Lords Sitting of 8 July 1976

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

CROWN AGENTS: THE FAY COMMITTEE
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 when the Fay Report on the Crown Agents is expected and whether they will give an assurance that it will be available in time for a debate in this House before the Summer Recess.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development understands from the Committee that their report is unlikely to be ready until the end of 1976 and, I am afraid, therefore, will not he available for debate before the Summer Recess.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask whether she is aware that we have been asking about the Crown Agents and have been told that the Fay Report was on its way? Would the noble Barnoness agree that it is in the interests of the community and of the Crown Agents themselves that action should be taken as soon as possible?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords. I think the noble Baroness understands that the Fay Committee are conducting their investigation on the lines of investigations under the Companies Act, and inevitably this can take one, two or even three years. It is very important that it should be thoroughly investigated, and we shall report as soon as we can.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while some of us are concerned about the Fay Report, those of us who have seen something of the work of the Crown Agents over the years would, before any denigrating remarks are passed, wish to extend some appreciation of the work which has been done overseas in various parts of the world?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, indeed, my Lords. In spite of the recent troubles, the House will be delighted to know that the confidence of the countries who have invested in the services of the Crown Agents has in no way diminished.

SOVIET FREIGHT RATES
3.8 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 when the delegation representing the shipping interests of the Western Powers will be received by the USSR to discuss the problems arising out of the low shipping freightage charges of the USSR.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I understand that a delegation from the Council of European and Japanese National Ship-owners' Associations went to Leningrad for talks with Soviet shipping lines at the beginning of this week.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information. When the delegation return—which, of course, is very important—can the House be told what success they have had with the Soviet Union, before our shipping really disintegrates?
Lord ORAM: I heard this morning, my Lords, that the delegation have in fact arrived home, and I am sure that that will relieve any anxiety on the part of the noble Baroness. In fact, a Press statement on their talks has been issued

1303
only this morning. If it will help the noble Baroness, I will see that she has a copy immediately after Question Time.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord very much for his kindness, may I ask whether he does not agree that it is important that a Statement should be made in our Record in this House, so that people who really understand the problems of the shipping industry, as well as the public in general, may have the full facts in front of them ?
Lord ORAM: I entirely agree, my Lords. It would take too long at this stage to read out the Statement, but I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will pursue at Question Time any particular piece of information she would like to be put on the Record.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government any idea of the level of seamen's pay prevalent in the Soviet Union's maritime fleet ?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot give that information to the noble Lord.

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE: LEGISLATION
3.10 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are preparing enabling legislation to establish a 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone for the United Kingdom in accordance with the agreement in principle already reached at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, we have called on our Community partners to make a joint declaration of intent to extend fishing limits to 200 miles at an early date. Implementation of such a
1304
decision would require changes in our law and the necessary proposals will be laid before Parliament at the appropriate time. Naturally, the necessary contingent work is in hand.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful for that statement and also for the information that the Government are making preparations. But are the Government aware that several maritime countries are proposing to introduce the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone after the Conference session in New York starting next month. and that the United States has already passed domestic legislation for that purpose? As this is a crucial matter for British interests, and especially for the fishing industry, will the Government guarantee that there will be no question of Britain's being left behind because we are not completely ready to join the others?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can give that assurance. As I indicated in my first Answer, the work is in hand. As to the actions of other countries, some are making declarations of intent on the fishing content of the EEZ and others are going a little beyond that. So far as the Community is concerned, I do not think that any Member, apart from France, has so far made a declaration of intent on the EEZ.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that encouraging information. When he says that work is in process, could he give us some idea as to what has actually been decided ?—because the Answer, if promising, is rather vague.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we shall of course be discussing with our partners in the Community, as we have been doing. Also, I anticipate that at the meeting of the European Council of Ministers this matter, which is of paramount importance to this country, will be very carefully discussed. We have every reason to think that our partners will be forthcoming and practically sympathetic to what is obviously a question of national importance to our people. I can give no date as to when the work which is now in hand will emanate in a formal document, a draft statement or a regulation. But I can repeat the assurance

1305
that we shall, of course, place such a document, when it is ready and necessary to be tabled, before both Houses of Parliament.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, are the Government aware that in the case of France it is a good deal more than a declaration of intent, and that the French Parliament last week passed into law an annexation of sovereign rights over the seabed, that which lies under it and the water above it, for full exploitation out to 200 miles?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is the way the French have chosen to take action in this field. But what they have done does not, in itself, extend the limits of their jurisdiction.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, since the noble Lord used the word " paramount" in referring to the importance of the Council meeting, can he tell us whether our action is dependent upon a decision by the Council or whether we shall take action in any event, whatever the Council of Ministers decides or fails to decide?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Earl is now attempting to extend unduly the limit of the diplomatic zone. It is a little early to anticipate that we shall need to move unilaterally in this matter. We are convinced that the advantage to this country, and indeed to the other Members of the EEC, would lie in acting together.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to expand a little on the meaning of the phrase " declaration of intent ", which in this context is not very familiar to all of us? What is the effect of such a declaration? Does it mean simply that something will be done in future, or does it have some effect in international law and, if so, what ?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, without advice I am not competent to say whether it has any effect on international law. But I understand that a declaration of intent in this field is an indication by a Government of what they intend to do in regard to certain matters, which appear to be broadly in consensus
1306
at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. Some nations believe that the process towards the 200-mile economic zone limit is pretty well irreversible. We take the view that within that field an extension of the fisheries limit to 200 miles is irreversible. So that as fisheries are the most urgent matter in this area with which we as a country are concerned, we have concentrated on making a declaration of intent that we are looking to an extension of our fisheries limit to 200 miles, preparing the necessary national law—which, in any case, will be necessary—and also stating that we want to do this in concert with our partners in the European Community.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, when we talk about an Exclusive Economic Zone, fisheries, though important, are absolutely trivial in value as compared with the mineral and oil rights involved ? What we are proposing is something more than doubling our present territory. Have Her Majesty's Government considered how they will defend these enormously valuable rights when, quite obviously, they are totally incapable of doing so at the moment ?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it would take a little time to cover the whole of the ground which the noble Lord has traversed. What we are saying is that the economic situation of this country in regard to fishing entitles us to indicate, to make a declaration of intent, that we are preparing the necessary legislation to give effect to an expanded zone in relation to fishing, and to do this in concert with our friends and allies in the Community. The other economic resources within the EEZ will no doubt in due course be a subject for consideration, consultation and co-operation between us and our friends in the Community.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the fishermen of the South-West are equally anxious about getting the median line agreed with France? Can the noble Lord tell me whether that is coming forward to the point where, when it is combined with what is proposed in the original Question, we shall be able to stop the Soviet fishing fleet from " hoovering " dry the Channel breeding grounds?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords. That kind of adjustment between us and France, and indeed other countries, is in the process of being resolved. It will take a little time, but that, too, is in hand. Apart from France there are other third countries, such as Norway and the countries of Northern Europe, including the Low Countries, with whom we shall need to settle bilaterally certain aspects of the matter. We also need to have early effective talks and decisions on the Common Fisheries Policy. I rather think that the question of median lines comes within that policy, and I will look into that aspect.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord help us on one further point. When the noble Lord said that the application of the Exclusive Economic Zone to our other economic interests in the areas in question would have to be discussed in clue course with our partners in the EEC, did he mean that the median line between our share of the offshore and the Faroes will be discussed after agreement has been reached with our Common Market partners on the EEZ generally ?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for putting his question in that way. These matters are still pari passu. The difference arises in the urgency with which we approach certain aspects of the ingredients, if I may so put it, of the Exclusive Economic Zone. Clearly, a fairly early decision on fisheries, in concert with our partners in the Community, is urgent. In the meantime, questions which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and others have raised about other aspects of the Exclusive Economic Zone are being studied and the necessary preparation made, but without perhaps the same chronological urgency as applies to our fishing industry.
There is a second point upon which I am glad of the opportunity to make an observation. The noble Earl is quite right to refer to offshore disputes—I would call them needs for adjustment—relating, for instance, to potential oil resources. On that point, upon which the noble Earl is both knowledgeable and very interested, I can assure him that the procedures for arbitration have been
1308
agreed between this country and France and that they are proceeding with exemplary international rectitude.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in putting the Question I had in mind the other very important British interests as well as the fishing industry, but that I agree with him that the fishing industry is the most urgent problem? Also, will the noble Lord inform his noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton that the matters which he has raised are to be the subject of a debate next week on an Unstarred Question?
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, in the meantime, will the noble Lord bear in mind that if it may take a long time to obtain international agreement and to prepare our own sovereign laws on this matter, it may also take many years to rebuild and increase our naval and fishery protection vessels and our maritime air force which will be essential if we are to protect and police the areas which become our responsibility?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord has just said.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Melchett will repeat a Statement on industrial strategy.
May I also make a statement about dinners, as I promised I would earlier in the week ? As the House knows, business has been lighter than usual and as a result our experiment with regular Tuesday dinners has not been as successful as we had hoped. I have consulted the chairman of the Refreshments Sub-Committee and it has been agreed that, sadly, regular Tuesday dinners should be discontinued, but dinners will, of course, be available in the usual way on any night w hen business requires it.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, if we did not sit rather unnecessarily on Mondays, we could sit later on Tuesdays and have dinners.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I trust and hope that the noble Lord will always be present late at night.

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees may I say that I understand that certain noble Lords wish to speak on the Motion for the Third Reading of the Tyne and Wear Bill. That being so, in accordance with custom I should like to propose the postponement of this Motion to a time more convenient to the House. Accordingly I ask for the leave of the House to withdraw this Motion.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what she has said and for the message I received that the Third Reading would not be moved today. May I put it on the record that, having been in another place for over 38 years, it would be convenient occasionally if anybody who really knows about the Tyne and Wear were informed earlier of what was going to happen. Is the noble Baroness aware that I have not been in this place for very long but that T find that nobody bothers to tell me anything even if, having been in another place for 38½ years, I do know something about the Tyne and Wear?
Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, I feel that I should respond to the noble Baroness by saying that as she was good enough to say that she wished to speak upon this Bill, as did another Member of this House, it is the custom here, in order not to hold up public business, to deal later with Private Bills and that, through the usual channels, a time is chosen which is convenient to the House as a whole.
Motion for Third Reading, by leave, withdrawn.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I
1310
beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to sexual offences in Scotland. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

SOUND BROADCASTING
3.28 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move, That the First Report from the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting be agreed to. I hope that your Lordships will be kind to me as I make a more or less maiden speech from this position on the Cross-Benches in the House. Looking at my ex-colleagues and former foes, I find that they appear to be very benevolent in profile and I hope to persuade them that this report is worthy of their support and that of the House as a whole.
If I may remind your Lordships of the position as it is at the moment, in a debate on 16th March the House accepted without division the principle that sound broadcasting should be introduced into the House. It was as a result of that decision, a decision which was echoed in another place, that a Joint Committee was established, of which I have the honour to be a member, under the very expert chairmanship of Mr. Ben Ford. I am very glad to see that others of my colleagues in this House who sit on the Select Committee are to speak in this debate.
Your Lordships will wonder why we have so quickly produced a First Report. We have done so for reasons of timing. It became clear to us at the very outset of our work that the deciding factor in making progress towards sound broadcasting was going to be the constructional work that was required both in this House and in another place. In fact, this entails the building in both Houses of a commentary box. If we do not act quickly it will mean that the construction of a commentary box could probably not start until the Long Recess of 1977, because we have been advised that a long Recess is necessary for those who have to build a commentary box in the Chamber.

