Lords Sitting of 29 June 1982

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

Caravan Colours and the Countryside
Viscount Mountgarret: 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 caravans, particularly those of a residential type, should have a mandatory requirement to be painted green or brown having regard to the ever-diminishing beauty of our countryside.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for the Government to dictate the colour of residential caravans. Local authorities have power to impose colour conditions when granting planning permission and site licences for the caravan sites. They are best placed to consider what will suit the beauty of their own locality.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Would he not agree that it may be helpful if the Government give a lead and encouragement in this matter? Would he not agree that the sight of a number of white caravans parked in virgin rural settings can completely ruin what is otherwise a peaceful and rather attractive view, and if some effort were to be made to merge them into their natural surroundings the stark contrast would be somewhat alleviated?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I note what my noble friend has said. In 1980 the British Standards Institution published a range of preferred exterior colours for static caravans. These were the most acceptable colours within the landscape which also avoided problems of overheating. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales gave this range their support in August 1980 and indicated to the local authority associations that they would have regard to it when considering planning appeals.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, would it not be even better if all caravans were compulsorily camouflaged?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, that indeed is a point. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that there are 28 colours laid down in these statistics, varying from mud greys, through beige, greens, browns and blues.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend's Question, may I ask whether, in view of
144
the fact that this makes a great visual impact upon the rural scene, particularly on parts of the coastline where often no trees can be planted, he would not ask his right honourable friends to have discussions both with the Countryside Commission and with the Caravan Club which have an interest in this matter?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I think my earlier replies will have brought out, there are powers for the local authorities to do this. The Government believe it right to leave the matter with the local authorities.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while fully supporting the noble Viscount in what he seeks to do by means of this Question, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the national park authorities are of the opinion that green is not an ideal colour for caravans in the countryside? Is he aware that one cannot pick the right shade of green and that some shades of green are very obtrusive at some times of the year? Experiments have shown that probably the least obtrusive colours are dark grey and black, neither of which is very suitable from a temperature point of view for the occupants of the caravans. With that point in mind, would the noble Earl agree that the best solution to this problem is the very careful siting of caravan parks and assistance with tree planting to screen caravans in the countryside?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. With all his knowledge of the Countryside Commission, he is well competent to give us this advice. If I may say something about the colour green, I am actually wearing a Green Jackets' tie which was of course designed for camouflage.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I should very much like to support the noble Viscount who asked this Question. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is not here because the Economic Forestry Group have a first-class example of blending caravans into woodlands in a forest in the South of Scotland. That is something I commend to anybody who wants to see how well it can be done.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful for this excellent example of what can be done with a little thought and consideration.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, while not wishing to upset my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, would not my noble friend the Minister agree that if my noble friend's intent was carried out and caravans were beautifully camouflaged, there might be a road hazard, as when drivers overtook them they might see only beautiful countryside and then find themselves having an accident?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I should like to draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that these are static caravans. I therefore hope that there will be no overtaking.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? The words "ever-

145
diminishing beauty of our countryside" appear in the Question. May I ask what orders or requirements the Government can make in respect of local authorities which allow caravan sites and then allow the sites to become not only disgustingly dirty but an eyesore to everybody who passes them?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the local authorities have these regulations and it is up to them to enforce them. If it comes to the Government intervening, I am not sure what our powers are at the moment.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, may it not be of some value to suggest to the caravanners that they should perhaps copy the ideas of some of us inland waterwayers and paint their caravans tastefully with some pictures of roses or even castles?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with that particular question I think we are moving a little down the wrong channel.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will confirm that there is quite a difference between the physical standard or structural standard of touring caravans and those of caravans which are permanently in one position? Can he also inform me whether there are any restrictions whatsoever upon the condition of caravans in people's back gardens? I am not referring to the parks which have been mentioned so specifically, but perhaps the greatest eyesore is the single caravan rusting away and long discarded in people's own yards in the country.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, there has been public consultation about this rather different matter, which has unified local authorities' control over camp sites and sites for the touring type of caravan. As far as caravans in the garden are concerned, the position will depend on the powers of local authorities in the area concerned.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware with regard to what he said about planning and local authorities—and I am thinking of the national parks—that in order to get over this problem people who put up large agricultural buildings, particularly those made of asbestos, were encouraged to spray them with farm slurry in order that in the course of time lichens and mosses would grow and they would blend in with the countryside? I do not think such plans would be very popular with people living in the caravans at the time the slurry was put on.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my noble friend brings out the point that some things are not altogether happy for the inhabitants of caravans.

Birkbeck College: Subsidy for Unemployed Students
2.44 p.m.
Baroness David: 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 their recent subsidy to enable unemployed people to study at the Open University, they would consider doing the same for those wishing to study at Birkbeck College.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords.
Baroness David: My Lords, I expected that reply and it is of course not at all satisfactory. It seems hard that one provider of part-time degree courses should be treated so generously and get half a million—I am delighted that it has—while the other—
A noble Lord: Question!
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask why the other part-time provider should be treated so badly? Is the Minister aware that part-time students at Birkbeck have to pay for their courses, the fees have doubled in the past year and they have to pay for their fees out of taxed income? There is very little help for them and in fact only 23 per cent. get any help at all from their employers or from other sources. There are hardly any discretionary grants now. Is it not time the Government took a more kindly attitude to these highly-motivated students?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness is trying to draw parallels where none exist. The two institutions are completely different. For one thing, the Open University is paid for, as I am sure she knows, by a direct grant from the Department of Education and Science, whereas the grant for Birk-beck, being part of the University of London, is paid for by the University Grants Committee. Further than that, the point about Birkbeck is that the college's charter allows it to admit different kinds of students but specifically and principally persons engaged in earning their livelihood during the day; so, as I have said, no parallels exist.
The noble Baroness also asked me about fees. For those embarking on their course in 1981–82, they were fixed at £160 a year for a first degree and £250 a year for the post-graduate degree or diploma. In setting these and future fee levels, the college will, I am sure, have had regard to the University Grants Committee's recommendation on which the committee has based its allocation of grants to universities.
Baroness Jeger: May I ask the Minister what he would say to a student at Birkbeck earning his or her living during the day and paying fees for night study, which is not an easy thing to do out of taxed income, who through no fault of his own loses his job and therefore has no money to continue paying his fees at a time when he would have more time to study? Surely we ought to make it possible for students in that position, who may be within a very short time of taking their final degrees, to be able to continue, whereas if they are out of work they have no financial back-up to pay the fees which are essential.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government obviously accept the view put forward by the noble

147
Baroness, but I would say that this is a matter for the college authorities themselves. I understand that the registrar would listen very sympathetically in such circumstances.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that what is much more important is to provide facilities for the unemployed to attend courses at local authority colleges and polytechnics throughout the country, especially in areas of high unemployment? Would he ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education to discuss this with local authority associations and see whether any help can be given?—because there would be a considerable demand in places like the North-East, the North-West and the Midlands, provided the question of the fees can be got over.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly bring that to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Redcliffe-Maud: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Birkbeck is a unique institution, as is the Open University, and that although it is an integral part of London University, as has been pointed out, it does serve exactly the purpose, which I think the whole House would agree? We wish people who are thrown out of work in the present recession to find that they can exploit the situation not by stopping the work they were doing at Birbeck but by continuing it.
Lord Skelmersdale: I accept that, my Lords, but the problem is that, in order to take account of this particular situation, it would be necessary to change the college's charter.
Baroness David: My Lords, could the Government not realise that this is a particular situation and that the students from Birkbeck come—I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said about local authority colleges—but the students of Birkbeck come from a wide area. They take the trains, when they run, from places as far as Plymouth, Portsmouth and so on—perhaps not Plymouth but Portsmouth. They come from a wide area round London. The oldest student is 71 and the youngest student is 21. Could this very special thing that Birkbeck provides not be considered as a separate matter by the Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I will also put that point to my right honourable friend.

