Lords Sitting of 22 November 1979

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle):
The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

STILL-BIRTHS: EEC COMPARATIVE STATISTICS
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give the figures of still-births in the years 1976, 1977, 1978 in England and Wales and state how these compare with other countries in the EEC.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the number of still-births in England and Wales fell from 5,709 to 5,108 between 1976 and 1978 and, if present trends continue, will be even lower in 1979. In 1975, the latest year for which full information is available, the proportion of still-births to all births in England and Wales was broadly comparable with that in Belgium, France, Italy and the Republic of Ireland and rather higher than in West Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Denmark. I am advised, however, that international comparisons of still-birth rates need to be treated with caution, as they are subject to variations of definition or practice between different countries.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that it is a tragedy that any woman should lose a child in this way? Would he be kind enough to look into this and see whether there is any action that can be taken to limit the numbers? Can he also tell me how many of these births occur in the home and how many in hospitals?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I certainly agree that these are all tragedies. Regarding the proportion of deaths which took place in the home and in hospitals, the figures are rather interesting. In 1976 the proportion of still-births in hospitals was 96.9 per cent. and at home 2.5 per cent.; in 1977, in hospitals 97.4 per cent., at home 2.3 per cent.; and in 1978, in hospitals 97.6 per cent. and at home 1.9 per cent. It would look as though there are more deaths taking place in hospitals now than there were before. I think the answer is that there is better care of pregnant women taking place, so that when there appears to be a difficult birth, a woman is very quickly sent to hospital.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the figures, on the basis given, are, shall we say, reassuring? Would not the noble Lord also agree that it is absolutely essential that we do not cut post-natal and ante-natal care and maternity services in hospitals?—otherwise the figures will show a dramatic increase.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is well aware that the last thing we wish to do is anything of that kind. All the area health authorities are asked to take the maximum trouble about children, elderly people and all deprived people.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there is a wide variation in the number of stillbirths per thousand of live births in different parts of the country? If there is such a variation, what would this be due to?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, there is certainly a wide variation. The inner cities and deprived urban areas are always the places which are the worst. In the country regions our record is much closer to the excellent results achieved in Scandinavia.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what proportion of these births are premature births and what proportion of them went to the full term?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: No, my Lords, I am afraid I cannot.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, has the Minister in fact counted the Government's Protection of Official Information Bill in his statistics for still-births?

ZAMBIA: DEFENCE
3.4 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to offer any assistance to the Government of Zambia in defence of its territory now under attack by external forces.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): My Lords, the Zambian Government have not asked us to provide military assistance. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has this afternoon spoken to President Kaunda, and has sent a personal message to express the Government's concern about the events in Zambia. The most effective constraint on further incidents will be the earliest possible agreement at the constitutional conference on a cease-fire.
In the meantime, I shall be asking in the conference later this afternoon that the Rhodesian authorities should give an immediate undertaking to suspend all cross-border operations into Zambia and that the leaders of the Patriotic Front should give a simultaneous undertaking, in co-operation with the Zambian authorities, to stop all movements of Patriotic Front personnel from Zambia into Rhodesia.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I welcome a part of that Answer which the noble Lord the Foreign Minister has given, but would he not agree that the most effective way of stopping incursions into Zambia would be to make very firm and strong representations to General Walls, who is a part of the Lancaster House Conference? Is he aware that his noble friend Lord Trefgarne yesterday agreed that Zambia had been in the forefront
278
of the suffering from sanctions ever since 1965? Is it not also the case that Zambia has been in the front line as a base for the attacks on those who rebelled against Her Majesty and Her Majesty's authority 15 years ago? Will he not take the opportunity that Lancaster House presents to him to make sure that General Walls knows the feelings of this country about the attack of his troops on a friendly Commonwealth country?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I tried before this conference started to get all parties to agree to a cease-fire and they did not do so, although the Rhodesian authorities were prepared to do so. When I presented the paper on the cease-fire, having agreed the constitutional arrangements and the transitional arrangements, I said to the parties concerned that I thought the only way in which we could go forward was to get a cease-fire as quickly as possible: otherwise incidents were bound to occur and it would put at risk the whole of this conference. And, my Lords, the only conclusion one can draw from what has happened over the past two days is that all parties must address themselves at once to agreeing to a cease-fire.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House, say how warmly we welcome what the Foreign Secretary said in his first reply to my noble friend? We wish him godspeed in his efforts this afternoon to secure restraint, in the first instance, by all concerned in Southern Africa, preparatory to a durable, permanent and effective cease-fire.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may we also, from these Benches, give full support to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary at a very, very difficult time.
Lord HALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord also take with him our congratulations on the news, which came on the wireless at one o'clock, that Bishop Muzorewa has announced the release of a very large number of political prisoners, leaving only 19 now in detention?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I cannot express to the House at this

279
moment how much I welcome any good news.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, can I persuade the Foreign Secretary to distinguish between the civil war in Rhodesia, or Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and the invasion of a fellow member of the Commonwealth—namely, Zambia? Can I not persuade him to condemn the invasion of Zambia? Also, as his right honourable friend in another place indicated yesterday that representations had been made to the Salisbury delegation and it is apparent that those representations are being defied and ignored, will he not make still further representations to General Walls to stop this attack on a friendly Commonwealth country that has played a very great part in the success, or partial success, of the Lancaster House talks?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, everybody in the House deplores any action which increases tension or which causes loss of life, and I made it abundantly plain in my first Answer what I intend to do this afternoon.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, the prospect is that a ceasefire is near. Is it not contrary to the interests of peace to seek to enlarge this incident when the prospect is that real peace may very soon be with us?

DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION AND GOVERNMENT FINANCE
3.10 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to organise development education after the Advisory Committee on Development Education is abolished.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government have no such plans, because they do not believe that it is for them to
280
organise development education. It was never the function of the Advisory Committee on Development Education to do so. As the noble Lord knows, that committee advised the Minister for Overseas Development on grants from public funds to educational bodies, voluntary organisations and others working in this field. The Government believe that initiatives in development education should be left to such bodies.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is saying that it is not simply a question of economy, but that this Government are, in principle, opposed to Government support for development education in this country? If that is what he is saying, may I draw his attention to the letter that has been written from 15 major voluntary and church organizations, in which it is alleged that the withdrawal of Government money from development education will destroy many of the voluntary projects which have already been started?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government do not oppose the concept of development education. The point at issue is whether we should support it with public funds. Our aid budget being under extreme pressure, as it is, we had to take a number of decisions about economies. One of them was that expenditure of £9 million, no less, which was proposed by the previous Administration in this connection, was out of line with what we could afford and we therefore decided drastically to prune that programme. The purpose of the advisory committee was to decide what to do with those funds, and clearly once we had withdrawn the bulk of the funds the purpose of the committee disappeared also.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: But with respect, my Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has not answered my question. I am asking specifically: Is this a matter of immediate economy, which we can all understand—whether we agree with it or not—or is it a matter of principle that this Government do not believe in putting Government money along with money raised by voluntary organisations for the purpose of development education in this country?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government's decision will stop development education. Voluntary groups, churches, and other organisations and individuals have shown their concern and initiative in this field for many years, before Government grants were available. I hope that they will continue to do so.

VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY: EVASION
3.14 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking, or propose to take, in order to recover overdue and unpaid vehicle excise duty.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, in 1978 the Department of Transport followed up about 300,000 cases of unlicensed use of vehicles either by offering mitigated penalties or by prosecution through the courts. The problem of evasion of vehicle excise duty is one of the major factors being considered in the Government's review of the duty.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Is he able to confirm that some £60 million are lost by evasion, and is it not a fact that this would represent about 7 per cent. of the existing licence fee of £50? If so, would it not be more reasonable to put an end to the evasion before other means of collecting this tax are considered?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, if the figure of 7 to 9 per cent., which was given in the study undertaken by the previous Government, is correct—it may well be, but I should not like to guarantee that—the amount involved would be somewhere between £50 million and £60 million. I am in the tricky position of being at the Dispatch Box, awaiting the review of my right honourable friend which will be available very shortly, and I cannot anticipate what he is going
282
to say. So I must in this matter beg the indulgence of noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the previous Government, and indeed successive Governments, have had on their plate for a number of years this problem of the number of people who do not licence their vehicles, and who therefore penalise all other people who are trying to obey the law. The previous Administration were considering the abolition of VED, and perhaps an increase in petrol charges, in order that everyone would at least pay his share towards the roads. Can the noble Lord confirm that this is one of the points that his right honourable friend is still considering and, if so, can he say when that report is likely to be available?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, this is much the same as I was saying to my right honourable friend. The noble Baroness will have heard that this is something which her right honourable friend was considering. It has been considered very seriously by my right honourable friend, and our review will be taking account of all these factors.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will my noble friend consider giving instructions to local authorities that they should encourage wardens to note when cars have not been licensed? It is a task which they could undertake quite easily and simply in the course of their normal duties, and rather more productively in many instances. Instead of collecting £6, they would collect at least the £50 fee which was being evaded. This would be productive, without giving extra duties to the police who are already overloaded.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that 90 per cent. of the reports of excise evasion which come into the Department are made by police and wardens. I cannot at this moment break down those figures for my noble friend. In respect of those figures mitigated penalties are offered, which avoids going to the courts. It may interest noble Lords to know that magistrates are able to impose a fine of up to five times the amount of the licence evaded, apart from payment of the licence fee which is to be collected. So the fine which can be imposed is not inconsiderable.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us will be glad to hear that a Government Statement on this matter is likely before long? Can he give us an indication of whether or not we are to get this Statement before the Christmas Recess because, as my noble friend Lady Stedman pointed out, this matter has been before two Governments over the last year and a half? Is he also aware that the answers which he gave this afternoon indicated the large-scale evasion of this duty which is at the moment taking place? Is he further aware of the total amount of unnecessary work which is imposed upon the already overburdened magistrates' courts as a result of trying to enforce this duty, when it would be far more sensible to transfer this to the petrol tax?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows about these matters only too well. This is partly a Home Office matter and, obviously, the Department of Transport cannot deal with the way in which the police are ordered to do things. On his first question, about whether the Statement will be made before Christmas, I am not empowered to say so but I should be very surprised if it were not. I think that I can give confidence to the noble Lord in that way.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, is it not already part of the duty of wardens to put a ticket on a car which is not licensed? Wherever a car may be standing it is improperly parked, because it is not licensed, and I think that they already do it.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. That is indeed the case and fines are usually imposed. But the Department of Transport at Swansea is limited in manpower, and is therefore limited in the number of prosecutions that it is able to process.

SANTO ISLAND, NEW HEBRIDES: POLITICAL DISTURBANCES
3.20 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government
284
a Question, of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
" To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the situation on the Island of Santo in the New Hebrides."
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will be answering this Question in the form of a Statement.

STIRLING DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord President, I beg to move the Motion which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Carrington to advance the Second Reading of the European Communities (Greek Accession) Bill from Monday the 3rd of December to Tuesday the 27th November.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MILK (EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF CONTROL OF MAXIMUM PRICES) ORDER 1979
3.22 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Milk (Extension of Period of Control of Maximum Prices)

285
Order 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th October 1979, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to extend for a further five years from the end of 1979 the power of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State to control the maximum prices to be charged for liquid milk. These powers—which are permissive—derive from Section 6 of the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964, which provides for their renewal by Order-in-Council at intervals not exceeding five years. In 1974 Parliament approved an order, similar to the one now before us, which extended the powers until 31st December 1979.
I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to be tolerably brief about the reasons why the Government believe it right to seek an extension of this sort. First, about 50 per cent. of all the milk we produce goes to the liquid milk market. Secondly, there is the special nature of the marketing arrangements for milk. Virtually all of the milk produced in this country is sold through the Milk Marketing Boards and the processing, bottling and distribution of liquid milk are carried out to a great extent by a small number of large firms.
There is, however, now a further reason for price control which did not exist when the last order was approved in 1974. Since the ending of the guarantee arrangements for milk when we completed the transitional period to full membership of the EEC on 31st December 1977, producer returns have been derived exclusively from the liquid and manufacturing milk markets. In a period of rapidly increasing costs, both for producers and for distributors, this change has thrown greater emphasis on the interlinked problems of ensuring that the producer receives an adequate return for his milk, that the distributor has an adequate margin to safeguard the long-term future of the doorstep delivery system for milk, and that the housewife continues to enjoy the excellent value for money which she has come to expect from milk. The continuation of price control at both wholesale and retail levels is of very great importance in making sure that these objectives are achieved, and it is something
286
which all sides of the industry continue to support in the interests of greater stability. In an uncertain world, particularly for the dairy industry, I suggest that this is something well worth retaining.
My Lords, with that short description of the draft order, I would like to commend it to the House and seek your Lordships' approval of it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th October be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Earl for his very short but very explicit explanation of this order, which we on this side of the House find to be generally very welcome. It not only protects the producer; to a great extent it protects the consumer, too. I am assuming that this order will receive the approval of our lords and masters in the Common Market and in particular of our lords and masters in Paris who seem to have certain views on British agricultural produce.
May I put one or two questions to the Minister. First, may I ask him whether the supply position of milk is satisfactory so far as the country generally is concerned? Secondly, how much of our milk is being used to produce British butter, a point to which we referred yesterday? Thirdly, will there be available adequate supplies of school milk, assuming that the Government, instead of cutting such a provision, still allow an adequate supply of school milk to be provided?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for his welcome of the order. I can assure him that the supply position of liquid milk is satisfactory. Approximately 50 per cent, of the milk produced goes into liquid use while the other 50 per cent. goes into manufacture.
I think I can give the noble Lord an assurance relating to the matter about which he is concerned. There will be sufficient milk available for school deliveries of milk to those local education authorities who wish to use it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BILL OF RIGHTS BILL [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wade.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1 [Convention to be enforceable in courts]:

Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from (" shall ") to (" immediately ") in line 10 and insert (" subject to any reservations thereto by the Government of the United Kingdom ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. As this is the first of the amendments, perhaps the Committee will be good enough to allow me to make three brief observations by way of introduction. First, I should like to express again my thanks to all those who took part in the Second Reading debate. Ignoring myself, I think that the debate was of a very high standard and, as those noble Lords who were present know, it lasted for nearly five hours. In my view, there was a combination of eloquence and erudition which did this House justice. But it became clear during the debate that the main issue was between those who were in favour of the Bill and those who were against it. Therefore I think that there will probably not be a lengthy debate on any one particular clause and I do not anticipate—although I may be proved to be wrong—a major clash during the Committee stage. Nevertheless, constructive criticisms were made by those taking part and I shall hope to deal with some of them.
Secondly, by way of a preliminary observation—and again I hope that I am forgiven-I wish to acknowledge the statement made on Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, followed by a letter to me, which he said he would be writing, about the possibility of constitutional talks of an all-party nature on the subject of constitutional reform. I appreciate that he
288
is not yet in a position to write to me or to others precisely, but I am able to say that so far as my colleagues and I are concerned the letter is receiving very careful consideration and is being treated with the seriousness that a communication of this nature from the Lord Chancellor obviously deserves. But of course the matter must take time, as the Lord Chancellor indicated.
Thirdly, with regard to the Bill now before the Committee it may seem a little surprising that the amendments are apparently all tabled in my name. This is partly due to the fact that I gave certain undertakings which I have to carry out and partly to the fact that one or two of your Lordships suggested very strongly to me that certain amendments would be advisable, but, when it came to the point and I said "Yes, by all means put them down and I will answer them", it ended in my being asked to draft them myself. So it is that we have eight amendments in my name. One noble Lord said to me, when seeing the Marshalled List, that it was rather like a game of tennis when one is expected to play from both sides simultaneously. I shall not press that analogy too far as I can assure the Committee that I do not intend to oppose amendments that I am proposing.
With regard to the first amendment, which I hope will be dealt with quite quickly, I explained on Second Reading that, when the previous Bill was before the Select Committee, Clause 1 of that Bill contained the words "Without any reservations" in line 9. Those words were appropriate in the context of the Bill as then drawn. They are no longer appropriate, and I mentioned on Second Reading that I would suggest that those words be deleted and that in their place the words, "subject to any reservations thereto by the Government of the United Kingdom" should be inserted. If that is done, the beginning of Clause 1 will read:
" The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, and Fundamental Freedoms signed by Governments being Members of the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950, together with such Protocols thereto as shall have been ratified by the Government of the United Kingdom, shall subject to any reservations thereto by the Government of the United Kingdom immediately upon the passing of this Act have the force of law ".

289
I hope I have not made that sound unduly complicated but the proposed alteration I think will remove a possible misunderstanding. I hope it will clarify the clause and I therefore beg to move.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): Before saying anything about the detail of this particular amendment I should like to remind noble Lords of the point that has already been referred to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned at Second Reading. In the view of the Government, matters of such importance as this Bill should, if possible, proceed by agreement of all parties, and, accordingly, it is the Government's intention at a suitable time to attempt to set up constitutional talks between all parties to see whether we can reach agreement. That is of course a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has already referred.
With regard to this particular amendment, the Government welcome the clarification which it gives to the aim of the noble Lord and the relationship between what he proposes and the reservations, although we must of course reserve our position on the precise form and drafting of the amendments, and indeed their substance. This would be a suitable subject matter for the constitutional talks to which I have referred.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I have received the Lord Chancellor's letter and of course we shall be giving further consideration to it. The issue of human rights is a matter of continuing importance in every society and clearly it is a subject that is going to occupy Parliament continuously in the future.
So far as the Bill is concerned, this is, as we considered in the Second Reading debate, ground that we have trodden over in detail—I will not say "exhaustively" because clearly we are inexhaustible in the discussion of this matter. However, so far as I myself am concerned, I fear that my objections to the concept of incorporating the convention in our law remain, but, in so far as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, wishes to improve his Bill and to make it more acceptable to himself, then I wish him godspeed. I hope he may succeed in his endeavours but I am afraid that I cannot give him any more comfort than
290
that. It may well be that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at Second Reading, the Bill will run into the sands in another place. If I may say so, I think that a Bill of this importance really merits Government attention, Government support and Government drafting. I say this without any disrespect to the excellent efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, himself. So my view on these amendments is that we shall do nothing to obstruct them, but I fear that at the end of the day there is little hope that this Bill in its present form will reach the Statute Book and I am sorry to say that I, for one, shall not regret that fact.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Government Front Bench one question about this letter which has been sent to my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and to the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House. Now that the author of the letter is with us, can we perhaps ask someone on the Government Front Bench to answer this particular question? Is it suggested that the proposed talks should be on the sort of issues which are raised specifically in this Bill or, as I assume is the case, that they should range on rather wider issues?
The LORD) CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): I shall try to answer the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I have not a copy of the letter with me, but I wrote both to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and to the representative of the Liberal Party. Having got into contact with their colleagues in another place, the first question is whether they think that talks based upon the wider issues in this Bill, and the desirability of having a Bill of Rights in this or some other form, are likely to be fruitful.
I do not think that any of us—either in this House or in another place—would like to embark on a purely cosmetic exercise which would probably take time and in which each side would be trying to put the other side in the wrong; so I am anxious to know from the noble and learned Lord and from the Liberal Front Bench whether, after contact with their friends in another place, they think it is worthwhile talking at all. If they think

291
that it is worthwhile talking at all, then of course the question is under whose chairmanship and in what form the talks shall take place.
Thirdly, so far as I am concerned, any talks that they think would be fruitful, whether upon the detail of the Bill—the kind of point that was raised on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale—or upon the general principles of the Bill, would be welcome. My door is wide open. It may he that the Commons Ministers will want to take the labouring o'er. If so let them labour. So far as I am concerned, I am anxious to be as helpful as possible, and I imagine the noble and learned Lord opposite and the Liberal Party will take the same attitude. I hope they will tell me frankly if they believe there would be any value in these talks at all, because I am sure we do not want to waste our time.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: If I may be allowed to intervene again, I have communicated with my friends in another place and I shall be communicating the outcome of our discussions to the noble and learned Lord when these discussions have been completed.
Lord MISHCON: Without endeavouring to interfere in the slightest with the discussions which are taking place on a much higher level than my own, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this question so that some of our minds may be clarified. There is already a Convention on Human Rights. Some of us know that an intention is afoot—at all events, the matter is under discussion—that the EEC as such should sign that convention. If that in fact materialises, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor feel that that has an effect upon our thinking, that in some way, directly or indirectly, if the EEC were to be a signatory to the convention, this possibly becomes a matter of our own law?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this would be a hypothetical question; I would require notice of it in order to give a considered answer.
Lord GARDINER: This, happily, has always been treated as a non-party political
292
subject; it is indeed one on which members of different parties think differently from their colleagues. We know the difference of view, for example, between the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Lord. Lord Foot. I find myself supporting Lord Wade, and, unhappily, unable to agree with what my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has said. It rather sounds now as though the matter is being taken care of by the political parties. Will there be no Back Bench representation at all? Would it be possible for a copy of the letter which the noble and learned Lord has written to the Leaders of the other political parties to be put in the Library so that the Back Benchers of this House may have some say in the matter?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly do not want to exclude the Back Benchers, but we are, of course, all members of political parties; even the noble and learned Lord below the gangway opposite is a member of a political party. One does make use of the party system in order to discover whether parliamentary progress can be made. So far as I am concerned, if the two recipients of my letter were to agree I would be perfectly happy for this information to be put in the Library. I do not know that in its present rather inchoate form it will help the noble and learned Lord, but so far as I am concerned there is no secrecy about the matter at all, and I am only too glad to enlist the noble and learned Lord's support, either formally or informally.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: As an independent Member of your Lordships' House, perhaps it is impertinent of me to say so, but I must say nevertheless that I greatly welcome what we have been told today and indeed what was hinted by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack at the end of the Second Reading debate—that there is the suggestion that there should be a get-together between the parties on any constitutional issue on which the parties think they might possibly be able to find agreement. I feel that this Bill which is our immediate business this afternoon is only one very small step towards the improvement of our general arrangements, and therefore, although a Cross Bencher, I must say how much I welcome the initiative which has been taken and greatly wish it success.

