Lords Sitting of 3 December 1981

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Buckmaster—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Prisoners of War: Pay Deductions
The Earl of Kimberley: 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 fresh evidence disclosing mistakes of fact and erroneous assumptions in the Working Group's Report (31st October 1980) over the allegations made by prisoners of war that monies deducted from their pay were wrongly handed over to the Treasury, they are now prepared to open an independent inquiry to reconsider the representations of the ex-prisoners.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords. I do not believe that any further inquiry would be useful. The noble Earl and his unofficial committee saw my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, Mr. Geoffrey Pattie, on 12th May 1981 and were informed that the Government did not believe that there was any fresh evidence which justified changing any of the conclusions of the inquiry carried out by my honourable friend and tabled in this House on 31st October 1980.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for a reply which some of the unofficial committee will regard as being very unsatisfactory? In view of the fact that an inquiry will not take place, may I ask him whether he would mind my putting down an Unstarred Question after the Christmas Recess?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, it is not for me to mind or not mind what my noble friend does and arranges with the business managers. I should only like to add that there is no lack of sympathy for ex-prisoners of war, particularly those who may be suffering from ill-health or conditions that may have developed from that; and that my predecessors at the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere have examined all these questions with the greatest sympathy. If my noble friend still wishes to pursue it, that is his decision not mine.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there is still a substantial amount of misgiving in the country at large about the treatment of these ex-prisoners of war? Does he not think it wise in all the circumstances to open up the inquiry to a far greater degree than was possible in the past?
1122
If there is a substantial suggestion of injustice, does the noble Viscount agree that it would be wise to allay that as quickly as possible?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not think a completely definitive answer in the case of every ex-prisoner of war as to the exact justice of the situation 36 years ago is possible. I think all the evidence that exists—contemporary evidence—and all the memories that have been put together have been heard and examined. It was for that reason that I said I could not see how a further inquiry could indeed do what the noble Lord wishes it to do—allay anxiety as to whether there may or may not have been individual cases of injustice 36 years ago.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that, now that the noble Earl has announced that he proposes to put down on the Order Paper an Unstarred Question, and presumably will produce new evidence not yet available to this or the other House, it would be far better not to press the matter further until we have the new evidence?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the fresh evidence to which my noble friend is referring is evidence which he and his unofficial committee submitted to us at the end of 1980 which led finally to the meeting in May 1981. So that has been examined, but I am in the hands of the House, the noble Earl and the business managers. I understand the feeling on the subject; I merely say, as the Minister who has come to this matter most recently, and having read the detail of the background, that I do not think there is any further way forward.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware what actually took place for the people concerned? If I may declare an interest, I was a prisoner for a year. After I escaped, I had 15 months behind the lines before I was able to get back home. When I went to Cox and Kings, who were the agents, as the noble Earl will know, I had to accept what they said I was due to, and there was no evidence given us as to what we should receive. They just said: "Right, you were away for so long. You are paid as a major". So much was deducted—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: How were we to know whether this was correct or not? Can the noble Viscount do something to put our minds at rest and assure us that we were fairly treated?
Noble Lords: Question!
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I can only suggest that the noble Lord reads the report of my honourable friend which was tabled on 31st October which goes into all of those questions, and, so far as is possible, gives the answers.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Kimberley will forgive a question contrary to the tenor of his Question, may I ask my noble friend

1123
the Minister this: Assuming that there have been maladministrations in the past, is he aware that among those of us erstwhile uninvited guests of the Third German Reich there is a very substantial body of opinion which holds the view that it is wholly inappropriate today, in view of the delay of some 35 years, the difficulties attendant upon that delay of due administration and inquiry, and the stringency of the economic situation today, that any consideration should be given to repayment of these claims other than in cases of proven hardship and current need?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that statement of opinion. The economic circumstances have not entered into the Government's decision on this question. I do not think that I can add to my further replies in any other way.
Lord Braye: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us whether all the Japanese ex-prisoners of war have been paid yet?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am not aware of the detailed answer to that question. I will let the noble Lord know.

Namibia: Independence Discussions
3.10 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions have been reached in the discussions on the future independence of Namibia (South West Africa).
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington): My Lords, the five are still discussing their suggestions for constitutional principles as guidelines for the Constituent Assembly with all those concerned. As soon as there is agreement on these, the five will move on to the second phase of confidence-building measures.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while welcoming the hope of independence for Namibia after this long delay, may I ask whether the Minister would not agree that it is unprecedented for the principles of a constitution to be imposed before a self-governing legislature has been elected? Would he not also agree that the purpose is, first, to obtain the security of South Africa, and secondly, through the compensation clauses to safeguard the interests of mineral companies which have been drawing vast profits to the detriment of the Namibian Government economy under an illegal régime?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstands the situation. Nobody is seeking to impose anything on anybody. What the contact group are seeking to do is to get agreement among all the parties concerned on constitutional principles, which will reassure those concerned.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, could the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he has any evidence and, if so, what evidence, that the South African Government are following any different policy from that which resulted in the breakdown of the Geneva talks at the beginning of this year, particularly in view of the fact that they are constantly invading both Mozambique and Angola?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the contact group, and in particular the United States Government, have been in touch with the Government of South Africa over a period of time and all five of us are hopeful that there will be a settlement.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is a little ironical that the South African Government should be supporting principles for the constitution which are aimed at maintaining human rights?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, if all Governments support good principles, that is all to the good.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, since this is rather a complex matter, may I ask a purely factual question of the Foreign Secretary? Can we broadly assume that the five nations, the front-line states and even SWAPO are broadly in accord with those proposals?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the front-line states and SWAPO have commented upon the contact group's proposals and have made one or two comments and suggestions upon them; but, broadly speaking, I do not know whether there would be very much difficulty. The South African Government and the Namibian internal parties have not yet replied.

Consumers and the Nationalised Industries
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 it is their intention to make a statement on the report dealing with the position of consumers and the nationalised industries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we intend to publish a consultative document before Christmas on the options for NICC reform.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am so taken aback by a positive reply that I hardly know what to say? May I, rather unusually perhaps, ask him whether he is aware that I am grateful for the affirmative Answer he has managed to get from the obscurity of the department concerned, but this has taken up to date 14 months? Can he give us the exact date when we shall have the document?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness the precise date for which she asks, but I am happy that she is content with the Answer that I have given, in general terms. I did contemplate teasing the noble Baroness by dragging out my Answer a bit before including the nugget at the end, but I think perhaps I was wise not to do that.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the proposed management audit of the nationalised industries to be undertaken by the Monopolies and Mergers Committee will include some reference to the rights and protection of consumers within the management of these industries?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the report which the noble Baroness has inquired about in her Question relates to the role of consumer councils in respect of the nationalised industries, and therefore does not cover all the wide-ranging matters to which the noble Lord refers.

NORWICH COUNCIL HOUSE SALES
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Bellwin, with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the right to buy: Norwich.

The Christmas Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that, subject to the progress of Business, the House will adjourn for the Christmas Recess on Tuesday, 22nd December, and return on Monday, 18th January.
I should perhaps also tell the House that the sitting on Tuesday, 22nd December, will be for the purpose of Royal Assent and the House will sit at 11 a.m. in the morning.
It has been agreed that the House should also sit at 11 a.m. on the morning of Thursday, 17th December, and there will he no sitting on Friday the 18th or Monday the 21st December.

Antiquities Bill [H.L.]
Lord Abinger: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the better protection of small antiquities found in the ground and elsewhere; to amend treasure trove; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Abinger.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Wages Councils (Abolition) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Spens: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish Wages Councils. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Spens.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I rather feel that it should be accompanied by a Government health warning. There is nothing whatever that I can do to make my speech short, and those who expect to find it of throbbing human interest will, I fear, be wholly disappointed. The road lies uphill all the way. It is a technical Bill. Its principal object is to give effect to the Brussels Convention of 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil disputes (together with the 1971 protocol on its interpretation by the European Court), as amended by the convention of the 9th October 1978 on the accession to the Community of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. This is a treaty obligation which we undertook as a condition of our membership of the Community.
Why then do we simply not treat it like other ratification Bills, and pass it, as it were, on the nod, without amendment and almost without discussion?—principally because it involves a detailed alteration of our internal law and parallel alterations in the law affecting relations between ourselves and other countries with whom we are in contractual relationship, and because our own law is in need of improvement, and this Bill is an appropriate, indeed a necessary, vehicle for the changes proposed. I hope to persuade the House that this is not merely a necessary but a desirable measure, and an important step forward in the reform of our civil code.
I begin with some purely negative propositions. The Bill does not deal, in any way, with criminal law, nor does it deal with divorce or custody, bankruptcy or the winding up of insolvent companies, except that it contains provisions relating to maintenance orders and their enforcement. Its ambit is confined to civil litigation. I hope to make it as plain as it possibly can be made, and I believe that it has no party political flavour whatever.
The Bill will determine who may be sued in our civil courts and, particularly, in what circumstances a person who does not reside in the area of the court may, nevertheless, be sued in it. With the exceptions I have mentioned, it will apply to almost all proceedings brought in the High Court or the county courts in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, and the Court of Session or the sheriff courts in Scotland. At present, these courts, particularly those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—the position in Scotland is somewhat different—will normally assume jurisdiction over anyone on whom their writ or summons may lawfully be served. The difference, if the Bill passes, will be that the jurisdiction of our courts will depend on whether the defendant or the issue involved falls within a class of persons or subject matters laid down in it. In others words, jursidiction will no longer follow automatically from lawful service of process, but will be determined by a series of statutory rules.

1127
The general principles are reasonably straightforward, but I shall have to explain some very technical provisions of practice and procedure. In preparing the contents of the Bill, the Government have benefited from the advice of a working party under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Kerr on many of the questions which are dealt with, and I should like to thank him and his colleagues for their help. In addition, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has also received a comprehensive report on the position in Scotland by a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Maxwell. This was published last year under the title Report of the Scottish Committee on Jurisdiction and Enforcement. I should like to add my own thanks to those of my noble and learned friend to Lord Maxwell and his colleagues.
Our main object is to enable the United Kingdom to give effect to the convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments concluded in 1968 between the original six members of the Community. In addition to a previous protocol, in 1978 this was amended by a further convention providing for the accession of the new members I have mentioned. The accession convention, as I shall call it, was signed on behalf of this country by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, then, of course, the Lord Chancellor. Part I of the Bill, which adopts the amended convention, contains the main provision under this head.
The object of the conventions, taken as a whole, is to make judgments given anywhere within the Community fully effective for their enforcement. This will represent a very valuable step forward. Respect for law in a society depends to no small extent on the existence of effective means of enforcement. While this is particularly so in the sphere of criminal law, it does also apply to civil law. If parties can evade their obligations as contained in the judgments of the courts, the usefulness of the whole process is greatly diminished. So the purpose of the 1968 convention, and of this Bill, is to eliminate one major area of evasion; namely, the removal of a judgment debtor's assets to a country where the judgment does not run with effect.
The problem is not a new one. As long ago as 1801, the Crown Debts Act set up the first scheme for reciprocal enforcement inside the United Kingdom, which is composed of three totally separate jurisdictions, and the system inaugurated by that Act was enlarged and improved throughout the course of the 19th century. In this century, provisions for the same purpose were introduced in Part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1920, concerning the enforcement of judgments in the different parts of His then Majesty's dominions, and in 1933 the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 introduced provisions of the same kind for enforcement arrangements with foreign countries. Under the 1933 Act, arrangements have been made with all the six original Community members, except Luxembourg.
What is new about the 1968 convention is that the enforcement of a judgment delivered in another country is made, as nearly as possible, automatic. Hitherto, a condition has always been placed on the party desiring to enforce a judgment to demonstrate
1128
that the court which gave the judgment had assumed jurisdiction on a proper basis. The courts of the country where enforcement is requested have had a duty to refuse enforcement, unless the original court assumed jurisdiction on one of a number of recognised grounds. In the 1933 Act, which is, perhaps, the most important, the main grounds were either submission by the defendant to the jurisdiction in question in the original proceedings, or the residence of the defendant in the country where they were brought.
These grounds represent a lowest common denominator. With minor variations, they are applied virtually to all countries. But in most, including the United Kingdom, the courts also assume jurisdiction on additional grounds. In England, these additional grounds are set out in Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. They include, for example, cases where a defendant is sued for breach of a contract allegedly broken in England and Wales, or for a tort allegedly committed in England and Wales. In such cases, a judgment obtained here would probably not be enforceable elsewhere. In these cases, such judgments are known in the jargon of the trade as "limping" judgments. To some extent, the problem could be met by enlarging the grounds of jurisdiction which qualify for recognition. But whichever way these are defined, they still entail proof of the basis on which the original court assumed jurisdiction and provide plenty of room for endless dispute.
The novelty of the 1968 convention is that it regulates directly the grounds on which the courts of adherent countries may assume jurisdiction and then goes on to provide that all such judgments are enforceable. The grounds are spelt out in Title II of the convention—I think at page 36 and following of the the Bill—and in cases to which that title applies the court before which proceedings are brought may assume jurisdiction on those grounds, and on those grounds alone. Since the courts are required to entertain only proper cases, generally speaking, there is thus no need for re-examination at the stage of enforcement and, subject only to a few exceptions, this is accordingly dispensed with.
This approach has a second and most important additional advantage. It reduces the scope for what is called "forum shopping". In other words, a would-be plaintiff is less likely to be able to shop around for the court whose law and procedure is most favourable to his own particular case. Consequently, defendants will be less open to proceedings in other Community countries with which neither they nor the dispute have any real connection.
The grounds of jurisdiction listed in Title II are very much wider than the grounds which are recognised in our previous reciprocal arrangements, and they go far beyond the lowest common denominator which I have described. They reformulate the most important basis of jurisdiction to be applied in member states. The main ground is that the defendant should be domiciled—and I use the word—in the member state where the proceedings are brought. But the word "domicile" has in this Bill and in the convention a meaning which differs from its ordinary significance to English lawyers. Broadly speaking, it means continuously residing. I will return to this point later. But there are also a number of other grounds given,

1129
including one upon which I have just touched; namely submission by the parties to the jurisdiction of a particular national court.
Settling the list has, of course, involved some give and take on all sides, but it has been found possible to retain most of the jurisdictions exercised in each country. Although we have largely had to accept what the six had settled before we joined the Community, our existing jurisdictions are mostly preserved without major change. To avoid differences of interpretation, in 1971 a protocol was signed—it is at page 61 of the Bill—under which national courts of appeal may seek preliminary rulings from Luxembourg on any point of interpretation.
I hope that this brief introduction has been sufficient to explain why the original six member states regarded the 1968 convention as being of such importance that in Article 63, to be found on page 58 of the Bill, they agreed that any state joining the Community will be required to accept the convention as a basis for negotiations on this subject, and why in the treaty providing for the accession of the new members, each state undertook, including ourselves, subject to necessary adjustment, to accede to the 1968 convention and to the protocol on interpretion. It will also explain why the adjustments which have been necessary to take account of the interests of the three new members have taken a good deal of time to negotiate. Negotiations had started as early as 1972 and continued until 1978. In 1977, a draft convention containing the adjustments—called in the Bill the accession convention—was laid before Parliament. The Select Committee of this House on European Legislation made a valuable report upon it, including certain recommendations for further changes. These were subsequently given effect. The revised convention was signed on 9th October 1978 by representatives of all nine contracting states, including the United Kingdom.
Before the accession convention can come into force for any new member it must be ratified by all the original six and by the new member concerned. Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have already deposited their instruments of ratification and I understand that progress in other states is well advanced. This Bill will give the provisions of the conventions the force of law in this country, so that we too shall be in a position to ratify.
The convention itself does not deal with every question of jurisdiction and enforcement. For the most part it is concerned with allocating jurisdiction between courts of different contracting states and with the enforcement of judgments between them. It does not, for instance, apply to proceedings as between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Where a defendant is domiciled in the United Kingdom, it will be for the law of the United Kingdom, as amended, to determine whether he should be sued in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. It would of course be possible in such proceedings to leave in force the existing rules of each part of the United Kingdom which govern these matters at present. But this would complicate matters unnecessarily. It would mean for example that proceedings could be brought in England against a Scottish defendant by service of process under Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, whereas against a French defendant they would have to be
1130
brought under the convention. To maintain different sets of rules in these circumstances would thus unnecessarily complicate procedures. Part II of the Bill therefore unifies the rules allocating jurisdiction between the courts of the three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. The new rules are based on those in the convention, but there are some modifications which take account of the difference in the conditions of litigation within the various parts of our country. After all, it would be easier to ask the English plaintiff in the example I have just given to bring his action in the Scottish rather than in the French courts. So the new rules introduced by Part II are in some ways more flexible than those of the convention. They are set out in Schedule 4.
Part II does not affect the functions attributed to particular courts in each part of the United Kingdom. Laws which determine which proceedings are to be brought in the High Court and which in the county court, or in which particular county court, are not affected by the Bill. Furthermore, neither Part I which concerns the Community nor Part II which, as I have said, covers proceedings within the United Kingdom, affect proceedings against a defendant domiciled outside the Community. In accordance with the advice we have received from our English consultations, to which I have referred earlier, we do not propose to make any major changes in England for such proceedings. The Scots, however, view this aspect differently. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will probably wish to give a little more detail about the Scottish approach to these matters later, but in a nutshell the present rules governing jurisdiction in Scotland are already sufficiently close to the convention to make it possible with some modifications to give the convention rules general effect. Part III is confined to Scotland and therefore introduces a new code of jurisdiction for the Scottish courts governing most civil proceedings. This is set out in Section 19 and Schedule 7 on page 80. In England and Northern Ireland the same approach has not been adopted. Although in substance the effect of the convention rules will not be very different from the present ones, they are presented in a different form and the balance of advantage lies in retaining the system to which practitioners are used and which has been worked out by our courts in some detail. So in England and Northern Ireland the present rules will in general be retained, both for cases arising wholly within the jurisdiction and also for cases where a non-Community defendant is concerned. In these cases, Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court will still apply.
So far I have been talking mainly about jurisdiction. Now I come to enforcement. Broadly speaking, any civil judgment given by a court in proceedings to which the convention applies is to be recognised and enforced in all the other contracting states. It does not matter who is the defendant. A judgment obtained here against a defendant who happens to be domiciled outside the Community to which the jurisdictional rules do not apply is none the less to be enforced within the Community. But the convention only provides for reciprocal enforcement in another contracting state. It does not govern enforcement of judgments obtained within the same contracting state