Heroin: Seizures by HM Customs and Excise
2.50 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: 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 the total amount of heroin seized by Customs and Excise in
148
1980 and 1981 respectively and the amount seized up to 18th June 1982, and the estimated street value of these drugs.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in 1980, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise seized 38·124 kilograms of heroin worth an estimated £5,273,179 at street prices; in 1981, 87·150 kilograms worth an estimated £19,729,235 were seized and in the current year, up until 18th June, seizures amounted to 79·534 kilograms worth an estimated £16,558,315.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I congratulate him on behalf of the House on the occasion of his first appearance at the Front Bench? I should like to put to him one or two questions arising from his Answer. First, does he agree that what he has disclosed is an extremely menacing situation, whereby heroin seizures in 1981 were more than double those of 1980 and it appears, at the moment, that we are running at double the rate of last year? Secondly, is he aware that it is accepted by the authorities concerned that only 15 or 20 per cent. of the heroin entering this country is intercepted and that therefore, we are facing a situation in which the illicit heroin trade is increasing at a very dangerous level indeed? That being so, what steps do the Government propose to take to deal with this in terms of strengthening both the investigative branch of the Customs and Excise and also the uniformed staff, so that they can be targeted to deal with this very serious situation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. So far as heroin is concerned, yes, it is entirely true that it is a very menacing situation. But perhaps it is also true to say that, although a very large increase in heroin seizures has taken place over the last year, that does, to some extent, reflect the success which Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have achieved in actually picking it up. It is difficult to say whether only 20 per cent. of the total amount of heroin coming into the country is being intercepted.
But I can say, so far as the Customs and Excise effort is concerned, that, following a comprehensive review in 1977 of the preventive measures employed in containing the risk of smuggling, revised control procedures have been introduced. Notably, more efficient use of resources was achieved by reducing the number of staff employed on routine duties, particularly in areas where the weight of traffic was modest. But more attention was directed to identifiable risk areas, by means of mobile teams designed to carry out non-routine operational checks; in other words, more of an emphasis on flexibility. This emphasis was also placed on intelligence, local expertise and initiative, and less on routine controls. In addition, the investigative division of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has been strengthened by 70 officers in the past 18 months, with over half the increase going on drugs work.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can help the House. As I think my noble friend told the House that these drugs

149
are in transit and mostly at Heathrow, is he able to say from which countries the drugs come and where, on the whole, they are likely to be going when they are intercepted at Heathrow?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Indian sub-continent has emerged as a new and major source of illicit heroin destined for the United Kingdom. In 1981, well over 50 per cent. of the heroin seized here originated from this area. That represents a considerable increase over previous years and this trend has continued in 1982. As regards where it is going, it is going all over Europe, and other countries in Europe have had considerable success, in parallel with our own people, in picking it up.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, since it is known that a very high percentage of seizures of heroin take place in consequence of information that emanates from abroad, is the Minister satisfied that the Custom and Excise are getting all the support and assistance which could be expected from foreign police bodies and agencies?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that there is a considerable tie-up between our own Customs and Excise and similar authorities abroad, and that they are perfectly satisfied with the amount of information that they are getting.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can my noble friend say what average prison sentence these men receive when they are caught?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, I cannot answer that question without notice.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, while we appreciate that stopping the heroin trade is of supreme importance, what happens to the £19 million worth of heroin that is seized? Can it be made use of by the pharmaceutical industry when suitably refined, or is it merely destroyed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, heroin which is seized is destroyed by burning.

Construction Industry: Estimated Expenditure
2.56 p.m.
Lord Gainford: 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 is their current estimate of the total amount likely to be spent in the construction industry in the current year.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it is not our policy to make forecasts of this nature. However, there are encouraging signs that construction output is beginning
150
to recover. Total orders for new construction in the past three months were 13 per cent. higher than a year ago. Also, there has been a rise in new house-building in both the public and private sector. Housing starts for the past three months were 38 per cent. more than for the same period last year.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very encouraging answer. Can he please give a further assurance about the possibilities of recruitment to the construction industry and—particularly where British firms have contracts abroad—encouragement to adventurous unemployed to take up work overseas?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we hope that the various measures which the Government have taken in the field of land, planning, taxation and low-cost home ownership are encouraging just this.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, if the Government are unable or unwilling to provide a forecast, may I ask the noble Earl whether there is a possible estimate of the amount of construction, reconstruction and rehabilitation that is urgently required in the United Kingdom and, if there is such a forecast, how does it compare with the amount required to be done? Is the noble Earl aware that, if we did all that requires to be done—and urgently requires to be done—we could provide employment for at least 1 million people?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in spite of the noble Lord's charming question, I do not think I want to be drawn into estimates for the future. The Government plan to spend £10·3 billion in 1982–83, which is 14 per cent. up on what was spent last year. They believe that we should invest where it will do most to stimulate even greater investment by the private sector, as exemplified by our low-cost home ownership programme, the derelict land scheme and the 11 enterprise zones.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the figure of £10·3 billion is the most encouraging figure that the Government have produced for a very long time? The very large number of industries which are concerned with furniture, carpeting, the painting of houses and general construction benefit all sides of industry, and this must be encouraged if we are to mop up some of the unemployed.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I am sorry to trouble the Minister, but may I ask him a further question which is relevant? Would it not be possible for the Government to provide some estimate or forecast of the kind of work and the amount of work that requires to be undertaken, so that people in this country will know what is possible, even if it is not probable?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I will, of course, pursue what the noble Lord has said, with my honourable friend the Minister for Housing to make sure that he takes note of it.

Criminal Justice Bill: Future Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that it would be helpful to your Lordships if I informed the House that it has been agreed that the House will definitely sit this Friday, 2nd July, for the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill.

Aviation Security Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged, and, so as not to repeat myself, I am about to utter words which will be appropriate to each of three consolidation Bills which appear on the Order Paper in my name. I understand that no amendments have been put down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I propose to move that the order of recommitment be discharged. I beg so to move
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Development Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the same applies to this Bill, and, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insurance Companies Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill
Lord Northfield: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Northfield.)
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like, briefly, to wish this Bill well and to say that I trust the Government will take note that overdue is a parallel bit of enactment relating to private defences which measure up to the increased penalties which are in the Bill. I hope we shall not have long to wait before we see some action by the Government on that score. In the meantime, I hope that this Bill will be successful.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, this gives me the opportunity from these Benches to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and, through him, the sponsor of the Bill, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, on bringing the Bill before this House and carrying it through its stages so successfully. My noble friend behind me has drawn the attention of the House to the discussions which we had in Committee. Perhaps I may be permitted to remind my noble friend Lord Mottistone of my remarks in col. 445 of the Official Report of 11th June, when I said:
"The Government remain of the view that it would have been preferable to provide for a due diligence defence. They therefore intend to re-open consultation on this issue when the next opportunity arises for a review of the food and drugs legislation".
That said, I should like to add once more the good wishes of the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, on his successful work in this field which brings forward a measure which adds to a very long history of consumer legislation in this field dating back to the very earliest Parliaments.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am grateful for what both noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord on the Front Bench, have said. I shall see that his remarks are passed on to my noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough, who cannot be here today. On the specific point which the noble Lord on the Front Bench raised, I am aware of what was said in Committee. It should be put on record that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, did not have universal support for the point which he raised and that, in addition to the suggestion of a Government review of these matters, my noble friend suggested that there could possibly be a review of the problem by the Law Commission. I hope, if I may say so on my noble friend's behalf, that that point will also be borne in mind as a possible way forward on the point raised by the noble Lord. Meanwhile, I am grateful once again for the kind remarks. I hope that the Bill can now proceed on its way to the statute book.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill which is before your Lordships this afternoon is to empower my noble friend the Secretary of State to make regulations which will, we hope, create rights and duties in domestic law to enable the United Kingdom to implement the convention on a code of conduct for liner conferences. When the United Kingdom accedes to the convention it will be lodging fundamental reservations, as required by Council Regulation No. 954/79 of 15th May 1979. It is therefore important that the code, which is contained in the schedule to the Bill before your Lordships, and the Community regulations are read together.
Since therefore the Bill takes these two international legal instruments as its starting point, I hope it will be helpful if I explain briefly the negotiations which led