293
At the same time, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has not been dissuaded in this House from going into Committee on his own Bill. I think it would be the greatest mistake if, because there was the hope—no more than the hope at the moment—of these inter-party discussions on any subject on which it is thought agreement may be reached, we were deterred from completing the business which the House, for the third time of asking, took one stage further in giving a Second Reading to Lord Wade's Bill a little time ago. I need not remind your Lordships of the hours spent by the Select Committee, the extraordinarily persuasive speeches made in evidence before that Select Committee on both sides, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, at a later stage, by Lord Scarman and Lord Diplock, et cetera. It would be, to my mind, a very great mistake if we regarded this good news about possible talks as any reason for not pressing on and doing, as your Lordships' House, what we can do to have on the record a good Bill that this House approves of on this very narrow area of domesticating (if I may use the word) the convention and turning it from a little known international treaty into something that is part of our domestic law.
I make no reference to the warnings which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave us of the certainty that there would be no time in another place in this Session for the Bill to be even considered on the way to becoming an Act. That seems to me no reason at all why your Lordships, having given a great deal of time to this, should not give a little more time. I was very pleased to find that the amendments put down for our consideration this afternoon were all in the name of, as it were, the founding father of this little Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I hope, therefore, we shall be able to complete our business without too much delay, without any prejudice whatever to the wider and much more ambitious projects which from these Cross Benches I wish every good luck.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I wonder if I may intervene again, because there is a slight danger of the Committee being
294
perhaps innocently misled by me into an assumption that there is now a firm commitment for all-party talks and all-party discussions. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor frankly said, his paper puts up suggestions in a very inchoate form, and it may well be that the conclusion may be arrived at that there is no common ground on how best to proceed with the protection of human rights. There are various approaches to it. Some favour the setting up of a domestic commission on human rights to examine our law, to see in what respects it is said to be defective in any field governed by the convention itself. There are other suggestions proposing a fairly fundamental constitutional package of which a Bill of Rights would be a component part. I remember the speeches of the noble and learned Lord on this theme when he was in Opposition.
All I am seeking to say at this moment is that what is suggested is very tentative. If there were ultimately any discussions I would hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner would take part. but at the moment I cannot put it higher than a tentative suggestion about an inchoate proposal.
Lord WADE: I had not anticipated when I referred to the letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it would lead to such an interesting discussion. My reason for referring to this point at all was that the noble and learned Lord had stated at Second Reading that he would be writing to me and others, and I felt it would be only polite to acknowledge the fact. I was authorised to say that what he had suggested was receiving very serious consideration by my colleagues. That was obviously as far as I could go at the moment. I think I should also add, in fairness to the noble and learned Lord, that his remarks were very tentative, because he was not yet in a position to go further. But I welcome the initiative which the noble and learned Lord took in that respect, and the matter is being considered. Nevertheless I hope, that, whatever may come about in the way of all-party discussions, the Committee may think fit to proceed with and, I hope, approve the Bill. It is with that in mind that I move the first amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord TREFGARNE: For the purpose of hearing the Statement I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

SANTO ISLAND, NEW HEBRIDES: POLITICAL DISTURBANCES
3.51 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, may I now intervene, with your Lordships' permission, to answer the Private Notice Question by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, by repeating a Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Ridley. I apologise to noble Lords for interrupting the important Committee stage which is proceeding. The Statement is as follows:
"There have been a number of instances of intimidation of the population in Santo Town by supporters of the Na Griamel movement. This movement is opposed to the Vanuaaku Party, which won a two-thirds majority in the National Representative Assembly elections on 14th November.
" Events in Santo are being kept under constant review, and the British Resident Commissioner, accompanied by his Deputy and the French Deputy Resident Commissioner, has flown to Santo to assess the situation personally.
" Our latest information is that the situation is now quieter, but that further threats to law and order cannot be entirely discounted. A joint force of two platoons of the local police mobile unit is on standby in Vila to fly to Santo should the situation demand it."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. I should like to ask him one or two questions. Will he confirm or otherwise that certain external and
296
dubious elements intent on turning Santo Island into a tax haven are behind the disturbances? Is there any truth in the reports carried in a paper of high repute—the Guardian this morning that the dissidents on the island near Na Griamel have, in fact, expelled some hundreds of islanders from the island to other islands and driven others into the surrounding forests?
Finally, can he assure the House that we are co-operating very closely with France—our partner for, I think, 65 years in the condominial Government of the New Hebrides—first, in restoring law and order on Santo Island, and generally, of course, in promoting the advance of the New Hebrides as a whole to independence next year?
Lord McNAIR: My Lords, from these Benches we must, of course, first thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It may be a merit of the Statement that, so far from adding very much to the Press reports, it tends on the whole to subtract from them. Secondly, we should like to congratulate Mr. Lini on his election victory in the New Hebrides and on his appointment as Prime Minister designate.
Thirdly, we wish to send a message of full support to Mr David Browning, the British Resident Commissioner, in any measures that he finds it necessary to take. Finally—I am sure that the noble Lord will agree, but I shall put it in the form of a question does he agree that the granting of independence to the New Hebrides is a political process for which there are few, if any, precedents and that it will inevitably be a very difficult operation, much more difficult than the granting of independence to any of our own colonies, with perhaps one very obvious exception? Therefore, does he agree that it would be a very good augury for this difficult operation if the latest outbreak of international lawlessness can be stamped out quickly in a thoroughly condominial spirit in co-operation with our French partners?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their response to the Statement. As regards the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, I am not

297
in a position to confirm or deny the backing of Mr. Stevens. We, like the noble Lord, have read the reports, but I think that it would be wrong of me to comment on their accuracy. We have no information about the expulsion of islanders from the island itself, but, although we do hear that there are people who have been leaving the town of Santo, I do not think that they have left the shores of the island. I can quite firmly confirm that we are co-operating fully with the French Government in this matter and that every step that we take will be taken in consultation and agreement with them.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, mentioned the forthcoming independence of the New Hebrides. I can only say again that we really do not anticipate any great difficulty in that regard because we shall be working in full co-operation and agreement with our French colleagues.

