Lords Sitting of 18 January 1979

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

PENSION FUND INVESTMENT
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandys, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they recognise the dangers of setting up a State agency for the compulsory direction of pension fund investment and whether they will unequivocally reject any such proposal.
The MINISTER of STATE, PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE (Baroness Birk): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not intend to set up such an agency.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply, as will be the 14 million people who are either drawing pensions or who will in due course draw pensions from occupational pension schemes.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Labour Party Conference, the Labour Party National Executive and the Labour Party/TUC joint document have all strongly recommended this? Can the noble Baroness reconfirm to the House that all these recommendations are to be neglected in the forthcoming Manifesto and that we can really rely on the fact that the investment in pension funds will in the future be made by pension fund managers and not by politicians or bureaucrats?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord is jumping things a bit. The Wilson
1156
Committee will be reporting in the early summer and it is for the Committee to take a view on the proposals to be expressed in that report. Nothing has gone further than that now; but the Government—I stick to my original Answer—do not intend to set up such an agency.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness this: when she comes to use her influence on the writing of the Manifesto, will she bear in mind that the chances of a State agency investing funds more profitably than is done under the present arrangements are very remote? Pensioners, now and in the future, are likely to have their pensions reduced if the investments are less profitable than they are at the moment.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. All this is being taken into account by the Committee and the Government, and certainly the Treasury, are very well aware of it. In particular, the Government, who have really done so much by their actions to include so many people in occupational pensions, believe that it is obviously to their advantage to keep an eye on their interests and to protect them.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, are these various points not perhaps rather surprising from a Government that talks so much about the fact that industry ought to be self-financing? Are not the pension funds one of the most important savings of industry and, as regards some form of direction, may not some people take the view that funds may be better employed in supporting British industry than in buying a Louis IV commode?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I would thank my noble friend for his question. I think it is agreed that there is probably some room for more communication and discussion between the Government and the institutions and industry.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a Government composed of the Party on this side of the House will certainly never set up such an agency?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her Answer was what might be called "a timetable Answer"?—the Government are not setting up an agency at this time. Is she in a position to say whether or not the Government, with all the special knowledge to which she has referred, are against the principle of doing this at any time, or was this just a "timetable Answer"?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the Government are against the principle of an agency with compulsory direction.

CHARTER 77 APPEAL: HUMAN RIGHTS
3.13 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will summarise the main points in the appeal recently sent by spokesmen for Charter 77 and the Committee for the Defence of Persons Unjustly Prosecuted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, with copies to Heads of Governments that signed the Helsinki Final Act, and the reply that has been sent; and whether they will place the full text of both in the Library.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the appeal alleges continued persecution of dissidents in Czechoslovakia and urges the United Nations and foreign Governments to maintain their concern. The reply sent by the Prime Minister's office expressed his deep concern at the actions taken against defenders of human rights. The text of the appeal and the reply sent will be placed in the Library.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, since this first appeal by Charter 77 to the West followed 21 public appeals to their own Government, all of which were ignored, may I put two brief questions to the noble Lord? First, do the Government broadly—I emphasise that word—accept the detailed account of the harassment and persecution
1158
of Czechoslovak dissidents, bearing in mind their right to try to keep their Government up to the mark is actually written into the Final Act of Helsinki? Secondly, apart from ineffective verbal protests, what action are the Government considering in conjunction with our Western allies to try to bring home to the Czechoslovak Government that they have duties and obligations under the United Nations Covenants on Human Rights and under the Helsinki Final Act?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no doubt that broadly speaking the allegations are true: persecution, harassment continues in Czechoslovakia and so does our condemnation of these practices, which are wholly in contravention of the signed agreements in the Final Act of Helsinki. As to our further action, while we maintain our bilateral pressures on Czechoslovakia and similar like-minded countries and with our allies, who similarly take action to put their points forward, I should like to add that this country is foremost in promoting the necessary preparations for the follow-up conference in Madrid, which will probably be held in 1980, when we hope to build on the results of Belgrade, and indeed markedly improve upon them, especially in the field of the observation of human rights.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that none of the Socialist countries, including Czechoslovakia, has signed the optional protocol to the covenant on civil and political rights, which allows for individual complaints against the violation of human rights in one's country? In view of this fact, would the noble Lord not think that it was entirely proper that individuals, such as those members of Charter 77 who are referred to in this Question, should be able to present their case through Western Governments at the review in Madrid which the noble Lord mentioned?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is perfectly possible. It is not for me to anticipate in detail the agenda or the forms of the follow-up meeting in Madrid, but certainly the suggestion made by the noble Lord is one for very careful and, I would say, favourable consideration. As to the participation of Eastern European and other

1159
States in various protocols and conventions relating to the observance of human rights, I could not off-hand answer for every country, but I think that what he has said is unfortunately all too true in too many cases.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, although we do not now have a representative on the Commission of Human Rights of the United Nations, which I think is regrettable, can the Minister inform the House whether, in view of the next session which is to be held in Geneva towards the end of February or the beginning of March, the Government have considered taking any concerted action with those Western members who have representatives on the Commission of Human Rights to raise this issue?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly it is a continuing practice and policy to consult and to concert with like-minded countries, and of course our partners and allies, particularly in democratic Europe. We can, of course, build on this and add to our consultations and concerted action with members of the non-aligned group who, I am delighted to say, are much more ready to address themselves to the important points raised in this Question than they were a few years ago.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, does the Minister remember that the recent conference of the International Labour Office considered these charges in detail and decided, with the support of Her Majesty's Government, to make representations to the Czechoslovakian Government? Has any reply been received to those representations?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to representations by the ILO, I should need notice of that question.

GREY SQUIRREL CONTROL IN SCOTLAND
3.17 p.m.
Lord DULVERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the extreme damage done to hardwoods in many areas of Scotland by grey squirrels and whether they are prepared to allow the use of anti-coagulant pesticide (Warfarin) in Scotland, as has been the case in England and Wales for a number of years.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, in 1973 an order was made under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972 allowing the controlled use of Warfarin against grey squirrels in woodlands in certain limited areas of England and Wales. At that time Scottish forestry interests indicated that grey squirrel damage did not justify a similar measure for Scotland. The Scottish Woodland Owners' Association have now indicated their belief that grey squirrels are causing increasing damage to hardwoods. The Association are currently seeking evidence of such damage to justify requesting a Warfarin order for Scotland. If convincing evidence is produced, the Secretary of State will consider consulting all the interests concerned about the propriety of laying an order before Parliament.
Lord DULVERTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his Answer, but may I press him a little further? Despite the timing of my Question being somewhat premature, in view of the fact that Scottish woodland owners have not yet completed their collection of evidence, is the noble and learned Lord aware, first, that the damage to hardwoods is intensive in certain areas of Scotland; secondly, that while the Forestry Commission plants very few hardwoods, the private sector owns practically all the hardwoods in Scotland which are so greatly valued by the public: and, thirdly, that grey squirrels have spread northwards right into Perthshire, and are displacing the native red squirrels as they go? Will the noble and learned Lord assure me and the House that the minimum delay will occur, when the Scottish woodland owners have finished collecting their evidence, in getting an order before Parliament, because in the meantime the damage is going on and it will get worse?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, we certainly have some indication of the spread of grey squirrels in the way that the noble Lord has indicated. I am certainly aware, too, that the Forestry Commission has a somewhat different kind of tree from that of the private owners. But the most important point to bear in mind is that when in 1972 Parliament approved the Act which I mentioned, consultation with all the interests was made obligatory upon the Secretary of State; and, of course, there are interests other than the forestry and agricultural interests. There are the wildlife preservation interests as well. Furthermore, the Secretary of State has to bring his order for Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. In these circumstances, the Secretary of State must have convincing evidence. Of course, if such evidence is put before him there will certainly be no unnecessary delay.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether or not he will agree that when dealing with the eradication of vermin such as the grey squirrel it is very much better to do it when the numbers are very small rather than wait until the numbers are very large? Furthermore, can the noble Lord see that there is anything to be said for waiting until the grey squirrels have had another breeding season, for that, in fact, is what his answer amounts to?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, as I have already said, the Secretary of State cannot act until he is persuaded that there is sufficient evidence. Then he can consult the relevant bodies. It is not just a question of the grey squirrel. Any measures taken against a non-indigenous pest such as the grey squirrel are equally harmful to the indigenous red squirrel. There are many interests, as one knows from the Orkneys seal cull, which wish to ensure the preservation of animal species and not see them threatened by poison measures. So we need convincing evidence.
Lord HALE: My Lords, has my noble and learned friend observed on his visits South of the Border that this pest is to be seen in increasing numbers all over the country? Does he recognise that the grey squirrel is destructive of trees and is almost impossible to deal with under any
1162
of the provisions of the 1972 legislation in some very beautiful metropolitan areas where it is multiplying visibly and rapidly, since it cannot be treated by poison because the poison is too dangerous to other animals and it is impossible in an urban area to use the methods prescribed? Will my noble and learned friend consider, as we understand that the destructive season is March, what steps can be taken to help to deal with the problem during the appropriate season, as his own Department recommends?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am sure that the House will appreciate that although my responsibilities have recently been enlarged I have none for England and Wales. Secondly, as my noble friend has indicated, in the Act we are concerned with agricultural land and land of that kind, so I cannot say more than that the Government are aware, and have been made aware by the interests concerned, of the character of the problem.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, in relation to what the noble and learned Lord said about the red squirrel, is he aware, in addition to the point made by my noble friend, that there are some areas in Scotland—for example parts of the North—into which the grey squirrel has not yet spread and where the friendly red squirrel still survives and that the grey squirrel pest is likely to invade those areas, too, unless severe measures to control it can be taken in the areas of Scotland concerned?
Lord McCLUSKEY: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that, and I do not think that I can usefully add to what I have said in relation to the position of the Secretary of State.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord keep in mind the fact that most of the damage done by the grey squirrel is done during the second week of July when the bark is stripped off sycamores? Therefore, it is of the utmost urgency that action should be taken in time.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I would merely repeat my assurance that, being aware of that circumstance, the Secretary of State will not lose any time

1163
over laying an appropriate order before Parliament if the evidence justifies it.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware of the effect of the drug warfarin? Is my noble and learned friend aware that if a human being should get some of it on to his fingers and nibble at it he will have more hallucinations than anybody seeing an unidentified flying object?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the method of applying this poison, permitted under the order, is such that a human being would have great difficulty in obtaining access to it.

SOCIAL WORKERS: INQUIRY PROPOSAL
3.24 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the long-drawn-out strike, they will set up an independent inquiry into the conditions of service and responsibilities of social workers.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, local authority employers are responsible for the terms and conditions of service of their own employees. They are at present negotiating with representatives of the social workers in the National Joint Council for Local Authority Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services. While these negotiations are continuing, it would not be proper for my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Social Services, who play no direct part in these negotiations, to try to intervene.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether she is fully aware that the strike started six months ago in two authorities and has escalated to 14 authorities and that during these long months
1164
it is the most vulnerable and those without a voice in society who have been suffering? By that I mean children waiting for adoption, the mentally ill and handicapped, the elderly and the disabled. Would not the Minister's right honourable friend reconsider the position regarding setting up an inquiry to look into not only the conditions of pay but the management and structure of the social services?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I note the concern of the noble Baroness opposite, and we in the Government share it. However, to set up an independent inquiry while the negotiations are still in progress is a hypothetical question just at this time. It would be a very serious matter if the Government decided at this point to take these negotiations out of the hands of the independent employers and unions. I understand that they had a meeting yesterday. They will be reporting to the NALGO full committee on 26th January. I can only hope that they realise the damage that they are doing not only to their own profession and service but to the unfortunate people who depend upon them so much. I hope that the strikers will not continue their action but will go ahead with their negotiations with all speed possible.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, in view of the length of time these troubles have been going on, is it not the province of government to see that the provisions of statutes such as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and the Public Health Act are carried out?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are doing our best. This applies at the moment to 14 authorities. What I am afraid of is that some of these authorities may decide—because they have not seen the damage which is being done since they have not been able to contact cases—that there is not the need for so much in the way of social services and welfare services as there really is. I can only hope that the strikers will realise what a charge they have in terms of looking after these people—who are usually the inarticulate who need their help and need it desperately—and that they will also

1165
realise that they are doing their service no good and their authorities no good by continuing with the strike.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while the noble Baroness stresses, no doubt accurately, that these negotiations in respect of their own employees are handled by the local authorities, may I ask whether it is not a fact that these local authorities are subject to the Government's pay guidelines and that this has been made clear to them and will be reflected in the level of the grants that they receive?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, but further advice has also been given to them. The Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear to the negotiators on both sides that the pay policy ought to present no significant obstacle to continuing and concluding these negotiations. We gathered in the course of informal discussions that at one time they thought that they would have to wait for any regrading, because it would be classed as a mass regrading which they could not get until their next pay round was due. My Secretary of State has now made it plain that these will not be regarded as mass regradings and that if they will only get on with the job we can get it done.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the progress of the negotiations has shown a degree of indolence which would not be put up with by any other body of workers and that it is principally because it falls upon people who are not in a position to hit back that we think that these negotiations have been so protracted and delayed?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, negotiations, particularly when they affect pay, are often protracted and are often, so it would seem to the outsider, unduly delayed. The National Joint Council is comprised of representatives of the local authorities as the employers and all kinds of people who are local authority employees. The social workers are only one part of it. NALGO are another part of it. It is much more difficult to negotiate when you are covering the whole field of local government employees, as this national council is, than when you are dealing with just one straightforward
1166
part of it. There can be repercussions from one part to the other.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I gather from the reply given to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the Government have indicated to the employers that they need not stick to the 5 per cent. guidelines. If they do give more than 5 per cent., will that be reflected in any increase in the rate support grant?—because, if not, then surely an award higher than 5 per cent. simply means that the local authorities will be able to afford to employ fewer social workers.
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, what we have indicated is that these need not be considered as mass regradings. If there are regradings some of them will get quite a bit more than 5 per cent. We have indicated that they are not to be considered as mass regradings and therefore any regradings that are agreed by the National Joint Council can be implemented right away and need not wait until the round on pay talks.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Government have formed an opinion about the demand of the strikers for local negotiation rather than national negotiation?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords. At this stage this is a matter between the local authority as the employers and the unions as the employees. It is not at this stage for the Government to intervene.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE- SIDE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I fully support the Question put by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, and is she further aware that I honestly do not think that she has given a very satisfactory reply? The noble Baroness will be aware that I come from that part of the country where we have the head quarters of the Social Services Department. It seems to me, from certain experience during 38 years in another place, that the noble Baroness would have done much better to cut out many of the odd things she has said and accept what my noble friend said, because some interesting letters have been written by very important people—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: I am not at all satisfied, my Lords, and I intend to say so. I do not think that the answer given by the noble Baroness is satisfactory.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I know that the House appreciates the indignation felt by the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, but I think we really must have a question and not a speech. I feel that she has made her point and, as we have three Statements to come, I feel sure the House will agree that we should proceed.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the road haulage dispute. He will then repeat a Statement on the effects of the current industrial disputes. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham repeating a Statement on the bomb incidents.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS BILL [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate and amend the law relating to ancient monuments; to make provision for the investigation, preservation and recording of matters of archaeological or historical interest and (in connection therewith) for the regulation of operations or activities affecting such matters; to provide for the recovery of grants under Section 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 or under Section 4 of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 in certain circumstances; and to provide for grants by the Secretary of State to the Architectural Heritage Fund. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read la.—(Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL [H.L.]
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jacques I beg to introduce a Bill to enable effect to be given to provisions of certain protocols signed at Montreal on 25th September 1975 which further amend the Convention relating to carriage by air known as the Warsaw Convention as amended at The Hague in 1955: to modify Article 26(2) of the said Convention both as in force apart from those protocols and as in force by virtue of them; to provide for the amendment of certain Acts relating to carriage by air or road in consequence of the revision of relevant Conventions; and to replace reference to gold Francs in the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965, and the Carriage of Passengers by Road Act 1974 by references to special drawing rights. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL [H.L.]
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend paragraph (f)(iii) of the proviso to Section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 and corresponding enactments extending to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the first of seven Bills together consolidating most of the law of customs and excise, all of which are for Second Reading this afternoon. It may be convenient if, with the leave of the House. I speak briefly now to all seven Bills before the others are put in turn to your Lordships, and moved formally.
The Customs and Excise Management Bill, which is the largest of these Bills, deals with the administration, management and overall control of customs and excise while the Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Bill consolidates certain general reliefs from customs and excise duties. There are four Bills dealing specifically with the individual excise duties on alcoholic liquors; oil, petrol and similar fuels; tobacco products, and matches and lighters. Finally, one Bill consolidates the so-called "regulator" powers by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may by order vary the rate of certain excise duties.
All but one of the Bills are pure consolidation Bills, the exception being the Management Bill which contains four minor changes in drafting recommended by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission in their report on the consolidation. None of these recommendations relates to the charge of duty, nor would they make any change in current practice. My Lords, if these Bills receive a Second Reading today they will all be referred in the ordinary way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I had been
1170
asked to take the Bills together, but on excellent authority I am told that I cannot do so.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

MATCHES AND MECHANICAL LIGHTERS DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS DUTY BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES (GENERAL RELIEFS) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

EXCISE DUTIES (SURCHARGES OR REBATES) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a; an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Judicial Review of arbitration awards.]:
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("court") and insert ("arbitrator or umpire").
The noble Lord said: When this Bill passed before the House on Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor emphasised that the purpose of the Bill was to remove certain
1172
legal obstacles which at present stand in the way of London being used to its full potential as an international centre for arbitration. He stressed that it was most important that our arbitration law should conform with the needs and wishes of the commercial community, and he emphasised how important to the City of London were the measures in this Bill. He said that it is important that the City of London and other centres of arbitration should not be hampered in the maintenance and expansion of their important and historic role in arbitration matters. As your Lordships are aware, the London arbitrators have a famous international reputation. He indicated that the Bill would be important to our balance of payments from the City's services, and those balance of payments are very considerable, and he emphasised that the Bill would remove the deterrents in our arbitration practice which have discouraged arbitrations taking place in this country.
There is one deterrent that I am seeking to remove by my first Amendment to this Bill, one of the deterrents to arbitration taking place in this country at the present time. It relates to the procedure for appeal. It is very easy, as many of your Lordships know, to invoke the practices of the court by appeal procedures, to delay the final decision. The appeal provisions of the Bill with which I am concerned are to be found in Clause 1(3). An appeal under this subsection can, of course, be brought
"… by any of the parties to the reference with the consent of all other parties to the reference",
but the other ground of appeal in this subsection, as the Bill now reads, is:
"… subject to section 3 below, with the leave of the court".
My Amendment is to bring the arbitrator more nearly to the procedure of appeal, for reasons which. I shall indicate later. Therefore, instead of the word "court"—the necessity to have the leave of the court—my Amendment is directed to omitting "court" and giving the power to grant leave to the arbitrator or umpire. I understand, of course, that there are difficulties about this, but your Lordships will realise that the umpire or arbitrator has been all through the facts and he is usually a very experienced man. It is very rare there is any matter of misconduct on the part of an arbitrator. But serious

1173
delays can arise by this appeal to the court. The arbitrator having listened to the parties will know whether or not any of the parties are just introducing procedures to delay a final decision.
Therefore, it seems to me from a practical point of view very helpful to give a power to the arbitrator or umpire to grant leave if it is asked by one of the parties. He is the man who has studied all the facts and he should be able to decide whether or not it is a proper case for appeal, rather than allow the matter to go further to the court. It does also seem quite wrong to me that the arbitrator is not brought into the procedures in other parts of this Bill, but those are matters to which we will come later. This Amendment is directed to giving power to the arbitrator to decide whether there should be leave to appeal after he has heard the case. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment would have the effect of substituting the leave of the arbitrator or the umpire for that of the High Court to bring an appeal under Clause 1(2) upon a question of law arising out of the arbitrator's or the umpire's award. I submit this is not acceptable. The court's power to supervise and to review arbitrations should not depend on the arbitrator's leave. For it to do so would be to make the arbitrator in effect judge in his own cause, and without further amendment there would be no appeal against his refusal of leave as such. It might be reassuring to the arbitrator, but I doubt whether it would reassure anyone else. Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 are consequential on this Amendment and deal with the same point. Accordingly, I am afraid I cannot support the Amendment.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

ROAD HAULAGE STRIKE
3.48 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, with the leave of the
1174
House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about the road haulage strike. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary hopes to make a Statement, Mr. Speaker, when this is concluded, on the effects of the current industrial disputes and the Government's contingency arrangements.
"I regret to inform the House that there appears to be no prospect of an immediate end to the strike and the movement of supplies of all kinds is being held up. Hardship and considerable dislocation is being caused to the general public and to trade and industry, particularly because of the severe effects of secondary picketing. I therefore asked the General Secretary of the TGWU, Mr. Moss Evans, and the General Secretary of the TUC, Mr. Len Murray, to come to see me for discussions last night.
"Mr. Evans made it clear that his union stand by its agreement to maintain the priority supplies of essential goods. He also repeated that it stands by its instructions to its own members that the strike and the picketing should be confined to those companies who are in dispute with the Road Haulage Association. Mr. Evans undertook to take further urgent action to ensure that these priority supplies are maintained and that action by pickets is not extended to companies and employees who are not involved in the dispute.
"Nevertheless it is clear that some picketing practices and in particular secondary picketing have given rise to the present serious situation; I told Mr. Evans that there had been little amelioration in the position and that it was essential that pickets and in particular secondary picketing should be properly controlled. I have already made clear to the House that, in the Government's view, this control is likely to be more effective by a voluntary code of practice than by attempts at unenforceable legislation. As a result of our discussion the Transport and General Workers' Union has agreed to

1175
a voluntary code of practice in relation to picketing during this dispute and this has been issued by it today. The code explicitly provides that "picketing should be confined to the drivers and vehicles in the hire and reward section of the industry who are employed by firms in dispute with the union", that is, it rules out secondary picketing. The union is making clear to all its members that no member of the union would be penalised or suffer in any way as regards his rights as a member of the union if he follows this code of practice.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will be dealing with the general question of contingency arrangements in his Statement. But, in relation to the road haulage dispute, I should say that in the current grave situation the Government have given careful consideration as to whether they should seek the powers that would become available by proclaiming a State of Emergency today. The critical question is whether the proclamation of a State of Emergency would increase the supply of essential goods and services. At the moment the Government's view is that essential supplies would be better maintained by the members of the Transport and General Workers' Union observing the code of practice issued by their union and so putting an end to secondary picketing. But the Government will keep the matter under review day by day.
"The Government will keep the House informed of developments."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.52 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be obliged to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating that Statement. No doubt your Lordships will take note of, and will welcome so far as it goes, the proposal that Mr. Moss Evans and the Transport and General Workers' Union will issue a code of practice about secondary picketing. However, we shall also recollect that Mr. Moss Evans said that that was precisely what he was going to do. Indeed, he said that one of
1176
the reasons for declaring the strike official was to control picketing. To say the least of it, that does not seem to have been the experience in the past few days. We also have observed in the newspapers this morning the statement made by Mr. Kitson that secondary picketing was essential if the union was to win the strike. Moreover, I do not think that the Government should under-estimate the anger of ordinary persons at what is happening about secondary picketing. They will certainly expect the code of practice to be effective. If it is not effective, they will expect the Government to ensure that it is effective, and very quickly at that.
As regards the State of Emergency which was referred to in the last part of the Statement, I think that it must be for the Government to make their own decision. We cannot possibly have all the facts at our disposal. But, certainly from our observation and from what we hear, the situation does seem to be a great deal more serious than one would suppose from some of the statements that have been made by Ministers. We see the lay-offs and the shortages in the shops. We on this side of the House—emergency or no emergency—shall expect the Government to ensure that essential supplies are kept going.
3.54 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that I listened to the Statement with mounting misgivings. It refers to the need to control secondary picketing. Surely what is needed is to stop secondary picketing, especially in the docks and the factories. Surely the form of secondary picketing which we have witnessed in the last few days and the obstruction and intimidation must be illegal and there must, therefore, be grounds for taking action against it.
I gain the impression that the first thing that must be done is for the union leaders to regain control of their militant members. If they do not do that, I do not see the value of a code of practice at all, because unless they regain control of their militant members they cannot put it into practice. Therefore, I ask the Government to make it clear to the union leaders that the first thing is to regain control, and, if necessary, they should use the powers which they

1177
have under the closed shop system to force compliance with union instructions, and also to force compliance with the undertakings which the union have given to the Government themself. If that is not done we have made no progress.
Finally, I would ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether it is not essential that the union leadership should take immediate action against those who indulge in corrupt practices by extorting cash from employers through a Mafia-type protection racket which I never thought we would see in this country.
3.56 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, first, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I am grateful for his positive approach. This is a difficult situation and he is quite right in saying that it is for the Government to decide, because inevitably we are involved. If the facts show the need for something more urgent, then we shall be entitled to act. Therefore, I am grateful for the remarks which he made. I accept what he said about the code of practice. However, before we receive biting criticism which I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, made of the code of practice, and before the noble Lord makes a final judgment, he should read the code of practice. I hope that there will be copies of it available for noble Lords to study carefully.
I believe that if there can be voluntary action it would be far better than thinking in terms of legislation, because it would take a long time to get legislation through. So, we feel that the course that we have followed is the right course in the present circumstances; but if the situation became worse, then naturally we may have to take other action.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to realise that the kind of picture one has depends upon one's sources of information. If, therefore, one relies upon the media—the BBC, radio or television—or one reads the Press, with the honourable exception of the Financial Times, which has tried to be objective, one receives the type of picture painted by the two Front Bench speakers.
On the other hand, not being a devotee of the Press as an unadulterated force of
1178
truth, I did some checking myself. Does the Minister realise that last night and this morning I made checks in the Eastern region—that is, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire, which are areas which have a very great number of food firms? There is not one single food factory which is not getting its supplies, and that is because of the energetic and competent action of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Therefore, the pictures about secondary picketing are grossly overstated, as indeed are the reports about bribes and all the other fun and games. If noble Lords would take the trouble to make inquiries they would find that to be so.
Is the Minister further aware that the Press, with the honourable exception of the Sporting——
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I shall own up to noble Lords that I read the Sporting Life; that is perfectly true! And if I have made a Freudian slip I am proud of it. I should have said "With the exception of the Financial Times". The Press in this country has made no effort whatever to present the simple fact that the lorry drivers have a case—indeed, a very substantial case—which has been grossly distorted. Will the Government bear in mind that in so far as the Press does not present objectively the lorry drivers' and the strikers' case, it embitters the strikers and that is one of the main causes of vicious picketing?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I have noted carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said. I shall repeat another Statement which deals with the state of supply of goods and services and contingency arrangements. I hope that the noble Lord still receives his Sporting Life.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the danger of the phraseology used in the Statement? It uses the term "unenforceable legislation". What is unenforceable legislation? It cannot be legislation unless it has the approval of the whole of Parliament, which represents the interests of the whole nation. Who is in a position to make unlawful legislation which has passed that test? Does not

1179
the phraseology which the noble Lord has used mean that the Government are not in charge of the situation, even in the area that they should be covering? If the Government are so dispirited as to what they can do within their proper powers, ought they not to hand over to someone who is not so dispirited? Is not that one of the contributions that could be made at this difficult time?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I should not have thought that that was a positive suggestion. The noble Lord is a member of a Party that has had some strange difficulties in the area of industrial relations, as he knows only too well, and which led to the fall of one of its Prime Ministers. The noble Lord is an old Parliamentarian. He knows very well that sometimes legislation which is passed cannot properly be enforced as those who initiated the Act thought.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, as the Government are apparently going to back the code of practice, will the noble Lord ensure that the widest publicity, in simple language, is given to that code? To be quite frank, trade union language is often so complicated that I cannot understand it. The people of this country seem to have an extraordinary idea of the power of pickets and do not realise their own rights. Therefore, if a code of practice is to be put into effect, will the Government ensure that it is fully understood, or understood as fully as possible, by those who are affected by it in this country?
Lord PEART: My Lords, that is a good, positive point. As I have said, I hope that the code of practice will be available to noble Lords. However, I agree that it must be simple, clear and understood by rank and file trade unionists, which is very important.
My Lords, I understand the next Statement has not yet been cleared.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we are in a difficult situation because we do not yet have clearance for the next Statement. Therefore, perhaps we ought to resume consideration of the Arbitration Bill.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I think that that is probably the best course to pursue. We are dealing with quite a short Amendment. If that is convenient to both sides of the House, I should not propose to detain the House very long and perhaps other noble Lords will adopt the same course.