153
up to them and then explain the way in which British interests stand to be affected by them. The liner code is likely to come into force internationally during the course of next year. It will then have been in gestation for well over a decade, during which British policy has evolved on a non-partisan basis under three Governments. In the first place, there was general agreement in the early 1970s that the code, as it was negotiated in the Committee on Shipping of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, was contrary to British interests. In 1974, the Labour Administration of the day voted against it. However, British Governments have not been opposed in principle to internationally agreed rules of conduct for liner conferences. Indeed, such rules had been suggested in our own Rochdale Report in 1970.
Liner conferences operate under exemption from the restrictive trade practices legislation, and from the corresponding legislation in other countries, and potentially they dispose of considerable market power. They should not exploit this power at their customer's expense and it makes sense to establish rules of conduct to ensure that they do not do so. Many of the United Nations code's provisions are concerned to help the shipper and the shipper organisation, and no British Government have seen cause to object to these provisions.
Our opposition to the United Nations code in its original form was essentially concerned with the cargo sharing provisions in Article 2. In essence, these seek to ensure that the cargo carried by a liner conference trading between two countries is divided equally between the member lines of those two countries and to leave member lines of third countries with some 20 per cent. between them. This is the origin of the often quoted 40:40:20 formula by which the United Nations code is best known. Its purpose is protectionist and, like protectionism everywhere, its effect must be to raise costs at the customer's expense.
Moreover, the British shipping industry, too, was very concerned about the potential effect of this cargo sharing article on its own interests. British liner shipping trades in conferences all over the world, and over 40 per cent. of its earnings come from the cross-trades. I should explain that that is from trading between two overseas countries, including notably cross-trades to and from continental European ports.
British liner shipping is served best if it can continue to compete commercially for cargoes in the ports of the world without flag discrimination. To be restricted in the cross-trades to sharing 20 per cent. of conference cargoes with other cross-traders would have been damaging to our industry's export earnings and to the jobs of those who work in it. There has been no tendency in this period for the trading opportunities and, hence, the job opportunuties of British shipping to become less dependent on cross-trading.
The most serious problem facing British shipping was that a number of continental European countries had signed the original code convention, and there was the clear prospect that the code might eventually apply generally on the Continent, imposing serious restrictions on our shipping lines' trading opportunities, and thus
154
on job opportunities, in the cross-trades to and from European ports. We faced this possibility whether or not we ourselves acceded to the UN code, by virtue of the continental countries' intention to do so. It was therefore essential to agree a common position in the European Community to enable us to avoid this danger. That common policy was developed under the last Labour Administration; and my own Government were glad to continue it on behalf of the United Kingdom very soon after we came into office. The policy is embodied in EC Regulation 954/79 which creates directly applicable law in the United Kingdom.
The overall effect of the community's policy on the code will therefore he that its cargo-sharing provisions will protect the shipping of only those countries, mainly developing countries, that wish them to do so. Not only will liner conferences trading between member states be free of cargo-reservation, but, even more importantly, when the code applies to a route between a community member state and a third country, conference lines from all member states will compete in that route on the same footing. Secondly, lines from countries within the OECD which intend to accede to the Liner Code will also be able to compete on the same footing provided they offer reciprocal treatment on routes serving their own countries. Finland, Norway and Sweden have already announced their intention of joining the code and operating it in the same amended way as the United Kingdom and the rest of the European community.
Thirdly, conference shipping lines of other OECD countries such as Australia and the United States of America which at present do not intend to accede to the Liner Code, will also be treated in the community on the same footing as community conference lines for the purposes of the Liner Code, so long as those countries do not themselves discriminate against community shipping. Japan is the only country in the OECD which intends to accede to the UN code without having yet decided whether to offer the reciprocal arrangements available in the European community and in Scandinavia.
As a result of this fundamental modification of the code's provisions, calculations suggest that the code's cargo-sharing will apply in practice to only about a quarter of the world's liner conference trade. The other three-quarters will be free of the code's cargo- reservation provisions because they will be either not be applicable in intra-OECD trades, and they will be substantially modified in trades between OECD and developing countries, or because of the intention of other OECD countries, such as Australia and the United States of America, not to accede to it at all. From the point of view of British shipping, the development of the Community policy on the UN code was decisive. I am very glad to say that today, with the formidable support we are going to have later from my two noble friends Lord Inchcape and Lord Cayzer. Certainly, this support ensured that the code would not restrict the access of British shipping to compete in the cross-trades into, and out of, continental European ports.
Our judgment was that British interests would be best safeguarded if the United Kingdom agreed to a common policy having that effect. The alternative was, of course, for the United Kingdom to preserve

155
its own freedom of action, but at the cost of other member states preserving theirs. The consequence of this would have been that British conference lines faced flag discrimination on the European continent with the loss of trade and indeed the loss of jobs. Community policy also modifies certain other aspects of the code. For example, it removes the automatic right to join a conference of all lines of countries served by that conference, and it restricts the requirement regarding the minimum period between increases in freight rates.
The General Council of British Shipping, and the British Shippers' Council, representing the customers of the shipping industry, were of course fully consulted at every stage of the developments I have described, and I am happy to say that both bodies are in full agreement with the decision that the Government took.
The present position in the community is therefore that member states are legally precluded from acceding to the United Nations Liner Code except on the basis of the common policy, which requires each member state to make the agreed reservations, as I have described. Legislation corresponding to this Bill is before, or due shortly to be introduced into, the national Parliaments of member states party to the package (that is, all member states of the EEC except Greece, who joined the Community at a later stage). The code convention provides that it comes into force six months after the countries signatory to it account for 25 per cent. or more of the world's liner shipping tonnage. This threshold has not yet been reached: the figure stands just below 21 per cent. but only a handful of European countries are needed to tip the balance. It seems likely that it will be tipped later this year, after the various European states have enacted their legislation. The code will almost certainly come into effect some time in the first half of 1983. It is of great importance to the United Kingdom's interests that we should have acceded to the code by that time.
We hope that when the code becomes operative it will bring to an end a protracted source of uncertainty in the world of liner shipping. While no-one could pretend that these developments have been designed expressly to advance British interests, there is no doubt that we have been able to avert the very real dangers recognised by our industry at an earlier stage. Countries are divided in their views on the wisdom of protecting their shipping industries but each has the ability to do so whether or not their trading partners agree. In the Government's view an internationally-agreed code, laying down an internationally-agreed trading régime, is less likely to lead to international friction than a variety of conflicting unilateral, national and protectionist measures. Such a régime may not give every country (or perhaps even any country) 100 per cent. of what it would like, but the Government are convinced that accession by the United Kingdom to this convention is in the country's best interest.
It by no means certain that the United Nations code will eliminate international disputes in liner shipping. One serious and growing source of dispute is the tendency of some countries to shut their trades to all but conference lines, thereby removing any possibility of competition with the conference. Some
156
developing countries have even claimed the endorsement of the United Nations Liner Code for eliminating competition from their trades in this way. As has been made clear in another place this is not Her Majesty's Government's interpretation of the Liner Code. The code is concerned with the conduct of liner conferences. It confers rights and duties on shippers, shipping conferences and their members, as between one another, and it also provides machinery for resolving disputes between such parties. But it imposes neither rights nor duties on shipping lines plying outside conferences, nor on Governments in respect of them.
It remains the sovereign right of any country to exclude from its ports such shipping as it pleases. The exclusion of non-conference lines would not itself be a breach of the code. Countries, both party to, and not party to the code, might therefore seek to exclude non-conference competition, not least from the United Kingdom's own trade routes. This prospect causes great concern to British shippers, because they foresee themselves being deprived of choice and compelled to use conference services whatever their quality and at whatever price. The British Government share that concern.
We have always recognised that the legal privileges under which liner conferences trade requires the discipline of exposure to competition if these are to remain acceptable. If, therefore, the United Kingdom finds competition eliminated from its trade routes by another Government, whether or not it prays the code in aid, we will continue to make clear to the Government concerned that this is unacceptable to us, and that we stand ready to use the very considerable powers which Parliament has provided to counter acts which damage our shipping or trading interests.
Before I turn to the detailed clauses of the Bill, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to deal with a point that was raised at Report stage in another place, concerning the publication of information that the Secretary of State may obtain under Articles 5 and 6 of the code. Article 5 places conferences under a general obligation to police themselves and under a specific obligation to provide the Secretary of State with reports on action taken against malpractices. Article 6 creates a similar obligation in respect of conference agreements and related documents.
Clause 10(2) in the Bill governs the disclosure of information obtained by the Secretary of State. It prevents the disclosure of information without the consent of the person from whom it was obtained except for the particular purposes listed in Subsection 10(2) paragraphs (a) to (d) inclusive. Clearly the amount of informaton that might be disclosed, if any, will depend in no small measure on the views of the people from whom it was obtained. We may however find that those providing information under Article 5 will be more ready to consent to information being disclosed than will be the case concerning information provided under Article 6.
Turning now to the clauses of the Bill, Clause 1 enables Orders in Council to be made certifying which states are contracting parties to the convention. Clauses 2 and 3, which lie at the heart of the Bill, enable the Secretary of State to make regulations for giving effect to the code in the United Kingdom.