BILL OF RIGHTS BILL [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
3.56 p.m.
Clause 2 [Convention to prevail over previous enactments]:
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, leave out (" enactment ") and insert (" laws or enactments ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. I do not think that this is a very controversial point—at least I hope it is not. During the discussions in the Select Committee much time and thought was given to the question of whether Acts of Parliament should override future Acts. It was decided that it was not within the terms of our Constitution to do so.
However, in those discussions the word "enactment" or "enactments" was used. If one examines the discussions that took place on Second Reading it is clear that we were discussing both common law and statute law as regards Clause 2. I am well aware that the opponents of the Bill were unhappy about the introduction of the Bill at all. However, as regards the supporters of the Bill, I think that we recognised that we meant both statute law and common law. We went on to point out that we were already bound by
298
treaty, by ratification of the convention, the material words being in Article 1:
" The High Contracting Parties (namely, the United Kingdom) shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of this Convention ".
However, we meant both the common law and the statute law. To be frank, if we approve Clause 2 we mean that the rights and freedoms under the convention will not only apply by treaty but will apply as part of our law—they will apply to common law and statute law. It is simply for the purpose of clarification that I propose the use of the words "laws or enactments". Whether it is necessary to elaborate in that way I do not know, but I do so for the purpose of clarification. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who has made it clear why he wishes to make this amendment. As noble Lords know, there is a very clear distinction in both our legal systems between statute law and common law. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, has made it clear that it is his intention that the convention should take precedence over both. The situation with regard to this clause is that the Select Committee, in the course of its report, considered a clause which would take the place of Clauses 2 and 3 in the present Bill. In relation to Clause 2, as noble Lords will remember the committee's suggestion was:
" All enactments passed before this Act shall he construed and have effect subject to this Act ".
The Select Committee in this context makes no reference to non-statutory law. There is, of course, an established principle that statute law takes precedence over the common law.
Therefore, I venture to suggest that in the event of the incorporation of the European Convention into our domestic law by a provision on the lines of Clause 1, the courts would be unlikely to choose to apply common law which was in direct conflict with a statutory Bill of Rights This does not mean that I am in any way opposed to the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is putting forward; but rather I suggest that it may not be necessary expressly to refer to the non-statutory law.
There is a slight difficulty which 1 just mention I do not wish to make much of

299
it. Whereas a date can be attached to enactments, it is not so easy to attach a date to a provision in the common law. That is no doubt a matter which would require to receive attention in due course. The whole content of this clause and the proposed amendment would form a very suitable part of the subject-matter for the talks to which we referred earlier.
Lord GARDINER: I should like to ask why the word "Governments" in the amendment on the Marshalled List is in the plural. Strictly, I think that my remarks apply to the next amendment.
Lord WADE: As regards the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, speaking off the cuff, I think that it would be appropriate if it were in the singular rather than the plural. I do not know whether or not that is an oversight. I should have thought that "Government" would be appropriate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It is probably a misprint, because the next amendment says: "Government ".
Lord WADE: I can only hope that it was a misprint and not my own mistake. I take the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and think that he is right. The general point raises the whole question of the Bill. I hope that the Committee will not wish to divide against this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, leave out (" Protocols ") and insert (" such Protocols as shall have been ratified by the Governments of the United Kingdom and subject to any reservations thereto ").
The noble Lord said: I could almost call this a drafting amendment. In other places where I have referred to protocols. I have referred to:
" Protocols as shall have been ratified by the Governments of the United Kingdom and subject to any reservations thereto ".
Noble Lords will notice that I shall seek to move a similar amendment later. That is in accordance with Clause 1. If one uses those words at all, one should use them throughout. I hope that the Committee will agree to that. I beg to move.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): I understand that there is a slight misprint in this amendment, it should read:
" Page 1, line 15, leave out first (" Protocols ") and insert "
the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
Lord KILBRACKEN: As we have referred to the question of "Governments" and whether or not there is a misprint, may I ask the Committee to look again at Clause 1, because surely the word "Government" should be in the plural when it first occurs? That clause refers to the Governments of different countries which are members of the Council; whereas latterly we are talking simply about the Government of the United Kingdom. I think that it is correct as it is written at present.
Lord WADE: I do not quite follow that point, but I shall look into it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Convention to prevail over subsequent enactments unless stated to contrary]:
4.6 p.m.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 18, leave out (" Protocols ") and insert (" such Protocols as shall have been ratified by the Government of the United Kingdom and subject to any reservations thereto ").
The noble Lord said: This is the same point as I made on the previous clause and I hope that the Committee will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 21, leave out from (" otherwise ") to end of line 22.
The noble Lord said: In speaking on the first amendment, I indicated that although 1 was proposing all the amendments. I should not in any case be opposing amendments which I proposed. On this amendment there was a difference of view in the legal profession as to whether it was desirable to include the words at the end of Clause 3:

301
"or does not admit of any construction compatible with the provisions of this Act.".
Some representations were made to me that the Bill would be clarified and that it would avoid some possible confusion if we excluded those words. I have tabled this amendment in order that the Committee may, if it so wishes, express its views on it.
As I said on Second Reading, I would not fight to the last ditch over the retention or otherwise of these words, but as the point was raised I thought that I should at least give the Committee an opportunity to express its views. There have been some members of the legal profession who have stated that they would be happier if the words "or" to "Act" were excluded. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The amendment which the noble Lord proposes this time is one which may represent quite a significant change in the policy of the clause. If noble Lords were to agree to this amendment, the wording would revert to what it was in the noble Lord's original Bill. On introducing this Bill, he had apparently changed course. This looks as though he is proposing to change course back again. The Select Committee took the view that if such a clause were effective it would, in practice, provide an important degree of entrenchment. The Committee saw such entrenchment in terms of a political restraint upon future Governments rather than actual statutory protection for a Bill of Rights, which the Committee considered to be impossible under our constitution.
As to entrenchment, it would not be wise for me to attempt to state a view on my own on this matter, but perhaps I may refer your Lordships to a statement made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who is a most distinguished supporter of the Bill, which is recorded in Questions 801, 802 and 803 of the Minutes taken before your Lordships' Select Committee in the Sessions 1976–77 and 1977–78. 1 do not wish to read the whole of the text, but perhaps I may Like one or two sentences from the answer that the noble and learned Lord gave, which make the point that I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention. At Question 803 he was asked what the situation might
302
be if the Strasbourg Court took the view that an Act of Parliament which was thought to be consistent with the convention turned out, in its view, not to be so. He was asked how would the courts in this country deal with that situation. He answered:
" I think the courts' function would not be a difficult one. They would not be bound, at the moment at any rate, by the decision of the Strasbourg Court (not unless the Strasbourg Court was given status comparable with the Luxembourg Court) and they would have to make up their own mind about the subsequent statute ".
This is the passage I wish to emphasise:
" If they came to the conclusion that it was a perfectly clear enactment, with no ambiguities as to the intention of Parliament, and inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, so be it: the Act, I think, would he the law and it would be a matter for parliamentary action to amend it to bring it in line with the Strasbourg finding. Certainly I would not suggest that the judges "—
that is, the judges in our courts—
" in that situation should have power, or should seek to exercise power, to strike down the subsequent Act ".
What it comes to is this: in the situation covered by the words that the amendment seeks to strike out, what would be the answer? At the moment, the Bill as it stands does supply an answer. If these words arc cut out the problem does not go away, but the Bill provides no answer to it. That is really the position, as I see it, in the light of the proposed amendment, and I thought it right to draw it to the attention of noble Lords.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: I do not want to enter into the legal niceties of this, but I should have thought that it was clearly the intention of this Bill if the words
" or does not admit of any construction compatible with the provisions of this Act "
were not included. That is an uninstructed layman's view, and if there was a doubt about this among the lawyers I would be inclined to hope that we would leave those words out.
Lord WADE: I am obviously torn between two very distinguished points of view. First, I should like to remove any misunderstandings about the powers of the courts to strike out anything that Parliament has done. I am not suggesting that the noble and learned Lord intended that anyone should misunderstand it, but that word does give an impression that