1131
and does not regulate the enforcement of judgments obtained in countries outside the Community. In respect of judgments internal to the United Kingdom we have again a choice between having different systems for Community judgments and for others or assimilating the totality.
The Bill proceeds on the assumption that the machinery for enforcing judgments as between different parts of the United Kingdom should certainly not be less effective and, where possible, should be more effective than the machinery for the enforcement of judgments given in another contracting state. As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of statutory provisions developed during the course of the last century which already contain procedures for this, and in some respects these are still superior even to the convention rules. Within a single state, of course, this is not really very surprising. But other aspects of the present procedures have become rather outdated and Part II replaces them with the new machinery. One of the changes made is that while formerly the provisions only applied to judgments for the payment of a sum of money, it will not be possible to obtain the enforcement of judgments providing other forms of relief. The new procedures for money judgments are set out in Schedule 5—page 74 of the Bill—and those for non-money judgments are set out in Schedule 6, page 77 of the Bill, both stemming from Section 17. The Bill is not concerned, however, with methods of enforcement within the same part of the United Kingdom. As I said a moment ago, the convention does not affect judgments given in countries outside the Community. We do not propose to make any comprehensive changes in the law governing this but a few badly needed improvements are being introduced, including some amendments to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.
May I now summarise some of the most important provisions which I have been describing. Part I makes provision to bring the conventions into effect. The main provision is Clause 2, by which the conventions are given the force of law throughout the United Kingdom. Following this there are a number of ancillary provisions. Clause 3 concerns the interpretation of the conventions. Noble Lords will see a rather remarkable reference to reports by Monsieur Jenard and Professor Schlosser. This is a most unusual provision in English law. But reports of this nature are now a common feature of international treaties. The only analogy which I can think of offhand in English law is the Highway Code and codes of that nature. The negotiating committee for international treaties often appoints one of its number or an outside expert, who is called a rapporteur, to write an explanatory commentary. The report is not formally agreed by the participating states but can be taken to be authoritative for most purposes. So here, M. Jenard wrote the reports on the 1968 convention and the interpretation protocol, while Professor Schlosser wrote the one on the accession convention. Clause 3(3) makes these admissible in legal proceedings in this country, though not binding. Clauses 4 to 8 contain provisions detailing the effect to he given in this country to judgments from other contracting states. In large measure they follow the 1933 Act and, so far as
1132
maintenance is concerned, the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972.
Clauses 9 to 15 contain various other ancillary provisions. Clause 9 concerns the relationship between the 1968 convention and other conventions containing provisions for jurisdiction or the recognition and enforcement of judgments—and there are a growing number of these. The main ones are listed at the very end of Professor Schlosser's report. Some are exclusively concerned with jurisdiction or the enforcement of judgments. For example, the 1952 Brussels Convention on the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships lays down detailed rules governing the cases in which jurisdiction may be assumed by an action in rem against a ship. Others create a more comprehensive régime governing substantive liability as well. For example, the 1960 Paris convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy creates a special régime in that field. By Article 57 of the 1968 convention which can be found on page 56 of the Bill, the provisions of these conventions on jurisdiction and enforcement override its own provisions. The United Kingdom is a party to a number of them, including the two which I have mentioned. The legislation by which they are implemented in this country usually contains a number of ancillary provisions. Clause 9(1) preserves their effect.
Part II deals with jurisdiction and enforcement within the United Kingdom. Clause 16 introduces Schedule 4, which provides the uniform rules allocating civil jurisdiction inside the United Kingdom. That schedule is a modified version of Title II of the convention, and the modifications are clearly indicated in print. The most significant modification is the omission of Section 3, dealing with jurisdiction in insurance matters. Section 3 contains a number of special rules for the protection of insurance policyholders. In the convention context, no doubt these are of value but, within the United Kingdom, the degree of protection achieved is not sufficient to warrant their retention. Section 8, which deals with conflicts of jurisdiction, is also omitted. This is based on the principle that, where proceedings concerning the same matter are brought in the courts of two or more contracting states under the convention those brought first have precedence and other proceedings should automatically be stayed. As a rule of thumb, this mechanism appears satisfactory, but within the United Kingdom our courts have adopted a more sophisticated approach, which consists of assuming or yielding jurisdiction according to the court which is considered the most suitable for disposing of the particular case. This rule, sometimes referred to as forum non conveniens, will be preserved by the Bill in Clause 45.
Clause 17 introduces the provisions governing the enforcement of judgments within the United Kingdom. It introduces Schedule 5, which concerns money judgments, and Schedule 6 concerning non-money judgments. Apart from covering non-money judgments, the only change from the existing law worth mentioning is that, whereas previously judgments of the inferior courts of one part of the United Kingdom were generally enforceable in another only through registration in another inferior court, from now on all judgments will be registered in the superior courts.

1133
This accords with the new convention, and follows the practice already adopted for Commonwealth and foreign judgments. It will ensure a greater concentration of expertise.
As I have said, Part III introduces the new code for Scotland. This is contained in Schedule 7 and is generally modelled on Title II of the 1968 convention, but it preserves a number of existing grounds of jurisdiction in Scotland where these depart significantly from the convention rules.
Part IV is entitled Miscellaneous Provisions. They concern mainly those areas of jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments which extend beyond the scope of the convention and Parts II and III. I will not mention all of them, but I will mention one or two. For example, Clauses 23 to 25 create new powers for the superior courts in the United Kingdom to grant interim relief in any case where the proceedings are being conducted in another country. This reverses the decision in the case called The Siskina, to which I was a party in exercising the appellate jurisdiction of this House. In The Siskina, this House held that at that time the English courts had no jurisdiction to do what I have described, owing to the inapplicability to that situation of Order 11. However, in Article 24, the 1968 convention expressly contemplates that the courts may do so, and these provisions contain the necessary powers. They will for example enable the High Court or the Court of Session in Scotland to restrain the disposal of assets in this country belonging to a defendant to proceedings in a court of another part of the Community where those assets might be made the subject matter of the proceedings or might be available to satisfy the judgment of that court. This corresponds to a well-known continental doctrine with the auspicious name of saisie conservatoire. The same power is given in relation to proceedings in another part of the United Kingdom and it may also be extended by Order in Council to proceedings in a country outside the European Community or to arbitration proceedings.
Further down, Clause 32 reverses the law of England and Wales and Northern Ireland as stated by the Court of Appeal in a case called Henry v. Geoprosco, decided in 1976, on which my predecessor received representations from the two branches of the legal profession. As I mentioned earlier, one of the grounds on which the jurisdiction of a foreign court will be recognised for the purposes of enforcement here is that the parties submitted to the jurisdiction. But of course the question then arises as to what is submission to the jurisdiction and, as stated in Henry v. Geoprosco, the law stretches the idea of implied submission too far. In that case it was held that a defendant who appeared in a foreign court to argue that that court should not entertain the case should, if the contention were rejected, be treated as having submitted to the jurisdiction. Clause 32 will now prevent this.
I should also mention Clause 33 and Schedule 9. This makes amendments to the 1933 Act, which, as the House will recall, enables arrangements on enforcement of judgments to be made with individual foreign countries. The main effect will be to allow those arrangements to cover judgments of any courts or tribunals in the foreign country, whereas at present the Act only applies to superior courts. The increase
1134
in the monetary limits of our own county courts and the increasing need for the enforcement abroad of these make it important that we should be able to make arrangements covering those judgments.
Finally, Part V contains supplementary and general provisions. The most important are contained in Clauses 38 and 39 concerning the domicile of individuals and corporations. Domicile is really the key concept of the 1968 convention, because it determines first whether or not the convention applies to any proceedings at all on the ground that the defendant is domiciled in the Community, and secondly whether the defendant can be sued in a particular contracting state because he is domiciled there. It also determines whether Part II applies and therefore in which part of the United Kingdom a defendant may he sued. Under Part III, it determines whether the defendant can be sued in a particular court in Scotland.
So I conclude with some brief exposition of the specialised meaning to be attached to this expression "domicile" for the purposes of the Bill. It is a direct borrowing from the French expression "domicile". In French it has a weaker meaning than it has hitherto been thought to have here. In English law, domicile has hitherto meant residence in a country combined with an intention to continue to reside there permanently, or at least indefinitely. In continental countries it means something more like what we should regard as ordinary residence; that is, residence which is not purely temporary or fleeting. The convention does not itself define the concept, but leaves it to national law, subject to some rules as to which national law is to be applied. But this was done on the basis that in all the original six the expression meant more or less the same thing.
Therefore, for us the continental meaning is adopted expressly for the purpose of the Bill. It would in fact be contrary to our interests as well as our obligations to adopt any other course, because it would mean that many defendants ordinarily resident here could not be sued here. For many people ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom do not have a British domicile of origin or the requisite intention to make the United Kingdom their permanent home so as to give them a United Kingdom domicile of choice. This also applies to companies. Our meaning of the domicile of corporations is restricted to the country where the company is incorporated. This is too narrow. All this is achieved by the new definition for the purposes of the convention contained in Clauses 38 and 39. Under these clauses an individual will be domiciled in the United Kingdom if he is resident in the United Kingdom and his residence is of such a kind as to show that he has a substantial connection with this country, and a corporation will be domiciled in the United Kingdom if it is incorporated in this country or if its central management and control are exercised here.
I am happy to say it is time to stop. although there are some other clauses on which I have not commented. But I hope that they will now fit readily into place. I will simply conclude by offering some remarks on the European dimension of this Bill. As a practical matter it is obviously inspired by the increased commercial and social mobility which has followed the creation of the Common Market and the special

1135
problems of law enforcement following that. This phenomenon is not likely to recede, whether as between the member states or in any other context. Already in 1968 the Scottish Law Commission issued a consultative memorandum in which they examined the operation of the present machinery for the enforcement of judgments within the United Kingdom. More recently, the Commonwealth Law Ministers have considered possible revisions of the Administration of Justice Act 1920 to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks. In the mid-1960s The Hague Conference on Private International Law considered the question on a wider basis. So it is not a problem unique to the European Community but its practical importance in that context is undoubtedly greater. Secondly, the Convention represents a measure of law reform in this particular field which will undoubtedly influence others. In particular there are two further conventions pending between member states, one concerning the proper law of contracts and another concerning bankruptcy. Conventions of this kind present obvious problems in reconciling different approaches, legal concepts and differing technical expressions. The 1968 convention created some special difficulties for us because we were not in on the ground floor when the Community came first into being. But I do not think that we have suffered as a result.
In the negotiations for accession, our Community partners were very understanding and we have obtained very significant changes. In other respects our position on the 1968 convention has been considerably easier than it might be in other fields. This is because, as I have explained, the question of enforcing judgments across frontiers has already a considerable history. In particular there was the 1933 Act drafted against a background not unlike that underlying this Bill. There was then no multilateral convention but there were bilateral conventions with Belgium, France and Germany which the Act enabled us to ratify. For this reason most of the concepts in the 1968 convention will be recognisable to any one in this country familiar with this branch of law, despite, or even perhaps because of, the technical nature of some of its provisions.
So I believe that the 1968 convention has come at a very opportune moment for us. It is a far-sighted measure. I hope that this Bill maximises its potential, both by giving it effect in this country, and by using it as a vehicle for rationalisation of other aspects of this branch of the law.
My Lords, after my due warning, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Norwich Council House Sales
3.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): 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 Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make
1136
a Statement about the right to buy under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1980, which came into force as long ago as 3rd October 1980.
"I have today sent a notice to Norwich City Council that I intend to use my powers under Section 23 of the Act to intervene to assist secure tenants of the council to exercise their right to buy their homes. I have taken this very serious step with the greatest reluctance and only after prolonged correspondence and discussions with the council over many months.
"Complaints about delays and difficulties from individual Norwich tenants began to reach my department in February of this year. Accordingly, in April the council was formally asked for information on their past and expected future progress in dealing with right to buy cases.
"Since May, as well as extensive correspondence, there have been three separate meetings with the council—one at official level, one with my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and one with myself. During this period complaints have continued to come in from tenants about delays and difficulties in exercising their right to buy. It appears that tenants currently have to wait a very long time, of the order of a year, before they receive a Section 10 offer notice and delays can occur thereafter before completion is achieved. On 28th July a formal warning was sent to the city council that I was contemplating using my powers of intervention under Section 23 of the Act. Following the meeting with me on 5th November the city council forecast that outstanding valuations (which are required before Section 10 notices can be issued) should be completed by June 1982 but with the possible exception of some cases which they identified as difficult. 101 cases were referred to at the November meeting as difficult.
"At the end of October the city council had admitted the right to buy in only 884 cases, a smaller number of cases than in many authorities, but still had 652 offer notices to send out. Notwithstanding adjustments which have been made to the monthly rate of issuing Section 10 "offer" notices and the revision of some of their procedures, the city council's performance to date in issuing Section 10 notices is among the worst of all authorities whose progress has been taken up by my department. Moreover, their projected future performance on which they have declined to give any assurance of further improvement appears to me worse than that of any other authority who have been given formal warning that I am contemplating using my powers under Section 23.
"Having considered matters very carefully it appears to me, whether I have regard to Nowrich alone or Norwich in comparison with other authorities, that secure tenants of Norwich City Council have or may have difficulty in exercising their right to buy effectively and expeditiously and I have accordingly sent them a notice of intervention."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that is being made in

1137
another place. It does fill me with a sort of amazement. First of all, I wonder, and may I ask the noble Lord, why pick on Norwich, when the figures which were last produced in another place in answer to a Parliamentary Question showed that many authorities had not sold any houses whatsoever; there were 57 Tory authorities, and 21 authorities had not provided any returns at all, and yet in the Secretary of State's Statement he says that the city council's performance to date is among the worst of all authorities. I think that that was probably carefully phrased because it certainly is not the worst of all authorities.
It seems to me extremely strange—and I do not know whether the Minister can shed further light on this—that Norwich should be picked out, unless it is because they have perhaps been more robust in their verbal protests about what has been going on and about the sale of houses. After many months of negotiation, which is pointed out in the Statement, and many meetings between Ministers and the council, it would seem that the gap between what the Minister has asked for, which is mid-February, and the date that the council has firmly offered, which is June, is really only four months. Would it not seem strange to bring this enormous sledgehammer to bear for such a short gap of time?
Incidentally, I understand that the offer notes are now higher, seven times higher, than they were earlier, and that in fact 90 offer notes under Section 10 were made in November, last month. I should like to ask the Minister why on earth there is all this fuss when the council has a national reputation as an outstanding housing authority. I understand that the council intend—if the Statement this afternoon turned out in the way in which they rather guessed it would turn out—taking out an injunction. The Minister will no doubt say, "So be it". But I thought that he should know that the whole matter is not yet finished.
During these times and at this particular time of local authority cuts with the enormous pressure on local authorities to cut down staff in view of the policy which the Government are pursuing, it seems to me that the staff have responded very substantially in speeding up the process. This affects authorities all over the country as is indicated in the figures and many others with which I shall not take up the time of the House but which one could quote.
At present we are in a period when rents will go up, which will in itself put more pressure on staff in local authorities; mortgage rates are higher than ever before; and one-eighth of the unemployed are in the building industries. It seems to me very wrong, whether or not councils agree with the right to sell, to expect them to be able expeditiously to carry out legislation in a period which is absolutely against them financially and as far as personnel is concerned. When there are tremendous problems at hand with waiting lists longer than ever before, 1·2 million, and with house-building almost at a standstill, it seems to me that the time of the House and the time of the Government is wasted on something like that which we have heard this afternoon.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the use of the words by the Secretary of State, "This very serious step", is entirely justified?
1138
—because it is setting a precedent under a particular provision of the Act, for direct interference in local government, a precedent which can be followed in the future by other Governments. Is this step justified? When the Secretary of State refers in his Statement to this authority being "among the worst", can the Minister say among how many he is talking about? Also, would he not agree that, from the figures that he has given in his Statement, the Section 10 notices will all have been sent out under the present provisions by June next year—that is, within seven months from today? Therefore, is this drastic measure really justified by the circumstances?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I shall not make any observations on the political point which the noble Baroness made about housing generally. We are here today dealing with this particular Statement. The noble Baroness has said that there is only four months in it and she quoted some figures to illustrate that the issuing of notices had gone up to 60 a month. The fact is that since September when Norwich agreed to increase their rate of issue of Section 10 notices from 30 a month to 60 a month, they have made no more than marginal adjustments to their projected timetable. To put that figure of 60 per month into context, let me point out that one Labour controlled authority, a metropolitan district, issued over 1,100 Section 10 notices in October alone—more than Norwich's total case load. It is not a question of "Why pick on Norwich?".
In reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, about "among the worst", let me repeat that part of the Statement which is very relevant to the point that he made where it says:
"Their"—
that is Norwich's—
"projected future performance on which they have declined to give any assurance of further improvement appears to me worse than that of any other authority who have been given formal warning that I am contemplating using my powers under Section 23".
It is a serious step. It is not something upon which the Government have embarked quickly, lightly or without careful consideration and the maximum amount of reasonable discussion and consultation with the authority. I think that I must leave it at that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us will feel that the only criticism which could be directed against his right honourable friend on this matter is an excess of patience with an obviously recalcitrant and obstructive authority? Can he give an assurance that in the other cases to which the noble Baroness opposite invited his attention his right honourable friend will take similar resolute action if it is necessary to ensure that council tenants secure the rights which Parliament intends them to have?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I certainly do assure him and the House that there are many other cases that the Government are watching and discussing carefully and have been and will continue to do so. If any of your Lordships has any specific other cases which you

1139
would wish to draw to our attention or any authorities that you would wish to raise with us, we would be only too glad to hear of them.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that from this Bench we shall always uphold the law, whether we agree with the law or not? But in this case is he absolutely sure that the delay was unavoidable, that the local authority had not the ability or the staff to act more quickly?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, all I can say is that so many other authorities have not found it impossible to act within the time limits. I think that that is really the relevant answer.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could answer one of the other points that I raised. He will have the figures, or I imagine he does. What has happened to the 91 authorities—57 of them Tory and 34 Labour—where there have been no sales and there were no returns, and the 23 authorities which have not provided any returns at all, including authorities like Hillingdon, Brighton, Luton, Sevenoaks, Cheltenham, Blackpool and Thanet, all but two of which are Tory authorities? What action has been taken against any of those authorities? As the noble Lord did not query the figures I assume that he accepts them.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Baroness, perhaps more than most of your Lordships, would have known that many such authorities have been selling council houses for a long time now. They did not wait for right to buy procedures to compel them so to do and they are continuing to do so. They, of course, do not come within this because I understand that in one case, which the noble Baroness has mentioned, they have sold 89 per cent. against all requests that they have received. So today my concern is not to go into the detail of other authorities. I repeat: if the noble Baroness has any particular one she wishes me to take up I shall be glad to do so and to come back to her when she does so.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, could the Minister ask his right honourable friend to update the figures so that the other place and we have the opportunity to see them? When we are having to work from figures which, as I pointed out, were given up to the end of June, although the Parliamentary Question was last month, it is extremely difficult for us to get the facts right.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I shall certainly be glad to do anything I can to ensure that the noble Baroness has any statistics and information that we have. They will be fully available to her.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, your Lordships' House is greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, not only for the summary that he has just given of the history of the events leading to the presentation of this important and, even to the initiated, complex piece of legislation, but also for the masterly patience and clarity with which he has explained its provisions. If I may say so, he has climbed his verbal mountain with his customary elegance and courage.
This is not just a lawyers' Bill, although it would be true to say that it probably introduces the most important new chapter of community law into the United Kingdom since the European Communities Act 1972. It is of immense importance and relevance to all those concerned with international trade and, among others, to the consumer public, to the insurance world and to those burdened with, or entitled to the benefit of, maintenance payment orders in matrimonial proceedings. It affects our law in every part of the United Kingdom.
As has been pointed out, our obligation is clear under Article 3(2) of the Accession Treaty when we joined the EEC. We undertook—as did Denmark and Ireland who, with us, were the new members—that we would accede to the 1968 Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters entered into by the original Six members, and the protocol of June 1971 on its interpretation by the Court of Justice, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred.
However, we were entitled to negotiate with the original member states with a view to procuring agreement to amendments to the original convention. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, this convention goes much further than merely providing for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments. It provides for a substantial unification of the grounds on which courts of member states may exercise civil or commercial jurisdiction and for mandatory rules governing such jurisdiction. Indeed, when the court of one member state is asked to enforce the judgment of a court of another member state it may not—save in very limited circumstances—re-examine the jurisdiction of the original court. This opens up a very new chapter in EEC law and, indeed, is a very new chapter in our own law.
It is not surprising, therefore, that some misgivings were expressed in another place when the provisions of the original convention were debated on 27th February 1978, with Parliament having the benefit of the Thirty-second Report of the Select Committee on European Legislation and the Forty-fifth Report of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Community. Suffice it to say now that by far the most important amendments—and they were very important amendments—which were recommended at that time were successfully and skilfully negotiated on behalf of the previous Government who were given full support by the then Opposition before my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones—who would have wished to be present in the House at this moment but is sitting on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and hopes to be here later—signed the Accession Convention on which the Bill now before