157
Regulations will identify those provisions in the code which give rise to enforceable duties, and will specify the persons by whom and to whom those duties are owed. Regulations may also clarify or supplement the provisions of the code. They will, of course, take account of the very important modifications of the code régime made by the Community's common reservations.
Clause 4 contains defensive powers to exclude, or restrict, the operation of the code where the failure of another state to honour its obligations under the code damages, or threatens to damage, our shipping or trading interests. Clauses 5 and 6 concern the bringing of legal proceedings against liner conferences and their members. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 provide for certain restrictions on legal proceedings arising out of the code, and allow for proceedings to be stayed where the code's own provisions for settling disputes are applicable.
Of the other six supplementary provisions in the Bill the three most significant are: Clause 10, which allots some minor regulatory functions under the code to the Secretary of State; Clause 11 which provides for the exclusion of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 and the common law doctrine of restraint of trade; and Clause 13 which includes the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult persons affected before making regulations and lays down the parliamentary procedure for statutory instruments. My department has, of course, consulted widely throughout the negotiation of the code and the EC regulation, and before preparing this Bill. Regulations made under the legislation will also be the subject of the closest consultation between the General Council of British Shipping and the British Shippers' Council, and other interests affected by them. I apologise for the considerable length of my remarks, but as your Lordships will appreciate, it is a detailed Bill, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Lyell.)
3.25 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining what is a very detailed and complex piece of legislation. It is inevitably a complex problem to regulate world shipping, as it is to regulate world aviation. I think it is interesting to note that in the field of aviation the Government have fairly and squarely nailed their flag to the mast of deregulation, though we have heard little about this since the effects of deregulation have shown up in the operations of a number of airlines. It is therefore noteworthy that in the field of merchant shipping, by bringing forward this Bill for British accession to the UN Convention on a Code of Conduct for liner conferences, the Government are firmly nailing their flag to the mast of regulation. Indeed, this will be the first time that liner conferences have been subject to any form of regulation.
I applaud this initiative of the Government, as they have obviously firmly weighed up the pros and cons of accession. As the noble Lord said, when there was a Labour Administration in 1974 the Government voted against the code as then negotiated, as they saw it to be against the interests of British shipping. The
158
United States of America also voted against the code at that time, and are still against it now and do not intend to accede.
As the noble has said, the code is due to enter into force six months after the date on which not less than 24 states representing at least 25 per cent. of the 1973 world liner tonnage become contracting parties to it. At present, 52 countries have ratified, with a combined total of 20.47 per cent. of world tonnage. In this situation it only required the accession of a few more countries to the code to cause the tonnage requirements to be met and for the code to be activated.
As we have been told, this would have placed British shipping in an invidious situation and effectively cut it out of much of the European cross-trade. It was, of course, with this situation in mind, and largely on the initiative of the British Government, that the Brussels package was negotiated, which effectively provides a régime for the disapplication of the code's cargo sharing provisions in the intra-OECD trades. The result of these measures is that as long as all OECD countries acceding to the code disapply its cargo sharing provisions in this way, 75 per cent. of the world's liner conference trades will remain free of cargo reservation. This means that on a route between a Community member and a third country conference liners from all member states will compete on that route on the same footing.
However, none of your Lordships this afternoon should be lulled into thinking that this measure has been designed to advance the interests of British shipping. Much of the original support for the code derived from the desire of certain developed countries to increase their share of liner trades cargo by reservation, since they could not win it by commercial means. The Brussel package has at least ensured that the position of British shipping will not be further undermined.
It is important to realise that the code and the Brussels package provisions taken together are unlikely to have any dramatic effect on the participation of developing countries, because in most trades between developed and developing countries the national lines already operate roughly on code principles.
I mentioned that the US Government are not acceding to the code, and I wonder whether the noble Lord could give your Lordships any indication of the likely current attitude of the US Government to the code once it comes into force.
This is an enabling Bill and much of how it works will depend on the way in which the code is implemented. The Bill in effect legitimises price fixing and market sharing in the shipping industry and it will be important to maintain a proper oversight of its operation. It will be important to see that the wider consumer and international interest is protected.
One of the problems which will arise in implementing the code will be to define "national shipping lines". Will all United Kingdom flag-carrying ships be counted as a ship of a United Kingdom national shipping line, or will only those ships with head offices and effective control in the United Kingdom be so counted? I must say that the conciliation procedures outlined in the code do seem somewhat cumbersome. I wonder whether it would be possible for these procedures to be simplified in some form or another. In supporting

159
the Bill, I should say that we agree with the Government that not to accede would be potentially damaging to United Kingdom merchant shipping and for that reason we give our support to the Bill.
3.32 p.m.
The Earl of Inchcape: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to comment on the Bill on behalf of the United Kingdom shipping industry. I speak as a past President of the General Council of British Shipping and declare an interest as chairman of P&O.
The British shipping industry welcomes the Bill. We believe that it will permit developments which will be of considerable help to our liner interests. In particular, it will safeguard the position of that large proportion of our liner fleet which operates as cross-traders, that is—as my noble friend Lord Lyell explained—which provide shipping services to other countries. This must be seen against a background of ever-increasing protectionism by many foreign Governments in respect of liner shipping and it might be helpful if I were to recapitulate some of the main points of the Bill—which were covered so well by my noble friend Lord Lyell and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede —and show how we see it as shipowners.
Over the past 20 years many foreign Governments, particularly those from the less developed nations, have been anxious to boost the growth of their own shipping interests by political measures. These have usually taken the form of cargo reservation measures, mandatorily directing cargoes to their own liner fleets. By the end of the 1960's the developing nations sought international recognition of their aspirations. Following a prolonged debate within UNCTAD they forced through the UN Liner Code Convention by a majority vote in 1974.
The convention is a complex instrument. It grants extensive rights of membership to the national shipping lines of the countries served by conferences and more limited rights to cross-traders. It also contains a cargo-sharing provision which is often simplistically referred to as the 40:40:20 formula. This gives the national lines of trading partner countries, who are members of a conference, rights to equal shares of the cargo carried by that conference. Cross-trader members of the conference are entitled to a significant part of the cargo, such as 20 per cent. The code does not apply at all to lines operating outside a conference.
Of course, the code covers much more ground than this, giving what one might call "consumer rights" to shippers. Much of this part of the code reflects what was then already good conference practice and was, in fact, closely based on a voluntary code of conduct negotiated between the European Shippers' Council and the Council of European and Japanese National Shipowners Associations.
Although British shipowners were prepared to support that part of the code in principle, in 1974 they could not go along with the code as a whole, any more than could the Government. Its cargo-sharing provisions offended, and still do offend, a principle which we consider to be of fundamental importance—that commercial criteria alone should affect the ability of lines to carry cargoes. In our
160
view, in an ideal world, only competition in a free market can provide the best and cheapest service for our customers. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world and over the years our perspective has changed. It is not that British owners have become protectionists —far from it. But granting developing nations even a 40 per cent. share of their liner trades as of right now has to be regarded as a safeguard against more extreme unilateral measures by a variety of countries. Indeed, 50:50 cargo-sharing, completely excluding cross-traders, is now the target of many countries and there are those whose aspirations go beyond that level.
We were also faced with the situation that some EEC countries with less extensive cross-trader interests did not share our view of the code. They felt that it could help them. The Germans, the French and the Belgians voted in favour of the code in 1974 and showed every sign of ratifying, possibly taking others with them. It became increasingly necessary to have a Community view on the issue and in the end the so-called "Brussels Package" was negotiated, initially between the major European shipping lines, and subsequently taken over by Governments and enshrined as EEC Regulation 954/79.
This is a compromise between the views of those who supported the code and the views of those, like the British, who wished to restrict Government-imposed cargo-sharing as far as possible. To be implemented as a Community-wide reservation to EEC member states' ratification of the code convention, it effectively disapplies cargo-sharing provisions of the code in respect of trade between the EEC countries and, on a reciprocal basis, between the Community and other developed nations who are signatories to the code. Taking into account that a number of important countries, as has already been mentioned—such as the United States and Australia—have so far declared their intention not to ratify the code, the Brussels package means that trade between all the developed countries will hopefully remain unaffected by the code cargo-sharing provisions. In addition, in code trades between EEC and developing countries and in the developing country trades of other OECD countries, assuming they reciprocate, only the developing country share will be subject to code cargo-sharing.
Unfortunately, the democracies of Western Europe require many months to translate decisions to ratify conventions into appropriate implementing legislation. Although the code convention was signed in 1974, and the EEC agreed its common policy in 1979, no EEC country has as yet ratified. The code's provisions for entry into force will be triggered at the latest when two or three of them do so. Action has now become urgent because the developing nations are not unnaturally beginning to get impatient. We fear that there is a risk that they will get tired of waiting for the code and will move on to more drastic measures of cargo reservation which would seriously harm British liner shipping.
It is for those reasons that I welcome the Bill. In my view accession to the code convention, subject to the Brussels package, will be in the best interests of British shipping in the protectionist age in which we live. It will give legal sanction to valuable rights for shippers, and it will acknowledge to a limited degree