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
4.3 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 1.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I should like to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his concise and short reply. But he fully realises that since the Second Reading a number of representations have been made to him by commercial interests and arbitrators' associations. I have in my hand copies of correspondence and statements from the London Maritime Arbitrators' Association and the Institute of Arbitrators, who believe that there are serious difficulties in regard to the procedures adopted under this Bill for this kind of appeal. I fully realise the problems which the noble and learned Lord has and that, so far as he is concerned, there is a considerable matter of public policy that arbitrators should not be judges in their own cause. However, he realises that there are hundreds of arbitrations where the reference to the court is usually introduced to delay matters. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would reconsider this Amendment and allow it to be dealt with again at a later stage.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: Perhaps I might intervene very shortly becausefconditional upon notification by the party to the onclusion as he reached in his original reply. I do not think that this Amendment is acceptable. I simply want to give two or three general reasons why I think that is so. It is very important that law reform should be fully ventilated through the professional organisations and through proper inquiry before we introduce it hurriedly into Parliament. This is not because Parliament does not have an absolute right to interfere with

1181
and amend the reports of committees, but because sometimes hasty changes lead to unforeseen results. This is a proposal which would absolutely revolutionise the whole practice and law of arbitration in this country.
It is basic to the law of arbitration in this country that we should not be able to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts. Once we put into effect that the only appeal from an arbitrator is by leave of the arbitrator, we completely revolutionise the fundamental principle on which arbitration law is based. We really cannot use this Bill as a vehicle for that. I venture to say that with some emphasis because the first book I ever wrote was not about politics but about the law of arbitration. I think that I have studied the subject fairly continuously ever since. When we come to discuss whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, I want to refer to my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock because I have a little bone to pick with him.
On the other hand, it is important to remember that the very reason that arbitration in this country has been so popular in the commercial world internationally is that we have developed a code of arbitration practice under the general supervision of the courts which has proved acceptable in the international world. To introduce into our domestic law—because that would be the effect of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran—something as revolutionary as this would be a mistake. I am sure that in this matter the judgement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is correct.
However, I should like to add a few more words because I shall be expanding on this aspect a little later. I think that there has been a genuine misunderstanding in the commercial world, which we must put right during this Committee stage, as to the purpose and effect of the Bill. We have always received the various documents to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has referred. From having read them, it is fairly apparent to me that they have misunderstood what is being done. They believe that what is being given is a freer access to the courts than we previously had. That is not the effect of the Bill; it is to substitute Clause 1 for the previous special case procedure
1182
under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act. So far from making an appeal easier, if anything, it makes it a little more difficult. Once that is generally understood, I believe that much of the dismay which has been expressed in the professional Press and even through the Institute—in which, again, I must disclose a moderate interest because I am a Fellow of it—would be dispelled. Therefore, I would respectfully suggest to the Committee that in this matter the noble and learned Lord is right.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: There is also a layman's reason why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should be supported. I believe that there is a real risk that if this Amendment were accepted, it would interfere with the objectivity of the arbitrator. Like anyone else—like a judge—the arbitrator is human, and the knowledge that he could be appealed against on a point of law is very salutary in ensuring that on the evidence submitted to him he is as objective and impartial in his decisions as he possibly can be. Indeed we are very proud of our judges. But I venture to suggest that there are many occasions when the risk of a judge's decision being appealed against, with the effect it would have on his reputation as a judge, is a very salutary bounty in getting the best out of the judge, or the arbitrator. Purely from the layman's point of view, I would suggest that we must not interfere with the objectivity, which I believe is strengthened by the knowledge that, on a point of law at any rate, a decision could be appealed against.
Lord DIPLOCK: In the hopes of mollifying my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham before he picks a bone with me, may I say that I entirely agree with what he has said about this Amendment, which goes to the root principle of the Bill. May I simply add that this section applies to every arbitration in this country except those which are excluded. International arbitrations are outside it. It applies to the consumer arbitrations; it applies to the tourist industry arbitrations; it applies to the National Council of Housebuilders' arbitrations; it applies to thousands of arbitrations.
I am perfectly well aware that there are many experienced arbitrators, particularly

1183
in the commercial arbitrations, who would be perfectly capable of deciding whether this particular case is an appropriate one for a reference to the courts. But without that experience—and most of the arbitrations we are talking of are done by people without that experience—what you have done is to leave it to the whim of the arbitrator to decide whether or not the court can look at his award to see whether he has made a mistake of law. If in perfect innocence he has made a glaring and obvious mistake of law, you can do nothing about it under this Amendment, unless he says, "I am willing that you should go to the court".
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am gratified by the notable support my opposition to the Amendment has received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who is a great authority in this field, as of course he is in so many other fields. I hope that although this was the first book he wrote it may not be the last. I am reinforced also by the layman's valuable contribution, and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock. I hope, in the face of this weighty opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who is always so reasonable in these matters, will think it appropriate to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, for having disclosed, as a member of the Institute of Arbitrators, the concern that has been shown by that institute about the appeal procedure under this Bill. Of course the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, is the president of that institute. However, I have in my hand a letter from the director and secretary-general of that institute saying that the appeal procedure under this Bill is a deterrent to many people coming to London in order to have their matters arbitrated. In the face of this overwhelming opposition from so many noble and learned Lords, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.13 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 2:
1184
Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("but on condition that the arbitrator or umpire shall be notified prior to the close of the hearing that his award is likely to be the subject of an appeal and that this notification shall form part of his award.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is directed to a procedural matter; that is, that an umpire or arbitrator should be told whether or not it is intended that the award is likely to be subject to an appeal. The matter arises in this way. The arbitrator goes ahead with his arbitration. Then, at the end, one party wants to appeal and they go to the court. They ask leave of the court. The court then has powers to ask the arbitrator to amplify his award and his decision, and long delays ensue at that stage. This Amendment says that there should be a leave to appeal to the court,
"… but on condition that the arbitrator or umpire shall be notified prior to the close of the hearing that his award is likely to be the subject of an appeal and that this notification shall form part of his award".
This Amendment again has strong support from professional arbitrators and from commerce. It is intended to avoid further delays that may arise now, and frequently arise, in the course of the conduct of arbitration proceedings. All that this Amendment requires is that at some time during the course of the arbitration the arbitrator should be notified that a party is likely to lodge an appeal. It becomes clear in the course of an arbitration whether you are going to lose, or what will happen. It often happens in this way. If you notify the arbitrator that you are likely to appeal, he can then amend his award, and write his award in such a way to take care of that point. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment would, in effect, make an appeal under Clause 1(2) conditional upon notification by the party to the arbitration before the hearing of the arbitration closed that an appeal was being contemplated. It would require the notification to form part of the award. In many cases, however, it would not be until the award was made that the question of an appeal would arise, or the grounds of appeal would become apparent. In the result, if this Amendment was accepted either party with good grounds of appeal might be barred from appealing by the failure to give preliminary notice, or alternatively all parties would issue a notification as a protective

1185
measure, and that, I think, would be a most unfortunate development in the arbitration proceedings.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask whether he has overlooked the word, "likely"? You do not have to decide in the course of the hearing that you are going to appeal, but you should give an indication to the arbitrator that there is a likelihood of an appeal. It is not a definite decision in the course of the case that you are going to. It means that if the arbitrator feels that there is a likelihood of an appeal, and this is a circumstance that arises quite reasonably in the course of an arbitration, then he knows what is going to happen and will modify the award accordingly.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I should like again to express my concurrence with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this matter. I do not think that he has overlooked the word, "likely". Often you cannot possibly tell when you are dealing with a judge, an arbitrator, a magistrate, or whatever, whether he is likely to make a mistake. On the contrary, until you hear his judgment you sometimes are lulled into a false sense of security. I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is right.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I have often been in the position to find in the course of a case before the High Court that I am likely to lose, and I am sure that many parties before an arbitrator can tell whether they are likely to lose. Again this is a matter which is of great concern to professional arbitrators and to commercial interests, but has aroused no sympathy with the Lord Chancellor. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 8 not moved.
Lord HACKING Lord HACKING moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 19, after ("set out") insert ("the facts as found by the arbitrator or umpire together with").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment which I hope will have the acceptance of the Committee. This
1186
Amendment concerns the order that the court can give on appeal, and on an appeal the court may be provided with both the facts and the reasons. If there is power to order the reasons, in my submission there also ought to be power to order the facts. It can be argued that it is not necessary to add (his Amendment to the Bill, not necessary to include these words, and that it is universal practice to provide both facts and reasons. But we are considering a new appeal procedure from arbitrations to courts of law. What about the shorthand notes? Will there be shorthand notes? Will there be arbitrator's notes available, and so forth? Secondly, there could be occasions when only further facts are needed. What order is to be mode then? An order for more reasons?
As it affects international agreements—and I refer to the admiralty, commodity and insurance agreements, which are excluded from the exclusion clause of the Bill, and to parties to international agreements who choose, in any event, not to contract out under the new exclusion agreement—it is enormously helpful for overseas lawyers to see the chapter and verse rather than have to delve into English procedural law. As for all other arbitrations, why have a grey area when the law could so easily be remedied?
To make a nice small point, the Committee will have seen that I use the phraseology "facts as found" rather than the usual "findings of fact". I chose those words purposely because in the Commercial Court Committee's Report a great deal of emphasis was laid on the need for arbitrators to feel free to use ordinary language when presenting both the facts and the reasons for their awards, and the report said:
"He would have had some reasons for making the award and all that he would need to do would be to summarise them in ordinary language. Nothing formal would be required".
I think I am right in saying that; Sir John Donaldson, Senior Judge in the Commercial Court, subsequently spoke to the Institute of Arbitrators and again emphasised that feature as a part of the relationship he would like between an arbitration and a court of law. I beg to move
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
4.22 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will report to the House on developments in the arrangements for ensuring that essential supplies and services are maintained.
"The broad picture has been, as the House knows, one of some deterioration in the last day or so in the supply situation, though the extent of this varies from region to region.
"As regards food, shortages are becoming more marked all over the country, more so in some regions than others. There has been some improvements in supplies of salt, but in some areas there are difficulties in the supply of some basic manufactured foodstuffs, such as sugar and margarine.
"As to animal feeding-stuffs, there has been or is expected to be some improvement in Humberside and in Wales, though the situation at Hull remains critical. The general situation is still, however, one of growing shortage.
"On the health side, there are reports of difficulties in supply to hospitals as a result of production disruptions at suppliers.
"Looking at industry as a whole, lay-offs have increased in some degree. Many industries and firms face problems in the supply of raw materials and in the storage of stocks of products which are not being moved out to customers.
"Many of these problems are the result of secondary picketing. Picketing is not being confined to drivers and vehicles in the hire and reward section
1188
of the industry, and it is interfering with the movement of essential supplies of services covered by the list of priorities which we have agreed with the unions concerned. I have had reports from chief officers of police about the conduct of the picketing. On the whole it remains peaceful, but there are beginning to be some exceptions to that, and there have in some instances been signs of intimidation.
"The police will, as always, carry out their responsibilities under the law. But the need is to confine the picketing in accordance with the code of practice described by my right honourable friend. Arrangements have been made, under my direction, for Government officials and senior officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union to meet so that any problems relating to priority supplies or extension of the dispute to unauthorised areas which is reported to the Government from the regions can be taken up forthwith by union officers. Monitoring meetings will be held daily, and the Government and the union officials will maintain continuing contacts.
"The implementation of the code of practice on picketing to be issued by the T & GWU and the monitoring arrangements I have described to the House would lead to an early and marked improvement in the movement of essential supplies and services all over the country. As my right honourable friend has said, the Government believe the balance of advantage lies in those voluntary measures to control the dispute and maintain priority supplies, rather than in the Government introducing direct emergency action. But we continue to be ready to call on the assistance of the Services or to proclaim a State of Emergency if need be, and the necessary contingency plans for this are at a high state of readiness.
"As regards the unofficial dispute in the London Ambulance Service, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have already made contingency plans for emergency arrangements to be provided by the Services, if this should prove necessary.
"In the Pennine Division the North-West Water Authority is maintaining

1189
piped water supplies to the vast majority of the population and industry. Of 350,000 households in the division, about 2,200 are without piped water due to burst mains which have not been repaired. Most of these are scattered across the division in small groups. No one is without access to water. Standpipes have been erected for all except a few properties. Elsewhere, people are able to go to neighbours down the street. Nearly all sewage treatment plants are fully working, but it has been necessary to divert part of the flow at Bolton into the river. Water flow in the river is reducing the effects of pollution.
"Negotiations on pay in the water industry are taking place today and we must await the outcome. However, I can assure the House that there are contingency arrangements to help the North-West Water Authority at short notice."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.27 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the second Statement which has been made in another place. It follows in some detail the first Statement and it should be examined with care. It categorically states that there are shortages, and serious shortages, and that many of them are the result of secondary picketing and some intimidation. My noble friend Lord Carrington has already pointed out that firms and their employees not involved in disputes are being forced to stop work and that the public in this country see no reason why pickets should behave as petty tyrants.
The information in the second Statement should really have been listened to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, before he made his comments because the general public regard secondary picketing as indefensible, and it is clear that he was completely wrong in his assessment of the situation. There must be anxiety about shortages of essential food and about the hospitals and raw material and transport problems for industry.
I should like to put some brief questions to the noble Lord. First, the Statement
1190
announces that there will be daily meetings between officials on the code of practice, but that code of practice is still to be issued. It is stated that the meetings "would lead to an early and marked improvement" in the situation. When will the Government take further action if the code does not lead to the hoped-for improvement? Futhermore, it is hoped that the code will apply to pickets under the control of unions. What is it proposed to do about pickets who are not members of unions or who are not under the influence or control of unions? It is clear from Press reports that there are numbers of these pickets operating in the country.
With regard to what is said in the Statement regarding ambulances, can the noble Lord clarify whether the contingency plan for the use of Servicemen can be brought into action before a state of emergency is announced, should this be urgently required? Finally, with regard to the arrangements announced concerning water in the North-West of England, have contingency plans yet been made to deal with water and sewerage problems, which are important both from a health point of view and in regard to the essentials of normal life, should disruption spread beyond the North of England to other parts of the country?
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I have already made my views clear on much of this matter following the first Statement. However, I should like to question the noble Leader of the House on the aspect of the matter which particularly worries me; namely, the question of water. There does not appear to be any sense of emergency, yet the health of the people is at risk in the area which is described in the Statement. In those circumstances, surely we cannot be asked merely to await the outcome of pay negotiations which are taking place. I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether, should there be no settlement in the course of the day, the Government will put the contingency plans into operation, so that people can at least have some assurance that something is being done to look after their needs? I must say to the noble Leader of the House that this is the wettest Statement on water that I have ever heard.
Lord PEART: I do not think that it could be anything else other than wet, my Lords. However, to be serious, I note very carefully what the noble Lord has said. We have what we believe are satisfactory emergency arrangements. The situation has improved, and I hope that something will emerge today which will mean an end to the dispute——
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these Statements are beginning to sound farcical?
Lord PEART: I have not finished dealing with the earlier points raised, my Lords. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that there are serious shortages. As an ex-Minister of Agriculture, I was very worried about supplies, including feeding stuffs, to the industry. This is a vital matter, but we have acted, and the situation is being monitored daily. The shortages vary, as was mentioned in the other Statement. With regard to the question of picketing, I stand by what I said earlier. I agree with the noble Lord that secondary picketing is not an activity which we should condone, and we have not done so. I believe that I have dealt with the matter of the ambulance services. We feel that we have all the contingency plans and that everything will be satisfactory.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these Statements are becoming farcical? All they amount to is a recital ofinformation which we have already read in the newspapers. There is nothing new in the Statements. What is contained in them is merely dressed up under the heading "Government Statement". In the light of all that is happening, is it not possible for the Lord Privy Seal to suggest to his colleagues in the Government that they should do something about the situation? For instance, the second Statement read to us has been made by the Home Secretary, who states that he has been told by the police that there is intimidation. Therefore, why does the Home Secretary not use his powers, even by way of sending a circular giving advice to the police and stating that they would have his support in carrying out the legislation that is already on the Statute Book? I
1192
am not asking the Home Secretary to instruct the police, but circulars are issued from Government Departments giving advice to the people who have to apply that advice in relation to every item that comes under the Government's purview. Merely to re-state what is already in the newspapers and to pretend that that is doing something about the matter is to cause the country to become disillusioned, and people will doubt whether they can ever be rescued from the chaos surrounding all of us.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am rather surprised by the extravagant language of the noble Lord. I do not particularly like giving Statements. I should like to be reading the Sporting Life elsewhere. But I am a man of several tastes, and I see nothing wrong in being interested in horse-racing. I recall that when I was a Minister noble Lords opposite were very worried when there was no racing because of certain difficulties, and I sympathised with them. However, I say to the noble Lord that I think it right and proper that I, as Leader of the House, should repeat important Statements made in another place; and I do not treat your Lordships' House casually. What I have said today is what I sincerely feel, and I believe it right that noble Lords should be here to cross-examine me as I represent the Government in this House.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, apparently I have to apologise to the Leader of the House for a slip of mine in confusing the Financial Times with the Sporting Life. Both papers are concerned with gambling, but one is more respectable than the other. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, seemed to think that what the Minister has said contradicts what I said—nothing of the kind! The Minister said that the police have reported that there are some excesses. Of course there are. I said that I had carried out a detailed check in the Eastern region covering the food factories there, and there was no secondary picketing. Of course there will be excesses. Is the Minister aware that there must after all be a settlement of the strike at some time?—or is it going to go on for ever? If we want a settlement of a strike, the men involved in it must feel that they are getting a fair deal and that someone is speaking up for them.

1193
I came into politics for one purpose, and for one purpose only: to defend the beliefs trade unions stand for. There was a time when the Labour Party did that, but sometimes it becomes a little faint. I am here today to say that of course there is a strike, but the men on strike have a case, and that case has not been presented. The Press take good care that it is not presented; indeed, the whole media take care that it is not presented. When there are excesses they arc of course distorted. The Tory Party, which after all has always wanted to slam the unions, makes the most of it——
Several noble Lords: No, no.
Lord WIGG: Yes, they have always done that, and they are doing it again today.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his point, but I want to see a settlement: I think we all do. The sooner we settle the strikes in which we are involved, the better it will be for the country, and for trade unionists, too.
Lord HA1LSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that on the whole both my noble friends the Leader of the Opposition and Lord Campbell of Croy have deliberately sought to take a constructive and a conciliatory view, and that there has been no attempt on this side by this Party to exacerbate the situation, whatever we may feel? What we were really saying about the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, was that the Government Statement confirmed what we have been reading in the Press, and that therefore the noble Lord's attack on the media was wholly unjustified. The media are one of the most responsible sources of information in the world, and what the Government have said in fact confirms what the media have been saying about the present situation.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord about the responsible attitude that has been taken, including that adopted today in this House and in another place, and I hope that this will continue. But, above all, I am sure we all wish that we can get the dispute out of the way and have it settled amicably.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—as I am sure he is—that he has today repeated a Statement which is of very considerable gravity? He has indicated that there is a growing threat to the jobs of many hundreds of thousands of decent trade unionists Who are in no way directly involved in the dispute. He has alluded also to the serious situation in the North-West affecting water supplies and sewerage, as well as the growing threat to the London ambulance service. Will my noble friend give an undertaking to make regular Statements to the House about this developing situation? As a result of accident so far as our procedure is concerned, this is the first Statement we have had on this matter this week, and I think it desirable to have regular Statements as the situation develops.
I should like to ask my noble friend a second question. Will he make inquiries into the issue raised by the Leader of the Liberal Party regarding evidence of extortion by pickets who have apparently been demanding money in return for allowing lorries to cross picket lines? This is an extremely serious matter, as I am sure my noble friend will agree. Will he make inquiries about it with the appropriate chief constables and include the matter in any Statement that he may make next week?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I shall certainly follow up and inquire into the allegation of extortion by pickets. Such a thing would be deplorable. On the question of regular Statements, I am here merely repeating a Statement made by the Home Secretary—and the noble Lord was recently in the Home Office. If it is necessary, we will make a Statement. Whether it should be a regular procedure, I cannot say. I have been attacked today for making Statements.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, what I said was that, notwithstanding the situation in another place, this is the first time that this House has had a Statement from a Minister about this very serious situation. All I am asking him is to give an undertaking to keep this House informed, if necessary by Statements next week, so that we can keep in touch with this situation.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question with regard to sewage going into rivers? Will he have this very carefully monitored and, if it is going into rivers in great quantities, could he have notices put up warning people not to drink the water? Because a lot of people will be fetching water, perhaps, because they have not got any in their own homes.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I say to the noble Baroness that we are doing this.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord add to what the Statement said about intimidation? If I heard it right, the Statement admitted that there had been incidents. Would the noble Lord not agree that all of us, whatever our political position, are very concerned that these incidents of violence should happen, and that their happening should be confirmed by the Government? Some of us, I think, in the interests of civil liberties generally, are anxious to know what steps the Government propose to take to monitor these incidents, to record the facts, to obtain police reports on them and so on. Could he perhaps help us about that?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that is an important point, and I shall inform the Home Secretary accordingly. I will link it with the request that has been made by my noble friend Lord Harris. Yes, this is important, and I think I should follow it through.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I think the Statement mentioned ambulances. I realise that making exceptions does not help the Government generally. None the less, there is now such a strong feeling in the country about any interference with hospitals that I hope that this matter will be given a special place in the considerations of the Government, in the measures they take and in the statements they make, and that if there is interference with hospitals then action will be taken as quickly as possible whenever it becomes necessary.
Lord PEART: Certainly, my Lords, and I am glad that the noble Lord has raised that point. Yes, I give that assurance.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House two brief questions, first of all about secondary picketing. In reply to a supplementary question from my noble friend on the Front Bench he said that this is something which in his opinion we should not condone. From that, do I take it that he thinks that a code of conduct which is not being complied with is insufficient, and that legislation is necessary in this very important field? Secondly, can he give noble Lords a little more information about lay-offs and short time? He said almost nothing about that, and presumably the Government have the latest figures.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am afraid there is nothing about that in the Statement. My view on secondary picketing is this: let us examine how the code of conduct works. I cannot commit anyone here to legislation. I think I know what the noble Lord is thinking, but I cannot go further than that. On supplies and stocks, et cetera—I know that this has been raised—and also on issues like intimidation, what is remarkable is that there has been so little violence in this dispute so far compared with scenes in other cases and considering the extension. I hope that we do not get any violence.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend about the general situation, as to which none of us can feel very happy? What action is being taken by the Government through the medium of the General Council of the TUC in order to bring the existing disputes to an end and also to take whatever measures are within their authority in order to deal with the disputes which are impending and are likely to occur? What action is being taken? If meetings are taking place between members of the Government and the TUC, can we be informed what is in fact happening? Have the Government left it entirely to the TUC to do whatever it wishes, or to do nothing at all?
Lord PEART: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Shinwell, the Prime Minister has met the General Council of the TUC. Also, we have been in continual touch with the TUC. We believe that they are anxious, as we are, to see that there is an end to the

1197
dispute, and that no damage is done, not only to the trade unionists concerned but also to the citizens who are affected. So there is no attempt on the part of the Government to dilly-dally, if I may use that phrase. They are anxious to have positive action supported by the General Council of the TUC, and the General Council have been very positive.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that in the debate yesterday we spent a long time discussing the actual figures and that I quoted, from Manchester alone, an additional 50,000 lay-offs this week and the fact that the chemical industry estimated one-fifth of a million by next week? With great respect, I should have thought that Ministers would have been informed on these matters, not least because I gave them from authoritative sources—for Manchester, the President of the Chamber of Commerce, and, for the chemical industry, the Chemical Industry Association.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I in fact said that lay-offs have increased, though I did not give any specific figure. But I am grateful to the noble Lord for the remarks he made yesterday.
Lord W1GG: My Lords, did I understand my noble friend the Leader of the House to say in his supplementary remarks that there have been no reports of violence at all?
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am sorry. Then perhaps he would be good enough to repeat what he said.
Lord PEART: No, my Lords, I did not say that. The noble Lord has had a good innings today, and I have been very tolerant—quite rightly. I respect the noble Lord, and I know his sympathies; but I think I have gone far enough. I think we should get on to the next business.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we are in the same difficulty—the other Statement has not been cleared from the other House; they seem to be taking a long time over it all—
1198
so if noble Lords are with me I think we should again resolve ourselves into a Committee on the Arbitration Bill.

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 9.
4.49 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I think we are in the position of having heard the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, move his Amendment, and we are looking forward eagerly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry the noble and learned Lord has been so frustrated and has been denied the pleasure of putting up with me so repeatedly. I think we are considering Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together. These Amendments would empower the court, under Clause 1(5), to require an arbitrator or an umpire to give his findings of fact in addition to the reasons for his award. Clause 1(5) empowers the court, on the application of a party, to order the arbitrator or umpire to state the reasons for his award in sufficient detail to enable the court, should an appeal be brought under Clause 1, to consider any question of law arising out of the award. Such reasons would, I should have thought, necessarily include the relevant findings of fact; and, in my view, not only would this Amendment be otiose but, in involving a distinction between facts and reasons—not always easy to draw—could well cause confusion and, I think, add to the burden of arbitrators. Looking at the matter realistically, I think that what is suggested would be potentially more a source of trouble than of enlightenment.
Lord HACKING: I came to your Lordships' House trying to be a source of enlightenment and not of trouble. I should be grateful, however, if the noble and learned Lord, having heard my submissions, would take an opportunity to consider them further; but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
4.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I wanted to say only one or two rather short things about Clause 1. The first was to ask the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor upon a matter raised on Second Reading. This is the bone which, I hope not fiercely but in the most emollient form, I am raising with my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches. At columns 461 and 462 of the report of Second Reading debate on 12th December, my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock—interrupting my peroration, I am sorry to say—said:
"We are not abolishing the case stated procedure as far as domestic arbitrations are concerned. The jurisdictions to which the noble and learned Lord"—
that is, me—"
is referring are domestic".
My noble and learned friend is such a tremendous expert on this subject, apart from being president of the Institute of Arbitrators, that I was shaken to the core when I received this intervention because it happened not to coincide with my own reading of the Act. I was so intimidated by my noble and learned friend that although I expressed mild surprise at his statement I did not venture to contradict him. But my own reading of the Act continues to be somewhat different from his. My own reading is that section 21 of the principal Act is repealed and that what the Bill is doing is to substitute the new appeal procedure for the old case-stated procedure for domestic arbitrations principally. As this was my reading of it—and is now my reading of it—and as my noble and learned friend is such a tremendous authority, I think the matter must be made clear beyond peradventure. That is the first point.
The second thing is really in slight amplification of what I said in answer to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, the first Amendment on the Marshalled List. I ventured to say to the noble Lord on Second Reading that this had been a debate of grandees. By that I meant that the people who had taken part in it were almost all people concerned with these
1200
enormous one-off arbitrations with construction contracts and the contracts which are, broadly speaking, those referred to in Clause 3 which enable the jurisdiction of the courts to be excluded; and the consequence was that the debate had overlooked the fact that by far the largest number of arbitrations in this country are domestic arbitrations. A very large number of them are arbitrations about the quality of goods which are sold and delivered and in which the arbitrator takes a good smell at the sample and at the bulk. He tells whether the sample and the bulk coincide or looks at the quality of the goods and decides whether they are of merchantable quality, or decides some question of expertise in which he really forms an opinion about the question in dispute based on his expert knowledge rather than on any judicial procedure that he may have to subject himself to.
I had the impression that the debate, therefore, had created a false impression. That conclusion has been very largely borne out by the volume of literature that I have received in the last week from various persons who expressed grave misgivings as to the effect of Clause 1, which is the clause under discussion. I think that those misgivings are without justification. I think they have overlooked the fact that all that is happening is that a less formal method of approaching the courts on questions of law is being substituted for the old case-stated procedure under Section 21 of the principal Act and that, if anything, the approach of the courts towards Clause 1 will be a little more reserved than in the past the courts have been towards the old Section 21; because, under the old Section 21, the courts on the whole—and I see that the Master of the Rolls is here and I hope he will forgive my saying this—have been rather freer in the past to order to case-stated in some of the older authorities to which we are all subject and they have been too ready perhaps to order cases stated when the effect has been really only to delay the effect of an award. My own reading of Clause 1, as I have read it and as I have ventured to expound it, is that, on the whole, it gives more power to the arbitrator, and that the courts, under Clause 1, will approach the question of interference with the arbitrator's discretion with greater reserve than in the past.