1311
If today the House agrees to this report, I hope that we shall be able to make some progress during the long Recess of 1976 and that therefore the process can begin without that inhibition. Even so, I would not wish to mislead your Lordships into thinking that this commentary box will be available and that sound broadcasting will start in, say, October when we resume for the spill-over period. The work will take a good deal longer than that, but at least the back can be broken of the provision of the framework of the commentary box.
We could then at an earlier date go ahead with the final provisions of sound broadcasting rather than if we postpone the building of the box until 1977. The Committee are, of course, considering the other facets of sound broadcasting and the provision of other facilities that are necessary for originating the signal and for mixing and editing and production; but all these aspects of it can be provided outside the Chamber, and indeed will have to be provided initially in temporary accommodation. So there is no time hold-up except for the provision of the necessary facilities, whereas on the provision of the commentary boxes there is the overriding need to have a Long Recess in order to get on with the work. Of course, if it were to be the fact that this House had to come back and sit again in September that would necessarily also hold up the time by which we could provide the commentary box. At the same time we should at least have made some progress and the rest of the work would have to take place at weekends and on other suitable occasions.
I turn now to the major decision that had to be made; that is, where in this Chamber we would put the commentary box. The broadcasting authorities concerned—the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority—gave us their minimum requirements, which were that this box should hold four people in all (covering the two organisations), that it should be soundproof and should be air conditioned. We considered these to be very reasonable minimal requirements. But when it came to trying to find somewhere in this Chamber to put a suitable box, it was indeed a very nasty headache. Having looked around this Chamber, I think all of your Lordships will see that
1312
it is very symmetrically designed and that to put a box anywhere where it would be reasonably unobtrusive, and would at the same time give the commentator a reasonable view of the Chamber, is a very difficult problem indeed.
We considered almost every possibility, I believe—unless your Lordships have others to suggest this afternoon. We thought of every angle in the Chamber itself and for one reason or another, either on aesthetic grounds or practical grounds we came to the conclusion that they were not satisfactory. We considered television cameras by remote control—closed circuit television—as a possibility, but that again was impracticable. We gave perhaps most consideration of all—before I come to the final choice—to a possible position over the Throne, somehow concealed behind the canopy over the Throne. But again we found that this was quite impossible. First, if one is going to provide a box with a suitable view for the commentators—and after all, if we want our affairs to be broadcast, we want them to be well broadcast—that box is going to be visible; and if one put it behind the canopy I am afraid it would still be visible and it would be very difficult indeed to fit it in with the present form of the decoration at that end of the Chamber.
Quite apart from that, there were formidable practical difficulties. For example, we were advised that there were serious doubts as to whether the Throne area of the Chamber would be strong enough to carry the weight of the box and the equipment necessary. It is, after all, only a decorative area and it might well prove to be insufficiently strong. Also there is no air conditioning available at that end of the Chamber and it would mean putting a new plant in the basement and feeding the air up through new ducts behind the Throne area and digging into the walls of the Princes Chamber to do so. We came to the conclusion almost at once that that area was totally out of the question.
So we were driven to the site which finally we selected. As your Lordships are aware, it is the site that I cannot see behind me, over the clock in the Press Gallery. There has been placed in there a mock-up of the outline of the box. If your Lordships were aware of seeing

1313
it last week, you will notice that it has been altered. It was somewhat obtrusive; it has been altered again to make it less obtrusive, and it may well be that we can make further improvements on it as a result of our discussion today and further discussion with the architects. But to me, at any rate, it seems to be a fairly reasonable compromise. If we have to have a commentary box, it seems to me to blend reasonably well into the background of this Chamber.
In fact, if your Lordships agree to this particular siting of the box, I think it has one or two quite distinct advantages; the first being that it is sited in the Press Gallery. After all, the broadcasting authorities are part of the media that report our affairs and it would seem suitable that the commentators should be located together with the Press. They will also of course enjoy such fairly slender advantages as we give to our Press representatives in the form of a room at the back with a number of telephones and so on.
The Chairman of our Committee, Mr. Ford, took the very wise precaution of getting in touch with the chairman of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Although the latter expressed regret that some five or six seats would be lost to the Press in the gallery, they recognised the architectural difficulties involving in the siting of the box and the desire to retain the symmetry of the Chamber, and they accepted that there was no practical alternative to placing the box in the front of the gallery.
They also went on to say that they thought it unlikely to cause any problems for the greater part of the Parliamentary Session, but they thought the Press coverage of major events, like the State Opening of Parliament and occasional other debates of special interest, could be hampered from the Press point of view. They went on to ask that on such occasions some other seats might be available to help the Press with their problems, and I am sure that the House would look sympathetically on such a request.
The other advantage of siting the box where it is suggested is that it is reasonably possible to so decorate the box that it fits in with its background. As your Lordships will see, the proposal is to run a brass rail—at the moment it is only a
1314
mock-up in wood, of course, but it will be a brass rail similar to the brass rail round the rest of the galleries—and to mask the box itself in the same sort of decor as the Chamber as a whole. In order to be sure that we have some semi-official backing for our proposals, there was a meeting between the architects and the Department of the Environment and some representatives of the Royal Fine Art Commission to discuss these proposals.
Although the representatives of the Royal Fine Art Commission—three of them —naturally could not commit the Commission, they agreed that the proposal for a box enclosing seats in the front centre of the Press Gallery appears to be superior to all other locations, and visually the most acceptable. They approved the proposal to mask the front of the commentator's box by reinstating a brass rail similar to that on the side galleries, but were not insistent on this rail being carried the full width of the gallery. They favoured the box being slightly emphasised by the use of decorative brass mouldings or castings at its head and thought there might be merit in the head and sides of the box being returned from the front in glass at least to the depth of the existing desk. So that in so far as we have been able, before we have had the final designs, to sound out the Royal Fine Art Commission, we have at least some kind of a blessing on the proposals we are putting before your Lordships.
There is one slight problem which I think needs a certain amount of further study; that is, the degree to which the proposed box may interfere with the view from the Public Gallery. This is a problem which is well recognised, and which I think can be improved. I believe that there will be others mentioning it in this debate, so I will say no more about that for the moment.
In proposing that this Report be accepted, I can only say that the Members of this House on the Joint Select Committee have studied very hard how we can best implement the recommendation for sound broadcasting, and have come to the unanimous conclusion that there is only one place where the commentator's box could be sited with some degree of retention of the beauty of this Chamber, and without damaging its aesthetic form;

1319
deliberations to us today. We are also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for his contribution, he having been a member of the Committee.
As I understand it, the requirements are that the sound broadcasting commentators do not need to hear direct from your Lordships in the Chamber because the microphone system will be piped direct into the box. What is important to them is that they should be able to see and recognise every Member of your Lordships' House. Unlike in another place, where Members are called by their names, in your Lordships' House it is more difficult for those who are not Members to recognise who is speaking, because the name is not mentioned unless someone is referred to in the course of a speech by another noble Lord. Then the box also has to be soundproof so that the commentators themselves are not overheard and do not inadvertently interrupt or cause some diversion from the proceedings of your Lordships' House. I recall that, on at least one State Opening in this Chamber when there were television arrangements, the commentator's voice, clearly quite unintentionally, was heard; it was exceedingly difficult for him to be able to speak for the benefit of the viewers and at the same 'time, during the silences, not be heard by those in the Chamber.
The next point is that those who are to be within this box, which has to be enclosed and soundproof, will need comfort and air. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has indicated to us that there are two possibilities: one, the mock-up in the Press Gallery as it is at present shown to us, and the other above the Throne on the other side. Having heard what the noble Lord has said, and having read the report and done some investigation myself, I see that there are structural difficulties about the box being over the Throne, even though the Cross-Benches would all be visible from there, whereas they would not be so visible from above the clock. I think from the aesthetic point of view of your Lordships' Chamber it would probably be preferable, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, that the box should be where the mock-up now is. But there is, I think, an important point, and that is that while with the box there one can see all parts of the House and every Member, some of the Cross-
1320
Benchers would only be seen by the backs of their heads. However, I think that those who sit on those Cross-Benches are well enough known and such distinguished figures that their hair and craniums will be recognisable without the aid of a phrenologist.
Another possible difficulty is that the Public Gallery will suffer some obstruction, and we have just been reminded that the original design was altered so that the roof of the box has been lowered. I am wondering whether it would be possible for it to be sloping forward, because presumably the commentators will be sitting when they are in the front of the box. There might be more discretion there to enable a greater view from the gallery, with less obstruction.
My Lords, as we have been told, the decision has got to be taken now if this work is to be done during the coming Recess; otherwise it would be postponed for a year. The Long Recess may not be an apposite description, in view of the rumours of the return in September; but I hope that, if we do come back in September, the interruption of work would not cause difficulties about the final construction of the box. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can tell us about that when he replies.
Perhaps I may, in a lighter vein, add this. I think the radio commentators need not have any apprehensions in reporting the proceedings of this House. The BBC, I think, will feel at home and will take these things in their stride. For example, when they are hearing these Opposition Benches they may well be reminded of the programme " Any Questions ", and perhaps, when some of my noble friends with powers of oratory and some histrionic gifts are in action, " Afternoon Theatre ". When it comes to the Government Bench opposite, of course we shall have " The Men from the Ministry ", and perhaps even at times " If you think you've got problems ". When it comes to the Cross-Benches, there is such an assembly of academic and professional talent and wisdom that they will be excused if they think that they are in " The Brain of Britain " series, but since the commentators will have to identify some of the Cross-Benchers by the backs of their heads, if they have had some experience with the " Mystery

1321
Voice Celebrity Quiz " they may feel that that also will be helpful.
We presume that the number of occasions when the broadcasting will be live will be few, because it is so difficult to know exactly at what time debates or Statements are going to begin, particularly with Questions taking an unpredictable amount of time to start with. Broadcasting is a science of exact timing, and that is difficult to arrange in your Lordships' House. We presume, therefore, it will be live extracts which will later appear in " Today in Parliament " or which will be used in other programmes.
In conclusion, though I have introduced some levity myself, I should like to reiterate what my noble friend Lord Carrington said in the debate on 16th March, and that is to hope that the sound broadcasting commentators will not simply concentrate on the most entertaining of the speeches or remarks in this House, but will also give due coverage to the politically constructive and thoughtful speeches, and will provide a good mixture to give a faithful account of what has been happening in your Lordships' House, while making it interesting and informative. Other noble Lords will doubtless raise points about the siting of the box and questions about whether any obstructions to the Public Gallery can be reduced, but I consider that the recommendation of the Joint Committee is the one that we ought to accept. I think that the Committee have gone into all these points, many of them technical, on our behalf, and I hope that we will be able to accept their recommendations.
3.59 p.m.
Lord JACOBSON: My Lords, this is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking in this House, and I wish to apologise in advance for any inadvertent mistakes I may make in the proper manner and mod. of address. Most of my working life as a journalist has been concentrated on the written word rather than the spoken word, and sometimes on the written word in a less urbane fashion than those normally deployed here. I have little experience of making speeches, and I fear that as I go on your Lordships will soon realise that this is no idle threat. I also have to declare an interest: I am a member of the General Advisory
1322
Council of the BBC which is one of the bodies which advises and helps the Corporation on BBC programmes and policy in general. It sits under the benign chairmanship of a Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington.
After the experimental period of broadcasting, the General Advisory Council debated these programmes at some length, and went on public record as very highly commending them and wishing that they would continue. I therefore have some interest in hoping that your Lordships will see fit to expedite the sound broadcasting of Parliament as much as possible. Many of your Lordships are far more fit than I am to discuss the actual siting of the box, and to say whether or not this would add or detract or in any way inconvenience the House and its proceedings. Within my limited experience, I would say that the proposal which has been put forward by the Joint Committee seems to me the most practical one, and one that I think is improved by the lowering of the brass rail, which not only improves the appearance of the commentators' box but will give better visibility.
It is important that the broadcasters should be able to see the Chamber, and it is desirable, from the point of view of the House, if not from the point of view of the media as a whole, that the commentators and the Press should be in one location. It is regrettable that the Press representatives here will lose some good places and be put to some inconvenience, and I note that the broadcasting staffs in fact expressed some reservations about taking these places from them. I think that was very civil of them, and I noted with pleasure the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the Press in return have responded with equal good grace in offering to put up with any inconveniences entailed upon them.
There are two other points in the Report on which I should like to make some brief remarks. The first is the indication by the broadcasting representatives that in principle they would be prepared to put up with temporary accommodation for their editorial staffs so as not to delay unduly the whole project; and that, of course, would be the case if they insisted on having a permanent provision for their editorial staffs outside the commentary box before the whole scheme began.