161
the aspirations of the less developed countries to have a greater share in liner shipping. I believe that the Bill should be supported.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Gleokinglas: My Lords, in following my noble friend Lord Inchcape, the first thing that I should like to do is to say how sorry I was to read in the paper this morning that he is abandoning ship, if that is the correct way to put it for somebody who for so long has been such a successful chairman of such a very successful British shipping company. It must at least be some consolation to him in giving up part of his heavy work that so many of his ships played such an important and useful part in the recent victory in the Falkland Islands, and I pay my respects to his ships for that and to their crews for what they did.
Having said that, the first thing that struck me as I tried to find my way through this Bill was how similar it was to a Bill also started by the Socialist Government in, I think, 1968 and urged on them by the British Council of Shipping to provide sonic special Companies Act in a great hurry. The then President of the Board of Trade, who shall he nameless, wanted the Bill through in about a month, which in parliamentary terms was quite ridiculous for a Bill of very great complexity. I, for my sins, was asked to look after the Opposition side of it. So I went to see the gentleman concerned and said: "Look, I am sure that we could do it, provided that you explain to us in advance what each clause means so that we do not have to waste endless time in the Committee stage asking what it is about". He agreed to this.
In due course we attended our first meeting at the Board of Trade. I asked what something in Clause 1 meant and he said that he did not know. So he turned to an admirable lady who was advising him on these matters and asked her. She said that she had not the faintest idea. So she suggested that we ask the draftsmen. The parliamentary draftsman was asked what it meant; he thought for a while and he said: "Well, Minister, as a matter of fact it does not mean anything. I drafted it in that way because after several inquiries I could not find what any of the Ministers wanted".
On reading a good deal of this Bill, I am bound to admit that I think almost exactly the same has happened. I do not pretend to be a legal expert. I think that it is almost the responsibility of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to hand it over to my noble friend Lord Lyell to deal with, because, charming, competent and kindly though he is, this is a Bill that needs legal expertise—and not only British legal expertise, but a great deal of international legal expertise. I think that it involves a great deal more than even this extremely august body should be expected to accept in what, I have no doubt, will be a very short period of time.
Having said that, I think that it is fair and right for us to consider whether this is a good Bill or a bad Bill, putting it in its simplest terms such as most of us can understand. I think that one must say that the parentage is quite horrible. It comes from an UNCTAD committee which everybody has tried to resist for the last 12 years because everybody knew that this UNCTAD committee was proposing a bad step,
162
which would be followed by worse ones. For 12 years Governments on each side of the House have solidly opposed this particular approach to the problem. I happened to be in Santiago in, I think, 1970 at the UNCTAD conference where the idea was first mooted. Although I tried to stamp on it then, I was unsuccessful.
Why this present Government have decided to pick it up is a puzzle to me, as I think it is to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and certainly to some others. It is essentially the sort of Bill which a Government dedicated to private enterprise and getting rid of restrictive practices ought not to touch at any point whatever. It is also quite certain to put up prices. I do not think there is any doubt about this, because even my noble friends Lord Inchcape and Lord Cayzer, who are much more skilled on the shipping side than I am, admit this. It is the sort of restrictive practice which is designed to put up prices. Those of us who have had some experience of these things are beginning to realise what a disaster IATA has been. I only hope—and I cannot quite visualise her at the moment—that if we have to go through with this nonsense, a Baroness Burton will emerge on your Lordships' Benches who will harry the Minister concerned with the horrors which this Bill will certainly bring to the whole industry.
The point on which we have to make up our minds is whether this is a bad Bill. It may be that it is the best that we can make of a bad situation. I rather suspect that that is what my noble friend Lord Inchcape was saying when he welcomed the Bill, though he said it in a very delicate way. When the Under-Secretary of State for Trade finished his Third Reading speech on this Bill in another place the phrase he used in this veil of tears was that the best was often the enemy of the good. But as he had spent very many days in Committee explaining that this was a bad Bill, I am not quite sure what was the enemy of the good, because it certainly was not the best in the form of this Bill. So, if we have to pass this Bill, I hope that we shall accept it as a sort of necessary evil. As I say, I hope that there will be a Baroness Burton who will emerge to try to ensure that its worst effects are kept out of the general picture.
There is no doubt at all that we are running into several very serious dangers. We are getting out of one or two difficult situations, but there are many in front of us. On 8th June this year the Financial Times announced that Indonesia had said that all cargoes to or from Indonesia must be carried in Indonesian ships. This not only includes the liner conferences but it also includes all the bulk cargoes. Although Ministers in the other place, and I have no doubt in this House too, will tell us when we come to the Committee stage that they have the greatest reservations about bulk cargoes being included in this code, bulk cargoes are already being included by Indonesia. I hope that when my noble friend winds up, lie will tell us exactly what the Government and what the EEC have done since 8th June in order to try to stop it.
There are many people who think that these poor developing countries have a fair point, that they ought to be allowed to carry cargoes in their own ships. It all sounds very nice and gentle. But, of course, they are not their own ships. In many cases they are ships chartered from the Russians and chartered at