1201
I should like the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this, because if I am wrong, obviously, some of the misgivings will remain. If I am right, I think that he could take the opportunity of allaying some of them and reassuring the various persons who I know have bombarded us with literature expressing the gravest doubts about the wisdom of this whole Bill, based, I think, upon a misreading of what Clause 1 is doing.
Lord DIPLOCK: My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, as always, is right, in that I spoke loosely in saying that the case-stated procedure was preserved. If I had been more accurate I would have said that the method of appealing to the court on a question of law is preserved although the form in which it is done is somewhat altered. That brings me to the matter in regard to Clause 1 which has caused a good deal of anxiety among arbitrators, anxiety which I think is misplaced. Obviously, it is the desire that, in cases where that is appropriate, reasoned awards should be given. But there are many hundreds, indeed, many thousands, of arbitrations, which I may describe generally as "holiday" arbitrations, where what the arbitrator does is look at the sample from the shipment and say: "These beans are not f.a.q. and I award for the diminution in value, so much."
To require him to give reasons in that sort of arbitration—and they are very common—is simply a waste of time and money. There are other cases where it is most unlikely that anyone would possibly want to have reasons if that is going to cost more money because it is unlikely that there can be any question of law involved. What representations have been made to me, on all hands, I think, by arbitrators who are worried about the possibility that at greater expense they have to give reasoned awards in all sorts of cases is that they would like to be told that before making their awards whether or not (and to what extent) reasons are required. Otherwise, without that warning—and this is the point put to me by perhaps the most experienced commercial arbitrator in London: "If we are not given warning in time but, a couple of months afterwards, we are then asked to give reasons, by that time we have probably put away the papers and dismissed the case from our minds."
1202
The reason why I rose—as it turned out a little too late—on Amendment No. 2, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was that, with great respect, I think he had put forward an Amendment which in principle I would approve and commend to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for consideration, but he had put it in the wrong place. The Amendment should have gone not to subsection (2) but to subsection (5), so that it would be made a condition precedent to an application to the court to get the arbitrator to state further reasons that notice be given him before the end of the hearing that the type of reasons were wanted that might be necessary if the case went to appeal.
That is how I understood the Amendment which the arbitrators on all hands were urging should be included in the Bill. I should like to commend it particularly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for consideration before the Report stage. I would not, if I may say so without any disrespect, simply be tied to the wording which was, as I think, put in the wrong place in Amendment No. 2. It is a fairly simple Amendment to make it clear that it should be a condition precedent to applying for further reasons that the arbitrator should be told before the end of the hearing that reasons were wanted.
Lord DENNING: May I just endorse what my noble and learned friend has said. It seems to me very important that the arbitrator should know before the end of the hearing that he has to give reasons. If so, he can keep everything in his mind and take notes and give reasons straight away. Otherwise the matter might wait 2 or 3 months before he returns to the case again. The proposal which has just been made by my noble and learned friend is a good improvement to the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, will now know what a dangerous thing it is to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Mary-lebone, when he is making his peroration. That bone has now been satisfactorily picked and I hope that the noble and learned Lord's pride now feels fully

1203
restored in the face of the earlier disagreement that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, expressed. He has confessed that in the haste of dealing quickly with the point he may not have put it as accurately as he would have liked.
On the matter of the general proposition that reasons should be expected and be the practice of arbitrators, I think it is a good basic proposition that that should be done. Indeed, in all arbitrations outside this country reasons are always given. At least, I think so. In a case such as that of the beans cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, the statement of fact there so fully embodies all the reasons that one would not expect any requirement that reasons should be given in that case.
I understand the anxiety that has been expressed about this. I am certainly very willing to look at Report stage at the proposition that there should be provision for notice to be given to the arbitrator that he will be asked to give reasons before the conclusion of the arbitration. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, it is very convenient that he should be forewarned about that and not be asked at a later point in time when the facts would not be so clearly in his mind.
I do not think that, even in respect of small arbitrations, the requirement that reasons be given need be either a delaying factor or oppressive. The practice has now become pretty general in this country that in the various stages of the giving of judgments reasons should also accompany the judgment. I cannot assure the noble and learned Lord more than that. I only hope I am right and it will not prove oppressive in the large number of small arbitrations.
5.5 p.m.
Lord HACKING: May I venture to put a few words to this Committee? My Amendments are directed towards the reform of English arbitration law as our arbitration law affects parties to international contracts who wish to use London as the forum for their arbitration. Therefore I stand today in this Committee with some trepidation, to make some observations on the English law of arbitration, in front of such a distinguished forum,
1204
including the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls. I do so to express the concern that there may still be means by which arbitration proceedings can be open to abuse even after the passing of this Bill, as they have been abused under Section 21.
In order to develop this point, I am going to be even braver and take a small thread through English arbitration law in the hope that it will not be snapped before it reaches the end of its journey. It is recognised in both the Bill and the Commercial Court committee Report that the powers of the Courts to intervene in the conduct of arbitration proceedings rest partially on statutory power, which is vested primarily in the 1950 Act, and partly upon inherent powers derived from common law. One can take the two examples from Clause 1(1) of the Bill; namely, the case stated procedure, which has its authority in Section 21 of the 1950 Act, and in the power to set aside an award for errors on its face which rests in common law.
The Arbitration Act was a consolidation Act and made no attempt to state the law of arbitration or was not, in the words of my American colleagues, a "Restatement of the Law of Arbitration". The result is that some sections of the Act give power to the courts both to intervene and to give orders once seized of the matter. I refer for example, to Section 23 of the Act where the court is given both the power to intervene and also the power to give orders after its intervention.
Other sections of the Act just give power to the courts to make orders after they have exercised their inherent jurisdiction under common law to be seized of the matter. I refer, for example, to powers under Section 22 of the 1950 Act. My concern is that the Bill, in setting up this new appeal procedure—and indeed in the reference procedure under Clause 2—is limiting itself only to repealing two out of a number of inherent statutory powers which the court possesses. Hence some parties, if they are so minded (if the Bill becomes law in its present form) will seek to abuse other powers of the courts in order to defeat the main purport of the Bill.
This is fairly strong language so may I analyse the point further. I can best do it by listing such present inherent powers

1205
of the courts that I have been able to ascertain. First of all is the setting aside of an award for error on its face. This is dealt with in Clause 1(1). Secondly, there is the power of remitting awards under Section 22 when an arbitrator has admitted a mistake which cannot be rectified under Section 17 of the Act. That is more than a simple clerical error arising out of an accidental slip, for example, if an arbitrator misread an important document or forgot that document's existence before making his award. It should be noted that an arbitrator is functus officio once he has made his award. Therefore, he himself cannot exercise any power to put matters right. For that reason, the court has to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
Thirdly to exercise jurisdiction when there has been a discovery of fresh evidence—again the arbitrator acts as functus officio once the matter has passed from him in giving his award. Fourthly, when an arbitrator has acted without, or in excess of, authority—the court has an inherent Jurisdiction to intervene. Fifthly, as a kind of combination of common law and statutory power, there is the misconduct provision, which was originally under common law and now falls under statute under Section 23. It was with a wry smile that I read the editor of Russell's comment that Section 23 is a declaratory clause although somewhat in disguise. Specifically, the concern is that the misconduct provision—and I refer to misconduct in the conduct of proceedings rather than misconduct on the part of the arbitrator himself—and possibly Section 22, could be used as a means of avoiding the new provisions and forcing arbitration proceedings back again into the court, or, more importantly—this is where my concern comes to bear—it could be thought to be capable of so doing.
There would still be parties who could find benefit in abusing the system. It is no use shutting the front door, if I may use a trite example, if the back door is still left open. I merely ask this question—we shall not be able to consider it further here but I hope that my observations will be read: would it not be appropriate to bring all the inherent powers of the courts under this Act and to amend Section 23 for all arbitrations (in the terms of my
1206
Amendment which is to be taken later!) so that it cannot be used as a vehicle for abuse?
Baroness DAVID: We now have clearance for the Statement and I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

BOMB INCIDENTS
5.12 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"At 2240 hours last night a bomb exploded at a Texaco oil terminal on Canvey Island, producing an 18 inch diameter hole in a tank containing aviation fuel. The fuel escaped from the tank into a safety moat and did not catch fire. The Essex police had received no advance warning that a bomb had been planted.
"At midnight a caller told the Press Association that the Provisional IRA had planted a bomb on Canvey Island and another bomb in the Blackwall Tunnel, both of which were to explode at midnight. This message was passed immediately to the Essex police and the Metropolitan Police, but the explosion at Canvey Island had already taken place. The Metropolitan Police searched the Blackwall Tunnel and while they were doing so, at 0040 hours, a bomb exploded at a gas holder near the south exit of the tunnel, causing an explosion and fire. At 0130 hours a second gas holder caught fire. By 0315 hours both fires had been extinguished and a secondary fire at 0415 was quickly dealt with.
"There were no injuries as a result of these explosions. In addition to the two bombs which exploded, a further explosive device was discovered yesterday lying partly covered at the side of the M60 in Leicestershire. Army bomb disposal experts were called and safely defused the device.

1207
"The police are carrying out detailed investigations into all these incidents. The debris from the bomb which exploded and the unexploded device will be carefully examined for any evidence which may help the police to trace those responsible for these and the earlier incidents.
"It was fortunate that no one was either killed or injured by these explosions, but their potential danger cannot be overstated. No estimate has yet been made of the damage caused to property.
"I am sure that the House will join me in condemning these attacks and will support the Government in their determination not to be swayed by such methods. The vigilance of the public and co-operation with the police are of the utmost importance as the threat of further attacks remains high."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.16 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement, and his doing so gives me the opportunity of saying two things which really have nothing to do with the Statement. The first is that we are very sorry not to have the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, any longer facing us on the Front Bench. I see him sitting in his new position, and think he would agree that our relationship has always been a particularly happy one. I and my noble friends Lord Mansfield and others have debated many matters with him in the course of the last three years, and we wish him the best of good fortune in the new career which he has chosen for himself. I am only sorry that we shall perhaps be seeing him a little less often.
The second thing I wanted to say was that we welcome to his new position the noble Lord, Lord Boston, who was known to some of us in the other place for some years. Perhaps I may say to him not only that he is a very welcome addition to the Front Bench but that one recognises that a member of the Bar—
1208
and he has been a practising member of the Bar—does make a certain sacrifice, especially in this House, by assuming public duties. I think this fact should be underlined. I think he should be not only welcomed and congratulated but also commended for what he has done. I hope that his disappearance as, I believe, head of chambers will not cause too much disruption, as my own certainly did shortly after the disappearance of the noble Lord, Lord Diplock, when I became First Lord of the Admiralty. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and his former colleagues in chambers great good fortune in their endeavours.
I am glad that the Statement has been repeated because it is important that this House should be kept in touch with these really rather disquieting events. The noble Lord can be quite sure that on this side we do respond to his call to condemn what has been done; but the language of vituperation and condemnation on the subject of the Provisional IRA has almost been exhausted and I do not think it improves with repetition. I shall therefore not repeat it.
I would just say this: I would underline what is said in the last sentence of the Statement, where it calls for vigilance on the part of the public and of course on the part of the authorities. This side of the House reiterates and supports what the Government have said about this and I would only add this banal but none the less important point—I hope those who are responsible for these outrages realise what they are doing to the population of Irish extraction in this country. I suppose there are very few people in this House who are neither Irish nor have Irish blood in their veins or who are not closely related by marriage or otherwise to persons who are. I myself am: my late wife was from Galway and my own family comes from Lisburn in Northern Ireland. We happen to be Protestants but we have always been proud of our Irish connection, and so, I suppose, have been many Members of this House who happen to share this origin. Also, an immense number of people living in the Irish Republic and in Ulster have British blood in their veins.
I hope that those who are responsible for these outrages do realise what they are

1209
doing to us and to the Irish population, who are very welcome additions to our workforce in our great cities. They are making life more difficult for us and more difficult for them, and they are performing a very bad service to Ireland by doing this. I have more than once in this House responded rather sharply to any criticism of Irish people in our cities. They are very welcome people, indeed. But they would be performing a real service to themselves and to other people by noting what the Government have said about the vigilance of the public, co-operating with us all in seeking out the offenders and treating them as they deserve to be treated.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, may we on these Benches also express the warmest of welcomes to my learned friend the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, on his appointment? Those of us who know him anticipate with confidence that he will always display the same unfailing courtesy, and the same extremely high level of competence, as was invariably displayed by his predecessor in the position which he now occupies.
May I make only two observations on the Statement. First, would the noble Lord find a way of expressing what, I am sure, is the feeling of the whole House, which is our admiration of the very conspicuous bravery that is always shown on these occasions by the bomb disposal experts, the fire-fighting services and the police? Secondly, may I echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has said, about the extreme importance of maintaining the highest possible standard of security in the coming months? It has been, I suspect, the experience of many of us that high standards are imposed immediately after every incident, and they gradually become more and more relaxed as the weeks go by, till eventually there is a further incident which might have been avoided if only the standards had been maintained. That is particularly important in relation to Government and public buildings, and I am sure that the Government will want to see that the highest possible standards are maintained in the weeks to come.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, may I first thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and
1210
the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, very warmly indeed for their personal remarks. They are very greatly appreciated, indeed. Perhaps I may thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has said about my chambers, and it may well be—who knows?—that some of those members of chambers will perhaps see this as an opportunity for some of them. So I want to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, very much indeed for what they have been very kind enough to say about me personally, and about my chambers as well.
Perhaps I may also take this opportunity to join them both in what they have said about my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, whom I am very pleased to see in his place today. I must say that I think it is felt in all parts of the House, as indeed has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that my noble friend achieved a consistently high standard of competence in his performance at this Dispatch Box. I can only say that if I can manage to approach that high level of competence on even a few occasions, I shall certainly be very much encouraged in that.
Turning now to the matters which have been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I wholly support what he has underlined on the question of vigilance. It cannot be said too often that the police, who, of course, have sources of information open to them, rely a tremendous amount on information being provided by members of the public, and in this kind of operation this is of immense value to them. So I am immensely grateful to the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord who have mentioned the question of co-operation.
Perhaps also I might be forgiven for taking this opportunity, especially as I was not there with my noble friend and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary when that operation took place, to pay a very warm tribute to the police for what can only be described as a magnificent exercise over the Christmas period, which they carried out with expertise and diligence and with a sense of self-sacrifice.

1211
May I also join the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in what he has said about the bomb disposal experts? They face an immense task, as we know, and achieve our warmest admiration. So far as the question of relaxation is concerned, I also join with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in emphasising this again. Of course, this once more comes down to the question of co-operation with the public. The police and all the authorities seek to maintain this close co-operation, and also seek to ask the public not to relax when there is a gap between one incident and another. Again, the observations of the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord are very much appreciated.

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
5.26 p.m.
House again in Committee on the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Before the Question is put, may I briefly express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, for the general sympathy which he has expressed to your Lordships in regard to the second Amendment which I discussed earlier this afternoon, albeit that I have put it in the wrong place. That sympathy had the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, and the combined effects of the two noble and learned Lords has, it appears, diluted the opposition of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this matter, because I understand that it will be considered later on.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know that your Lordships will want me to follow the detail of the learned and interesting discourse which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, gave us on the whole law of arbitration. The objects of this Bill are rather concentrated on removing the deterrent created by the case stated to the use of London for arbitration, and we have also provided in the Bill a new system of judicial review of arbitration awards, but we certainly have not sought to cover the whole ground. But some of the matters that
1212
he has raised will be dealt with in the subsequent stages of our discussion, and we shall no doubt be able to return to them at that point. But I understood the noble Lord not to be opposing Clause 1. On the contrary, I know that he warmly supports the main objects of the Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Determination of preliminary point of law by court]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord DIPLOCK: May I raise a small point on Clause 2? This is a practical point which was drawn to my attention by a very experienced arbitrator. This clause provides for a consultative case, and it provides that that may be applied for in two circumstances, one of which is by an arbitrator or umpire who has entered on a reference—that is to say, the arbitrator or umpire acting upon his own initiative—and the other is by any of the parties to the reference with the consent of all the other parties. It has been drawn to my attention that if paragraph (a) stands as it is now, it will in practice be a dead letter, because it will mean that the arbitrator will have to incur the costs of himself instructing a solicitor, the solicitor instructing counsel and the like.
What has been suggested to me as an alternative, which would not result in a dead letter, is that the right to make an application should be by any of the parties to the reference, with the concurrence of the arbitrator or umpire. I am not suggesting the exact form of the Amendment. I am suggesting, however, that the kind of Amendment I have in mind is to strike out paragraph (a) and at the end of paragraph (b), which reads:
"by any of the parties to the reference with the consent of all the other parties",
to add:
"or with the concurrence of the arbitrator or umpire".
I think that that will carry out the intention of the clause, but carry it out in a practical way and a way which will not become a dead letter.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: That is a good and useful point, and I shall

1213
certainly consider in what terms we can give effect to it at the Report stage.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Exclusion of rights under sections 1 and 2]:
5.31 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, leave out line 24 and insert—
("(b) the High Court shall not, under section 1(5)(b) above, grant leave to make an application").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment which makes no change of substance to the Bill but merely brings the wording in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) into line with the wording of paragraph (a), there being no reason for the present difference of expression. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HACKING Lord HACKING moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert ("and—
(d) no application may be made under subsection 22(1) Arbitration Act (1950), and")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12. I intend to address the Committee also on Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15, as well as Amendment No. 12, and I shall also be making reference to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27. I recognise that, owing to the inadequacy of my drafting, even if the principles are accepted by the Government, I shall be compelled to withdraw these Amendments at the end of the Committee stage. I am, however, moving towards the central ground of my concern; namely, international contracts, to which reference has already been made.
The purpose of these Amendments is to permit parties to international agreements to contract out, by means of the exclusion agreement which is to be found in Clause 3(1) of the Bill, of other provisions where English courts have power to intervene in arbitrations.
Amendment No. 12 concerns the powers of the court to remit matters back again to the arbitrator after the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction, which I tried to describe to your Lordships in my
1214
earlier observations on Clause 1 of the Bill. Amendment No. 13 seeks to exclude parties to international contracts from the operation of Section 23, subsections (1) and (2), which concern arbitrator misconduct. This is misconduct—and very rare, at that—of the arbitrator himself or, more frequently with this unfortunate terminology of misconduct, it is when an arbitrator has made an error in conducting the proceedings, an error which entitles the party to make an application under Section 23 of the Act.
In the rare and unhappy event of an arbitrator acting dishonestly or grossly in breach of natural justice or—to take a third example that comes under inherent jurisdiction and not under the Act—acting in excess of his authority, clearly there must be a power to remove him. For that reason, I have also tabled Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, in a rough sketch form, to indicate that if one removes, as I am asking this Committee to do, subsections (1) and (2) of Section 23 for the purpose of international contracts, then one must bring in another clause on the lines of my Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, with the proviso that there should be added to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 the third circumstance—the case of an arbitrator acting in excess of his authority.
Turning to Amendment No. 14, this concerns subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1950 and the matter of fraud. I addressed the House on this subject at Second Reading and I do not intend to weary the Committee with a second speech on the same subject. My suggestion then was that subsection (2) of Section 24 should be repealed altogether for all arbitrations. Having reflected upon it, however, I recognise that in the case of domestic agreements there can be circumstances when the victim to a false allegation of fraud, albeit made in the privacy of arbitration proceedings, feels so strongly about his integrity and reputation that he would wish to exercise his right to invite the court to transfer the arbitration proceedings from the arbitrator under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act.
My submission to the Committee is that the same circumstances do not surround the parties to international agreements. Most of those parties are vast corporations and are not injured

1215
private citizens. My suggestion, therefore, is that to leave subsection (2) of Section 24 in the Act in its present form so as to be available to parties of international contracts will leave an avenue of abuse. Whether that abuse is used or not, it is going to be seen as a gap in our attempt to reform the law.
That deals with the main points on my Amendments. I do not think that I need to address the Committee on Amendment No. 15 because this was an attempt, in an inadequate way, to brush up the end of the clause, these earlier clauses having been introduced. Those are the submissions which I have to make on these Amendments.
Lord DIPLOCK: I should like to support Amendment No. 14 which deals with fraud. Section 24 of the Arbitration Act is couched in very wide terms. In effect, what it enables a party to an arbitration agreement to do if fraud is alleged is to demand that the matter be dealt with by the court instead of by arbitration. In domestic arbitrations the great protection is that the rule of ethics at the Bar provides that as counsel you do not put down an allegation of fraud until you are satisfied that there is material upon which to base it. That I think almost any foreign lawyer would say is a peculiarity of English practice. Allegations of fraud are not regarded with the same seriousness either in America, where they are freely put without any real further consideration, or in other jurisdictions. If an allegation of fraud is made as a matter of common form, as sometimes it is, the risk is that a foreign arbitration will be brought before the jurisdiction of an English court.
As a matter of presentation, in the case of arbitration—where the parties to the big, one-off contracts, with which we are concerned to a considerable extent in the exclusion clause, are very often Governments or Government entities—the prospect of being dragged before an English court, even upon an allegation of fraud and even if it be unsuccessful, is something which ought to be avoided, if it can be.
Furthermore, if there is an allegation of fraud, while it is quite true that the party who sought to get the matter transferred
1216
to the courts would have to go through an English solicitor, or at any rate would have to have an English solicitor and counsel present, this really is not a sufficient safeguard in that sort of case because it may well be that the legal representatives of the parties in the arbitration itself are not English lawyers. It may also be that under the Directive of the EEC legal representation it will be the foreign lawyer with the different code of ethics who is able to appear in the High Court to make the application. If English counsel is only brought in at that stage it is a difficult matter for him to be able to be sure one way or the other whether the allegation of fraud is one which is justified as a prima facie case or not.
This matter has been the subject of representations to me from a number of different sources and I would therefore urge that consideration be given to enabling the parties in an exclusion agreement to exclude the power to apply to the court, on an allegation of fraud, to get the matter decided by the court rather than under the arbitration agreement. Unless we do that I think it will continue to be a serious obstacle to attracting the international contract to arbitration in England.
For that reason I warmly support Amendment No. 14. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will forgive me if I say that while I attach importance to his Amendment No. 14 I feel rather indifferent about Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 because I do not think they will have any serious effect.
5.42 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: These Amendments are similar in purpose. Their effect would be that when an exclusion agreement is effective, that is to say an agreement to contract out of a new right of appeal at any stage in relation to an international arbitration or after an arbitration has commenced in domestic cases, it will also operate to exclude applications to the court under Section 22, which gives power to the court to remit an award to an arbitrator; Section 23—the power of the court to remove an arbitrator or to set aside an award on the ground of the arbitrator's misconduct, and Section 24(2), the power of the court to intervene when fraud is alleged.

1217
I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has shown less than enthusiasm for Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, an approach which, if I may say so, I share with him. Amendment No. 12 would confer on the parties the right to exclude by agreement the court's power to remit an award to an arbitrator under Section 22(1) of the Arbitration Act. I find the practical aim of that Amendment the most difficult to identify as it does not as such restrict applications to the High Court under the Bill or the Arbitration Act 1950, but where invoked by parties would merely limit the court's power under Section 22(1) to remit any matter to the arbitrator or umpire after it has been determined by the court. In my view, not only would such a limitation be undesirable, but it seems to be at odds with Clause 1(2)(b) which allows remission following an appeal on a point of law under Clause 1(2).
As to Amendment No. 13, this would confer upon the parties the right to exclude by agreement the court's power under Section 23(1) and (2) of the 1950 Act to remove an arbitrator or umpire and/or to set aside his award for misconducting himself or the proceedings. It seems to me to be rather undesirable for an arbitrator to know in advance that he could with impunity act improperly or incompetently or, for example, in breach of the agreed procedures. In my view, in the last resort the court should have power to intervene in such circumstances if a party to the arbitration applies to it.
Amendment No. 14 would confer on the parties a power to exclude by agreement the power of the High Court under Section 24(2) of the 1950 Act to order that an arbitration agreement shall cease to have effect, and to revoke an arbitrator's authority in so far as it is necessary to enable the High Court to determine any question of fraud alleged against a party to the agreement. In the past at any rate, as a matter of public policy it has been thought essential that allegations of fraud should be determined by the court. The protection against the abuse of Section 24(2) of the 1950 Act is that, save for the case of an applicant in person, an application to the High Court under Section 24(2) would be made by a member of the Bar of England and Wales who would be bound by strict rules, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has intimated,
1218
forbidding a plea of fraud save in the face of clear evidence. But it would seem that there is a greater willingness—putting it as delicately as I can—in other jurisdictions to allege fraud and to use the allegation of fraud as a means of delay in respect of foreign agreements. Therefore it may well be desirable that this suggestion should be looked at again, unattractive as it is to put our own standards here apparently above those in other jurisdictions. Perhaps that is not the proper way to put it. I will certainly look at that aspect of the matter again at a later stage. I fear that in respect of Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 my own advice to the Committee would be that they are really not helpful, but we will look again at Amendment No. 14.
5.49 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for expounding his views upon this question. I think it is probable that at Report stage we shall have to come back at least to the subject matter of Amendment No. 14, but I would reiterate the general comment that I was making at a much earlier stage this afternoon. It is very difficult on a highly technical matter like this, in dealing with a Bill the purpose of which is largely to give effect to the recommendations of a Committee, to use the Bill as a vehicle for reforming the law outside the recommendations of the Committee. Sometimes unexpected results are obtained by this procedure and, on the whole, I should be as conservative as I usually am about using the Bill for this kind of purpose.
I do point out that of course in favour of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, as I have read his Amendments, being Amendments to Clause 3 they only really deal with exclusion agreements in international contracts as defined, and therefore they do not affect domestic arbitration, otherwise I should feel much more deeply about the matter. But I would point out to him that under the combined effect of subsections (6) and (8) of Clause 3, as I read them, there is room for extending Clause 3 to a wider range of contracts. The effect of his Amendments, if the Secretary of State exercised his powers, I think ought to be considered carefully.

1219
I suggest that the right course at the present stage is to withdraw these Amendments, but to revert, at any rate, to the subject matter of Amendment No. 14, when the Lord Chancellor has had an opportunity of consulting perhaps the chairman of the Donaldson Committee or other persons who may be interested, and also the Parliamentary draftsmen, as to the way in which an Amendment of this kind could properly be drafted.
I make one final point, and I am going to make it again at a later stage when we come to the Amendments. It was to deal with points of this kind that on Second Reading I ventured to support the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in his suggestion for an arbitration rules committee, because my doubts about introducing into a Bill Amendments outside the scope of the deliberations of the Committee which it is designed to implement would be met if there were in existence a permanent body which could give effect to suggestions of this kind, after the appropriate consultation, and subject to the authority of both Houses of Parliament.
I know the noble and learned Lord's objection because we have been in correspondence. I think he described it as a Henry VIII type of Committee with power to amend statute law. But this is a very highly technical matter. One does not want to hold up desirable law reform. Having regard to the difficulties of Parliamentary time, I very much doubt whether, if we had not been living in this kind of Parliamentary limbo, the Lord Chancellor would ever have got time for this Bill. If he had a rules committee we would not be troubled in Parliament with having to debate these very highly technical problems on the Floor of the House, unless, the Rules Committee having recommended it, there was a general feeling that they had gone too far or not far enough.
Lord DENNING: May I say that I would have some sympathy with Amendment No. 13 coupled with Amendment No. 26, for this reason: that the courts have been apt to set aside awards, or remit them, for what we often call technical misconduct and not real misconduct. It would be undesirable if the courts would interfere more under that provision, which
1220
still remains in the law. On the other hand, I hope that after the passage of this Bill we shall not be inclined to give a technical meaning to the word "misconduct", but that we will interpret it properly as it ought to be. So I would not press these Amendments, but I would have some sympathy with the suggestion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I willingly concur with the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and I hope that in the light of my assurance the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, may be disposed to withdraw the Amendments, certainly with the knowledge that we will revert to a reconsideration of them at a later stage.
5.54 p.m.
Lord HACKING: I undertook to withdraw the Amendments even before I presented them to the Committee and I am going to remain faithful to that undertaking. I am very grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and indeed the Master of the Rolls at a later stage. Perhaps I may just observe, without, I hope, any impertinence to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that perhaps when he was making his observations—and I know the difficulty in trying to join up different Amendments in the Bill—he was not sufficiently focussing on the relationship between the proposal made in Amendment No. 13 with that made in Amendment No. 26. Therefore, I would be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord could at least consider that Amendment as well as Amendment No. 14.
If the noble and learned Lord is able to do that, we will find entirely common ground, because on further research, whether it be right or wrong, I certainly have come to the view that my Amendment No. 12 is inappropriate on the line of the observations I made earlier on the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Of course, this subsection only comes into being—or to use an American phrase, it can only be activated—when the court itself has exercised its inherent jurisdiction to take the matter, and having taken the matter decided that it is right to send it back to the arbitrator. For that reason I concede that Amendment No. 12 is not appropriate; but I do ask the noble and learned Lord to consider No. 13 coupled

1221
with No. 26, together with Amendment No. 14. If my other Amendments were to find any favour with the noble and learned Lord, I leave No. 15 entirely, to the Parliamentary draftsmen.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: As I have said, I am perfectly willing to accede to that request. If I have been a little out of focus, having gyrated so much in the course of the afternoon, I am not entirely surprised.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 not moved.]
5.58 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 33, at end insert—
("An Agreement in writing shall include any agreement in the written or typed form but shall exclude all agreements in printed form.").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment intended to define what is meant by "agreement in writing" under this clause, for the purpose of trying to extend the special category of cases with which the clause is concerned. The Amendment says that:
"An Agreement in writing shall include any agreement in the written or typed form but shall exclude all agreements in printed form".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, spoke at length about what he referred to as the standard term contracts, and he indicated that there were many commercial branches where it is impossible to practise, to trade, or to enter into a transaction except upon the standard form prepared by a trade association. He referred to the Baltic practice. Therefore, if you want to enter into a transaction of that kind you are for practical purposes forced to contract upon the standard form, it being a printed form. He went on to say, which rather surprised me, that he felt that many of such contracts were not freely negotiable between the parties of contract; they just had to accept the printed form. He indicated that the Committee upon which he was serving had considered this matter very carefully and he had had many representations about extending the definition of the written agreement in that form.
What my Amendment is concerned with is saying that the written agreement which can be classified in the special category must be one which the parties have considered; therefore, prima facie if you have an agreement which is in writing or which is in typed form, not printed, it shows that the parties have made some attempt to consider the terms and that the contract has been negotiated. I fully realise the difficulties of drafting that arise in a matter of this kind, and this is a humble attempt to try to extend that special category of cases to which the clause refers. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, the effect of the Amendment would be to invalidate terms of agreements, excluding the right to apply to the High Court under the Bill, which appeared in print as opposed to writing or typewriting. The aim appears to be to prevent exclusion clauses being forced on unwilling parties in standard form contracts. I submit that the Amendment is impracticable as a party who wished to exclude the new right of appeal would merely have the standard contract typed or written out. In addition, the Amendment gives no guidance as to the effect of exclusion terms in standard form contracts which have been modified or altered in writing or typing. So I am afraid that in my submission it will not do.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I do not think that it is simply a question of drafting, either. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, one understands, of course, the reluctance of lawyers and judges to accept exclusion clauses in ordinary contracts. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls quite recently made an eloquent speech which we all remember on the Unfair Contract Terms Act. But, the kind of arbitration clause to which we are referring is not between parties of that particular character: it is between—as I ventured to call them on Second Reading and earlier this afternoon—grandees. The fact is that in contracts of the type which we are discussing the uninequality which applies between parties, who may have unfair terms imposed upon them in domestic affairs, hardly applies. I should think, on reflection, that having aired this subject the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran,

