Hospital pensions. During my time in the other place, I often made applications on behalf of widows to the Greenwich Hospital Pension Fund. Some were fortunate to receive help, but some were not. Is the pensions fund in such a state that it can help necessitous widows? On the question of penalties, can the noble Lord the Minister tell us how many people, if any, have received the death penalty since 1900, or to the nearest date that he can give us? Now that they come under the Naval Discipline Act, is the death penalty to apply to women? Various penalties are laid out, but it does not state clearly how they are to be exercised.
My Lords, with these remarks, I hope that I have welcomed the Bill. I am not entirely certain whether it is wise for these two Services, which have worked so well together in the past, to change their orientation, but I wish them luck in the future. If it does not work and there is need to take further action, I hope the Minister will see that this is done.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, put his name on the list and proposed to speak. I would not wish to offer any opposition to him if he is present.
4.38 p.m.
Lord NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether I should declare an interest in this Bill. I have been interested in about 300 courts-martial, as defending officer, prosecuting officer, as a member of the court, and as the president. I was also once very personally interested in a court-martial when I lost a pistol after dinner while on active service in Cyprus. Be that as it

899
may, I would congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, on the Bill, because it is set out in such a way that any serving officer can understand it easily and readily. I should also like to thank the noble Lord for the help he gave me before this debate.
My Lords, there is one matter in Clause 5 to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, in fact underlining what has been said by previous speakers; that is, the increase of powers of punishment by a commanding officer from 28 days to 60 days. This will be welcomed by many people, certainly most of all by the soldier. Nobody likes courts-martial if they can be avoided, and very few courts-martial give less than 60 days. Most give probably 100 days or more, and if a commanding officer, instead of court-martialling a man, gives him 50, 40 or 60 days, the soldier will benefit by this. The magistrates in this country will benefit because they will not try cases of minor disturbances and breaches of the peace; they will merely hand them over to the military to deal with. As your Lordships know, civil courts always have the first bite of the cherry, but they can waive that right and let the military deal with a case. This I think they probably will do. It will also mean far fewer courts-martial, which will be a very great saving to the taxpayer.
I have two more points to make, one concerning the Army Act, Section 198, and the other privileges of the defending officer or soldier's friend. I should like first of all to deal with Section 198. This says:
"A record made in any service book or other document prescribed by Queen's Regulations for the purposes of this subsection, being a record made in pursuance of any Act or of Queen's Regulations, or otherwise in pursuance of military duty, and purporting to be signed by the commanding officer or by any person whose duty it was to make the record, shall be evidence of the facts stated therein ".
This simply means that any commanding officer can publish a Part I or Part II Order, have it duly signed, and it is admissible as evidence in a court-martial and is evidence of the facts stated in it.
This is a licence to print a conviction. It cuts across the principle of best evidence. Whenever you get a case which can be proved by various forms of
900
evidence, be it written, oral, or copy of whatever it may be, or a document, the general rule is that you must call the best evidence. Obviously the Army must be able to call as evidence in courts-martial certain documents, but I do not think that they should be able to produce as evidence documents which relate to happenings outside a barracks. For example, the most common case brought before a court-martial is that of absence. In order to prove absence you have to prove two things, the commencement and the termination. The commencement is easy. You call the orderly corporal who was on duty and who called the roll on the day in question. His evidence is, "I called the roll, the accused was not present in the barracks. I searched the barracks, and submitted the necessary report." There you have the commencement of absence. Then you have to prove the termination. Frequently, the soldier was either arrested by a policeman or surrendered to a policeman. Theoretically you should call the policeman to say, "Yes, I arrested the man," or, " he surrendered to me," and you have the termination of absence. You then have the commencement and the termination; you have proved your case and that is it.
But, instead of a policeman being called, the Army allows an Army Form 1617 or 1618, according to whether the accused was arrested or surrendered himself, to be produced in evidence. Frequently this document is incorrectly filled in by the chief officer of police in charge of the police station. How or why is immaterial, but often it is incorrectly filled in. Then the commanding officer forwards the Army Form 1617 or 1618 to the Director of Army Legal Services, who says, "This document is not admissible as evidence. What you must do is copy it out in the form of a Part II Order, sign it, and that will make it admissible". It is the adjutant who does that, as the person responsible for making the record. What happens is that he scratches out "1617" or "1618" on the top of the paper, substitutes "Part H Order ", and that makes it admissible. In my opinion, that is not justice. If the policeman makes a nonsense of the 1617 or 1618 or anything else like that then he should be called.
On two occasions I have had this situation occur when I have been prosecuting. On one occasion I won because

901
the permanent president said that the Part II Order was admissible. On another occasion when I was prosecuting the permanent president said it was not admissible and the man was found not guilty. I have defended three times when this situation arose. I won twice; in other words, on two occasions the president said : " This Part II Order is not admissible. It is a copy of an inadmissible document and therefore it is not admissible ". On one occasion I lost; so I do not know what to think. I cannot tell your Lordships what the law is, because it has happened to me both ways. I think myself that the Part II Order is inadmissible. I think it is wrong in law to argue that it should be admissible because 99·9 times out of 100 the man is guilty and therefore what does it matter whether the document is admissible or not ; he is guilty, so it gets it over with quickly. That really is not British justice. I think there should be a tightening of that rule.
In courts-martial you get various officers who prosecute and others who defend. I defended in very many and I prosecuted in very many, and I would not accept any Part II Order which was a copy of an inadmissible document. But if the soldier is unfortunate enough to be defended by his second lieutenant, who has been in the Army only a week or two, he will simply accept it and it will go through. Whether the man is guilty or not is no concern of the defending officer. His job is to put his case forward as best he can. If he comes to the conclusion that the man is not guilty in law, then he does not see him. He simply says "You are not guilty in law on the evidence which is in the summary or abstract of evidence. My advice to you is to plead not guilty. Go into court, plead not guilty, sit down and leave the rest to me ". Very often you get him off. That is British law. Anyhow, I leave that to your Lordships.
I should like now to turn to Chapter V of the Manual of Military Law which concerns privilege of a legal adviser. Lord Birkenhead said:
"First, the so-called privilege attaching to the relation of a legal adviser or an advocate is a privilege which is the client's privilege, conferred, not for the benefit of the legal person involved, but for the general advantage of the community,"
—including soldiers—
"upon the ground that, unless a relation of absolute confidence can be established between
902
the lay client and his professional adviser, in practice the ends of justice cannot be attained.… Second, that privilege only concerns communications which arise in connection with legal proceedings whether actual or contemplated…".
That means that a soldier's friend does not have to defend at a court-martial, because it may not come to that; but he may be asked to give advice if a court-martial may be a possibility. The passage continues:
"…or which pass as professional communications in a professional capacity. And thirdly, it should be observed that though it attaches in some degree to persons who, not being barristers or solicitors, in fact advise lay clients in litigious matters—such persons, for example, as expert witnesses ".
—and I would say soldiers' friends as well—
"it is for the most part in its actual operation confined to persons who stand in a peculiar relation to the courts of justice ".
A soldier's friend or a defending officer stands in a peculiar relation to the courts of justice, he stands in a particular relation to courts-martial.
I should like to read to your Lordships a further quite short paragraph. It concerns the description, and it says:
"A legal adviser is not permitted, whether during or after the termination of his employment as such, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him as such legal adviser by or on behalf of his client, during the course of and for the purpose of his employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client during, in the course of, and for the purpose of, such employment ".
In other words, what he says to his client is privileged. It continues:
"Similarly, an accused cannot be compelled to disclose communications which he has made to his legal advisers for the purpose of preparing his defence."
There is a note in the Manual of Military Law which describes a legal adviser. It says:
" 'Legal adviser' includes barrister, and solicitor, their clerks and interpreters between them and their clients. Justice would seem to require that this expression should also include ' defending officer ', but this is questionable ".
I should like to quote to your Lordships one case which happened in my experience. In the Household Cavalry we have various objects, some of which are very valuable. One is a picture. This picture appeared for sale in an art gallery in Jermyn Street. An ex-officer of the Household Cavalry went in and asked the price of it, and to whom it belonged. He then rang up the colonel commanding the Household Cavalry and said, "Do you realise that