163
very special rates for very special purposes. This is a problem of which one at least has to be aware.
We have heard that America will not join the code, and I am delighted to hear it. It is one of the first sensible things that I have heard about America for the last fortnight. There is hound to be some change of behaviour in America and I am delighted that this is one aspect. But how many other countries will not? We are told only Australia and America so far, but I have a feeling that there must be quite a few more and that once the full implications of these codes, conventions and so on are understood, there will be quite a number who will wonder whether they really ought to ratify. I hope that my noble friend Lord Cayzer—who is to follow me and who, as I remember from the days when I was at the Board of Trade, is extremely knowledgeable and keen on all these things—will be able to tell me that he thinks that this is essential for British shipping. If he does, we must accept it, because British shipping plays a very large part in the invisible earnings of this country, which has always been rather dear to my heart.
When last I spoke to your Lordships I was trying to encourage you to pass the Lloyd's Bill, which produced about £600 million for our invisible earnings. On this occasion, I hope that the Minister is going to do everything that he can to help the shipping industry, but in addition to that to help that particular part of that industry, the commodity traders, who are responsible for something like £200 million in the invisible earnings of this country. They would be very heavily hit if bulk shipping is included, and they are liable to be hit if the flexibility of shipping, as they know it at the moment, is confined. Although I think that it is a bad Bill, I am certainly not going to vote against it today.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Cayzer: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Inchcape, I am chairman of a company which has considerable interests in shipping. I have been in my time president of the Chamber of Shipping, which is now called the General Council of British Shipping, and which of course incorporates the Shipping Federation, which has all to do with crewing. Shipping conferences came about nearly 100 years ago. In those days they were composed largely of British shipowners. They devised their own code of conduct, and on the whole this worked reasonably well.
Our Victorian ancestors were sturdy individualists, and I think they knew what they were doing, because before they instituted conferences there had been a situation of unbridled competition not only between them but with the other foreign shipowners that comprised the conferences. This was very much in the interests not only of shipping, and British shipping at that, but it also entailed stable rates and regular services. To say that it was a monopoly I think is quite untrue because there were always those fighting on the perimeter outside the conference, and from time to time they fought their way in, and so conferences were continually kept on their toes and had to be careful not to outprice themselves.
It was after the Second World War that things began
164
to change radically and we had to face the fact that many of the countries which hitherto had been in the British Empire became independent. One of the first things they wanted was their own shipping, their own airlines, banks, and so on, and we were faced with a difficult situation. I can remember going to many of these countries and attending many conference meetings where we had to argue with them, and in the end we had to include them in the conferences. That is perhaps the reality of this Bill. It is something which we would rather not have but it is something that we may have to put up with.
A Government code of conduct which was put forward in 1974 and led to what is called the Brussels package really began the change which is now about to come about. As my noble friend Lord Inchcape has explained the delay in ratifying the convention and introducing legislation has triggered off a sense of impatience in developing nations. We are, as I have said, making the best of a bad job—or perhaps making the worst of a bad job. We have only agreed because we believe that otherwise more drastic measures might be taken by UNCTAD, or the developing countries for that matter, which might be more damaging, particularly to our cross-trades. Whether these cross-trades will be available to us in 10 or 20 years' time one cannot anticipate, but, as the Minister has said, they have provided a very large percentage of our earnings, currently over 40 per cent.
Given that the code has been forced upon us, it is necessary to have enabling legislation, and the General Council of British Shipping, not without a lot of heart searching, considers that the Bill is the best way forward in these circumstances. Though I do not like it myself, I think it is probably right: one has to compromise. We should understand, however, that this Bill and corresponding legislation in other countries which makes conferences legally liable for the implementation of ill-defined code practices may create an unwelcome degree of litigation, and cross-jurisdictional problems between countries. Nonetheless, it seems that we have to agree the code and legislation for fear of an even more unhappy outcome.
I wish I could make a more agreeable and constructive contribution. I bear in mind my own experience when Governments begin to tamper and to intrude into commercial arrangements, and on these occasions profitability goes out of the window. I hope very much that the shipping lines of the countries involved will be able to work together satisfactorily, and I also hope and believe that British shipowners will continue to play the very prominent and constructive role that they have done over the many years of conference arrangements.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to open by endorsing the remarks of my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas in paying a special tribute to all the merchant ships which took part in the Falklands operation, and of course to those of P & O as well. It seems an admirable opportunity, having a Merchant Shipping Bill, even if we do not like it, to make those remarks. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Lyell for introducing the Bill so skilfully in view

165
of how little the Bill had to tell us, but I shall come to that later.
In what I have to say I am advised mainly by the British Federation of Commodity Associations. But having studied this point I must say that I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas that it is particularly unfortunate that the code was ever signed in 1974, and indeed that we allowed these various interests around the world to get away with getting to the stage of producing it. I hope that the Government —perhaps my noble friend is able to reassure me on this—can act with rather greater resolution, or perhaps even skill, or perhaps craftiness, in preventing anything similar happening with regard to a bulk trade code which I understand is under discussion at Geneva at this moment, because I am advised that that would be even more unfortunate if it came into being.
However, I accept that the code is a reality, and after their heart searchings the General Council of British Shipping have said in effect that it is better to join the club and influence it from within than be outside it. The damage having been done some 10 years ago, perhaps that is the best way of tackling it.
My noble friend Lord Lyell said when taking us through the Bill—I had previously noted the fact—that the heart of the measure was in the regulations. I am sorry that that should be so; I have always disliked the habit of Governments to make the heart, or even the major part, of their Bills by regulation. I can remember fulminating about that from the Benches opposite as much as from these Benches, and I am disappointed that a Government who I support should follow that practice. I hope, however, that they will be able to produce that heart of the Bill before we have completed all the stages of its progress through this House, and perhaps my noble friend could comment on that. If that is not immediately in view, he may be able to explain why we cannot see the regulations, at least in draft, before we get too far with the Bill's progress, the more especially because he and I have described them as the heart of the Bill.
In regard to Clause 13, the Government are to consult before finally laying the regulations before Parliament. I hope they will stick to that decision, but my noble friend made a point of the fact that the Government had consulted with the General Council of British Shipping and the British Shippers' Council. I would draw to his attention that there are other interests. In particular, while the British Shippers' Council represents a large number of interests on that side, it does not, for instance, handle the trade in commodities between third countries, and therefore the interest of the British Federation of Commodity Associations should be taken into account. My noble friend might care to note that he needs to seek a little wider before finalising the regulations. However, I should still like to see the regulations before Report.
I will not touch on further points because they are more suited to debate in Committee. I trust that my noble friend will be ready to receive amendments of varying sorts, even if only of a probing nature to try to elicit the information which has, as yet, not been disclosed to us and to make the specific points about the dangers we see in the Bill that may arise in the future.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the noble Lord earlier said that the damage was done 10 years ago, but he did not make it clear by whom, in his opinion, the damage had been done. I take it he means that the damage was done as a result of the fact that the code was negotiated at that time by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development—that the damage was done by the negotiation of the code at that time—which the Labour Administration of the day voted against.
Lord Mottistone: I noted that, my Lords, but it went over a long period and they handled the signing of it. The damage, as I see it, was done by our negotiators not being tough enough at the negotiating table in those early days when it was first under discussion. There was a tendency in the early 70s for people rather to think that they might be able to influence and man-oeuvre things and that it would turn out all right in the end. I should have thought that experience is now showing, particularly as our share of world shipping has dropped quite extensively in those 10 years, that our influence is not so great and that we must fight harder to get our way and persuade people. The French and Germans were mentioned at that time as being countries who had gone along with it. We might have done a little more to try to persuade them not to go along with it. We might use our membership of the EEC now to get a solid EEC view against a bulk trade code. That is the sort of thing we need to do; a little more toughness at the negotiating table, not assuming that it will go our way because we were powerful 100 years ago.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are most grateful for the great reception which this complicated, albeit brief, Bill has received from all your Lordships this afternoon. I wish to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his welcome for the Bill and for the clear figures he gave; I mentioned 21 per cent. and he fined that down to 20.47 per cent., the tonnage of the nations which have acceded to the convention.
The noble Lord asked me two questions, the first being about the attitude of the United States and other OECD countries to the code. There appears to be little likelihood that the United States will join the code now or in the short term since, as noble Lords will be aware, the United States shipping interests are totally different to those of the United Kingdom. The United States lines are hardly active in cross-trades which serve European Community ports, and of course the three members of the European Community originally signed the convention in 1974. Since we are far more affected, indeed vitally so, in serving European Community ports, especially in the cross-trades, and the United States are hardly involved in it at all, it is in no way strange that the United States willl not be joining the code.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also asked about the definition of a national shipping line. The code already contains such a definition. It may be generally satisfactory, although of course it will leave some room for doubt, but it allows contracting parties to add further criteria to the definition. The department will be required to consult interested parties—that