1223
will realise that it is not merely impracticable from the point of view of drafting, but there is, in fact, no need for a clause of this kind at all.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I was trying to deal with the objections which I understood had been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, who said that the special category contract ought to be excluded for the time being. He seemed to indicate that it was because the contract was in printed form and just shovelled out at the parties. But, it seems that perhaps I should consider what the noble and learned Lord has said and revert to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.4 p.m.
Lord HACKING Lord HACKING moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 11, after ("Section 1") insert ("as amended by this Act").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is related to Amendments Nos. 29 and 30. I hope that the noble and learned Lord has been able to cross index and to relate the later Amendments which I have mentioned to Amendment No. 17. The Amendment concerns the problem of the definition of international contracts, which is perhaps the matter of the greatest concern of all the Amendments that I have tabled for the Committee stage.
So far as I know international agreements were first defined separately from domestic agreements in the Arbitration Act 1975. If my memory is right, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, played a prominent part in the introduction of that Bill. I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, is shaking his head. However, in any event, that Bill was introduced into this House in 1975 and its purport was to give effect to the New York Convention of 1958.
Without going into other areas of concern which were also dealt with in the short 1975 Act, Section 1 dealt with the problem when, during the subsistence of a valid arbitration agreement, one of the parties to that arbitration agreement took court proceedings. The 1975 Act, for international agreements, changed the
1224
provision of an earlier Act—if I am correct it was Section 4 of the 1950 Act—which made it a discretionary matter for the courts whether to stay court proceedings. As regards international agreements what was a discretionary power in the court was converted into an obligatory power. The key word in Section 1(1) of the 1975 Act is "shall" which I think replaced the word "may" in the earlier legislation. Therefore, for the purpose of this Act it was necessary to distinguish those agreements which were to be affected by Section 1 from those domestic agreements which were not to be affected.
The approach in the 1975 Act was to define domestic agreements and hence to treat all other agreements as international or non-domestic agreements. The crucial time was the time when the proceedings were brought. Therefore, the distinction—again speaking very broadly to your Lordships—is that when a party is a person who is not a national of this country and not resident, or in the case of a corporation when that corporation is incorporated outside the United Kingdom or has no central control or management within the United Kingdom, then there is a non-domestic agreement. Therefore, the time which was fixed for ascertaining whether an agreement was non-domestic or domestic, was the time when the proceedings commenced. For the purposes of the 1975 Act that worked perfectly well.
However, the Bill seeks to adopt that section of the 1975 Act and with it the timing that was chosen. That is of crucial importance because the vital time is when the contract is being negotiated, when parties to agreements are considering putting in an arbitration clause which will enable London to be the forum of an arbitration. It is essential that those parties know at that time that the agreement which they are entering will be operative and binding upon the other parties. Therefore, if the time is fixed at a later stage in possibly the distant future when proceedings are commenced, those parties at the critical time they are carrying out the negotiations cannot feel fully protected.
Let us take the example of an English resident company entering into an agreement with an American company. It is possible that an American company—and

1225
I make no aspersions against an anonymous American company—could deliberately and wilfully convert itself into a domestic company and hence take that agreement out of the exclusion. The much more likely event is that the American company, having prospered, hopefully on the agreement to which I referred your Lordships, decides that the time has come to establish a business in the United Kingdom; and when that business is established, as a matter of commercial convenience all the contracts which then existed between the parent company and other companies, are assigned to their new resident English company. So at a later time, after the agreement is signed, the effect of the exclusion arrangements would be a nullity. The exclusion agreement itself would be a nullity because the parties to that agreement were no longer, within the definition of the Act, non-domestic.
I recognise that my drafting is quite inadequate, but for the reasons that I have put forward, I urge the noble and learned Lord to accept the concept of the Amendment. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has raised some very interesting matters as regards this Amendment. In view of the proceedings which are to follow this Committee stage perhaps I can shorten matters by saying that I shall consider most carefully what he has said in regard to these somewhat difficult Amendments—at least difficult in my mind—and we shall revert to them at the Report stage.
Lord HACKING: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 15, at end insert—
("Any reference under an arbitration agreement relating to (a) Intellectual Property or (b) the Treaties or Community Treaties as defined in the European Communities Act 1972 or Articles 85 or 86 of the Rome Treaty shall not be deemed a domestic arbitration agreement within the meaning of section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1975").
The noble Lord said: I was minded to introduce this Amendment in view of the qualified sympathetic approach which the
1226
noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had made in his letter of 20th December to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Mary-lebone. It seemed to me that he was sympathetic to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, about a foreign law declaratory clause being introduced into the Bill. Therefore, my Amendment is very much of a probing nature. In view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has proposed another Amendment on this matter—Amendment No. 22—with the leave of the House, I shall not move Amendment No. 18 but raise the principle embodied in my Amendment during the debate on Clause 3 stand part.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
6.11 p.m.
Lord HACKING Lord HACKING moved Amendment
No. 22:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Exclusion of foreign law from judicial review
(".—(1) For avoidance of doubt and subject to subsection (2) below, questions of foreign law, as denned in subsection (3) below, are not to be considered as questions of law which arise under this Act.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) parties to any arbitration proceedings, being conducted within the jurisdiction of England and Wales, may agree in writing, concerning questions of foreign law, as denned by subsection (3) below, to make the arbitration proceedings, in whole or in part, subject to the provisions contained in sections 1 and 2 of this Act.
(3) Questions of foreign law are questions of law which do not fall under the law of England and Wales").
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that noble Lords will be troubled by my words again, but I shall try to be brief because of matters coming before the House shortly. This new clause is a foreign declaratory clause and I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to include such a clause in the Bill. There are two parts to this Amendment and I shall address the Committee on them in the order in which they come. The first part of my Amendment is simply an attempt—again, with inadequate drafting—to draft a foreign declaratory clause.
I invite the noble and learned Lord to accept the concept of this clause because over this matter there is more than a doubt whether foreign law forms part of a question of law in England. Indeed, it is widely held among lawyers from overseas that a question of foreign law still remains—and one cannot criticise them for taking this stand because, after all, it concerns their own law—a question of law and not a question of fact. For that reason I commend to your Lordships the inclusion in the Bill of a clause which, when properly drafted, sets the matter beyond any doubt. This recommendation was covered in the Commercial Court Committee's Report, and indeed it was also recommended by the London Arbitration Group. I recognise that there is a reluctance over a declaratory clause, but as I have suggested, it is very important that the matter should be put beyond doubt. Indeed, why should overseas lawyers burden themselves studying and going through English law when this matter is so easy of remedy.
The second part of my proposed Amendment—subsection (2)—also seeks to follow the recommendations of the Commercial Court Committee in paragraph 52 at page 13 of the report. However, there is an essential difference. In choosing the drafting of both subsections (1) and (3), I was directing attention not to the proper law of contracts being followed, but simply to questions of law. By taking this extract out of the rather wider concept in the Commercial Court Committee's Report, I believe that I have answered the two concerns that were expressed in the report; namely, those concerning lex fori—that is when the arbitration is taking place in England under a foreign law contract—and also the problem of renvoi.
In certain circumstances it may be helpful to parties who are arbitrating in England to have the assistance of the English courts on a matter of foreign law. This may sound a slightly bizarre proposition but there are many matters of interpretation of documents, clauses and conventions which are common to a number of countries in the world. Recently I attended a seminar in New York which considered the new Hamburg Rules on the transport of goods by ships. It is proposed that those new rules replace The Hague Rules. It is clearly foreseeable
1228
that arbitration proceedings could be conducted in London under, for example, New York law, where it could be helpful to the parties to make a reference to the English court in order to ascertain the interpretation of a clause. It may be rare circumstances when this would arise, but it would be a hospitable act on behalf of the forum country to leave the door open if any such help can be by the English court to parties participating in an arbitration in London.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I see a little difficulty about this and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to assist me one way or the other, either by removing my doubts or by supporting them. I believe it to be a general rule of English law that questions of foreign law are questions of fact. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, says that perhaps foreign lawyers do not know this and why not have a declaratory clause. I suspect declaratory clauses for the reason that if we start including them in statutes for the avoidance of doubt, the only ultimate effect is to cast doubt on the whole sequence of disputes where there is no statute containing a declaratory clause. In other words, we undermine the doctrine of the law in other cases than that in which the statute applies. If we say, "In this Act it is declared for the avoidance of doubt that questions of foreign law are questions of fact", we underline the whole doctrine throughout the whole of the rest of English law. I think that it creates doubt, and does not avoid it, if we start inserting declaratory clauses in particular statutes when the general law is perfectly well established and well known.
Secondly, turning to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, what worries me about this is how we are going to try it. Let us take, for example, a Danish contract, which presumably contains some question of construction, perhaps in the Danish language or possibly under Danish law. It is all very well to say that we are entitled to contract ourselves into Clauses 1 and 2 of this statute, but how are we going to try it if it gets here? Ex hypothesi, in proceedings under Clauses 1 and 2 of this statute, where they take place by way of appeal from an arbitrator on a question of law, the court will not hear any witnesses. It will not be

1229
allowed to because it is a question of law. How do you contract yourself into an English court by way of appeal from an arbitrator and into deciding a question of fact unless you are going to call witnesses? If a question of foreign law is written in a foreign language, you first get a translator to translate it and he would be a witness. Secondly, you get a foreign lawyer—sometimes one on each side—saying what the foreign law is and how it applies to the facts of the particular case. I have had a number of these disputes in my life, and I do not see how these difficulties can be resolved. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will say that they can, in which case I wish the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, every possible success with his Amendment. However, at the moment I am in difficulty about it.
6.20 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I share the noble and learned Lord's difficulties. Since subsections (1) and (3) of the proposed new clause are merely declaratory and add nothing to our law, it seems to, me that the new clause in that respect serves less than a useful purpose for the reasons the noble and learned Lord gave. In the absence of a provision on the lines of the proposed subsection (2), as has indeed been admitted so far in the discussion, points of foreign law being questions of fact in English law could not be the subject of an application under the Bill because Clause 1(2) and Clause 2 of the Bill are limited to points of law only. Therefore, it would appear to be inappropriate to purport to confer on the High Court in this country a jurisdiction to determine appeals on points of foreign law. It may be that I have missed something from what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has said, but I am afraid I cannot go with him on my present understanding with regard to this new clause.
Lord DENNING: I am not quite sure about this. Take a contract in New York on the New York Produce Exchange form in the English language. We have to interpret it very often on cases stated. It may be said to be foreign law, but it is in the English language and the interpretation of the English language is a question of law. It may be that commercial men on both sides of the Atlantic might like a ruling on the proper interpretation
1230
of those words in the New York Produce Exchange form and to get an authoritative ruling upon it. Even though it may be technically a matter of foreign law, it is an interpretation of the English language which most of them are inclined to leave to us. So I have only that little reservation about it, and I wonder whether there is something in the Amendment after all.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It may well be. I approached the matter fairly modestly. Perhaps there is something in it which I am bound to say again escapes me. But in the light of the views of the noble Lord who moved the Amendments, and particularly of the energetic willingness of the Master of the Rolls to undertake this sort of further incursion, perhaps I shall be willing to look at it again.
Lord DIPLOCK: Like the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I have been concerned in presiding over a colloquium on the new Hamburg Rules. This was in Vienna only last week. One of the things we did at that colloquium was to discuss the knotty points of construction in the Hamburg Rules, and there are a great many of them. There were present at the colloquium and engaged in the discussion lawyers from a large number of different jurisdictions. All I can sav is that if the court were to be required to deal with questions of foreign law, God help them!
Lord WILBERFORCE: I should like to suggest in another way perhaps that there may be some valuable thought behind Lord Hacking's Amendment, although it may be that what I am going to suggest is not what he has suggested. He made some reference to it in his speech. The distinction he is making in his Amendments is between questions of foreign law, on the one hand, which he says are not to be considered as questions of law but questions of fact, and questions of English law which are of course questions of law and therefore subject to the Bill.
There is another distinction which is an important one which I suspect he has also in mind; that is, the distinction between contracts, the proper law of which is English, and contracts the proper law of which is a foreign law. I have in the back of my mind that there is a case

1231
for saying that the latter type of contract—namely, contracts the proper law of which is not English law—should not be subject to the exclusion provision requirements of this Bill. There is a case for saying that. It has been urged and the noble Lord has advocated it at some time. So if the noble and learned Lord is considering this clause, could he also address his mind to whether or not what we ought to be trying to do, when we are dealing with foreign law, is to treat contracts, the proper law of which is a foreign law, as a separate class of categories which are not within the procedure of exclusionary clauses as laid down in the Bill. I am not convinced whether or not that is right, but I feel this is a point which requires consideration.
Lord DIPLOCK: I should like to support what my noble and learned friend has said about considering whether one should not allow exclusionary agreements in all contracts of which the proper law is not English law. But it did not seem to me that this had anything to do with the Amendment we are discussing at the moment. It was a matter which I had in fact recommended before. I think there is a recommendation in the commercial court committee.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: If the Lord Chancellor is going to reconsider this question, might I remind him of my letter of 9th January to him, to which he has not yet had time to reply, but to which I hope in due course he will send a reply. It is concerned with the position of intellectual property in relation to the EEC. I mentioned it at Second Reading. I had suggested that, in view of the position in EEC matters, the scope of the Bill might be amended in the context of certain developments in the EEC. My letter of 9th January covers this point. Perhaps he would be good enough to consider the matter.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall consider the points that have been raised. I would hope that we could have an intellectual discussion on intellectual property on the basis of one of the earlier Amendments of the noble Lord. I do not regret that he withdrew them, and the time presses, but I will certainly give consideration to the matters raised by
1232
noble and learned Lords, and the noble Lord, in further examination of these proposals.
Lord HACKING: Once again I am grateful to noble and learned Lords who have lifted me up from the very low position in which I find myself when the Lord Chancellor completes his first comments on my Amendments. When the noble and learned Lord considers this matter could he put at the front of his mind, the first part of this Amendment; namely, the declaratory clause. This is a matter of extreme importance. It is a funny thing about your Lordships' House that contributions can be made from all quarters of the community, and from odd quarters of the world. I have a certain amount of experience abroad. The matter of foreign law is of great concern and should be put beyond any doubt whatever. It is an important matter for those of us who are overseas, and I would be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give this earnest consideration.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say, on behalf of the Committee, that all contributions are thankfully received.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
6.28 p.m.
Lord HACKING Lord HACKING moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause: Appointment of Rules Committee
(".—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall have power to appoint an Arbitration Rules Committee.
(2) The Arbitration Rules Committee shall have power to prescribe such rules as may be required to support the proper conduct of arbitration proceedings in England and Wales.
(3) Rules made under this section shall be laid before Parliament and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of the resolution of either House of Parliament'").
The noble Lord said: I hope at long last that I might get some support at least from one of the Front Benches because this Amendment concerns the proposal that there should be an Arbitration Rules Committee. May I draw your Lordships' attention to the sketch—and I use that word as an admission regarding the clause which I have drafted in Amendment No. 23 which in no way attempts to be the appropriate clause to go into a Bill if the concept of this clause is accepted. All I

1233
sought to do here was to set out the marker posts. I sought to set out the proposition that the Lord Chancellor should have power to appoint an Arbitration Rules Committee. I sought, secondly, to direct attention to the area of operation of that Arbitration Rules Committee; namely, to deal with rules to support—these are the crucial words—the proper conduct of arbitration proceedings in England and Wales. Thirdly, I laid down the requirement that such rules should be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Clearly there are many matters of detail that should be considered; for example, on the representation on such an Arbitration Rules Committee. But I am sure that if the concept is accepted, then with ease and with welcome the noble and learned Lord would extend invitations to many persons who are concerned in matters of arbitration: the London arbitration bodies: trade associations in London who have arbitration processes as part of the association. Indeed consideration should be given to representatives from arbitration bodies overseas, for example, the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, with whom I spent the last three days, from Monday through to Wednesday evening.
It will also be necessary, if this new clause finds acceptance—and I am aware of the opposition I shall get from the "other" Front Bench in your Lordships' House—to give the noble and learned Lord power to repeal a number of sections of Part I of the Act. It would be necessary, for example, to repeal Section 12, but within the ambit of giving the Rules Committee powers to deal only with rules to support the proper conduct of arbitrations (as opposed to giving the Rules Committee any power to make rules and law to give rights of intervention in arbitration proceedings). It is this dividing line I have sought to make in drafting the Amendment.
The rather fearful description of Henry VIII has been alluded to the proposal for an Arbitration Rules Committee. I do not quite know what activity of Henry VIII the noble and learned Lord had in mind when he referred to the Henry VIII powers, but in my submission that, bearing in mind the dividing line I have urged, no fierce powers would exist. I also appreciate that there
1234
is increasing concern over the number of rule-making bodies; and any lawyer who has been exposed, even to a small degree, to the plethora of Statutory Instruments which pour from various bodies which have rule-making powers, will treat with a great deal of respect any proposal that there should be another body with such powers. But if wrongs are being committed in other areas and if there are too many bodies with rule-making powers, there is no reason per se to turn down this Amendment.
There would be a number of advantages in having an Arbitration Rules Committee. It would provide an easy vehicle for the reform of procedural law, it could support arbitration associations in the making of their own rules—for example, the "payment into court" recommendation which the Commercial Court Users' Committee considered. It would provide a regular meeting point of the Commercial Court and arbitration bodies and hence keep their relationship in good order. There would be a number of other advantages which would flow from having an Arbitration Rules Committee. I believe this suggestion is good and that it is certainly worthy of further consideration.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: Obviously one does not want to tie oneself to the particular wording of an Amendment, but, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is aware, we have been in correspondence about this and the subject was to some extent ventilated on Second Reading. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to send me a letter, which I understand has been circulated to other noble and learned Lords who have interested themselves in the matter, and his argument, if I summarise it correctly, fell under three heads.
The noble and learned Lord said that we must first of all clear our minds as to what a committee of this kind could do, and that was a useful exercise. He pointed out that the procedure in arbitrations was basically founded on contract and that the parties could decide what procedure they wanted to follow: and even when they could not, then, within limits, the arbitrator had it within his authority, conferred by the submission, to decide what procedure he should follow.

1235
In my view, that is sensible, healthy and true. What, therefore, asked the noble and learned Lord, rhetorically and with reason, could a Rules Committee do for that? In my view there is a good deal in that argument.
The second point the noble and learned Lord made was this: supposing it did not really interfere with contract, could you hope to get a set of model rules out of the Rules Committee? Some of the literature I have seen—and I dare say some of the literature others have been sent by various bodies—has suggested that the Rules Committee could provide a series of model rules. The noble and learned Lord says, I think with a good deal of reason, that arbitrations vary enormously in type and subject-matter and that a set of model rules will not be any good because there is too great a variation. I tend to think that may be true. I would rather rely on the Institute of Arbitrators, for example, putting forward rules for arbitrations under that Institute—or rules of the Baltic Exchange or what-have-you—than on a Rules Committee trying to impose some form of uniformity. I would rather see the expert bodies in particular branches of arbitration laying down what ought to be done where they think there is a gap or a need for some degree of uniformity in arbitrations of that class. Thus, I believe the noble and learned Lord has reason on his side in the second point he makes to me in that letter.
I come to the third point, where Henry VIII comes into it, and I must tell the Committee that the person who brought Henry VIII into this argument was the noble and learned Lord and not I. The spectacle of the noble and learned Lord in any respect resembling Henry VIII is not one which had naturally occurred to me, except perhaps that Henry VIII was a Welshman and the noble and learned Lord could make that claim too. At any rate, I come back to paragraph 55 of the Donaldson Report, which said they were:
"acutely aware that Parliamentary time is at a premium and that unless an amendment to the law of arbitration has great legal and economic importance, as is without doubt the case in relation to the powers of judicial review"—
which is the main subject-matter of this Bill—
"it is difficult to obtain such time".
1236
It would have been impossible, even in this case, if we had not been living in what I have described as a period of Parliamentary limbo.
"However, the making of minor improvements in arbitration procedure is not the most controversial field of human endeavour and the Committee hope it will prove possible to remedy these minor defects in addition to dealing with the powers of judicial review. In this context, we think that consideration should be given to establishing an arbitration rules committee with powers similar to those of the Supreme Court Rules Committee. This would relieve Parliament of the need to consider detailed amendments to the Act both now and in the future".
On that third point, I am not sure that I do not part company with the cautious approach adopted by the noble and learned Lord, because in this connection I am not afraid of Henry VIII. In the ordinary course, I agree that amendments to statute law should be made by statute, by Parliament—it should go through three readings, both Houses stage by stage and, if need be, line by line—and I am perhaps, as noble Lords will remember in some more controversial debates we have had, a great enthusiast for this general point of view. However, I wonder whether this is not possibly an exceptional situation. Arbitration law is very technical. Half, probably all, the Amendments we have discussed so far this afternoon would never have come before Parliament and stopped a large and excited audience from listening to and discussing unidentified flying objects for so many minutes and hours if we had had an Arbitration Rules Committee to decide these technical questions, after consulting the relevant bodies.
I ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is possible that a Committee on the lines recommended in paragraph 55 of the Donaldson Report might serve a useful purpose. My own view is that it would. Of course Parliament would retain the ultimate control. Rules would be produced, and I suppose that they could be made subject either to Affirmative or Negative Resolution procedure. I am not suggesting that we ought to spend a great deal of time discussing UFOs; but I question whether we ought to spend quite so much time discussing whether questions of foreign law are questions of fact, as we have been doing, when the matter could in fact be referred to a committee of experts. Little difficulties are involved, but they are real

1237
difficulties and difficulties of importance, which have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Hacking, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and others. These matters could be discussed in a rather more intimate atmosphere before a forum specially qualified to deal with the question. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord cannot think again along the lines of paragraph 55 of the Donaldson Report.
6.42 p.m.
Lord DIPLOCK: My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone has referred to the genesis of the proposal for an Arbitration Rules Committee which is to be found in paragraph 55 of the Donaldson Report, in which it was stated:
"We think consideration should be given to establishing an Arbitration Rules Committee".
I entirely agree that that is a matter to which consideration should be given. The trouble is that it has not—it has not yet—and my great anxiety is that the Bill should get through in the Parliamentary time available to it. It appears that large numbers of people, upon seeing that sentence in the Commercial Court Committee's Report, have latched on to it and said, "Wouldn't it be lovely to have an Arbitration Rules Committee. It could do all sorts of things". A number of people have written to me about this matter. Some of them think that the committee's function should be to lay down rules for the conduct of arbitration, whereas I agree with my noble and learned friend that that is the kind of matter which is dealt with by agreement. He referred to the rules of the Institute of Arbitrators. In fact they are the rules of the London Court of Arbitration. They are fresh rules, recently drafted. There is a wide selection of rules: the Commodity Trade Rules, the GAFTA rules, and the rest.
Then there are those who think along the same lines as those suggested in the report and believe that the committe should deal with amendments to the powers of the High Court in relation to arbitration. Some people think that the committee should do everything, of both kinds, and some think that it should consider detailed amendments to the Act. It is worth noting that the Commercial
1238
Court Committee suggested that the Arbitration Rules Committee should be given powers similar to those of the Supreme Court Rules Committee. If powers of subordinate legislation are to be given, it is most essential that we define what those powers are. The Supreme Court Rules Committee's powers are conferred by Section 99 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1925, and it is perhaps worth noting that the definition of its powers take up a couple of pages of the Statute Book. There are no fewer than 10 different paragraphs all giving close definitions of the powers. If we are to set up an Arbitration Rules Committee with legislative powers, which is what they are—and there is much to be said for so doing—it is absolutely essential that we decide and define what those powers are to be. That has not been done. It is a matter in which there is room for much controversy. It is a matter upon which one wants to consult the interests concerned, and there is no practical possibility of doing that in the time available, unless we are to lose the Bill.
With great respect I recommend to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he should respond to what I think is an invitation by the Commercial Court Committee of referring to that committee the matter of considering whether or not to set up an Arbitration Rules Committee, and, in particular—and this will take much time and thought—defining what its powers are to be. I suggest that if the Amendment is insisted upon, we shall land ourselves in a mess and lose the Bill because sufficient consideration has not been given to what the powers of the committee should be.
Lord DENNING: It seems to me that many trades always have had their own rules, such as the commodity trades, with GAFTA forms and so forth, and in the International Chamber of Commerce. They all have their rules of practice laid out, and I imagine that a new rules committee could not interfere with these rules because they are matters of contract. With regard to other matters ordinary rules of High Court are often applied by analogy. I agree that in a sense there may be room for a Rules Committee, but as my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock has said, it could not be done under such a general formula as we have here. It

1239
would need detailed consideration to see exactly what the powers of the committee should be, especially if there were to be powers to amend or to alter any provisions of Acts of Parliament. So perhaps this is not the right stage for the Amendment to be accepted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I approach the matter very much in the same way as the two noble and learned Lords who have just spoken. In my letter to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, was kind enough to refer, I said that if the proposal in the Amendment is to be pursued further, it seems to me to call for a separate report of its own by the Commercial Court Committee if it thinks fit to make one, rather than simply to have a paragraph at the end of a report not directly aimed at this particular question. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has pointed out, although the Commercial Court Committee recommended that consideration should be given—I emphasise those words—to establishing an Arbitration Rules Committee with powers similar to those of the Supreme Court Rules Committee, neither the report, nor the Amendment, is explicit about the type of rules which such a committee should have power to make or the matters for which such rules should provide.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has analysed the reasons which I put forward in my letter for thinking that, unless we clear our minds in practical detail on what ground could be covered by such a rules committee, we shall be in danger of creating a body which will not have the faintest idea of what it is expected to do, or of what its powers would be, and we should indeed be landed in grave difficulties. I think it is much better to have a clear idea what we have in mind before we proceed further with the proposal which should be embodied in the Bill, rather than to commit ourselves at this point of time, before we really know what is needed by way of the setting up of an Arbitration Rules Committee. But, as I have said, I am very willing to do what I suggested in the letter, and to approach the Commercial Court Committee (or, if it is not willing to undertake it, perhaps some other body) to get some
1240
further guidance on the way we should proceed.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said about looking at the matter and seeking guidance, I wonder whether I may refer him to my Amendment No. 24, which I shall not be moving, because I extracted that Amendment from the Patents Act. It has always been the practice of a Patents Act to have a section in it empowering the Secretary of State to
"make such rules as he thinks expedient for regulating all matters placed by this Act under the direction or control"
of the Comptroller General of Patents. Instead of the Comptroller General of Patents I have indicated that matters should be put under the direction or control of the arbitrator or umpire, and have gone on to say,
"or cause to be appointed an Arbitration Rules Committee …."
There has therefore been a precedent for years in the Patents Act for making rules, but I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, that of course it will take a long time before the rules are adequately prepared and that it is important to get this Bill through very quickly.
Lord HACKING: I readily join all noble Lords who have expressed concern that this Bill should pass quickly through both your Lordships' House and the other House so that it may become law as soon as possible. I tabled this Amendment because I was anxious to investigate further in Committee, as I think the noble and learned Lord knows, the concept of an Arbitration Rules Committee. The noble and learned Lord, in his final words, has certainly left me with the hope that that concept can be further considered, and on that basis I am more than willing to withdraw this Amendment. Indeed, I have no intention, as I believe the noble and learned Lord also knows, of tabling it again at Report or Third Reading. I do not give that undertaking concerning others of my Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Minor amendments relating to awards and appointment of arbitrators and umpires]:
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 44, after ("agreement") insert ("in the event of two arbitrators appointed by the parties agreeing to make a joint award then no third arbitrator need be appointed, but").
The noble Lord said: I was pressed by a very experienced arbitrator to put forward this simple Amendment in the context of Clause 5. It was put to me that there are hundreds and hundreds of small cases where two arbitrators are appointed to give a joint decision, and my Amendment is to the effect that where the two arbitrators appointed by the parties agree to make a joint award, no third arbitrator need be appointed. This will save some time and some expense. I have put to experienced arbitrators the question as to what happens if the two arbitrators should disagree, and they have said that this rarely happens in the circumstances of their cases but then, of course, you would have to go back and appoint a third arbitrator to try to resolve the matter. This is a small matter, but it is apparently of commercial importance. I beg to move.
Lord DIPLOCK: I would suggest that there is here a matter which is worth considering. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I think the Amendment should be in Section 8(1) rather than Section 9, which is where he has sought to put it. The position which arises is this. Under Section 8, if there is a provision as to two arbitrators being appointed by each of the parties, then there is a requirement that they appoint an umpire, and once you have appointed an umpire you have added to the cost. What in fact happens in maritime arbitrations is that arbitrators appointed by the parties not infrequently agree, and then they do not in fact appoint an umpire, but the statute requires them to do so. It is a waste of time and money. I do not think this can possibly be a controversial Amendment. It has been drawn to my attention by the London maritime arbitrators, and I would venture to suggest that that is worth while considering, although I think the Amendment should be in Section 8(1) rather than in Section 9.
Lord DENNING: I would agree. We have had many cases in which the two arbitrators have agreed and where there has been an umpire who has had to be paid although there has been no need to call on him. It is a very good thing to have this Amendment, or words to its effect.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: There is apparently a fear that the new Section 9 in the Arbitration Act might result in two arbitrators appointed by the parties having to appoint an umpire in spite of the fact that they have agreed to an award. That, of course, is an absurdity, and I am certainly willing to look to see whether the words in the Amendment deal with it.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am very much obliged. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
6.58 p.m.
Lord HACKING moved Lord HACKING moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 23(1) of principal Act
(". In section 23(1) of the principal Act for the words" misconducted himself or the proceedings "there shall be substituted the words" to the prejudice of one or more of the parties acted dishonestly or in gross breach of the rules of natural justice".").
The noble Lord said: I have already addressed the Committee to a certain extent on this new clause, and your Lordships will know the relationship between this clause and the earlier Amendments that I moved concerning Clause 3 of the Bill. I will not repeat the arguments that I presented then. This would be an essential clause if your Lordships were to accept Amendment No. 13—and I say that looking to the future rather than to the past—at Report stage. Section 23 of the 1950 Act, which, as I have already reminded your Lordships, consolidated earlier Arbitration Acts, is a section of the Act which has always caused difficulty, if not offence, to arbitrators. Your Lordships will be mindful of paragraph 67 of the Commercial Court Committee's report, and indeed mindful, no doubt out of personal experience, of

