Lords Sitting of 4 April 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

INSPECTORATE FOR SCHOOLS
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent the total numbers of Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Schools have been reduced since 1st January 1974, and whether the present strength of Her Majesty's Inspectorate is below the target establishment figure.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, the number of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in England declined from 443 at 1st January 1974 to 404 at 1st January 1979, at which dates the Inspectorate's target establishment was 478 and 430, respectively. Numbers in post have not been deliberately reduced, but reflect particularly the difficulty of recruiting people who possess the combination of personal qualities, experience and qualifications which the Inspectorate requires. The reduction of the target establishment figure was made within the context of the Government's policy of restraining the size of the public services, and in the light of the number of Her Majesty's Inspectors that might realistically be achieved in the immediate future.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but how can there really be any confidence that the Government's commitment to improving educational standards can be maintained when, at the same time, the numbers of the Inspectorate have been allowed to fall? I appreciate the diffi-
1898
culties which the noble Lord mentioned in his reply, but I must ask what steps are now being taken to put matters right.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the decline in the number of Her Majesty's Inspectors arose first because of restraints on Civil Service manpower in the early 1970s, when the noble Lord was, I think, Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department of Education and Science. The Department prevented recruitment from filling the gaps created by retirements and other losses, then reflecting a post-war peak. Since that time there have not been enough applicants of sufficient quality who possess the necessary combination of experience, qualifications and personal qualities to replace those leaving the Inspectorate. In answer to the second half of the noble Lord's supplementary question, in 1977–78, 30 inspectors were recruited, compared with 23 in 1976–77. We are hoping that numbers will come closer to the target figure during the next 12 months. Already 15 recruits have joined this year as a result of three competitions. There are four major competitions planned for June and July, and we hope to see the numbers rise.
Baroness BACON: My Lords—
Baroness GAITSKELL: Surely, my Lords, the criterion is not just the number of inspectors. Surely, in some ways it is the least important of the criteria that we should apply when talking about education. I apologise to my noble friend.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. That is the point I am trying to make. If we could get more inspectors we would do so provided their quality was of an order that we think adequate.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, is it not a fact that the party opposite has said that it is going to reduce public expenditure; and, therefore, if the party opposite comes to power in the next few weeks, is it not likely that we shall see a further reduction in these figures?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I think it is not unlikely, I have to confess. But if, in

1899
fact, the party opposite were to take over the educational reins—if such an unfortunate event should happen—they would find that there is no shortage of cash put aside for the recruitment of Her Majesty's Inspectors. The shortage is of bodies.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is still overlapping between Her Majesty's Inspectors' duties and those of inspectors appointed by the local authorities, especially in London; and would it not be a good thing to concentrate Her Majesty's Inspectors on research and on helping the Secretary of State in policy matters?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I think the main function of Her Majesty's Inspectors must be inspection. There is no intention to alter that. As to the relationship with local authority inspectors, I must ask the noble Viscount to put down a Question for Written Answer, which I or a colleague will answer in due course, perhaps.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, as we seem to be on the edge of the hustings at the moment, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that his replies reveal that both the numbers of and the target for the Inspectorate have fallen during the period of office of his Government, and that that is nothing whatsoever to be proud of? At the same time, may I thank the noble Lord for the information which he has given and ask him this further question: If the reply which the noble Lord last gave was that the main function of the Inspectorate is to inspect, can the noble Lord give me the number of full inspections of schools which Her Majesty's Inspectorate are now able annually to carry out?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: First, my Lords, I have exhibited no pride at the difficulty of getting inspectors of an adequate standard, and I think it wrong to suggest that I have. Secondly, in 1976, the last year for which figures are available, Her Majesty's Inspectors visited about a quarter of all maintained primary schools and two-thirds of all maintained secondary schools—which is a fairly high record.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to withdraw the "perhaps" from his reply to an earlier supplementary question? Is he aware that all Ministers will continue to draw their pay until polling day?—which gives another four weeks in which there is time adequately to reply to any Question which might be put down.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I shall be delighted to answer any Questions put to me during the next four weeks. I had thought that the noble Viscount might be very busy during that period.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, would the Minister agree that a very satisfactory fact has emerged, at any rate to Members on the Cross-Benches, that both main parties, and no doubt the Liberals too, realise that one of the most important things that have happened since the war is the improvement in standards which the Inspectorate has been able, by one means or another, to achieve? It is most important that, whoever is returned to office, this improvement should be resumed or continued.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and when we return to office we shall do exactly as he says.

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
2.46 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference at Geneva.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, it is too early to say what progress will be made at the current Geneva session, which lasts until 27th April. Previous sessions achieved widespread consensus on many aspects of a possible new convention, but key issues, including agreement on an

1901
international régime for deep seabed mining, remain to be negotiated.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, have not these discussions been going on now for 15 years? Is it not the basis of the dispute that Governments which have multinational companies seek to exploit minerals while the developing countries have a desire to see them used for all in accordance with the 1970 United Nations declaration that the oceans should be the common heritage of mankind? Can the noble Lord say, if this international authority is established, that there will be arrangements for the transference of technology from multinational companies to that international authority?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is the Government's policy that a future Law of the Sea Convention should provide for reasonably assured access for States, public corporations and private companies as well as the proposed international enterprise. Access would be on a completely non-discriminatory basis although on clearly defined conditions. As to the question of a possible transfer of technology to the international enterprise, I am glad to reassure my noble friend who has shown such interest in this matter that the United Kingdom delegation, joined by other delegations, recently put forward proposals to facilitate, on certain terms and conditions, access by the international enterprise to deep seabed mining technology; so we are within measurable distance of achieving the objective behind the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question. I should like to add that we are also advocating, not without considerable support, the formation of training schemes to enable developing countries' staff on the international enterprise to play their full part when such an enterprise is formally instituted.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that reply more than the previous one, may I ask whether the Government will support any unilateral action by Governments in this sphere as has been indicated in a Bill introduced in the American Congress?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could not, of course, answer for the parliamentary or other govern-
1902
mental institutions of another member State engaged in these discussions. What I can say is that, as advised, we do not believe that extant and possibly interim measures of this kind will affect the emergence of an acceptable international authority.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, if agreement cannot be reached in the foreseeable future on the very difficult matter of the seabed mining régime, can the noble Lord tell us whether the Government have plans for proposing that the many other subjects on which agreement has been reached should form the basis of a convention which need not be held up?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that option—I cannot call it a decision yet because negotiations are proceeding on the basis of some of the points that occurred to the noble Lord —is very present to our minds. I have said before, with the full consensus of the Government, that if a fully comprehensive convention proved to be impossible, we should all have to consider whether what we have achieved (which is not insignificant, as the noble Lord knows as well as anybody) could be formalised into a convention that would serve the world very well indeed, however marginally short it fell of the national desires of countries such as ours. The point made is very present to our minds.

POHANG STEEL MILL AND OVERSEAS AID
2.49 p.m.
Lord ELTON: 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 the construction of the 447,000 tonne capacity steel mill recently completed at Pohang in South Korea by a British consortium was supported by British official aid, and, if so, to what extent.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, no.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that admirably brief reply, and in so doing accepting that none of the £1·1 million of net transfers which have gone from this country to South Korea in the last five years has been devoted to that, may I ask this further question: When an opportunity arises for Her Majesty's Government in their overseas development aid programme to give a grant-in-aid or other support to a project in manufacturing industry in which in this country there is considerable unemployment, what weight do they give to considerations of the effect of the coming into production of that plant upon exports and jobs in this country?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government always consider that, and that matter is always in the forefront. Of course, we have to give aid to developing countries in varying kinds of ways. In this case, if we are dealing with steel, we consider the interests of the steel plant workers against the background of the international steel market and the British steel industry.

SPECTACLE FRAMES: PRICE COMPETITION
2.50 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the recommendation from the Price Commission that competitive price display should be introduced in respect of spectacle frames.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the General Optical Council has been invited to give its views on the Price Commission's observation about the effect of publicity restrictions on competition within the ophthalmic industry. My right honourable friend is awaiting the Council's response before deciding whether further action is called for.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether Her
1904
Majesty's Government are in favour of separating the professional task of prescribing lenses from the purely commercial task of selling spectacle frames, many of which are for cosmetic purposes? Is he aware that the spectacles I am wearing cost me eight dollars in the United States —that is £4—and would cost at least £20 in this country? Does not that give an indication of the extent of racketeering in this profession?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in its report on the Dolland and Aitchison group, the Price Commission suggested that that separation mentioned by the noble Lord was a matter which the ophthalmic industry should itself examine. Interested organisations were sent copies of the report, and they have now been asked for their views.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government at least have an opinion about this recommendation—that there is some force in recommending this separation of the two tasks of the optician—and would they not be prepared to urge the Optical Council to take a favourable view of the recommendation?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would have no hesitation in saying that, when he sees them, it is the intention of my right honourable friend to urge the separation.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, will the Government at least make it clear that they strongly believe that the encouragement of genuine competition is far more likely to keep down prices than the exercise of price control?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that I regard the power of the opticians to be able to put forward an order in council which prevents the display of prices in optical shops as something which is medieval and not in accordance with our time. May I remind the noble Lord that they have the power to do that under an Act of Parliament of 1958 when his party was in office. We see, therefore, that that was one of the sad things done during the 13 wasted years.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, as the noble Lord's party opposite has been in power for 20 years, bar about four, why did they not put it right?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, you cannot expect us, even in 20 years, to put right all the sins of the party opposite.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a.

APPROPRIATION BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliamentary Act 1911; read 1a.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended pursuant to Resolution of 2nd April: Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; read 3a, and passed.