903
our picture is for sale in a gallery in Jermyn Street? " The reply was, "No, I did not. I am coming round ". Having done this, he took the picture away and legal proceedings were duly instigated against an officer.
Before the proceedings were instigated the officer came to see me and said, "I want your advice ". Having a very good idea what it was about I said to him, "You want my advice, but is it possible that legal proceedings may be taken against you either in a court-martial or in a civil court? "He said Yes ". I said, " I can only give you advice if you will employ me as your soldier's friend or defending officer, and I want you to sign a piece of paper to that effect, which he did.
Having listened to his story I then decided that this was outside my ken and ability, and handed him on to an eminent firm of solicitors in London, thus making me someone who has briefed a firm of solicitors, and a client. He was not court-martialed but prosecuted in a civil court. When I handed him over and briefed the solicitors my duties ended, but I considered that what he had said to me, and what I had said to him, was privileged. A colonel in the Household Cavalry did not consider this to be so and asked me what I had said to the officer and what he had said to me, and what I had said to his firm of solicitors. I refused to answer this question. The discussion became heated, and I said that I would have to put the matter in the hands of the police if he pressed me any further. I also said I would have to inform the solicitors of the conversation. The matter then ended.
Quite obviously in my opinion—I leave it to your Lordships—
" Justice would seem to require that this expression should also include defending officer ', but this is questionable "
is not questionable. There is no question about it. I think I was right in refusing to answer those questions.
The Naval Discipline Act says:
" 'Legal adviser' includes barrister, solicitor, and soldier's friend."
That covers it. I think that in this Bill we should say:
" Justice would require that the legal adviser should be barrister, solicitor and soldier's friend."
904
Obviously I was placed in an impossible position, but I could fight it because I had had great experience. However, suppose this was a young officer who was inexperienced. He might well have told his commanding officer what was said to him in confidence by what was virtually his client, and justice would have been prejudiced as a result.
4.56 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat appeared at first to be reluctant to address your Lordships' House, but having done so he has disclosed considerable knowledge of the legalistic side of Army affairs, and I congratulate him on his vast knowledge of that subject. It would have been a pity to have missed his speech. My only regret is that my noble friend Lord Wigg is not present, because if there is anybody in your Lordships' House, or in any other House, who knows more about the Army Act, and the disciplinary aspects of the Army Act than my noble friend Lord Wigg, I should like to meet him. Well, I should not mind meeting him but I would not care to listen to him, because I recall those frequent debates we had in another place many years ago on an Act similar to the one under review.
Significantly, Members of your Lordships' House may note that unless we pass this Bill and it becomes an Act the standing Army will disappear. It is as important as that. Perhaps there might have been a larger attendance if Members of your Lordships' House had been aware of that. In the old days in another place there was considerable controversy about courts-martial and about discipline. Indeed it was always regarded as an opportunity for a Second Reading debate on the Army. Indeed, there were some who wanted to abolish the Army altogether. That attitude now seems to have disappeared. Even in another place the Select Committee to which the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, referred, never thought of anything controversial like that. It is all gone.
This might be an opportunity, though so far no Member of your Lordships' House has ventured to undertake the task, although I am sure that it is just

905
an oversight, of expressing our appreciation of the services rendered by members of Her Majesty's Forces, whether in the Army, Air Force, Navy, or the civilians associated with our Forces. They are a very fine body of people, both men and women. Of course, there are bound to he some black sheep among them. You have black sheep in all walks of society, except, of course, in your Lordships' House—I would never dare to say that. But generally speaking the members of Her Majesty's Forces are people capable of understanding discipline when it is required, and rendering service when it is called upon. I am sure that I express an opinion shared by every Member of your Lordships' House that we are very glad to extend to them our thanks for services rendered.
I know that my noble friend Lord Winterbottom is straining at the leash to reply to the innumerable questions addressed to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, who is also an authority on this subject, and much more of an authority than I can ever hope to be. I also notice the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, waiting to address your Lordships' House on a matter which is no doubt just as important—something connected with the EEC—so I shall be very brief indeed.
I did not add my name to the list of speakers because I thought that this was the sort of Bill we had passed on innumerable occasions in another place and in this House and did not require amendment. I therefore decided not to bother about it; that is, until I read it—perhaps I should have read it earlier—and, having read it, I thought that I might make a few observations.
To begin with, I cannot understand—no doubt there is a valid reason and my noble friend Lord Winterbottom will give it—the reason for the increase from 28 days to 60 days for any crime committed by a member of Her Majesty's Forces. Am I right in believing that its increase is designed to reduce the number of courts-martial ? If so, that is a desirable aim, because courts-martial can be horrible things. I learnt a lot about them when I was at the War Office and Ministry of Defence and often I had to occupy a position in those Departments to intervene and express an opinion—a political opinion of course—when that
906
was regarded as necessary. Has crime increased in Her Majesty's Forces over the years necessitating this increase, or is it simply to reduce the number of courts-martial?
I should have thought that the amount of crime in the Forces had decreased, because members of the Forces now have a worthwhile career, are better paid than they were in the past, which is a most desirable change, and there are opportunities at the end of one's service; the authorities concerned do everything possible to help in that respect. It is inevitable, too, with the passage of time that they are better educated than were the kind of recruits who entered the Services when I was young. My question is simply why it has been found necessary to impose more harsh discipline. I can only think that it is designed to reduce the number of courts-martial.
The only other point I wish to raise concerns the decision to bring women members of the Royal Navy into line with other members of the Forces. This controversy goes back a long way. I recall that when I was Minister of Defence we discussed in the Defence Committee, or it may have been the Defence Council, the question of the status of women members of the Forces, and I learned then that women members of the Army were Regulars in the sense that they were fully integrated into the Army, as were women members of the RAF, but the WRENS were auxilliaries and not officially integrated into the Service. Sir Charles Power was the First Sea Lord and he sat opposite me along with other high-ranking members of what was then His Majesty's Forces. I learned only afterwards that he was about to marry a WREN. I made a faux pas which has embarrassed me since. I asked him " Why don't you make honest women of them? " Of course there was nothing immoral in my mind, no question of immorality; I simply thought that they should be integrated along with the others. I was always sorry for what I said, but Sir Charles took it very well indeed. Now that women have achieved complete liberty and equality—
Baroness VICKERS: Not quite, my Lords.
Lord SHINWELL: It is almost complete, my Lords. It will never be fully complete and we can hardly expect that. In economics, social affairs and cultural affairs they are on a par with the other sex and in my view the same should apply in Her Majesty's Forces. I am therefore glad that at long last it has been decided that women who join the Navy or who become associated with the medical section of the Armed Forces should be fully integrated. That is a desirable change indeed.
My Lords, I have said enough, because after what Baroness Vickers said and the number of questions she asked, I fear that my noble friend Lord Winterbottom will have his time cut out answering those. This Bill must of course be passed, otherwise we shall not have any Forces at all, and that is something we must never tolerate.
5.6 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for the spirit and informed approach with which noble Lords have debated the Second Reading. At first sight this is a complicated Bill, as every speaker has said. Indeed, my hope today is that I may be permitted simply to reply to the debate in general terns, and noble Lords will not be inhibited from raising points in Committee because the scope of the Bill is far wider than the scope of our discussion today and much of value can be done in Committee. There was only one area about which I could not agree with my noble friend Lord Shinwell and that was when he said that no appreciation had been expressed by the House to the Armed Forces for the excellent and dedicated work they are doing. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, did just that; she paid a very moving tribute to her particular favourite arm of the Services, but I am sure that her affection spills over to the other arms as well. I wish to add my praise to that of other noble Lords because from time to time we have to remind our fellow citizens how much we owe to the Armed Forces of the Crown.
I plunge straight away into some of the matters that have been raised and perhaps the first on which I should touch is the Clause 5 decision to increase the sentence
908
which can be imposed under the summary jurisdiction of a commanding officer from 28 to 60 days. I should point out that the Army and Air Force have always been well below the Navy. I believe that a naval commanding officer has power now to sentence a sailor to 90 days' punishment under the powers of summary jurisdiction. We have decided to increase the figure for the Army and the Air Force for a simple reason. Crime is not increasing, I assure my noble friend Lord Shinwell; it is static taken as a standard proportion of the size of the Armed Forces. But experience has shown, and the Select Committee has agreed, that summary conviction and trial by a commanding officer is a much more effective and much more welcome way of dealing with simpler military offences and it is welcomed not only by the commanding officer but by the serving soldier, airman or sailor.
It is quick, effective and it is usually imposed by a man who understands the individual serving man's personal problems, and of course it is always far lower than the penalty which could be imposed by a court-martial. Ninety per cent. of men plead guilty and it seems unnecessary to set up the whole panoply of a court-martial to try a man who has pleaded guilty by a form of trial where he can receive a punishment of up to two years.
This naturally makes a short, immediate decision by his commanding officer, where the maximum penalty is about one twelfth of the maximum which the man could get under a court-martial, very welcome indeed. Of course, it also avoids the stigma of a court-martial. Many of us have marched in front of commanding officers in our time and nobody thinks a great deal the worse of us for that, but a court-martial always brings a stigma with it. It is for that reason that the extension of the powers of the commanding officers of the Army and the Air Force is welcomed by all. That is the reason for that decision.
I turn now to the question of the Standing Civilian Courts mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Again, he agrees with the Select Committee and the Government that the proposals for the Standing Civilian Courts are generally sound. I am very glad that he mentioned the fact that the number of offences is surprisingly low. I am now speaking