303
the courts, after Parliament has passed an Act, will have power to strike out something that Parliament has passed, in the future. I do not think that that will happen; nor does it arise, in my view, from Clause 3. But the point before us here is that in considering whether there is a conflict between a new Act and the convention the courts will take into account what is said in the new Act, but of course a new Act of Parliament will prevail.
The reason for these words being put in by the Select Committee was to try to cover a case where there was perhaps some uncertainty as to whether a new Act did, or did not, intend to override the terms of the convention, which a new Act of Parliament could do. That is the reason for these words. I would have hoped that we might have had more advice on this. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is willing to say something. I should have thought that we ought to leave the Bill as it stands, because there does not seem to be a sufficient strength of opinion, apart from what has been said from the Cross-Benches, for deleting this phrase. If there is a change of mind between now and the next stage we could raise this issue again. I do not feel at the moment that there is sufficient strength of opinion for me to press this amendment, but if I am advised otherwise of course I shall suggest otherwise.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: As I have been invited to say something, may I say that, on the whole, although it is entirely a matter for the noble Lord, I think that he would be well advised to stick to his original draft of the Bill and not to press his amendment.
Lord WADE: I am always impressed by anything that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says. That does not mean that everything he says politically always carries me with him, but on legal matters, as we all know, he is extremely knowledgeable. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. That means that the clause will remain as originally drafted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
4.16 p.m.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Derogating Measures
—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 1 of this Act and subject to subsections (2) and (3) of this section, in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation Her Majesty by Order in Council may take measures derogating from the obligations of the Government of the United Kingdom under the said Convention and Protocols (" derogating measures ").
(2) No derogation from Articles 2 (except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war), 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 of the Convention shall be made under the provisions of this section.
(3) No derogating measures shall have any effect on the obligations of the Government of the United Kingdom under international law.
(4) For the purposes of this Act, a declaration by Her Majesty by Order in Council that there exists for the purposes of any derogating measures a time of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation shall be conclusive.
The noble Lord said: I now come to a new clause. I shall try to explain the facts as briefly as I can. Under Article 15 of the convention there is a power of derogation, as those who have studied this subject will know. Anyone who has not got the terms of the convention available can obtain them quickly from the Printed Paper Office near to the Chamber, because they have copies of the Select Committee Report with the appendix giving the whole of the convention. Anyone who wishes to do so may refer to it, as I take it that most noble Lords here will already have it before them.
In Article 15 of the convention there is a power of derogation in time of war or public emergency threatening the life of the nation. Then it goes on to say that any contracting party—and in this case it would be the United Kingdom Government— may take measures derogating from the obligations under the convention. I give a summary of that clause. I took the view originally that if we incorporated Article 15 we incorporated that power of derogation, and by doing so we did all that was necessary because a Government could rely on the terms of Article 15. But since the Second Reading debate it has been put to me by distinguished lawyers—and in fairness it was already put by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in the Second Reading debate —that to incorporate the convention, and

305
with it Article 15, was not quite enough. Although a Government under these very exceptional circumstances would have the powers under Article 15, and although they would have to observe international law, as is stated in that article, and although the Government would be subject to the provisions set out in that article, nevertheless some individual, when an emergency arose, might go to the court and argue that the circumstances were not such as to constitute an emergency; and possibly a considerable amount of time might be taken up in arguing whether or not there was an emergency, and that would be defeating the object of the Bill including the incorporation of Article 15.
It is very unusual for me, with my enthusiasm for looking after the interests of the freedom of the individual, to put forward a Bill which includes a reference to an Order-in-Council and the taking of certain measures which would be conclusive, but this is an exceptional case. There are others who take the same view, namely that in the exceptional case of a serious emergency it is not enough for the Government of the day to exercise their powers of derogation; they should be entitled to bring in, if they thought fit, an Order-in-Council, and that would have to be treated as conclusive so far as the need was concerned for the measures arising out of the emergency. Of course they would still be subject to the obligations under international law and to the clauses set out in Article 15 of the convention, which I have repeated in the clause here. It simply means that, if these circumstances arose, the Government could bring in an Order-in-Council and that would prevent an individual citizen from questioning the right or justification for the Government of the day declaring and introducing measures necessary because of the emergency. There is a balance of argument both ways and I think this is probably the right course to adopt.
I have a note from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, saying he is sorry not to be able to be here today. I know he intended to be here, and of course I must not quote his views because that would not be right, but I do not think my views would be altered. I suggest to the Committee that it would be reasonable in this particular case to make this exceptional provision.
Lord HALE: I do not have the Green Paper in my mind and I know that the Paper in my hand and I know that the Printed Paper Office is in the immediate vicinity. My reason for not dashing out to read the Green Paper was my fear that this dreadful clause might pass I while was away. I suppose that every child of 14, in the opinion of Macauley at any rate, would know that Bernard Shaw said that the Britons had the Habeas Corpus Act but suspended it on any occasion when it was likely to be of use.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is really anticipating. My fear and apprehension is, in any event, that if this law has the good fortune to get on the statute book it would be a repeal of about 75 other measures, as happened in the last two major wars, producing not merely a complete alteration of our laws in the face of a state of war but a series of laws which have hung on by the skin of their teeth year after year by Government renewals for 12 months, including some of the worst parts of our aliens law, on which I used to speak once a year but apparently without affecting the situation.
I confess that I have not given the clause all the attention it deserves because it was shoved down only yesterday and I got it when I arrived today among other things I had to receive, although I called last night for any amendments to the Bill. It contains a charming reference to a vague state of emergency or state of war either of which might imperil the kingdom and which of course clearly stems from the sacking of a shop steward. One need only read the headlines in the papers to know—Mr. Robinson is a bit of a nuisance perhaps to the company—that the very act of sacking Mr. Robinson could have some consequences, including imperilling the nation or imperilling its future or imperilling its industrial prosperity, and, strangely enough, apparently some sort of plot on the part of the trade union movement. I say quite frankly that I suspect a certain amount of anticipation of events from those who attendeed the Tory Party Conference and were heard on this general issue.
A state of emergency? Is it a strike or anything short of a nuclear war? A nuclear war would almost certainly not leave any courts standing for long or able to function. And there is a separate, perfectly serious point. I was for a brief period