GAIRLOCH PIERS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

FINANCE BILL
Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended pursuant to Resolution of 2nd April:
2.58 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord McCluskey).
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, even today it would not be inappropriate if the formality of the passage of these Bills were interrupted briefly by a few words on something as important as the Finance Bill. Usually, as your Lordships will be aware, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill provides the House with an opportunity for a general economic debate. I am not suggesting for one moment that this would be appropriate today. That debate is about to be taken to the country, and at this time in our affairs that is where it should be taken.
There are one or two matters which might be stated. In this and other economic debates that we have had in the House we have over the past couple of years welcomed the improvement which has taken place in our financial economy. However, we have also deplored the lack of improvement in what is called these days our real economy; that is, the performance and strength of our industrial and business life. Here we must record a history of great failure. The total level of national production in this country in manufacturing industry has even now barely reached—or perhaps just now surpassed—the level of 1973 or even the beginning of 1974 when we were unfortunately on a three-day week. Our productivity, as opposed to overall production, in this country is still woefully low and in these last five years has fallen still further behind the productivity in other countries. It is not so many years ago that the average output of the British worker in manufacturing industry was about half as big again as that of the German worker or the French worker. On average, it is today probably 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. less than the output of the average German or French worker.

1907
In the last five years national productivity in manufacturing industry has risen by a mere 3½ per cent., whereas earnings in that period in manufacturing industry have risen by no less than 120 per cent. You do not have to look much further than the enormous increase in money earnings between, on the one hand, 120 per cent. and the almost infinitesimal increase, on the other hand, of 3½ per cent., to see the reason for the loss of competitive power of British industry, and why it is so impossible to stimulate growth in our economy without sucking in imports rather than pushing out the output of our own manufacturing industry.
Over the last two years we have had a series of debates in your Lordships' House on some of the most fundamental problems facing British industry. The last one was as recently as a week ago today, when we had a debate on industrial innovation. In all these debates, as well as in our general economic debates over all these years, noble Lords on this side of the House, and many noble Lords in all parts of the House, have expressed their belief in the need for creating some radical changes in our economic and industrial environment. There can be no doubt that one of the main issues in which such radical change is required is in the level and system of personal taxation in this country.
This Finance Bill brings about for our people some minor reductions at least to take account of inflation during the last year. Over the last two years, we recognise that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has at least been moving in the direction of bringing personal taxes downwards rather than continuing to put them upwards; but the measure of the mammoth scale of increase in personal taxation brought about in the lifetime of this Government is shown by the fact that merely in order to bring down the level of taxation to what it was when this Government took office five years ago would require a further £2,000 million of tax reductions. That is one of the reasons for the very grave lack of performance in the real industrial economy in this country. In letting this Bill through, we simply want to express our deep conviction that until a Government will do something about this, nothing else will produce results.
3.5 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I think it would be appropriate for someone from these Benches to say just a few words about this Bill, and perhaps in doing so I might support in one or two regards what the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, had to say. Certainly, with him, we lament the failure of Government policies in the last few years to help in improving our performance in relation to productivity within industry. Like him, we continue to feel that there needs to be some reduction in the levels of direct taxation.
It continues to be our belief also that until such time as the major parties are prepared to analyse and together confront our major industrial and economic problems, it will be difficult to solve them. I think your Lordships will find that this will be a major theme in the discussions and contentions put forward in the forthcoming General Election.
For the rest, I am happy, on behalf of my noble friends, to support the passage of this Bill, given its limited objectives to maintain for the time being present levels of taxation and the other changes that have been agreed, until such time as a new Administration can be formed which will be able to introduce a full Budget at an appropriate time after the forthcoming Election.
3.6 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, the deterioration which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, mentioned in our productive effort did not suddenly begin in 1974; in fact, it has been going on for well over half a century, and it has been going on in a period when taxation was nothing like at the level it is now, and there was no improvement in our productive effort. So merely to say that the present problem is caused by high taxation is sheer nonsense.
Is it not the case also, when we think in terms of taxation, that a great deal of it has gone towards improving the level of training for apprenticeship for skills which have been neglected for a great many years? Is it not also the case that those who have gained perceptibly from the policies of this Government are retired

1909
old-age pensioners and people who cannot fend for themselves? I should have thought that the Government's record in expenditure on the social services in general is something of which we can all be very proud; and when we look at what the side opposite did, they should be very ashamed.
3.7 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend addresses himself to what we have heard from the other side of the House, may I offer a few observations? I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Carr, frequently, and I often admire his clarity of expression, but I am going to be quite frank and forthright today. What he said was just a load of rubbish. I could not be clearer than that or more factual than that: just a load of rubbish. I have a long experience of political life and of industrial life, and I can recall episodes in the industrial history of this country when there was vast unemployment, reaching almost to the figure of 3 million, and when there was a trade recession of a phenomenal character; yet at the same time taxes remained as they were.
Let me put before your Lordships' House a submission. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said in his short speech that what was required was a reduction in personal taxation, in order to promote greater competition and higher productivity. That is what he said. If he had mentioned a reduction in taxation that bears heavily with a phenomenal weight in industry itself, I could have understood it. But supposing that the personal taxation of every Member of your Lordships' House, including many industrialists, was reduced, does anyone suppose that would cause greater competition against our formidable competitors or that it would lead to greater productivity? Does anybody suppose it would have that effect? It would probably lead to higher consumption: that is what would happen. Those who were disturbed by what is called excessive personal taxation and were unable to consume goods of high quality at high prices would utilise the benefits derived from reduced taxation by consuming more of the goods they would like to use. That is what would
1910
happen. It would have no other effect at all.
Why does anybody with such intelligence as the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, talk like that? I could understand if he was trying to do a little bit of electioneering, but I would not suppose that that was at all in his mind; it would be far from his mind. It would be quite improper, anyhow. This is not the appropriate occasion. Of course, if it were the appropriate occasion I might offer a few observations on the subject myself, having contested up to 20 elections in the course of this century. But I prefer that it should be otherwise.
I hope that we are not going to hear this kind of stuff in the course of the Election. Let us concentrate on the facts of life. We are in a potentially technological era. We have not reached the peak, or anything like it. God knows what will happen when we do! But we have to take into account automation, we have to take into account the fact that many employers would probably employ more people if they were not called upon, whenever they employ an additional worker, to pay National Insurance at a high level. These are some of the factors that operate to our disadvantage. The noble Lord need not interrupt; I am coming to my conclusion, and probably it is about time. Do not let us hear any more of that kind of stuff.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, may I point out one fact? I do not want to argue with the noble Lord. I said that this was one of the measures; not the only one. Secondly, will the noble Lord recall that only a week ago today we debated a report on industrial innovation, by a committee of which his noble friend the Leader of the House is chairman. This is apt in relation to what the noble Lord said about the technological revolution. One of the conclusions of that report was that a reduction in personal taxation was one of the most fundamental things needed in order to stimulate this industrial revolution. Those were the views of a committee presided over by his noble friend the Leader of the House.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, my only reply, since the interrogation seems to be addressed to me, is this. I can recall what happened before the first

1911
World War when we had a trade recession of a phenomenal character, which would almost have led to a revolutionary situation had there not been an outbreak of war. I can remember 1931, arising out of the American financial recession, and the situation in this country which was partly a reaction. We have incidents of that kind. There are all kinds of reasons, with inflation, for a lack of productivity, and—I have advocated this many times in your Lordships' House and even in the other place—if there were a little more co-operation in the industrial era, a little more merging and, perhaps, a better understanding and the production of goods of higher quality, such as we can do and as we used to do, then we might be better off.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, I hope that there may be room for a Cross-Bencher for just a few minutes. I should like to say that, as long as we have a Government which has to borrow anything from £8,000 million to £12,000 million a year, we cannot expect anything but running inflation, and as long as that continues and a clamp is put on wages there is bound to be extreme industrial discontent. I never remember a time since 1926 when the whole population of this country has been so incredibly fed-up. I think my noble friend Lord Carr was entirely right.
I have recently had some conversations with a German doctor abroad, and he told me that Germany is full of English doctors. My wife has recently spoken to a Norwegian who, quite independently and in another country, expressed astonishment that Norway is full of English doctors. The BBC has run a programme on English doctors in Holland. There is no doubt that they are going abroad. The head of the Royal College of Surgeons recently told me that only a relatively small percentage of the entry for the Royal College of Surgeons consists of British students. It is not worth learning special skills, taking special trouble or risks or showing enterprise to do anything in our country while this situation continues. Taxation is too high, the population is too discouraged, and industrial discipline is at an extremely low level. The fact that British Leyland has to make Japanese cars is a monstrous occurrence. I hope that it will be successful but, really, it is the writing on the wall.
1912
In conclusion, I want to say that what I believe our countrymen really want to see is a state of affairs in which the parties are more interested in setting our country on the right lines and enabling it to change from the bad direction in which we are now going—because we are still heading towards the rocks. I think that we should like to see a certain co-operation between the parties on all those matters about which they could agree, in order to enable us to recover. I believe that there is a huge consensus. I know that this is the wrong moment to say so, just before an election, but I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the House will write these remarks on their hearts, because otherwise this country is going on downwards.
3.17 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Carr, thought he was opening the election campaign in your Lordships' House, or whether he merely wanted to go on record as stating as a conviction something which he wanted us to believe rested upon a volume of evidence. There is really no evidence. There may be beliefs and there may be strong feelings, but there is really no evidence that the level of taxation by itself is an explanation of a number of the economic and social ills that the noble Lord described.
I think that all who talk about the present level of taxation, and the measures to be taken to alleviate the level of taxation, should be more specific about the remedies that they would propose. When the noble Lord and other members of the Conservative Party talk about shifting taxation from direct to indirect taxation, we are entitled to know where it would be shifted to and what would be the burden that was shifted. Then we should get some idea of how much was to be taken off the burden of direct taxation, and placed, in the form of indirect taxation, upon the shoulders of a large section of the community who are not at present paying income tax at all. One has to be careful that the shift that is made is not from the better off to the much worse off section of the community.
Another aspect of the matter—I shall be very brief—is the subject of reductions in public expenditure. The noble Lord's