1327
roof of the box is, the less of the Chamber can be seen by the public sitting in the centre of the Public Gallery. It is a fact that for every three inches one lowers the height of the box, the spectators behind in the Public Gallery can see three yards more of the Chamber. This is because of the angle of sight. Thus, the most important factor in designing the commentators' box is to get the front of the box as low as possible, and in my view that must be our prime guideline to the architects.
Once the commentators' box has been built, the area of the Press Gallery immediately behind the box will be quite useless for any purpose other than access to the far end of the Press Gallery and there is at present in the mock-up about three feet between the back wall of the commentators' box and the back wall of the Press Gallery. I believe that if one redesigned the desks in the rear row of the Press Gallery so that they could make use of the access behind the commentators' box and allowed only 18 inches there, one could take the back wall of the commentators' box back quite considerably. The further back the back wall is, the higher it can be without impeding the view of the public in the gallery, and if we then agreed to the principle of having a sloping roof, we would have achieved a good many things in one swoop; we should have made it easier to have a reasonably high access to the commentators' box at the back and also increased the volume to 120 feet.
It is a fact that that box, which is the second of the designs we have tried to achieve, has a step in the roof, which I think noble Lords can see, and even though that step is only six inches to eight inches high, it decreases the angle of view from people sitting in the centre of the Public Gallery by a considerable amount, and it is most desirable that we seriously consider this sloping roof. I do not believe that the sloping roof need be too offensive and show up too badly, and I think that if we could ask the Fine Art Sub-Committee to advise us on how the top of that sloping roof could be decorated—perhaps by painting it suitably to conform with the rest of the Chamber or by putting a piece of tapestry on it or something of that sort—we should soon get used to it and no longer find that sloping roof causing us trouble.
1328
Those are some of the ideas and details which we still have time to discuss and improve upon before giving instructions to the architects. I hope that your Lordships will agree that there still is time to do this without slowing up the programme. Once we have that design, I have no doubt that some sort of fabrication could be achieved, but we must have the size and shape of the commentators' box before coming to that stage. There is one other point; I am told that we could not have the commentators' box made of glass so that the public could see through it because the box would then be too resonant to broadcast from. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobson, may be able to advise us on this, but I believe that the less glass there is in a broadcasting commentators' box the happier are the people doing the broadcasting.

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY
4.18 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry about the progress on industrial strategy which was the subject of an all-day meeting of the National Economic Development Council yesterday with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the chair. The Statement is as follows:
" The Government's approach to industrial strategy was outlined in the White Paper published after the meeting of NEDC at Chequers last November. Our prime aim is to put Britain on the path to a high wage, high output, full employment economy by improving productive potential and the performance of manufacturing industry.
"The prospects and problems of over 30 sectors of manufacturing industry were selected for more detailed examination on a tripartite basis. These sectors represent about 60 per cent. of total manufacturing output. In the first phase of their work, the Sector Working Parties were asked to concentrate in particular on constraints or

1329
bottlenecks which might limit their ability to exploit the opportunities provided by the economic upturn. The Working Parties were further asked to recommend appropriate action. They were also asked to develop strategies for improving the performance of the sectors in the longer term, though it was recognised that this would take some time to complete.
"The reports on the first stage of this work were considered by the NEDC yesterday. The Council welcomed these reports as a very valuable first stage in the strategy programme. Many of the individual sectoral reports will be made publicly available, although the decision to publish is a matter for each Working Party to take. Copies of a summary of the issues raised in the reports have been placed in the Library together with copies of the covering paper which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I presented to NEDC.
"We want this work to lead to action. Many of the recommendations of the Working Parties are addressed to the Government, and we will be considering the action that we as a Government need to take. In some cases we have already been able to take the necessary steps. The NEB, planning agreements, the Manpower Services Commission, the schemes to encourage and accelerate investment and other instruments of our policy will all play their full part.
"Many of the recommendations are for action by management and unions at the level of the sector, the enterprise and the factory. The TUC and CBI have both undertaken to play their part. The Working Parties themselves will also have an important role in their follow-up. The Government are setting in hand arrangements for monitoring and follow-up in collaboration with the CBI, TUC and the National Economic Development Office.
"At its next meeting, the NEDC will go on to consider detailed proposals for the second stage of the work. The intention is for the Sector Working Parties to report again by the end of the year so that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer can take account of their recommendations in the formulation of his Budget strategy.
"It is essential for this country to develop an effective industrial strategy which will reverse the contraction of our industrial base and enable us to create wealth through industrial production. Only in this way can we achieve the social improvements to which we must aspire.
"Our tripartite approach to industrial strategy has made an encouraging start and we intend to build on this for the future."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.23 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for having repeated the Statement which has been made in another place. The Statement about the meeting of the National Economic Development Council yesterday appears to be an encouraging report. The main business was the reports of 39 groups on different sectors of manufacturing industry. The House will recall that my noble friend Lord Watkinson has been advocating in at least two debates in this House the greater use of the National Economic Development Council as the place where most of those who can formulate our country's industrial strategy and carry it out can meet and effectively make progress. My noble friend Lord Watkinson is now in a key position to take part in that process himself.
I noted the short sentence in the Statement:
"We want this work to lead to action ".
From the Press reports, it is clear that the CBI, for its part, is undertaking to do its best to increase and accelerate investment in industry. For the Government's part, will they, in order to assist this, move further in a helpful direction following responses to the Consultative Document on the Price Code? This is important for industry if it is to build on this promising start in work and co-operation in the NEDC. How do the Government intend to make the improvements in profitability which are so central for private industry ?
Lastly, can the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, confirm the Press report that the Prime Minister and my noble friend, who is now President of the CBI, were in

1331
agreement on the following point after the day's work ? My noble friend is reported as having said: " What we are going to concentrate on is making the mixed economy work rather than spending time on what the mixed economy should be." The Prime Minister is reported as having added that that was the Government's position, too. If that report is correct, it is most welcome, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confirm it.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for repeating this Statement which has been made in another place. We can only welcome both the tone and the content of the report. It is good news that the tripartite " Neddy " meeting was apparently enthusiastic in its support for the tripartite approach and for the policy of a high wage, high output, full employment economy, as the Statement says.
It is also welcome news that the reports of the Working Parties were of a very practical and down-to-earth nature because a great many of the things which need to be done are of that kind and relate to the removing of practical constraints upon getting on with the job. We also note that further reports are to be made at the end of the year. I am sure that it is not necessary to say to the Government—though there is perhaps no harm in underlining it—that there is a very great deal that could be done without waiting for any further reports and, indeed, a very great deal could have been done without the reports which have already come forward. If the Government really mean business in what they say in this Statement, there are a number of actions which they could take and which they could have been taking for a long time. They can take them now.
In particular, I draw attention to the existing shortages of labour in a number of areas of skill, shortages which are bound to become greater as the recovery of the economy gets under way. This is a point which we on these Benches have raised on a number of occasions. We have several times asked what has been done through the Manpower Services Com-
1332
mission or in other ways to fill those vacancies which were listed in the Commission's own report at the end of December. In addition to that, if the Government really want to enlarge the industrial base, much greater encouragement will need to be given to middle management in industry. Much greater encouragement will have to be given not only to existing middle management but to those young men and women who are at present considering a choice of career and who are greatly discouraged when they look at the prospects in industry at the moment. This is something which has real implications for taxation policy and in the attitude which is adopted by many people towards the management sector in industry, including, on occasion, Her Majesty's Government.
I would also add—though, here. I feel that I should declare a personal interest—that, if the Government really want industry to get ahead, the discouragement of the undergraduate and postgraduate sector of our Society, the decrying of work in these areas and the discouragement that many of us in higher education feel at the present time, is no way to increase the long-term prosperity of industry.
4.29 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their general welcome for what I believe is agreed on all sides to be a very encouraging report to come out of the first stage of the industrial strategy exercise. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that this exercise underlines the importance of the NEDC and we look forward to its playing a full role and making sure that the practical recommendations that have been made for action are implemented. Indeed, that will be one of the important matters which the Sector Working Parties will be dealing with over the next few months. They will not merely be preparing another report, although that, again, is something which, as the noble Baroness mentioned, they will be doing on the medium-term prospects.
Inevitably, this has been a very rushed exercise. The sector Working Parties have done an enormous amount of work.