909
without precise notes and, if I mislead the House, I will let your Lordships know, but, as I understand it, there are something like 96,000 civilians in Germany who fall within the ambit of these new proposals. The number of offences which may come before these courts is in the region of 300 in any one year. That shows a very high level of civilian discipline on the part of the dependants and civilian members of our Armed Forces in Germany. It is particularly high when one remembers that a great many of the so-called offences are of quite a minor nature.
I should like now to deal with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and also with the point touched on by my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I know from my own personal contacts with members of the Women's Royal Naval Service that these new proposals are not altogether welcome. I share the view of the noble Baroness that the work of the WRNS should be enlarged. She may remember that I have argued that case, I hope, as strongly as she has in previous debates on this subject. We can refresh our memory as we look at the picture in the Royal Gallery which shows that, at the time of Nelson, there were many women on board our men of war. I believe that it is more a question of naval architecture than of unwillingness on the part of women to serve at sea that is inhibiting their employment at the moment. Certainly, when we last discussed this, the employment of women on survey ships was something that was being considered, although, as I understand it, no decision has yet been reached.
I believe that the whole House is in agreement that the work of the WRNS should be enlarged and widened, and we believe that the full incorporation of the WRNS into the structure of the Navy will assist this step. I believe that the advantages of their situation will be retained but that their opportunities to enlarge their area of work will grow as a result. The noble Baroness raised one or two points about the impact of the Naval Discipline Act upon the WRNS. There is only one point which I can make immediately. It is that the death penalty will of course not apply. As I understand it, it is a very rare event these days in any case and was last applied in 1953 in Kenya. It is a very rare occasion and it
910
is over 20 years ago since anyone suffered the death penalty as a result of any of the Discipline Acts.
I should like now to turn to the very well informed speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme. He has an extraordinary record in the area of courts-martial and I wish I had known in the past that he was there in case I, in my military days, had fallen into some form of trouble. He made two very important points arising from his experience. He pointed out the flaw in Section 198 of the Army Act and pointed out that Part II Orders might be misused or abused in certain cases of absence without leave. He also pointed out that, in the Army and the Air Force, the Soldier's Friend or defending officer cannot claim absolute privilege for the confidences of his client, whereas in the Navy he can. I shall see that these two points are studied with care by the Department between now and Committee stage and I hope to give the noble Lord an answer that he will find satisfactory.
I shall check on what I have said when I get my Hansard tomorrow and any points that I have not answered I shall answer in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell raised a difficult point about the taking of oath by shorthand writers, but that is a matter of some complexity. Perhaps we could raise it at the Committee stage and tidy it up then. Having, to the best of my ability, answered this very well informed and sympathetic debate, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HALLMARKING AND PRECIOUS METALS: EEC REPORT
5.17 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK rose to move, That this House takes note of the Thirty-fifth Report of the European Communities Committee of this session on Hallmarking and Precious Metals (R/3139/75). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I venture to call attention to the Report of the European Select Committee on Hallmarking. It is the practice of a Select Committee, having in many cases read a very large

911
number of papers, to draw your Lordships' attention to those which it thinks raise matters of importance. When the Committee thinks that matters are raised that require a reply from the Government, it asks for a debate. This is a case in point where we think that a debate is of importance. Of course, as must always be the way, we are critical of what the Directive says. I believe that we are helpful in being critical because, unless we insist that what the European Community does is pragmatic—that is, that it is based on sound administration—it will be like the house built on sand. Our particular task is to see as far as lies in our power that the foundations are sound. That is what we are trying to do today.
This subject is one on which, we, as a country—not myself—speak with exceptional authority. We have had hall marking for some six centuries and, so far as I know, the French are the only other nation which can show an equal or possibly a slightly longer period. We have seen in our experience and in three reports which have come out during the past century that there are three things which are essential: compulsory hall-marking, by an independent organisation, and effective enforcement. If one does not have those, there is no assurance that anybody knows what he is buying. It is because this particular Directive seems to me to go in the wrong direction I am bound to say that, in its present form, it is quite unacceptable.
There are two main reasons. The first is that it does not offer effective consumer protection. It would inevitably lower standards and it would reduce the degree of enforcement. That is something that we cannot let go. Secondly, I think that it is misconceived. The authors of the Report call on Article 100, which is the basis on which barriers to trade are removed, and say that hallmarking should come into that. Hallmarking is not a barrier to trade; it is a barrier to production of inferior quality, which is quite a different proposition. I go so far as to say that this is an abuse of Article 100; it is altogether the wrong use of this Article.
I should like to say how important this matter is. First, nobody can tell gold or silver either by looking at it or by touching it. I have seen in a gold mine
912
a seam, a yellow thing. Until it was chemically tested nobody knew what it was. No one could possibly tell what was the material of which it was constructed. That is the first point; it is undetectable. The other day I saw 16 carat white gold alongside metal and one could not possibly have told the difference between them.
Secondly, the vast majority of gold and silver articles are quite cheap; that is to say, their cost is probably nearer £10 than £100. They are not the lovely things one sees in the Mansion House or in similar places. This matter concerns a vast number of small people to whom these little articles are often treasured and valuable ornaments which may recall some great occasions in their lives. To let them be prejudiced would be a very anti-social act indeed. I am told that deception is extremely easy and extremely profitable. Of course I can only speak from second hand on this point. Added to this, 7,000 articles which were below standard, were brought into this country from Germany in three years. It is for all these reasons that I say that at present this Directive is not acceptable.
I should like to recall to your Lordships the position of the United States of America, which for 70 years now has tried to enforce hallmarking laws and has failed. The United States has not given up trying and we have given any help that we possibly could. Indeed, we have given help to other countries wherever possible. I have a note here of a number of countries—Iran, Malta, Sudan. Egypt, Turkey and Ghana—all of which I believe we have helped to set up their own assay offices.
The question we must ask is: how can we help the European Community? They have, I know, been discussing this matter for years, but they have probably been discussing it in the wrong context. They have been talking about harmonisation when they should have been talking about standards, and I think that they have got it wrong. In the Community, what President Giscard d'Estaing has called the two oldest nations in Europe, along with Holland and Eire, are the only countries with an effective assay office among all the European countries. Italy does it through the manufacturing companies, which we could not accept