1141
the House is based. He was then able to say, if I may quote him in his absence, at the close of his address, which was made not only on behalf of the United Kingdom but also on behalf of the other two new member states:
"I believe that the Accession Convention is not only the gateway for bringing the new member States into the system. It also brings about a genuine and substantial improvement of the original Convention of 1968 and we welcome it".
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, it is right that we should pay a tribute to those responsible for these negotiations in the last Administration; to the Kilbrandon Committee, to the interdepartmental working party under Lord Justice Kerr, and to Lord Maxwell who advised the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate respectively on these matters. I ought to add, if I may, that the advisory working party included representatives of the Joint Bar-Law Society Working Party, and I know what a useful part those representatives played.
Turning to the Bill now before us based on that Accession Convention and incorporating, as has been said, the important amendments to the original 1968 convention, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to give it a general welcome. I would also wish to raise with the Government some general matters with which it may be convenient to deal at this stage, in the hope that it may facilitate some of the remaining stages of the Bill. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said so clearly, in general terms, jurisdiction in this Bill is based on what is termed "domicile". It is a term which has many meanings in many parts of the world. In the United States of America there are varying rates of duty from state to state and the question of what state is entitled to estate duty, for example, depends on domicile. Therefore, I understand that this question of domicile provides a very welcome contribution to the livelihood of my American legal colleagues.
Indeed, I note that the present Solicitor-General, when speaking in another place in the debate of February 1978—to which I have already referred—recalled a lecture at Columbia University entitled, "Death and taxes are certain, but what of domicile? "In our law, the domicile is based on a fixed and settled intention to remain. Domicile in French law, for its part—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to this—depends on the principal residence at the time in question.
Domicile in the context of this convention and this Bill is to be determined in accordance with the law of the member state. The Solicitor-General at that time, Mr. Peter Archer, said in another place in this debate on 27th February 1978, at column 198 of the Official Report:
"the Convention leaves the definition of "domicile" to domestic jurisdiction. It would obviously make sense that there should be no serious inconsistencies between the various definitions of domicile, and it may be—I say no more than this, and I am not attempting to drop any broad hint—that, if we were so minded to legislate on the concept of domicile in English domestic law for this purpose, it might be a sensible time to look at it for other purposes as well so that we do not have one basis of domicile for one purpose and a totally different basis for another. But that is something that we shall all have ample opportunity to consider when the question arises".
The question now arises. If one looks at Clause 38 of Part V of the Bill, one finds the definition of
1142
"domicile" for the purposes of this Bill, and this will be the "internal law" or "the law of the contracting state" applied under Article 52 of the convention. "Domicile" for purposes of deciding whether or not an individual is domiciled in the United Kingdom, or a particular part of the United Kingdom, in this Bill is governed, as the noble and learned Lord said, by residence in the United Kingdom, or in that part of the United Kingdom, and there is an additional factor. It is that the nature and circumstances of his residence indicate that he has a substantial connection with the United Kingdom or that part of the United Kingdom. So we have yet another enactment dealing with domicile, residence, and kindred matters apart from tax legislation and other legislation, and apart indeed from the recent British Nationality Act. Your Lordships will recall the interesting discussions at all stages of that Bill in your Lordships' House on these aspects of residence and connections with the United Kingdom.
This Bill provides that, unless the contrary be proved, the individual will be deemed to have a substantial connection with the United Kingdom, if there has been residence for the last three months or more. That is a very special definition of "substantial" connection with this country". Again one bears in mind the discussions which took place so recently in your Lordships' House on the British Nationality Bill as to what constitutes a substantial connection with this country under that enactment.
While appreciating to the full that the grant of nationality, and taxation liability, and the grant of civil jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments by no means embrace the same principles or factors, what I, as a lawyer, do lament is the manner in which we are proliferating in different legislation vastly different interpretations of what we mean in law by "residence", or "ordinary residence", or "domicile", or "substantial connection with this country". We are in danger of reaching, and indeed may already have reached, the stage where our law in regard to these matters is a morass. I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, when he speaks later, to say whether he has some sympathy with my lament, and whether he has any sympathy with the views expressed by the then Solicitor-General in the last Parliament on this subject, which I have just quoted. If he has that sympathy, is there anything which the Government intend to do by way of legislation to try to bring some sort of cohesion into these concepts in our law?
Reference has been made to Clause 3 of the Bill, and I should like to underline the importance of it. It is certainly, I believe, innovatory. Apart from requiring the convention to be interpreted in accordance with the principles and jurisprudence of a European court, it allows in subsection (3) the reports on the convention by Mr. Jenard and Professor Schlosser to be considered by the European Court in ascertaining their meaning. Those reports go in some detail into the reasons for various provisions in the convention. On this occasion, because of the merit and reliability of the reports, this is no doubt quite acceptable. We must, I would suggest, be watchful, however, if this becomes a precedent, to see that further reports, future reports, which are allowed to have such a direct effect on interpretations which the European Court may give and by which our

1143
courts will be bound, are of similar merit and reliability before they are given this important role.
Clause 31 is causing a little concern at the moment in the legal profession. It abrogates the rule of English law which enables the party who has obtained a foreign judgment in his favour which is entitled to recognition, to bring fresh proceedings here on the original cause of action instead of applying to enforce the foreign judgment. That anxiety will be relieved if we can be told that it is intended to amend the rules of our courts to authorise service out of the jurisdiction in order to enforce a foreign judgment if there are assets of the judgment debtor in this country. May I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate if such a change in the rules is intended?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to Clause 33, which introduces Schedule 9. That schedule contains amendments to the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. The main purpose of those amendments is to enable by order Part I of that Act to be applied to judgments of other courts and tribunals as well as judgments of superior courts. Now that the county court jurisdiction, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor so clearly pointed out, covers quite substantial cases, it is becoming increasingly unsatisfactory that our 1933 Act, by contrast with the EEC convention, is so limited. May I take it that the Bar Council and the Law Society will be consulted about any proposals to make orders under Schedule 9 to this Bill?
Finally, I would wish to make a point about the commencement provisions of our legislation in general, but particularly in regard to legislation such as this, which is changing our law in a complex and fundamental way, and indeed is introducing entirely new laws. It is vital that practitioners and others should have a proper opportunity of seeing what the new law is and what are its implications before it becomes effective. The commencement provisions in Schedule 12 to this Bill would bring a number of provisions into force on Royal Assent. In my view it is quite wrong in principle—and certainly this is the opinion of my own professional body, the Law Society—that provisions should be brought into force even before copies of the relevant statute are, for practical purposes, available to the public. I accordingly suggest as a personal view that the standard commencement date of all Acts of Parliament, unless there are very special considerations, should be not less than six weeks after the Royal Assent. I certainly suggest it for this Bill. We on this side join in a general welcome to this Bill, although there may be matters of importance—and I have tried to indicate some of them—to which careful attention should be given in the course of its passage through your Lordships' House.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, may I first of all join with the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, in expressing the thanks of the House to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the remarkable piece of exposition which we had at the beginning of this debate. I was particularly grateful for it because I have been trying to read the Bill over the last day or two. Great stretches of it remain a complete mystery
1144
to me. But as the noble and learned Lord was expounding the matter all became clear to all of us here. The only thing I am worried about is how long I am going to be able to remember it.
I do not remember an occasion when I have been faced with a more daunting task in addressing this House than this afternoon, because of the nature of the Bill. Of course it should have been my noble and learned colleague, Lord Wigoder, speaking from these Benches on an important legal occasion of this kind. I do not know the nature of the engagement which has kept him away—I do not think he has fled the country—but when I undertook to substitute for him as best I could, and when I got down to reading the Bill, I nurtured the unworthy suspicion for a moment that he might perhaps have found some diplomatic excuse for not being here. That of course was a suspicion that I immediately rejected, but I have not been greatly comforted by the discovery a few minutes before I came into the House this evening that my noble and learned colleague, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, actually understands two clauses of this Bill and has in fact, as I understand, been in correspondence with the Lord Chancellor about them. Therefore, I stand at every disadvantage.
To comment on the form of the Bill, one can see its real purpose and what it seeks to achieve by reading two short clauses, Clauses 2 and 3. Clause 2 incorporates the conventions and protocol into our domestic law and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, explained, Clause 3 gives guidance to the courts as to how the conventions and protocol are to be interpreted. Although that is what the Bill is about, so complicated is the matter apparently that to incorporate the conventions and protocol into our domestic law requires a measure of 57 clauses, 13 schedules, all running to 103 pages, priced at £6 net. I cannot believe it will be a best-seller.
When I was looking at those figures I was reminded of something once written by Lord Macaulay and which probably most noble Lords will remember. It was when he was reviewing the three volume history of the life of Lord Burghley by the Reverend Edward Nares, D.D. Speaking of the works he had been asked to read, he wrote:
"Compared with the labour of reading through these volumes, all other labour, the labour of thieves on the treadmill, of children in factories, of negroes in sugar plantations, is an agreeable recreation. There was, it is said, a criminal in Italy who was suffered to make his choice between Guicciardini and the galleys. He chose the history. But the war of Pisa was too much for him. He changed his mind, and went to the oar".
I do not know that that is particularly relevant to what I was saying, but there is a striking contrast between the effective clauses of the Bill and the enormous piece of legislation that is required to carry them into effect.
I, too, wish to express my appreciation to the working party which translated the intention into the reality of the Bill. That must have been a considerable achievement, and I should have thought that the epithet "working for the party" was never more justified than it was on this occasion. As the Lord Chancellor said, this is on any showing a Bill of enormous complication. I would go further and say that the measure gives to the word "complexity" a new dimension.

1145
I wish to speak only about Clause 3, to which the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, because a point in it goes rather further than the comments they made on the reports of Mr. Jenard and Professor Schlosser. As Lord Mishcon said, the clause provides that should there be any question as to the meaning or effect of the conventions, it shall,
"be determined in accordance with the principles laid down by and any relevant decision of the European Court".
It goes on in subsection (2) with a provision which I need not read, and then says in subsection (3):
"Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the following reports"—
which are the reports of Mr. Jenard and Professor Schlosser, and there follow the words to which I particularly wish to draw attention:
"may be considered in ascertaining the meaning or effect of any provision of the Conventions and shall be given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances".
The mischievious notion went through my mind when I read those words, "What is the Master of the Rolls going to make of that?" I cannot but think that those words are a little unflattering to Mr. Jenard and Professor Schlosser, that their opinions,
"shall be given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances".
I was reminded of the way in which John Bright finished a letter to one of his critics:
"I am, sir, with whatever respect may be due to you, yours faithfully".
There is an interesting comparision between this Bill and the Bill of Rights which my noble friend Lord Wade successfully steered through this House, as both sought to do the same thing. The Bill of Rights sought to incorporate into our domestic law the European Convention on Human Rights. This Bill seeks to incorporate into our domestic law—and of course I am using a form of shorthand in saying that—these two conventions and the protocol. While, therefore, the object of the two Bills was the same, the methods observed are wholly different. My noble friend Lord Wade produced a two or three clause Bill on one side of a sheet of paper simply stating that from the time of the passage of the Bill into law, the European Convention on Human Rights would be incorporated as part of our domestic law and would supersede anything in our law to the contrary, and he simply attached in the schedule the full text of the convention.
That course would not have been open in this case because we are dealing with something different. But the effect of my noble friend's Bill in that form would have been that all questions of interpretation as to the meaning of the convention and of our existing domestic law would be determined entirely by the judiciary. In this case, to a large extent, I think quite properly, the way in which the Bill is being made to incorporate the conventions in our domestic law is all spelt out in the measure. It is an interesting comprison and I am not at all sure that I should regard it as being safe to pass the Bill of Rights in the form it has passed through this House, leaving so much in a state of uncertainty and leaving so much to the discretion of the judiciary. This is a much more democratic parliamentary procedure on which we are embarked today. We on these
1146
Benches, so far as I know, wish the Bill well, and we shall be particularly enthusiastic about those clauses which we are able to understand.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, as a layman—the first and I think only layman to speak—I would not presume to discuss any of the legal points in a Bill which consists of very little else. But from this Bench I feel it is important to say that we share one determination with the Conservative Government—I would not say the only one but one of the few we share—and that is a determination to remain in the Common Market and to do all we can to smooth out the wrinkles which still remain, and the Bill seems to he an effort in that direction, so we welcome it wholeheartedly and in every way.
That allows me to say nothing further about the legal complexities. However, I had a list of questions that I wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord. I am glad to say that, as I hoped would happen, his excellent oration, which, despite the difficulty of what he had to say, kept us all listening with bated breath, has answered a very large number of them, and I am left with only one or two, which I can deal with in a matter of a couple of minutes.
My particular interest in the Bill is as it applies to maintenance orders. This is a matter which concerns the ordinary man and the magistrate. It concerns the ordinary man more than do the civil arguments which on the whole concern larger business and larger entities. What I want to know is this. Am I right in thinking that the passing of the Bill will leave much the same as it is now the position of the wife who is trying to get payment of a maintenance order and is failing, in a case where her husband is in England? If he has gone to Scotland, there will be some improvement in her position. If he has gone to Boulogne, or rather perhaps to Italy—because Boulogne was already covered under a particular agreement with France—she will be considerably better placed, and if he has gone to Timbuktu, her position will be the same. That is point one. If that is wrong, I should like to be told so; I think that it might well be wrong.
Secondly, under the clauses dealing with maintenance there is provision for a £50 fine for non-payment. Will this in other countries lead to what it quite often leads to in this country—namely, imprisonment for failing to pay a fine? I simply do not know enough about the procedure in Paris, Rome, or anywhere else, or about what the Bill means but, if it does that, I should like to know how the position would be dealt with. Would the man be imprisoned for non-payment of a fine in the country where it is imposed? Would he be extradited? What would be the position?
I said that I could make my speech quickly. Those are my only questions, apart from one other, which I think is a very easy one. Am I right in thinking that in a magistrates' court the prescribed officer would always be appointed by the court and would normally he the clerk of the court? I assume that to he the case. I shall study Hansard with care over the weekend—and it will take the weekend—but I think that my other queries have already been answered. Having said that, I sit down.
4.42 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, notwithstanding the superb exposition of the Bill by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it is I think plain that this is not a very apt Bill on which to make a Second Reading speech. On the question of jurisdiction, with which I am concerned, the only general principle in the Bill is that there should be uniform rules allocating jurisdiction between the member states. We are committed to that principle by membership of the Community, and I do not seek to challenge it, or even to discuss it.
Once we are past that principle, all the rest really is details of the allocation of that jurisdiction. But notwithstanding the fact that many experts have spent a great deal of time and trouble on this matter, I humbly venture to aver that at least on two points the rules in the Bill do not appear to be wholly satisfactory, in that they seem to deprive the courts of this country of jurisdiction which they presently have and which seemingly they ought to continue to have. I venture to draw attention to these matters now in the hope that they can be put right, and I hope that it will not be said, though I fear it might, that these are really Committee points which should have been left to the Committee stage.
The first point with which I am concerned is the quia timet injunction. In case, which seems probably somewhat unlikely, there are any laymen left in your Lordships' House at this moment listening to the matter, I should perhaps explain that that is an injunction which prevents a wrong before it happens, rather than leaving the party to gain compensation after he has been wronged. That surely is a very useful and desirable remedy—what in medical terms might be called prophylactic medicine, rather than surgery after the event.
At present, as I understand it, anyone who is about to be wronged, whether by a tort or a breach of contract in this country—where the wrong is going to be committed in this country—can seek an injunction preventing that from occurring, as necessarily the defendant will he in the country if the wrong is to be done here. As I understand the Bill, that will not be the case once the Bill is law, and if it remains law in its present form. Under Article 5(3) of the schedule there is jurisdiction in a matter of tort only when the harmful event has occurred; jurisdiction over somebody who is not himself domiciled here. Therefore there is no jurisdiction over a tort before it has occurred if the proposed wrongdoer is himself not domiciled here. Clause 23 of the Bill gives power to give interim relief only when proceedings have already been commenced in the state of the domicile of the proposed wrongdoer.
To try to translate that into concrete terms, I shall seek to give two examples. I hope that they are not open to the objection that there is some other technical solution; even if there was, it would not invalidate my general point. May we start with a lady who has been cohabiting in Italy with an Italian. He has treated her badly, knocked her about, and she therefore has left him and come to this country. He has pursued her here and is threatening to beat her up as soon as he can get hold of her. Under present circumstances she could rush off to a court and get an injunction restraining him from doing that. After the
1148
Bill is passed, as I understand it, if she came to this country, she would be told "He is a person domiciled abroad. No tort has yet been committed here. Either you wait until he has knocked you about the first time, and then come along and we will be able to do something, or you can start proceedings in Italy and then, and only then can you apply to the English courts". I venture to doubt that the lady-would regard either of those alternatives—the alternative of being thoroughly beaten up once before she can have any remedy, or the alternative of trooping off to Italy and starting proceedings there—as satisfactory.
I should like to give another example. Let us suppose that a foreign company is about to build a branch over here and that company plans to invade my property, knocking it down so that it can build its premises here. Again, it would seem that the English court is powerless until either the wrong is done, or unless I go and start proceedings in that foreign country, which would be expensive and complicated for the ordinary person to do. The situation could I think be somewhat improved if Clause 23 were amended to include the position where the plaintiff intended to start proceedings in the foreigh state, so that the English courts did not have to hang about and wait until one had started proceedings abroad but could act promptly. But, even so, that would not seem entirely satisfactory as it would still leave the individual with the testing problem of having to start proceedings abroad, presumably without legal aid, and having to go there, and so on. That is one serious problem, as I see it, arising from the Bill.
The second problem concerns a company domiciled in another Community country but with a branch here. At present any foreign company with a place of business here can be served here and sued here. Further, under Order 11 there is power to serve out of the jurisdiction in respect of any contract made in England. That is all to go, and, instead, there will be jurisdiction only—and I quote from Article 5(5):
"as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch",
in this country. It seems highly doubtful what that means, but what is plain is that it is a great deal narrower than the present situation.
If once again I can resort to example, suppose a businessman in a small way of business orders goods from a large multinational which carries on business all over the United Kingdom. Let us call it Bloggs and Company. Although that man does not know it, the whole European business of Bloggs and Company is in fact carried on by Bloggs (Europe) Société Anonyme, which is domiciled in France. The goods are for delivery somewhere abroad, so the contract will not be performed here; and in fact the order is sent to and dispatched by Bloggs's headquarters in France. Those goods are defective, and he wants to sue. As I see it, he is unable to do so. The dispatch of the defective goods did not in any way arise out of the operations of this branch. Those operations were either in France or where the goods were delivered.
The words of Article 5(5) are a great deal narrower than the Reciprocal Judgments Act, which speaks of an action in respect of a transaction effected through the branch. I have the gravest doubts that Article 5