1333
Over 1,000 people were involved and have given a very great deal of time and effort to this, and I believe that from all sides we should express our gratitude to them. They have done a marvellous job in a very short time but, inevitably, they have been dealing with short-term constraints, particularly manpower constraints which the noble Baroness mentioned. They will now go on to look at the medium term which I think everyone would agree is equally important for British industry—to plan ahead as well as to deal with the immediate constraints.
However, a number of things are left to be done by the Government, by both sides of industry, and the Sector Working Parties. They all have a part to play in making sure that these practical steps and recommendations are fulfilled. One of them will undoubtedly be, having identified areas where shortages of labour are likely to occur, to take steps to meet those shortages. The noble Baroness will know from several debates in this House that the Government have done a great deal. If the noble Baroness cares to look at the papers which have been placed in the Library she will see a very clear-cut statement of proposals for action and action already taken in a simple form where there cannot be any possibility that one is using mealy-mouthed words and general remarks to get round things. One of the things which come up in this exercise is that we really have got down to the nitty-gritty of particular, definite, specific recommendations and lines for action.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned the Price Code. Of course, we had a very full debate on this in your Lordships' House yesterday. As the noble Lord knows, the proposals for modifications in the Code were introduced only after very extensive consultations, in particular with the CBI, and the Government are now listening very carefully to comments which are being made from all quarters on the proposals we have put forward.
I am well aware of the problems of middle management which the noble Baroness raised and the need, indeed, to encourage young people to go into industry. On Tuesday I attended an occasion with a large number of 16-yearolds who are currently deciding whether
1334
to read engineering at university. It is very encouraging—and the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear this—that about 30 per cent. of those present were women, and all of them were particularly impressed by the possibilities for them in industry and in engineering in particular I found it a very encouraging experience to talk to them. This was an operation organised in part by the Department of Industry, and we are doing our best, on a very practical and much too small a scale at the moment, to encourage people of that age to take up careers in industry. The sector working parties have identified many matters and many practical steps have been taken. Some things have already been done by the Government, and we recognise that much remains to be done and we are determined to see that it is done.
4.33 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any consideration was given by the National Economic Development Council to the question of a reduction in public expenditure ? If not, can he say what are the Government's intentions ? If there is to be a substantial reduction in Government expenditure, as has already been announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, next year, the following year and perhaps even after that, how does my noble friend reconcile that with full employment, which is also the intention of " Neddy " and the Government?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, this Government are determined to keep public expenditure under control and substantial cuts in forward programmes of public expenditure have already been made. Naturally public expenditure is kept constantly under review at this period of the year just as much as at any other period of the year. The Sector Working Parties themselves were not concerned with public expenditure considerations as such, but in any event, as my noble friend will know, the Government are clearly on record as saying that investment in productive manufacturing industry must take precedence over our social objectives, no matter how desirable those may be. Whatever the future of public expenditure, that will remain the position.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is not the purpose of the reduction in Government expenditure precisely to enable more to be spent on capital investment ? Is not the purpose of the NEDC to point the way to where capital investment can best be put ? Is the noble Lord aware that we on this side are extremely pleased with the backing which the Government have given to the NEDC in the past few months and we hope very much that they will continue to give it the fullest backing? Is the noble Lord aware that the purpose which we would see for this is to enable the various sectors not only to identify what needs to be done, but to make recommendations for it to be done? The most encouraging feature of the statement which the noble Lord has just made is that, quite plainly the NEDC sectors are approaching this matter in that way, and they are enabled to approach it in that way—if I am right, and I hope the noble Lord can confirm this—because they are getting together in the committees people who really know what they are talking about, including people from the shop floor.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I certainly can confirm that, and it has been my privilege on various occasions when attending industry associations, trade associations and the like, to talk to people who have been working on EDCs and sectional working parties over the past few months. Almost without exception I have been very gratified to hear from them that they feel that the work they have been doing has been useful and constructive as it was going on. Very often established EDCs—because many of the " little Neddies " have been going for some time—have become much more action orientated over the period of formulating these reports under the industrial strategy. Many of the EDCs had taken a rather long-term view of some of the industrial problems which their sectors face. Given the impetus which I think everyone is agreed this exercise has given to the NEDC and to the " little Neddies ", the discussions have become, as I say, much more orientated towards practical steps which can be taken to meet the problems which will undoubtedly occur in the upturn.
The noble Lord mentioned public expenditure. Of course, some public
1336
expenditure is designed specifically to encourage investment and perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord to the documents placed in the Library, particularly Annex I which is the summary of action which has been taken to remove the short-term constraints and to increase capacity in the upturn. There is a table there showing in particular the expenditure undertaken in the Accelerated Projects Scheme, where a relatively small proportion of public expenditure has led to a very large increased investment by British industry in new plant and machinery which will undoubtedly stand the country in good stead during the next upturn.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the document yesterday, while it arouses in his heart unstinted praise, in fact spells out a full-scale retreat from the concept of planning and that it is an agreed document by all those interests who have served this country ill in the past, who have taken us from the beginning of this century from being one of the greatest industrial Powers to what is now the sick man of Europe ? If they are given their head, which this document unquestionably gives them, then the future will be very bleak indeed. I do not ask the noble Lord to comment. I would not have risen to my feet except for what I regard as the noble Lord's unstinted praise, while I regard the document as lamentable. It completely fails to diagnose the ills which face this country. What it seeks to do, rather as with a child with measles, is to take out the spots.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, this has been described as a bottom-up exercise, which so far as I can see means that instead of setting ourselves long-term plans which we know we are going to fail to meet, and do fail to meet, we are setting ourselves realistic objectives which are agreed, I say to my noble friend, by all sides of industry, which we very much hope we shall meet.
Lord WIGG: But, my Lords, in relation to the mere fact that it is agreed by all sides in industry I must draw the attention of my noble friend to the fact that the spokesman for the Conservative Party did not fall back on the praise from the Conservative Party's leadership. What he fell back on was the praise from the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson. Why?

1337
Because the Tory Party, just for the moment for political reasons, pays lip-service to this document, but they know perfectly well the realities behind it, and if they were given their political heads they would even reverse this.

SOUND BROADCASTING
4.40 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I wonder whether we might return to the somewhat less controversial question of the commentary box. First of all, may I join with the noble Earl in extending my very hearty congratulations to Lord Jacobson on his maiden speech. It has been my privilege and honour to know him over very many years as one of the greatest journalists in Fleet Street, not only in the political field but in every field of journalism. We are very pleased to have heard him and his maiden speech, and look forward to hearing him often again.
My Lords, the debate this afternoon is really about the positioning of the commentary box in this Chamber, although the Report deals with the commentary boxes in both Chambers. Although a Member of the other place for a number of years, I think I should perhaps concentrate on the positioning of the box in this Chamber as we now see it in the mock-up. May I say at once that I would regard the proposed position in the Press Gallery as the best possible position, if not the only possible position, in which to put the commentary box in this Chamber. The idea, advanced by some members of the Committee and since, that the box should be sited above the Throne, seems to me impossible in almost every respect. In that crow's-nest position up there, on the very special occasion, for example, when Her Majesty is personally here in Parliament addressing both Houses of Parliament, they could hear her but not see her. Their general view would be of the top of the Lord Chancellor's wig, while everyone realises that his face is very much more attractive. It is true to say, of course, that from there they would have a better view of the Cross-Benches; but, all in all, including the reasons given by the Department of the Environment, I am sure that the right position for the box is in the Press Gallery.
1338
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked for further improvements and suggestions. I think one improvement would be to take away, and to take away for all time, the somewhat grotesque wings on each side of the box which have been described as brass railings. I know the Royal Fine Art Commission recommended them, and I think Lord Aberdare said that they could be reduced in size. I ask : Why is it necessary to put them there at all ? They add to the cost—they are to be made in brass, so I understand—and they will further impede the view from the Press Gallery. Aesthetically, they do nothing. So why have we fallen for the idea that we should have those brass railings, the wings on each side ? Is it because they were recommended by the Fine Art Commission?
A further point made was that the box, sited as it is in the Press Gallery, would encroach on the Press reporters' space. But I ask your Lordships: Does it really ? How often do we see the Press Gallery filled with reporters? On occasions, yes. There are probably seven there at the moment. There is a lot of room for very many more than seven, even with the box. I have been looking at it during the last week, and I think that there are, on average, five reporters in the Press Gallery at any time listening to debates in this House—it is probably true to say because there is less to report from this Chamber than from the other. It might equally be true to say that we are probably less newsworthy. We are certainly much quieter; there are not so many incidents to report.
I think we need carefully to consider the size of the box, as has already been mentioned, because in addition to the two commentators, one for the BBC and one for Independent Radio News, one has to think in terms of the people who will be in and out of the box. They will be changing shifts—commentators cannot go on indefinitely—and there will be the need occasionally for a technician to visit the box. A further point is that with new commentators working in the box—commentators who have not seen much of this Chamber—they will not readily and at once recognise which noble Lord is speaking. Even with a list of speakers in front of them for a normal debate, noble Lords often change their positions in the list by agreement among themselves, so on occasions it will be necessary for someone

1339
knowledgeable of the House, who knows the Members of the House, to pop in and out of the commentary box and advise the commentators on who is in fact speaking at any given moment. This, of course, can be done by the servants of the House, who know almost all of us. We have nothing similar to The Times book, which is so helpful in the other place; and in the other place even a new Speaker has to have someone below him advising him who is rising in his place to address the House.
All of this adds up, in my view, again on average, to something like three and a half people in and out of the box in any one hour. I hope the space is large enough for them, because, if it is not, working in the box is going to be most uncomfortable. I think we should go ahead during the Recess with the permanent box, in the hope that it will be ready for when broadcasting starts; but would make the point that if we ever think in terms of a temporary structure there instead of the permanent one, not only will it be more expensive still but temporary structures have an awful habit of becoming permanent, and it is going to be there for a long time.
The estimated cost is about £30,000, but that does not include air-conditioning, and air-conditioning is absolutely essential. The box also has to be sound-proofed; so, really, £30,000 is just a guide. If we can save on those two wings, which I do not particularly like, we might save some money to go towards the additional things we need for the box itself. The structural cost of the box, of course, and of the ancillary accommodation outside—because we do not end when we put in two commentary boxes, one here and one in the House of Commons; there has to be a central unit outside—will, I hope, be provided out of public funds. It is not unreasonable to expect the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority to provide all the electrical equipment and to pay for the commentators, the staff and the hardware, but the accommodation itself should, I think, be provided out of public funds.
Of the ancillary accommodation which is mentioned in the Report, I think from the point of view of Independent Radio News, of which I know best, serving
1340
something like 19 stations throughout the country, they would require about 400 square feet of space for their central unit to receive the Tannoy system from the Chamber and the commentator's voice from the commentary box, and to do some taping and some editing. The BBC, because of their Overseas Service and because they have a much larger radio coverage, would probably need much more. All of this should really be within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster; but it cannot be at once and this we have to face up to, so we shall have to use temporary accommodation. I know that Bridge Street is in mind and that Norman Shaw North, the old Scotland Yard, is also in mind; but these central units are vital, and it is important that the working conditions in them should be right.
The other piece of accommodation in terms of which I think we should be thinking, and which we shall certainly need, is a small studio and control box ; because, having commented on a particular speech from another place or from this House, a Member of Parliament or a noble Lord may be required at once, because of something he has said, to mention it further, in the case of a Member of Parliament for the benefit of his constituents and, in the case of a Member of this noble House, for people who are interested. He will need to be interviewed in a small studio by someone who is doing the reporting either for the BBC or for Independent Radio News.
My Lords, radio is a very good medium for Parliamentary coverage. I have myself never held the same view about television, because we are told that if we televise Parliament we must televise it warts and all, and I am afraid some of the warts in another place—and I was there a long time—are not always very attractive; at least, they were not to me. I know that mine is the minority view, and probably the majority one is better, that if you cover anything you should cover it as it is; but an edited version of the proceedings in Parliament, plus full coverage on certain occasions such as the Budget speech in another place or Her Majesty's speech here, which are so important that they should go out live, and of course a daily edited version at night, will add to an interest in Parliament and will add to its prestige and the regard in which it is held.