913
for a moment. Denmark, I am told, does not control exports at all, and Germany, so far as I can make out, does absolutely nothing whatsoever.
One might say that it is fairly unfertile soil in which to set up hallmarking. It is not unfair to say that. As I have said, the United States has taken a long time, and if Europe set about it, it would still take a long time to do it. Furthermore, hallmarking is not a subject for compromise. In diplomacy, of course, one tries to compromise. But on this subject it must be strictly compulsory: it must be judged by completely independent organisations; and it must be rigorously enforced, because here the bad will inevitably drive out the good unless it is completely controlled. If that happened the public would not know what they were buying.
It so happens that I believe that we have an instrument to hand which is exactly what will be required to meet the particular circumstances. This is the convention, which we have signed and which came into force last month. We signed it in 1972 with our EFTA partners at that time, and it is now in force in this country. It meets the requirement of this particular commodity. All who signed it enforce standards which they accept themselves, and they also admit products of equal fineness from any other country, but they need not accept lower standards. What I believe, my Lords, is even more important than that is that it is open to any country in the world to join. I suggest that this is really a world market. Jewellery of gold and silver should be looked at as works of art. They do not really enter deeply into the economy of a country. One cannot eat them, one does not see them in factories, they are not a raw material in the ordinary sense of the term. They are a very specialised product which should be considered only on a world basis, and they need not have a special connotation in the European Community.
I very much hope that the Government will agree that this Directive is not acceptable. Frankly, we have no right to sacrifice qualities which we have built up over centuries. It would be quite wrong to do that, and to do so on a rather hazy ideal of harmonisation which, in my opinion, does not apply to this particular case. I do not know what the export
914
figures are, but I read those mysterious documents produced by the Department of Trade and it appeared to me that more than £50 million a year was exported from this country in gold and silver jewellery of one kind or another. These items would, of course, all be hallmarked. No doubt the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government can give more detailed figures.
Jewellery of gold and silver should be regarded on a world basis as a work of art, and I believe that the 1972 Convention, which is now in force here, would be of very real value to the whole world in this respect, in that each country would carry its own responsibility which it set for itself, and would accept the standards. But must say to the Government that if one wants the world to sign this Convention it is necessary to get rid of this Directive. If this Directive is put on one side I believe that other countries will in due course come to sign the Convention. I ask the Government to accept that this is an important subject to many people in this country. We want a clear cut answer and I hope that that answer will be without equivocation.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Thirty-fifth Report of the European Communities Committee of this session on Hallmarking and Precious Metals (R/3139/75).—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
5.28 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, first I wish to congratulate the noble Earl's Select Committee on producing so excellent a report. I found it to be concise and informative; it laid out all the points most clearly. We have all had a mass of other excellent material from which to draw our conclusions. This is an extremely complicated subject, although the principle is fairly simple. On the technical side, I should be nervous of putting before an assay office any points which I raise in my speech, because I feel that they might not reach even the standard of 800. In a nutshell, I feel that the draft as it stands is unacceptable.
But let us take a constructive view on this point. In fact the matter could be handled quite simply and made acceptable if the EEC accepted the Convention. I appreciate that there are very strong objections to this by the two countries which produce most of the items; and as

915
the noble Earl said, these are in the lower price range but are vast in quantity. These countries are Germany and Italy. I believe that Germany has no intention of setting up an assay office, and so it would be very hard work for Denmark should this Directive be enforced, because I gather that most of their items would get shipped straight in there for assay.
My Lords, what is it all about? Hall-marking is really one of the oldest forms of consumer protection, and it has been going in this country for 676 years. I believe it was first brought in as a standard in 1300, and it has worked pretty well over those years. In fact, this is the one country where it has always stayed, and that is why our standards have had such a high value. But it is basically, as I say, a consumer protection measure, and, should this Directive be brought in, then I feel a lot of the consumer protection element would disappear, because nobody would really know what they were getting. The Directive uses the word " hallmark ", and, of course, this is incorrectly used, in terms of English at any rate. It is not really a quality mark—and this comes on to the main point of enforcement, which I shall deal with later.
As I was saying, we in this country have had two standards for silver: the sterling, which has lasted since 1300, at 925 parts per thousand, and going up to 950, the Britannia mark. It was rather interesting that the 925 mark was used because it was the same as money, and hence the sterling standard. I believe that in about 1540—but here I obviously stand to be corrected—money had to be debased because people were melting it down to make up silver items, and therefore we went up to the 950 Britannia standard. That is really a quite interesting point, and comes on to the fact, which the noble Earl raised, that if an 800 standard is brought in then the standard throughout would drop; we should be running on a much poorer standard, and not only would we not have the protection but I feel we would all lose out.
On the question of what is happening at the moment, I believe that in 1975 the British assay offices assayed British goods of a total weight of 91 tons of gold and 138 tons of silver. I quote these figures to put the position into perspective with the fact that the Italians produced 360 tons
916
of, as I say, so-called gold and 700 tons of so-called silver; but, in all fairness, their quality varies considerably from well below the 800 to some items which are very high in quality. But, as was said, the question of forgery comes in, and the Italians produce a very fine line in Georgian silver. It is beautifully hallmarked, but it is still forgery. I believe the question of enforcement was brought to the notice of the Italian police and not much was done about it. I believe that 5 per cent. of the items brought before the British assay centres were found to be below standard. It was known that those items were going to be assayed, so I dread to think what the level of quality was of those items which were going to miss being assayed. I believe that some of the Italian silver—and here again I stand to be corrected by the noble Earl—was of such a low quality that it had to be silver-plated to make it look good. Therefore, I believe that to go down below 800 makes it look quite evident that it is not proper silver.
Some of the objections which are being raised I have already covered; for instance, on the silver standard of 800. Gold is a little more complicated in that the standard in the EEC mark would be higher, but 9 carat has been used for a very long time and is well accepted throughout the world as the standard. Therefore, I do not really see the point of going up to the standard suggested in the EEC document.
On the question of safeguards and standards, I feel that the Directive is totally inadequate, mainly because of enforcement. We know that, in the past, America has tried to have a hallmarking system and that it has failed mainly because of the problems of enforcement. The Directive does not lay down, so far as I can see, any way in which the standards can be held, and it really comes on to the obligations of EEC Members. These obligations seem to be inadequate to enforce the standards. I believe that Article 10 could allow Members who are against hallmarking to weaken standards so that they are no longer a consumer protection. This is on the question of technical progress, where such Members could bring in reasons and perhaps outvote other Members. So I think this is an area which would need to be looked at very carefully. One other point is that the marks which are suggested are obviously