307
a security officer in the last war and we received details of provision for the establishment for some sort of law in occupied areas in the event of an invasion, with the provisional appointment of regional officers who would have powers something like the prospective governor of Rhodesia in odd bits of Britain which would not be accessible to any other method of communication.
To me a clause like this seems capable of being used by a very reactionary Government. I should not like for a moment during this pleasant discussion to express my views as to what is a very reactionary Government or whether we might get one or even whether we have got one. I have some apprehensions for the future about questions of liberty, about questions of freedom of the individual and so on.
The Court of Strasbourg is a court of 21 or 23 nations. I have not looked at its composition for a little time. But I was a member of the committee at Strasbourg which took part in the formulation of these ideas. I remember the passion of my old friend Mr. Golsong, who I know has now moved to an even more distinguished appointment at Strasbourg, for all this, and his desire that it should be built.
I believe that the clause contains elements which are so dreadful in their implications; and after all, even if we do not try to visualise the situation under a nuclear war, with any weapons one has immediately the situation of aliens. One may have to raise the situation of aliens who have obtained nationalisation. In the last war a great deal of discussion was about 18B.
It will be said that other courts may still be created. If so, many of those matters will go in the first instance to the existing courts. But I still say that if you are entering the lists and throwing down your challenge to the Judiciary with this measure in the interests of human rights, it will be sad to come in burdened with anything so antagonistic to human rights as this clause appears to me to be.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: As the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, the question of derogation is dealt with in the
308
convention itself, and therefore in our submission he was very wise to direct attention to it in the Bill. I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating him on the amount of work that he has had to do in relation to the amendments he has proposed, and perhaps this amendment has caused hint the most difficulty. I can well understand how to some extent it went against the grain to propose this amendment, but so far as it goes, we consider that it tackles an important problem, and it is very right that it should do so.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, need worry about his libertarian conscience for having put down this amendment. It seems to me to be a reasonable one for the purposes of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.34 p.m.
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Definitions
For the purposes of this Act—
" Convention " means those Articles of the Convention set out in Part 1 of the Schedule to this Act;
" Protocols " means those Protocols to the Convention set out in Part 2 of the Schedule to this Act;,
" reservations " means those reservations set out in Part 3 of the Schedule to this Act.
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether it would be helpful to the Committee to discuss Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. Amendment No. 7 provides for definitions and Amendment No. 8 is the schedule setting out the definitions. Perhaps I could discuss the two amendments together, but of course they will have to be voted on separately. On the whole question of definitions the point we had to decide was whether we should incorporate the whole of the European Convention, part of which is concerned with procedure; whether there should be petitions, and what a petitioner should do; how he should go to the Commission and eventually to the Human Rights Court; and how the Human Rights Court should be set up.
Much time was given to this question in discussions in the Select Committee and there was a good deal to be said on both

309
sides. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, will correct me if I am in any way wrong in my memory, but one point of view was that it was simpler to incorporate the whole of the convention, including the procedural matters and all the rest of it. One argument in favour of that was that it avoided the necessity of specifying what were rights and liberties and what was procedure. That was one argument. Another argument was that incorporating the freedoms and liberties contained in the European Convention was primarily a matter of concern to any citizens who wished to put forward a complaint and it was not really appropriate to this Bill to incorporate into our law the matters relating to procedure for going to Strasbourg because that was already covered by treaty.
The whole point of the argument about these rights and liberties which citizens might feel were denied them was that a citizen of this country who felt aggrieved should have the right to go to court in this country to express his grievance without having to wait and go through the long process of getting to Strasbourg, and therefore what really mattered were the rights and liberties. On balance, after much discussion both ways, I finally came to the conclusion that the best course would be to attempt to define the rights and liberties about which this Bill was concerned. It is for that reason that in Amendment No. 8 I introduced the definition clause, and in the schedule, which we cannot vote on at the moment, but to which I should like to refer, I have set out a part of the convention that is important and relevant and—turning over the page of the Marshalled List of Amendments—the protocols and the reservations.
I think that I have covered the important points, but rather for the information of the general public than for Members of this House who know it all, I should like to read Article 60, simply because some members of the general public are under the impression that if we pass the Bill, it will override rights and liberties that we already enjoy. That is why I have specifically included Article 60, which reads:
" Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which may be ensured under the laws of any High Contracting Party "—
310
in this case it is the United Kingdom Government—
" or under any other agreement to which it is a Party ".
I am therefore suggesting to the Committee that we should define "convention" "protocols" and "reservations", and that the schedule should provide that, for the purposes of this Bill, the convention will be
"Articles 1 to 18 inclusive and Article 60 ";
that the protocols will be
Articles 1 to 3 inclusive of the (first) protocol ";
and the reservations,
" The reservation made to the (first) protocol (Article 2) by the United Kingdom under Article 64 of the convention ".
I think that covers all the relevant articles, protocols and reservations that are not concerned with procedural matters. I hope I have accurately set out the rights and liberties that matter which concern this Bill.
I think the only additional remark I should make, in case this matter is raised, is this. I acknowledge that this Bill does not attempt to deal with future protocols and future reservations. In the light of the clause of this Bill which makes it clear that we are not attempting to override future Acts of Parliament, it seemed to me right that we should not attempt to include future protocols and future reservations, of which we do not yet know. Therefore, dealing with the present, I hope the Committee will agree that there should be definitions, and that these are the appropriate ones, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
After Clause 4:
Lord WADE Lord WADE moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 4, insert the following schedule:
>Section 5
SCHEDULE
DEFINITIONS
PART 1
CONVENTION
Articles 1 to 18 inclusive and Article 60.
PART 2
PROTOCOLS
Articles 1 to 3 inclusive of the (First) Protocol.
PART 3
RESERVATIONS
The Reservation made to the (First) Protocol (Article 2) by the United Kingdom under Article 64 of the Convention.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

NURSING QUALIFICATIONS (EEC RECOGNITION) ORDER 1979
4.44 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Nursing Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1979, laid before the House on 6th November, be approved. As noble Lords will recall, my noble friend Lord Sandys introduced a draft of this order, which was then debated in this House on 24th July 1979. That draft was in a form appropriate to the circumstances of that time, when, as noble Lords will recall, Her Majesty was absent from the United Kingdom and Counsellors of State were appointed to summon and hold on Her Majesty's behalf her Privy Council, and to signify thereat Her Majesty's approval to instruments such as the present one, Unfortunately, owing to the timing of Parliamentary business immediately before the Summer Recess, it was not possible for the Privy Council, when it met on 26th July, to consider the order, because at that time all the stages of consideration in another place had not been completed. In consequence, the draft has had to be revised and put into what is known as Queen's Form, and I have been advised that before it is put to the Privy Council again the order has to he approved again by resolutions of both Houses.
It is the Government's hope that this order—which, when it was debated in July, commanded the support of the Opposition—can complete its course through both Houses before the Privy Council meets on 19th December. I must apologise to this House for having to ask it to take a second bite at this cherry. I can assure the House, however, that the order is in all other respects the same as the one that was debated in July, and that no substantive change has been made to its provisions. When my noble friend Lord Sandys introduced the order in July he dealt in detail with its provisions. While I should be happy to deal with any point about the background
312
and implications of the order on which noble Lords would like clarification, I think it would he inappropriate to go over the ground which has already been covered. It is all on the record. However, for the benefit of any noble Lords to whom the order may be unfamiliar, I should like to remind the House briefly of its principal purpose.
This order gives effect to two Directives, the first concerned with the mutual recognition of qualifications and right of establishment, the second concerned with the content of the training which leads up to the award of those qualifications which are to he recognised. The aim of these two documents is quite simple: to ensure that nurses responsible for general care—and I must emphasise that we are here speaking only of registered general nurses, not those trained specifically in the care of the mentally ill or mentally handicapped—will in future, throughout the Community, have undergone a comparable form of training, covering the same theoretical subjects and including the same practical experience, so that their training can be recognised by all Member States and they can practise freely in any country of the Community. For the United Kingdom, as I have said, this means relatively minor changes in existing patterns of training. It does however mean that we have to make some equally minor changes in the administrative arrangements which govern the profession.
My Lords, I see the coming into effect of these Directives as an important step for our nurses, in forging closer links with their colleagues in Europe. I hope that they will take advantage of this opportunity, and that nurses from other Member States will come here to see what we have on offer. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th November be approved. —(Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for introducing this instrument relating to EEC regulations concerning nurses' qualifications. As he says, we have covered this ground before—I believe it was some time last July—and there is no need, I think, to say very much at this stage other than that I am very glad, as I am sure other noble Lords will be,