1149
allows one to sue in this country merely because the contract is made through the branch in this country. If that is so, surely it is very hard on the businessman in my example that he should have to go abroad to sue when he thought that he was dealing with a substantial English branch over here and that his remedy would be here.
Those, I venture to suggest, if I am right in my understanding—and I am very ready to be told that I am not—are two serious problems where the rights of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom are limited and reduced from what they presently are, and from what I would venture to suggest they should continue to be. It may well be that that is somewhat difficult to remedy, if I am right. The alteration of Clause 23 which I have suggested may help a bit; and, of course, one accepts that this country cannot legislate that the convention shall here have a meaning contrary to that declared by the European Court. But it could presumably enact that until the European Court determines otherwise these words should have a somewhat enlarged meaning, and therefore perhaps one could say that a tort should in relation to quia timet proceedings be deemed to have occurred in a place where it was likely to have occurred but for the injunction, or something of that kind.
Alternatively, perhaps the Government could in due course seek to negotiate amendments to the convention to deal with these problems. I recognise, of course, that there have been lengthy negotiations and a great deal of work put in, but I hope that does not mean that when, with a sigh of relief, somebody finally gets this Bill on to the statute hook, everybody is going to sit back, because whether or not I am right in these particular problems there are going to be problems, and one hopes there will he a continuing process of seeking to improve the convention when those problems arise.
My Lords, of course I do not seek today an instant solution of the problems I have raised, but I ask the Government to recognise that there are these problems and to say that they will give attention to them and seek to solve them if I am right that they exist and are not dealt with by the Bill.
4.54 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I would first of all propose to say just a little more about the considerations which have led us in Scotland to decide that this opportunity should be taken to reformulate and codify, on the basis of the rules of jurisdiction contained in the 1968 convention, our own domestic rules of jurisdiction, and then to attempt to answer the questions that have been raised by the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I turn to do that, I should like to say how grateful we are for the welcome that your Lordships have given to the Bill; and perhaps I should particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on succeeding in introducing some merriment into the proceedings.
The Scottish proposals in this Bill are following the recommendations of the Scottish Committee on Jurisdiction and Enforcement, to which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already referred, and I should like to take this opportunity of joining with him in thanking Lord Maxwell and his colleagues
1150
on that committee for providing such expert and comprehensive guidance in matters of very considerable complexity. I should also like to take this opportunity to join with my noble and learned friend and with Lord Mishcon in thanking all others who have had a part in bringing us so far.
As the report of Lord Maxwell's committee points out, the convention rules of jurisdiction, and the rules derived from the convention which it is intended should in future govern jurisdiction as between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, in general proceed on the same principles as, and have similar effect to, the existing rules of jurisdiction under Scots law. This may be compared with the position in the other parts of the United Kingdom, where, although the practical results, in terms of situations in which the courts will take jurisdiction, are very similar, the principles on which jurisdiction is based are very different from those of the convention.
In Scotland, therefore, it is possible to adopt for all purposes rules based on the convention rules without changing in any major way the circumstances in which our courts will take jurisdiction. We agree with Lord Maxwell's committee that this should be done rather than maintain in being, in a way which would be bound to be confusing to practitioners, two separate and slightly different sets of rules of jurisdiction applying to the same subject-matter. For example, in order to ascertain which court had jurisdiction over a defender because he lived within its area, it would, if the convention rules were not adopted generally, be necessary first to determine whether the defender was domiciled in Scotland in the sense of the present Bill and then to apply the existing law, with its slightly different test of "residence", to determine whether any particular sheriff court has jurisdiction. It is clearly better, so far as possible, to-apply a single test for both purposes, and this is what we are trying to do with the new rules of jurisdiction in the Scottish courts which are contained in Schedule 7 to the Bill.
The operation of these new Scottish rules, and of the existing rules of jurisdiction in the rest of the United Kingdom which are to remain essentially unchanged, will of course be subject to the provisions of the convention and of the provisions in Part II of the Bill allocating jurisdiction within the United Kingdom. In a case to which the convention applies, therefore, the Scottish courts will have jurisdiction against a person domiciled in another convention country only if the convention gives them that jurisdiction; and, similarly, in cases to which Part II and Schedule 4 apply, the Scottish courts will have jurisdiction against a party domiciled in another part of the United Kingdom only in so far as the operation of Schedule 4 gives them that jurisdiction. Essentially, the new rules in Schedule 7 will apply to govern the circumstances in which a Scottish court has jurisdiction over persons domiciled (in the sense of this Bill) in Scotland, or in another part of the world outwith both the rest of the United Kingdom and the other states of the European Community, and to allocate jurisdiction within Scotland.
With certain exceptions, this body of new rules will apply to all civil proceedings before the Scottish courts, and not merely to those which would fall within the scope of the convention. Perhaps the most important of the exceptions is that, as my noble and learned friend

1151
said about the convention, the new rules will not apply in proceedings concerning or related to status or legal capacity. The new rules are essentially designed for actions which relate in the widest sense to property of some kind, and quite different considerations apply in relation, for example, to actions of divorce, adoption proceedings or proceedings relating to the custody of children. The distinction being made is not a new one, since the rules of jursidiction in relation to such proceedings have always differed from the general rules of jurisdiction, in particular so as to ensure that the parties to such actions have a sufficiently close connection with Scotland.
The other main areas which are excluded from the scope of the new rules are bankruptcy and winding-up, and commissary proceedings; the latter includes in particular matters relating to the appointment of executors and to applications for confirmation to the estates of deceased persons. Again, all these are matters for which there are at present special rules of jurisdiction, and the new rules would not necessarily be at all appropriate for them.
The new rules therefore deal with the circumstances in which the Scottish courts are to have jurisdiction in the central core of civil litigation. We hope that it will be useful to practitioners to he able to deal on the same basis not only with domestic cases—that is to say, cases arising within Scotland—and those having an international element, but also to have available the rules of jurisdiction in the Scottish courts in a convenient and codified form. So far as the Court of Session, at least, goes, this is a novelty which we think will be generally welcomed, since the bases of its jurisdiction have in the past in general been derived from common law with a variety of statutory additions.
Finally on this aspect, I should like to emphasise that, although the form of our jurisdictional rules is being changed considerably, as I said, their substance w ill be affected remarkably little. In general, it will remain possible to raise actions in Scotland in the same courts as previously. One change of some substance, however, is provided by Rule 2(14) of Schedule 7, which introduces additional grounds of jurisdiction against co-defenders and third parties. This will provided a useful extension of the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts to meet modern commercial conditions.
My Lords, having said that about the particular aspect of the Bill which affects Scotland especially, I should like to turn to some matters which have been raised in the course of this debate. The first matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, directed attention was the definition here proposed for "domicile". The definition here proposed is for the purpose of founding jurisdiction. It must be. I suggest, reasonably clear that the considerations which provide a proper basis for jurisdiction are different from the considerations which would provide a proper basis for levying tax, for instance. Accordingly, it is, I think, right that domicile for this purpose should be different from domicile for that purpose. That is merely an example. The noble Lord referred to others, although I think the special connection clauses in the British Nationality Act to which he referred were
1152
somewhat affected in the course of the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House, but there are other areas where domicile is relevant. We considered whether it would be right to give the expression "domicile" in this Bill a special prefix such as "forensic domicile" which was a proposal put forward by the committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, to which reference has been made. But on considering the matter we see no sufficient advantage and, in due course, obviously we should be glad to know what the House feels about this matter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me when I say that I made it clear that there was a basic difference between the concept of domicile in taxation, in British nationality law, any other law and this law. But I invited the noble and learned Lord to consider whether the suggestion made by the Solicitor-General in the last Administration when this was being discussed, that there should be some legislation to bring together the definitions or to set out the various definitions of domicile, residence and ordinary residence, would not simplify and clarify our law. Has the noble and learned Lord considered that and, if not, will he do so?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, one can see attractions in embarking on an exercise of that kind. One can also see difficulties in it. The particular considerations or factors which are relevant for the different subject matters are best dealt with probably in the context of the subject matters. Therefore, in the taxation statutes you would expect to find one treatment and, in nationality, another and so on. Perhaps it should go without saying that we shall consider carefully all that has fallen from noble Lords; and that what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said in this connection will be no exception.
I was going on to deal with a special point made in relation to Clause 31 and to answer his question. Proposals for an amendment to Order 11 in the sense to which he referred are under consideration. As far as consultation is concerned—and he referred particularly to Clause 33—recent practice has been, and I am sure noble Lords would approve of it, that consultation is undertaken with the legal profession about arrangements under the 1933 Act, and any matters requiring to be dealt with under this Bill would receive the same kind of attention.
I now turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. I think I can accept as generally correct the description that he gave at the beginning of his question about the general effect of the provisions of this Bill. As far as the second question is concerned, the £50 fine, the payer will be liable under Clause 5(6) if he fails to notify a change in his address. This provision is in the same terms as the corresponding provision in the present legislation. The situation, therefore, is that as far as our law is concerned, the situation is not altered in this respect by these provisions. It is not within the function of any law that we would lay down what are the appropriate provisions for enforcement of such matters under the law of other states. This Bill could not affect that.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, surely the £50 fine could come into operation if he moved from Paris to Boulogne; or could it not? Reading the Bill as a layman, I thought that it did.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, so far as our criminal law is concerned, if he failed to notify a change of address the £50 would operate; but that does not mean necessarily that it would be enforceable against him because it is a matter of criminal law, and certainly would not be enforceable against him under the provisions of this Bill in France. The last question I was asked was about the prescribed officer. He would be the clerk of the court.
I now turn to matters raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. With respect, he has raised questions of considerable difficulty in relation to the proper construction of the convention itself. Obviously these matters require consideration. I think he recognised that at least the primary questions he raised were about the construction of the convention. He went on to suggest that it might be wise to make provisions in this Bill to regulate the situation here until the matter was considered by the court in Luxembourg. It may be open to question whether the ultimate result would best be served in relation to a decision of the court at Luxembourg by beginning on the assumption that we think that the convention does not necessarily achieve what the noble Viscount would like it to achieve. In that situation there is at least a question whether the course which he was mentioning towards the end of his speech would necessarily be the best one for achieving the result which he had in mind. However, these are questions of very considerable importance and we will certainly consider very carefully what he has said.
The Bill, I hope, is one which will be of very considerable use not only to the legal practitioners but also to the commercial community in our country, and I therefore am very glad to join with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in commending it to your Lordships.
Lord Mischon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I remind him of the last point which I made which I thought had some relevance and importance, especially to this Bill; namely, the commencing date on which the provisions of the Bill come into effect? I reminded your Lordships that under Schedule 12 to this Bill a number of provisions are brought into force on Royal Assent. Bearing in mind that it cannot be very urgent that the Bill be brought into effect within a matter of days of the Royal Assent, would he give consideration to the general point I mentioned as well as the specific point in relation to this Bill?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, certainly. I intended to cover that particular matter (because I had nothing to say about it) by my general observation that all that the noble Lord said would be very carefully considered.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Local Government (Supplementary Grants for Transport Purposes Specified Descriptions) (Wales) Order 1981
5.12 p.m.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 5th November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an order which simplifies and rationalises complex grant arrangements for transport expenditure in Wales. Under the existing arrangements transport supplementary grant (TSG) is paid to county councils in respect of both current and capital expenditure. Transport current expenditure is also supported through the block grant. The purpose of this order is to restrict from 1982–83 onwards the payment of TSG in Wales to capital expenditure only.
With the introduction of a new rate support grant, the block grant, in 1981–82, the Government announced that they would review the future of TSG. In Wales this review has now been completed as regards current expenditure and we have been able to reach agreement with the Welsh local authority associations on appropriate arrangements for subsuming the current expenditure element of TSG into the Welsh block grant system. These arrangements avoid the complications which can arise when transport current expenditure is included in two different grant systems. However, so far as transport capital expenditure is concerned, different considerations apply as compared with current expenditure.
Major highway schemes are by far the most expensive projects which local authorities undertake in any service for which they are responsible. Financing these schemes can create difficulties as a result of the highly irregular distribution of expenditure on these large projects. By retaining TSG for capital expenditure we shall be able to concentrate assistance on those authorities which need to undertake large and expensive projects.
For these reasons my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has decided that, for the time being at least, TSG should be retained for capital expenditure, and Article 3 of the order provides for this. The types of capital expenditure which will be considered for grant are described in the schedule to the order. They comprise five categories which are compatible with and based upon the descriptions of prescribed expenditure for local authority capital allocations which are contained in Schedule 12 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. As now, the main areas of expenditure which will be treated as eligible for TSG will comprise public transport, highways, the regulation of traffic, parking and the provision of freight handling facilities.
The assessment of a local authority's needs for TSG will be based on its bid and accompanying transport programme information. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will decide on the amount of capital expenditure which he considers appropriate to meet those needs in the light of his policies and his assessment of the authority's transport programme. This amount of expenditure is known as accepted expenditure. It is intended that TSG will be paid in respect of all such accepted expenditure at a rate derived by dividing the aggregate

1155
amount of TSG available by the total level of accepted expenditure for all counties in Wales.
As a consequence of making TSG a grant in respect of capital expenditure, it is necessary to change the existing method of apportioning grant between individual counties in Wales. This is the purpose of the second amendment contained in Article 4 of the order. Because the amount of grant payable to each county will directly reflect their individual needs, this change has proved necessary in particular because the application of a threshold calculated in accordance with Section 6(4) of the Local Government Act 1974 is no longer appropriate or necessary.
Under the existing TSG system the first step in establishing the amount of TSG payable to counties is to determine the total level of both current and capital expenditure which should be taken into account for TSG. It is assumed that, as with other predictable local authority expenditure, an authority should be able to finance that part of its transport programme which remains relatively stable and even from year to year from other sources; for example, from rates and general central Government grant. This stable and even expenditure consists mainly of current and minor capital works. Allowance is made for this type of expenditure by the application of a population based threshold to each county's expenditure which has been accepted for grant purposes. The expenditure lying above the threshold, which consists of the remainder of current expenditure and expenditure on major capital works, is regarded as being of an uneven and unpredictable nature and therefore is eligible for support through the existing TSG system.
Under the new arrangements, all current expenditure will be absorbed into the block grant system, leaving only accepted capital expenditure to be financed from TSG. Since the bulk of such capital expenditure, being made up typically of a relatively small number of major projects, falls clearly within the uneven expenditure category, the need for any distinguishing threshold no longer exists. Given the uneven nature of expenditure, it would not in any case be possible to devise a thresh-hold formula which could be applied equitably to all Welsh counties. For the application of a threshold, we consider it necessary and proper to make the amendments to Section 6(4) of the 1974 Act, which are detailed in Article 4 of the order. It is our intention, once the county councils have had an opportunity to consider the working of these new arrangements for the payment of TSG on capital expenditure, to review the situation in the spring of 1982.
Finally, I should like to point out that none of the provisions contained in this order will affect the assessment of the totality of grant paid in support of total local government expenditure in Wales. All that will happen is that the part of TSG which was formerly paid in support of transport current expenditure will be added to the total of block grant. However, by making a clear distinction between current and capital expenditure, the order will ensure that the distribution of block grant will no longer be complicated by the current element of TSG, while TSG itself will remain as a capital grant which can cope with the lumpiness of capital expenditure.
I fear this has been a somewhat complex explanation
1156
but I hope that your Lordships will find it satisfactory. If the order is approved by your Lordships' House it will come into operation later this month. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 5th November be approved.—(Lord Sandys.)
5.20 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for explaining the purpose of this order so clearly. Nevertheless, although he has explained it clearly, there are a number of points on the proposals I should like to put to him. First, may I make it quite clear on behalf of the Labour Party that we have been in full support of placing the responsibility for transport policies and programmes on the county councils, and of the procedure for the transport supplementary grant to be paid through counties for all transport purposes
If this order is approved it means that we shall have three different procedures in Great Britain. Scotland has the procedure where its transport grants are paid within its rate support grant system. In England, as in Wales at present, subject to this order, we have the major part of transport grants paid through the TSG. With the passing of this order, we shall have a third procedure where the capital expenditure in Wales will be paid through the TSG and current expenditure through the rate support grant. When in 1980 your Lordships had before you the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, at Committee stage I proposed an amendment to the clause on which this order before us is based. I pointed out to your Lordships that it must be appreciated that the incorporation of TSG in a block grant system could have an adverse effect on our transportation policies and it could have an adverse effect on the co-ordination or integration of county transport policies with finance and other measures.
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales has stated in another place that the bulk of the capital expenditure to be covered for TSG under this order will be for a relatively small number of major projects. I am given to understand that the county engineers in Wales have already been complaining bitterly that even at the present there is insufficient money to carry out repairs which are essential to keep the roads in a safe condition. When the order was before the Standing Committee in another place, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales give an assurance—and I quote—that:
"these proposals will not result in less money being available for roads in Wales".
I would ask the noble Lord the Minister whether that is certain, in view of the fact that TSG is to be for capital expenditure, as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales has said, for a few major projects? Also, the emphasis has been given to expenditure on roads; and there are two questions on capital expenditure set out in the schedule to the order which I should like to raise. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandys: do the descriptions listed in the schedule include capital expenditure on lighting of highways? Secondly, does the capital expenditure listed in the

1157
schedule include the capital expenditure on the provision of parking places, which at present is covered by the 1974 Act?
I should also like to ask: what is the purpose and reasoning behind the proposal to absorb all current expenditure on transport within the rate support grant system as it applies to Wales? At present, as the noble Lord has pointed out, TSG includes the most part of current expenditure for transport purposes and in particular grants made to operators for the provision, improvement and development of facilities for public transport. Will the funds to be made available within the rate support grant system be earmarked for transport purposes? Can the Minister give an assurance that with the new procedure there will be no decrease in the money to be made available to a county for transport services as a whole?
I must stress the effect that the recesson is having on the revenues of most public transport undertakings, and any lessening of the ability of county councils to make grants to operators could increase the problems, especially in the rural parts of Wales—and we are dealing with an order applicable to Wales. If the local government expenditure for 1982–83 is to be cut, as proposed by the Secretary of State, by a further 3 or 4 per cent., will the county councils in Wales be in a position to meet this situation?
I should also like to ask: do the proposals set out in the order reflect any shift away from the procedure whereby the county councils submit their TPP to the Secretary of State for approval? We have regarded that as a really important development. Finally, the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, says that the matter is to be reconsidered in the spring of 1982. I should like to ask what actual matters will be reviewed in 1982, because I gather these will be grants for 1982–83? Will it be possible to assess fully the effects of this order so early in spring 1982?
5.28 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I was very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, supported in general terms on behalf of his party the Government's proposals in this order. The noble Lord asked a number of quite specific questions on the order, beginning with several points on the schedule. His first question related to the question of capital expenditure on lighting, and whether it was included. I can assure him that it is included, because in the schedule under 2(c) he will see the phrase:
"substantially improving the standard of the highway".
That is to be construed as including lighting in that category.
His second question referred to parking facilities. I can give him the assurance that parking facilities are also included, as he will see under paragraph 2, where it says—and I quote:
"Expenditure on the reclamation, improvement or laying out of land and on the construction, preparation, conversion, improvement, renewal or replacement of buildings and structures",
are included.
That will of course include both multi-storey car parks and the laying out of car parks on a conventional basis.
1158
The third question referred to the purpose and reasoning behind the alteration to RSG. As I explained earlier, transport current expenditure qualifies for TSG and for the block grant, but the two grant systems operate quite differently. TSG relates to a particular level of expenditure in a particular county, whereas block grant is intended to support a common standard of service. It is, of course, one of the options available and it was carefully considered during the review of the TSG. I hope that what I have said already will satisfy the noble Lord on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also asked for an assurance on the question of the financial implications and the block grant entitlements. I think that I can give him a satisfactory assurance here, because for Welsh counties as a whole the block grant total will increase by exactly the same amount as the reduction in the TSG total. For individual counties it is impossible to be precise at this stage. Although the loss of TSG will be broadly mirrored by the gain in the block grant, there will be a small net gain for some counties and a small net loss for others. The important point is that, whatever the net result, it will flow from a revised distribution system which is generally accepted by the Welsh County Councils Association as being fair and sensible.
The extent to which current expenditure will no longer be eligible for TSG in individual county shares of TSG will be affected. But, that said, it is not really relevant to compare year on year changes in individual allocations in respect of capital expenditure. TSG is, as its name implies, a supplementary grant and is designed to accommodate peaks and troughs in individual counties' spendings. I hope the noble Lord will feel that we have sufficiently explained that aspect of the finances.
The noble Lord made further comment upon the specific earmarking of funds from the block grant for transport purposes. I can assure him that there is no earmarking within the block grant. That is a standard practice. Nor is there any earmarking within the TSG, because that is a grant for a programme. There will be no decrease in the money to be made available in grants to operators. I hope that on that point the noble Lord will feel that that is about as far as we can go at this stage.
The noble Lord referred to the new procedures weakening the transport policy programme, the TPP, but I can assure him that there will be no weakening at all. The county councils have agreed the programme and this order does not weaken the TPP system as a whole. The noble Lord asked a number of questions relating to the financial implications, which I have tried to deal with in detail. If there are any matters which have omitted, I will certainly write to him.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he deal with the question of the review in spring 1982?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, that is a point on which I shall have to write to the noble Lord in detail. There are no precise details which I can give him in answer to that today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Security Officers Control Bill [H.L.]
5.33 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. May I say, by way of preface, that in introducing this Bill it is no part of my purpose to attack or denigrate the security industry. It has its ragged edges and its unsavoury underbelly—and I shall come to this later—but, by and large, it occupies an honourable position in our society and plays an important role in the struggle against crime. Many security guards are in the front line in this struggle, and one can only commend them for their courage and dedication—courage and dedication which, I may add, is often poorly rewarded. I heard only the other day of a security organisation which had been successful in detecting an IRA man and reporting him to the police, and much of that kind of good work goes on with the security companies.
Whether we like it or not, we have to face the fact that the private security industry is here to stay. It has come a very long way from the old night watchman, sitting around his coke fire and cooking his kipper on the blade of a shovel. Since the war, in particular, it has moved on seven-league boots. Figures thrown up by the 1971 census suggested that there were about 80,000 people employed as security guards, patrolmen, watchmen, gatekeepers and store detectives. Since then, the crime rate has soared dramatically and the security industry has expanded to keep pace.
One estimate, in a book issued in 1976, gave the figures of 7,000 security firms, a quarter of a million uniformed men and 10,000 armoured vehicles. That compares with a police force of 110,000 in England and Scotland. There are no accurate figures, but we may safely assume that the security industry has many more men on the ground than all our police forces combined. Other estimates have put it at twice the number, and I would think that that is just about right. And between 75 and 85 per cent. of these people are employed by 10 or so large companies. These people are employed in transport, as guards or patrolmen or on the installation and maintenance of safes, locks and alarm systems. Some are what are known as "in-house" staff, employed by firms which make their own security arrangements. Much of the leadership and management on all sides of the industry comes from former policemen.
There are two associations to which companies in the industry may belong. By far the largest and most important is the British Security Industry Association—the BISA. At a 1978 estimate, this association had 63 member companies, including most of the giants in the industry, representing over 30,000 employees. The figures are almost certainly larger today. Membership is open only to those firms which can satisfy the association that they meet certain strict criteria. There is no doubt that the BISA have done a great deal to establish, maintain and improve standards in the industry. For example, no man can be employed by a BISA company unless a 20-year check has been made on his past, and this, I can assure your Lordships, is done very thoroughly.
The other organisation is the International Professional Security Association, which was founded in 1958. This is much more of an organisation for
1160
individuals rather than companies in the industry. By far the largest proportion of its members are" in-house" security people; that is, they are employed directly by the firm for which they do security work. The IPSA is also doing good work in the area of standards. It has 5,000 members and they have written in to support the Bill that is now before your Lordships.
That, then, is the background. We have a growth industry employing, directly or indirectly, somewhere in the region of a quarter of a million people—an industry which performs a useful function in guarding property and people, and which is of considerable help to our over-stretched police forces; above all, an industry which operates in the most sensitive and vulnerable areas of our society.
It has been emphasised by the Home Office and others that none of these firms and individuals has any legal right which sets it apart from, or above, the ordinary company or the ordinary citizen. They have, we are told, no special status in law and this is, of course, true. But I suggest that it begs the question, for the plain fact is that over the years the uniformed security guard has acquired a special psychological status in the mind of the public.
We have all grown conditioned to being searched by uniformed guards at airports, hotels and other places. We have grown accustomed to seeing massive armoured cars, and equally massive guards, ferrying goods and large sums of cash to and from banks and stores, and many of us are glad that they do so. We may know that the security guard has no extra standing in law, but the uniform and the equipment suggests that he has. The housewife, who can be taken in and "conned" by a slick double-glazing salesman, is not likely to question a uniformed guard. She is doubly vulnerable. People think that security men have authority and that is almost as good as having it.
Over the years, people have come to think of security guards, especially those working for such large and excellent firms as Securicor, as police auxiliaries, which indeed—we have to face the fact—they have become. And they are recognised as such unofficially by many police forces. Indeed, it would he foolish and lunatic when you are dealing with such things as the transit of huge sums not to have some liaison with the police. It is precisely because of this relationship and the new, if unofficial, status of private security that I have brought forward this measure.
The main purpose of the Bill is to make it an offence for any person who has been convicted of a major offence within the past 15 years to practise as a security officer. It is a very small measure, designed in the main to test the temperature of public and parliamentary opinion on this issue. Personally, I would like to see far wider legislation brought forward along the lines introduced by my right honourable friend Bruce George in another place. He proposed the setting up of a private security registration council which would have the power to license security organsations and individuals, much in the same way as the Gambling Board licenses clubs. That has much to commend it. But, as I say, that is not what we are about today.
I have been asked whether there is any evidence that this or any other Bill on this subject is needed. Should we not leave well alone? Should we not leave the