1913
Leader, Mrs. Thatcher, in a television broadcast the other evening, said that every pound taken in public expenditure means one less pound to be spent on the things we need, such as food, the maintenance of the car, the mortgage and other amenities of life. But one might equally say that every pound spent in consumer expenditure means one pound less for a better Health Service, longer queues to get into hospitals and less care for the elderly, the sick and the disabled. After all, there is in the lives of the people at all levels an equation to be struck between social provision and personal consumption. Many people these days seem to ignore the great value to them of social expenditure which, after all, is paid for in the form of taxation. So let us have a balanced argument about this, if we are to have one at all.
I am not sure what little mischievous thoughts were in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, when he got up. I do not know whether he hoped to get away with a statement of his convictions as being a statement of fact, or whether he really wanted to start an argument. Obviously this is neither the time nor the day for us to conduct a full-dress debate, but those who provoke others ought to take the consequences, however brief they may be.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I understand that I have a right of reply, although I am astonished to find that I am called upon to exercise it, as I had understood that the proceedings in relation to this Bill would, as normally, be formal.
The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, was quite right when he said that the debate is to be taken to the country, and it is a pity that he did not sit down after making that remark. If the noble Lord and his friends take this debate to the country, I hope that in the course of their campaign they will not try to over-simplify the issues, as he has done today, or indulge in bidding for votes on the basis of slogans like, "Cutting Taxes". As my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has just said, it will not do to say, "Cut Taxes" without explaining how, without increasing the public sector borrowing requirement, one is going to save money on other services.
Is the noble Lord going to specify at some stage whether his party will reduce
1914
expenditure on the police, or on hospitals, or on education, or on housing, or on defence? When over-simplified remarks of this kind are made and when assertions like this emanate from the Benches opposite, I wish that the noble Lord would tell us, and the country, where the cuts are to be made in the public services financed out of this very taxation.
We have had a number of general economic debates and debates on specific problems to which reference has been made. Your Lordships will not want me to repeat anything which was said in the course of those debates, but I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, making these same points, with more specificity, from the place that he occupies now in about six weeks' time, and to giving him an adequate reply.
I can confirm what my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton said— and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, has repeatedly demonstrated it in the course of debates geared to economic matters in this House: the problems of productivity and of economic performance in this country are not new; they have been with us for perhaps more than half a century. Lord Kaldor has given a specification which shows that the problems have been real and observable for something like a century.
It will not help the passage of this Bill or, indeed, anyone in your Lordships' House if I continue the kind of wrangle and assertion which has been going on this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
3.23 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [98] as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Page 4, line 20, leave out ("£815") and insert ("£1,500")
2 Page 4, line 22, leave out first ("such") and insert ("one quarter of the excess or such other")
3 Page 4, line 24, leave out ("£365") and insert("£1,200")
4 Page 7, line 25, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection(6A)")
5 Page 7, line 27, leave out ("(6A)") and insert ("(6B)")
6 Page 8, line 28, leave out ("£815") and insert ("£1,500")
7 Page 8, line 30, leave out first ("such") and insert ("one quarter of the excess or such other")
8 Page 8, line 32, leave out ("£365") and insert ("£1,200")
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.1 to 8 en bloc. Amendments Nos.1, 3, 6 and 8 take account in England, Wales and Scotland of the improvements in the income and capital limits for free legal aid which are due to come into effect on 6th April. The regulations making these improvements, which will make legal aid available to over 70 per cent. of households with two parents and two children, were approved by the House after the Bill was introduced, and therefore it is necessary to amend the figures in the Bill.
When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill on 8th February, I said that it was an essential part of the package of improvements in the financial conditions for legal aid and that it would enable me to reduce the amount of a person's legal aid contribution by regulation. I also said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I intended to use this power to reduce the contribution fraction from one-third to one-quarter. Thus, instead of a person's contribution being one-third of the difference between the new free income limit and his disposable income, it would be only one-quarter. Amendments Nos.2 and 7 effect this reduction in the contribution fraction from one-third to one-quarter in the Bill itself, and will therefore make it unnecessary for us to make further regulations. The other Amendments, Nos.4 and 5, relate to Scotland only and are
1916
purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, may I suggest to noble Lords on these Benches that it is right to deal with these Amendments en bloc. They are technical, and certainly they do nothing new which the noble and learned Lord has not told the House about all along in the course of discussing the Bill itself first of all, and then four orders for Affirmative Resolution a few weeks ago.
I am glad that the noble and learned Lord has been able to tidy up the matter by means of these technical Amendments. He has given us rather more of an explanation than I believe was given in another place, and students of the matter will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for doing so. I do not wish to say anything more about these Amendments except that we on this side of the House approve them.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. May I say what personal satisfaction it gives me today to move this Bill. It is the result of a considerable period of effort.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CROWN AGENTS BILL
3.27 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord McCluskey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No.43 having been suspended, pursuant to Resolution of 2nd April:
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. When we discussed this Bill at Second Reading yesterday, I undertook to reply to two specific points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, both of whom I am glad to see are in their places.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made the point that the Bill might have provided for two different Ministers to be responsible for the Board of Crown Agents on the one hand and the separate Holding and Realisation Board on the other. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, then asked whether or not it was the case that the investments undertaken by the unincorporated Crown Agents on their own account in the past had been, as he put it, related mainly to transactions in this country. Although the Crown Agents did have considerable investments in this country, most of these have now been sold, or the companies put into liquidation. By far the greater amount of the remaining investments now held or to be held by the Board, all of which were the result of own-account investments, are in Australia and not in this country.
The reason for leaving responsibility for the affairs of the Holding and Realisation Board with the Minister of Overseas Development is to maintain continuity. The Ministry has been closely involved in discussions about the process of realising the own-account investments in Australia and elsewhere over the past four years and has built up a good deal of knowledge about the complex problems involved. The Minister has naturally consulted her Treasury colleagues and others, when appropriate, and the Bill specifically provides for Treasury control and approval over certain key financial matters—for example, the application of surplus revenue, borrowing powers, guarantees, audit and accounts and instructions relating to financial matters. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Lord that this matter has been given proper consideration.
The other point to which I undertook to to reply was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, when he asked whether, in any part of the Bill, any guarantee of index protection has been given to any
1918
form of past or future depositor with the Crown Agents. The Bill does not provide protection for depositors of funds with the Crown Agents against a fall in the value of the currency in which the deposit is made by indexing it or in any other way. However, it should be noted that, under the provisions of the Bill, the Crown Agents may accept deposits only for short-term periods pending disbursement on behalf of principals either for goods or services, or for investment in principals' names in securities or financial institutions. I hope that explanation will answer the noble Lord's question. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—.(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, it is to me a strange but happy coincidence that I have the opportunity to advise my noble friends on this side of the House to welcome the Third Reading of this Bill and to allow it to go through. I say that because some 15 years ago I held a position in the Government which I suppose would now be described as the Minister for Overseas Development, which was then called the Secretary for Technical Cooperation. In that capacity, in so far as any Minister had responsibility for the Crown Agents, I did. I am glad to say that it was in the days before the Crown Agents fell into their later great difficulties. I do not connect that with my wise stewardship, nor do I take credit for it; it was more my good fortune. But, even in those days, I was disturbed by the extraordinarily anomalous position of the Crown Agents whereby, although Ministers in some ways had responsibility, they had no clear responsibility. Therefore, I am glad to welcome their position being put right and glad, also, to welcome the fact that the supervision should continue to be in the hands of the ministerial successor to the position I then held. I sincerely wish that from now onwards the Crown Agents will resume their smooth course of great service to this country and to many other countries who trade with us.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it would be churlish of me not to express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for taking the trouble to reply to the