1341
Given the right conditions of storage we could tape and keep a number of tapes for a considerable length of time. At the moment in the electronic field, in good conditions magnetic tapes can be kept for 20 to 25 years, and in the best conditions probably for much longer. But in that field everything is changing so rapidly so that it would be possible, in my view, in a decade or so to build up a kind of oral history where you could turn back and listen to speeches made in the years before. That may be a pipe-dream, but I believe it to be possible. This is the sort of thing we ought to bear in mind. I hope that all the necessary work for the two boxes can be carried out during the Recess; that temporary accommodation can be provided for the central units, and that in the autumn we shall be able to start with complete coverage of the broadcasting of both Houses of Parliament.
4.51 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with other noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Jacobson, on his maiden speech which contained so much of interest delivered in such a charming manner. I am sure that we all hope to hear often from him again.
Like other noble Lords, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and his associates in the Committee for the work they have put into this plan which we are now discussing. It is clear from what we have heard today and to anybody who has read the Minutes of Evidence that it is a most perplexing problem. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said, when referring to the problem in this place: Is this a place of work or a monument ? That is one of the problems. As one who is in favour, and always has been in favour, of every feasible method of reporting Parliament to the people, I spoke in favour of Lord Shepherd's Motion on 16th March when it was readily agreed by the House that we should go ahead with sound broadcasting. But I emphasise the word " feasible ".
The Report recommends structural work which is represented by the mock-up and which has been fully described; but beyond the £30,000 estimated cost it is
1342
well to remember that elsewhere in the Papers there is a reference to the back-up to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, referred in his speech where it sets out that in Bridge Street there is an estimated expenditure for Editorial and Production of £272,000. Of course, it is fair to recognise that with the other place undertaking broadcasting such expenditure is going to have to be necessary. I imagine that any share of it attributable to the House of Lords will be only fairly small: because that background is necessary whatever happens in this place. In other words, if we do not go ahead, by how much would the Bridge Street expenditure be reduced? I do not imagine that that situation is going to arise, judging by the speeches we have heard this afternoon.
When we considered the matter in March, 1 confess that I visualised our own Hansard tape would be the main source of any broadcast and would only require a commentary upon it. if that is so, is there any need for such a large structure as is contemplated for representatives not only of the BBC but also of the IBA? After all, the BBC is the only body which is required, as an obligation, to report to the public daily on the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. If that is the case, is it necessary to provide for any other? Is there any guarantee that we will get anything like the coverage from other authorities that we get from the BBC, as of right? It is clear that any broadcasting of any tapes of House of Lords' proceedings can, occupy only a very few minutes in any one day (or, perhaps, in any several days) superimposed upon " Today in Parliament " and the ordinary radio programmes.
That, presumably, means that this commentary box may not be used for some considerable time daily. On the other hand, it can be used, I imagine, for the ordinary correspondents of the BBC who do the " Today in Parliament " and " Yesterday in Parliament " programmes.
My Lords, I carried out a reconnaisance of the Public and the Press Galleries myself yesterday evening and I found the structure, even in the modified form, quite disturbing. For instance, the only part of the House that can be seen by anyone seated in the centre of the Public Gallery is that portion from here (where

1343
I am speaking, in line with the middle of the Table) to the Throne. They cannot see the Front Benches. I shall return to that when referring to the speech of my noble friend Lord Cathcart, but that is a serious problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, referred to the few members of the Press who are there, because from the Press seats which are behind the present mockup, they are unable to see two-thirds of the Chamber. It is worth remembering that although there may not be many members of the Press present at any time on an ordinary day, there comes the time, on special occasions, when, I think, the front row of the Public Gallery must be reserved for the Press, and particularly the overseas Press; so that one must remember that the Press have their rights. Another point which occurs to me is that whereas the noble Lord, Lord Jacobson, said that the Press cannot publish much about Parliament today, that does not mean that the Press correspondents in our Press Gallery do not send out matter daily in very great measure and that the sub-editor's blue pencil deals with most of it. I feel that the mock-up even in modified form is somewhat unacceptable.
I was going to say that I felt on balance, like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on one occasion during the taking of the evidence when the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said that there is a
"problem with the Lords because it was the unanimous decision of the Lords that there should be broadcasting."
of the House. My noble friend Lord Aberdare said:
" It is true to a point, but if we produce a monstrous structure people might reverse their previous attitude and decide they did not want it in those circumstances."
That is true enough. For that reason I was heartened by my noble friend Lord Cathcart's speech; because it is clear that he feels as I, and I am sure, many other Members of this House feel: that the conditions in the Public Galleries could be improved by careful redesigning of the structure which they have in mind.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned that one solution might be to raise the height of the seats in the Public Galleries so that if the front is sloped forward (as my noble friend
1344
Lord Cathcart suggested) there would be better vision for people in the centre of the Public Galleries. They would be able at least to see the Front Benches. The problem to my mind is that whereas as it stands today it is not worth continuing with this present box—and I feel almost ashamed to say that because your Lordships know that I have been a keen advocate of the broadcasting of Parliament by radio and television—by restructuring the box, as the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, indicated, sloping of the roof, et cetera, it would be acceptable. Then we can create a situation where this place would indeed be a place of work as well as a monument.
5 p.m.
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, I apologise for speaking without having given notice. This morning I was at a meeting of an official body, and the meeting was expected to continue well into the afternoon, otherwise I should have put my name down to speak before the debate. I agree strongly with what my noble friend Lord Jacobson said in his admirable maiden speech. May I add my congratulations to those which have already been expressed by noble Lords to him, especially since I was at one time a journalist serving under his excellent editorship on a very good magazine which unfortunately was, like so many others, killed by its proprietor. I agree with him regarding the value of broadcasting as a means of communication between Parliament and the general public and as a means of stimulating—perhaps reviving —interest. I believe there is interest because although there is a great deal of apathy and a great deal of scepticism about politics and politicians among the general public—particularly among the young—never in my experience have we seen such tremendous queues of people—constituents of Members of another place, tourists from Britain and overseas—waiting to get into the public galleries of both Houses. That indicates a readiness to be interested in politics and even in the much-abused politicians.
I do not have very much to say on the limited and technical aspect of what we are discussing this afternoon. But it is not going to be easy to make the commentary box both unobtrusive and inoffensive. We are likely to find ourselves

1345
engaged in controversy regarding the embellishment of the Box. We should not go too far in the direction of pseudo-Puginesquerie. That might be a very dangerous experiment. But an absolutely bleak Box would not look very attractive. Plainness rather than Puginesquerie is to be sought. I hope that great care will ill be taken in the embellishment.
I support this Report because it is a first step to the full broadcasting of the proceedings of both Houses by television. It is now something like 10 years since I was chairman of a Select Committee of another place which, after exhaustive interviewing and investigation—seeing everybody from both broadcasting organisations and so on—came down unanimously in favour of the broadcasting of Parliament. In the first instance of course there were to be edited extracts televised in the evenings since it was not possible to contemplate a live broadcast of the whole proceedings as had been proposed or preferred by some.
My noble friend Lord Aylestone said just now that he was against the televising of Parliament and that he held a minority view. But he holds what was the majority view in the other place. The first proposal for televising the House of Commons was defeated by only one vote, partly because in commending it to the House, Mr. Crossman leaned much too far backwards to state the other case in fairness to it (which was characteristic of him) and partly because two honourable Members of another place, endeavouring to fly home to Glasgow, found that their aircraft had been grounded because of fog and returned to the House of Commons to vote against the proposal. Perhaps that was providential. Since then, the House of Commons has shown itself even more conservative than your Lordships' House is apt to be, and has repeatedly voted against the proposal. I am sure the televising of both Houses of Parliament in some form or another will come to pass— probably not in my lifetime but perhaps by the end of the century.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I also apologise for not putting my name down on the list of speakers. I was under the impression that members of the Joint Committee were not able to speak in this
1346
debate. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Jacobson on his splendid speech. He told us that he had not spoken often before. Some of us who have had the pleasure of hearing him on other occasions know that that is not strictly correct. We hope that we shall hear him many times again in this House. When one contemplated the Joint Committee it seemed an impossible task to produce a Report which would satisfy every Member of your Lordships' House, the Commons, organisations like the BBC and IBA, the Department of the Environment, the Royal Fine Art Commission and the unions. It appeared that something of a modern miracle would be needed if such a report were to receive unanimity. I am delighted to hear today that your Lordships have, so far as I can see, not entered any caveat against the proposition which the Report puts forward.
As I performed—as I so often do—the role of the rogue elephant on the Committee, I should like to underline what two noble Lords have said. Why do we have to have the neo-Gothic monstrosity to adorn the Box ? After all, we have not had a brass rail round the Press Gallery, so it could be said the Gallery has been out of keeping with the rest of the House for a long time. We have had the pleasure of looking at the faces of members of the Press, and we hope that they have had the pleasure of looking at us. It seems to me that the brass rail is an unnecessary expense and adds nothing to the attraction or value of the box. I am not clear why we should be disturbed about an unadorned box. When we look at the costing, it seems we should consider carefully whether we want to spend another £4,000 on something which is going to obstruct the view of people sitting in the Public Gallery. It is going to perform no useful purpose other than to fit in with what is really neoGothic.
The Minister who came to the Committee to give us his valuable advice seemed extraordinarily down to earth. He was not happy about the cost. He asked for a breakdown of the cost and this proved extremely useful. He was anxious that the matter should be dealt with speedily as are many of your Lordships. It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee. It seemed eminently practicable and anxious to make progress. I am delighted that your Lordships have so

1347
far appeared to give almost universal support to this Report.
5.10 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord SHEPHERD): My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, requires my assistance in getting this Motion through your Lordships' House this afternoon. However, as Leader of the House, I feel that I ought to intervene in a matter which has a direct bearing upon the building, the environment and also, I believe, on the atmosphere in which our debates take place. I will be frank with the House. When I saw the report and the illustration while I was in the United States, I was very uneasy. It seemed to me to dominate in a very marked degree. When I came back, I persuaded officials to see whether it was possible to put some form of model in the Gallery to give us a real indication, so that we did not have to rely just on an illustration.
I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Jacobson, who spoke, in his very notable and pleasing maiden speech, of the importance of the media and of bringing Parliament to the people. We have therefore to recognise that if this is to be achieved, proper working conditions have to be provided, and there must be an opportunity of both hearing and seeing who is speaking and also of being able to pick up any of the little nuances and interchanges that may be taking place in other parts of the House. Therefore, quite clearly, the commentators' box must have good visibility. I believe there is no place in the Chamber other than in the centre of the Press Gallery, as recommended by the Committee.
I must say that I share the feelings of my noble friends Lord Aylestone and Lady Phillips, and indeed others, about the brass railings which are suggested. I wonder whether, before putting them in, we could see what the box looks like without them: then, if we feel that it is too prominent, perhaps we might consider whether the brass railings should or could be put there. I feel that with a structure of this kind, which is to form part of a very ancient and beautiful building, we should move with a little caution.
1348
With the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and others, I must say that I am particularly concerned about the consequences to the Public Gallery. The Public Gallery is an essential part of Parliament, but I have to admit that even without the box the visibility from the Public Gallery leaves a great deal to be desired, and that the mere construction of the box makes only a small material difference in the visibility from the Public Gallery. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, I also went up there and moved around. Fortunately, the Gallery was not too full, and I noticed that there were some aspects where I believe improvements might be made. I have to tell your Lordships that I am very conscious of the Public Gallery and believe something ought to be done, whether or not there is a box there. Therefore, I have asked for a feasibility study to be undertaken immediately to see what can be done to improve the conditions of the Public Gallery. I cannot make any predictions or promises about what solution will come out of this, but I can say that it is being looked into.
I have really nothing further to say, except that I believe there is no place at all for the proposed box other than where the Committee have recommended it. However, I would suggest to the Committee that we should move with a little caution with regard to embellishments and developments, bearing in mind that sometimes simplicity has a great deal more beauty than ostentation.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure that I can say with absolute confidence, on behalf of my fellow Members on the Joint Committee, that we are most grateful to all your Lordships who have taken part in this debate. It has been most constructive and will be extremely helpful to us in our future deliberations.
May I join with the rest of your Lordships who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Jacobson, on his excellent maiden speech. He said that he was more accustomed to the written than to the spoken word. I could not help thinking, as I listened to his speech, that if some of those who are more often used to the spoken word would follow his example of clarity and brevity, we should all be better served. The noble Lord raised two points. The first concerned the