1161
industry to regulate its own affairs through its professional associations? As I have said, I have not the slightest doubt that the two professional associations I have already mentioned—BSIA and the other one in particular—can, and do, influence and regulate the standards of their members very adequately. And they do have a system of bonding their members so that there is an additional discouragement to anyone tempted into dishonesty. But I am not concerned with the firms and individuals which are covered by the BSIA and the IPSA. I am concerned with the cowboys. We have more cowboys in our society today than they have in Hollywood.
Returns made by police forces in England and Wales some two or three years ago indicated that there were something like 700 security organisations which were not members of these associations—700 companies. That is an awful lot, and it leaves a lot of people outside the net. In many ways the situation is quite extraordinary. There is absolutely nothing to stop anyone setting up in business and offering security and protection to the public. No training, no qualifications are needed, and there is no compulsion to join any professional organisation and abide by that organisation's standards. You cannot open a stall in the street to sell fruit or clothes without a licence but you can open a firm and sell security devices and services without any restriction whatsoever. I was told only the other day of a man who came straight out of prison and immediately formed a security organization—and even got contracts.
Would anyone use a security business set up by someone with no experience, one might ask? Of course, most large firms would not. They would set up their own in-house operation or seek the advice of the BSIA. But many medium-sized and small firms would not have the resources to handle their own security. Certainly the housewife does not. They might seek quotes from various security companies and accept the cheapest, not the best. Many companies are under the economic whip at the moment and are seeking to reduce the cost of their security—looking around for firms who will do the job for less. There are many of these. The competition in this industry is cut-throat.
Let me again use the example of double-glazing. The big firms in the double-glazing industry lay down strict standards for the members of their association. But that has not stopped the cowboys coming in after the rich pickings. Scarcely a week goes by without news of housewives being robbed by these door-to-door buccaneers. The parallel with security, especially domestic security, is obvious. So while we have this unbridled situation the potential for the criminal is obvious. He can seek to be recruited as an operative by one of the established firms, without disclosing his criminal past, or he can set up in business of his own accord. Getting round a criminal record is very simple. I could quote noble Lords an almost foolproof system, but I do not think that it would be in the public interest for me to do so.
The likelihood of a criminal slipping through the net of one of the big companies is small. But it has happened. And there are dozens of other struggling companies where tests and training are either minimal or non-existent. So the opportunity is there.
1162
Is there any evidence of abuse? Let me quote a few. January 1979: security guards working for Chrysler steal £20,000 in goods; September 1978: security guards steal £2 million from Heathrow; July 1978: two security officers, one with previous convictions, jailed for theft at Norwich; July 1978, Oxford: security guard steals £99,000; January 1978, Surrey: security guard involved in theft; December 1977, Birmingham: security guard jailed for arson; May 1977: security officer jailed for burglary; February 1977: security engineer jailed for burglary—and so on. I have here half a dozen other examples that I could quote.
Practically every case means that the crime was related to the job—that is, theft or arson, of or on the premises in which the guards were meant to be guarding from potential criminals. One of the most extraordinary cases concerned a convicted man, who admitted to 85 burglaries and break-ins, who set up in business to provide security locks for householders and. as an added inducement, offered a key-holding service. Your Lordships might feel that that is rather like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.
There is sufficient recent evidence to indicate that the problem is a real one, and it will grow worse as the need for protection grows bigger. I am not projecting a theme for a television series when I say that criminals must and will enter the security industry. The potential and the possibilities are too obvious, to their minds, to be ignored. This Bill will not stop the most determined but it will act as a small deterrent until the Government introduce proper legislation. It will reduce the odds. And to argue against that is tantamount to saving that it would be useless to have a 30-mile per hour speed limit in built-up areas because some drivers would ignore it.
Before I turn to the clauses of the Bill, there is one other vital point that I ought to make. So far I have spoken of the protection of property, but there could be even more serious implications when one considers another growth industry, the protection of people. Terrorist activities, political assassination, kidnapping, extortion, are everywhere on the increase. Businessmen, millionaires, film stars, now often hire guards to protect them and their families. Increasingly, when a major celebrity is due to attend a function, the organisers will hire in security guards for the occasion as an additional measure of protection. Organisers of exhibitions, jewellery displays, art exhibitions and so forth often hire protection on an a la carte basis. There was one firm that specialised in this occasional service and which did rather well. It was called "Dial-a-Guard" and it was run by a man with something like 26 previous convictions. None of his employers was bonded.
I have no wish to be sensational but your Lordships may recall that some two years ago a man convicted of murder and released on parole succeeded in getting a job as a security guard and actually acted as a guard during one of Her Majesty's engagements. I do not need to expand on that, except to say that while there is no control, there is nothing to stop terrorists or political extremists from either setting up their own security organisation and putting their men in uniform or joining someone else's.
As I have said, the Bill is a small interim measure, designed to provide some protection for the security

1163
industry against criminal elements. It confers no official recognition or status on the industry. Clause 1 sets out the conditions which would make it illegal for a person convicted of certain serious offences to practise as a security officer. It makes reference to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and proposes that in certain circumstances the terms of that Act should not apply to those who seek employment as security officers. I am not against the rehabilitation of offenders. I simply believe that they should be rehabilitated in a less sensitive area than security.
Clause 2 refers again to the Act of 1974 and sets out the circumstances in which those who give information about a person's criminal record may be exempt from the conditions of that Act. I will confess that this was a most difficult clause to draft. It enters a sensitive and controversial area and I would welcome suggestions and comments from your Lordships. It is possible that one might decide that information ought only to be given through an established organisation like the BSIA. It has been argued that if we have a Bill of this sort there is no knowing where we shall stop. What about bank cashiers? My answer to that is that it is much easier to start a security organisation than to set up a bank. Clause 3 defines penalties for offenders under this proposed Act. These may be rather stiff, but I think they need to be. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with definition, interpretation and the short title.
I shall not pretend to your Lordships that I am confident that I have got it exactly right this time, but of one thing I am dead certain: the problems I have raised are serious ones and they will not go away. I hope that Parliament will not linger over this until there is some kind of serious crime or serious terrorist act before it gets to grips with the problem. We always tend to act too late. We always put up the traffic lights after there has been a multiple crash at the crossing. I hope this time we shall put up the traffic lights before that crash takes place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Willis.)
5.52 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Willis on introducing this Bill and on all the work that he has done on it. It is a subject which he has been studying for several years, so it is not just a passing interest of his or, to use modern jargon, an instant interest. In fact he was considering this matter as long ago as the time when my honourable friend Mr. Bruce George, the Member for Walsall, South, was involved in his Bill, the Private Security (Registration) Bill, to which my noble friend has referred this evening and which was introduced in another place. Whatever view one takes of the Bill before us today, there is no doubt that there are public concern and interest in the matter, so my noble friend has performed a service already in enabling us to debate it. I should like also to pay tribute to my honourable friend Mr. George for the enormous amount of research he has done on the subject and in producing his useful report.
At the outset I would emphasise something that my noble friend Lord Willis also referred to. I believe that the private security industry does very valuable
1164
work—indeed essential and important work. Many people would readily acknowledge, too, as I do and as I believe the police themselves do, that it would be quite beyond the resources of the police to take on the work that these security staffs do, even if it were desirable that they should do so; and many people would feel, as indeed I do, that it would be inappropriate for the police to have to undertake much of the work carried out by these security companies. So in my submission they fulfil a worthwhile and indeed essential role.
The security staffs also often perform difficult and sometimes dangerous tasks, as my noble friend has indicated. I would not go so far as one commentator went recently in suggesting that their duties are more dangerous than those of the police. Indeed, after seeing what the police have to cope with in helping to combat terrorism and in dealing with situations like the ones at Brixton in April and at Toxteth later, and elsewhere, quite apart from what we in our comfortable and comparative security are pleased to call "their more normal duties", I certainly would not agree with that. Yet in one respect the security staffs are in a sense possibly somewhat more exposed in some situations because, while some armed criminals would shy away from attacking a police officer, they might have a go at a security guard. Anyway, it can certainly be said that these security staffs carry out invaluable work.
At the same time, there is some concern about the growth of these security organisations and my noble friend Lord Willis has given an indication of their size today. I believe that there are powerful arguments for a measure of control over them, as he has said. It is also clearly the case that their work involves trust and calls for trustworthiness and integrity so it can also be argued powerfully that there ought to be some means to try to ensure that those who are employed in this industry are trustworthy. That, of course, is where my noble friend's Bill comes in.
What the Bill amounts to is that it provides the means for a system of vetting for those employed in the private security industry, and that is just one aspect of a system for regulating or controlling the industry. The whole question of whether we should have a regulatory system was put forward and arguments for and against were posed in the Home Offices document, The Private Security Industry—A Discussion Paper, including the vetting aspect of the problem. That document came out in 1979, while the last Government were in office. As that paper said:
"Access to confidential information held by the police, including records of criminal convictions, would be essential to any system of vetting";
it continued:
"that is so whether that access was given direct to the potential employer or to some licensing authority".
It also went on to summarise the bases of the policy followed by successive Home Secretaries which were encompassed in words used by the then Home Secretary on 14th June 1973. His words were:
"The supply of police information will continue to be governed by the general principle that no information is given to anyone, however responsible, unless there are weighty considerations of public interest which justify departure from the general rule".—[Official Report, Commons, col. 1681.]

1165
Since then we have had the Act to which my noble friend Lord Willis has referred tonight—the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, with its provisions creating what it calls "spent convictions" and its provisions prohibiting the disclosure of those spent convictions save in specified exceptional circumstances. The purpose of that Act is, of course, to enable those convictions to be forgotten about if the offender kept out of further trouble, so that he could be rehabilitated. So immediately we are confronted by a dilemma and by a choice—mercifully there is a choice—and on both sides of the balance, it happens to be the case, lies the public interest, and we have to choose whether the public interest is greater on the one side or on the other. Is it more in the public interest to provide information about the criminal convictions of a person about to carry out security duties and so, as some would argue, allow that intrusion into privacy and therefore that measure of erosion of civil liberties, or is it more in the public interest to withhold that information and so run the risk, as some would argue, of undesirable and untrustworthy people occupying positions of trust? That, my Lords, is the choice.
It is the case that since the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, to which my noble friend referred, was passed we have had the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. What that order did—and your Lordships passed it in June 1975—was to exclude certain categories of persons and jobs from the protection (if that is the right word) of the Act itself. In other words, the order provided for the supply o information about the criminal records of persons in or entering certain professions; and the reason for allowing that information to be provided in strictly confidential circumstances was to protect the public interest by preventing undesirable people from occupying specified positions of what might be called trust.
Included in those categories, if I may remind your Lordships, are, so far as the professions listed in the order are concerned, medical practitioners, the legal profession (barristers, advocates in Scotland, solicitors), accountants, dentists—with, incidentally, dental hygienists and dental auxiliaries; nurses, midwives and others. So far as officers and employments listed are concerned, there are the judiciary, justices' clerks, the police, teachers, people employed in youth clubs and others. And among those in the regulated occupation lists are people running insurance companies, people running unit trusts, and others as well. So there have already been exemptions or exclusions or exceptions in the public interest long before my noble friend's Bill came along.
Arguments have been advanced against further exemptions from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and indeed the organisation Justice, whose work on such a vast number of matters so many of us admire, has argued against exempting the private security industry in its reply in July 1979 to the Home Office discussion paper. In fact, the discussion paper itself had something to say when it referred to the order that I have mentioned which provided exceptions from the provisions of the Act. What the document said was this:
"A number of occupations were exempted from these provisions. The security industry, however, was not, although its representative organisation had urged that it should be".
1166
Your Lordships might consider it significant that its representative organisation did consider that it should be exempted from the provisions of that Act. The document went on:
"The Government had received representations from other organisations on the similar ground that people entrusted with large amounts of cash or high value goods should not be given the benefit of the Act. The Government concluded that exemptions on that ground would not be justified as they would be on such a scale as to defeat the purpose of the Act. Very similar considerations apply in relation to the granting of access to the criminal records of people in positions of trust: it would be extremely difficult to decide where to stop and the whole principle of confidentiality would he jeopardised".
Those are arguments which are not without some weight, I think, it has to be admitted. But the plain fact is that we have already had, and we have justified having, some exceptions, as we have seen from the order that I have mentioned. Those exceptions have already covered some people and some bodies in the private sector of industry and commerce. There are the unit trusts and insurance companies, for example. Yet so far as the private security industry is concerned we have the argument put to us that to extend the exemptions in this way would be to open the door to all kinds of additional exclusions in a wholly uncontrollable way. That is the way the argument is put. I am not over-impressed by that argument. In the first place, that would be an argument which could be applied to almost anything and is almost an argument for doing nothing about anything. In the second place, of course, it would not be uncontrollable. Parliament would have to consider any proposed extension, as indeed it is doing now at this very moment. If a particular proposal is unacceptable, or if the situation showed any sign of getting out of hand, Parliament could say, No.
Then there is the argument, which has been put forward in some quarters, that some members of the public already wrongly regard security staffs employed by security companies as having special powers, like those of the police, or at least powers greater than those of the normal individual citizen, and my noble friend Lord Willis has indicated, by referring to the wearing of uniforms and the armoured vans we are used to seeing about, the strength of feeling in that connection.
But the argument put forward by others also runs on in this way and suggests that if we were to have some sort of statutory provision regulating security companies and security staffs that would confuse people even more into believing, again wrongly, that those staffs, by virtue of those statutory provisions, were clothed in some cloak of official recognition and so had some special powers like those of the police. That seems to me to be one of those rather clever arguments which are conjured up as an excuse for not doing something. It is a rather distorted or unclear process, I think, which produces such a convoluted argument. I do not know where it came from originally. I cannot believe it originated in my former department, and I am always reluctant to say anything against it because I have such affection and admiration for Lord Belstead's department. Indeed, I have to be very careful indeed about this, because I may be told that it was I who put forward the argument originally. I hope and believe it was not, but there it is—one has to be careful. Wherever it came from, it does strike me as being the