1919
points that I raised. It was extremely courteous of him and I am grateful for it.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS' COMPENSATION) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
3.34 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Merchant Shipping Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Then, Standing Order No.43 having been suspended pursuant to Resolution of 2nd April:
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. At the Second Reading I promised to look at the record to see whether there was any further explanation that I should give on the questions which had been raised. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, raised a question on Clause 10 and that is a case where I think I might give a fuller answer. Under that clause, a pilotage authority will not be obliged to grant a certificate when the number of pilots and certificate holders are, in the opinion of the Commission, adequate for the district.
1920
In addition, the clause provides that this constitutes reasonable cause for a refusal to grant a certificate for the purposes of Section 27(1)(a) of the 1913 Act. This is necessary because currently a certificate may only be refused on the grounds that the applicant has not satisfied the pilotage authority of his ability to navigate his ship safely. The Secretary of State is not able to take into account the disruption which the granting of a certificate might cause to the local pilotage service. We are therefore introducing a new ground for refusing to grant a certificate which will, in effect, be controlled by the Pilotage Commission. It is of course important that these matters should not be left entirely to the discretion of the pilotage authority, but there will be two further checks. First, the pilotage authority, who will in practice consider whether the number of certificates is appropriate and, secondly and most important, the Pilotage Commission, taking an overall and independent view, is charged with considering the whole matter. These arrangements were fully discussed and accepted by all sides of the industry as providing a fair and reasonable safeguard for pilots which, at the same time through the involvement of the Commission, will not be misused. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Jacques.)
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for giving that full reply to the point I raised. I am not sure that I succeeded in getting across to him what was really worrying me and as he repeated, the question is that the situation arises that if in the opinion of the Commission there are sufficient pilots or pilotage certificates that is conclusive that the pilotage authority is entitled reasonably to reject an application. The matter I had in mind was whether the opinion of the Commission was the last word. Is it not possible for the person concerned to argue that the opinion of the Commission is incorrect? The possibility for arguing that is removed because it is laid down in the Bill that the opinion of the Commission is final. At any rate the noble Lord has explained the situation and so far as I am concerned there is no more to be said.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, it was my intention to offer a few observations on the Third Reading, but first I should like to ask a question on the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, arising from what my noble friend Lord Jacques has said. He said that there was general agreement about the appointment of a Commission which would be entitled to grant certificates or to refuse certificates for pilotage. I am sorry to inform him that only this morning I happened to be reading the journal issued by the Navigating Officers' organisation, in which they deal with this point. They suggest that it may be the responsibility of the Commission, whichever the Secretary of State may decide, to refuse to grant a private licence to a person who does not hold a superior rank in the Merchant Navy, or has held a superior rank in the Merchant Navy; for example, chief officer or master mariner. The Commission may have the right to refuse a pilot's certificate to a second officer or a third officer. Is that the position? That is what I read only this morning as being a complaint by the navigating officers organisation, who were apprehensive as to whether those who have not achieved a higher rank in the Merchant Navy may be refused a pilot's certificate. I should like an answer from my noble friend Lord Jacques on that point.
3.40 p.m.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, may I ask for a point of clarification from my noble friend? Before doing so, I should declare an interest as chairman of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board, which clearly has a very great interest in these matters. As I understand it, originally the over-riding consideration was one of safety within designated waters. It now appears, from what my noble friend has said, that it is not solely a matter of safety but a matter also of ensuring employment to pilots. It therefore seems to me—and here specifically I should like clarification—that, even though there may be no question of jeopardising safety by allowing dispensation for craft belonging to or under the control of, for instance, a conservancy board or a harbour authority, the pilotage authority may still insist that pilots be carried solely on the grounds that there is underemployment among pilots in that particular
1922
area. I should be most grateful if my noble friend could make the position clear.
The Earl of INCHCAPE: My Lords, I have to declare an interest as chairman and chief executive of a major shipping company and, until recently, president of the General Council of British Shipping. I believe, therefore, that in welcoming this Bill I speak for the whole shipping industry. It is a very useful Bill. It follows an agreement made between the interested parties on pilotage and discipline, to make ships safer and the sea cleaner. It will strengthen the hand of Government in dealing with unfair foreign competition. The Bill is still not perfect; no Bill is. But it represents the result of five years hard work by Government and the shipping industry in its broadest sense. This Bill is a good ship and your Lordships have the chance to launch it, even though it has not been discussed in detail. I hope there will be no last minute hitch because one party would like to make minor changes in the colour scheme. My Lords, I commend this Bill to the House.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, despite the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Inchcape, has welcomed this Bill, I think the comments that have been made by his noble friends and the other comments have shown that perhaps my noble friends on the Front Bench will not feel too happy in allowing these things to have the speedy passage they are having. It is all very well to be generous and to want to help in unusual circumstances, but the first responsibility of any part of parliament is to see that legislation, when it becomes effective, has been properly examined and all the points that have been very properly made have been dealt with.
It is such a pity, with a Bill as important and intricate as this, that ways could not have been found to hold it over so that it could have had the full and deep investigation that it really needs. While one does not want to give the impression of being obstructive at the end of a Parliament, when certain work which has been done is being brought to fruition, I believe that a mistake has been made in being so generous as to speed through a Bill which needed much more detailed investigation and much more detailed

1923
replies before we gave it a Third Reading and put it on the Statute Book as formal legislation.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, may I follow on what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has said. Six days ago the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, vigorously attacked the proposed rearrangement of business, adding:
"I have the very gravest doubts about its constitutional propriety… We all know what happens when your Lordships' House does not do revision to legislation, and I really think it would be most unwise for this House merely to act as a rubber stamp in a situation of this kind in a Bill of this importance".—[Official Report, 29/3/79, col.1680.]
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, if I may intervene, the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip made a very clear and handsome description of what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, now thought about the way the business should be carried, and I think that ought to stand.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I was coming on to that in a second. I was totally in agreement with Lord Carrington's sentiments, as I am sure were a great many of your Lordships; however, two days ago the noble Lord, Lord Denham, took a very different line. He conceded in col.1710:
"… your Lordships are being asked to waive… your obligations as a revising Chamber",
and added that
"Lord Carrington expressed very strong reservations last Thursday on the propriety of this".— [Official Report, 2/4/79, col.1710.]
But the noble Lord. Lord Denham, went on to say that the Conservative Front Bench had now withdrawn their reservations, and he asked the House
"to do everything possible to smooth the passage of the measures."
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Denham, though undoubtedly he speaks for his Front Bench, would not necessarily claim to speak for his Back-Benches, still less for the Liberals or for my noble friends on these Benches.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but is he suggesting that the
1924
Liberal Benches do not wish to facilitate the passage of this legislation at this time? I should like respectfully to support what the noble Baroness has said. May I say that I am very much surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, made the intervention that he has made, in view of what the Leader of his Party has said.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I am interested to hear the Liberal view, because they said absolutely nothing about it at the time. I was only guessing, and obviously I guessed wrong. For that I apologise. In the normal way, I suggest, the House would spend at least five hours on the Second Reading on a Bill of this magnitude; there would surely be 20 speakers or more. We would spend 12 hours in Committee, perhaps seven hours on Report, and at least one hour on Third Reading. We often get important Amendments at the Third Reading stage; only two days ago the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, moved two Amendments at the Third Reading of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill, which he said were needed—not desirable, but needed—
"… needed to improve the drafting of the Bill so as it make it easier to construe".—[Official Report, 2/4/79, col. 1726.]
I think that speaks for itself. So at a very conservative estimate in the normal way we should have spent 25 hours on this Bill, not counting consideration of Commons Amendments, if any. Yet we have been asked to complete all stages of this Bill in about an hour and a quarter—one hour and two minutes last night and 15 minutes today—in other words, about one twentieth of the normal time. Something must be wrong, I suggest. Either we have not done our duty by this Bill, or we have been wasting our time and the taxpayers' money on all the other legislation that has come before us over the years.
During my time in this House I have seen far too much defective legislation reach the Statute Book, largely, though by no means invariably, because the Committee or Report stage took place late at night or in the small hours of the morning, when people's wits are not at their sharpest, or occasionally when hastily tabled and imperfectly understood manuscript Amendments were moved at the last

1925
moment. It is certain that this Bill will have some defects. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, drew attention to just three possible defects last night, chosen at random. It is not a question of upholding the status and dignity of this House although that is not unimportant. It is a question of protecting the individual citizen against imperfect and possibly unjust legislation. For this reason, I am afraid I must oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, and I hope that other noble Lords who feel that this House has not been given the opportunity to fulfill its constitutional obligations will join me in doing so.
3.49 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, perhaps I could speak before the Minister winds up, following the usual course of events. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for undertaking the task of replying to the points left over from the Second Reading debate yesterday. I must say straight away that I have the greatest sympathy with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls in what he has said about the way in which this Bill is having to go through your Lordships' House, at such speed that it cannot be examined in the way in which all of us would wish.
I do not know whether my noble friend was present when we debated this matter yesterday evening on Second Reading. I think that he was, and therefore I shall not repeat what I said then in my reference to the protest made by my noble friend Lord Carrington when he first heard about this matter. However, I can assure my noble friend and also the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I understand that discussions were then pursued immediately and earnestly to find the best solution. We had to decide whether the Bill should die with this Parliament—because of dissolution this week which had been agreed between the Government and the Opposition—or whether the Bill should be saved and the work that had been done on it retained, bearing in mind that many people outside Parliament had been waiting a long time for certain items of legislation that it contains. We had to decide whether, in the light of that, the Bill should be allowed to die.
The decision was taken and agreement was reached. Concessions were made
1926
and parts of the Bill were dropped by the Government on the basis that it was in the interests of the country that the Bill should not be killed. It could not be guaranteed that legislation could be introduced in time, this year or next year, to carry out what the bodies concerned outside had been preparing for. For example, as I mentioned yesterday, the shipping industry has, to a great extent, already prepared, in its arrangements for discipline, conditions of service on ships—and agreements have been reached with the unions as from 1st January this year—for a Bill of this kind to become enacted during the course of the summer. If the Bill were to fail now all that would be in jeopardy.
Let me quote another example. The Bill allows the Government to exercise powers which they have not had before in the whole area of ratification and bringing into force of international agreements on navigation, pollution, safety and shipowner liability. Not only is that something which a Government needs, but it will set a very good example to other Governments who are slow in this area and who have held up important agreements.
My noble friend Lord Inchcape, having declared an interest himself as a leading figure in our shipping industry, has confirmed that the Bill is needed by the shipping industry. Again, I ask to be forgiven for repeating what I said on Second Reading yesterday, but it is sometimes overlooked that our shipping industry, in terms of size, is near the top of the world league. We have been third and then fourth, and two of the countries ahead of us are small countries whose flags are conveniently used. Therefore, we and Japan really lead the world. To put the shipping industry suddenly into this unexpected situation would be one reason—and in my view an important reason—why we should not allow the Bill to be killed at this stage.
There is probably no one in your Lordships' House who is more affected and who feels more about this subject than I do personally. I was due to deal with the Bill from this Bench during all its stages through your Lordships' House. I was expecting to spend a great deal more time on it than the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested, because it is so