917
far too small and too intricate. They wear out and very quickly become unrecognisable.
My Lords, since many other speakers will have a much greater knowledge of this subject than I, I wish to touch only on the main aspect of our objections to the Directive as it stands. I believe that at the moment the draft Directive comes under Article 100 of the Treaty, and, therefore, the opinion of the European Parliament is mandatory. The draft Directive was referred in the usual way to committee by the president of the European Parliament, so the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee has been designated the responsible committee and has a responsibility for technical barriers to trade.
I thought the point raised by the noble Earl was so true here, that hallmarking is not a barrier to trade; it is a consumer protection measure. The committee I have just referred to, the members of which include two Members of your Lordships' House, Lord Ardwick and Lord Gordon-Walker, have said that the draft Directive is really a consumer affairs matter and that the responsibility ought to be taken over by the Consumer Affairs Committee, or that it should give an opinion, at least, to the Economic Committee. Therefore, at the moment, I should like the noble Lord who is to reply to say that this question has not yet been resolved.
To summarise, the European Parliament has not given its opinion on the draft Directive, so the debate in your Lordships' Chamber today is really quite timely. I believe that the earliest plenary session to which the Committee report could be presented for approval is that in September, but I think that is probably unlikely and that it will be much later. I feel we must press our view at every stage. When this Directive comes before the Council of Permanent Representatives and, if it should go through there, when it finally comes to the Council of Ministers, I feel we must try to get it changed so that it takes the form of the Convention. I believe that in this way standards can be maintained and consumers protected.
5.39 p.m.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, when I was a child we used to have a game on the last day of the month. When we
918
went to bed we said, " hares ", and the rules were that if you could go through to the following morning and say nothing except " rabbits ", then God would send you something good. I said " hares " last night, but I forgot to say " rabbits - this morning; and I do not know that up to date God has sent me anything good. This is a diamond anniversary for me, because at this very moment, shall I say, 60 years ago, I was standing in the ruined village of La Boiselle with 700 or so of my colleagues lying on the wire or severely wounded. All that in one day! For months afterwards I had a very cynical approach to military operations, I can tell your Lordships. From then to today is a very far cry. Our opponents of that time are now in the same organisation as we are in. It looks sometimes as though it is by a near miracle that this has happened. These things historically go only slowly.
We are discussing today the small item of the Directive about hallmarks. We have had the case put absolutely splendidly by our Chairman of the " B " Sub-Committee of the Select Committee for Europe. May I say at this juncture that I hope the House knows, and will pardon me for saying it, that a tremendous amount of work is being done on this Select Committee for Europe that perhaps is not appreciated by the average Member either of the other place or of this House, and that it would do some Members good sometimes to go up to Room 3B or 3A and listen to the investigations going on with the idea of making quite certain that nothing slips through that should not.
Practically every point has been touched upon and I do not propose to go over the same ground. I want merely to draw your Lordships' attention to one very important aspect which is critical but nevertheless of a constructive nature. If we need a separate system for hallmarking for the EEC, it would be simple to put it into operation by adopting the International Convention Agreement which was ratified on April 1st and put into operation on June 1st. Why on earth are we faced with a duplication of effort and with time wasted in witnesses coming forward to talk to the Committee and so on, when there is machinery at hand which, if put into operation—as it easily could be—would do the job very well indeed ?

919
It has been said that the manufacture of articles of precious metal is an art. It is also a craft. It is one of the industries which has both art and craft. In the trade that I was brought up in, the wool trade, you were able, if you were an expert, to identify materials by touch or by sight. I understand from better evidence than I can supply, evidence from the Hallmarks Council, that it is impossible to make positive identification either by feel or by touch. If that is the case, there is no doubt that an independent assessment of the article is absolutely and totally essential. If this Directive now before the House were to be approved, it would mean that we should have a whole lot of unidentifiable articles circulating in this country to the detriment of our artists and craftsmen.
My Lords, I believe this: that we should hang on to quality as long as we can. We should put up a fight when people are trying to put us off quality. We know how difficult it is to please our critics on the question of production and productivity and the increasing of the growth rate; we know that we are behind most of the Western countries of the world. But there is one thing on which we can hold up our heads and that is quality. Many of our industries have a long tradition and heritage of knowing how to make things; this is one of them. I hope, in conclusion, that when the Minister comes to reply, he will confirm what the Committee has put to the House, that this Directive should be rejected.
5.46 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, when I saw on the Order Paper the word " hallmarking ", I did not know what it was about. It is, generally speaking, a subject that I know is very important and of great interest, so I took the trouble to get what I would not otherwise have got; that is, the Report of the Select Committee. I certainly want to join with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and others in thanking the Chairman and other noble Lords who have brought this matter to our attention. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, is right when he says that many of us are not aware of the great work going on in these Committees. It is something for which we are deeply indebted to those who carry it out.
920
So far as I am concerned, I should like first to ask a question of the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government. In the Report it tells us about the legal implications, and it says that an amendment of the Hallmarking Act of 1973 will be necessary. It goes on to say that it may be possible to make the amendment, assuming that we accept this, by delegated legislation. I am not clear what that means. Does that mean that delegated legislation is not legislation which would come before the House?—because I would consider it a very serious point that something could go through without our knowing about it and without our having the opportunity to discuss it and, if necessary, if things go wrong, to turn it down. So much for the question.
My Lords, I should like to make three brief points. The first is one that other speakers have made. When something has been in existence for many hundreds of years, then one wants to be careful before making a change. I do not know why in this case Scotland was slightly behind the English in introducing the hallmarking system. Perhaps it was because the English were quicker to realise the value of debasing and there had to be protection—which is after all the purpose of all this—before this was the case in Scotland. Be that as it may, I think it is very important that we should not rush into anything. Certainly, after (shall we say?) hundreds of years, we find two things on our plate in a short time. First, the EFTA Convention, which I understand is acceptable, and, second, this draft Directive. Why this sudden worry? As I understand it, there is no worry about the EFTA Convention which lets us go on as we are; but on the other hand it is because there is a misconceived idea of what this is all about. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, pointed out in his original speech, the purpose of hallmarking is consumer protection, whereas the purpose of the draft Directive is increasing trade. Those two things may well not be compatible.
My second point is not only that our system has worked well, but that it has become part of the English language: we talk about somebody and say that he is a " sterling fellow ". What does that mean ? It means he is top quality. Here we are talking about something which may be