1349
question of temporary accommodation for editorial and production staff. He may like to know that the Joint Committee have already had a meeting with the unions concerned, who were most cooperative. They have accepted the fact that they may have to work in temporary accommodation, in conditions which are not too good, until permanent accommodation can be made available for them. He also drew attention to the need for speed. Certainly, this is very much in the minds of the Committee, and that is why we are anxious to get your Lordships' agreement today, so that the commentators' box can be installed with the east possible delay.
May I take up a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone. I think he was a little rough on the Royal Fine Art Commission. Of course, only three representatives of the Commission were concerned, because the whole Commission could not be spared; and they specifically said that they were not insistent on the brass rail being carried the full width of the Gallery. The noble Lord the Leader of the House referred to this aspect, and I am quite sure that it would be right to proceed as he has suggested; namely, that we should proceed by steps and not necessarily put the brass rail the whole width of the Gallery until we see how the box looks without the rail I understand that the brass rail was suggested because it appears from old documents that there was once a brass rail there, and so it was thought that to put it back again might help to disguise the commentary box.
My Lords, I do not think there is anything else I need say, except to reiterate that we shall study most carefully the very constructive comments that have been made in the course of this debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE PENSIONS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ADOPTION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (ARMED FORCES) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS BILL
5.21 p.m.
Report received.
Lord NEWALL Lord NEWALL moved the following Amendment:
Page 6, line 34, leave out (" Act 1912, the Protection of Animals Act 1934 ") and insert (" Acts 1912 to 1964 ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Chelwood who is unable to be with us this afternoon, I should like to move this Amendment. It is purely a technical Amendment to correct a minor omission in the Bill. Clause 6(2) gives a court power to disqualify a person from keeping any dangerous wild animal if he is convicted of various offences. The offences in question are those in the Bill itself, or those created by a number of other animal welfare Acts. Some of these extend to the whole of Great Britain but, in the case of the Protection of Animals Acts, separate Acts exist for England and Wales and for Scotland.
The Bill cites the whole of this code, amounting to some half a dozen or so separate Acts in respect of England and Wales, by referring to the Protection of Animals Acts 1911 to 1964. In the case of Scotland, however, the Bill cites only the 1912 Act and makes no reference to the later Acts which correspond with the English equivalents. To secure consistency, therefore, and to avoid creating a situation in which the power of the courts to disqualify was different on either side of the Border for what was essentially the same offence, the Amendment includes the later Scottish Acts by amending the reference to read,
" Protection of Animals (Scotland) Acts 1912 to 1964 ".
I must add that, considering that this Bill has come from another place, it is rather unfortunate that we are having to make a drafting Amendment at this rather late stage, but as the omission was not found by the Home Office until very recently there was nothing else we could

1351
do. Perhaps the legal department has been snowed under with work on other Bills. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES &c. (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
5.23 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Oram.)
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, my sole reason for intervening at this stage, is that I wish to place on record my objection to this obnoxious and objectionable piece of legislation, and to make it as clear as possible that when the complications—
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with great respect, is the noble Lord in order at the moment in doing this ?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I did not hear the noble Lord.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I questioned whether the noble Lord is in order in doing this. Are we not breaking our own Rules?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am well aware that on the Third Reading one can refer only to what is in the Bill, but I am also aware—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I believe that the Rules of the House are such that any comment should be made on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I believe that that is what my noble friend was saying.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 4 [Containers for goods]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved the following Amendment:
Page 5, line 36, leave out from beginning to (" require ") in line 37.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move a small Amendment standing in my name. It is purely consequential upon an Amendment which had been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn and which I was pleased to accept. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am perfectly happy with this Amendment. It is obviously right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Oram.)
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, with great respect I beg to repeat myself, much as I abhor repetition. One tries to be original in your Lordships' House, although sometimes only with the greatest difficulty. On this occasion, I repeat that my intervention is solely due to my objection to this obnoxious and objectionable piece of legislation. I want to be assured that in future, when the complications of this measure are realised by the general public, and particularly by consumers, that I can claim immunity as being in no way responsible. I refuse to encourage myself by any flattery that observations of mine would make sufficient impact on this audience to lead to a reversal of the decision already reached in acceptance of the Third Reading. That would be an extravagance of language, and one does not wish at this late stage in our proceedings to indulge in language of that kind.
During both the Committee stage and the Report stage, several complications were announced in advance. For that, I respect the candour of my noble friend the Minister who has been responsible for piloting this horrible piece of legislation through your Lordships' House. He has not sought to avoid a recognition of the consequences. Over and over again, he has made reference to them, as indeed he was bound to do. Indeed, I cannot recall in my long experience of Parliament which, if I may venture on a personal equation, now goes back 54 or 55 years—quite a long period—any piece of legislation which contained so much ambiguity, and was so lacking in

1353
specification and incisiveness. Of course, the purpose was embodied in the Bill—that was obvious—but the consequences were completely eradicated and brushed aside. Members of your Lordships' House who were present during the Committee and Report stages may recall that at no time did this Bill attract a very large audience. There was no remarkable enthusiasm for this Bill whatever the consumers outside, according to my noble friend the Minister, may have thought about it. Of their appreciation, or alleged appreciation, there was very scanty evidence in your Lordships' House. Indeed, if I may say so—again with respect, always with respect—there was a remarkable degree of ignorance about the matter and the likely result.
Let me take one or two examples. The latest example, which was in evidence at the Report stage, is about containers. One might suppose that the package to he developed is trifling—or the kind of cup or pot that might be introduced. A number of adjectives could be deployed here but I cannot think of all of them now. Perhaps they will occur to me after our deliberations have terminated. However, may I ask whether my noble friend will assure me that as this legislation proceeds towards its implementation it is not the intention of the Government to abandon the bottling of milk in glass bottles and to introduce cartons. If that is their intention, consumers will be very annoyed because cartons of milk placed on one's doorstep are vulnerable to birds and vermin, whereas glass bottles are immune. Consumers will be very much annoyed when they discover that the glass bottle, so familiar to them day by day, has been replaced by a carton which, as I have said, is very vulnerable, probably costs just as much as the glass bottle and is a quite unnecessary replacement. I want an assurance about that, and I want it all the more because the Minister was very doubtful about containers. It appears that there is to be a great variety of containers—I hope that my noble friend Lord George-Brown is quite well ?
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I was hoping that my noble friend might give way to me on the point of cartons as against bottles.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may we leave bottles for the moment? I hope that my noble friend Lord George-Brown is not incapacitated because I saw him moving along, bent and almost infirm, and I want to be assured that he is all right before I proceed, as I understand that he is capable of addressing himself to the subject? Very well, I give way to my noble friend now.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I wish only to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that he is quite wrong? Up to that point I had been enjoying his remarks. May I assure my noble friend that a carton of milk placed outside your door is virtually invulnerable to birds but that the metal cap of a bottle is invariably eaten by the birds before you can fetch it in indoors.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord George-Brown is acquainted with animal life, a subject with which 1 am not familiar. Very rarely do I attend the zoo; I have not the time. If I may proceed, that is one question I venture to ask. Now I ask myself this question, but as I cannot find the answer myself perhaps my noble friend or some other Member of your Lordships' House can furnish it. We are discussing a Weights and Measures Bill which is associated with the subject of metrication. That I understand. Is it not true that metrication and its consequences in the legislation now before your Lordships' House derives from our association with the European Community ?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, that is a negative answer from all those who are acquainted with the subject. Incidentally, I am aware that to address a hostile audience is never easy, although I have had experience of it. In the course of time I have managed to convert people but there has always been some difficulty in the process. I recognise that I am addressing a hostile audience, but I bear it with my customary fortitude. It may be that some Member of your Lordships' House will come to my rescue and even agree to act with me as a Teller if there is a Division. I cannot force a Division but I can do it with a duality, and if there is

1355
any offer I shall welcome it with the usual appreciation.
On the subject of the EEC, the last subject that I want to discuss, this morning I happened to read The Times newspaper. Why should one not read The Times newspaper ?
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before the noble Lord deals with the EEC, will he allow me to intervene ? Surely he is aware that practically every country in the world except six—I cannot remember their names, but not one of them is in North America or in Europe—is either metric or going metric and that the movement towards metrication has absolutely nothing to do with the European Community.
Lord SHINWELL: I do not accept the noble Lord's observation that metrication has nothing to do with the Community. If it had not been for our association with the Community we should not have had decimalisation, or metrication would 'la have been mentioned. Nor would we have had value added tax and a great many other consequences which are now worrying so many people not only in this country but in other Community countries. As for other countries going metric, although they may be going metric a great many of them are going mad. I am not so sure that we ought to follow the example of other countries. We should stand on our own feet. We are always being told to stand on our own feet and a little more patriotism on the part of noble Lords would be an advantage. There is too much of the cry of " stinking fish ". We are not, after all, a bad country. We are a very fine people indeed. I am glad to have had that applause. I seem to be making some progress.
As I say, this morning I read The Times newspaper and came across a statement made by Mr. Max van der Stoel, the Foreign Secretary of the Netherlands. Obviously he is a very important person, and he referred to the situation in which the EEC now finds itself. He pointed out that even as recently as the 1960s the original motto of the Community was—I am using his language, as reported in The Times newspaper:
" Completion, enlargement and strengthening "
1356
but he regretted that he had to say—here I quote him for it is not my language at all—that it has now developed into:
" stagnation, decline and escapism ".
He went on to say that there are obvious signs of disintegration and, further, that the Community did not present at present an exhilarating picture; there was a lack of imagination. This is very interesting language. It is also a very sad comment on the situation. It is as a result of the stagnation, disintegration and consequences of entering the Common Market that we are now faced with this piece of legislation. I object to it. Perhaps we can have an answer either from our own Foreign Secretary, or from one of his subordinates, or from some other Member of the Government, to the question: is this true ? Is this the situation with which we are now confronted? We ought to know. Anyhow I make it clear, although perhaps it is unnecessary to proceed because I see that I am not going to convince your Lordships or going to have a Teller along with me. The other day a Member of your Lordships' House came to me and said that he would support me, but he does not appear to have arrived.
A noble Lord : He has arrived, my Lords.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I did not expect that. You do not get support from your own Party; if you want support you have to look in another direction. Anyway, I am against this Bill. I oppose this legislation, and make it known to the general public and to the great body of consumers that I oppose it. I will not accept the consequences of this legislation. Those who are supporting it—Members of your Lordships' House, Members of another place, or at any rate a majority of them—I warn them : when the consumers begin to squeal and discover that their failure to get the quantity for which they pay, when they find that they have short weight and short measure they will blame those who are responsible, but it will not be me. I leave it at that.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I intervene at this point because at Second Reading I gave the Minister notice that I would be moving some Amendments which in fact I have not moved, and in case he feels that I have " cold feet " or