1927
important and there are parts of it which we felt we could discuss again—beyond the discussions in another place—and as regards which we could perhaps influence the Government to agree to improvements. However, it was clear that, if the programme preceding this Election was to be followed, it was impossible to give any worthwhile consideration to the Bill during the Committee stage, and that is why there was no point in having a Committee stage.
That means, so far as I am concerned, that a lot of homework and preparation that I have done is all wasted. Therefore, when the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was speaking, and also when my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was speaking, I felt very personally the same kind of sentiments, because I knew only too well what I had been hoping we could do to improve the Bill. However, as I said yesterday, we thought that the overriding national interest was that the Bill should come into force and be enacted this week, even though we would have liked—and it is our normal right—to have examined it very closely and perhaps made further improvements to it. The overriding consideration was that the Bill should not die.
I shall not say any more on the substance. We had a debate on Second Reading yesterday. However, I should like to make it clear that, certainly in my opinion and in that of many of my noble friends, although we greatly deplore the fact that we have not been able to examine the Bill as we had hoped to, we think that the worst course would be for the Bill to die.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and who have shown an interest in the Bill before your Lordships' House. I should particularly like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Inchcape. He has great experience in the shipping industry and what he said, together with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said at all earlier stage of our discussions on the Bill, indicates quite clearly that the Bill is wanted by both sides of the industry. I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for their support. Their speeches showed that all parties
1928
want the Bill. We are faced with the choice: either we take the Bill as it is or we do not get the Bill in this Parliament. All parties are of the opinion that we should take the Bill as it is, not because there is any political advantage to any of us, but because we believe that it is in the interests both of the industry and of our country. We are proud to take that stand, even though it might be a stand which is not looked upon kindly by some Members of this House.
I shall reply specifically to technical questions that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston. As regards the matter raised by Lord Shinwell, the Commission will not grant certificates. It will have a monitoring role. The responsibility remains with the local pilotage authority. The Bill will restrict the grant of certificates to masters and first mates, and after discussion with the navigating officers' union that was agreed.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, asked about the possibility that a certificate might be refused not on grounds of safety but because of the situation in the local pilotage district. Clause 10—which allows that—is a safeguard clause agreed by all the parties and intended to protect pilots from a sudden influx of EEC certificated holders. It is intended as a phasing in mechanism and as a safeguard of last resort. However, it is an absolutely vital part of the pilotage package.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I do not wish to enter into the controversy about whether this is the appropriate time to accept the Bill. We are in a rather awkward situation and therefore I shall leave that matter alone. I recognise that those who are intensely interested in the provisions of the Bill, and who in normal circumstances would have liked to make certain submissions in order, in their judgment, to improve the Bill, are entitled to express the opinions which we have heard this afternoon and which came from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the other day. However, I want to direct

1929
attention to the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Inchcape, today and the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, yesterday said that the Bill has been agreed by both sides in the Merchant Navy. I am well aware of that. I have been notified to that effect by the British Council of Shipping and other organisations. However, at the same time I am aware that the Bill—while it is very satisfactory in part—is like the curate's egg: there are certain parts which are most unsatisfactory, and in particular it is not so much the commissions in the Bill but the omissions.
Yesterday I ventured to say that in the last 60 or 70 years many Merchant Shipping Bills have been dealt with both in another place and in your Lordships' House. I also said that this Bill would not be the last one. I want to place on record some of the items that will have to be considered by some other Government in the future, whether they are the Government which are now disappearing from the scene—probably temporarily—or some other Government that will replace them. In doing so I shall place on record the opinions which officers and other ranks in the Merchant Navy wish to be incorporated in a satisfactory and effective Merchant Shipping Act.
For example, nothing is said in the Bill about a matter which has caused considerable controversy, and still does; that is, the question of leave for officers when they reach the end of their responsibilities and have been discharged in some port. Nothing is said in the Bill about the decision of the Inland Revenue to impose tax on officers and men who are discharged from a vessel and travel to their place of residence, or who have to rejoin a ship and incur travelling expenses or are provided by the shipowning firms with their expenses only to find that those expenses are taxable. That also causes controversy.
There are several other matters. This morning I did what I very seldom do; I sat down at the typewriter and typed out almost a dozen of these so-called omissions, some of which are very important indeed. Without wearying the House and going over the ground again, I want to say that I accept the fact that this Bill is, on the whole, satisfactory; it is comprehensive in character, yet it is not comprehensive enough. Many other
1930
matters have to be considered by the officers and men in the Merchant Navy.
Although the Bill may be satisfactory to the British Council of Shipping and shipowners in general, it may be unsatisfactory to the country itself. Let me give an example. Noble Lords may not be aware of the fact that much of our shipping is being sold to foreign countries, to the detriment of our own economy and our own shipping interests; it is also causing excessive redundancies in the Service. Those redundancies are taking place almost daily, but there is something even more important than that. When the British Steel Corporation purchases iron ore for the purposes of manufacturing steel in this country, it actually uses foreign vessels to transport it, to the detriment of British shipping. Over and above that, the firm of Vickers, which is building three very large ships, has decided to hand over the management not to a British shipowning firm but to a Norwegian shipping company; so those ships, built in this country, will be managed by a foreign company.
Those are the matters which are causing great controversy in the Merchant Navy. I mention them only in passing, but I am convinced that sooner or later further legislaton will be required; of course, there may be an alternative—that of disputes in the industry—and that we would wish to avoid. I have made those remarks for the purpose of placing these matters on record. I am not retained by the navigating officers' union, but I am intensely interested in the future of British shipping, as, indeed, we all are. Therefore, I place on record these submissions; they do not come from me, but from the Merchant Navy. They come from those who work and operate in the Merchant Navy and who are anxious to promote the best interests of the Service.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, your Lordships will pass this Bill and I can well understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe should be irritated. As the Government Chief Whip, her duty is very clear and she is doing it well; it is to get the business through very quickly. However, that is not the duty of the House. Parliament's job is to ensure that legislation that goes through is comprehensive and is likely to be helpful. If the noble Lord, Lord

1931
Shinwell, envisages industrial disputes because of the lack of time we have allocated to ironing out the problems, then it will not be a good thing. Although we do not want to delay the Bill, I believe that the speedy way in which it and other Bills are being allowed to go through is not in the best interests of the nation or of the Parliamentary system, and I think that we shall live to regret it.
On Question, Bill passed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL
Standing Order No.43 having been suspended, pursuant to Resolution of 2nd April:
4.7 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill is set out in Part I. It is to introduce from 1st January next a new system of weights and measures control over packaged products; that is, packaged goods which are sold by weight or volume in predetermined quantities. At present in this country we operate what is referred to as a minimum contents system. Under this system the packer has to set his filling target above the declared contents in order to ensure that the vast majority of his production contains at least what is stated on the label; in other words, under the present system packers have systematically to over-fill.
However, I must stress that legally the present system is not as straightforward as is commonly supposed. Individual packages may be under weight, and in the case of a short-weight prosecution the courts have to take into account the average quantity in any similar packages and have to disregard any inconsiderable deficiency. The United Kingdom is among very few countries in the world which operate such a system. Most other countries operate some form of average-contents system based upon the practical recognition of quantity variations in modern mechanised filling processes, and enforcement at the packer's premises rather than at the retail shop.
We are an important exporter of foodstuffs, including both manufactured
1932
foodstuffs and processed foodstuffs, and very often they are prepacked. Different approaches to the whole question of testing of weights and measures can constitute a real and important technical barrier to trade, and it is vital in our trading interests that we seek a common approach, both with the member States of the EEC and with other countries in the world. That is what this Bill is all about.
The EEC system not only requires that packages must at least be right on average, but it also establishes lower tolerance limits. It therefore incorporates a purely minimum provision, which our own system does not have. The Directive of the EEC was made under Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome. It was a very liberal Directive. Under that Directive we must allow the average system of testing, but we could have side by side with it our own system; but in that case those that were subject to the average system would have to be marked with a small "e".
In view of that choice the whole matter was referred to a working party. That working party consisted of manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and enforcement officers. They have been studying this problem since 1975. They have reported, and they recommend that the average system should he applied across the board and not simply to "e" packages; that a small national enforcement coordinating body should be set up, and that a system of retail monitoring should be introduced to supplement factory checking.
This Bill is based largely on a combination of the broad obligations set out in the Directive and the recommendations of this working party. This Bill is urgent. Why? As I have indicated, the new system has to be implemented before 1st January. On 1st January the extra time which was granted to us by the EEC Commission will be exhausted, and we shall be obliged to make up our minds and to carry out the Directive in one way or another. We propose to carry it out in the way in which the working party recommended, and that is embodied in the Bill. However, there remains a great deal to be done if the changeover is to operate smoothly; if the industry is to be able to adapt; if enforcement authorities are to know what is expected of them, and if consumers are to enjoy a proper level of protection.