921
changed. No longer may we find that we have our own sterling quality but that possibly silver may be debased to the 800 out of a 1,000 parts level. On page 16 of the Report the consequences of that can be found. Colonel Grimsley, who gave evidence, was asked about the difference between the 925 and the 800 standard. He said that it had a more metallic look than the English sterling silver. This is something very significant. He went on to say this:
"… in order to make it more acceptable the Continental manufacturer plates it with pure silver ".
That surely gives the whole case away; that shows that the whole idea of consumer protection falls to the ground. They take an object which is of a relatively base standard and deliberately cover it with pure silver to disguise what they have, and there is no longer any consumer protection. That, after all, is the whole purpose of our having the hallmark.
So whatever might be the rights and wrongs in some degree, what is clear from the evidence is that the thing could well be a fraud. If ever it reaches a point when such a situation arises, I hope that the trade will set their minds and hearts against an action which would in the end, under Gresham's Law, mean that the bad drives out the good.
My last point is on what I call the aesthetic side of this matter. One of the great attractions of silver is the hallmarks. They are put into a prominent place and they add to the whole look and distinction of the piece of silver. Those are placed with great skill. My Lords, if you have not seen that, I strongly advise you to do so because it is an art in itself. What are we being asked ? We are being asked to have yet another mark, one which seems confusing, one which will not add to the distinction of the article. Then there is something which is said to be secret—a secret mark. I do not know what that means. All I know is that it is very disturbing. For those reasons, I agree with all those who have said that the Government should plainly stick their toes in and not go ahead on anything to do with the draft Directive.
5.54 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I cannot dissent from anything that
922
has so far been said in this evening's debate; neither do I want, if I can help it, to repeat the forceful argument put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who has said all that needs to be said from the point of view of the Committee, of which I had the privilege of being a member, regarding the principle. I think, however, it may he fair to remind your Lordships that the EEC started their work on hall-marking long before we became Members, and it may not be unfair to suggest that what has now been produced by them is but a pale shadow of our own system, a shadow so pale and so developed by the time we joined the EEC that it was not possible, in the four meetings that we were able to attend, to strengthen it.
This is not to suggest that our industry is against change, because the goldsmithing and silversmithing industry have been happy to accept the EFTA Convention. It is in many respects somewhat better than some of the more narrow aspects we enjoy under our hallmarking system. I think it is also necessary to remind ourselves that during May and June of 1973, we had the Hallmarking Bill before us, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. The whole area of hallmarking was thoroughly investigated. It is also fair to remind ourselves that it was my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn who, as a Minister at that time, reminded us that some of the things we were discussing and deciding upon during the passage of that Bill might be contrary to those things which were then being discussed in the European Community. Nevertheless, the other place and your Lordships' House passed that Hallmarking Bill, and as an Act it stands as a very much improved piece of legislation.
Added to the EFTA Convention, there can be no reason why this country should have to engage in this harmonisation Directive. It does nothing for our gold-smithing, silversmithing and jewellery industry. The tolerances suggested are so wide of what we have become used to that it would make a farce of all that has been built up in this country and accepted throughout the world over the past 500, 600 or 700 years.
The growth of goldsmithing and silversmithing in this country has been enormous. It has been suggested that in recent times our exports have exceeded

923
£50 million. My understanding was that goldsmith, silversmith and jewellery products far exceeded that figure. In fact it goes into three figures of millions of pounds. Our products are sought after throughout the world; witness the recent exhibition and sale in the Middle East, when several thousand pounds of British designed, craft-made silver goods and jewellery goods were sold in a matter of days.
There are far more entrants into the crafts of goldsmithing and silversmithing than ever before. That industry is becoming more important and the English entries are more widely accepted throughout the world, so giving encouragement to craftsmen. There are a number of international exhibitions and competitions held each year. In successive years English craftsmen and English entrants have figured prominently in the list of award winners. There can be no reason why we should accept under any guise whatsoever any Regulation that reduces our own competitiveness and our own quality.
My Lords, the industry is important to us, and it is fair for the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to remind us about the 800 standard. He quoted from the Report. I thought he was going to quote the piece of evidence which referred to reducing the standard from 925 to 800 under the guise of improved consumer choice. The witness said that it was a £25 item but only about £I would be reduced from the price. Therefore, in fact the consumer's choice is not widely enhanced but the craftman's choice is very, very badly damaged.
There was one other point which has not so far been made concerning platinum, and I should like to refer to this. In the draft Directive it suggests that the tolerance of platinum should be increased, but at one and the same time the addition of iridium should be allowed. Iridium is added mostly in platinum jewellery, and certainly in white gold jewellery, to give added strength to the claw mounting. I understand that it is not essential for it to be added because platinum is hard in itself and is technically capable of being used to make a satisfactory mount. If we accepted the idea that a certain percentage of additional material is to be allowed, then the whole value of the content of an item is even
924
further reduced: in other words, the tolerance is widened. if we allow such a thing to happen, we have little argument to bring to bear if in the future another material is found with similar qualities but of a vastly lower value, which in itself increases the tolerance and reduces the total value of the articles.
I do not believe that the members of the industry who gave evidence to us are being in any way narrow-minded about this. I believe, together with other noble Lords who have spoken, that the insistence upon those standards which are embodied in our hallmarking system are very definitely a consumer protection and a guardian of quality, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes. Quality must be guarded and fought for, unless we are to sink lower and lower in all fields.
Notwithstanding that I am a very staunch supporter of the European Economic Communitty, I believe that we can afford to be parochial here. We have something in this country that is better than anything else in the world and I think that we should use all our endeavours to defend it, to hold it and to ensure that if any change is made throughout the world it must be better than what we have today. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will support this view, which is that embodied in the Report of this Committee.
6.4 p.m.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I hesitate to thrust yet one more speech upon your Lordships' House, but I do so for two reasons. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, who is Chairman of the British Hallmarking Council and who wanted to be here today to give his views, is unfortunately unable to be present, and I have been asked to express the views of the British Hall-marking Council during this debate. Secondly, I was President of the Board of Trade at the time when EFTA, which came under my broad aegis as the British Minister responsible, were busy hammering out the Convention. Therefore, I feel that I have been as deeply involved as anyone in your Lordships' House, and perhaps I might be forgiven if I make a short speech and try to point out particular things which I think are of importance.

925
As several speakers have said, hall-marking came in for reasons of consumer protection but—let us not make any bones about it—it was simply because silver and gold were the currency of the day. If you allowed your silver and gold articles to be debased, you put a tremendous strain on the people who wanted to save money—because there were no banks at that time, as some of your Lordships will know only too well. People used to order their silver from the merchants, not by saying " I want a beautiful tankard ", but by saying, " I want 60 ounces of silver." That was the way they saved their money.
Perhaps I may slightly correct what my noble friend Lord Redesdale said concerning what happened in the middle of the sixteenth century. That was the time when the lion first appeared on our hallmarking system, and it was meant to underline the fact that Henry VIII had debased the currency but that silver had remained of the same quality. This was extremely important then, and it remains so today. But the fact of the matter is—and I speak now as a member of the Hallmarking Council—the protection of the consumer is still quite definitely our No. I priority. We have a representative Council representing the unions, the " statutory women ", the manufacturers and everybody else, and we try to guide our rules so as to make everything as simple as possible for the people who manufacture the many hundreds and thousands of pieces that go into the jewellery and silver trade and to enable them to do so without unnecessary restrictions, but never at the expense of the consumer.
Several people, including my noble friend Lord Selkirk, in his opening of the debate, have mentioned the fact that this is done by the EEC on the ground that it is a non-tariff barrier to trade. As an ex-Minister at the Board of Trade, I bow to nobody in my knowledge of possible non-tariff barriers to trade that can be promoted if one wants to have them. There is very little that I do not know about them in almost every field—but this is not one of them. It would be perfectly possible to say, if one so wanted, that the prevention of forgery of currency is a non-tariff barrier to trade. Of course it is—in exactly the same sense. We should all be able to trade much more easily
926
with France and Germany if we could mint their coinage and print their money and trade with them in that way; but it would not last for very long. Nor, I suggest to your Lordships, would the trade in valuable goods, in silver, gold and so on, if one abolished the practical and sensible hallmarking system we have built up.
I should like to stress the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and by my noble friend Lord Lucas, about the quality which is guaranteed by the hallmark. It is not just—and I do not think it was meant in that sense—the quality of the metal which goes into it which is discovered from looking at the hallmark: it is the quality of the craftsmanship as well, because in nine cases out of ten you have the authenticity of the piece guaranteed by the hallmark. That has gone on, though not perhaps totally, for the last 600 years because there were pieces that slipped through perhaps with only the maker's mark, and sometimes without that but with other marks. In most cases, however, you can pick out a piece of silver made anywhere in the British Isles and see when and where it is made and who the artist, designer and maker was. This is of enormous value to the trade we do in the export field—sometimes rather sadly in this respect, because the best of our British products go all round the world.
I believe it is right that the very considerable craftsmen that we have today, such as Leslie Durbin, who makes as fine silver as anybody ever produced in the British Isles, should be able to rely in two or three hundred years' time on people saying: " That's a piece made by Durbin ", in exactly the same way as people now pay enormous sums of money for a piece made by Paul Lamerie. They have the same right to be protected, and to be encouraged to pursue their craft and their skills.
But, of course, this is a tiny piece of the whole hallmarking operation. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, the vast majority of pieces that go through the halls have values of the order of £10 or £15. Many of them are not craft work in any real sense. There will be tens of thousands of cases for gold and silver watches and things of that kind, which are a run-of-the-mill operation, but in regard to which the consumer has the