1357
have retreated—and I should not like my noble friend Lord Shinwell to feel that—I think that an explanation is necessary to your Lordships. The National Consumer Council have had consultations with the Minister, and I say this in your Lordships' House in the hope that the Minister has seen fit to accede to certain very moderate demands that they have made in regard to this Bill, soon to be an Act.
With my noble friend I reject utterly the suggestion that has been made on many occasions that only a few small countries are left—and it seems to me that it has always been spoken in some derision—still using imperial measures. I am now waiting to hear that we are one of the few countries to drive on a certain side of the road and that a changeover to conform in order to progress will not cost a penny. This is what we shall be told; this is what we have been told about metrication.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: Very sensible, too.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Exactly, my Lords. The noble Lord has already said, " Very sensible ", and that is the next thing we shall have to contend with. If you dare to say anything against it, you will be described as reactionary, backward-looking, in the Stone Age and so on. I would only sound a note of warning in support of those who said that there may be confusion. I have here a metric pack of a certain type of food which tells us that 500 grammes is equal to 1.10 lbs. We always used to have the pound expressed in a slightly different way; 1.10 of 1 lb. needs a little working out, but this is the first shot in the kind of labelling that we shall have to contend with and this is why the Consumer Council, on behalf of the consumers, sounded the note: " Let us go a little slower. Let us enter this thing so that no one is confused and certainly no one has the feeling of being cheated, and let us always wait until inflation is under control ". We have been promised that now in the "foreseeable future". With my noble friend, I feel that we may regret this change to metrication.
5.45 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, generally speaking, your Lordships' House is very
1358
much in tune with public opinion, certainly more so than the other place on a majority of occasions, but this Bill turns out to be an exception. The Press had given the impression that the official Opposition was going to oppose the Bill, which is why I only intervened very briefly on Second Reading, but the impression given was an erroneous one. The objections raised by the Opposition Front Bench were basically of a technical nature. The only serious opposition so far has come from three Backbenchers— admittedly three extremely distinguished BackBenchers—on the Government side of the House and I think it would be unfortunate if the public gained the impression that the opposition to this Bill came from one political quarter only.
Quite apart from the disadvantages to the consumer which have previously been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and indeed by the noble Lords, Lord Shinwell and Lord Wigg, it is the whole idea of compulsory metrication which I dislike. It is not a question of being " agin change " for the sake of being against change or opposing minor, sensible measures of harmonisation which do not destroy our traditions. For example, I would have no objection in principle to driving on the right hand side of the road if the change-over were thought to he financially advantageous to this country, because after all we have only been motoring for 80 years or thereabouts. For the same reason one could have no objection to petrol being dispensed in litres rather than in gallons, although I doubt whether it would help our export trade very much because petrol gauges are very rarely calibrated in exact multiples of a gallon. Similarly I should be only too delighted if electric razor points in this country were standardised with those available on the Continent. Nothing could be more of a nuisance than having to carry adaptors whenever one goes abroad.
Again, one could have no objection to not only wine being sold in litres and multiples of a centilitre but our gin and whisky—distilled in England and Scotland respectively—also, because of course very few people in this country ever think in terms of the fluid ounce, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, mentioned on the Second Reading of this Bill. But the inch, the foot, the yard, the mile;

1359
the ounce, the pound; the pint, the quart and the gallon are all part of our heritage —part of our way of life.
A noble Lord: And the acre.
Lord MONSON: And indeed the acre. I really believe that a great deal of the malaise and the disorientation and sense of bewilderment, and even possibly part of the crime rate in this country can be attributed to people having their familiar yardsticks, both literal and metaphorical, snatched away from them. It may be said that this is only a minor Bill which does not go so very far, but we all know where such small steps lead eventually. In South Africa it is now actually a criminal offence for any newspaper, magazine or other publication even to mention any form of imperial measurement. I do not believe that either major Party would go so far as to introduce such a draconian measure in this country but I cannot be absolutely sure, and for that reason alone, if for no other, I oppose this Bill.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, if at this stage we have two Tellers may I say why I will not go into their lobby. I do not think I have heard such irrelevant nonsense spoken in a hell of a long time. We are a nation—and I am at least as patriotic as my noble friend Lord Shinwell—and we are trying to conduct ourselves and to earn our living in a highly competitive world. What is the use of facing it with this word " tradition "? I do not know whether the noble Lord sitting behind me ever saw the musical called, " Fiddler on the Roof ". When the gentleman was asked to explain: " Why do we wear a hat on our heads? Why do we take our shoes off? " his answer was, " Tradition ". No better than that; it is tradition, but what use is tradition to us if the people with whom we are trading talk in terms of 500 grammes; if they talk in terms of litres? They know about kilometres. The noble Lord whose name unhappily I do not recall, speaks for a House of Lords which everybody is against—it is traditional, not belonging to the world in which we are living. My noble friend Lord Shinwell, as he well knows, loves to speak with his tongue in his cheek. He thoroughly enjoys it; he amuses us, and also annoys
1360
some of us somewhat. But he knew when he was Minister of Fuel, he knew when he was my Ministerial colleague, that we are dealing with the world in which we live; we have to deal with that world in terms which it understands.
The problem for most of us in this House—except my noble friend, of course —is that we are becoming older. We find it difficult to admit that the world is in the hands of younger people. It is, in fact, easier to teach one to ten than to teach nought to sixteen; it is much easier. It is easier to divide one to ten than nought to sixteen.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord ?
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: Well, my Lords, I will make just as much nuisance about it as did the noble Lord.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, recently we have been bragging, and quite rightly so, about the increase in our exports. Indeed, our export situation now is better than it has ever been, in volume and I think in price, but at any rate in volume. Has there ever been any difficulty because we still retain those old-fashioned ideas like the imperial pint, the ounce, the ton, and all the rest of it? Of course not. We are still exporting a vast amount of material every year to various countries. Does the noble Lord know of any country which has refused to trade with us, or to export to us, because we refused to accept metrication?
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord gave way to me and I contented myself with asking the question. I give way to him, and he gives the answer as well. Like the question, it is erroneous. The answer is, " Yes ". We deal differently with those to whom we export than when we deal internally. We have a different tonne when we are exporting. We use metric figures when we are exporting. We keep this old, traditional thing, and I hope we will, until the ex-Member for Easington finally is called to the Valhalla of our fathers, after which we shall not even need it for home purposes.
I am engaged in the export business. Do not let us kid ourselves about exporting in metric terms. If we did not do so we

1361
would not sell a blessed thing. We accommodate our customers—I am sorry; if my noble friend will listen. We accustom ourselves to our clients' requirements, or else we should never be in the sales business. My noble friend was once a salesman, and I was once a salesman. You do not get into that business unless you deliver in your customers' terms. If you deliver in your own terms, you do not sell a thing, it is as simple as that. I am sorry I intervened, because I came in late, but I was a little provoked by my noble friend, and then I found that he had found himself a Teller.
I want to make this absolutely plain. Of course, I am a European. My noble friend, who must come from Asia, Australia, or somewhere else, declares that he is not. I am a European. I confess that, but I do not believe it is bias that makes me say that if we want to live in this half of the 20th century, and if we want to live prosperously in the first half of the 21st century, we have to deal in the terms that our friends, our neighbours and our customers talk in. We had better give tradition a little bit the go by. It is nice to sing a song about; it is nice to go to church for, but when you are in business, do it the way that it is done by everybody else. In that case, I am for the Bill. I hope it will not be challenged, but if it is, for once in a while I shall be voting with the Government.
Lord CLITHEROE: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, agree that we do not export acres?
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, happily enough, we do not export land. But there is no problem for any normally educated farm manager who goes to seek a post abroad in turning acres into hectares. I will happily provide my noble friend, who was my honourable friend in the other place even though he sat on the other side, with a conversion table—
Lord CLITHEROE: My Lords, I have one.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN:—but I do not see the relevance of the question, because we are not selling our land. We must be able to use a conversion table so that we can talk about some of these
1362
things. Two and a quarter pounds will do for a kilogramme; something not awfully different will do for a hectare. This nation of shopkeepers, this nation of merchants, ought to be able very easily to learn simple conversion tables if we want to stay a nation of merchants. What the hell else we can be I do not understand.
5.57 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I am very surprised at the way we have gone over this subject again and again. We did it in Committee; we had Second Reading speeches then, and with all due respect to noble Lords, they have got worse and worse and more irrelevant and on more minor points. Broadly speaking, we can say that perhaps two of the more important things about metrication are, first, that our manufacturers have to manufacture in metric terms. This is vital in engineering, because one must get the sizes and threads right. They do not want to have to make two sizes. Secondly, for the future generation there are vast advantages. There are other things you can say about it, but I will not say them now. However, I will just make one further point.
My Lords, the last time I rose to speak, I wanted to speak about consumers but I did not, simply because the House had been rambling on for so long. But I will say—and I am sure it may save the Minister saying—that with the exception of the National Consumer Council, every consumer body, of which there is a large number, has expressed its opinion and has said: " We have decided to go in for metrication. For goodness sake!—let's get on with it in a sensible phased programme, and not drag our feet, because that is the worst thing for the consumer ". Having said that, you go on a straw pole. Do not for one moment imagine, or think that I imagine, that this is popular. It is not. It is just the same as when we changed over our coinage. It is not popular, and it is not very nice, but the people who are thinking in consumer terms want it, and want it to go on in a phased programme, not dragging our feet as we have done for the last few years.
5.59 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am, of course, in favour of the

1363
Bill, but there are a number of people who are extremely confused by it. It would seem to me that the Government should make even greater endeavours to explain it and to put at rest people's fears about the effects. My Lords, I was at a meeting this morning of the petrol industry, and a resolution came before that meeting in which was asked the question in relation to domestic sale of petrol—after all, we do not export any, and nor are we likely to export any, in other than tonnes—why should we have to sell petrol by the litre, 4·5609 litres to the gallon, or in other words at current prices 16·723p per unit, because it benefits nobody at all; so why should we make that change? I did not attempt to give an answer because I do not know the answer, but where people raise these questions I believe they are entitled to an answer. They are entitled to an answer in an endeavour to help them give support to the general system.
There is a fear that the quite dreadful circumstances that arose at the change to decimalisation will occur again. It is no good those of us who supported decimalisation saying, " Oh yes, there was a little bit of upset for a few days, but we soon got used to it ". That is prefectly true, but there were a lot of people who were quite unable to make the conversion and who were, to put it vulgarly, " had by the dishonest trader, and they fear this is going to happen again. As we progress with metrication, because, of course, we must for many of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lorge George-Brown, and the noble Viscount have given, ultimately it is going to make things a lot easier. Perhaps people of my age and people who are older will have to suffer inconvenience; but certainly in 10 or 15 years' time the young men of today who will be doing the trading will find everything so very much easier. But nobody is going to like any Government unless they understand completely and absolutely why this is being done, how it is going to benefit us, and how they are going to be protected. If I look at the consumer associations, obviously we are grateful for the kind of watchdog effect they have, but I do not believe that is really enough.
Just take one example. When we come to convert petrol pumps to litres—and I believe there are only three sites in the
1364
country currently converted—we are going to have to find something like £13 million or £15 million. The industry is going to find the money, but who is ultimately going to pay for it? Of course, the consumer is. Let us tell him here and now. It may be·04p per litre; I do not know what it will be. Let us make no mistake that the consumer knows that he is going to pay for that conversion, so that there will be no argument at the end of the day, " It is a swindle; I have been conned ". This is Government's responsibility, not consumer associations' responsibility. It is Government's responsibility to explain why and how, and exactly how the consumer is to be taught and protected against any deficiency that the change may make. I ask the Minister to give us that kind of assurance, that there will be a far better programme of education and re-education than the Metrication Board have so far managed to impose upon us.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I will be extremely brief, and I certainly will not indulge in a fourth—I believe it is now the fourth—Second Reading type of debate we have had on this Bill. I should like to start by offering the apologies of my noble friend Lord Elton who unfortunately has to be away today. He has seen the Bill through so far from our side. I also express apologies from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who wanted to say a few words. I am afraid the number of speakers overtook him and he had to leave.
My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for the way he has taken this Bill through the House and for the consideration he has given us. I should also like to thank the members of his Department, who were most courteous and extremely helpful to us in the moving of our Amendments. On this side of the House we are not entirely happy with this Bill, as stated earlier, but due to the Amendments that have been accepted we feel that it is a much better Bill than when it started. On that brief note, I will conclude.
6.6 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, this is not the first occasion during the various stages of this Bill that opposition to it has been voiced by my noble friend Lord Shinwell,