1243
the number of occasions when a judge has had to deal with applications under this section, principally applications in which the allegation was that the arbitrator had misconducted the proceedings. The whole terminology of misconduct did not come into arbitration law until, I think, 1899, and in so far as the concept of misconducting proceedings is concerned, that did not come into our law until the 1934 Act.
It is my submission to this Committee that those words are unfortunate, inappropriate and unnecessary now, at this stage of our law. It is also my submission to your Lordships, therefore, not only in the case of international contracts but of all arbitration law, that the time has come for this clause to be replaced by a clause on the lines of that which I have drafted in Amendments Nos. 26 and 27. Those are the circumstances in which an arbitrator should be removed; those rare circumstances when an arbitrator has been either dishonest or in gross breach of the rules of natural justice and, as I added earlier on in Committee, has acted in excess of his authority.
Even though the circumstances are very rare in which it will ever be necessary to use and make an application under a section such as I have proposed in these Amendments, clearly the law of England must have such a section in the Act, it must have that as part of it, and I suggest to your Lordships that this is the appropriate way of doing it. But, as with all my other Amendments, of course, before I go any further I undertake to withdraw it, because it is obviously a matter for consideration; but what I am anxious to hear from the noble and learned Lord is that this, too, is a matter which will be considered. It creates real difficulties. The other factor that I hope the noble and learned Lord will bear in mind is that Section 23 as currently drafted provides a route in both domestic and international arbitration as in all arbitration conducted in England, a route for abuse and a route that in my submission to your Lordships' Committee should be stopped.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: May I support not the Amendment but some of the things that have been said in support of the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I
1244
think that the Donaldson Committee in paragraph 67 of their report have drawn attention to a matter which has caused needless offence to the commercial world. The term "misconduct" has a very special sense in relation to arbitrations which has developed with the years and which covers a number of things which would not be called misconduct, for intance, by the right reverend Prelate who has been such an attentive and welcome Member of this Committee, though not a particularly eloquent one so far. At any rate the word "misconduct" is an offensive one. The fact of the new procedure under Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill I think justifies a reconsideration of the language which defines the circumstances in which an arbitrator may be removed.
I do not myself take the view that only "dishonesty" is good enough, because "gross incompetence" may not be dishonest but circumstances may come in which you want to get rid of an arbitrator because he is no good. That is not dishonest; nor is it a gross breach of natural justice. I must add that I do not like the word "gross" among the words of an Act of Parliament because even when we have had discussion in the courts from time to time in connection with the meaning of "gross negligence", it has been said that the word simply means "negligence" with a vituperative epithet added. It is somewhat lacking in precision and probably the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, would be the first to admit that this is a ballon d'essai rather than an attempt at Parliamentary draftsmanship. I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would be gratifying not only the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, but others and the commercial world in general if he gave some gracious assurance in relation to paragraph 67 of the report.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The word "misconduct" in our understanding of it connotes some moral obloquy. I understand the feelings in the commercial world, where this is brought in to deal with perhaps procedural errors, that to use that phrase in that connection is wholly inappropriate. All that I think that I can say at this stage is that I will look at this. I am not enamoured of the language of the Amendment but I am willing to look at it in consultation with others before or at the Report stage.
Lord HACKING: I say nothing, but beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
7.3 p.m.
Lord HACKING Lord HACKING moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of principal Act relating to appointment of new arbitrators
(". At the end of section 23 of the principal Act there shall be added the following:
"Where an Arbitrator or Umpire has been removed under subsection 23(1) above, any party to the reference may serve on the other parties to the reference, a written notice to appoint, or, as the case may be, to concur in appointing, an Arbitrator or Umpire in place of the Arbitrator or Umpire so removed, and if the appointment is not made within seven clear days after the service of the notice, the High Court or a Judge thereof may, on application by the party who gave the notice, appoint an Arbitrator or Umpire who shall have the like powers to act within the reference and make an award as had the Arbitrator or Umpire who has been removed.".").
The noble Lord said: Before I withdraw this Amendment, may I mention that I drafted this Amendment within the ambit of the new clause that I am proposing to replace Section 23. It is more appropriate to have the appointment of another arbitrator under terms (which other terms come from other clauses of this Bill) than to use the terms used in Section 25 of the Arbitration Act 1950. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment allowing the court to replace an arbitrator removed for misconduct is, I am advised, unnecessary. Section 25 of the 1950 Act deals with the matter and gives the court adequate powers to replace a removed arbitrator. I do not know whether that covers the point that the noble Lord has made or not; but if he is still reverting to the use of the concept of misconduct in this connection, then, as I have said, I am willing to look at that again in other connections.
Lord HACKING: I will leave the matter there. I have already mentioned to the noble and learned Lord that I believe these words are better than those in Section 25. That is the reason why I drafted them. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HACKING Lord HACKING moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 1(4) of Arbitration Act 1975
(". In subsection 1(4) Arbitration Act 1975 after "is a party" there shall be added the words "to the proceedings".").
The noble Lord said: I shall briefly address the Committee on Amendments 29 and 30. The noble and learned Lord has already replied to my Amendment No. 17 which is related to these Amendments and he has left me in a position of suspension. I do not know the noble and learned Lord's mind, but I am happy to remain in suspension until the Report stage or until such time as he is able to take me out of it. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that the noble Lord will not suffer unduly in a state that I prefer to call suspended animation rather than suspension.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment 30 not moved.]
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
7.7 p.m.
The Earl of CLANCARTY The Earl of CLANCARTY rose to call attention to the increasing number of sightings and landings on a worldwide scale of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and to the need for an intra-governmental study of UFOs; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: It is with much pleasure that I introduce this debate this evening about unidentified flying objects—known more briefly as UFOs and sometimes as flying saucers. I understand that this is the first time the subject of UFOs has been debated in your Lordships' House, so that this is indeed a unique occasion. Before proceeding further I think I should declare an interest, in that I have written a number of books about UFOs. I am grateful to those noble Lords who are going to follow me in this debate and I am sure that it will be a most stimulating discussion.
Before speaking about the need for an intra-governmental study of UFOs, which is the basis of my Motion being debated today, I think it advisable to give your Lordships some background to this fascinating subject of UFOs. I shall briefly cover a little history, the classes of witnesses, the characteristics of UFOs and some important sightings, and then I shall deal with the vital subject of the attitude of governments to these important phenomena.
Although UFOs have come to the fore since the end of the last World War, there are reports of them all through history. Among the papers of the late Professor Alberto Tulli, former director of the Egyptian Museum at the Vatican, was found one of the earliest known records of a fleet of flying saucers. It was written on papryus long ago in ancient Egypt—actually, it was at the time of Thutmose III, circa 1504 to 1450 BC, who, with his army witnessed the sighting of what we today would call UFOs.
Now, I am not going to bore your Lordships with accounts of UFOs in every century because I want to get on to the very interesting things happening today. In modern times things began to happen during World War II when both allied and German pilots saw strange circular lights around their planes. We called them Foo fighters. Both Allied and German pilots thought that they were secret weapons of the other side. After the war, on 24th June 1947, an American called Kenneth Arnold, piloting his own plane, was on a mercy mission trying to find another aircraft that had crashed somewhere in the Cascade Mountains in the State of Washington. Suddenly, he spotted nine gleaming objects, crescent shaped, flying in a zigzag fashion between his plane and the mountains. He managed to calculate their speed because he was able to get a fix—I think that is the technical term—between two mountain peaks, Rainier and Baker. It appeared that the objects were travelling at some 1,400 miles per hour—a very fast speed in 1947.
Some time after landing, Arnold, in answer to a question from the Press, described the motion of the flying objects as being like saucers skimming over water. Next day the Press headlined them as "flying saucers". Since Arnold's sighting
1248
in 1947, millions of people all over the world have seen the UFOs. This brings me to the class of witnesses that see UFOs. It is true that occasionally one gets the odd crank or hoaxer; but the majority of witnesses are sincere people. Then again many witnesses are pilots, police officers, coastguards, radar operators—in short, trained observers. Many astronauts have seen UFOs. Many people ask me: "Why is it that astronomers do not see them?" The answer is that they do. In a letter published in the Daily Telegraph on 4th January last year, I listed eight well-known astronomers who had seen UFOs, including Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of the planet Pluto.
Now a few words, my Lords, about the UFOs themselves. Actually, the name "flying saucer" given by the Press in 1947 was a misnomer as they come in all sorts of shapes and sizes: cigar, oval, disc, sphere, doughnut, crescent and tadpole shaped. You name it, my Lords, the list is endless. I should like to say a few words about their characteristics. UFOs often have very bright lights and sometimes when in flight change colours all the way through the colour spectrum. Sometimes the light from a UFO is so intense that its shape is obscured from view. This light energy is so powerful that witnesses have been burned on the face and hands if in too close a proximity to a UFO.
Another characteristic of the UFOs is electrical interference with various machines. UFOs have been notorious for stopping cars at short range. The driver will hear his engine splutter and it stops running. Besides cars, many other machines have been affected, including aircraft, motor cycles, buses, lorries and tractors. UFOs are said to be the cause of some of the power blackouts in the USA, Mexico and other countries. Indeed, UFOs have been seen flying along power lines in the USA just before black-outs. Furthermore, I have a picture on the wall of my study at home of a UFO doing just that!
Now, I will mention one or two of the more impressive sightings since the war. On 29th June, 1954, a BO AC Boeing stratocruiser "Centaurus" had taken off from New York for London. Dinner had been served. The time was just after sunset when the skipper, Captain James

1249
Howard, first sighted the UFOs. Some of the passengers by then were asleep. There was one big object with six smaller ones. Captain Howard pointed them out to his co-pilot, First Officer Lee Boyd, who flew with the famous Pathfinder force in World War II. The objects were five miles from the "Centaurus". They stayed parallel with the aircraft for 80 miles. From time to time the big object appeared to change shape. The radio officer checked with Goose Bay, Labrador, to see if any other aircraft were in the area and was told, No. Goose Bay sent a fighter up to investigate. All the crew saw the objects. Just before the fighter arrived, the objects began to disappear, and it seemed that the smaller ones went inside the large one. Altogether, a crew of eight and 14 of the 51 passengers saw the UFOs.
In November 1975, at Strategic Air Command Bases in Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and Maine, a number of UFOs were sighted over a 13 day period. Several were hovering near nuclear weapons storage areas. When interceptor planes were sent up to investigate, the UFOs dimmed their lights and became invisible. One of the most amazing UFO incidents ever occurred in September, 1976. A report of this event written by Geoffrey Levy appeared in the Daily Express on 27th February, last year. I shall try and give you his account in my own words. A very large glowing object was seen over Teheran, Iran. Hundreds of witnesses telephoned the authorities. At 1.30 a.m. the Iranian Air Force scrambled a Phantom jet to investigate the UFO which was some 70 miles away. As the jet reached about half the distance to the UFO, all of the Iranian plane's communications and instrument systems malfunctioned. The pilot had no alternative but to return to base.
A second Phantom jet took off flying faster than the speed of sound. The UFO began to move at a very fast speed indeed, and soon outpaced the jet. Then, an extraordinary thing happened. Suddenly a second smaller UFO came out of the big one, and headed straight for the jet. The jet pilot tried to release an AIM-9 air-to-air missile at the glowing object. No success at all. The weapons control panel was not working and all electronic systems were out of action. There was only one thing for the pilot to do, and that
1250
was to make his escape. He put his plane in to a dive. Then something extraordinary happened. The second UFO turned around and went back inside the "mother ship". The jet pilot's instruments started working again. So once more he tried to pursue the UFO, but it moved away too rapidly, and so the Phantom jet returned to base.
There are literally vast numbers of these astounding reports. Indeed, my Lords, this worldwide UFO invasion of every country's air space is of growingimportance and therefore I suggest that Parliament keeps a continuous watch on the situation. I have thought of one way of doing this. In the same way that there is a House of Lords Defence Study Group ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, perhaps we could have a House of Lords UFO Study Group to meet periodically. If any of your Lordships are interested, please let me know!
I should like to touch on the attitudes of Governments towards this subject and to stress the need for an intra-govern-mental study, which is the object of my Motion. I am only going to talk about four Governments, your Lordships will probably be pleased to know. First, let us take a look at the United States. I think that one of the reasons for "playing down" UFOs some years ago in the United States was the fear of panic among the public. This was partly based on an actual panic that did occur in 1938 due to a very realistic broadcast by Orson Welles of H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds. Thousands of people left their homes.
However, after the war, the United States Air Force investigated pilots' reports without any debunking. Then the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, stepped in. The CIA controls the intelligence departments of the United States military services. They ordered the United States Air Force to clamp down on UFO reports. That was, I believe in 1953 and it has been going on ever since. Pilots who reported seeing UFOs were ridiculed, and after a time other pilots did not report them for fear of damaging their reputation. We had high hopes during President Carter's election campaign that there was a strong possibility of a breakthrough to the truth about UFOs. He disclosed during his campaign that he had seen a UFO a few years previously in Georgia, and he added that if he got into

1251
the White House he would release to the public all the UFO information in the Pentagon. Unfortunately, that election pledge has not been fulfilled.
What has been happening in the Soviet Union? Probably the leading ufologist in that country is Dr. Felix Zigel, Professor of Higher Mathematics and Astronomy at the Moscow Aeronautical Institute. For a long time he had been trying to form a big UFO research group on a worldwide scale. Many UFOs have been seen over the Soviet Union. In July, August, September and October 1967, for instance, giant space ships were seen over various parts of the USSR by astronomers and other witnesses. On 10th November of that year, it was announced that there was to be a full investigation of UFOs. This was announced on Russian television. The operation was to be headed by Major General Anatoly Stolyerov, with Dr. Zigel as Number Two. Thousands of UFO cases were to be analysed by scientists and Soviet Air Force officers. However, the Russian Academy for Sciences came down hard on the new UFO group and on 27th February, 1968, Pravda published the official attitude of the authorities, and the cover-up was on.
There is, however, one country which can be relied upon to take a line independent from others over many matters, and UFOs proved to be no exception. In February, 1974, the then French Minister of Defence, M. Robert Galley, was interviewed entirely about UFOs on France-Inter radio station. The interviewer was Jean Claude-Bourret. At the time there was tremendous publicity in France, but for some reason our newspapers did not even mention the broadcast. M. Galley stated that the UFOs were real but admitted that it was not known where they came from. He said that since 1954, there had been a unit in the French Ministry of Defence collecting UFO reports. Some of this material was sent to the National Centre for Space Studies in Toulouse, the French equivalent of the American NASA. In this Centre there was also a unit—a scientific one—studying both UFO sighting and landing reports.
A little over a year ago, I received some information that this particular unit was under government sponsorships and so I put down a Question for Written Answer.
1252
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, kindly confirmed to me in his reply that the GEPAN unit—those are the initials of the group—had been set up under the French Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Artisans at the centre in Toulouse. M. Galley also added that the gendarmerie were playing a very important part in UFO investigations, questioning witnesses and examining burnt circular marks on the ground where UFOs had landed, or were alleged to have landed. So the French have been taking it all seriously and keeping their own people informed. Nobody panicked and people did not rush like lemmings into the sea.
Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government informed our people of what they know about UFOs? The UFOs have been coming in increasing numbers for 30 years since the war, and I think it is time our people were told the truth. We have not been invaded from outer space. Most incidents have not been hostile. Indeed it is us, the earthlings, who have fired on them. There may have been a few allegedly hostile incidents, but I maintain that if there is a disturbing element in a phenomenon which is pretty friendly on the whole, we should be told the truth. Whatever the truth is, I am sure that an informed public is a prepared one. Another thing: it is on record that both sighting and landing reports are increasing all the time. Just suppose the "ufonauts" decided to make mass landings tomorrow in this country—there could well be panic here, because our people have not been prepared.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is to reply for Her Majesty's Government at the end of this debate. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will contact his right honourable friend the Minister of Defence about the possibility of giving a broadcast interview about UFOs, as his counterpart across the Channel did in 1974. That would go a long way to discredit the view held by a lot of people in this country that there is a cover-up here and that in some way we are playing along with the United States over this. I should also like to see an intra-governmental study of the UFOs. All Governments should get together and pool their knowledge about UFOs, and the results should be passed on to the

1253
public. Finally, I should like to thank your Lordships for your kind attention, and I beg to move for Papers.
7.29 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am bound to say that I face making this speech with some trepidation. I had wondered whether we could justify the holding of what is in effect a full debate on this matter; but having seen the audience we have tonight, and indeed having heard the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I can see that that sort of thought would not go down too well. I may well be shouted down before I finish anyway, but let us see if we can avoid that right at the start.
The noble Earl asked us in his Motion to support a proposal particularly for an intra-governmental study—I suppose he means, as indeed he has described, between Governments. No doubt he would wish to see the co-operation of the United States. But I should not want to support that kind of proposal. I do not think the time has yet come when we can view this matter with sufficient certainty to justify the expenditure of public money on it.
I certainly agree that the numerous voluntary bodies, including those with which the noble Earl is associated, ought to be encouraged, and indeed I should not be opposed to informal links between those bodies—or, at least the responsible ones—and others, such as the Ministry of Defence. But I am ashamed to say, in the midst of all this faith, that I am not myself a believer in UFOs described, as I believe they are, as objects or vehicles from another planet or from another universe.
I have some 2,500 hours as a pilot. I have flown across the Atlantic a few times as a pilot. But, unlike with the aircraft reported by the noble Earl, I have never seen one. I presume—indeed, I believe—that a good many of the sightings can be explained by logical scientific theory and I am, so far at least, convinced that those that cannot so far be so explained could be, if our knowledge were more advanced or if we had more information about the sightings in question. It is these unexplained sightings upon which ufologists rely so heavily in asking us to accept their theories. But I believe,
1254
as I say, that these unexplained sightings could be—and, indeed, would be—explained, if we had more knowledge about them; for example, better photographs. How many clear photographs of UFOs have your Lordships seen? All I have seen are hazy, fudgy photographs which could, or could not, be genuine.
Ufologists often rely upon radar information for evidence in their case, but I must tell your Lordships that radar plays more tricks even than the camera, and I do not believe that radar information, in this context, is valid. For example, the recent sightings in New Zealand, which were widely reported just before Christmas, including some rather strange-looking photographs which appeared on television, were also said to have been confirmed by radar information which was available to the aircraft in question. But I know from my own experience that radar is frequently used, and, indeed, is so designed, for detecting anomalies in atmospheric conditions and in weather patterns, and I am not persuaded that radar is a valid supporting argument in this case.
Since time immemorial, man has ascribed those phenomena that he could not explain to some supernatural or extraterrestrial agents. Eventually, as scientific wisdom has advanced, these phenomena are understood more fully, until now, today, no one takes witchcraft seriously and there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. It is not so long ago that magnetism, as it occurs naturally in the form of lodestone, was thought to be the work of the Devil, as indeed were some of the hot springs found in Iceland, Australia and elsewhere.
An eclipse of the sun or the moon, now fully understood, was once thought to be an expression of the Almighty's displeasure. Perhaps this derives from the description in the Gospels of the events following the Crucifixion. I recall the 44th and 45th verses of the 23rd chapter of St. Luke's Gospel, and I shall read it if I may:
"And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst".
St. Matthew described it rather well also:
"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent".

1255
No one would now seriously doubt that those happenings were, in fact, an eclipse of the sun and an earthquake respectively. I would not deny that there may have been divine intervention in respect of the timing of those events, but certainly I would say that they were caused by terrestrial forces which we now fully understand.
Without wishing to pre-empt anything that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich may say, perhaps I may pose the question as to whether the existence of another race or races outside our universe is compatible with our Christian principles. I speak only as a simple member of the Christian faith, but I think I believe that He loves us and us alone. I am not aware that there is any suggestion in the words of Christ or in the words of the Almighty, as recorded that we must share his goodness with people from another universe. There is no suggestion that there is, indeed, any other such people. I acknowledge, however, that, for example, the works of Darwin were once thought incompatible with the Christian faith, and so perhaps my view of the credibility of these things, from a Christian point of view, is open to correction. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate will be able to help us when he comes to speak.
I emphasise that I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity and conviction of those who believe in these objects, who believe that they are visitors from another universe or, at least, some supernatural force beyond our reason. I simply do not happen to agree with them. I certainly do not agree with the learned professor, speaking on the radio the other morning, who said: "Anyone who believes in UFOs is a loony". But as for the suggestion that an international study group should be set up, I do not think that I could countenance that as a serious proposal at this time. I emphasise, however, that I would be happy to encourage informal links between, for example, the RAF and the very worthy groups who believe differently from the way I do.
Before I sit down, I should just like to say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, who is to speak later in the debate. His name has, of course,
1256
appeared on the Order Paper before today, and I hope that it appears on the list of speakers a good many times in the future. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has done us a service by bringing this matter forward, but I would counsel caution and care.
7.38 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said, the majority of noble Lords in this Chamber will be greatly indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for raising this fascinating and controversial subject this evening. Before I begin, perhaps I should say that I have an interest in it, because I am a director of a company which is to make an identified flying object—a thermo skyship, which is saucer shaped. I shall not get that muddled up. But in spite of sceptics, such as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, the other day in a newspaper, and Sir Bernard Lovell from Jodrell Bank, who says that UFOs do not exist, we must agree that they do, because otherwise there would be no unidentified flying objects. Furthermore, we should not have throughout the world radio telescopes listening to try to pick up signals from intelligences in outer space.
As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, UFOs are not products of the 20th century imagination. They have been observed here for years—by the North American Indians, by the monks of Byland Abbey in 1290, who were terrified by the appearance of a huge silver disc. Right through history up to today, millions of people have seen UFOs, and I will go so far as to say that I am the first to admit that the very large majority of them can be explained as natural or man-made phenomena—meteorites, satellite debris, weather balloons, military flares, et cetera. But there are still many which are completely unexplained.
It has been reported that the United States and the USSR signed a pact in 1971 to swop UFO information, but the pact stated that they were to keep the rest of the world in the dark. I believe that the pact was signed so that neither super-Power would make mistakes about UFOs being atomic missiles. I am also led to understand that quite recently the three United States balloonists who crossed the Atlantic were followed for up to 12

1257
hours by UFOs but were ordered by United States Government agents not to discuss them.
We know that war in space, once a figment of the imagination and a subject much beloved by science fiction writers, is very nearly a fact now. Both super-Powers have, or will have, killer satellites and laser beams operating in space. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, whether he agrees that this may perhaps be one of the reasons for the reticence of the United States towards being more forthcoming about their UFO information?
In 1977, Sir Eric Gairy, the Prime Minister of Grenada, backed by President Carter, wanted the United Nations to declare 1978 as the Year of the UFO. They both failed. However, the proposition was finally tabled for 29th September 1978. This proposition was postponed through October, November and December. It was finally threatened by the veto of the United States and Russia. Hopefully, however, it will now be considered in June of this year. I believe that at last there has been a unanimous vote that the proposition will not be rejected.
As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, I agree entirely that we do not understand many of these unidentified flying objects because of our lack of knowledge. UFOs defy worldly logic. Even if one accepts that there may be life elsewhere in our galaxy, or even in other galaxies, the human mind cannot begin to comprehend UFO characteristics: their propulsion, their sudden appearance, their disapperance, their great speeds, their silence, their manoeuvres, their apparent anti-gravity, their changing shapes. They defy our present knowledge and laws of matter. Of course, this naturally upsets our earthly scientists because it is outside their earthly terms of reference and knowledge, but to try to present UFOs in a more mundane light let us briefly examine the last 30 years.
In 1947, the United States Air Force started an official project called "SIGN". By 1949, 243 reports of UFOs had been submitted, but no conclusive evidence came to the public's knowledge from this project. Project Blue Book was then born, and its findings produced the same conclusions. So it appears that the United States Air Force concern was
1258
threefold: first, to see whether UFOs were a threat to the security of the United States; secondly, to see whether UFOs could contribute technical and scientific knowledge; and, thirdly, to explain to the general American public what was going on in their air space. However, as UFOs appeared to offer no threat to security, Project Blue Book became just a public relations exercise to not inform the public, despite numerous unidentified radar trackings and close approaches made by UFOs to both civil and military aircraft. The military staff in America said that, as there was no threat or danger, they were not interested in pursuing the subject any further. So Project Blue Book was abandoned.
This may be good enough to fob off the American public, but it is not good enough to fob off the British public. Too many people—ordinary people as well as famous people—have seen UFOs. Ten Governments now openly admit that UFOs exist and are real: France, Norway, Sweden, Brazil, the Argentine, Venezuela, Mexico, the Philippines, Peru and Grenada. Other Governments know that UFOs exist but do not admit it publicly. President Carter has personally seen a UFO.
Let me give a small sample of prominent, scientific and sane people who have seen UFOs or believe, through evidence, that they exist: Commander Robert McLaughlin, United States Navy missile expert; John McCormack, Speaker, United States House of Representatives; the late Air Chief Marshall Lord Dowding; the late President Truman; Dr. Stanton Friedman, United States Nuclear Physicist; Ed Mitchell, Apollo astronaut; Gordon Cooper, Apollo astronaut; Dr. Allen Hynek, Professor of Astronomy, North West University; Walter Cronkite, United States newscaster; Neil Armstrong, first man on the moon; and, lastly, Dr. Felix Zigel, Professor of Higher Mathematics and Astronomy, Moscow Aeronautical Institute. Can any of your Lordships sincerely believe that these aforementioned people all suffer either from hallucinations or believe in fairy stories?
Despite the United States and the USSR embargo on UFO information, funnily enough the Russians appear more inclined to think that UFOs have extra-terrestrial origins. Further, some

1259
Russian scientists see a connection between UFOs and paranormal phenomena. In fact, there is an ever-growing belief that space travel has a connection with telepathy and telekinesis, because cosmonauts in orbit have discovered through scientific tests that they have an increased level of telepathic communication. If we assume that extra-terrestrial intelligences who travel to earth are more advanced than we are—and in that respect I think that they must be—then UFOs could be tele-kinetic phenomena: in other words, controlled by thought pulses.
Since thought is not subject to the physical limitations of matter, then velocities in excess of the speed of light would be possible. It is interesting to me that in 1968 I was speaking to Sir Frank Whittle, the inventor of the jet engine and an eminent scientist, about interstellar space travel. It was just before the Americans had landed on the moon. Sir Frank said that he thought that it would be perfectly feasible one day to go to the stars, as he did not believe in Einstein's theory of relativity. A remark like this, coming from an ordinary man like myself, would probably, quite rightly, be laughed at. But one can certainly not laugh when a remark like that is made by such an eminent person as Sir Frank Whittle.
What is interesting is that two years later, in 1970, Dr. Fomin, a Russian doctor of telekinesis and automation, argued that, to traverse interstellar space, we would have to grapple with physical laws different from those we know at present and which so far are only theory. However, these principles have been established in mathematical formulae. Therefore, Einstein's concept of time and space possibly may not apply.
In 1976, President Carter, in a preelection pledge stated:
"If I become President, I'll make every piece of information this country has about UFO sitings available to the public and the scientists. I am convinced that UFOs exist. I have seen them".
This statement was a breakthrough against the United States cover-up as it admitted that not all UFO information is, or has been, available to the American public. For instance, do your Lordships' know that three former United States Presidents before their election proclaimed their belief in UFOs? They were President
1260
Eisenhower, President Lyndon Johnson and President Ford, who I agree was appointed. During their presidencies they became completely silent and did not fulfil their promises. Why? I strongly suspect that Her Majesty's Government know why, and if they do know, why then, they should inform your Lordships.
I believe that there is much material evidence on UFOs in the national archives in the United States of America which has never been made known to the public, and even President Carter is finding it difficult to carry out his pre-election pledge. I am led to believe that he has tried unsuccessfully with NASA to do UFO research. The answer he has been given is "No, due to expense". That research which NASA has been required to do would cost a few million dollars, but a few million dollars is only the cost of two astronauts' suits. Therefore it appears obvious that for some reason there is a cover-up in the United States.
We in the United Kingdom are in a strange position because we have had thousands of sightings, yet I am led to understand that the Ministry of Defence have only two clerks working on UFO sightings. Further, they claim that they are not spending any money on UFO research. They appear reluctant to investigate publicly connected phenomena such as alleged messages from outer space. They say that this is the responsibility of the BBC and the Post Office. Can the Minister say whether the BBC and the Post Office know that they have this responsibility?
Further, when the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, replies to the debate will he confirm that Her Majesty's Government might be sympathetic and give support to the efforts of President Carter, Dr. Kurt Waldheim and Sir Eric Gairy to get the United Nations to debate the resolution
"to discover the origin, nature and intent of UFOs".
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said that we should set up a Parliamentary UFO group to meet a few times a year. I would concur with him. Further, I think the general public should be encouraged to come forward with evidence. Many do not, for fear of being ridiculed. Let them be open; let them be honest; let them badger their Member of Parliament and the Government to be open