1933
The Bill is a framework Bill. It establishes the basic legal obligations, but the technical detail and the practical procedures to be adopted are left to subordinate legislation and to the very important codes of practice which are being drawn up in conjunction with the legislation. The reason why it is so important that this Bill completes its stages during this Parliament is that all the time between now and the end of this year is needed for preparation.
For obvious reasons, industry needs to have the details settled in subordinate legislation and codes of practice as soon as possible so that it can prepare adequately for the new system. On the enforcement side the national co-ordinating unit also needs to be set up as soon as possible and to start its important preparatory work. There is also the question of the training of trading standards inspectors. This has already started, but this cannot be done thoroughly until the legislation is settled. Delay would now jeopardise an effective changeover in this country and could lead to confusion for industry and lack of adequate protection for consumers.
I touched on the importance of this Bill for British industry which, not surprisingly, is wholeheartedly in favour of it. But there are benefits all round; to retailers who will be relieved of legal burdens, and to consumers who will benefit from a much more satisfactory enforcement system. Enforcement also at the point of packing or importation will be more effective than enforcement in the retail shops and will be more efficient in the use of resources. That, my Lords, completes my review of Part I.
Part II f of the Bill is concerned with a number of miscellaneous matters which I do not think are of great significance in the Bill as a whole, and I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Jacques.)
4.15 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, after the careful weighing and measuring that we are giving to this Bill I am sure your Lordships would not wish to delay it any further; therefore, I am not going to say very much about it. What I am
1934
going to say I shall put out of logical sequence in order to give the noble Lord as much time as possible to consider two particular points that I wish to put to him.
Literally within the last half-hour urgent representations have reached me from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. As I think is known to the Government, and as I imagine was raised in another place, they are very concerned about certain clauses which have gone through another place and which we certainly cannot seek to amend now. Accepting that that is so and that these will go on the Statute Book, the representations I have received have been to ask Ministers for two assurances. These assurances concern the conditions of staffing of the national co-ordinating unit, to which the noble Lord referred in his introductory speech a few moments ago concerned with Part I of the Bill.
The first assurance for which the Association of Metropolitan Authorities ask is that the power for the Secretary of State to vary the date of 1st April 1980 should be exercisable if, and only if, direct funding of the unit continues beyond that date, and that in no circumstances can it be exercisable when the unit is funded under Section 2(7) of the Local Government Act 1974. That is the first of the assurances that I am asked to seek from the Government.
The second is an assurance that in employing its staff the unit will have the same freedom of action as has a local authority as regards the numbers, gradings, et cetera, of the staff. I tried to pass a note across to the noble Lord while he was busily concerned with the previous Bill, and therefore I cannot expect him to have given it his personal consideration yet. Perhaps I may talk without undue length for another minute or two, and I know that my noble friend Lord Amory has one small point to raise, and that may give time for a little consideration and advice in the short time available to us.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have got the answer here.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: Then I shall not delay myself unduly. As your Lordships will see, I have in the last few moments become a great expert on this Bill. Given another moment or two to

1935
consider it I would have kept your Lordships busy for a long time, asking many questions. I shall not overdo this because I have been assured by my honourable friend in another place, Mrs. Oppenheim, who was in charge of the Bill for the Opposition in another place, and by other honourable and right honourable friends in another place, that this Bill, having been amended as it has been, is one which I should freely commend to my noble friends on this side of the House. That I gladly do.
As the noble Lord has said, Part I deals with packaged goods and is mainly concerned with putting us in a position to implement the European Community Directives by due date; that is, the beginning of next year. I am bound to say, from the understanding I have acquired, that these Directives for once seem to be sensible ones where the EEC is really going to help the consumer on a European scale. We certainly welcome Government action to make sure that Britain can, on this occasion, implement those Directives in time.
I thought that the noble Lord dismissed Part II just a little too easily, although perhaps not in view of the Amendments which my honourable friends managed to wring out of the Government in another place. Part II is full of miscellaneous provisions. I am an old enough parliamentary hand to be deeply suspicious of any Government, even one of my own party, which introduces a part of a Bill of any length dealing with miscellaneous provisions. If one looks among them one usually finds something with which a citizen could well be without.
When we came to Clause 18 in this Bill we certainly found something which all the beer drinkers in the United Kingdom could well be without, done by a good, fatherly, do-gooding Government nominally in the interests of the consumer. Had that clause been allowed to go through it would have put up the price of beer to consumers and forced them to have their beer delivered in a form which at any rate large numbers of beer consumers do not like. While I do not go into pubs and drink beer as much as I did when I was, say, an undergraduate—at the same college, I might add, as the noble and learned Lord who now sits on the
1936
Woolsack—I was not alone in liking my beer handed to me full to the top and brimming over.
Had Clause 18 gone through, that is what beer drinkers would not have been allowed. However, Clause 18 has been dealt with in another place and, as a result, I am sure we can let even the miscellaneous provisions go through without demur. I therefore hope the House will allow the Bill to pass without any more delay than is required for any of my noble friends to make such points as they wish to put and for the Minister to give the two assurances which have been sought.
4.21 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I had not intended to delay this useful Bill for more than 1¼ minutes. Then my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley passed me a message asking whether I could expand my speech to 1¼ minutes for the reason he gave. However, I understand that will not now be necessary and so, being as brief as I had intended, I can proceed to my work. I am told that some of the enforcement authorities are not altogether happy about the amendments to the statutory defence provisions of the Weights and Measures Act 1963 which are contained in Schedule 5(7) to this Bill. They feel that these amendments might somewhat weaken enforcement. I understand that under those amendments if a defendant decides to go for the option he has only to convince the court that he has taken care, and I am told that in many cases it is not difficult to convince a court that one has taken care if that is the only defence one has to make. I do not know about that because I have never pleaded that before a court, but I am told that in technical terms the amendment converts the offence from an absolute one to a mens rea offence. My noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell is, I know, intimately aware of what a mens rea offence is, but I have not had time to consult him, so that important question is one I shall leave with great confidence to the innate intelligence of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I am simply asking him, in view of the fact that no Amendments are possible now, if he will consider this point and see whether there is anything in it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I welcome the Bill very much, my Lords. In this case

1937
the Government have done a good job in harmonising two systems which were very difficult to harmonise. It was important that we should get the average weight principle accepted. I remember debating it on a previous occasion with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and how emphatic he was in his support of that principle at the time; I do not suppose he has had an easy passage with it, but he has got his way now and for that we must be grateful to him.
I do not know whether Lord Jacques went beyond his brief—there may have been a little harmonising of briefs in this case—because he said the Government needed all the time between now and the end of the year to do the various things necessary to bring the Bill into operation. Had it not been for the Dissolution of Parliament he would not have got all that time because the Bill would not yet have gone through. It is perhaps a rather fortuitous gain for the Government that in this case they are getting the Bill through before they expected, bearing in mind the time it would have taken to get it through the Commons. I do not want to be niggardly about this in any way because I think it a good Bill and I wish it a fair wind.
4.25 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I wish first to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I am sure he will admit that as a result of the General Election we are getting the Bill very much sooner than would have been the case if we had not taken it in this Parliament. If we had had to start the Bill afresh after the election, then it would have come into operation very much later.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has not got the point. I was simply saying that, because of the Dissolution, the Government have got the Bill sooner than they would have got it had there not been a Dissolution; and that is obvious.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we may be getting it a little sooner than we should have done had there not been an Election, and that gives the Civil Service a little more time to do the work that must be done; and they have little enough time to do it. I am simply saying that if we had
1938
not taken the Bill now, but it had come up in the new Parliament, there would then have been insufficient time for the Civil Service to do the necessary work before the end of the year.
As to Part II, it is fair to say that I slipped over it rather quickly because it is miscellaneous, supplemental and any other such words one might use. I had understood that the important point in which there was all the interest in Part II was the line on the glass. That provision has, by agreement, been withdrawn. Thus, as it was not before the House it would have been irrelevant for me to have dealt with it, so I feel I was justified in being brief about Part II.
I come to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, and I thank him for giving me notice of them; the notice came at the last minute but that is better than no notice at all. I am assured by my advisers that assurances were given by the Minister of State in the Commons during Report yesterday, and if I repeat those assurances that will probably be the best way for me to answer the noble Lord. First, the Government's intention is to give notice to members of the unit not only when they cease to be members of local authorities, as provided for in the Bill, but also if they cease to be members of the local authority's co-ordinating body on trading standards. Secondly, the Government will not use the power in Clause 10(4) to maintain control over the appointment of auditors and so on beyond 1st April 1980, except if, contrary to expectations, the unit is funded by grant in aid beyond that date. Thirdly, the provisions relating to staffing and conditions of service of employees of the unit are not designed to prevent the unit from having the same freedom of action as has a local authority. My advisers tell me that that covers the points in question and I am therefore pleased to put them on the record.
Regarding statutory defences, I am advised that the modern policy of the Home Office favours relaxation in that similar provisions in more important safety legislation have already been made. Perhaps we are being modern very suddenly and perhaps the noble Lord and I are a little behind the times because, like him, I do not readily agree with some relaxations that are made.
Viscount AMORY: I must challenge that last allegation, my Lords. Speaking from this side of the House my position ensures that I am up to date about everything. I am sorry I did not give the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, notice of the point I intended to raise and, as I said, it was only a point for him to consider. I did not dare go into it until I had found out the meaning of mens rea and, having taken counsel's opinion, I now know what it means.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Weights and Measures Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended pursuant to Resolution of 2nd April:
4.31 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I must first explain to your Lordships that the notes on clauses of the Bill which were deposited in the Printed Paper Office for the convenience of noble Lords, and the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill as it was introduced in another place, do not accord with the Bill which we now have before us. I apologise for the discrepancy, but last night the Bill was amended in many ways, which I shall explain, and I regret that there was no time to prepare fresh papers.
The need for the Bill arises from a judicial decision of this House in December in the case of Jones v Wentworth Securities Ltd. This showed the existence of a major loophole in the Leasehold Reform
1940
Act 1967. The aim of the Bill is to close that loophole and ensure that leaseholders will not be effectively deprived of the rights which Parliament saw fit to give them. It is a short Bill, and I will try not to take up too much of the House's time at this late stage, but we are dealing with a technical subject and I think I should explain the essential points. Because of the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, our consideration of this measure must perforce be telescoped if it is to receive Royal Assent before Parliament is dissolved, but I am keen that noble Lords should understand why we consider the Bill to be important and why we wish it to be enacted quickly.
First, I shall provide a little background. The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 gives a long leaseholder of a house the right, provided that certain conditions are satisfied, to buy the freehold of his house compulsorily. The terms setting out the compensation payable are favourable to the leaseholder, but they aim to compensate the landlord for the value of the land. The principle underlying the Act is that the building belongs to the occupying leaseholder and the land belongs to the landowner. This principle has now become widely accepted, although it has been necessary in both 1969 and 1974 to amend the original Act. At the same time landlords, not unnaturally, have sought to increase the price payable for freeholds.
In one case, Jones v Wentworth Securities Ltd., the landlords were held by this House, in its judicial capacity, to have created a device which was highly successful in increasing the price to be paid for the freehold. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the central purpose of the Leasehold Reform Act—that a leaseholder should be able to acquire his freehold at a reasonable price—was successfully evaded. The transaction concerned was cearly devised in order to prevent the law from operating as Parliament had intended. It involved the granting of an intermediate interest, on disadvantageous terms, to a newly formed company connected with the freeholder. This resulted, by a series of steps which I will not detail, in the price payable being not £300, but £4,000. The device was upheld by the Lands Tribunal. That decision was reversed in the Court of Appeal, and then reversed again in this House.