1365
and not the first time that he has rallied a certain amount of support from other noble Lords. Today he has used such harsh words—in which he is an expert—about this Bill that I shall forever treasure the fact that hidden somewhere in Hansard during the proceedings on this Bill are some kind personal words that he said about me. But I do say to him that I really believe that he is utterly mistaken in his whole attitude to this Bill. It is a Bill which is desirable in order that this country can get in line with international practice, and, above all, that we can abandon, gradually and in an orderly fashion, the situation in which we now are of operating two systems side by side, the imperial system and the metric system.
I said in the Second Reading speech that this Bill does not have as its purpose the legalisation of the metric system. That was done in 1897. The metric system has been legal all of the life of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. He urged again today, as he did on earlier occasions, that consumers are against this. He apologised for repeating himself. I apologise, in replying to him, for I must repeat myself. All the evidence that we have from consumer organisations is that they are as eager as the Government that these changes should take place. I urge him to realise that these organisations do in fact study these things closely from the point of view of the people that my noble friend has earnestly in mind; namely, the consumers. Having studied them closely, they come up with the advice to the Government that we should proceed with the changes brought about by this Bill in as orderly a way as we possibly can.
My noble friend refers to the complexities of these matters. It is true they are complex. But I would urge him to realise that what is being done by this Bill is the setting up of flexible machinery—that is all—under which orders will be brought forward, one at a time, to deal with particular pieces of metrication, as consultations have taken place with the organisations affected and as the Government find themselves with the go-ahead, having had those consultations about particular commodities. It will be during that process that these complexities, about which my noble friend is rightly anxious, can be further examined and further explained.
1366
May I take up, at this stage, the point quite rightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who urges upon us the need for an educational programme for consumers. I am entirely with him, and again this is a point that has been made on a number of occasions during earlier stages of the Bill. We are aware that this is not something that the public can take on overnight. There will be the need for publicity and educational efforts of a considerable variety. I referred to the work that has so far been done by the Metrication Board at the level of industry. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, the chairman of the Metrication Board, is fully apprised of the fact that we are now embarking on a new phase, where the consumers will become much more directly involved in these matters. I have no doubt that his Board will be aware of this and will step up their educational programme in accordance with that need.
May I turn again to my noble friend Lord Shinwell, because he asked two specific points to which I would wish to reply. I can assure him that this Bill has nothing whatever to do with the change from milk bottles to milk cartons. Again, earlier I was asked by a noble Lord opposite whether the pint in respect of the milk trade would continue. I gave that assurance on that occasion; I give it again now. It is an illustration of the care with which the Government consult all the interests concerned, and in this case the dairy industry has been fully consulted.
The second point that my noble friend raised was the connection between what we are doing with this Bill and our membership of the European Economic Community. Again I am guilty of repetition in telling my noble friend that there is no connection between our membership of the European Economic Community and this Bill. This would have come along irrespective of our membership of Europe. I again remind him that on Second Reading I pointed out that the whole question was examined very thoroughly by the Hodgson Committee in 1950—and before this country's membership of the EEC had been raised—and that an official, thorough and careful examination of the question came down wholeheartedly in favour of the measures that now, more than 25 years' later, we are taking. It is

1367
true, of course, that there are connections with legislation that is going on in Brussels, but these are coincidental in time and need to be dealt with in parallel. Of course there are connections, but I reject categorically any suggestion that this Bill is caused by our membership of the European Economic Community.
My noble friend Lady Phillips referred to points she had made earlier, and I entirely accept what she says, that although she had indicated that she might wish to bring forward Amendments at a later stage and subsequently decided not to do so, this was in no way a sign of cold feet. I entirely accept this because I am aware that she informed your Lordships' House that the National Consumer Council is engaging still further in discussions with the Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, and is pursuing in those discussions with him, the points which my noble friend made during the Second Reading. No doubt some satisfaction—perhaps not 100 per cent. satisfaction—will be the outcome of those talks, and no doubt again, if final satisfaction does not arise, there will be the opportunity in another place for Amendments to be put forward.
One other point my noble friend urged was that the pace of these changes should be slower. I have said on earlier occasions, and in fact again this evening, that the practical action arising out of this Bill will be by orders over time, and the pace at which the Government bring in those orders will still be open for discussion with the interests concerned. Therefore, my noble friend can rest assured that by passing this Bill tonight we do not close the door to consideration of the problems she has in mind; that is to say, the pace at which these changes can take place. But I think it would be less than frank of me if I did not say that, in my view—and I believe I speak here for my right honourable friend—we would wish to make progress in this matter as quickly as is consistent with orderly progress and with consumer information and clarity in accordance with the points that a number of noble Lords have raised.
I think I need make only two concluding remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, in an interesting speech, raised a number of detailed points, which I
1368
think he will concede might more appropriately have been raised at an earlier stage, although he explained why he preferred to make them here. He suggested that in some way we might have metric for some things and imperial for others. I would urge him to think that this would lead to an unnecessary confusion. It is this continuing of two systems which we believe to be, in the long term, erroneous, and it is the eradication of the two systems side by side which we are planning.
I finish by thanking my noble friend Lord George-Brown for his intervention, and agree wholeheartedly with him on one of his main points when he says that we are dealing with younger people. In all the complexities of argument what stands out in my mind is that, whatever we, the 60-year-olds, the 70-year-olds, the 80-year-olds, and the 90-year-olds, may think, it is what is best for the 10-year-olds and 20-year-olds which matters—people whose education ought to be on rational lines, and who ought not to spend a lot of time learning both systems when we know that ultimately they will need to apply only one system. We hear of young people learning the metric system in their schools and then, because of the delay in these matters, when they get out into the world and in order to pursue the trades they want to pursue, they have to go back to learning the imperial system. If we are in that sort of situation, surely this is a very strong argument in the interests of the youth of our country that we should proceed as quickly as is consistent with good, orderly progress. I have no hesitation whatever in urging your Lordships to pass this Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill)The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill) moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Right of husband to cite paramour as a co-defender and to sue for damages abolished.
(".—(1) After the commencement of this Act the following rights of a husband shall be abolished, that is to say—
(a)the right to cite a paramour of his wife as a co-defender in an action for divorce, and
(b)the right to claim or to obtain damages (including solatium) from a paramour by way of reparation.
(2)Nothing in the provisions of the foregoing subsection shall preclude the court from awarding the expenses of the action for or against the paramour in accordance with the practice of the court.
(3)Section 7 of the Conjugal Rights (Scotland) Amendment Act 1861 (citation of a co-defender in an action for divorce and decree for expenses against him) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: I will, with the permission of the Committee, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which are related. The main purpose of these Amendments is contained in subsection (1) of the new clause. The subsection abolishes, first, the right of a husband to cite his wife's lover or paramour as a co-defender in an action for divorce, and, secondly, the husband's right to obtain damages for financial loss arising from the adultery, such as the expenses of the divorce action and solatium for his wounded feelings. Subsection (2), which is consequential on subsection (1), makes it clear that where an alleged paramour intervenes in a divorce action to contradict the allegation of adultery, then the court may award expenses for or against him or her in accordance with its normal practice; in other words, expenses will normally follow success. If the alleged paramour is successful in contradicting the allegation, he will normally be awarded expenses; and if he is unsuccessful, he will be liable for the expenses arising from his intervention in the process. Subsection (3) is consequential on paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and repeals Section 7 of the Conjugal
1370
Rights (Scotland) Amendment Act 1861 which entitles a husband to cite his wife's paramour in a divorce action.
As I said in the debate on Second Reading, these Amendments implement the main recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission in their Report on liability for adultery and enticement of a spouse, which was made after extensive consultations and was laid before Parliament by the Lord Advocate on 23rd June, 1976. I need not rehearse at length the arguments for abolition, which are fully canvassed in the Commission's Report. The Commission argued that the action for damages was anachronistic; that it had no deterrent effect and did not in practice protect family relations and the stability of married life; that if the action were used, it would encourage malicious and vindictive claims; that it is not consistent with the social policy of this Bill, which treats adultery as a sympton of marriage breakdown rather than as a civil wrong and recognises the compexity of the causes of breakdown; and that if the action were encouraged, it might lead to blackmailing actions in which the threat of publicity is used to force a settlement. The action also infringes the principle of sex equality, since a wife cannot claim damages from a woman with whom her husband has committed adultery. Rather than remove this element of discrimination, it is better to abolish the action altogether.
For much the same reasons, the Commission argued that the husband's right to cite the paramour as a co-defender and claim the whole expenses of a divorce action should be abolished. As the Commission point out, awards of expenses against a co-defender are currently treated as a species of damages for financial loss suffered by the husband, and although awards of expenses against co-defenders are not infrequent, they are open to much the same objections as damages for solatium or damages awarded for other forms of financial loss. It seems wrong to unload liability for all the expenses of the divorce action on a paramour when the breakdown of the marriage may have quite different causes. Abolition would, incidentally, stop the present unsatisfactory practice whereby the Legal Aid (Scotland) Fund meets awards of expenses against legally-aided co-defenders. As the Commission point out :

1371
" It is not the function of the legal aid fund to relieve people of liability for their delicts ".
These provisions represent a further step in the progressive modernisation of Scottish family law, and they further promote the social policy underlying the main provisions of the Bill. For these reasons, I trust that they will receive the approval of the Committee.
6.27 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved as an Amendment to Amendment No. 1:
In subsection (2) line 3 after (" paramour ") insert (" or alleged paramour ").
The noble Earl said: In moving my Amendment to the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has just moved, 1 wish to make it clear that I am in full agreement with his Amendment. It is high time that the 1861 Act was repealed. My Amendment is purely drafting. I am suggesting that subsection (2) should read:
"…awarding the expenses of the action for or against the paramour or the alleged paramour …"
One could not rightly assume that all co-defendants are necessarily paramours. That may not be the case. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will agree to this Amendment.
Lord KIRKHILL: I fully accept that the Amendment to the Amendment is a considerable improvement.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
6.28 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
" (3) So much of section 11 of, and Schedule 1 to, this Act as affects the operation of section 16 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 shall extend to England and Wales and to Northern Ireland as well as Scotland, but save as aforesaid this Act shall extend to Scotland only.".
The noble Earl said: Subsection (3) says that the Bill shall extend only to
1372
Scotland. In one particular it does not, and that is in regard to maintenance orders. It is clear that maintenance orders under this Bill must be enforced in England and in Northern Ireland, and that is the purpose of the Amendment; it brings the financial arrangements under the Bill into line with those of the 1950 Act and the Succession Act of 1964. I suggest that it would be convenient for me to mention at this stage that Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 are consequential.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Enactments amended]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 3, at end insert—
" 1. In section 16(2)(b)(i) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950, for the words " under section 26 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 " there shall be substituted the words " an order for the payment of a periodical allowance under section 26 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 or section 5 of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976.".
The noble Earl said: This is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to
Schedule 2 [Enactments repealed]:
6.29 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 10, line 23, at beginning insert—

("6 Geo. 4.c.120

The Court of Session Act 1825.

In section 28 the words " or adultery ".")

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the Amendment. I beg formally to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 10, line 25, after (" and "") insert—

(" 24 & 25Vict.c. 86

Conjugal Rights(Scotland) Amendment Act 1861.

Section 7.")

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the Amendment. I beg formally to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 10, line 36, in column 3, leave out ("except subsection (6) ")
The noble Earl said: This is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

RIVER MEDWAY (FLOOD RELIEF) BILL
Reported with Amendments.