1167
sort of argument which gives that uncannily revealing touch of verisimilitude to that splendid programme "Yes, Minister".
If people do not understand about the powers or lack of powers of these security staffs or companies it is up to the rest of us to do what we can to put them right and to try to see that they do understand what the position actually is, always assuming, incidentally, that that is something which is causing concern in the first place and is worth trying to deal with anyway. I must confess that personally I do not really understand what is the monumental harm that any such misunderstanding that does exist, if it does, is doing to society anyway. More importantly than that, I really do not see why the fact, if it be a fact, that sonic people are under some misapprehension should stop Parliament doing something if it is right and beneficial to do it anyway. It is there, in my submission, that the distortion of thought comes in, in thinking that because there is misapprehension we should refrain from doing what is right.
Your Lordships will clearly decide what is the right thing to do, and it will be for my noble friends to decide whether or not to support my noble friend's Bill. I feel at the very least my noble friend has made out a prima facie case. Indeed, if I can express a personal view, and I do so without committing my noble friends on these Benches, I would say that the balance of the public interest comes down firmly in favour of this Bill, perhaps with some amendments. So I hope it makes further progress. So incidentally, does my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who had such a lot to do with encouraging the Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill when he was on the Woolsack. I would just leave one thought with my noble friend Lord Willis. If there is some misapprehension among some people about the supposed powers of security personnel, and if, therefore, we should do what we can to try to put this right, he may feel that perhaps one way of doing that might he to call his Bill the Security Staffs Control Bill instead of the Security Officers Control Bill, for it could just be that in the minds of some the word "officers" might mean more than it actually does. At any rate, I wish my noble friend and his Bill well.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, pretty accurately and quite shortly, because I agree with his approach almost entirely. I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made an unanswerable case for something being done and for a Second Reading for this Bill. I think there will be one or two things we shall want to discuss very carefully in committee, which I shall just refer to in passing. My noble friend Lord Hunt was to have spoken here, but he is not well, and he and I found that we agreed, so I am doing it for him. We were both very strong supporters of Lord Gardiner's Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill and we are anxious not to spoil it. I think this can be done quite easily.
The first point I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, about is that the right thing to do in regard to Clause 2, which is exempting the people to
1168
whom the Bill refers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, is to add to the exemptions under the exceptions order which the noble Lord quoted. The exceptions order includes all the people he mentioned and also police, prison officers and probation officers. It is pretty wide, but it is quite illogical, it seems to me, not to include security officers. I do not think that there can be serious argument about it. It seems to me to be a better way of doing it than the way in the Bill. This is the way that is open to us.
I think that Clause 2(2)(a) is too widely drawn. I cannot find where it came from in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, if, indeed, it did come from that Act. Clause 2(2)(a) says:
"within the last fifteen years committed or been charged with or prosecuted for"—
that is very wide. Then,
"or convicted of or sentenced for any offence".
Certainly. But if you are arrested, prosecuted and found innocent it seems quite wrong that it should be included. It is a Committee point, but one worth mentioning.
There is a further point about which I do not feel too sure but which I think should be aired. Clause 2 of the Bill merely puts somebody applying for a job as a security officer in the same position as somebody applying for a job in one of the other exempted professions. It would mean that the person had to declare his convictions but he would not automatically be excluded from appointment as a security officer. Clause 1 goes much further and actually makes it illegal. That is what we want to look at. It seems to me that if you are an employer of a security organisation and you know somebody very well, you may also know very well that he is now secure although he was not in the past. So long as nobody conceals the fact, I am not sure that it is right to make it illegal to appoint him. However, that again is a Committee point.
Finally—or very nearly finally—I would prefer licensing security companies to anything else in relation to the ordinary fringe people, and I cannot see why that should not be included. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will look at that point. As the exclusions are quite serious I think that one wants to be very careful about minor offences. I wonder whether, if you are talking about offences of drunkenness or possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use, they are really worth a 15-year bar. In Lord Gardiner's Bill the bar was graded in relation to the severity of the sentence. That is another matter that I think we could look at.
My final point is rather a sad one. I hate the idea of never seeing another night watchman. The noble Lord referred to the night watchman who we used to see with his fire and his shovel. When we discuss definitions I think that we might try and make some provision available because I think this is the kind of job which is in places where security is not very serious and there is not very much to steal, very adequate for ex-offenders of a certain age. I think that we should certainly give the Bill a Second Reading.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I had not intended to speak but if this Bill is to proceed I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Willis, might like to look at a small

1169
point. The Bill refers to someone "who has been convicted". The person convicted may, in fact, be perfectly innocent and his case may be quashed on appeal. I do not think that there is anything in the Bill which excludes someone in that category.
6.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I should like to say how much I welcome the opportunity which is afforded by the debate on this Second Reading to discuss the role and function of the private security industry in this country which does important work in preventing crime and protecting property. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, made clear that they recognise that good work. But, of course, the effect of the Bill reflects in part the concern which is felt—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, expressed this in his speech—about the rapid growth of the industry and the opportunities it could offer for criminal activity. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, reminded your Lordships that the previous Government issued a discussion paper on the possibilities for controlling the industry and a large number of replies were received from a wide cross-section of interests and they were all carefully considered by the present Government.
Bearing in mind that private security personnel have no special legal powers or privileges beyond those enjoyed by any other citizen, the Government decided that there was no need for any stricter form of limitation or control than that already provided by the law. But although, we saw no case for statutory control, we are anxious to support and encourage self-regulation. Discussions are now taking place to see how this might best be achieved. Indeed, the British Security industry Association, which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred to, have told us of their proposals to set up an inspectorate to monitor the pre-employment screening rules of member companies and to ensure that suitable induction training is being carried out.
Already member companies must ensure that their organisation is soundly managed, that their directors and senior executives are of good repute and that their employees conduct themselves in a proper manner. Also, companies must have adequate financial backing and proper liability insurance, as well as satisfying the association of their business integrity and ethics, especially in relation to advertising and selling practices. Thus, the setting up of an inspectorate, while being a very significant step forward, is only part of the association's praiseworthy efforts to establish responsible standards.
I would not have gone into that detail if the British Security Industry Association only represented a small part of this industry, but the association does, in fact, represent about 90 per cent. by volume of turnover of the contracts security business. It seems likely that a number of the smaller firms will join in due course. I think that it is fair to claim, therefore, that progress, good progress, is being made towards effective self-regulation, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Willis, went a long way towards recognising that.
1170
However, in addition, as regards "in house" security, which the noble Lord mentioned, which covers all sorts of duties undertaken by people directly employed by a wide range of organisations, there is an equally active professional body in the International Professional Security Association. It also aims to promote good practice and a valuable training scheme is run through the Institute of Industrial Security. Following the Government's decision not to seek statutory powers of control, that association is now compiling a code of good practice to which its members will be expected to adhere.
In so far as the activities of private investigators come within the scope of the Bill, the two main representative organisations, the Institute of Professional Investigators and the Association of British Investigators, are united in their aims of trying to establish uniform standards of conduct and competence. The Institute already has an excellent educational system and examination procedure for its members, and the Home Office is currently discussing with the two organisations how best to ensure that professional standards are adhered to.
The noble Lord's Bill seeks to prevent the employment in the private security industry of persons with certain criminal convictions and to disapply certain provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. But when all is said and done, the absence of a criminal record does not tell the potential employer about the other important aspects of character that should be taken into account in assessing whether the applicant will make a good employee. I think that one can discuss almost till the cows come home whether there is a worrying amount of crimes committed by people in this industry who have, in addition to that, already got a criminal record. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that one crime is too many, but I mean "worrying" in the sense that one feels that one must put something on the statute book specially to deal with it instead of going down the other road of self-regulation.
I would simply say on this point that the impression we have in the Home Office is that the majority of cases of dishonesty within the industry have related to people who have, in fact, no previous convictions but who have succumbed to the temptations which they have encountered. The only exceptions to the 1974 Act granted by Parliament have been confined to those justified on certain limited grounds. These relate to national security, the public interest—mainly the administration of justice—the protection of particularly vulnerable groups, and the maintenance of confidence in licensing systems. I am afraid that if there were too many exceptions, it would nullify the effect of the Act. This would be most regrettable in view of the steps towards self-regulation which the security industry is undoubtedly taking.
It is true that some people are employed in jobs which afford a greater opportunity for committing crime than others, but, if we were to accept this criterion, it would open up the way for many requests for exception from all sorts of organisations and individual firms concerned to protect valuables and large sums of money. As the noble Lord, Lord Boston, made clear, as I understood his speech, the previous

1171
Government took a decision not to extend the exceptions to the 1974 Act in that particular way.
Apart from the general points of principle about the need for any statutory control, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed out, the enactment of this Bill as at present drafted would bear very heavily on some offenders who had lived down their conviction for many years. Parliament specified that the longest rehabilitation period set out in the 1974 Act should be 10 years, and that applies only to offences for which the offender was sentenced to between six months and two and a half years in prison. The Bill, on the other hand, establishes a 15-year period, and relates it to some offences for which it is unlikely that a period of rehabilitation of even 10 years would have been appropriate under the Act, given the likely sentences involved. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made this point very clearly.
Clause 1 also goes a good deal further than the 1974 Act, in that it seeks directly to penalise past offenders, as defined in the clause, by preventing them from being employed as security officers at all. The Act simply describes circumstances in which offenders are rehabilitated and in which they need not disclose past convictions. I really think that to create such substantial exceptions to the 1974 Act for security officers alone would set them apart from all other occupations, and I am bound to say that I think this would not be the right road to go down.
Finally, the question of the pressure that the Bill would put on the police to disclose details of criminal records to private employers, thereby breaking a longstanding principle on non-disclosure to them, is also worrying, as is the alternative, which would be that the police would find themselves in the position of needing to pursue checks on the backgrounds of employees in order to enforce prohibition. As there may be upwards of 240,000 people covered by the Bill's wide definition of "security officer"—and I understood from the noble Lord's speech that his assessment is that there are a good many more than that—this would impose a considerable burden on the police.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I do not quite understand this point. I think that what is suggested is that it should not be an offence to disclose, not that there is an obligation for the police to do anything. I do not know where the noble Lord gets this.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, there would indeed be an obligation on the police because employers would approach the police. There is absolutely no doubt at all about that if this Bill were to go on the statute book in either this form or indeed a modified form. Employers would be bound to make use of the provisions of the clauses and would approach the police, and would wish to know. If the sort of assessment of the number of people who are concerned with the private security industry which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, gave us in his speech is anything like accurate—and, as I say, the assessment of the Home Office is somewhat lower—this would be a very considerable additional burden upon the police.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, we must not have a long argument over this, but surely at present the noble Lord is suggesting that the police are under
1172
obligation to answer questions about anyone who is not covered by the 1974 Act; in other words, for every sentence over two and a half years. I had no understanding of that.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must look again at what the noble Lord is saying, but I do not entirely take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has just said. My point is that if this Bill goes on the statute book, employers will avail themselves of the need for the police to provide information. I must say that I believe that to be what will happen in practice. Perhaps I may look at what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said, and I will certainly write to him if there is anything further that I should add.
For all these reasons the Government have—as I hope I have revealed—some pretty serious reservations about the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, although, as I said quite genuinely at the beginning, I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this Second Reading, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, will think that it is not necessary to proceed further with it through the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages. I say that not because I believe that inactivity in this very important area of employment is the right course, but because in view of the positive encouragement towards self-regulation within the private security industry which the Government have given, I am confident that the initiatives which are now under discussion, if put fully into operation, will go a long way towards raising standards of conduct and control.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for their warm support and for their very positive, sometimes critical, approach to this Bill. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, trotted out some of the same arguments, slightly retreaded, that we have had on this queston over the last few years; for example, the old one that to pass a Bill of this sort would be to confer, or would seem to imply that we were conferring, some official recognition on the security organisations. I do not think that it would confer any more recognition on the security organisations than we confer now.
As I tried to say in my speech, the fact is—and this is the new factor that I hope the Home Office will take on board—that there is now a psychological recognition of these uniformed guards. What would the noble Lord do if he went to his bank tomorrow, and was met at the door by a uniformed guard who said: "You can't come in"? Would he say: "You have no legal right to stop me; you have no legal powers in law"? No, he would obey that security guard. One sees that sort of thing more often in America than in Britain, for in America practically every store and jewellery shop has a uniformed guard who orders you about as if he is a policeman. I do not resent it. I believe that, on the whole, these security guards are doing a very good job in protecting property. But we must recognise this psychological approach in the public's mind. Therefore, to talk about recognition or non-recognition is not the point of the argument. They already have that. In my view that point

1173
has not been taken sufficiently into consideration in all the Home Office documents that I have read on the subject.
The other main point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was the question of self-regulation. Like him, I very much welcome the fact that BSIA and the IPSA are going in, in this very strong way, for self-regulation. I recognise, too, that they represent 90 per cent. of the industry. This is precisely the point that I was making; there is a hole in the bucket, and a rather big hole. Ten per cent. of security firms are not recognised. The point I was trying to make is that there is nothing to prevent anyone setting up a security organisation, and if he has criminal intent, he certainly would not join BSIA or the other organisation. He would just simply keep outside it. Why should he go in for that kind of self-regulation? Seven hundred firms, on the police's own reckoning, are not members of the BSIA or the other organisation. That is a rather large hole, and I am surprised that the Home Office should be satisfied with this powerful and good self-regulation and not see the danger that is looming up on the horizon from these other organisations.
I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made about security staff. That may be a rather important point. There is one other point to which I should like to refer, and that is that the exemptions would create an open door. I do not see why they should. It has not created a particularly open door since we made the exemptions in 1975, and if we exempt the private security industry from those regulations we can always put the bar up if somebody else comes along and says: why not postmen, bank cashiers, why not everybody else? They cannot make out a case, but surely nobody in their right mind could say that the security industry, which deals in the safety of people and property, should not be controlled in some way, and that they should not be exempted because it only opens the door. That is an old argument, and it is rather weatherworn now.
The crucial point was made partly by my noble friend Lord Donaldson and partly by my noble friend Lord Boston. That is the dilemma that I have in Clause 2 where, on the one hand, we want to protect the privacy of the individual, we do not want to come down too hard on offenders—and I take the point about some of the paragraphs and the sentences—and on the other hand we want some kind of control over the security industry, and there is this constant dilemma between the freedom of the individual and the needs of the public.
I was persuaded by the arguments that were put forward—and I hope my noble friends Lord Boston and Lord Donaldson will not be too disappointed by this—that in fact my Bill goes too far on the one hand and does not go far enough on the other. I rather feel, therefore, that I personally should like to have another think about it and come back to your Lordships' House on another occasion, with perhaps something a bit more widely drawn but more precisely drawn, if that is not a contradiction in terms. Therefore, while thanking noble Lords for their help and assistance, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for a Second Reading.
Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Shipbuilding Bill
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
Nuclear Industry (Finance) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill; read 1a, and to be printed.

Satellite Broadcasting: Policy
6.33 p.m.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what comments have been received on the report of the Home Office study entitled Direct Broadcasting by Satellite and when they intend to decide upon a policy towards satellite broadcasting.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper to the Government this evening I should declare a personal interest. I have worked in independent television for many years, and I am, until the end of this year, chairman of one of the ITV programme companies. But I am not here to speak for any outside interest. I speak on the subject of direct broadcasting by satellite entirely for myself.
The Question before us refers to the report of the Home Office study, Direct Broadcasting by Satellite, abbreviated to DBS, which was published in May of this year. I think all those of your Lordships who have read it will agree it is a most thorough and comprehensive document. It provides a detailed and a welcome introduction to a particularly complex subject, and one furthermore that it is easy to generalise about. To my mind, the report is a model of its kind, and shows what the Civil Service can do at its best.
On the first page it starts with an introduction by the Home Secretary phrased in characteristic language and identifying five "strategic options":
"Option A: a full and early start (for example, five new DBS services starting in, say, 1987);
Option B: a full but later start (in, say, 1990);
Option C: a modest but early start (one possibility would be two new DBS services starting perhaps in 1986);
Option D: a modest later start (in, say, 1990); and
Option E: no DBS at all, at any rate in the foreseeable future".
Anyone with experience of decision-taking in Whitehall or elsewhere will have no difficulty in identifying out of this list of five possibilities the middle one, Option C, as the front runner.
One question, however, that must be asked before the Government reach any final decision is whether the framework for the public policy which is beginning to emerge—it is now in the preliminary stages—is too narrow. The report affirms that so far as the programme operations go—that is, the use that is made of satellites—DBS should be contained within the existing broadcasting arrangements and institutions (those are the words used in the report). What this means in practice is the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
The reason given is that the existing rules and conventions which have grown up so laboriously over many years covering impartiality in the reporting of news and standards of taste and public decency would be perpetuated. On the face of it, it may seem a

1175
reasonable assertion. But I am not sure this assumption should be accepted without being tested by argument.
Last week there was a satellite broadcasting conference in Vienna. It was organised by the Economist in association with the International Institute of Communications. The institutional structure of satellite broadcasting was debated—and it was particularly interesting to hear a bold and far from self-serving view expressed by a senior spokesman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. While affirming the desire of the IBA to be in the advance guard of technological progress, the speaker went on to refer to programme regulation. I quote his actual words:
"It may be that the national interest is to be better served by the creation of a fresh institution to serve fresh goals. The original institutions can then be left to serve the former goals for as long as the nation, through its Parliament, decrees. In short, we may need to ask ourselves whether satellite broadcasting is simply a variation of forms familiar to us over many years or whether it brings in new elements which should radically alter our thinking and which perhaps call for fresh minds uninhibited by traditional ways of thought or unhampered by obligations incurred over the years to conflicting interests".
The Home Office was represented at the conference, and I hope that the Minister's officials will give careful thought to this opinion, coming, as it did, not from those who sometimes suffer from regulation, but from a representative of one of the regulatory bodies itself.
Even as we speak, in Geneva the European Broadcasting Union has today responded positively to an offer from the European Space Agency. The offer was for the free experimental use of one of the transponders on L-Sat for the provision of a broadcasting service. What is envisaged is a pan-European broadcasting experiment broadcast from the ESA's L-Sat and co-ordinated by the European Broadcasting Union. Already 15 European broadcasting organisations, including the United Kingdom, have stated an interest in taking part. It is difficult, however, to see how a European initiative of this sort effectively could be regulated by any national broadcasting institution.
It seems to me, my Lords, that concentration on the institutional forms, on the most appropriate type of broadcasting institution, is more relevant and important than debating the possibility of a departmental shift of responsibility for broadcasting away from the Home Office to the Department of Industry. Despite the advocacy to the contrary of the Economist, I believe that a change of this sort would be regretted by most broadcasters. The Department of Industry is of course an interested party, bearing in mind the industrial aspects of space and the provision of the hardware. But I should prefer to see the broader social policy aspects left as the concern of a separate department not exclusively concerned with the industrial dimension.
There is a dilemma now facing Government and we should be frank about it. On the one hand, there is an export potential for satellite equipment and for the technology which exists in this country, largely in British Aerospace, but elsewhere as well. If we do not go ahead, Britain may find itself excluded from the new markets which are so important both for reasons of trade and maintaining employment. On the other hand, there is no real demand for new broad
1176
casting services beyond those extensions which have already, after prolonged debate, been authorised; namely, the introduction of the fourth channel next year and breakfast television in 1984. Moreover, DBS—direct broadcasting from satellites—could be disruptive of the existing systems of independent television and the BBC and the standards which have grown up over many years.
We can all agree, my Lords, that there are large issues of policy here, not just of industrial policy, possibly clashing with cultural standards, but questions of finance and regulation, as well as protection and freedom. It is important not to lose sight of these fundamental principles in reaching a decision. I hope the Government will move ahead boldly and imaginatively in adopting a policy. I trust they will not delay much longer, and that in reaching a decision they will be helped by the opinions expressed in the House this evening.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in rising at this point I am very conscious of two matters. The first is that owing to another public engagement it is possible that I might have to leave before the end of the debate, but if I do so I hope it will be understood that no discourtesy is intended to those who follow me, and shall read every word with the greatest possible interest, though I shall stay as long as I can. Secondly, I am conscious of the fact that this is an Unstarred Question rather than a debate. For those two reasons I shall make a very short speech.
I put down my name to speak tonight merely to underline the extreme importance which my noble friends on these Benches attach to this Question, which was put so clearly and fairly by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I put down my name to speak because I wish also to underline what we on these Benches believe to be the extreme urgency of the Government providing appropriate answers to the kinds of questions which have been posed today.
If I wanted to go more deeply into the subject I would perhaps do no more than quote from speeches already made in your Lordships' House, and no useful purpose would be served by simply repeating them. For example, we see that on 24th July 1980 at col. 588 of Hansard the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made an admirable speech in which he covered all the new technological developments, going far beyond satellites, which will have and indeed are already having a profound effect on broadcasting. It would be immensely helpful if Ministers and others interested in the subject took the trouble to go back to that debate and read the clear exposition of what is happening in this field, admirably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, on that earlier occasion, and no useful purpose would be served by me repeating it.
At col. 609 of Hansard for that debate was another admirable speech, made by the noble Earl, Lord de La Warr, in which he summarised many of the technical matters which are crucial, and it would be inappropriate for me to quote from that speech because, as the noble Earl is to speak later, he may wish to make that speech again, and if he does I will say, "A jolly good thing too" because it was an excellent speech.
In that speech the noble Earl dealt very much with a