167
will include a very wide spectrum of those interested in this field—before making any regulations to specify the conditions for recognition as a United Kingdom national shipping line.
My noble friend Lord Inchcape made what I am sure your Lordships considered an extremely expert speech, as we have come to know he will always make in your Lordships' House, especially on these matters. He stressed the Government's case for the Bill and explained forcefully that as the three member states of the European Community had signed, we, for better or worse, to protect our shipping interests, felt that we had to. My noble friend also gave a lucid explanation of the reasons why the United States and Australia would at present seem to have no intention of signing the convention.
My noble friend Lord Glenkinglas made some kind remarks both about me and the Bill, and I certainly thank him for the remarks which were directed towards me. Indeed, I could not wish to have in the House this afternoon a nicer critic of the Bill than my noble friend, and your Lordships will be aware of his great expertise in matters which concern my department. We are also very grateful for his stories of what had happened in the past 20 years, which seem to make a very complicated Bill and code very simple.
So far as the question of Indonesia and the bulk trade is concerned, we understand that recent Indonesian measures are not in line with the Liner Code, but they provide an example of the kind of unilateral measures that can, and so often do, damage our interests. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept, and I hope that your Lordships will accept, that these measures highlight the need for an agreed multilateral régime such as the Liner Code, as especially applied in that trade.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cayzer for his very helpful and expert speech. I hope that I can paraphrase what he said. He pointed out that the Bill was making the worst—or, as he put it, the best of a bad job. I hope that I explained why the Government felt that we must put forward the Bill. Certainly from these Benches we were very grateful for my noble friend's support.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone had a particular point to raise on commodities and the Federation of Commodity Associations. I fear that I cannot say that I can produce regulations at a very early stage, but I hope that it will be agreeable to my noble friend that, if I may consult him outside the Chamber, I shall attempt to let him have an answer on the possibility of producing guidance as to what regulations might be forthcoming, and perhaps say at what stage they might be forthcoming. But I cannot give him any answer or any satisfaction this afternoon on that particular point.
My noble friend several times raised the question of consultation and spoke of the need for consultation with customers or clients of the shippers and shipping interests. I am sure that my noble friend is aware of a letter that was written by my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Trade to the honourable Member for Hillingdon, I think it is, in another place. In the letter my right honourable friend the Secretary of State stated that he realised that the Federation of
168
Commodity Associations had resigned from the British Shippers' Council shortly before the Government consulted the council on the particular issues in the Bill, and thus the federation was not involved in the original consultations. However, I hope my noble friend will accept that if there has been an omission, it has now been fully rectified. My department is always very willing to receive any views that are put forward by my noble friend Lord Mottistone and indeed by all interests which are especially concerned with or touched by the Bill.
In general, we are very grateful for the welcome that this complicated Bill has received from your Lordships this afternoon, and I am sure that all of us who have been present look forward to discussing it in further detail at a later stage. With those words, I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Spens: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to mention that in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, he said that he would not be able to introduce regulations very quickly. I fear that I have something of a suspicious mind, and I would draw the noble Lord's attention to subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 13. Clause 13(2)(a) states that
"regulations under section 2(1) made before the expiry of the period of three months beginning with the date on which this Act comes into force",
shall be subject to affirmative resolution. But subsection (3) states that
"regulations under section 2(1) made after the expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a)",
shall be subject to negative resolution. Is the noble Lord saying in effect that the Government will not be able to produce the regulations in time for them to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure? If that is so, it is all right, but if it is not so, would it be possible to alter the time periods in the subsection?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his observation. The points that I was attempting to make in reply to my noble friend Lord Mottistone had nothing at all to do with the affirmative resolution or negative resolution procedure referred to in Clause 13(2) and (3). I hope that I was making it clear that I could not give my noble friend Lord Mottistone a sight of even draft regulations. The time-scale that I had in my mind, and which I think my noble friend Lord Mottistone had in his mind, related to before either the Committee stage or the Report stage in your Lordships' House. I understand that the regulations are still in draft or in gestation in the department. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, will see that Clause 13(2) (a) contains the phrase:
"beginning with the date on which this Act comes into force".
Certainly I had no intention of referring to that particular time-scale when replying to my noble friend Lord Mottistone. So I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied on that particular point. But I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, that we shall time the regulations for affimative resolution where possible.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [H.L.]
4.17 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 81 as first printed for the Commons]
1 Clause 16, leave out Clause 16 and insert the following new clause:
"Allocation within U.K. of jurisdiction in certain civil proceedings.
.—(1) The provisions set out in Schedule 4 (which contains a modified version of Title II of the 1968 Convention) shall have effect for determining, for each part of the United Kingdom, whether the courts of law of that part, or any particular court of law in that part, have or has jurisdiction in proceedings where—

(a) the subject-matter of the proceedings is within the scope of the 1968 Convention as determined by Article I (whether or not the Convention has effect in relation to the proceedings); and

(b) the defendant or defender is domiciled in the United Kingdom or the proceedings are of a kind mentioned in Article 16 (exclusive jurisdiction regardless of domicile).

(2) In Schedule 4 modifications of Title II of the 1968 Convention are indicated as follows:—

(a) modifications by way of omission are indicated by dots; and

(b) within each Article words resulting from modifications by way of addition or substitution are printed heavy type.

(3) In determining any question as to the meaning or effect of any provision contained in Schedule 4—

(a) regard shall be had to any relevant principles laid by the European Court in connection with Title II of the 1968 Convention and to any relevant decision of that court as to the meaning or effect of any provision of that Title: and

(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), the reports mentioned in section 3(3) may be considered and shall, so far as relevant, be given such weight as is appropriate in the circumstances.

(4) The provisions of this section and Schedule 4 shall have effect subject to the 1968 Convention and to the provisions of section (Exclusion of certain proceedings front Schedule 4).
(5) In section 15(1)(a) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (domestic proceedings in which initial process may be served in another part of the United Kingdom), after sub-paragraph (v) there shall be added—
"(vi) Article 5(2) of Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982; or".".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in each case of these Commons amendments either I or my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, as appropriate, will be moving that the House do agree with the Commons in their said amendment. The House will be aware that this is a complicated Bill; indeed your Lordships will recollect our proceedings in Committee and at the other stages of the Bill. I shall be speaking to amendments marshalled in relation to subject—that is to say, speaking to several separate amendments together—but of course the Question will have to be put individually on each amendment. Where I have already spoken to the amendment in question I shall say that it is consequential.
170
The first group of amendments to which I am now speaking is comprised of Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 30, 54 and 55, and I now rise to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The amendments in the group to which I speak concern Clause 16 and Schedule 4 which allocate civil jurisdiction between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The provisions are similar to those of the 1968 Convention which allocate jurisdiction between the United Kingdom and other Community countries. As originally introduced, Clause 16 excluded certain classes of dispute which it was thought better to leave to the existing law. However, it has become apparent that certain further exceptions are necessary, and there should be power by Order in Council to add other exceptions if they are needed. This set of amendments substitutes revised provisions for these purposes.
In this and in the other cases where I shall be speaking to groups of amendments they were fairly fully expounded in another place, and unless the House demands a fuller explanation I hope it will be satisfied with the fairly brief account of the matter which I have now given. With that, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the intention of the noble and learned Lord that this discussion should be brief on such technical matters will commend itself to the House, and if I say that your Lordships will understand that it is not my intention to elongate the proceedings at all. Only because there were two short matters of principle in regard to the amendment which the noble and learned Lord was so clearly expounding do I venture to make two comments. First, in the Committee proceedings in another place—and I am referring to col. 9 of the proceedings of Standing Committee B on 19th April 1982—the right honourable and learned gentleman the Solicitor-General said this:
"Ideally, we should have liked to have set out in a Schedule to the Bill all the relevant statutory jurisdictions. Unfortunately, there is no complete list of the statutes concerned, and there is a real risk that if we adopted that course some of the provisions would escape the net. Moreover, it seems very likely that on close analysis it will be unnecessary to preserve all these special jurisdictions. Some of them are of very long standing and have not been reviewed in recent years. Our intention, therefore, is to consult with those who are immediately concerned with the operation of these statutes and so construct a suitable list of exclusions which can be put into an Order in Council. In the course of this exercise we should be able to discover all the provisions concerned, but if any should emerge later the order could be amended".
The noble and learned Lord would agree with me that it is right that this House should know that this is the intention indeed, and that the order will make a composite list eventually of the questions of jurisdiction which are involved in this amendment.
My second observation is a brief one, and it is this. I also think it is interesting for this House to know that in the Standing Committee when this amendment was first brought before them the negative procedure in regard to the Order in Council was