1261
with them and to cease what I am convinced is a cover-up here. The people of Britain have a right to know all that the Governments, not only of this country but others throughout the world, know about UFOs.
Before I sit down I ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, whether he will tell your Lordships why the Ministry of Defence has not informed the public of 18 contacts from 23rd May 1977 up to 22nd February 1978, numbered K 5634 to K 5651 inclusive. Further, what do the classification numbers 5, 3, 20, 16, 6, 8 and 23 mean for these 18 contacts? Moreover, does the noble Lord realise that 13 out of these 18 contacts were seen during the hours of daylight? There need be no fear that the people of this country may panic, since if UFOs are extra-terrestrial their intelligence and knowledge is far ahead of our primitive understanding. My Lords, I heartily support the Motion moved by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for an intra-governmental body to research UFOs. Let Her Majesty's Government give an example to the rest of the world by being the leader in this investigation.
7.55 p.m.
The Viscount of OXFUIRD: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for initiating this extremely interesting debate. Of course it is really much above my head, but I have enjoyed it already and I hope I shall enjoy it for the rest of the evening. To me, the first question really is, where have these UFOs come from? There could be a great many answers to that, but in the first place we can look at our own planet and there is no doubt that there is very little chance of their having come from anything in our own solar system. In fact I think I should quote a few words from Professor Kopal's recent book on the solar system which finishes up, after lamenting the fact of what they found out about Mars, by saying:
"The hope of finding life on Mars has evaporated, together with the canals, into the thin Martian air. It is now almost certain that as living beings we are alone in the solar system".
I think that is a very good example of the fact that we cannot look to the solar system to discover where these things come from, if they come from anywhere.
The next possibility which has been paraded is that they might come from the sister sun in our own galaxy. Of course
1262
that is quite possible if you believe in the now accepted—or shall we say more popular—theory of the "big bang" for the start of the universe. Undoubtedly, our sun and its solar system must have been shared with many others at that moment when we suddenly appeared. They even give dates for it now; they talk about 5,000 million years ago, which fits in with our own geological background.
There are many stars which have a solar system which might well be in the same position; they might have one planet, as we have, as good as ours and with the same amount of knowledge. On the other hand, we must accept the fact, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, was saying, that it would have to be something which we have not been able to attain on this earth and something that we do not understand on this earth, because if one wanted to get, say, from A Centauri, which is our nearest star, to here, it would take half a lifetime. Even travelling faster than anything we have ever produced in the way of space ships in this world of ours, the distance is 250,000 times the distance that we are from our sun, which is 93 million miles. It is a distance which would certainly take half a lifetime, even at 100,000 miles an hour. So I do not think it would be reasonable to look at another solar system, say A Centauri, which is very near, being only roughly 4¼ light years from us, which is not very much in space. There is of course the possibility that the UFOs may come from some secret effort on this earth. This I very much doubt because one could not keep a thing like that secret for 20 or 30 years. I very much doubt the possibility of its being on this earth.
So we get an entirely different picture. We have progressed in the last 30 years both in cosmology and in many other sciences, more than we have ever done before, certainly in my lifetime. I think the feeling really is that we are now on the edge of something in the universe which we do not understand yet. However, if we are going to understand the UFO question, we have got to move to the extent of understanding something beyond cosmology today. From our point of view, what we are looking at is the tip of the iceberg. We know perfectly well that we get information, we put it into computers and come out at the other

1263
end with a new model. Then in five or 10 years the model is thrown away and we are back with the one answer which applies, unfortunately, to so much of science today; we just do not know. But one hopes that it will be possible.
If the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, backed by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, is adopted—that is, that we should have a worldwide organisation—to look into this matter and to go further than we have ever done, why should we not be the leaders of it? It would twist science back into a new field. Is it possible that there is not merely another solar system in our galaxy, but that somewhere in one of the many galaxies in the expanding universe there are other places where these things could come from with their amazingly vast scientific knowledge? I personally see no valid reason why we must accept that at this time, but we should start working for it. If we had a worldwide organisation to try to control that, perhaps we should be able to solve many of the problems which face us today in the universe; and nothing could be better. Then we might possibly find the answer to our UFOs.
8.2 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, as the lone figure on this side of the House who has dared to come in on this debate, may I say that it has been a pleasure to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, who has just spoken and, who has, in his own inimitable way, as a result of his military and other experience over the years, brought a certain depth and profundity to the request for some investigation into the phenomenon with which mankind is presented today. Consequently, with all sincerity I can say that I hope this House will have the pleasure of listening to the noble Viscount on many occasions adding his voice to our deliberations, and I thank him for what he has said.
Now I want to attack the problem in my own way. First, I want to ask what are we talking about. Secondly, after expressing my gratitude for the maiden Speech, I would also express thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who initiated this debate to call attention to the increasing number of sightings and
1264
landings on a worldwide scale of unidentified flying objects. There is no argument about that. Do not let the noble Earl be a little bit sad because of dandy intellectualism that may approach this debate. The world oozes with intellectuality and at the present moment it is completely lacking in wisdom. Let us remember what I have said many times here, and it was my old mother who taught me this; she made me go to Sunday school and quote the text. She would say in Welsh: "Always remember, my boy, Solomon did not ask for cleverness, he asked for wisdom". There is a vast difference between the dandy intellectualism of some of the reporters on newspapers' approach to this problem and the wise approach that we have just heard in this maiden speech. Let us anchor that down. What else does the noble Earl ask for. He says on a worldwide scale and that there is need for intergovernmental study. I will add to it from the other side of the House that the expense would be so small that we should not neglect this.
Anybody who knows something about laser beams—and I saw in a laboratory in Switzerland for the first time the effect of a laser beam—knows it would be quite possible to throw on to that table now an identified or unidentified object that would look palpable, like Macbeth's dagger. Your Lordships remember the famous dagger scene:
"Is this a dagger I see before me
The handle toward my hand? …
In form as palpable
As this which now I draw".
We could with a laser beam throw a dagger that would look as palpable on to that table. There may be an understanding of the power of the laser and its effect existing in some kind of technology that is beyond the dimension in which we can work. We have been looking in mathematics for the fifth and even the sixth dimension.
I had better pick up my notes, lest we be here a long time. Noble Lords need not worry; so much has been quoted that it saves me a lot of quotation. I want to ask the 64,000 dollar question. Do noble Lords believe in angels? The answer from some will be, Yes, and yet they have never seen one. We are asking you to believe in the phenomena of flying saucers, seen by now by, I should think,

1265
probably millions, at any rate hundreds of thousands, without exaggeration. If we are studying hagiography—and I had better be careful—which is the history of the saints, if I came off my Welsh mountains and came down as a little boy of 12 and said I had seen the Virgin Mary springing out of a rock, some devout religious people would believe me; but if I said I had seen a flying saucer they would not believe me. What is the difference? It is a question that has to be asked; it is a philosophical question that has to be asked, when intellectuality, in its pompous way in its Sunday newspaper articles, is dealing in print with mysteries that Shakespeare described—to misquote him: "There is more in heaven and earth than is thought of in man's philosophy".
So this deserves not being pushed aside. Mark you, my Lords, I was told today outside those doors that an ambassador of 8 ft. 6 ins. with green feet and webbed feet as well had asked whether he could park his flying saucer in our car park, according to some of the telephones that have been ringing here today, because some people have treated the whole matter as a joke. I would, therefore, suggest to them that they read H. G. Wells' Final Essay. They can read it in half an hour. It is slim, it is cogent, it is succinct. He says the human mind is at the end of its tether.
There is a queerness in the cosmology of the world in which we are now living. Was Wells right? We certainly see mankind acting queer when petrol is short. He is snarling and worse than any being from outer space. The anthropological arrogance of 20th century man in his tinpot motor-cars riding through the streets of the lovely spaceship we call the world is heartbreaking. He has learnt nothing from his two wars; and if we had another, God help mankind, in view of the way that he has shown his greed, selfishness and tendency to panic as never before since the days of the Crusades. The greatest delusion in the history of man was the delusion of the Crusades. But men went on them after the days of Peter the Hermit with a fiery and fierce belief in what they were doing.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is an expert who has been written about. In fact, he dropped everything else to write about this matter. His seven books
1266
have been translated into many languages and I congratulate him. He has done a job of work and I hope that the debate initiated by the noble Earl will receive some attention. People tend to scoff, but it is only a few days ago that we were sitting at the piano, playing and knocking out—not with the brilliance of a top pianist—"We three kings of Orient are". What did they follow? They followed a star. What was that star? We have had an intellectual analysis of why after the Crucifixion darkness spread over the earth. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—who has piloted from one side of the ocean to the other—made intellectual assumptions about earthquakes and eclipses. We are not completely sure how to explain eclipses or earthquakes, but we have a kind of Kepler mathematics that times things rather nicely. It is not quite enough to explain the earthquakes. It does not mean that the mystery of the UFOs is something that can be brushed aside, and it is an anthropological arrogance to so say.
Good heavens, I have been speaking for nine minutes! My Lords, do not worry, I shall be about another five. The House has heard a number of laudable people quoted. Ordinary little people have sometimes been laughed at, especially those concerned in the famous sighting at Pascagoula in Mississippi when one little fellow fainted when he saw a chap with one leg jumping towards him with a wizened and wrinkled face, with pointed ears, crab claws for hands, slits for eyes and holes beneath his nostrils—they would not be nostrils without holes, at least I should hope so! We shall not develop fantastic descriptions like that. We shall not go into those realms. But we must say that there are many people who have said that they have experienced these phenomena.
I agree that the New Zealand incident has reawakened man's interest and as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, they were not clear pictures. However, I attended a scientific lecture in this noble building not so long ago, given by someone who believed faithfully in the Loch Ness monster. He showed us masses of films. He was a scientist and he swore that the Loch Ness monster existed. There is just as much case for the existence of flying saucers. We know that they exist. All we are saying is that they are

1267
unidentified. They may be terrestrial or celestial. We are asking Governments to find an answer and that is all that this debate is about. There is no magic, we have nothing up our sleeves, but let the world know what is going on.
This renewed interest poses many problems and there are many research organisations which are looking into the matter and which know that they exist, but I shall not bore the House by going into them now. Let us ask a couple of questions. How can a flying saucer fly faster than sound and not create a supersonic boom? What is it? Secondly, have we the right to assume that we alone are in the universe? This anthropomorphic view of God that some people have built up does not build for the spirit and does not, I think, build for true holiness. It does not build up for real Christian spirit if it is followed too fully. Therefore, I should say that we have no right to assume that we are the only intelligent beings in the universe. Is the earth the only planet populated by intelligent technological life? I do not know and I do not suppose that we shall be able to find an answer yet. If in a year of Queen Elizabeth I had said to someone in London that I could show him a picture of Philip of Spain in Madrid on a piece of glass in his room, I would probably have been burnt at the stake as a wizard, or as a witch if I were a woman. However, we can do that today. We have broken through. We have the miracle on earth of television, even from the moon.
Are there flying saucers? Can these objects be explained? There are two basic facts. First, the scientific examination of the probability. That is due to mankind and Governments should look into it. The second aspect is to fathom the possibilities of the existence of this phenomena. Astronomers are now increasing their search for extra-territorial radio signals, but so far—despite what the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has said—none has really or truly been discovered. The billions of stars in the galaxy make the problem at present too much for us.
Then there is the question of speed. In a light year a ray of light travels 6 trillion miles, but we do not want to go into that. The question of relativity
1268
is interesting. I am not qualified to argue about it: I never reached that standard of mathematics. However, I know that Einstein believed that electro magnetic waves have no mass and are therefore not affected by his theory. However, he said that as an object—if it has mass—approaches the speed of light, its mass becomes infinite. That might explain the black holes about which we talk. We are talking of mysteries that we never knew anything about.
For a couple of generations now thousands of magazines and so on have reported these sightings. We want to know whether these objects that are unidentified deserve real research in depth. Whether or not it is true, only our prejudices can decide, and it becomes more difficult to listen to such weird experiences from apparently honest, sane and unself-seeking men who place their findings before papers and Governments. Are we right to call these men liars, hallucinators or sensationalists? If one human being out of the tens of thousands who allege to have seen these phenomena is telling the truth, then there is a dire need for us to look into the matter. Those who believe in psychic phenomena or spiritualism and those who believe in the synchronicity of ghosts—as they try to explain them—should not scoff at the possibility of these unidentified objects. We know that poltergeists exist; we know about their activities. Therefore, do not be so ready to scoff at UFOs when, in another moment if I catch you talking, you will agree with me that poltergeists exist. This is a serious Debate. It deserves study and understanding.
8.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, I count it a privilege to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, and to link myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in congratulating the noble Viscount on his maiden speech. At the beginning of his speech I jotted down that I should like to thank him for his "down-to-earth remarks", but when he got right out to A Centauri I realised that that phrase was of no use anyway. However, we congratulate him and look forward to hearing his voice again and often.
I am glad to be able to follow—without of course the Welsh fire or fervour—what

1269
the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek said. I have a little Irish blood in my veins and that is why I understand everything he says. I am sure that the request by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty:
"To call attention to the increasing number of sightings and landings on a world-wide scale of unidentified flying objects"
is a proper one. I am most glad that we have brought this whole issue out into the open and have been given the unhurried opportunity of talking about it tonight.
It is right that we should give a cool and scientific look at all unidentified flying objects, not only because of natural curiosity, not even only—as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, suggested—because of national security but also for reasons of scientific research. There was a time when leaders in the Church were not always so enthusiastic about pushing out the frontiers of knowledge as I believe we are today. I very much hope that such a search will continue. Whether or not it should be an intra-governmental study I am not sure. We shall listen with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, says to us on that. But that it should be studied, and seriously studied, I believe to be true.
The interesting thing is that when a suggested UFO is seen in one part of the world it seems to spark off many sightings in other parts. The fact of the New Zealand sightings a short time ago seems to have produced many sightings in Norfolk; and our Eastern Daily Press—which is a magnificent daily paper, accurate, fair and always helpful to the Church—has told us all about this recently. When I was talking on television at lunchtime today in Norwich my immediate reaction was to ring up the commanding officer of one of our stations—and for the sake of national security I shall not name the actual establishment lest other ears in other spaces should be listening to me—to ask whether (and I am quite serious about this), when sightings were suggested in Norfolk last week, one of our particularly important RAF stations had anything to say about them.
I think that we should be quite cool, firm and scientific and try to extend our knowledge in this area. But, with the wealth of scientific, aeronautical and erudite knowledge in your Lordships' House, what is a bishop doing moving
1270
among the various parts of this chequered chessboard? I felt that I wanted to share anxieties on a rather narrow level with your Lordships. First, I believe that UFOs and the mystery surrounding them today are helping to build up a climate of credulity and, in certain cases, even of superstition, with the danger of a sort of ersatz spirituality almost reacting against the impersonality of modern civilisation, but not wholly involved in the total Christian commitment, which is a balanced commitment. Last summer at our Lambeth Conference the phrase was used:
"The Church gathers for worship; the Church scatters for mission".
Those are the two sides of activity: the Church of God meets to worship God but the Church of Christ scatters to spread the good news of the Gospel. My concern here is that the mystery surrounding UFOs today—and I think it is helped by the variety of films and programmes on the subject—is in danger of producing a 20th century superstition in our modern and scientific days which is not unlike the superstition of past years. That is my first anxiety.
The second is that UFOs and their study seem, from my limited research in this area, to link with a certain religious subculture which seems to do three things. It offers a substitute for true, catholic religion. I use "catholic" with a small 'c'; I mean the Christian faith in its widest, but received, sense. Secondly, I think it draws serious, sincere and often very charming people—and young people too—into a sub-Christian, and I am afraid sometimes a non-Christian cult, often controlled by a dominant leader, and reproduces something of the gnostic—I suppose one wants to help people by saying "g-nostic"—heresies of the tight-knit, esoteric groups of the first, second and third centuries. In fact, I believe that Archbishop William Temple was right when he said the Church of Christ was the only society founded for its non-members to take what it knew of God and of Christ into the world that others might know too.
I see a certain danger of the linking of religion with the UFO situation at that level. Some Christian researchers suggest that those who become deeply involved in the religious aspects of the UFO situation come under a psychic domination

1271
which can cause serious distress to them and to their personal life. That is my anxiety. I may be wrong, but I put it forward with some care, having thought about it and studied it a good deal. Therefore, my third anxiety—and I am sorry to be negative but it is important to share both the light and the dark sides—is the danger of the religious aspect of the UFO situation leading to the obscuring of basic Christian truths. When all is said and done, Christ himself is the agent of God in the creation of the world. I quote from Colossians;
"Christ is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation: for in Christ all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible—whether thrones or dominions, or principalities or authorities … All things were created through Him and for Him".
This fascinating chapter in Colossians, which is perhaps one of the highest levels of Christological teaching, speaks of Christ being before all things: "by him all things consist", as the Authorised Version put it. All things hold together; He is the great unifying, holding-together principle of God's universe.
I say this in this debate recognising the danger of, as it were, preaching a sermon. However, I do not think that is true in this case because the very subject we are debating is helping to widen our horizons—and the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, stressed this point of looking far out in his maiden speech. I believe that Christ has not only a terrestial, not only a cosmic significance but literally a galactic significance. I believe that He is God's vice-regent concerning His great creative world. It is good that our minds and eyes should be stretched further out because I do not believe that at any point of the universe we get beyond the hand of God. Therefore, it helps us to understand the majesty of the Godhead when we begin to stretch our minds to reach out to the far corners of creation.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, will the right reverend Prelate allow me to intervene? Is he actually offering ecclesiastical authority for the existence of another race of people in another universe? Is he saying that the existence of UFOs, together with their inhabitants such as are so often described to us, is compatible with Christian faith?
The Lord BISHOP of NORWICH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tregfarne, for his interjection because it shows that he must have been listening carefully, because the next thing on my notes is, "Say something about Lord Trefgame's remarks". However, there are about 20 seconds to go before I get to the noble Lord. Perhaps in the meantime he can have a glass of water from Lord Davies of Leek, or something, but I am almost with the noble Lord. I am glad for that interjection because I obviously was not getting right what I was trying to say. I believe that all the far corners of the creative world, right out further than we can ever see or even know by radio, are within the plan of the Creator. I believe they are within the majestic purposes of God. I believe that Christ, as Creator under the Godhead, is concerned with it all.
Now may I come to the noble Lord's particular question a few minutes ago. His question went something like this: "Do we believe in the existence of another race? Is it possible that there is another race further afield?" I must say that I do not know. I believe there is a place for reverent Christian agnosticism concerning what is not revealed to us in scripture and by our Lord. Having said that, I believe that God may have other plans for other worlds, but I believe that God's plan for this world is Jesus. That at least is how I view the question. The emphasis in scripture is most interesting on the fact that there never seems a point beyond the revelation of scripture where there is not God.
I quote, if I may follow Lord Trefgarne once more before finishing what I had to say, from the most majectic opening letter to the Hebrews.
"In these last days, God has spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. He reflects the glory of God. He bears the stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power".
My point is that the danger of getting the UFO thing linked with the religious thing is that it obscures the fact that Christ is the image of the invisible God, and that all God's purposes and plans for humanity are in and through his Son, our Lord.
This is not popular. This is not agreed by dozens of people. Plenty of people

1273
think that Christians make a proud and exclusive claim when they claim the words of our Lord,
"All power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth".
But this is part of the belief of a Christian which he has to put humbly and lovingly, and in the light of seeking to serve people. In the incarnation of our Blessed Lord he clearly revealed to us the mind of the Godhead, and we should be careful in our study of the UFOs in a religious context because I believe that the Gospel of Christ, and his death upon the Cross for the salvation of sinners, can never be by-passed by other forms of religious expression which may be esoteric, may be unusual, and may appear to come to us in unusual ways. For that reason therefore I am happy that we should make a cool, clear, careful study of the whole UFO situation, but let it not be at the price of the obscuring of the fullness of the Christian faith and its power to transform lives.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, may I ask one question? Although I agreed with much of what he said, I did not entirely understand, when he was telling us that one should not study UFOs in a religious context, whether that meant that one should not study music, art or other things that we all have, good, bad and indifferent, in a religious context. If it means that we must not worship them, then I would be entirely in agreement, as a professing Christian. We must not worship art, architecture, or music. But when he tells us not to study them in a religious context, I am not clear whether I will be doing so or not.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, will the House give me permission to seek to answer that in a sentence? Just as it is important that the boys and girls in our schools today should know some basic facts about the great world religions, I still believe that it is essential that in a so-called and named Christian country our boys and girls should have the opportunity of knowing the great facts of the Christian faith. I am simply suggesting that, if, in fact, people seeking for religious experience bypass the revelation of God in Christ and revealed in scripture, then they may
1274
get into difficulties which will hurt and harm them. It is simply the obscuring of the Gospel that is my concern.
8.36 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I must begin with an apology. Before I knew that the debate was to start so late I entered into an obligation for this evening from which I find it difficult to escape. Therefore, I may be unable to stay the course. One happy thing about UFOs is that they have nothing whatever to do with Party politics! Another is that they take one's mind off the absolutely frightful everyday events. Besides that, no theory as regards them can possibly be laughed out of court, nor need angels in respect of them fear to tread! I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, would agree.
Though many alleged sightings are of identifiable objects of terrestrial origin, such as disintegrating satellites, balloons or meteors, or even some sort of reflection, others are of things which, on the face of it, cannot be accounted for in this way. The evidence of this is obviously too circumstantial to be disregarded. The evidence produced by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lord Kimberley, is obviously too circumstantial. You cannot disregard that. These things almost certainly do exist. It is difficult to say that they do not exist. Therefore, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I do not contest their existence.
Some objects may be of terrestrial origin, but equally some may not. Whatever their origin, it has certainly not as yet been proved that they contain, or are controlled by, sentient beings of any sort. Still less has it been demonstrated that such sentient beings come from another planet, of which we are told there are many millions in the universe and no doubt many thousands on which conditions may well be similar to those on earth. It is conceivable, therefore, that UFOs come from another world; but that, to say the least, is not certain or, let us say, is not yet certain. Let us therefore for a moment examine the terrestrial and the non-terrestrial hypotheses.
If these objects are terrestrial, they come somewhere from our world, then they may conceivably be attributable to

1275
some condition of the atmosphere, or upper atmosphere, unknown to us, producing electrical or similar phenomena which no doubt interfere with compasses, and for some reason dart about the sky, sometimes even coming to earth. The difficulty about such an explanation is that they never seem to come into actual contact with aircraft, or any other airborne objects. Even if collisions have sometimes been suspected, they have not been proved to have occurred. Nor, apparently, do they ever crash into anything important on the ground. When they are alleged to have been seen on the ground it is always, incidentally, away from houses. I suppose it is conceivable that they may be capable of passing right through physical objects, their mindless trajectory being therefore harmless, and dictated by some unknown physical cause, and their apparent presence on the ground being due to some local conditions on the surface. All I say is that this is a conceivable hypothesis. In any case, the fact that their occasional presence is so far inexplicable does not in itself invalidate the terrestrial hypothesis. There are, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said, more things in Heaven than are dreamt of in our philosophy.
One terrestrial possibility at least can be discarded, that which attributes them to some Soviet activity in Central Asia, in some way heralding World War III. This hypothesis was current, as I remember well, in America at the time of the Korean war, when I was in New York. Indeed, it was responsible for, as far as I know, the only known joke ever perpetrated by a Soviet functionary, namely Mr. Gromyko, who when asked what he thought about flying saucers said, "Some people say these objects are due to the excessive consumption in the United States of Scotch whisky. I say that is not so. They are due to the activities of a Soviet athlete, a discus thrower, in Eastern Siberia, practising for the Olympic Games and quite unconscious of his strength."
If these objects are not terrestrial, then admittedly, always supposing they exist and are not mere illusions, they must be of some non-terrestrial origin. We can, I think, discard the possibility that they come from any of the other planets, as was said by the noble Viscount,
1276
Lord Oxfuird, whose maiden speech we so much appreciated; I hope we shall hear from him again shortly. Venus is too hot, Mars is a lifeless wilderness, and conditions on the others are extremely unlikely to be compatible with any form of life.
Thus, from whence do they come? They can only come from a planet in some other starry system, of which the nearest, as the noble Viscount said, is the star Proxima Centauri, which is 4½ light years away. Always supposing, therefore, that UFOs are manned by sentient beings who travel at the speed of light—and if you travel at 186,000 miles a second, how do you slow down on approaching the earth? (how wonderful to imagine!)—these creatures must have been cooped up in their small machines for no less than 4·5 terrestrial years before appearing in our atmosphere. One can perhaps imagine that they may somehow have been able to escape from time and consequently not need any sustenance or sleep, but it is difficult, even on that hypothesis, to believe their machines are somehow time-exempt and can consequently contain enough propellant to keep them steady on their millennary way.
If a UFO was launched near Proxima Centauri and proceeded at the rate at which astronauts go to the moon, it would take, I am reliably informed, not 100,000 years but more like 900,000 years before it reached the earth. In which case, it is indisputable that any non-terrestrial UFO now sighted over New Zealand or anywhere else must have started on its journey something like a million years ago. In other words, since after all the human race lives within time, it must have left long before any kind of recognisable human society existed here below.
It is, however, also indisputable that UFOs have been observed for many hundreds of years in Europe, China and elsewhere. There are records of mediaeval monks seeing cigar-like objects in the heavens; and indeed it is quite possible that such sightings have been observed during the last few thousand years. There may be more sightings now simply because we have better facilities for observing them. If so, what conclusion must we draw as regards the whole non-terrestrial hypothesis? It is simply that

1277
these sentient and obviously highly intelligent beings from another planet, if such they be, at the end of an interminable journey, are content simply to hover about our atmosphere and not attempt a landing, or at least a landing of which we have any uncontrovertible evidence.
What could be the point of such strange proceedings? These sentient and obviously intelligent beings must have picked up enough information to conclude that a serious landing was feasible or, if not feasible, then to abandon the whole idea. Perhaps they may even in some mysterious way have been able to master our language and penetrate our thoughts. I think it was my noble friend Lord Kimberley who said that conceivably they were under some sort of thought control from a planet in the neighbourhood of Proxima Centauri. If that is so and it is simply a question of thought control, then it comes down apparently to a sort of cosmic joke being played by these sentient beings from 4½ light years away on the unfortunate inhabitants of this globe; they are a sort of hallucination in that they induce us by thought control to believe in them. It is a conceivable theory but I do not think it is a tenable one.
There are, it is true, those who believe that major landings from outer space have taken place in the past resulting in the inauguration of a new era, beings who then apparently withdrew after leaving behind some kind of representative, presumably to see how it would all work out; that is, the new civilisation which they had brought down to this world. In Colombia and Peru there are, I understand, strange markings on the ground thought to have been utilized by some sort of space ships, together with traditions of an other-wordly father of the race, notably of the Inca race, who came down from the sky. In fact, such traditions are fairly widespread in the world, although of course there is no proof that such father figures ever really descended from the sky.
The nearest one in time to our own era—I quote this only to draw attention to the lengths to which this kind of belief can go—is the theory, quite popular I believe in Russia, that Christ was a cosmonaut, the star of Bethlehem being a large UFO from which, to the amazement of the shepherds, emerged "the Heavenly Host" who left
1278
the Babe in the manger, to the great benefit of all mankind, and then departed whence they came. You can believe such heretical imaginings if you will, and perhaps if you believe in the divine origin of Christ and his teachings it would not matter very much if you held that, in my view, rather nonsensical belief. And you can certainly believe, if you want, that UFOs contain people from another world which is watching us and whose intentions are benevolent and perhaps designed to save our distracted planet from the horrors of another war by somehow disposing of the wicked and thus inaugurating a new era. Believe that if you like.
I am afraid, however, that all such imaginings are due chiefly to the discontent with the present human condition and to an unconscious desire to escape from the horrors or potential horrors of our earthly life. When we believed that if we were good we would, when we died, go to Heaven, there was no inclination to go to some new world near Andromeda; and whether another world other than Heaven itself was watching us did not worry us overmuch. Presumably, it was the angels.
The more over-populated our planet becomes, the greater the violence and the more appalling the wars, the more, unconsciously perhaps, we want to leave it if we can or trust in other worldly intervention; and the more intense therefore the longing, the greater the temptation to believe that there actually is somewhere else to which we can physically go or to which we can somehow make an appeal. It was a great disappointment when the moon was discovered to be a mass of grey plasticine, that Mars was even more unpleasant than the middle of the Sahara and that Venus was the nearest thing to Hell.
What is the moral? I agree with the right reverend Prelate, who said so eloquently—we are indebted to him for his intervention—that perhaps the moral is that we had better not put our trust in saucers for salvation but, rather, concentrate on how best to conduct ourselves here below so as to live in charity with our neighbours and eventually die in peace. If the UFOs contain sentient beings, we can only leave it to such beings to get in touch with us when, and if, they will. Up to now, if they exist, they have