1177
subject in which I have always had a great interest, pay television. I have tended to believe that if we give more opportunities for people to choose the kind of things they would like to view or listen to and actually pay for it, then, provided we can create the machinery whereby that can be done, minority interests can perhaps be much better catered for than they have been in the past, though I am bound to say that it is sometimes rather difficult to know what a minority interest is. Something which starts as a minority interest can soon become a majority interest.
I remember about 15 years ago, when I had the honour and pleasure of serving for some years as a member of the BBC General Advisory Committee—I served until such time as the BBC came to the conclusion that they preferred advice of a somewhat different character than that which they regularly received from me—I strongly urged the BBC to think about televising snooker. I was told that was rubbish because it was a minority interest and nobody would want to watch it. It just goes to show that some minority interests become majority ones.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in putting this Question forward, has alerted us once again to the fact that major changes are already taking place, changes which can have a profound impact on television, for those who provide it, for those who initiate and prepare programmes and for all those who receive programmes, enjoy them or otherwise. I believe that the new developments can all prove to be thoroughly beneficial provided we take the necessary steps in time, and that means now. The new developments can be beneficial purely financially, and in commercial terms new technology brings new opportunities which do not now exist. They can be beneficial to broadcasters themselves, and the creative people in that industry, by providing more opportunities and outlets. I also believe that at the end of the day the new opportunities, arising in part from satellites as well as other new forms of technology, can provide viewers with a much greater degree of choice. All those are matters to be welcomed.
But here are also problems. There are already problems with regard to copyright and daily infringements of copyright which are occurring, with people making video tape recordings of programmes and reissuing them and so on. There are many problems on the horizon with regard to the general balance of television and broadcasting. In Parliament, with the BBC Charter and the independent television Act, we have always taken great care to distance Parliament from the control of broadcasting. We have required other authorities to see that the balance is preserved overall, rather than specifically within individual programmes. But I have always tended to believe that the only real answer to the question of fairness and balance is for the maximum number of individual creative people to have the maximum number of opportunities and the maximum amount of personal freedom and autonomy. Then one has variety and genuinely has choice.
With these latest developments we are on the brink of a new, wide-ranging choice for viewers, but we are also on the brink of the total demolition of the elaborate arrangements that we have erected in order to control what people watch and what is presented by
1178
various organisations. These are all matters that will have to be thought about.
I said that I would make a short speech, and I see that it is already longer than I meant it to be. All I want to add is that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has raised a matter of immense importance. There are many crucial problems. I could outline them and list them, but I am sure that other noble Lords will do so, and I appreciate that the noble Lord himself listed many. They were also referred to in the earlier debate in your Lordships' House. But I say that if we are to derive full benefit from these developments without any corresponding or counter-balancing drawbacks, decisions really must be taken now on a whole range of matters. Therefore, it is with great interest that I look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. When I have heard him reply to previous debates I have tended to feel that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has a gift for finding a difficulty in regard to every solution. If he will forgive me, I must say that on this occasion it really is important to all concerned that we hear some actual answers and positive statements of what the Government are now doing and intend to do on a matter of extreme urgency.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for tabling this Question. This is a fascinating subject, which has been made easier for us to understand by the very thorough study that the Home Office has undertaken and has published for us to read. Even those of us who are not technically-minded are able to understand at least part of it. But it leaves a number of questions unanswered, and if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can answer some of them tonight he might help both us and the country.
I think I am right in saying that there are still areas of this country without any television at all. There are areas which have been left with only black and white television—without colour—following the change in line definition from 625 to 405. Therefore, my first question is: If, and when, we have direct broadcasting by satellite into the home, will it cover more easily all those areas where we have not been able to get a signal on what is known as the terrestrial system? That is my first question. I am in favour of DBS; I think we have to go ahead. My second question is: Do the Government foresee replacing the existing three channels, plus the fourth channel and breakfast time television, with five channels from a satellite, or do they think in terms of five channels in addition to those that we already have? If the latter is the case, are all the channels really necessary?
These are the kind of questions that people are hound to ask when they consider the cost involved in the whole exercise. It would probably take about five years before we could get the satellite in the air, and it would probably cost £300 to £400 to each household that hoped to receive a direct signal from the satellite. The second figure is made up by a module to receive the signal from the satellite, plus an additional aerial of a different type—a dish aerial, as it is generally known as. But of course the main cost will not be to the householder. The main cost will be to either the Government, who might wish to fund the project, or

1179
private industry that was interested in funding it. They would have to find many millions of pounds to construct the satellite and then to launch it.
We know that these things can be done. The world authority has given us the opportunity to go ahead with the L-Sat, the large satellite, with five channels, if we so wish, and it is for the Government to decide. But before that is done, we ought to consider the cost and how it is proposed to pay for the project. One suggestion is that the five channels, if they are all used—and there is no real need to use them all at once—could be paid for by some form of subscription television; that is, paying for the programmes that one receives. That, too, is a possibility. It would need on the receiver an additional device in the form of a descrambler to descramble the transmission from the particular channel of the satellite; otherwise everyone with a dish aerial could receive a programme that other people were paying for. That is another little problem that will have to be considered. But in this country we have not yet proved that what is known as subscription, pay, or cable television is financially viable. It probably will be in the fullness of time. Whether it would be in regard to the satellite, one does not know.
As I have already said, at the moment we have three channels. We shall have a fourth channel next year, and then there will be breakfast time television in a few years' time. If DBS (direct broadcast by satellite) is to be successful, it must somehow be covered—I mean financially covered—and I am not quite clear how this is to be done.
There is another point I should like to ask the Government about. Is it their view that the BBC and the IBA, both with considerable technical knowledge, should undertake the ground work; that is, the transmission from the ground to the satellite? Is it the view that the existing engineering sections of the two authorities should do that? These are a few questions arising from the report that I feel need answering, if the Government can answer them at the present moment. I should hate the Government at some point in the near future to say that in view of a number of queries and problems we had better set up a commission to look at the whole thing once again. That would mean putting it to bed for five years by which time both France and Germany would be undertaking direct broadcasting by satellite. I think that we have all the information we need. What we need more than anything else at the moment is a decision from the Government. I am in favour of going ahead, even if only slowly.
I remember, as do most of us, the discussions that we have had about Concorde. It has been a very costly development of a quite wonderful aircraft, but we can never measure accurately the spin-off in technology and knowledge that has come to us through building Concorde. I think that the same will apply to direct broadcasting by satellite. I hope that the Government will go ahead, perhaps slowly, and that in the fullness of time those areas that have not been easy to cover by the present system of terrestrial broadcasts can be covered by direct broadcasting by satellite.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, I appreciate the opportunity given to us by the noble Lord,
1180
Lord Windlesham, to air this matter. I have an approach that I think is rather different from that of some other speakers. I do not share the sense of urgency that I hear expressed around the Chamber in regard to this issue. Before I explain why I do not share that sense of urgency, I should like to touch on one subject which the noble Lord raised in introducing the debate; namely, the question of governmental control of broadcasting. We have indeed moved a very long way since the days of Lord Reith, but even from those days until now I have never taken the view that the Home Office was really the right department to look after broadcasting. Broadcasting never has been a home affair. We have always controlled it with quite a light hand, happily, through the Home Office, but it has always seemed to me that this is really the wrong department.
I have always felt that, with the present division of the whole of this area—for example, broadcasting under the Home Office, films partly under Trade and partly under Arts, sports under the Environment and museums partly under Environment and partly under Arts—there is a tremendous confusion; and I believe that this confusion would be solved if we were once and for all to make up our minds to create a Ministry of the Arts, Communications, Entertainment and Sport. That, together, would make up a viable Ministry and would be a department which was wholly concerned with the whole area. I think we shall probably not get a coherent policy in any of these fields until such time as ministerial and departmental responsibility is centralised under the control of one Minister.
The BBC, when it first set up as a broadcasting organisation, had over its portals—and it still has—the words, "Nation shall speak unto nation". What it does not say, of course, is, "Nation shall listen to nation". There has been an awful lot of international broadcasting but relatively little international listening, and, indeed, surprisingly little international communication of any sort.
I take leave to doubt whether in fact television is really an international medium. I rather suspect that it is in fact a national development, and that to some extent the nature of television reflects the nature of the society within which it exists. This, I think, is particularly true of our own system. Rather unusually on our side of the House, I was always in favour of breaking the BBC's monopoly. On the whole, we on this side of the House, I think, saw the BBC, a public corporation, as being all good, and rather thought that Lord Reith had something to do with that—and of course he had. His idea of television and of broadcasting generally was a very different one from the modern idea. He saw it as an instrument of education rather than one of entertainment and enjoyment.
As far as I was personally concerned, I was delighted when ITA came along. I was rather worried by the fact that it was financed by advertising; but I thought we got the best of both worlds when we set up the IBA so that we had the advantage of the finance coming from advertising and yet kept it under a reasonable degree of control. In that way we did not slide into the disastrous situation into which they have got themselves in the United States, where television is

1181
simply not worth looking at because the interruption by advertising is so constant that it totally prevents one getting any kind of cohesive or continuous enjoyment of the programme, which is mainly, I think, why people do not look at the television so much in the United States as they do here.
As far as the development of satellite broadcasting is concerned, I have not heard so far what the urgency is about. Who is going to benefit? What are the advantages to be? Why is it that we need this new development? It seems to me that where they have rather more channels than we have in this country, they have worse television. What is the use of choice if you have 12 stations, all of them broadcasting a B Western? You have a choice of station certainly, but in fact it is a bogus choice. If you go to Japan or if you go to the United States, you will find a wide range of channels but it is all the same thing.
The difficulty I see with regard to this development is the question that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, touched upon, and that is: who is going to finance it? Where is the money coming from? Is it coming from the Government? The Government are going to tell us, "No". I am quite sure about that: that when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, replies to the debate he will not stand up and say, "Yes, this is a matter in regard to which the Government are ready to put their hands deeply into their pocket, and they will finance the whole thing so as to make sure that we get the sort of television that we want".
It is as well to bear in mind, I think, so far as our own system is concerned, that the networks have always been within Government control. The programming, certainly, has been in separate hands, but the networking, the technology, has always been in the hands of Government. What are the Government going to do about this? Is the technology to be with IBA or the BBC, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, asked, or is the technology to be created from private sources; and, if it is to be created from private sources, where is the return on capital coming from? It can only come by the same kind of excessive concentration on advertising which I think has disfigured American television and which has disfigured so much television in some other countries.
So therefore I ask myself: What is the urgency that we see? Curiously enough, I take the same view about this as IBA have taken. They sent me a little piece of information about the attitude that the Independent Broadcasting Authority take on this subject, and they conclude with these words, with which I think, if I may, I, too, will conclude except for just one other short point. What they say is this:
"… in particular the industrial arguments for developing new technology must, in our view, go forward in parallel with the arguments for ensuring that programmes seen by the United Kingdom audience continue to be of the highest possible standard, and that the infrastructure for this (financial, creative, technical, organisational, and legal) is such as to preserve quality".
This, my Lords, is the key question—"is such as to preserve quality". I think there is a very grave danger that we may get a technical advance arising from this development and, in doing so, destroy the key factor of the British television system, which is the concentration upon quality. If this means a development in which we get a greater technological advance, tele
1182
vision which is more easily received, that would be bought at too high a cost if the consequence of it was a deterioration not only in the form of television that we would be getting from outer space but a consequent deterioration, which I think can hardly be avoided, in the quality of our own terrestrial television broadcasts.
Finally, I would add just one other word. The Trades Union Congress has also considered this. Perhaps I ought to say before I sit down that my interest in this originally was at the time when broadcasting was at an earlier stage and I was working with British Actors' Equity Association. Therefore I came to this with the interests of the performers very much in mind. I am no longer connected with Equity except that I am an honorary member of that organisation. I am extremely proud to have that position of honorary membership—and it is a very rare distinction which I share with Lord Olivier, and I am delighted to enjoy it—but I would like to quote one word, if I may, from the TUC point of view.
What they say is that they would like to see satellite transmissions
"subject to firm regulatory control to protect broadcasting and United Kingdom autonomy over our national broadcasting transmissions".
They would not like to see this country lose the degree of control which we already have over what happens in our own broadcasting transmissions. We have therefore come together. We have the Trades Union Congress and the Independent Broadcasting Authority speaking with a single voice in this matter, and asking that, whatever happens, quality should be upheld.
7.9 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, too, should like to welcome the Question which has been asked by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. As he reminded us, this study came out in May; answers were required, and no doubt were in, by July; and so December seems to be a very timely moment for the Government to be asked this Question. I should like to say, on a lighter note, that although I can assure your Lordships there has been no collusion between us in any way except for a telephone call this morning, my noble friend Lord Windlesham and I can in a sense be called industrial cousins. Many years ago my noble friend Lord Windlesham was in Associated Rediffusion making programmes and I was in its first cousin, Rediffusion, making television sets. So that there has been a connection between us in broadcasting throughout many years.
I should like to go along with my noble friend in congratulating the Home Office on an excellent Paper. I am sure that it is not proper to mention the names of civil servants but those of us who are in touch know who wrote it; and I should like to offer him my very sincere congratulations. I think the reason for this is that it successfully covers the whole spectrum of this extremely complicated subject; it does not confine itself to programming. It deals with finance, with engineering and with what I call the industrial dimension, and it does so in a very fair way.
It seems to me that it provides a very solid base for planning—perhaps so solid that it has made it incumbent upon the Government to take some early decisions; because everything is in the Paper and the Government hardly can (and I am sure that they do not want to)

1183
escape. I hope tonight for a really positive response from my noble friend Lord Belstead which does its best to leave us in some considerably greater degree of certainty and knowledge than we are in at the moment. Like other speakers—and there seems to be very considerable agreement around the House here—I regard the decisions as urgent for reasons which I will adduce a little later; and, for reasons which also will adduce a little later, I am one of those who favour the earliest possible launch. In order that we may get to this as quickly as possible, I would suggest the simplest which, as I understand it, is the two-broadcasting-channel option.
We know that the French and the Germans have already decided, and probably decided a couple of years ago, to launch their satellite. We may expect them at the latest in 1984 and, probably, in 1983. So far as we are concerned, and on the sort of timing that elapses between a decision and the actuality in this business, if we take a decision now we are already talking about a launch in the middle of the decade and not before.
My Lords, I must confess that my concern, despite everything in this document, is about the priorities that will obtain in the decision taking. This is a point on which I hope very much—and I have some confidence in it despite my concern—that the Minister can put our minds to rest. Over the years—and this has not been a political matter at all but has covered decades—the traditional attitude of Governments has been, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham has said, to seek orderly development programmes; and, so far, I must say that I think they have been absolutely right. It is because of that that I think it can rightly be said that we have probably the best broadcasting system with the best broadcasting content in the world.
The question is whether a direct broadcast satellite will fit into the same parameters that have been used in the past. I hope that your Lordships will not think it too fanciful if I go back a number of generations—and over a decade I have used this analogy—and remind your Lordships that up to late Elizabethan times it was illegal to own and operate a printing press without the consent of the Crown, so great was the fear that the people would gain too much knowledge. Well, public opinion and what was even then a considerable technological advance put an end to this; and one just wonders whether there is not some parallel to be drawn today.
My Lords, I have already said that the DBS (Direct Broadcasting Satellite) introduces some wholly new dimensions. One cannot deal with the whole spectrum but what I want to deal with tonight is the industrial dimension. I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the very big world market which exists for broadcasting and other forms of communication satellite. The European Space Agency has, I think, calculated (or guessed) that in the next 10 years or so there will he a market of £2,000 million.
It is surely absolutely essential in this country when our old industries are declining that we should go for the biggest slice we can get of this sort of business, business that covers the aerospace industry and a big slice of the electronics industry. It is exactly that that
1184
we need for the future of our industry. The French and the Germans are in the business already; the United States are in it. Somebody better qualified than I can say whether the Japanese are in it. If they are not, they jolly soon will be; you can bet your bottom dollar on that! This is the case for our getting into the business and it is going to need some extremely hard marketing in order to get our share of this world market.
British Aerospace, and, I have no doubt, other companies, believe passionately that it is going to be of enormous help to them to sell satellites round the world if one of the early satellites that go up is a British satellite, for this country, made by a manufacturer in this country. As somebody who has been in marketing for a large part of his life, I agree totally with this. It goes beyond the question of building satellites because the whole of the trade concerned with this business is involved. What is called at length the British Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association—which I have known as BEEMA for as long as I can remember—has drawn to the attention of the Home Office, and rightly, the possibilities that are open to them.
Let us remember that we shall have to make dishes and down leads. I do not want to get too technical; but I would remind your Lordships that the frequency of broadcasting up aloft will be at 12 GH and there is no way you can put 12 Giga Herz from a dish in a down lead to a television set without the picture becoming virtually unviewable and hopelessly noisy. People will need to have that piece of equipment inside the house and another piece of equipment which will have to change the polarity and the form of modulation and, finally, if it is to be pay TV you will have a descrambler. All of these are bits of equipment which our industry is well equipped to make for this country and for export.
Sets themselves will need to be re-designed because in due course it will be possible to put the right type of chip inside a set for a couple of pounds which will make the more expensive pieces of equipment irrelevant and unnecessary. Manufacturers are right to want an early decision on that. One can simply say that the opportunities here for export are matched pretty equally by the risks of import penetration from our competitors.
In 1977 the world conference set the scene so far as Europe is concerned and all parties are now ready. The BBC is ready with plans for renting channels. They have suggested that they will have one channel of pay TV and one channel of what they call the best of BBC. There will be some extra films here but by and large it does not mean very much new programming. The aerospace industries are ready, British Aerospace or Marconi, and they are most anxious to get into the detailed engineering. Probably the key to the whole thing lies in financing it; it usually does when the chips are down. I can give your Lordships an absolute assurance that private capital is available and anxious to go into this in order to pay for the launching of these satellites. Satellites, after all, are in the risk business and it therefore seems right that it should be private capital which should go into these new ventures.
Again, I say with the best will in the world that programming will be the sticky part if we allow it to

1185
be so. I believe strongly that we cannot afford—and nor is it necessary—to wait for the usual debates that take place on this subject that frequently take so long. I repeat that the French and Germans are putting up a satellite. They have not waited, they are just going to put it up; and none of their plans of programming, so far as I know, are well advanced.
My wish is to seek an act of faith on the part of the Government, the proof of which will only be an early decision to approve an early launch. I am quite sure that the Home Office is in very careful conference with the department of information and technology which exists now within the orbit of the Department of Industry because so near does all this bring us to the domain of that department that I believe that the new department cannot possibly be left out. So let us admit that the arrival of this new technology imposes on Government and industry an imperative which in the name of the future prosperity of this country we can neither delay nor duck. At our peril will we forget that in the field of video information the inexorable advance of technology—which we cannot stop even if we would—is forcing the old order to give place to the new; and, more particularly, in the field of governmental control. That this is so is likely to be well demonstrated in the matter of broadcasting satellites. That is one of the reasons why I believe that this Question tonight is so aptly timed.
7.25 p.m.
Lard Reay: My Lords, I should like to start with a quotation from a European Commission document to which a reference is made on page 80 of the fascinating Home Office study which, thanks to the initiative of my noble friend Lord Windlesham, we are discussing this evening. The Commission document entitled European Society Faced with the Challenge of New Information Technologies: A Community Response describes how the heads of state and Government of the Community at their conference in Bonn in July 1978:
"… recognised the need to identify new sources of growth and employment to offset the difficult adjustments that traditional industries such as coal, steel, shipbuilding and textiles are being forced to undergo. At Strasbourg they agreed that the dynamic complex of information industries based on the new electronic technologies offered a major source of such economic growth and social development and invited the Commission to report".
In other words, the first Commission studies were founded on the perception that Europe had to re-locate its manufacturing strength in the industries of the future.
I believe that the British Government should adopt exactly the same priority. Whatever the difficult choices that have to be made, two-channel or five-channel satellites, cable or individual reception, methods of finance, methods of control, whatever the apparent obstacles in the way of an early start because the IBA have enough on their plate for the next few years or because of the reluctance to take a risk which may lead down to a dead end or a reluctance to find the finance required, I think that the Government should attack the question of a British DBS with the overriding aim of giving British industry from the earliest possible moment the chance to secure the maximum possible share of the world market in all its various sectors, such as were listed by my noble friend Lord De La Warr, in this extraordinary revolution in communications that is taking place. To achieve this I am sure that the Government need to take up as soon as possible
1186
the full options open to them under the 1977 agreement. If chances like these are not seized with enthusiasm, then none of us will ever live to see the recovery of Britain's manufacturing and social vitality.
The second point that I want to make—I make it as a delegate to the Assembly of the Council of Europe where this matter has received a considerable amount of attention—is that I find the international dimension of the study somewhat disappointing. The study concentrates on options involved in the organisation of British direct satellite broadcasting. There is a chapter entitled "European aspects of DBS" but I feel that too little attention is paid to events to which I think this country is only too likely to be subjected from outside.
The impression is given that this country will hardly be accessible to overspill from abroad; but I think that the authors may be exaggerating the effective distance of Luxembourg and other centres—or, to be more exact, the distance of their so-called "footprints". The tendency of overspill to grow as improvements are made in the means of powering satellite transmissions is not mentioned. The possibility of a deliberate commercial assault on the viewers of this country from outside is hardly alluded to. I agree with my noble friend Lord Windlesham in what lie said in his article today in The Times that the growth of cable television in this country has been unnecessarily and artificially restricted. I paraphrase his words, but I think those were his sentiments. With cable television, of course, the opportunities for penetration of one country by the programmes from another are vastly increased. Your Lordships may or may not be aware that in Amsterdam it is already possible to receive every night television programmes from Moscow.
I do not believe it is either possible or desirable to prevent reception of these external broadcasts as a general rule and the question arises: Can any international agreements relating to standards (perhaps to minimum standards) be reached or not? In the Steering Committee on the Mass Media in the Council of Europe, which meets at ministerial level, questions such as the possibility of agreeing on minimum advertising standards, problems of copyright, considerations of different national requirements in the field of morals, taste and advertising prohibitions, have been studied and, so far as I am aware, are still being studied. I should he grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—this is a question of which I have given prior notice—in his reply could tell us whether he believes that any useful agreement could come out of the Steering Committee on the Mass Media in the Council of Europe of an international kind, together with a procedure for complaints and redress. If this answer is in the affirmative, I should like to know where the committee has now got to in its deliberations.
My final point concerns the nature of the revolution itself—"the unstoppable tide", as my noble friend Lord Windlesham called it in his article today. It seems to me that what this revolution offers is the extension of choice. I therefore think that the Government, perhaps in a area they did not expect, will find themselves with more than an opportunity—with an obligation—to roll back the frontiers of the state. In theory it will be possible for Governments to control broadcasts that are relayed by cable, but in practice will it be desirable to prevent the mass audience re