1941
I will not trouble your Lordships by going over the detailed arguments underlying the decision, but I should like to quote sonic of the comments which the noble and learned Lords made when giving judgment in this case. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said:
"It would seem most unlikely that either the draftsman of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, or those Members of either House of Parliament by whose votes it was passed, had envisaged the possibility that any ground landlord would enter into an intermediate lease in the precise terms adopted by Wentworth and Wrotham, or in any other terms which would have the same economic consequences as between ground landlord and intermediate tenant. If it had been envisaged, it seems likely that the draftsman would have done something about it to prevent its having the effect of enhancing the price payable by the resident tenant for the freehold".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, said:
"This somewhat odd, possibly unique, and certainly ingenious transaction was not a sham: it was a reality. It was, however, admittedly, a device to discourage tenants from acquiring the freehold of their homes by exercising their rights under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967".
He continued:
"I have no doubt that if it had ever occurred to the Legislature that a transaction such as the present might have been devised and put into operation, clear words would have been introduced into the Act, which would preclude such a transaction from affecting the market price which the tenant would have to pay for the freehold of his home. As it is, no such words appear in the Act; and accordingly it contains a gap".
The aim of the Bill now before the House is to close that gap and to ensure that the price payable under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 by a tenant claiming the freehold cannot be artificially increased by transactions involving the creation, transfer, or alteration in the terms of the lease, which take place, or have taken place, after 15th February 1979, the date on which the Bill was introduced.
I should like your Lordships to know that it was the Government's intention that the Bill should not only protect leaseholders from future arrangements of this kind, but should also restore to Mrs. Jones and her neighbours the benefits of the 1967 Act of which they have been deprived, thanks to the ingenuity of their landlords. The Bill as published would have achieved that. It was as a result of the case which Mrs. Jones fought through the courts that we introduced the Bill to close the loophole, and in the Government's view, it would have been
1942
wrong to have allowed the arrangements entered into by Wentworth Securities to continue to deprive the residents on that estate of the rights that Parliament clearly intended them to have. However, this was considered objectionable in another place on the grounds that it was too retrospective, and it was made clear that the only Bill which it would be possible to get through Parliament at this stage was one which would not affect any arrangements made before 15th February 1979; and consequently the Bill now before us will not benefit Mrs. Jones and her neighbours. This is a situation that we shall seek to remedy by legislation when we have been returned to office.
We do not accept the arguments as to retrospectiveness which have been advanced, and there are precedents for the Bill as published, in the way in which it would have affected existing arrangements, in the Leasehold Reform Act itself, in the Amendments to it made in the Housing Act 1969, and in the Amendments introduced by the Opposition in the Housing Act 1974. Furthermore, we consider it wrong, both in this case and as a matter of principle, that the victims of anyone who is ingenious enough to evade the operation of the law should be forever deprived of the further protection which amending legislation can offer to everyone else, and that the creator of such devices should be able forever to retain the considerable financial advantages of doing so.
Nevertheless, the Bill, even in its present emasculated form, will for the future close the serious loophole which has appeared in the Leasehold Reform Act, and to which our attention was drawn by the Law Lords. Without it there would be continued scope for landlords to defeat the intention of that Act, and with some reluctance we have brought the Bill before your Lordships in its present form. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Stedman.)
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the noble Baroness has explained most carefully to us what this Bill is about, and we are happy that the Bill should pass

1943
on account of the fact that the retrospective element has in fact been removed from the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

INMARSAT (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1979
4.41 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I beg to move that the INMARSAT (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1979 be approved. This order, which will be made under the International Organisations Act 1968, was laid before the House on 29th March. The reason why I am moving this order today is one of urgency. It is of considerable importance that the United Kingdom should be able to ratify the INMARSAT Convention on or before the next meeting of the INMARSAT Preparatory Committee, which is to take place from 14th to 18th May. At that meeting it is expected that a sufficient number of States—that is, those representing 95 per cent. of the total initial investment shares in the organisation—will have become parties to the Convention. This will enable it, in accordance with Article 33, to enter into force 60 days later.
The INMARSAT Convention was drawn up at an inter-Governmental conference held in London in 1975 to consider the establishment of a world-wide maritime satellite system under international control. At the final session of the conference a convention and operating agreement establishing the International Maritime Satellite Organisation (for which "INMARSAT" is, I hope, an acceptable acronym), and setting out the details of its operation, were opened for signature. The United Kingdom signed the convention, subject to ratification, on 3rd September 1976. The Post Office, as the entity designated by the Government to participate, signed the operating agreement on 30th March 1979.
Your Lordships will wish to be aware that the purpose of INMARSAT is to procure and operate the so-called space segment; that is to say, the satellite system which will provide, in conjunction with national earth stations, the particular
1944
service or services necessary for: first, developing communications to improve distress and safety of life at sea communications; second, increasing the efficiency and better management of ships; third, maritime public correspondence services; and, fourth, accurate ship position fixing by radio. There can be no doubt that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom, as a major maritime nation, to participate in an international organisation designed to meet the need for more efficient communications at sea. Because of frequency limitations and other technical constraints, it is becoming progressively more difficult to maintain an adequate system of ship-to-shore communications. The disastrous accidents involving super-tankers which have occurred in recent years illustrate only too well the need to improve existing communications facilities. The use of satellites to develop a system of safe and efficient maritime communications and to improve navigational aids should go a long way towards reducing the risk of similar disasters in the future.
My Lords, it has been decided that, at the invitation of Her Majesty's Government, INMARSAT will establish its headquarters in the United Kingdom. Thus, when the convention comes into force, it is proposed that the Government shall enter into a headquarters agreement with the organisation in order to define the privileges and immunities which will be required to enable it to exercise its functions here. A further Order in Council will need to be made to implement the provisions of that headquarters agreement, and the House will, at that time, have the opportunity to give full consideration to what is then proposed.
The draft order now before your Lordships is required to give effect to Article 25 and Article 26, paragraph (1), of the INMARSAT Convention, thereby enabling the United Kingdom to ratify the convention. These articles require that the organisation shall have legal personality, and that it shall be exempt from direct taxes and from Customs duties on communication satellites and components, and parts for them, to be launched for use in the INMARSAT space segment. It will be seen that the effect of the order is very limited, and I therefore hope that your Lordships will approve this draft order and so demonstrate the support of

1945
this House for the valuable work of the INMARSAT organisation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 29th March, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
4.48 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for having endeavoured to explain to your Lordships what this new word in our vocabulary means. Clearly, it has a great many implications for this country, and I think it regrettable that, not only because of the time of the day but because of the date in the year, with its political implications, we are not going to be able to debate this and give it, perhaps, the merit that I think this important organisation deserves. Undoubtedly, in a world of peaceful and friendly relations the concept of an internationally organised global system of communication satellites for commercial shipping is a very attractive one; and the concept of a convention to enable this system to operate successfully, smoothly and beneficially is, again, a quite admirable one.
What I am a little concerned about—and I have given notice to the Minister that I am concerned about some of the articles in the convention—should, I think, be just mentioned. Perhaps I should say to the Minister straightaway that I have no intention of holding up the draft order, so he need not be too worried. Nevertheless, I think I am under an obligation to draw to the attention of your Lordships some of the articles which give rise to concern and which, at any rate, should be looked at by whichever Government are returned after 3rd May, to see that this operates smoothly and to the benefit of both the United Kingdom and Western nations.
The first thing we notice is, of course, the question of viability of commercial success of the organisation. I should like to know—and perhaps the Minister could give me a reply in writing later—what financial measures are going to be taken in order to at least attempt to make this a commercially viable organisation. Under Article 15 of the convention, the council is given an enormous number of powers. Again, I will not take up the
1946
time of your Lordships reading them all out, but I would draw attention to Article 15(a), which says:
"Determination of maritime satellite telecommunications requirements and adoption of policies, plans, programmes",
et cetera. This really covers the whole field of satellite communication development.
What I should like to ask the Minister—and again, of course, I will not ask him to give me an answer now—is: Has this been discussed at all with the European Community in connection with any industrial strategy which is perhaps being thought out in relation to the development of satellite programmes under the European Space Agency programmes, which are obviously developing quite fast? Because we would hope that this would be an area of industry where the United Kingdom and the West as a whole could develop very considerably over the next 20 or 30 years. Would this particular aspect of the convention in any way prohibit, impede or prevent full and free development under the European Space Agency programme? I think this is a very important aspect for the United Kingdom, its own industrial policies and its own unemployment problems. So this is something which touches the individual citizen of this country.
Secondly, under Article 7, the INMARSAT space segment is going to be open for use by ships of all nations, subject to certain conditions; but it says that there will be no discrimination among ships on the basis of nationality. Of course, this looks quite harmless and very worthy, but it could lead to a considerable amount of difficulty; and at some stage I should like to know what kind of conditions the United Kingdom, which will obviously be a member of the council, contemplates will be imposed in order to limit the number of ships which will benefit from this system, obviously on a basis of their financial contribution. This is another aspect which is of some concern.
My Lords, a third article which gives some concern and which rather touches on what I have already said about the European Space Agency is Article 20(1), concerning procurement policy, because it says:
"The procurement policy of the Council shall