927
right to demand a proper standard of protection. On all these things we are working with the British Hallmarking Council.
If I may, without duplicating what has been said, I should like to say a quick word about the Convention. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, who said that it would be quite easy to drop this Directive and get the European Common Market countries to accept the principles behind the Convention. I do not want in any way to bring unnecessary difficulties before your Lordships, but I assure you that it would not be easy. It would be right, but it would not be easy. It took, I think, four years to get the Convention hammered out, and I do not entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that it is better than our system; I think it is slightly worse. We had to make one or two concessions which, quite honestly, from the strict point of view that we have maintained for 600 years, I do not think we were quite entitled to do, but we reached an agreement and it is acceptable.
However, that was in EFTA, and those of your Lordships who have ever worked in EFTA will no doubt agree with me that, on the whole, they are the nicest community of people with whom one could work. There was a great community of interest and feeling. Every single one of the countries wanted to establish a practical and sensible method of regulating hallmarking. It took us four years to do it, and it is a success. It will certainly not be so easy to achieve this within the Nine. Three of the Nine were in the EFTA Convention and therefore were on our side, so to speak. But there are very many countries—Germany and Italy have been referred to, and Luxembourg is another—where there are no regulations, and Belgium and Denmark have voluntary regulations. But in at least two or three of these countries there is the greatest possible opposition, because they like producing what I will not call shoddy goods, but goods which are not up to the standard to which we and our public have been used, and it will be quite a problem. But this is what we should aim for.
May I finish by saying that, much as I appreciate the Report which my noble friend Lord Selkirk has made to your
928
Lordships' House, and much as I enjoyed his speech, I believe I am speaking on behalf of the whole Hallmarking Council when I say that I could wish that we were not today just taking note of this Report, but that we were saying firmly and clearly to our partners in the EEC, " We will not accept this Directive, because it is inferior and is a bad compromise." There are a very small number of disreputable makers of jewellery and silverware in this country who would drive a horse and cart through this Directive. If they could do it, then a very much larger number of disreputable jewellers and silversmiths in Europe would be driving not a horse and cart but 400 London buses through it. I hope so much that the Government will make this view absolutely plain to Europe when they discuss this subject with them.
6.15 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise to the House for intervening. I wish to declare an interest in the platinum trade, and I shall take up only two or three minutes of your Lordships' time. Valuable information has been given to the House about the hallmarking system. There seems to be a wild and fantastic desire in the EEC not to give mankind time enough to assimilate what this striking watershed in economic, social and other affairs is doing to European man. They also seem to want to justify their existence by controlling hops, by getting mountains of things and suddenly interfering in different matters. There is nothing in the world that is better than our hallmarking system, and we have had a reiteration of the problem of quality, Gresham's Law and the bad driving out the good.
We can be proud of the platinum industry, which is fairly new. The biggest buyer of platinum for making jewellery is Japan, and when we talk about solder for making jewellery, and claws for setting stones in a piece of platinum craftsmanship, we must be very careful about adding iridium. What is the ultimate quality of the piece to be ? We were very proud of the fact—and it is all there at the back of the Vienna Convention—that only a year or so ago we established for platinum a hallmark that is recognised all over the world. I had the privilege to be at a great convention in London only a month or so ago, where we had hundreds of platinum dealers from all over the world looking

929
towards this as one of the areas where there is absolute integrity, so far as that is humanly possible, and we are building all this up.
At this juncture, we should he grateful to this Committee—I do not want to make an anti-EEC speech—for watching over our interests and preserving Britain's " know-how " of 600 or so years in the field of gold, silver and, more recently, platinum. I appeal to the Committee to try to find a formula whereby the common sense and " know-how "—and I am not being chauvinistically British—of craftsmen, which we have acquired in precious metals, will be listened to in the committees of the EEC. I have had my three minutes, so I will keep my word to my noble friend on the Front Bench and sit down.
6.18 p.m.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, if your Lordships will pardon a brief intervention from me, I am here by happy coincidence because a Committee collapsed just before lunch in Brussels today, largely, I think, because the chamber in which we were sitting was far less well air-conditioned than this one. But since my name has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, perfectly correctly, and that of my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker, may I explain that when those of us on the Economic and Social Committee steered this matter towards the specialist committee dealing with consumer affairs we were not just trying to slough-off the problem. We thought that was the most effective political way of dealing with this problem, about which there may be more than one view when the matter is debated before Parliament.
I assure your Lordships that there are remarkably strong feelings among the British delegation, on both the Conservative and Labour sides. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, the one Liberal there, but he is a civilised man and I am quite sure that he will share our feelings. What is remarkable is that, no matter how poor we are, each one of us has some piece of silver which is a memento. We value it not only for its sentimental virtues, but also because silver is a singularly beautiful and tactile metal and everybody feels strongly about it. I assure your Lordships that when this matter eventually goes before the European
930
Parliament the British delegation, of all Parties, will be united, even those who are the most ardent Europeans or very dedicated harmonisers, like my noble friend Lord Davies. They will all be together opposing this draft Directive. The evidence contained in this Report and in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will fortify us in our resolve.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, in case the noble Lord is referring to me as Lord Gladwyn, I must protect Lord Gladwyn!
6.20 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as so often happens when your Lordships' House is dealing with a specialised subject, as I think we can call this one, there becomes quickly evident in one quarter or another a great deal of expertise which can be brought to bear upon it. This has certainly proved to be the case in the short but fascinating debate that we have had today. There is the example of the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, a member of the British Hallmarking Council, who, in a most expert way, was able to bring his experience to our notice. Other noble Lords have displayed an expertise not necessarily derived from their direct association with a trade or problem, but from their diligent attention to work on one or other of your Lordships' Committees, in this case the Scrutiny Committee. In other cases—let it be said starting from scratch in some cases—noble Lords have pursued diligently their own research and have become experts almost overnight. Sometimes that happens with me!
We have had an extremely useful debate. I am sure that we are all indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, as chairman of the committee that has produced this report, for having taken the initiative to bring it on to the Floor of the House and to give us this opportunity to debate it. I would join with those who have paid tribute to the excellent work that this and other similar committees have done. Indeed, I would also join the noble Earl in his insistence that this is the duty of these committees and of Parliament. Whatever our attitude may be to what goes on in general in Brussels, as the noble Earl so rightly stressed, it is our duty to put forward firmly and