1187
ceiving broadcasts on cable which a richer minority will be able to continue to receive on their own higher-powered individual antennae.
I can see foreign programmes being very much cherished by national or cultural minorities. These may come from the other side of the world. Will the Government wish to ban them? But how can they control them? Would it not be a temptation of a totalitarian kind to try to exclude foreign programmes because of the political matter they contain? Certainly that would be a very serious step to take. Are we in fact not reaching a situation where we have to apply the principle of a free press to the air waves? More and more, I am coming to the conclusion that that has to be our approach.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House would like to express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for having raised this subject this evening. It is one of tremendous importance and indeed does merit a good deal more debate in this House, I think, than is in fact accorded by the very welcome Unstarred Question on which the discussion takes place.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, dealt particularly with the institutional aspects of the proposition and were very concerned as to how the whole matter should be organised, the various responsibilities and so on. In fact the speeches that have been made this evening have covered the ground so very well that it would be quite repetitive of me to endeavour to cover the same ground.
Somewhat strangely, I find myself in very considerable sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who emphasised the urgency of the whole matter; and I must express my regret to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, who did not seem to think that the thing was quite so urgent. I think it is very urgent indeed, although I well appreciate the environmental considerations and the quality-of-life considerations which I am quite sure lay behind what my noble friend had to say.
We are living at a time when progress, we now know, is not made on a straight arithmetical line: it goes in geometric progression. Few of us know today what developments are going to happen in the next 10 years, or even in the next five years as a result of the developments of this further step forward into the transmission of pictures, of ideas and of sound, by whatever means it may be done. Here we have a position where a single satellite, I believe orbiting in a geostationary position some 36,000 kilometres above the earth, can be used in effect as a reflector to places which, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, pointed out, in some cases are inaccessible from the point of view of ordinary terrestrial broadcasts.
The mind boggles as to where future developments emerging from that one will lead us over the next 10 years. It does not need a very considerable leap of the imagination to be able to visualise circumstances in which, as a result of the whole system of direct satellite broadcasting, instead of firms' executives having to fly by jet from one city to another all over the world, they may in fact within a comparatively short time be able, as a result of technical developments of this develop
1188
ment, to have their own screens and sets in their own offices and to have simultaneous conferences where they can all see and listen to each other in almost exactly the same way as if they were in one room. There are further technical and ordinary practical developments beyond that, but consider the implications for mankind if even that development took place.
I am pleased to refer to the emphasis which the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, gave to the spin-off. What would happen under those circumstances? What would happen to the airlines, for example, and what would be the repercussions on international transport, and so on? The spin-off effects of this development are likely to be considerable, and one hopes that they will be for the benefit of mankind. So I do believe that there is this question of urgency.
The only point, I think, on which I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was his optimism. He seemed to think that the capital would be readily available. I have perhaps only to refer him to the report itself for him to be persuaded that this is not the case. The report showed that there was a marked hesitancy on the part of private capital to invest in a project of this kind until very detailed market research had been done. As I say, the report referred with some hesitancy—
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He is being extremely helpful about this. I had not thought it proper to mention specific names of City institutions, but I assure the noble Lord that willingness has gone a great deal further since this report was written.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl. But I should like to place on record what the report actually said. Talking of the proposals to provide private capital for the direct broadcasting system, it said:
"However, this proposal is made subject to a satisfactory market survey of the likely public demand for DBS services. Other companies seem to be interested, too, but there is no certainty at the present time that private sector funds would be available and, if they were, on what terms and conditions"
The report continued:
"It is in this context that the question of long-term assurances from the broadcasters or the Government, or both, could become relevant and would raise a number of difficulties".
What I cannot understand is that from the outset, and in the Home Secretary's introduction to the report, the Government have laid it down quite firmly that there is to be no Government financial assistance whatsoever to this project. Mr. Whitelaw said:
"We should also have to look for solutions to the problems of financing any new broadcasting services otherwise than by means of Government expenditure and without undermining our existing services",
and so on. The report went out of its way to emphasise this. On page 3 of the report, in paragraph 1.4 of the introduction, we are informed that,
"Those consulted were advised not to assume that there would be any Government expenditure on a direct broadcasting satellite service or that programme services would be provided other than by or under the supervision of the existing broadcasting authorities".
I ask the question: why? I think that the House ought to consider whether there is a connection between the fact that, in France and Germany, the plans for DBS are very well advanced indeed—as has already

1189
been indicated in the course of the debate—and that the German and French Governments have already given substantial financial assistance to the project, and the fact that they are in the field before we are. This ought, surely, to be a matter for some consideration in the United Kingdom. At one time, we had a reputation for being first in a whole number of fields—technical, mechanical, electrical, electronic or whatever it may be. Why, then, are we still envisaging the leisurely approach?
Any Government that really sees the possibilities of direct broadcasting by satellite—and I am now talking in terms of its immediate industrial effects, which were referred to so very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr—should he giving it all possible support, which it has been given in France and Germany, as well as in the United States, where the spin-off from the whole of the space programme has been very considerable in ensuring that the American system got into operation first, which, indeed, it has.
I cannot understand the obsession which the Government appear to have, that all development must, of necessity, be in private hands and be provided by private capital. I cannot understand this obsession that the whole thing must be left to the free enterprise system, operating without restraint, when all the signs around the Government are that the whole system is creaking and crumbling before our very eyes, as, indeed, is evidenced by the present disastrous circumstances in which the country finds itself.
The Government seem to assume that capital has no social responsibilities whatsoever. Capital, and the power that capital commands over the availability of the means of production, is free to go exactly where it likes, according to the free market, regardless of the consequences on the population of the country from which the capital originated and where the wealth which lies behind it was earned. I cannot understand, particularly in relation to a project of this kind, why there is an insistence, which is made implicit all the way through the document, that if there is to be any development public funds are not going into it anyway. I think that this is a fatal mistake.
Whatever the assurances which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is prepared to give to the House—and T accept that he gave them in perfectly good faith and I would not wish to cast any aspersions whatsoever on them—I am convinced on the basis of past performance that, if this very high risk area is left to capital which has shown itself so risk-shy over the last 20 years, there will be no perceptible development at all and we shall go on postponing the options for year after year. Meanwhile, the electronics manufacturers in Germany and France and, sooner or later, in Japan will rapidly be capturing the world market for this equipment, whether it be 90 centimetre antenna or 2 metre antenna; whether it be the converter boxes, the scramblers or whatever it may be.
The market is already in the process of creation and countries other than our own are preparing now to exploit it under our very noses, and they already have a two-year lead. Are the Government so preoccupied with the shires, and with those whose good fortune it is to till the land, that they fail to see how vitally necessary it is at this time to put forward an additional stimulus into that one branch of industry which is already begin
1190
ning to show signs of growth—and vigorous growth at that? Are they not prepared to do that, or are we to have the same degree of dithering that we had on the INMOS project, where it took an agonised Secretary of State for Industry one year while he wrestled with his conscience as to whether or not public funds were to be put up in support of the investment?
I have nothing, or practically nothing, to say in dissent from what any noble Lord has said about this paper, which I entirely agree is an admirable one. But what we want now is not to be passed off with statements such as, "The Government have this matter under careful review. They are leaving no stone unturned in order to ensure that at some future time a further inquiry will be held on an interdepartmental basis, subject to the approval of a senior Minister, which will report possibly in 12 months' or two years' time."
What industry in this country requires is this-and when I say "industry" I include, of course, the workers in industry who are a very important part of it. Indeed, without them there would not be any industry at all. At this time they are interested in seeing that industry, in some form or other, makes some progress in this country. The only way, in my view, in which this can be pressed forward is by the Government quitting its agonising as to where the money is coming from and making a sensible investment in it, as distinct from continually wasting money by increasing unemployment and having to pay out benefit; making some sensible investment, not on an ill-considered basis, because the mere provision of money by itself does nothing, but on the basis of the very excellent technical outline which is available to them and which is summarised in this report—and, indeed, on the basis of some of the very sensible suggestions which have been made this evening in your Lordships' House.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Windlesham for this opportunity to debate this question. Indeed, this is the first opportunity, think, that either House of Parliament has had to debate direct broadcasting by satellite for some time, and certainly since the publication of the Home Office report. As he declared at the beginning of his speech, my noble friend has considerable experience of television and I am convinced that he is right to advise the House this evening that we need to lift our eyes to the opportunities as well as the problems of direct broadcasting by satellite. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Home Secretary's foreword to the Home Office report gave an indication of our positive approach to satellite broadcasting.
I was grateful also to my noble friend and to my noble friend Lord De La Warr, and other noble Lords, for their words of appreciation for the Home Office survey of the questions which direct broadcasting by satellite—DBS as we have come to call it—raise for the United Kingdom. The report examines the implications of a modest start, or a full start, or no start at all. It examines the question of timing—whether an early start or a late start—and it considers the strategic questions from a number of different points of view: broadcasting policy, industrial and commercial opportunities, the environment, copyright, international aspects—all these against the factual background of

1191
what satellite broadcasting can do and how much it would cost. I was interested in Lord Windlesham's brief reference to the merits of preserving the existing departmental responsibilities. At this point I should like to assure all noble Lords that the study was produced by close co-operation between several Government departments, including in particular, of course, the Department of Industry and the Department of Trade. One significant conclusion to be drawn from the study is that the question of direct broadcasting by satellite is not fundamentally a technical one. The technology exists, as many of your Lordships know much better than I do—at a price—and the questions which we face are primarily ones of industrial and broadcasting policy.
The industrial considerations are perhaps the clearer cut. As the study found, DBS can create important opportunities both at home and abroad for the aerospace and electronics industries. When the study was written it appeared to us that there was a willingness on the part of the private sector to make the investment which would be necessary to bring about direct broadcasting by satellite. Indeed, the comments which we have received in response to the study and the positive approach outlined in my right honourable friend's foreword to it have tended to confirm that impression; an impression which has been borne out again this evening by the speech of my noble friend Lord De La Warr. We have received proposals to provide a satellite system on a common carrier basis. I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that with reference to that part of his speech which dealt with why the Government are at present saying that they do not want to become involved financially in this with large sums of Government money, there is no lack of interest on behalf of the Government. Only very recently my honourable friend the Minister for Information Technology announced the allocation of some £77 million towards the development of the ELSAT satellite within the European Space Agency. Of course, the prime contractor for ELSAT is British Aerospace. In essence, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asked: Why the hurry? Why is there a need to push on? My noble friend Lord De La Warr replied very clearly to this point. My noble friend very succinctly and very cogently showed the industrial opportunities both for aerospace and for our electronics industry. My noble friend also emphasised very clearly and graphically what sort of equipment the reception of DBS would require. My noble friend Lord De La Warr is quite right that early decisions on DBS are most important from the industrial point of view.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would take this into consideration: that because one gets into the transmission business it does not necessarily mean that one also gets into the receiving business. So far as radio and television receivers are concerned, the failure of this country to benefit, by the relative failure of our private enterprise to match the standards put out by our broadcasting organisations, is lamentable. Our industry, on the production and receiving side, has let a situation develop in which many of the instruments we listen and view on are not made in this country at all, as the noble Lord is well aware.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there must be many noble Lords in the House this evening who would wish to jump to their feet on hearing the noble Lord and say that it is precisely for the reason which the noble Lord has given that they want an early decision from the Government so that British technology shall be in a position to be able to perfect the receiving equipment which would be necessary for direct broadcasting by satellite. "As early a start as possible"—those, more or less, are the words used by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the foreword to the study—would mean that the United Kingdom would be up with the leaders in the field and would be able to take advantage of the commercial opportunities in terms of the sale of satellite and the associated electronic equipment in what could prove to be an extremely important world market.
An early United Kingdom start with DBS, probably in 1986, could be, I concede to your Lordships who would like to see an earlier start, a year or so behind the French and the Germans. But in certain respects we are not behind our European neighbours. In particular, we are not behind them in thinking about the broadcasting policy aspects of satellite broadcasting and the new uses to which the broadcasting channels might be put. There was general agreement in the comments which we received on the Home Office study that satellite channels which this country might have could not sensibly be used simply to rebroadcast the terrestrial services of the BBC and the IBA.
The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, asked me whether direct broadcasting by satellite would be able to transmit to areas not covered by the terrestrial services. My information is that, by 1984, some 99·4 per cent. of the population should be covered by the existing UHF television services, not least, of course, because of the massive transmitter building which has been going on in preparation for the fourth channel. I think it would be hard to justify using satellite channels to increase that coverage further, although in practice I think that is what DBS would do. Clearly therefore—and this was the thrust both of the study and of the comments which were received on it—satellite broadcasting would need to offer new services and only in that way could an audience for satellite broadcasting be established.
However, new broadcasting services raise important questions concerning the kind of services we want to see, who should provide them, how they should be supervised, how they should be financed and what implications they could have for the existing services. Those are all questions which the study went into in some depth. I admit that not everyone who commented felt that these questions were important but the Government believe that they are. When your Lordships consider the amount of time which this House and another place gave to the consideration of precisely these issues in relation to establishing the fourth channel, in the light of the report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting under the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I believe it can be said that Parliament takes these questions seriously. But certainly, to put it mildly, I accept that in this context we shall not be able to take the same period of time to reach decisions as we took about the proposals for the fourth channel.

1193
If I may say so on behalf of the Government, I believe that the broadcasting dimension is important for two reasons—and I was most interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on this subject and a great deal of what he said I took to heart. First, so far as the Government are concerned we think it is important because our broadcasting services are good, not by mere chance but because with the assistance of committees like the Annan Committee Parliament has built up an organisational and financial structure for broadcasting based on the public service ideal within which programme making and scheduling can flourish.
The second consideration of broadcasting policy which arises in the case of DBS is that, unlike the BBC and the IBA, and indeed unlike the fourth channel when it opens in a year's time, DBS services would be available only to those who could afford the additional receiving equipment. Even if the forecasts of audience build-up which are quoted in the report were seriously pessimistic, it is clear that for many years to come the majority of the viewing population will continue to rely on the terrestrial services of the BBC and the IBA.
I was most interested to hear my noble friend Lord Windlesham say at the beginnina, of his speech that he wondered whether direct broadcasting by satellite should be accommodated outside the existing institutions and arrangements, really a remark which built upon the most interesting article which my noble friend had in The Times today. If the BBC and IBA services were to be in any way harmed by direct broadcast by satellite, the majority of people would not benefit, but would lose from satellite broadcasting.
Having said that, I certainly recognise that new television channels can increase choice for the viewer and provide new opportunities for programme-makers, although experience in other parts of the world has not held that that is always an invariable rule, and certainly there is a persuasive argument that satellite channels could contribute to the broadcasting scene without necessarily being required, as are the BBC and the IBA, to provide a wide range in their subject-matter. But I think it would be a very serious departure if satellite broadcasting did not assume other obligations for good quality and programme standards which are the hallmark of broadcasting in the United Kingdom, and that involves supervision of some kind. Also, satellite channels have to be paid for, and that would involve fishing in the same waters as the existing channels both for programme material and for finance.
It is for such reasons that the DBS report devoted a good deal of space to a discussion of the broadcasting policy issues. Before I leave that, may I just say that, although the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, asked me some questions about the practicalities of bringing DBS to ground, those are questions which still have to be decided once the decision of principle has been taken. Having said that, if we are to maintain the positive approach, which my right honourable friend took in his foreword to the study to be able to exploit the industrial and broadcasting opportunities which satellite broadcasting offers, we need to look beyond the question of "whether" to the question of "how", and that is the attitude we want to take. In the comments we have received there was substantial, though
1194
not unanimous, agreement that in broadcasting terms it would be right to go for a modest early start on the lines suggested, that any new broadcasting services should be subject certainly to the BBC and IBA minimum programme standards and that such services should be under the supervision of a public and a publicly accountable authority. I am giving your Lordships what the comments were after the study came out. Opinion also seemed to be substantial, though not unanimous, that any new DBS services neither could nor should necessarily provide the wide range of programming now found in our television services. Moreover, the specific proposals which we have received from the BBC and from other organisations for new services implied some relaxation of our traditional programme objectives though not standards—for any new satellite service.
The question of finance, which has engaged us this evening and of course engaged the House in the debates on the fourth channel, is crucial to the consideration of any new broadcasting outlet. It was generally thought, though again not unanimously accepted, that the cost of DBS should not be allowed to fall on the taxpayer. It is interesting that that came up in comment and l make no secret that the Government attach importance to that. On certain other issues the weight of opinion was also clearer. There was widespread, though again not total, support for the view that any United Kingdom satellite services should be provided on a fully operational rather than on a preoperational or experimental basis, and that they should be provided at powers sufficient to permit individual reception by small 90 centimetre receiving dishes rather than at power suitable only for community reception. To exclude the possibility of individual reception and thus to rely wholly on cable distribution would prevent many people, it was argued, from ever receiving DBS at all.
Nonetheless, there is clearly a potentially close relationship between cable and satellite broadcasting, and we have received a number of representations about that. There were some people who felt that the possible interrelationship had been under-played in the study. I do not myself think that is the case, but several points have been brought clearly into relief in the light of these comments. One is that the cost of individual receiving equipment is in the event liable to be a good deal higher for several years—much more than the volume of production costs which were estimated in the study as being between £150 and £200 for individual reception. Secondly, individual reception may be more difficult for perhaps more people than the study suggested, and in many cases of course it could simply be unsightly. Thirdly, cable could deliver a significant audience for satellite broadcasting more quickly than individual reception. I think these are very important points to which the Government are most certainly giving thought.
So I come to the 64,000 dollar question which my noble friend is asking: What are the Government going to do? The message which I take away from this debate is that the broadcasting policy considerations are very important; but, equally, there are significant industrial and broadcasting opportunities which should not be missed, and time is not on our side.

1195
The debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Windlesham gives me the opportunity to say that the Home Office and the Department of Industry are already considering what the next steps might be on the question of direct broadcasting by satellite, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary hopes to be in a position to make an announcement in the New Year.