1947
be such as to encourage, in the interests of the Organisation, world-wide competition in the supply of goods and services".
This, again, as will be seen from what I have already said, leads to certain implications which I can quite see the Minister has followed, and raises, I think, certain queries if we as a country are going to ratify this convention. Any United Kingdom Government ratifying any international convention stand by their obligations under the convention, and I would imagine that this could give rise to a certain conflict of interests, or may do so, with European obligations undertaken previous to this one.
One interesting point which I think would encourage those of us who pay our taxes regularly and without complaint is that under Article 26, which is the subject immediately under discussion, concerning privileges and immunities,
"Each Party undertakes to use its best endeavours to bring about, in accordance with the applicable domestic procedure, such further exemption from income and direct property taxation and customs duties as is desirable …".
This is the first time that I have seen such wording in a convention and I wondered if it had any specific legal implication for the avoidance, if not the evasion, of Customs duty which befalls most individuals. It seems rather a surprising clause to put in and I wondered whether there happened to be any particular reason for having this clause.
Again, this may be considered a rather detailed and unnecessary thing to mention, but it is the kind of thing that you find that you have got into trouble with later on if not sufficient care is paid to the document concerned: that is, in the Annexe under Article 11 giving the kind of powers for the decision of the tribunal which would be set up in the case of a dispute, the basis for the settlement of any dispute between the signatories to this convention is international law based on the convention and generally-accepted principles of law. I am sorry to see that this is a very limited definition of international law and, as we know only too well in all our international activities, the views of some countries in the world on the generally-accepted principles of law differ very considerably from those of other nations, including our own. I should have thought that this particular definition was drawn much too widely.
1948
I will not detain your Lordships further, except to say that I note with interest that in the investment shares prior to the determination on the basis of utilisation in the Annexe on page 39, the USSR, Byelorussian SSR and Ukrainian SSR together are going to contribute only 11 per cent., whereas the United Kingdom is going to contribute 12 per cent. The three Soviet Socialist Republics, of course, will have the right to three seats on the council despite their fairly low financial contribution and their enormous merchant shipping tonnage. The United Kingdom will, of course, have only the right (in proportion, anyway) to one seat on the council. I wondered whether this is to the best interests of the United Kingdom in this negotiation.
I will not go further than that. I hope that the international convention will fulfil the task for which it is set up. which is to make merchant shipping safer and that it will accrue to the benefit of the Western nations in a progressive, successful and commercial satellite programme.
4.57 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her contribution which, as always, fastens on to very important questions. I will do my best to answer them. If I do not answer them all it is because I take advantage of her graciousness in saying that I may at a later stage and by written communication make my views and news known. I go on to say that the noble Baroness's implied confidence in my being in a position to do that after tomorrow is rather encouraging.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, perhaps if I may set the record right, I understood that during Question Time it was made clear that all Ministers are paid for the next four weeks and, therefore, undoubtedly, the noble Lord will be fulfilling his task fully for the next four weeks.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I find that financially reassuring and constitutionally most acceptable. To address myself to the very important questions that she raised, certainly, if I miss out any point of substance I will see that the noble Baroness is given the information. At the moment I think that

1949
I am in a position to answer some of the most important points that she has raised. There will be only one Soviet seat on the INMARSAT Council; so that her justifiable doubt on this point has been clarified for the benefit of all of us; for I am sure that there are others with the same doubt as she had. The wording of Article 26(1), which she rightly questioned, is unusual. The second sentence of paragraph (1) has no implications for us, but we consider that wording of a more precise kind is needed before we can implement any such obligation; so that the noble Baroness has made a point there. It may have implications for other countries, too; so the point is taken and we shall watch that one.
As to the role of the European Space Agency, the ESA's Marix satellites are largely a field of activity for this country. We are the prime contractor. Indeed, that kind of satellite, in the construction of which we have a major part, is a front runner in the competition to provide a satellite system for INMARSAT.
Part of the urgency of getting this order for ratification through is that as the prospective locale of the headquarters of this new organisation, we could hardly turn up between 14th and 18th May and say, "We are not going ahead with this" and, in the same breath, press our point about providing the satellites which are necessary for the operation of these activities. I understand that three satellites from this country are pretty well in the front running. This means a volume of employment which is most acceptable to us and also a quality of employment which meets our increasing expertise in this branch of technology, a branch which is of increasing competitiveness in the world, and in which this country, given this kind of opportunity, can prove its efficacy.
The third point of substance that the noble Baroness raised related to the financial viability of this organisation. The designated entity, as she reminded me outside the Chamber, is the British Post Office, a national corporation. It has given very careful consideration to the financial viability of INMARSAT. It is on the strength of its findings on this score that it has now signed the operating agreement as the United Kingdom designated entity. Indeed it may be asked why the Post Office was somewhat late in
1950
putting its signature as the designated entity to the agreement. It is precisely because of the importance of the point which the noble Baroness rightly raised during this debate.
The other point that she raised as to procurement is covered by what I have said about the role of the ESA and Britain in relation to the ESA. As to Article 26, relating to the two broad categories of privilege and immunity, the order relates to the position under taxation and Customs duties of the organisation for the things it needs. The personal privileges and immunities, if I may call them that, will of course be, as the noble Baroness implied, the subject of a later order which I confidently hope to move from this Box in due course.
The contributions from signatories is an interesting point. At first glance of course it seems that this country is contributing a somewhat large proportion of the totality of at least the initial investment subscription—12 per cent.—second only to the amount to be contributed by the United States of 17 per cent., and 1 per cent. more than the composite contribution of the three Soviet Republics.
Most countries which look at this matter carefully would not mind "upping" their contribution because with the increased contribution goes technological and commercial influence, so that the issue may well be not that one's partner is subscribing less than he ought to; the issue may well be that we should like to contribute more than our partners are doing for proper national advantage within this international organisation. It will be an interesting meeting, I suspect, in May when various countries come forward and give their opinions about how much more of the equity, if I may call it that, they would like to provide. Once more, I am most grateful for the attitude of the noble Baroness and for the substantial points that she has raised. I hope that I have been able to clarify the position in regard to the major ones.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTIONS (WELSH FORMS) REGULATIONS 1979
5.5 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham)rose to move, That the Regulations laid

1951
before the House on 2nd April, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may assist your Lordships if I offer some very brief words of explanation. It has been the policy of successive Administrations that in Wales electoral forms should be prescribed in both English and Welsh. It is clearly right that the policy of bilingualism should extend to such matters as these. In consequence of Parliament's approval to the European Assembly Elections Act and the European Assembly Elections Regulations which noble Lords debated on 8th March, it is necessary to prescribe new Welsh versions of certain electoral forms.
The forms which are before your Lordships' House tonight are form D of the Representation of the People Regulations 1974, the application for a proxy paper; form Q, the application to be treated as an absent voter for an indefinite period owing to occupational or physical incapacity; form R, the application to vote by post owing to change of residence; form U, the application for appointment of proxy; and form V, the application by a proxy to vote by post.
I should stress that your Lordships have already agreed to the English version of these forms which were set out in Schedule 3 to the European Assembly Elections Regulations 1979. I ask the House therefore only to approve the Welsh translation of these forms which has been prepared by skilled translators in the Welsh Office. I would just add, Erfyniaf am gymeradwyaeth, which, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend the Government Chief Whip and other noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House, will know is the equivalent of, "I beg to move"—and I apologise to them for not doing full justice to their glorious and musical tongue and am immensely grateful to officials here and in the Principality.
Moved, That the Regulations laid before the House on 2nd April, be approved.—(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
5.8 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for moving these regulations and, if I may say so, for the pronunciations of certain of the words that he used. I should like to
1952
ask one question that occurs to me: it says that these Welsh form regulations shall be substituted for the form set out in Schedule 1. Should this not in fact be "added"? Are not the forms already in Schedule 1 of the parent Act those that refer to the local elections and Government elections? To my mind, "substituting" means taking out the one and putting in another. I should not like to think that we are depriving the Welsh of voting in local government elections and even in the General Election by some mistake in their own language.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I do not think that there is any difficulty here. The draft Statutory Instrument I am assured has been carefully drafted and takes account of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Denham, made. Although I am not able to say that those two words are for all purposes interchangeable, what I am assured is that these will meet the requirements of the elections themselves. I hope that that will suffice.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, since another place have not yet completed their consideration of some Bills, we are unable to proceed to Royal Assent at the moment and we shall have to adjourn during pleasure. I do not anticipate that it will be beyond six o'clock. The time when we resume will appear on the annunciator as usual, and so I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.10 p.m. to 6.32 p.m.]

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CARRIAGE BY AIR AND ROAD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with a privilege Amendment; the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT BILL [H.L.]
  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL [H.L.]
    PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege Amendment; the said Amendment considered and agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Appropriation Act,

Finance Act,

Legal Aid Act,

Carriage by Air and Road Act,

International Monetary Fund Act,

Exchange Equalisation Account Act,

Prosecution of Offences Act,

Industry Act,

Land Registration (Scotland) Act,

Credit Unions Act,

Independent Broadcasting Authority Act,

1954

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act,

Banking Act,

Estate Agents Act,

Merchant Shipping Act,

Representation of the People Act,

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act,

Arbitration Act,

Crown Agents Act,

Leasehold Reform Act,

Weights and Measures Act,

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act,

Shetland Islands Council Order Confirmation Act,

Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

Gairloch Piers Order Confirmation Act.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, since this is the last sitting day of this parliamentary Session, I hope, with the leave of the House, that we on these Benches may send best wishes to noble Lords in all parts of the House, and say how very much we look forward to seeing them again and in the same juxtaposition as we find ourselves today.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I should like to thank the noble Baroness the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for what she has said, and to echo it. I think the expression that springs to mind is mutatis mutandis.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I had always understood that foreign languages were forbidden!

Preamble
The Parliament was dissolved by Royal Proclamation on Saturday, 7th April, 1979.
End of Fifth Session and of the Forty-seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the twenty-eighth year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.