1279
done no harm of any kind. Apparently they have done no harm for the last two or three thousand years. So there seems to be no great need to set up intra-governmental machinery to investigate the whole phenomena. The mystery may suitably remain a mystery, and so far as I can see nobody will be in any way the worse off if it does.
8.50 p.m.
Lord KINGS NORTON: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those which the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has already received for opening the debate in such an extremely interesting way. I found my imagination boggling a little at some of the things he told us. Nevertheless, I feel that it is of immense value that this matter has been brought out into the open by the debate in the House, and I hope that as a result of it there will be some progress in the understanding of what is an extremely serious matter. I feel that we must be careful about our terminology in discussing the UFO problem, and I believe that I shall make clear in the course of my remarks what I mean by that. For example, in the past few days, since it was known to my friends that I was to take part in the debate, I have had over and over again the question: Do you believe in UFOs? I must say that I think that is rather a silly question, because if I saw something in the sky which neither I, nor whoever happened to be with me, could identify—I have not, but let us suppose that I did—then I should have seen an unidentified flying object, a UFO. I do not have to believe in it. I should believe merely that I had seen it—something that I could not explain; and I believe that many people are in that position.
It has been said more than once this evening that this is no new phenomenon. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, dated it back to about 1300 BC. Whether my researches have taken me further back, I am not quite sure. However, I am sure that your Lordships will be as familiar as I am with the 10th Chapter of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. He certainly saw something very unfamilar in the firmament, and it certainly could be called a UFO. It was very different from the modern ones. It appears to have been coal-fired, to have been stabilised by
1280
gyroscopes, and crewed by cherubim; and it was a model which has not, so far as I know, been developed. There have been a good many sightings probably before Ezekiel, and certainly there have been many thousands since, and I fear that there has grown up a belief in many minds that if an object in the skies is unidentifiable, it must be from outer space; and this is quite unwarranted.
I think that it is worthwhile once again to consider the possibilities. I know that this has been done once or twice this evening, but it is part of my argument. I should say that there are possibly two kinds of objects to be seen in the skies: those of terrestrial origin, and those of extra-terrestrial origin. Typical of the first kind are man-made flying machines, satellites and rockets, and the like. Identifiable objects of the second kind are meteorites and phenomena such as the Northern Lights.
I am sure that many—and perhaps most—of the sightings recorded and reported are terrestrial in origin: aeroplanes with navigation lights glowing at night; satellite launching rockets burning up on re-entry; remotely piloted vehicles, now beginning to be called RPVs, up on trial flights; weather balloons; trick reflections of light. In the extra-terrestrial class I am afraid that I cannot think of anything other than meteorites, Northern Lights and ball lightning, but there are probably other well known physical phenomena within the knowledge of astronomers and meteorologists.
I feel, however, that some of the reports we have had—and we can for the time being leave out Ezekiel—are not readily explained in terms of any of the possibilities which I have mentioned. The New Zealand phenomena are worth much more investigation than they have yet had, but so far, in so far as I have been able to understand what has been reported, they do not appear to be explicable in terms of any of the suggestions which I have so far made. That seems to go for the quite extraordinary widespread sightings recently in Italy, where hundreds of people as reasonble as you and I, my Lords, seem to have seen quite inexplicable things in the sky. It would be worthwhile trying to explain them, and if there are people who know what they are, they ought to tell us. The high probability in my mind is that

1281
they are terrestrial in origin, and the only extra-terrestrial possibilities do not seem to be feasible because of the very eccentric paths which the objects, or lights, which were seen seem to have taken. But if they are terrestrial phenomena, we ought to be able to identify them.
I believe that any dispassionate investigation, such as I understand the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, would wish to have, could not ignore the possibility of the phenomena having their origins outside the earth and perhaps outside the solar system. Just as meteorites are chance material projectiles originating in the solar system, may there not be random matter of a different character—perhaps a luminous but insubstantial character—that in certain circumstances becomes visible and attracted to our area? I certainly should be readier to accept some explanation in terms of what I might call the atsronomical phenomena than ships from outer space. It would, I suppose, be foolish to deny that possibility, but as an explanation of phenomena—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, exposed this—it is surely a very long shot indeed.
If we are to conduct any dispassionate inquiry—and I think that we should—we must listen to the proponents of what one might call the Star Trek view. It can be argued, not unreasonably, that we in our humble way are probing nearby solar space with our Venus and Jupiter and other vehicular probes. We have ventured on to the Moon. Is it not presumptuous, the argument goes, to suppose that elsewhere in space creatures more advanced than us are probing into our space, probing with means now occasionally visible to us, using their own RPVs, controlled from stations light years away, rather on the lines which the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, mentioned? It is a possibility which we must be prepared to consider. It is a possibility, though not many of us, I feel, would call it a probability.
But if we do have a study of UFOs, as the noble Earl desires, we could not exclude the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligences from our consideration. This quotation has been given twice this evening, as well as a dozen times outside this House in this connection, but,
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio",
1282
Hamlet said,
"than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
And Heaven, my Lords, has always offered us more possibilities than earth. Although I remain sceptical of intelligent invasion from outer space, I recall the dictum of the late Mr. Sherlock Holmes when he was investigating the curious matter of the Sign of Four:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
The desirability of getting rational and acceptable explanations for the odd phenomena which are being reported—even if, like some other para-normal phenomena, they are subjective—in my opinion is not, or should not be, merely to satisfy our curiosity. Here I am coming from rather a different angle to something which was discussed in greater depth by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich.
There is a social danger, in my view, in leaving people in ignorance of the origins of these phenomena. I have recently learned from a number of sources that there have grown up, in North America particularly, many groups and cults whose attitudes are based on beliefs that UFOs are influential outer-spatial manifestations interested in this earth. In some cases these groups are looking to outer space for Man's salvation. If this is right, it is rather disturbing.
I find, too, that in this country there are groups interested, other than purely scientifically, in the UFO phenomena. I had a letter—and I think that other noble Lords may have had the same letter—earlier this week from an ecumenical Christian group which believes, among other things, that UFOs menace the spiritual health of the nation; that they are anti-Christian and that information exists about them which is being withheld. It seems to me that this association of UFOs with mysticism and religion makes explanation of the true origins of the phenomena a matter of great importance and of some urgency. The sooner that each reported sighting or landing is satisfactorily explained, the better. It is no good just laughing them off or trying to laugh them off; we must seek the truth and tell it.
My Lords, I remain sceptical, perhaps more sceptical than anyone who has

1283
spoken this evening except the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I remain sceptical of the more bizarre extra-terrestrial explanations. I remain more than sceptical, indeed, incredulous, of what the noble Earl in his Motion called "landings"; but I support him wholeheartedly in his wish for a serious inquiry. I hope that the Government will take steps to put such an inquiry in hand. Finally, I come back to the matter of terminology. In his Motion, the noble Earl called for "an intra-governmental study". The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, took this to be an inter-governmental study. But "intra" means "within". I was puzzled by the use of the prefix, but that is what it means and presumably what the noble Earl meant. But why a study within the Government? I would support the idea of a Government-supported open investigation by a carefully chosen group of scientists and technologists with some funds at their disposal; but a study within Government would seem to smack of a secret probe, which would be no good at all.
I have no objection to a House of Lords study group, but they could scarcely perform in the way that a public organisation supported, say, by the learned societies and the engineering institutions could perform. It is something of that kind that I should like to see brought into being under Government or with Government support: a group of dispassionate people with the power, the money and staff on a modest scale to investigate. Perhaps in his reply later this evening the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will comment on the suggestion.
9.4 p.m.
Lord RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, first, I must thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for this debate, the subject of which has long needed an airing; and, although the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, is not in his seat, nevertheless I congratulate him on his speech. The UFO saga is deep and complex and there are no known experts to keep us up to date with everything to do with it including its mechanics. However, scientists throughout the world have been drawn into an ever-increasing discussion as to what
1284
UFOs are and where they come from, so far with little enough results except to wonder why the bounds of natural physics seem to be broken on all sides. Most Western Governments say that UFOs do not exist, but I think that the French Minister of Defence, M. Robert Galley, in February, 1974, said that they do; that his Government takes them seriously and that they have been studied secretly by a special department for over 20 years. Indeed, France leads the world in UFO research. It has followed up sightings with police teams, scientists and scholars and, since 1950, the Deuxieme Burèau of the Army.
Oddly, in that same year, a remarkable report came from Farmington, New Mexico, on 18th March, when the inhabitants of that town were treated to a display of flying saucers that literally filled the sky above them. Every important American newspaper told the story. With few exceptions, the entire township of 5,000 people, including the mayor, newspapermen and members of the Highway Patrol, breathlessly watched an air show to end them all, a fantastic air circus. Countless saucers performed aerial acrobatics at speeds of 1,000 m.p.h. showing incredible handling, acute control in split-second timing by their ability to avoid collisions. My Lords, that was hardly a weather balloon convention.
Is it not curious that we of the 20th century, with a vast knowledge of science behind us, should be blind to further wonders in the skies above? Men throughout the world have been branded as mad or mistaken when they have reported having seen strange sights in the heavens. Many men have seen these sights and have not been mistaken. Who are we to doubt their word? Who are Governments that dare to ridicule the honest? Not long ago the Loch Ness monster was regarded as a fable, but now our leading naturalist says that it (or they, possibly) probably exists. Why, then, should unidentified flying objects be any harder to believe, especially as they have been seen far more frequently? My Lords, of course they exist. Only a few weeks ago a Palermo policeman photographed one, and four Italian Navy officers aboard a light patrol boat in the Adriatic, in the early hours of the morning, saw a 300-yard long fiery craft rising from the sea and disappearing into the sky. Odd, strange, frightening, but apparently quite true. Indeed, why

1285
should these men of law enforcement and defence lie? Of course, they did not lie. Why should they; especially as in this case their sighting was backed up by men from a nearby radar station who saw it, too.
Each year there are many sightings of UFOs throughout the world. Some of them are very close at hand, while others are not, but always the effect upon those who see them is one of concern; and yet this very point is ignored and ridiculed by most Governments right around the globe. In the United Kingdom's case, those who report seeing UFOs are taken to be misinformed, misguided and rather below par in intelligence. If this is so, why has some of my information on this subject been given to me by the Ministry of Technology? Why should this Ministry waste its time gathering false information? Of course, it is not false information: it is data reported by civil and Air Force pilots, policemen, sailors and members of the general public who have all had personal experience which has intrigued and/or frightened them.
My Lords, what are UFOs? I do not know; and nor, seemingly, do some Governments: but these machines do exist in one form or another, abstract or solid, and they do travel at stunning speeds which seem to defy proved natural physics. Let the United Kingdom be told by Her Majesty's Government the real details on UFOs so far as they know them, for by continued silence the position only becomes worse. Only a few weeks ago a UFO was seen near Kingussie, in the Highlands, and a few acres of Ashdown Forest were burned by another one. Is it safe to go on ignoring these appearances? Who is to know where they come from? But come they have. If we accept, then, that UFOs exist, we must next wonder how they operate. Their motive power would be of huge help to our transport and industrial life, for they apparently fly without wings at varying speeds from dead-slow to incredible ones, and even hover silently. This kind of information is above price, and therefore we as a country should make every effort to collect every scrap of information that we can. I therefore ask this Government to make the study of UFOs respectable by setting up a bureau that can be approached by all and sundry without any red tape or opposition, in an attempt to clear the air.
1286
Every sighting and landing must be thoroughly investigated by the bureau, in co-operation with the police, the Royal Air Force, the radar people and the British-based UFO investigators.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who is to wind up this debate, is no doubt sympathetic to the reasons for these speeches, for it has become patently obvious to a great many people that this subject has got to the point when Governmental explanations must be forthcoming. A greater measure of open government is long overdue, and bringing the UFO saga into the realm of respectability would be one way of achieving this, in part. I suspect that the British Government do have a Department studying UFO sightings, for why else should they bother to go to such trouble to debunk publicly reported ones if they are of no interest to them? Quite apart from the fact that the Government have not admitted to the existence of UFOs, these machines are potentially dangerous. They give off blinding light, crippling rays and sometimes beams that immobilise humans; they start forest fires, eradicate crops and cause great distress to animals. If the British population was aware of this, they could sometimes take precautions. UFOs have been with us for many generations, so is it not about time that we officially recognised their existence and treated reports as less of a hot potato than hitherto?
Before the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, takes me to task once again on the subject of sonic booms, I have one suggested answer to the question why these highspeed UFOs do not produce sonic booms. It is thought that these craft can produce a near vacuum envelope around themselves, which in turn would allow them virtually unlimited speed because they would thus be free of nearly all normal resistance, as they would be flying within it. Not being a scientist, I cannot enlarge upon this explanation, but I hope it is of some assistance to the noble Earl.
9.14 p.m.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, first may I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Oxfuird for his brilliant maiden speech. I hope that we are going to hear him many times again because it is quite obvious from what we have heard from him this evening that he is going to

1287
receive every possible encouragement to take part in many debates in the future. My main contribution to this debate is to assure the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, of any support that I can give. If we are going to have a study group in your Lordships' House I shall be glad to be a volunteer to take part whenever I have the opportunity. I also thank him and others for initiating this debate, and for the pleasure of having such a refreshing subject to discuss in the midst of the present period of crises and strikes.
I am the 10th person to speak in this debate. I have noticed that so far none of your Lordships have actually reported a sighting, so here goes! I am going to stick my neck out, open my big mouth and trust I am not going to put my foot in it! I saw a UFO a little while ago. It was on 31st December about 8 p.m. All right, my Lords, have a good laugh, it was Hogmanay! Up in Argyll it was a New Year's Eve party and somebody said there was something funny flying across the sky. Fifteen of us came out to have a look, including some children. They had been drinking soft drinks anyway! The object was like a bright white ball with a touch of red followed by a white cone. In fact the whole object had the appearance of a small comet. It was heading eastwards and seemed rather low in the sky, passing over the hills between Loch Sweyne and Loch Fyne. The position from which we viewed it was outside the village of Tay-vallich in Argyllshire on the West coast of Scotland about the same latitude as Glasgow.
As the ball disappeared into the distance it seemed to divide into two parts. It may have been a comet or a meteorite, but I should like to know what it really was. It would have been very beneficial if there had been some sort of centre to which I could write or telephone to report such an incident. No doubt setting up such an organisation would be an invitation to pranks, but for starting such a centre I suggest that volunteers could readily be found from the ranks of the former Civil Defence Service and/or the Royal Observer Corps. The Royal Observer Corps still exists but it has literally, if not metaphorically, gone underground where it is preparing to report and advise on nuclear fallout in the case of war. But there are many who used to serve it
1288
and who have not yet disappeared from the scene who could make valuable use of their past experience in establishing centres in various districts throughout the country—and I do not suggest that we start opening up the old observer posts in the countryside—to receive and analyse any reported sightings from the public. Such people with a sense of responsibility could, with a little experience, sift the genuine reports from the false.
Suggesting that such an organisation be set up, particularly at times like these, can naturally give rise to a protest about the waste of public money; but volunteers who might be willing to work for a few hours are quite prepared to do it for very small remuneration, if any at all. I have mentioned the Civil Defence Service, and I did not know whether or not I should declare an interest, but I was a member of it during the 'sixties and I was one of many who were bitterly disappointed when it had to go into abeyance. I recall particularly the comradeship and the sense that we were doing a useful job for the community.
If I had the time and opportunity, I should enjoy volunteering for working in a UFO information centre, if that might be a suggested name for the organisation that would be required. I shall be interested to hear the summings up in this debate. I can give no explanation why there should be these phenomena concentrated within particularly the past 32 years as was confirmed by the nob!e Earl, Lord Clancarty, and these flying saucers in the year 1947 when the phrase was coined; but I would just accentuate what has been said before and add that if they are man-made or some astronomical feature, and provided there is no risk of any security breach, then the public have a right to know about them.
9.20 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, in common with everyone else who has spoken, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for giving us an opportunity to have, as it were, a scamper over the course and exchange views on this very interesting and controversial topic. At the same time, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount on his maiden speech, which was obviously a very well thought out and well assembled

1289
set of considerations, which augurs well for his future in your Lordships' House, where I know he is already welcome.
At the risk of capping the stories of the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, I should like to tell your Lordships about some of the sightings I have seen. I will order them in terms of my curriculum vitae, beginning at the age of six, when I saw an angel. I do not know whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who mentioned angels, or whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, or the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley; but it is perfectly true that there was my guardian angel sitting on the edge of my bed. Naturally, with the imagination of a child, I clothed this presence in human form with a large pair of feathery wings. This presence proceeded to rebuke me for initiating a practice which it said would get me into trouble if I persisted in it. Having remembered the rebuke all my life and acted upon it, I am not prepared to deny the reality of the presence that was there with me. This should be a sufficient answer to the noble Earl—I see I have put him to flight—who thinks that if scientists come across something they cannot explain they are afflicted with a kind of vertigo. On the contrary, we welcome something we cannot explain because it is a new phenomenon which, as it were, stretches our capacities and brings out something in us.
The next item came along in year two of World War I. I was about eight years old, and the next thing that I sighted were Zeppelins. I used to go out after dark into the garden of the house where we lived and come back reporting the number of Zeppelins I had seen. What I had seen, in my interpretation, was a Zeppelin—it was a large illuminated cigar-shaped object. In fact what I was looking at was the lenticular shape that the perspective of a searchlight thrown on to a cloud-base makes, and I was interpreting it as a Zeppelin and I was telling my parents how many Zeppelins I had seen.
The next one is sundogs and this fits very closely with what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was saying about Macbeth's dagger and the laser holeo-graphic reconstruction of things which really are not there. What sort of an interpretation would somebody who had
1290
never read about these or heard about them put upon sundogs? Most people have not seen them or read about them. I was fortunate enough to have read about them and to have known the explanation before I saw the first.
When you look at a cloud with drops of water, you are looking at a diffuse reflection of the sun but if instead of there being drops of water in the cloud there are drops of ice, and if they were formed under meteorological conditions where all the facets of the crystals happen to be parallel as they fall through a rising stream so that they are remaining roughly stationary, the effect is of a rather dilute mirror, if one can so describe it. If the sun is up there, you see it actually reflected in this imaginary mirror down through the cloud, and one does not expect to see the sun looking down in this direction. Still less does one expect to perceive it travelling along beside one. Furthermore, one is not accustomed to focusing one's eyes on infinity in that particular direction. The only times it would be appropriate to do so would be if you were standing on top of a skyscraper where the vanishing point would be down here instead of over there, and it makes you rather dizzy.
Seeing a sky dog is a rather uncanny sort of phenomenon. You cannot focus on it properly; it does not seem to be anywhere in particular. It is flying along beside you—and what sort of terms would a person, who had never seen it before or read about it, report it in? I think that they would be rather bewildered. They might report it just as a child would report the vision of an angel as having human form and feathery wings. So it might easily be reported as anything that they had read about.
I now come to the green flash. I was about 20 and a student, and there was a controversy in the pages of The Times and in the correspondence columns of Nature about the green flash. What is it? Under certain rather rare atmospheric conditions, the last glim of the setting sun suddenly flashes brilliant emerald green. When I was a student 50 years ago, this phenomenon was not really established. It was possible to have a controversy as to whether there was such a phenomenon. People wrote to The Times saying that they had seen it. I remember one man who said that he

1291
had seen it when sitting by the shore off Bombay. It was eventually photographed during the International Geophysical Year some years ago.
However, before that I saw it myself in rather odd circumstances, after having read about it. I was bird watching in the far North-West of Scotland, by a sea loch called Loch Glencoul, near a little village called Drumbeg, where there is a cliff path. On that cliff path, there is a bench for the convenience of people who want to sit down and admire the view. Another traveller, a visitor to the district, was sitting upon the bench when I sat down and, by a chance coincidence, we were both using the same type of Hensholt binoculars and we got talking about our binoculars. There was a spectacular sunset, and when the sun was very low and it was safe to look at it through binoculars, I said to my fellow traveller, "Let us see if we can watch the green flash". So we trained our binoculars and this very rare meteorological phenomenon actually happened when I had just said to a fellow bird watcher, "Let us have a look to see if it happens". What would that person have made of it if I had not been there, just by chance, to tell him what the green flash was about?
Lastly, I come to ball lightning. I have never seen ball lightning, but the description one reads of it is so coherent, so similar in all cases, that one must accept it as a phenomenon which occurs regularly in nature, though we cannot reproduce it in nature and attempts to reproduce it in the laboratory are, to my mind, unconvincing. There is no theory of it. It appears to take the form of a football-shaped mass of glowing gas which hops around or, if it has a chance, gets on to a conductor such as the rail in the gallery here and migrates along the conductor until it finally disappears with a bang. It has never been satisfactorily photographed, to my knowledge. If it has been, then the photograph must be a fairly recent one, and, as I say, it has not been reproduced. But this, again, should assure the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, that, faced with an unknown phenomenon which I cannot explain, I do not get vertigo. I should be delighted to go ball lightning watching, as I go bird watching.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one question? Has he ever seen a mirage? That is easily explicable, and one can also see it easily.
The Earl of HALSBURY: Yes, my Lords, and one can reproduce a mirage in the laboratory. You have a long tray of sand with bunsen burners underneath it, and you look at it from one end. It is quite a reproducible kind of phenomenon. Science deals with material objects—things such as atoms and molecules; material processes—things such as the emission and absoption of radiation; and material forces—things such as the force fields which couple the objects to the processes. But if things are not material, then science has nothing to say. If you want to know what is the consciousness of a mind, I do not think science can either answer the question, on the one hand, or say whether it is a proper question, on the other hand. Therefore, from the scientific point of view, I can deal only with the assumption that these are material objects, and, if they are material objects, then, if they travel at the kind of speeds that are alleged, why do they not make supersonic bangs when travelling above Mach 1? The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, made this point, and the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, also made it. I should like to go into the point in a little more depth.
We customarily express the speeds of fast moving objects in terms of Mach numbers. Mach 1 is the speed of sound appropriate to temperature and pressure where the sound is being propagated. In terms of miles per hour, it is not a constant figure, but the advantage of using it as a parameter is that no matter what the temperature and pressure may be, Mach 1 is the speed at which the kinetic energy of a moving object—that is, the power to pack punch—is equal to its thermal energy. This is an unstable condition. The least disturbance to these unstable conditions entails the converison of kinetic energy into thermal energy with a bang, and this is what is called the shock wave. If one takes a cross section through a shock wave, there is a rise in pressure, temperature and entropy. There is complete discontinuity. That must happen when a material object is moving at Mach 1 or above through any medium.

1293
The answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour—I have not had very long to think it out because he sprung it on me as a bit of a surprise—is this. If you were to create a vacuum, what would happen to the air you had displaced? Would you pull it in in front and push it out behind? If that is your means of travelling through the medium, you are merely moving some air backwards at the speed of sound, and it would create a supersonic bang just the same. Customarily, very often we hear two bangs because there is a bow wave and a stern wave from the moving object. Sometimes the bang degenerates into a rumble, just as a thunderclap degenerates into a rumble. Any noble Lords who have been uncomfortably close to a lightning bolt are aware that it makes a very pronounced bang as the spark flies through the air.
If these are material objects and if they are moving at the speeds alleged, I cannot see them doing other than making a bang, so either they are not material objects or they are not moving at the speeds alleged, in which case the speeds are some kind of optical illusion. This throws doubt upon the rest of the reports that we received upon them.
In this week's New Scientist, published today, there is a report from New Zealand, and I should like to read to your Lordships a passage from it:
"Classic conditions for false reflections of radar beams"—
this tunes in very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said—
"existed in the atmosphere over New Zealand on the nights that the UFOs were spotted at the end of December, Christchurch meteorologist, Dr. Neil Cherry, has reported. UFOs were both spotted on radar and seen by an airline pilot, and a brilliant light was subsequently filmed by an airborne TV crew".
There is nothing in that report to suggest whether the optical sightings and the radar sightings came from the same point, or on the same alignment, or at the same time. We shall have to wait until the details become available.
I was much impressed by everything that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich had to say on this matter and by some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, had to say, too. I do not think that anybody who reads the C. S. Lewis trilogy of space
1294
fiction, Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength, will ever have his faith disturbed by doing so. C. S. Lewis, who was a profoundly Christian apologist, wrote the most marvellous space fiction of a complex universe, in which some of the created species were tempted and fallen, like ourselves; others were tempted and unfallen; and others were untempted. And they all had to live together in the same universe. I have always regarded the deeps of space and the immense time that it would take to travel from one inhabited world to another as being a kind of divine quarantine to prevent created beings from interfering with one another's cultures until they are civilised enough and mature enough to reach the point when they no longer want to do so. Too much of our science fiction is taken up with the supposition that vastly superior beings to ourselves are motivated by the same rather unworthy commercial motives as ours, and that they want to steal our coal mines or our water or set up imperialisms.
The little piece of fiction that I have always enjoyed most concerned a flying saucer which was hovering slowly in a circle round Central Park in New York and all the security forces turned out in order to do something about it. As it went round, it became more and more clear that it was going round in a spiral and not a circle and as the spiral grew smaller so the flying saucer grew smaller until it was very little more than the size of a waistcoat button going round the head of a maiden in New York Central Park. All the security forces converged on her because it was clear from the expression on her face that she was receiving a message, at which she smiled. Finally, the waistcoat button fell on to the path and was picked up and proved to be a waistcoat button and the security forces converged upon the maiden and bullied her into telling them—and she did not want to—what the flying saucer had told her. She said "I don't want to, because it will spoil it all." They said "Never mind, it may be very important for the security of the United States". She said "Well, all it said was 'Don't be unhappy; you are not the only lonely object in the universe'." I think that is a much more comforting thought with which to approach the subject of flying saucers than to suppose that they are engaged in some kind of imperialism.