313
to see that, under Section 3B(1) of the Act,
" A national of a member State who applies to be registered in the general part of the register shall be required, on or after registration in that part, to satisfy the Council that he has the necessary knowledge of English, that is, the knowledge which, in the interests of himself and his patients, is necessary to render nursing services in the United Kingdom ".
This is a matter, as I think we are all agreed—and I am thinking of the discussions on this matter that we have had in the past—which is one of supreme importance.
Arising out of that, I note that, in the event of persons being found not qualified by virtue of his lack of understanding of English, they can nevertheless be registered for six months: if, at the end of that period, they have made good the deficiency, then they will be able to start nursing in this country. Once such a nurse has been registered for six months because of inability to speak English, are the Government under an obligation to provide any sort of training in English during that six-month period?
My Lords, there is only one other question. I have been asked to ask the noble Lord the Minister this by the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, who wonders whether all the nurses from the EEC who want to come here and register with a view to serving as nurses in the United Kingdom have to have the exact standards of training of the English nurses. My understanding of the situation is that, if a person is a nurse in one of the EEC countries and is registered as such, then that person would be able to obtain registration in this country without difficulty. Can the noble Lord confirm that?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord's two questions, there is no legal requirement for the authorities here to assist nurses in their learning of the English language. I should expect that they would wish to help but they have no legal requirement to do so. As I explained in my speech, the first Directive facilitates the free movement of what are termed "first-level general nurses" by requiring all Member-States, subject to certain conditions, to recognise defined qualifications. It also gives these nurses the right, provided they are EEC nationals and have been trained in an
314
EEC Member-State, to be established and to render services in any other EEC country. The Order in Council implements this Directive in respect of nurses coming to the United Kingdom. The answer therefore is that qualified nurses, who would come with a certificate regarding their qualifications, character and so on, would be accepted in this country.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GAS HEREDITAMENTS (RATEABLE VALUES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1979
4.52 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Gas Hereditaments (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1979 which was laid before the House on 6th November be approved. This is a technical instrument which is uncontentious and which has been accepted by the Gas Corporation and local authority associations with whom we have consulted. For these reasons I propose to introduce the order only briefly, although I should be happy to answer any questions your Lordships might raise. The purpose of the order is to bring up to date the arrangements by which the total rateable value of the Gas Corporation is distributed among individual local authorities. It does not affect the total liability of the gas industry to rates.
This is an obscure subject and some background explanation might be helpful. The gas industry, in common with several other nationalised industries and public utilities, is rated by statutory formulae. This is because the normal methods of assessing properties for rating—that is, by establishing their annual rental value—are quite inappropriate when dealing with gas mains, compressor stations and the rest of the Gas Corporation's operational property. Offices and showrooms are rated normally, however.
In the case of the gas industry, there are two relevant statutory instruments: the Gas Hereditaments (Rateable Values)

315
Order 1976, and the National Gas Terminals (Rateable Values) Order 1976. The order before us today amends the first of these, and there is a parallel order not requiring Affirmative Resolution which amends the second. The extant orders prescribe a total rateable value of £60 million for all the industry's operational property for a base (1976–77); provide a method of uprating that total rateable value to reflect the changing activitiy of the industry; and, prescribe formulae for the distribution of the total rateable value between rating authorities. Your Lordships may see from the orders that most of these matters are dealt with in one main order and that there is a subsidiary one, made under different powers, which deals only with the distribution of some 4 per cent. of the rateable value to a handful of large natural gas terminals and storage stations, which are identified in the order.
The two orders need revision because the Gas Corporation's investment in its operational property now shows a different balance between types of installations. The distribution of rateable value ought to take account of that change. The distribution formulae which specify these arrangements are now out of date in two respects. First, the existing orders make no provision for the construction of new facilities in Mid-Suffolk and at Avonmouth. Secondly, the relative book values of the different types of property have changed considerably since 1976.
The Secretary of State has therefore made two new orders which amend the distribution formulae to take account of these changes. One of the new orders amends the secondary order of 1976, dealing only with natural gas terminals and storage facilities. It does not require Affirmative Resolution procedure.
My Lords, the other order before us today amends the distribution arrangements for the bulk of operational property. It adds to the relevant substantive order a reference to the new compressor station in mid-Suffolk and it amends the ratios specified in distribution between categories of operational property. The new ratios reflect the relative book values of the categories at 31st March, 1978. This was the latest date for which information was available when the order was drafted. The new formulae will provide for a
316
larger share of the total rateable value to be distributed to areas where investment has taken place in the major facilities of the natural gas transmission system. There will tend to be reductions in the rateable values for other areas, the majority, although they will still have a share of the largest portion of rateable value (65 per cent.) which is distributed in respect of the more general part of the system. I hope your Lordships will agree that the order before us makes necessary amendments to the distributional arrangements and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 6th November be approved.—(Lord Bellwin.)
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, may I compliment the Minister on making the totally incomprehensible slightly more comprehensible; although I would not say that, even with his explanation, it is something that one would want to put to music. It is still a complicated document and the formulae are particularly so. I accept that, up to now, both parties have been in favour of the cumulo system. At the same time, I understand the feeling of the local authorities associations, especially the ACC and the AMA, who feel that it deprives many of their member authorities of rate income to which they feel entitled. This is because the present cumulo varies with the number of firms supplied per mile of trunk main and, where the number of firms does not increase and extra miles of gas main are brought into use, this appears to them to result in a reduction of the cumulo and therefore a reduction in their rate income. With the coming into operation of the mid-Suffolk compressor station here, again, it is felt by many local authorities that the total cumulo should not merely be redistributed but that these new facilities should produce a new rateable value.
I should like also to ask the Minister whether the fear that rural areas will benefit at the expense of urban areas is justified. This is because of the positioning of many gas compressors which are either on the coast or in some form of rural area. Finally, I should like to ask the Minister when there will be another fundamental review of the cumulo so that the imbalance between the cumulo rating system and the common rating system is not further exacerbated.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, regarding the distribution favouring rural at the expense of urban areas, there is no bias towards rural areas. Most of the rural areas, like most of the urban ones, are among the majority of authorities that will see a reduction being made in their gas rateable values. The redistribution is proposed simply to take account of where the Gas Corporation's investment is increasing, and where it is declining. This is a notoriously difficult matter.
To apply rating to the statutory undertaking, and all that surrounds it is of course complex. The last Conservative Government set up a review of the formula rating in 1973 and the Labour Government concluded it. When the last Government established principles for rating the gas industry in 1976 it was expected by the industry and local authorities that amendment would be needed at some time to bring the formulae up to date, and that is what we are discussing today. The Gas Corporation and the local authorities expected the system to last; and, in my view, there is nothing to gain at this time by reopening the fundamental questions just three years after they were settled.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I press him further? Perhaps he will write to me; I do not expect to have an answer now. Regarding the rural areas, it is not a question of the distribution of gas, it is that they are areas which are better recipients of the building of compressors. Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me and give me some idea of the distribution between urban and rural areas of the compressors that have been built. That really is the point—the actual building of the compressors.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I shall be delighted to write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.