931
strongly such criticisms of what emerges from Brussels as we feel we should, after discussion and debate. I am glad, therefore, to be able to indicate on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that I agree with practically everything that has been said by your Lordships in this debate. To some extent I shall need to repeat some of the points which have been made. I do not apologise for doing so, because it is necessary to repeat these points, just to emphasise that Her Majesty's Government agree with them.
I did not necessarily follow the point made by my noble friend Lord Rhodes about rabbits, but I agreed with everything else that he said. Certainly we all agree with him that what is at stake is British quality and that it is up to us to insist that we want to maintain standards of quality.
Hallmarking in one form or another dates from the Middle Ages. Indeed, I believe that the report of the Scrutiny Committee states that it dates from the reign of Edward I, and in Scotland since the Act of Union. It is almost certainly the oldest known form of consumer protection, a point that has been stressed by a number of noble Lords. Therefore it is of particular interest to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection whose spokesman on this occasion I am. In the field of the production of goods made of precious metals, British products have a world wide reputation for their quality standards, and are a credit both to those who make the goods and to those who are responsible for ensuring that standards are maintained.
Hallmarking in this country is governed by a comparatively recent Act—the Hallmarking Act 1973—and the responsibility for applying the standards derived from that Act rests with four independent assay offices. This Act of 1973 was in part designed to anticipate the ratification by the United Kingdom of the international Convention to which so much reference has been made—the Convention on the Control and Marking of Articles of Precious Metals—which came into force on 1st June, 1976. The other States which have ratified so far are Austria, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden, while Portugal and Norway have announced their intention of doing
932
so. The Convention is open for signature by all countries. It is true that it has an EFTA origin, but it is open for signature by other countries and in that sense is truly an international Convention; that is to say, all those countries can sign it whose hallmarking arrangements are consistent with its provisions, and I hope that in due course many other Governments will decide to accept it.
Perhaps I should point out the main features of the Convention. First, it provides for the acceptance by signatory States of articles assayed in other signatory States. Thus it helps to promote international trade. Secondly, it permits individual States to maintain their own existing standards of fineness. Thirdly, it contains technical provisions which, as I understand it, are fully compatible with those used in this country. The fourth point is that while the Convention obviously does not permit routine and everyday checks on marked articles, it allows occasional checks to be made by the enforcement officers. There is a specific procedure if it is discovered that there is repeated evidence that articles coming from a particular assay office overseas are of a lower standard of fineness than the standard marked upon them. Therefore it allows for both testing and action.
In this debate we are concerned mainly with the draft EEC Directive on articles of precious metals. This would require the free movement of articles which have been tested and marked by an assay office notified by any Member State—marked, that is to say, with an appropriate mark indicating that they comply with certain Community standards of fineness. The proposal, which was submitted to the Council of Ministers in December 1975, is based on optional harmonisation. It would allow Member States to retain their existing hallmarking systems and standards of fineness and to adhere to the international Convention, or it would enable them to do without any system of control. But—and I think this is the point that has troubled so many noble Lords—States would have to admit articles bearing the " E " mark, even if the standards were lower than their domestic or the Convention's standards.
It is that point, I know, which is behind the Committee's recommendations and

933
behind the anxieties which the trade have expressed. Indeed, it would mean that domestic manufacturers would in practice have to be given the same facility of operating a lower standard. At present the United Kingdom, Ireland, France and Holland have compulsory hallmarking; that is, imported articles must be tested and hallmarked on arrival even though they may already bear marks applied in other countries. Germany and Italy have no hallmarking by independent assay offices. Belgium and Denmark have only voluntary hallmarking. I thought it was perhaps useful to summarise the position in that way.
The Department of Prices and Consumer Protection has received a number of representations on this Directive. It appears to us from this correspondence that the Commission's proposals as they stand would operate to the disadvantage of our trade, and would also undermine the protection for the consumer provided by our present hallmarking system. The Scrutiny Committee in Appendix 2 to its Report has set out very clearly the detailed criticisms of the Commission's proposals, and as it will not take too long I think it is worth my mentioning four or five of the points that the Committee has made as being ones which I think are of some special importance.
First, the draft Directive omitted to prescribe reliable and accurate methods of assay for normal use by all assay offices; secondly, it allows unjustifiably high tolerances in determining fineness; thirdly, it provides inadequate safeguards against the circulation of articles which might not comply with the standards marked on them; fourthly, it does not specify that assay offices must be fully independent of trade interests; fifthly, there are a number of more technical criticisms particularly in relation to the ability of the consumer to distinguish one mark from another.
These criticisms, which I thought were worth repeating, represent fears which are, I believe, shared by representatives of both trade and consumer interests in this country. It sometimes happens that the trade has one point of view and the consumer interest has a conflicting point of view; but I believe it is true to say that on those points that I have listed there is common ground as between trade and consumer interests. I believe this was borne
934
out in the evidence that was brought before the Scrutiny Committee. I am sure that noble Lords would also share my view on the need to ensure that our existing arrangements which work both in the interests of the consumers and of the British trade interests involved should be maintained to the maximum degree possible.
Several noble Lords have referred to the question of standards, and particularly the EEC proposal for a standard for silver of 800 degrees of fineness, which would be inconsistent with the standard of 925 degrees in use in the United Kingdom at the present time. I know that there are varying views on the best standard to be adopted from the consumers' point of view. I believe the Consumers' Association made some points in this connection, but I am sure that we must take serious account of the view of the United Kingdom trade that their interests would be significantly damaged by the acceptance of an 800 standard for silver—all the more so since the EEC's proposal makes no mention of a 9 carat standard in the case of gold.
It seems clear to us that the Convention is preferable to the proposed Directive in a number of respects. It has a specific procedure for dealing with inaccurately marked articles. Its technical provisions are more consistent with our own. It permits signatory countries to maintain their present standards while, as I have stressed, by being open to acceptance by all countries, it has an important advantage in relation to products of this kind in which there is a significant international trade. In view of these advantages of the Convention over the Directive, we feel bound to question the need for any further international system by EEC countries which might indeed be confusing, both to traders and to consumers, unless its provisions are brought much closer to those of the Convention.
Two specific points were raised by noble Lords to which I should like to refer. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred to the words in the Committee's Report about delegated legislation. That implies that Statutory Instruments would be involved which would he laid before both Houses of Parliament. In some cases, according to the particular part of the Act, it would be the Negative

935
Resolution procedure and in other cases it would be the Affirmative Resolution procedure; but in either case of course the matter is in the hands of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made an interesting point, quoting the efforts of my noble friends Lord Ardwick and Lord Gordon-Walker. I listened with particular interest to the suggestion that in Brussels we should urge that it be dealt with as a consumer protection matter. As I understand it, it has not yet been decided which particular body in Brussels deals with this. I may be wrong on that, but I do not think it has yet been decided, and certainly I can assure the noble Lord that not only did I listen with interest to the point that he made, but I shall urge that the point be taken forward to Brussels in order that we may get it regarded as a consumer protection matter and dealt with appropriately in Brussels in accordance with that.
Of course, discussion of the draft Directive is at an early stage and I am sure noble Lords will not expect me now to indicate categorically how far on particular questions we might go during the course of discussions with our EEC partners. However, in welcoming the Report—and I hope I have made it clear that I do welcome the Report—by the Scrutiny Committee I can assure the House that we intend to make it clear to our friends in Brussels that the draft Directive as it stands cannot receive our support. Indeed I would say that Her Majesty's Government will have gained considerable and welcome support from the vigorous and expert opinions that have been expressed in this debate this afternoon. I end as I began, by commending and thanking the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for his initiative in the matter.
6.40 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, it is seldom that we in this House have such
936
a wholly satisfactory reply from the Government. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for his extremely robust reply. I would merely say that if by any chance there is difficulty in Europe, I hope he will not hesitate to inform us so that we might rise again. I am so glad to see that we have with us the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. May I thank noble Lords for supporting me in this, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.