1295
Personally I have always believed, with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in the Loch Ness monster. He is not the only person to believe in it. He was anticipated by Keats and I am quite sure that, when the poet wrote the line,
"Thou still unravished bride of Quiet-ness",
he must have had the monster in mind. Of course he did not go into it in great detail; he did not tell us whether the monster was viviparous or oviparous. It may, of course, lay eggs, but if unravished, then infertile, and that is perhaps why there is only one of it. I have always thought that just as mother, when baking bread, leaves a little of the dough over in order that the children may make funny little men with raisins for tummy buttons and put them into ovens and bake them alongside the bread or the cake for the day, so possibly on the day of creation a little of the Divine creative power was left in reserve for the lesser cherubim and seraphim to use and they were allowed to make funny little objects like the Abominable Snowman and the Loch Ness monster, and therefore by the grace of God since this is an orderly universe and a home is provided for everything, so the snows of Tibet were created for the benefit of the Yeti and Loch Ness was created for the monster.
9.37 p.m.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, upon his maiden speech but I run the terrible risk of being accused by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, of being an anthropological arrogant specimen. I am not quite sure what that means, and I am not quite sure that he knows what it means.
Lord DAYIES of LEEK: Oh!
Lord HEWLETT: All right, I am prepared to stand by it. I am only sorry to appear to be a veritable Daniel in a lions' den of UFO believers and to spoil the fun, and I have no doubt that today's flights of—dare I say it?—fancy will command far more attention than our debate yesterday upon British industry, which scarcely made today's Press at all. More's the pity. Of course, there is a danger in terminology and in gross assumptions. Many noble Lords have spoken as though UFOs were actually
1296
something, but of course we are precisely saying that if they are unidentified flying objects, we do not know what they are. So I quite agree, let us dismiss the concept of flying saucer equals UFO to start with. Let us try to take a slightly more scientific approach.
I would not dream of speaking in this debate had I not asked my very good friend and neighbour in the Cheshire village of Swettenham, Sir Bernard Lovell, Fellow of the Royal Society and Nuffield Professor of Radio Astronomy, to be good enough to brief me at Manchester University Department of Radio Astronomy at Jodrell Bank, of which he is the Director. I went there two days ago and what I am about to say to your Lordships is based entirely upon that round table meeting with Sir Bernard and the members of his senior staff at Jodrell Bank. Of all the thousands of reports of sightings that have been made, whenever it has been possible to make an investigation they have been found to be natural phenomena, or in some instances, I regret to say, pure myth. Over the United Kingdom, Jodrell Bank's radio telescope, the first and still one of the most powerful in the world, has observed thousands of possible subjects for identification as UFOs. but not a single one has proved other than natural phenomena. I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, to take the point on board. If UFOs, as he suggested, defy human knowledge, how do we really know by what possible means or possible background they even exist at all?
Let us get matters into perspective, my Lords, I beg you. At least 10,000 pieces of broken up rockets of American and Russian origin are known to exist in space and maybe there are many thousands more, and occasionally they do plough back into the atmosphere and burn up. Those must account, I think your Lordships would agree, for at least some of the so-called sightings of UFOs. Nature does provide fireballs, yes, meteorites, which bombard the earth at a rate of half a ton a day. Just take a tiny country like Holland. One hundred rocks the size of your fist come through the atmosphere and hit that country in one year. Consider Holland in relation to the size of the whole of the world's surface and you must surely realise that we are under constant bombardment, not with UFOs but with meteorites. A detailed study

1297
on the Canadian prairies has displayed how great is this bombardment which I have just described over a wide area. Even more staggering is the fact that it is estimated that 8,000 million pieces of stone and metal come to earth annually, many of these burning up on arrival and these give cause for these reports of unidentified flying objects.
What is noticeable is the close correlation between the position of the planet Venus and the reports of UFOs, for when Venus is low and bright in the sky and when it is shining through thick mist or thin cloud it does much more resemble something other than our next door planet of the solar system. Why, indeed, we are told even the great President Carter has spotted one, but it is a pity we did not read the rest of the subsequent report. It was later discovered that that was Venus precisely in those conditions I have described. If the great President of the United States can be wrong, it is just possible the few noble Lords remaining in this House tonight might be, too. Let us face it, we all would love to escape from the miseries and frustrations of our world, and particularly in these recent past days. By all means go and see "Star Wars" or "Jaws" or any other myth, but do not confuse that with very serious scientific study. That is carrying romance a little too far. We must make sure we do not make your Lordships' House a laughing stock by doing so.
One of the most advanced experimental stations at Jodrell Bank—just take these statistics on board please, my Lords—has been on watch 24 hours a day for 30 years. Do you not think it reasonable for me to suggest that if there were UFOs at least one claim would have been made, but every single thing that has been seen and observed by radio astronomy has been identified as natural phenomena and as occurring from the universe itself as we know it—I do not say from the solar system; I say from our universe. If there were something in it—and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is so right—of course the scientists would have been delighted to come forward with an announcement to that effect. After all, it was Jodrell Bank that managed to locate the Sputnik when the Russians, who so cleverly launched it, lost track of it in the atmosphere. So do not think that this is some denigrating comment by the
1298
scientific lobby and some nasty, cheap debunking exercise. No, my Lords. We must take a serious scientific view of the actual surveys and of what has been discovered.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord says. However, I beg the noble Lord to remember that there are other scientists who say that of course we know that there are meteorites—there have been for the whole of time—but there are some factors outside that range which justify (and this is all we ask) an attempt at identification. There is no difficulty in identifying meteorites. We are not asking for that: we are asking for the identification of other types of phenomena.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, that promptly begs the question. That is precisely what I am saying. The identifications that have been made are not necessarily of individual meteorites: they are of endemic portions of rockets and so on. During 30 years study and a constant watch for 24 hours a day there has been not a single sighting of any description which could possibly or remotely be considered worthy of serious study as a UFO. Every single thing has been explicable. With all respect, it is no use noble Lords saying that this is not a convenient answer: we must find some things that are not explicable. I am telling your Lordships and it is perfectly fair. Your Lordships may say "Scientists". I am quoting one of the leading world radio astronomers—indeed, probably the leading world radio astronomer. Frankly, scientists can be anything from a B.Sc. London University, passed yesterday. However, I am talking about 30 years' experience of radio astronomy and a professorship of the highest standing and order in the whole world. Both the United States and the Soviet Union come to Sir Bernard at Jodrell Bank for assistance.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, nobody is denigrating what the noble Lord is saying, but he is off" beat here. All we are saying is that some of these phenomena need investigation—that is all.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could show me just one

1299
phenomenon which requires——I have given way a good number of times and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would let me finish my sentence. I am saying that Jodrell Bank, which covers the whole of the United Kingdom, has been on watch for 30 years. It is probably the most powerful radio telescope in the world. With great respect, if it has found nothing whatsoever to report in a positive way then, for the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, to throw at me, "some scientists think that…" is not good enough.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, we must not take more time.
Lord HEWLETT: No, my Lords, we must not, so I fear that the noble Lord must give way to the argument. I shall give way to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. I knew that I should have a rough time!
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think it conceivable that Jodrell Bank says that there are no UFOs because that is what it has been told to say?
Lord HEWLETT: I certainly think it inconceivable—absolutely and completely inconceivable. I have known this scientist personally for more than 30 years. I would not dream of going along for a briefing, so to speak, on the estimation that he was to con me or that I was some tool of the CIA to kid your Lordships. Please do not let us carry this fantasy too far. I shall deal with one or two other aspects of the noble Earl's speech and then he shall see some correlation to the whole of my argument.
Let us turn to the defence interests of the Pentagon and other Western defence establishments. When they have been challenged they have refused to say that UFOs do not exist. Nor have they said that UFOs do exist. They are not committed. We are all men of the world and frankly there are advantages in making an international over-estimate of the possible potential strength of one's potential enemy and his ability to combat one in sectors in which one cannot adequately reply. I think that it would be most unwise of any defence establishment to make a categorical denial of UFOs, and equally foolish of me to do so. I am not
1300
trying to prove the existence of nothing or that something does not exist. I am saying that in the scientific evidence so far—and I can deal only in detail with the United Kingdom—there is no evidence whatever from the greatest radio telescope of a single UFO. I think that the attitudes of defence establishments worldwide, even including the Soviet Union, are probably wise; they must display the antithesis of over-confidence and complacency, lest there should perchance be some new arm of warfare that they have not adequately explored or even entered. Particularly did this attitude apply in the first decade after the Second World War when, frankly, the start of the "cold war" and the intense fear of the Soviet Union's possible aggression against the West when we were the sole possessors of atomic weapons, must have provoked such a degree of intense interest in the possibility of a new arm of warfare.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich is not here, but I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is on the Opposition Front Bench. I quote from Sir Bernard:
"Whether we are the only people in the universe is entirely another matter. That is a subject of very serious importance and is being investigated".
But there is no direct connection between the possibility of other persons occupying other bodies, either within or outside our own solar system. However, one thing is quite clear: there is an infinitesimal chance that there exist other people who could be within our time-frame—and I refer of course to the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—who would be able to spend perhaps ten or hundreds of light years getting here and who would have survived that length of time in those atrocious conditions and entered our earth atmosphere assuming that they are some sort of humanity and have some form of flying saucer, or whatever our friends proclaim it is. How could they possibly meet us in those circumstances? Let us take the million-to-one possibility that they could. Do your Lordships mean to tell me that they could get so close to us as to be sighted, but be incapable of any form of communication or identification whatever? No, I am sorry.
I have listened most carefully to everything that has been said. The noble

1301
Earls, Lord Clancarty and Lord Kimberley, have claimed sightings from times before Christ, through the Middle Ages up to the present day. Those noble Earls know full well that the amount of scientific knowledge in the Middle Ages, and particularly before the times of Christ, simply did not allow a tenable theory that they had that degree of knowledge to be able to understand any of the phenomena that we know today. Indeed, in the last 30 years there has been a dramatic change in the sum total of knowledge in this field. No doubt that is why Jodrell Bank can proclaim that they have had no evidence of sightings of any description which are not perfectly explicable as natural phenomena within our own universe.
I am sorry, the existence of UFOs is even more fanciful than Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe—charming indeed, but I am afraid a joke upon your Lordships' House. I am afraid that some of my noble friends join the flat-earthers, who will make the best playmates for this particular lobby. We have a duty to the country to explode the myth. Tonight we have been carried away in realms of fascination and delight, but they have precious little to do with the facts. I suggest that the myth must be exploded. We must return to work in this dreary old world and the difficulties we are in. But I beg your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for heavens' sake, no more Government Department inquiries. That alone we should be spared as the result of this excellent debate.
9.55 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will not be cast down by the speech to which he has just listened. I myself must confess that I know remarkably little about unidentified flying objects. I know a few things about them. I know quite a bit, and I have learned more since the beginning of this debate, about attitudes towards them. They are almost as interesting in some ways. There is one type of attitude towards them that I view with respect, and that is the attitude represented by people who call themselves, or perhaps to be fair are called by others, "ufologists". I do not know whether the noble Earl will accept that word. I rather hope he would not.
1302
I admit the charm, the satisfaction, and the neatness of UFO as—this is the word the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is so good at—an acronym, coming from "unidentified flying object". But it unfortunately leads to a word which to disrespectful persons, and there are some about, might be suspected as originating somewhere between illiteracy and the purely silly; rather as though a keen student of the affairs of the United Nations should describe himself as a "Unologist", and his interest "Unology". That would have been severely distressing to my late lamented friend Lord Conesford, and indeed to me.
If there is an agency set up for collecting and correlation of information, as I hope there will be, I suppose it could be called "Ufo info", which would have a certain elfin charm. But I am admittedly being absurd, and being so on purpose. I am doing it for defensive reasons, and I hope that the noble Earl will not think that I am being offensive. I am not. I hope that somebody will think of a better word. There is in fact a Greek word "téras", meaning a portent in the sense of a marvel or wonder, which would generate quite nicely a teratologist, or teratology. In fact I am not sure that teratology is not in the dictionary as the study of monsters. It is not a word that is widely used. It is not on everyone's lips very often, and it would not really matter if it were taken over to refer to portents. There is a precedent for this kind of thing, in television. As noble Lords will know, television originally meant, before it meant what it means now in the familiar sense as we understand it, clairvoyance, and nobody finds any confusion now. Whatever it may be known as, let us proceed and not waste time.
I must make a remark—nobody has done so so far, I suspect rather to his surprise—about the speech of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. If he had been speaking as a private Back-Bencher I would probably have not said anything, but he was speaking from the Dispatch Box. Therefore, he presumably represents the views of the Party to which I belong. It is a view I wish to disown entirely, because if a Party of any magnitude cannot produce better views than that on a serious subject, I confess I am ashamed

1303
of it. If this represents all that the Conservative Party can produce in the way of thinking on what is undoubtedly a serious subject, whatever your opinion about it may be, then this is deplorable.
If the noble Lord really thinks that there is no serious interest or belief taken nowadays in witchcraft, perhaps he does not read the right newspapers, but I can assure him that this is far from true. He is not a believer in unidentified flying objects. "I am no believer in UFOs", he said. I do not know how you can not believe in UFOs. You can take it for granted, if your mind takes a leap ahead, that by an unidentified flying object something is intended that is supposed to have originated in outer space, and you can say you do not believe in that. But I do not know what it implies to say that you do not believe in an unidentified flying object. You do not believe in the object? You do not believe in its flying? You do not believe it is unidentified? There are things that are unidentified. Perhaps we are not trying. I do not think it is reasonable to say that they do not exist. Nobody, except my noble friend Lord Hewlett, has seriously contended that they do not exist. The question is, what are they?
Lord TREFGARNE: I am pleased my noble friend has allowed me to intervene, my Lords, because he has been very caustic about what I had to say. I do not deny the existence of unidentified flying objects. I simply say that most of them are identifiable, that some are not objects at all but simply a trick of the light or a meteorological phenonemon—I think that is so in many cases—and that I agree one cannot deny the existence of unidentified flying objects. It is simply a question of how we identify them.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. I am anxious not to misquote him, but he also said that ufologists—it is difficult not to use that word—referred to unexplained sightings which would be explained if only we had better evidence; that was the gist of one part of my noble friend's argument. In other words, if we had better evidence we should be able to explain those sightings. That is the sole point on which the noble Earl initiated
1304
this debate. That is what he is asking for: he wishes evidence to be collected, collated, examined, evaluated and reported on as to what these things are, and it is notable that he himself did not say what he thought they were. Other noble Lords have spoken as though he had said they were fairies or I do not know what, when in fact he said no such thing. I believe he is a leading authority on these matters—certainly he has studied them more closely than anyone else of whom I have heard—and he must have exercised very great restraint in this matter, and he is to be congratulated on that as well as on initiating the whole debate.
I once had an ancestor—I still have him in a sense, in that he is still my ancestor although he is dead—called Robert Boyle who founded a society called the Royal Society. I feel that if he returned to the rooms of that enormously prestigious society now and found that the present Royal Society contained Fellows of such erudition and charm as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, he would feel entirely at home; a man of the most agreeable and totally non-sceptical nature, even if he did write a book called The Sceptical Chemist.
The noble Earl has done a service by displaying before our very eyes the scientist-philosopher who knows precisely the limits of science and makes no effort to go beyond them. Nor does he point the finger of scorn at anyone else. He must know, as others know, that it is impossible to prove anything by negative evidence. If you wish to prove that something is not so you can do it only in logic—by proving the existence of something that is so that makes that first premise impossible. Thus, vou cannot prove that any particular type of flying object does not exist, and with respect to my noble friend, the fact that the Jodrell Bank telescope has not seen something not only does not prove, but is not even particularly good evidence, that it was not there. I am prepared to accept, if told, that the Jodrell Bank telescope has been operating on a frequency suited to the observation of UFOs of one kind or another for the last 30 years, but, until I am told that, I shall be sceptical in that matter.
Lord HEWLETT: Let me be quite clear about this, my Lords. I did not say other than that Jodrell Bank had made

1305
many thousands of sightings but had been able adequately to explain them away as natural phenomena from our own universe.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: I thought that I had my noble friend right, my Lords; in other words, the telescope has not seen anything that was inexplicable. But I do not think that that is really an argument that something does not exist. The question is: what kind of thing can it be? I hope that my noble friend does not think that I am going on about him—I no longer am. How is it possible to maintain more than a certain degree of doubt in 1979?
I remember, as may some other noble Lords, one or two of whom may be present in the Chamber, my predecessor who sat in this House. He was born in the year 1873. When he was born there were no motor-bicycles or gramophones, fountain pens, safety razors or electric trains. Messrs. Daimler and Benz in Germany were just putting the first petrol-driven car on to the road, and Einstein, I think, was eight years old. My noble and gallant kinsman, when he finally left the active list of the Navy at a very advanced age, had lived into the age of the nuclear submarine, having begun his first sea-going voyage under sail. That was the band of progress represented technologically in the lifetime of one serving naval officer. What would he have said had he been told that in my lieftime—and I am not even all that near the end of it, either—I should see men on the moon; or computer technology carried to the pitch that it has reached; or that there would be such an outbreak of wisdom following Einstein and men like Schrodinger, Heisenberg and others; or the astonishing ascent of knowledge into the atomic world?
This has all happened in the lifetime of many of us, and yet we sit here, some of us, and say that marvels which have been postulated by some, and which indeed are less in magnitude than most of those would have been to my uncle, are impossible. We are not all saying that—perhaps nobody is saying that—but the argument is quite untenable. I have no wish to express any view on what a UFO may be. What I wish to say is that there is no knowing what it is not. It may be a product of some kind of psi faculty, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, mentioned. It may be mechanical. It may
1306
be purely terrestrial. I doubt if it is angels. But I believe that, for the clearing up of mystery, for the removal of doubt, for even the eliminating of some of the dangers which may exist and to which the right reverend Prelate referred, some kind of an open inquiry ought to be set up. I am rather inclined to agree with the noble Lord—I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton—who said that probably it should not be an intra-governmental inquiry. I think it should be someting rather more open than that, but it ought to take place. If a group is set up within this House, as suggested by the noble Earl himself, that would be excellent. I should myelf be entirely in favour of it. In any case, let us get this matter cleared up and into the open, and by all means let us take it seriously, because this is a serious subject. Far too many people are taking it seriously for it not to be a serious subject.
Finally, I wish to voice my most sincere congratulations to my noble friend who made his maiden speech this afternoon. It is very impertinent of me to congratulte him upon it, but I should like to say how much I enjoyed it. I have not yet said anything complimentary about the noble Earl who initiated the debate. I have left this to the end on purpose because I think it may not be entirely realised what a service he has done. This is the first such debate that has occurred in any society such as this particular one; and this society, by which I mean this noble House of Parliament, is probably the only legislative assembly in the world in which it could happen. I hope that it will have repercussions which will spread far beyond this Chamber. What the outcome will be I do not know, but, in initiating the ripples which I hope will spread all over the surface of the mill-pond, the noble Earl has done a most valuable service.
10.10 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, in saying how grateful we are to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for initiating this debate on UFOs. Of course, the subject has been of considerable interest in this country, and I hope our discussions, which, as the noble Earl rightly said, have been the first that we have had in your Lordships'

1307
House, will help to increase public understanding. But before I reply in detail to the debate—and I think it has been a most interesting one—I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, on his maiden speech. We were very glad to hear from him, if I may say so, and I hope we shall hear from him again on many other occasions. I shall be referring to some of the detail of his speech later, but at this stage I should like to offer him my warmest congratulations.
There are undoubtedly many strange phenomena in the skies, and it can be readily accepted that most UFO reports are made by calm and responsible people. However, there are generally straightforward explanations to account for the phenomena, as I think was said by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, speaking for the Opposition—and I must say that I welcomed his constructive speech. There is nothing to convince the Government that there has ever been a single visit by an alien space craft, let alone the numbers of visits which the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, claims are increasing all the time. As has been said today, we live in a huge universe. I find as awe-inspiring as Pascal did the contemplation of infinite space. There are some 100,000 million stars in our galaxy alone, which it would take 100,000 years to cross at the speed of light. Beyond our own galaxy, the distances become even more daunting. The light year, as your Lordships know, is about 6 million million miles. The Andromeda galaxy is over 2 million light years away, and that is in our own local group of galaxies! There are, of course, other groups as well.
The evidence suggests that there is no intelligent life on the other planets of our own solar system, as the noble Viscount said. There are, of course, different views about whether there might be life elsewhere in the universe, but certainly there is no serious positive evidence to show that there is. If there were an advanced civilisation elsewhere in the universe, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek supposed, with the technology to traverse these colossal distances, there are many questions to be answered. What is the point of this alleged huge number of visits to our planet, over three decades
1308
or more, to no apparent purpose? There seem to be internal inconsistencies in the idea. To put it simply, if these alleged aliens prefer to keep out of the way, the number of reported sightings would surely be only a tiny portion of the actual UFO movements, which would run into many millions. If they do not prefer to pass unnoticed, we could surely expect unmistakable appearances.
Why have they never tried to communicate with us? Why has there been no evidence on radio of attempts at communication? And would not such a large number of movements be picked up by our defence radar system? Why has not a single artefact been found? Assuming that each visit does not represent a journey from a distant star, where are these alien space craft supposed to be hiding? Now that the idea of such bases on the moon or on another planet in our solar system is barely tenable, ufologists have had to claim that the aliens are based in the depths of the sea or in a great hole in the earth, or even that they come from invisible universes and other space-time continua. Anyone who accepts the hypothesis of large numbers of alien visitations seems forced towards explanations that are ever more fantastic, and incapable of either proof or disproof.
As I have said, there really are many remarkable things to see in the sky; and most UFO reports relate to actual phenomena reported by sensible people. But, my Lords, let us consider the phenomena themselves—and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, mentioned some of these. Huge quantities of space debris enter our atmosphere, and are often seen as meteors, and fireballs; bright planets and even the moon or stars have been reported as UFOs, in unusual atmospheric conditions, as the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, said; there are tricks of light on cloud, and particular cloud structures; there is Aurora Borealis, St. Elmo's Fire and ball lightning which was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, which has been known to drift along telephone or power lines. There are some 5,000 man-made objects in orbit, satellites and debris, some of which can be seen by the naked eye, some through binoculars. About 600 such man-made objects re-enter the atmosphere every year, as the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, reminded us. The quantity is far less than natural space

1309
debris, but, my Lords, the phenomena can be astonishing.
Last April the Ministry of Defence received reports of a large piece of debris re-entering across the South of England. Most reports were factual, but one spoke of an
"… oval thing with a white cockpit which hovered for a while then shot off at great speed".
My Lords, we cannot prove that this was not a UFO, but it occurred at the same time and place as known re-entry of debris.
Many reports relate to aircraft seen in unusual conditions at unusual angles. One recent UFO was confidently reported on local radio. Again, my Lords, we cannot prove that it was not a UFO, but we do know that an RAF Vulcan bomber on a low-flying mission passed the same spot at the same time and on the same course as the reported UFO. Aircraft lights have led to UFO reports; as have distant aircraft with landing lights on—I have seen them myself—flares from aircraft, short condensation trails lit by the sun after dusk and light reflected from aircraft. Other phenomena include meteorological balloons. The Meteorological Office alone releases 50 such balloons every day, which expand to 40 ft. in diameter and rise to 100,000 ft. and can be lit by the sun after dark. Many other organisations, such as universities, use balloons, some much larger. Meteorological searchlights shine on clouds: the beam itself cannot be seen; only a point of light in the sky. There are hot air balloons and kites; even birds have been reported as UFOs; lights on distant towers; car headlights on distant hills; dust devils; and airborne debris carried by the wind.
All these phenomena can be misinterpreted by the most sensible observers, particularly when seen unexpectedly and briefly and in unusual atmospheric conditions. This is what opponents of the natural explanations forget. With distortions of light, and mirages, the most commonplace things can be so changed as to be barely recognisable. For instance, I am told that the US Air Force attributed the 1947 sighting by Arnold described by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to a mirage effect.
Phenomena seen through glass are suspect. There are phenomena generated within the eyeball and there are optical
1310
illusions to which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred. One scientist, whose task includes watching satellites, describes how, when observing stars near moving clouds, he finds it difficult to escape the illusion that the stars are flying past stationary clouds. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, referred to the green flash. I used to see it myself in Alexandria when on leave. It was one of our evening pastimes to sit on the promenade and watch it go down over the sea.
My Lords, in 1968, the United States Air Force commissioned the University of Colorado to carry out an independent study into UFO phenomena. Their report, which was published in 1969, was very substantial and detailed and it covered some 50 examples of such phenomena, but added that it was impossible and potentially misleading to try to tabulate all of the possible causes of UFO perception: there are simply too many. The report's main conclusion was, and I quote:
"Nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge".
The findings of this report were endorsed by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.
There really are tens of thousands of strange things to be seen. It is the custom to call such phenomena "UFOs", and to transpose this easily into "alien space craft". Often the appearance is too fleeting and the description too imprecise for a particular cause to be attributed. What we can say is that there is a great variety of plain explanations. There is no need, I suggest, for the far-fetched hypothesis of alien space craft.
To genuine sightings we must, however, add hallucinations; the excited tales of the gullible; and the embellishments of the born romantic. There are also indications that ufologists accept reports of UFOs somewhat uncritically. The noble Earl, Lord Qancarty, referred to a papyrus found among the papers of a Professor Tulli recording flying saucers during the reign of Thutmose III. The Colorado Report, which I mentioned earlier, inquired into this story. The alleged papyrus could not be traced, but internal evidence in the translation suggested a fake; inquiries with the Vatican Museum

1311
also suggested that Tulli, an amateur Egyptologist, had been taken in by a fake.
There is a category of UFO cases which are difficult to explain because the description is too vague or the evidence too remote, coupled perhaps with a coincidence of different phenomena and with exceptional conditions. If one accepts that there are natural explanations that could account for most sightings, it is an enormous and irrational jump to claim that the residue of difficult cases constitute alien space craft when there is no positive evidence that they do constitute alien space craft.
I should mention the famous UFO reported over the United Kingdom in December 1978, on New Year's Eve in fact. This was the one probably seen by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, to which he referred. The phenomenon was probably the re-entry of a launcher associated with the Russian space satellite COSMOS 1068, launched on 26th December. Of over 100 reports reaching the Ministry of Defence, nearly all were factual and consistent with the re-entry of satellite debris.
The recent sightings in New Zealand referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, attracted worldwide publicity, and we understand that the New Zealand Government may make an announcement when the facts have been assembled and appraised. Preliminary advice from our High Commission in New Zealand shows confident expectation that the sightings will prove to be due to natural phenomena, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, implied.
My Lords, the noble Earl who initiated this debate referred to the attitude of other Governments to UFOs. It is not for me to speak in this House for other Governments. I have however already made mention of the United States study in 1968 and I understand that nothing has happened since that time to cause the United States authorities to change their views or to warrant further official investigations of UFOs.
The noble Earl also referred to an interview which the then French Minister of Defence, M. Robert Galley gave in 1974 on the subject of UFOs. The noble
1312
Earl suggested that M. Galley had said that UFOs were real but that he, the Minister, did not know where they came from. I have read the transcript of M. Galley's broadcast and I also took the trouble to check it in the original French. The essence of what the Minister said was that the phenomena were genuine and were reported by responsible people, but that there were aspects that were difficult to explain. Nowhere did the Minister say that UFOs were real in the sense that they represent alien spacecraft, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour.
The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, also said that these had been seen by astronauts. These reports by astronauts were examined in the Colorado Study. The astronauts were required, of course, to report anything unusual perceived on their missions; and indeed many strange phenomena were noted. All the phenomena except three were explained. There was nothing at all to suggest that the unexplained sightings were alien spacecraft, and the limited visibility from the small and smeared windows of a spacecraft did not make visual observation easy.
It has been suggested in this debate that our Government are involved in an alleged conspiracy of silence. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are not engaged in any such conspiracy. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said, I must emphasise that the Ministry of Defence examines any UFO reports received to establish whether they reveal anything of defence interest, but nothing in the reports examined has ever given cause to believe that they represent alien spacecraft. There is nothing to have a conspiracy of silence about. What is more, a visitor from outer space would be one of the great events in history. It would certainly be an event of stupendous importance, but I hesitate to say the greatest event of all in the presence of my old friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, whose moving speech we listened to with much interest.
As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, scientists are rightly inquisitive people. If there was anything in the stories of UFOs, we would expect the scientific community as a whole to be devoting much offort to studying or to making contact with the supposed aliens;

1313
but the idea of a conspiracy of silence by this and other Governments belongs, I suggest, to the world of James Bond.
Then the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, implied that there was some kind of cover-up. There is no cover-up and no security ban. It is true that when people ask to see the Ministry of Defence UFO files they are told that the papers must remain confidential, but there is a very mundane reason for that. The files contain voluminous correspondence from people, and we cannot divulge the identity of the correspondents. It follows that the files must remain closed under the rules laid down in the Public Record Acts, passed by Parliament, which at present preclude disclosure until 30 years have elapsed since the date of the particular correspondence. The earliest reports the Ministry of Defence hold are dated 1962.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, mentioned the possibility of an intra-governmental study of UFOs. At the United Nations recently, representatives of Grenada made statements about UFOs and proposals for a study. A compromise decision was taken, wherein the General Assembly invited "interested member states" to co-ordinate research "on a national level" and to inform the Secretary-General of their findings. The Secretary-General was requested to transmit the Grenadan statements and other relevant reports to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. This is not an inter-governmental study, in the sense that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is seeking, but he may be content that Grenada, and perhaps some other countries, may be reporting in an international forum.
Lord KINGS NORTON: My Lords, the word was "intra", not "inter".
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord said. Then it has been suggested, too, in this debate that Her Majesty's Government should set up a study group. I am glad to say that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, both speaking from the Front Benches for the Opposition Parties, did not support this proposal, and certainly Her Majesty's Government do not consider that there is any justification for the expenditure of public money on such a study.
1314
I repeat that I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for raising the subject of UFOs, and I am particularly grateful to him for informing me in advance of the points which he proposed to make to your Lordships. However, from all I have said, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that there is no reason for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to make a broadcast interview about UFOs, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, suggested. As for telling the public the truth about UFOs, the truth is simple. There really are many strange phenomena in the sky, and these are invariably reported by rational people. But there is a wide range of natural explanations to account for such phenomena. There is nothing to suggest to Her Majesty's Government that such phenomena are alien space craft.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask a question? I did rise to ask it when the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, rose. I was going to ask it of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, but I think it would be more courteous to ask it of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. The subject of this debate is "objects", and in the expert speech—with almost all of which I agreed—of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, he mentioned that scientists, as scientists, are dealing only with material objects. I have to be careful here, as a non-scientist who minds his p's and q's, and who hardly knows a quasar from a pulsar, but is a black hole a material object?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should not at all like to follow the noble Viscount down that avenue. I do not think that even scientists or astronomers know what black holes are. I may say that, in a way, I think it is a pity that the noble Viscount did not take part in the debate.
10.34 p.m.
The Earl of CLANCARTY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his assurances and for the information which he has given us. I am sorry that we are not to be able to listen to, or see, his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence giving a television interview about UFOs. There are just one or two very small points, before I end this debate. We

1315
have talked about the umpteen light years that some of these planets and stars are away from us. But we are looking at it from our own standpoint, because we started to fly only in 1903, when the Wright brothers took off. Now we have got Concorde, so we consider ourselves to be rather good. But we say that we cannot go right out into space because of all this distance in light years. Let us suppose, however, as has been suggested, that there are billions of planets with civilisations thousands of years old. Is it not possible that they could come here, after all that time, almost instantaneously? It is just a thought.
A propos of that, I should like to bring to the attention of your Lordships a famous scientist and astronomer, our own Sir Fred Hoyle. Some years ago he wrote a book called Of Men and Galaxies. He wrote a passage in that book which I was allowed to quote in one of mine. It read:
"You are all familiar with an ordinary telephone directory. If you want to speak to someone, you look up his number and you dial the appropriate code. My speculation"—
this is Sir Fred Hoyle speaking—
"is that a similar situation exists and has existed for billions of years in the galaxy. My speculation is that an interchange of messages is going on on a vast scale all the time and that we are as unaware of it as a pygmy in the African forests is unaware of the radio messages that flash at the speed of light round the earth. My guess is that there might be a million or more subscribers to the galactic directory. Our problem is to get our name into that directory".
I think that noble Lords will agree that there is a man of vision. Nothing is impossible in this world or in this universe. It is just that the seemingly impossible takes a little time to come about.
My Lords, we have had an interesting discussion this evening. I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their wonderful contributions. I should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, upon his splendid maiden speech. May I also thank all other noble Lords for their rapt and
1316
riveted attention. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.