171
in the amendment, and it was as a result of a plea from my right honourable and learned friend Mr. Archer that the affirmative procedure should be used that the amendment now appears before this House in the form it does.
It is, I think, salutary that we should always remember that if we are dealing with important matters that are capable of debate the affirmative procedure should be the appropriate one. It is a plea that I have made, sometimes (most often, indeed) without any success, from this Bench, and it is interesting to note that in another place a plea made by a more eloquent colleague of mine was successful.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for both of his comments. I can of course confirm them both. I am afraid that, not perhaps being so gluttonous for work as the noble Lord, I am less enthusiastic than he is for the affirmative procedure; but we are always eager to comply with the reasonable requests both of the Opposition and of the Back-Benches, and we were glad to do so on this occasion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
"Exclusion of certain proceedings from Schedule 4.
.—(1) Schedule 4 shall not apply to proceedings of any description listed in Schedule (Proceedings excluded from Schedule 4) or to proceedings in Scotland under any enactment which confers jurisdiction on a Scottish court in respect of a specific subject-matter on specific grounds.
(2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council—

(a) add to the list in Schedule (Proceedings excluded from Schedule 4) any description of proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom; and

(b) remove from that list any description of proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom (whether included in the list as originally enacted or added by virtue of this subsection).

(3) An Order in Council under subsection (2)—

(a) may make different provisions for different descriptions of proceedinsg, for the same description of proceedings in different courts or for different parts of the United Kingdom; and

(b) may contain such transitional and other incidental provisions as appear to Her Majesty to be appropriate.

(4) An Order in Council under subsection (2) shall not be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 19, page 12, line 40, leave out subsection (2).
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, in moving that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, I will also speak, on the same basis as did my noble and
172
learned friend the Lord Chancellor, to a related amendment, No. 43. The effect of the amendments in this group is to recast those provisions of Part III of the Bill which govern the application of the new Scottish rules of jurisdiction in what we hope is a more straightforward form, principally by removing to a new schedule those preservations of existing jurisdictions which were formerly to be found in Clauses 19 and 20.
The amendments, which also make certain substantive alterations in these provisions, are parallel in purpose and effect to those made by the earlier amendments to which my noble and learned friend has spoken. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are minor drafting amendments which make absolutely clear that the new Scottish jurisdictional rules introduced by Part III of the Bill relate only to territorial jurisdiction, and have no effect whatsoever on the competence as respects subject-matter of either the Court of Session or the sheriff court. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 19, page 13, line 1, leave out 'respective'.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I have already explained this amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 19, page 13, line 2, leave out "and" and insert "or of".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 19, page 13, line 27, leave out subsection (7).
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 20, leave out Clause 20 and insert the following new clause:
"Continuance of certain existing jurisdictions.
.—(1) Schedule 7 does not affect—

(a) the operation of any enactment which confers

173
jurisdiction on a Scottish court in respect of a specific subject-matter on specific grounds;

(b) without prejudice to the foregoing generality, the jurisdiction of any court in respect of any matter mentioned in Schedule (Proceedings excluded from Schedule 7).

(2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council—

(a) add to the list in Schedule (Proceedings excluded from Schedule 7) any description of proceedings; and

(b) remove from that list any description of proceedings (whether included in the list as originally enacted or added by virtue of this subsection).

(3) An Order in Council under subsection (2) may—

(a) make different provision for different descriptions of proceedings or for the same description of proceedings in different courts; and

(b) contain such transitional and other incidental provisions as appear to Her Majesty to be appropriate.

(4) An Order in Council under subsection (2) shall not be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons on their Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 24, page 16, line 7, leave out from "proceedings" to end of line 11.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I will speak, if I may, to this and the following amendment. Clause 24, with which Amendment No. 8 is concerned, deals with the grant of interim relief by way of an English or Northern Ireland court in connection with arbitration proceedings or proceedings in a foreign court. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 ensure that as regards arbitration all classes of proceedings may benefit, including arbitration proceedings taking place in this country. With that explanation I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will remember the gratitude that was expressed for the provision in the Bill that related to interim relief, and your Lordships (or some of your Lordships) may remember the very learned but nevertheless practical discussion that took place on that occasion. This is obviously to improve and complete the whole of the situation relating to such interim relief, and may I, for my part, humbly express my gratitude for the present way in which this clause is drafted.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 24, page 16, line 21, at end insert—
"(4A) An Order in Council under subsection (3) which confers power to grant interim relief in relation to arbitration proceedings may provide for the repeal of any pro-
174
vision of section 12(6) of the Arbitration Act 1950 or section 21(1) of the Arbitration Act (Northern Ireland) 1937 to the extent that it is superseded by the provisions of the Order.".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 24, page 16, line 28, after "than" insert—
"(a) a warrant for the arrest of property; or
(b)"
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. I will speak also, if I may, to Amendments Nos. 11 and 56. Amendment No. 10 makes clear that the power to grant interim relief conferred on English and Northern Ireland courts by Clause 24 does not include the arrest of a ship or other property. Instead, Amendment No. 11 makes provision whereby property arrested in proceedings here may be retained in cases where the proceedings are referred to arbitration or are pursued abroad, as security for the satisfaction of the arbitration award or foreign judgment. The new clause also covers cases where in the proceedings in this country security was given to avoid the arrest of property. Amendment No. 56 introduces a transitional provision.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
"Security in Admiralty proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland in case of stay, &c.
.—(1) Where in England and Wales or Northern Ireland a court stays or dismisses Admiralty proceedings on the ground that the dispute in question should be submitted to arbitration or to the determination of the courts of another part of the United Kingdom or of an overseas country, the court may if in those proceedings property has been arrested or bail or other security has been given to prevent or obtain release from arrest—

(a) order that the property arrested be retained as security for the satisfaction of any award or judgment which—

(i) is given in respect of the dispute in the arbitration or legal proceedings in favour of which those proceedings are stayed or dismissed; and

(ii) is enforceable in England or Wales or, as the case may be, in Northern Ireland; or

(b) order that the stay or dismissal of those proceedings be conditional on the provision of equivalent security for the satisfaction of any such award or judgment.

(2) Where a court makes an order under subsection (1), it may attach such conditions to the order as it thinks fit, in particular conditions with respect to the institution or prosecution of the relevant arbitration or legal proceedings.
(3) Subject to any provisions made by rules of court and to any necessary modifications, the same law and practice shall apply in relation to property retained in pursuance of an order made by a court under subsection (1) as would apply if it were held for the purposes of proceedings in that court."
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. This is a consequential amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Clause 28, leave out Clause 28 and insert the following new clause:
"Proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland for torts to immovable property.
.—(1) The jurisdiction of any court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland to entertain proceedings for trespass to, or any other tort affecting, immovable property shall extend to cases in which the property in question is situated outside that part of the United Kingdom unless the proceedings are principally concerned with a question of the title to, or the right to possession of, that property.
(2) Subsection (1) has effect subject to the 1968 Convention and to the provisions set out in Schedule 4.".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. With this I group Amendment No. 48. These amendments deal with jurisdiction in England and Northern Ireland over actions for trespass to foreign land. Amendment No. 12 substitutes a new clause whose main purpose is to ensure that this jurisdiction is not confined to actions for damages but will extend in a proper case to an action for an injunction. Amendment No. 48 is drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I know that the noble and learned Lord loves every part of the United Kingdom and quite incidentally he happened to leave out Wales when he mentioned England and Northern Ireland. I am sure that he would love to rectify that omission.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I apologise for my omission of Wales. It is subsumed law-wise in England, whereas Northern Ireland is not subsumed in that way; but I apologise nonetheless.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
12A Clause 29, leave out clause 29.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12A. With this I group Amendments Nos. 26 and 44. Amendments Nos. 12A and 44 remove provisions which would make domicile in the sense required by the Bill the basis of jurisdiction in certain domestic proceedings to which the 1968 convention may not apply. An example is affiliation proceedings. These provisions would have introduced a measure of simplification into the law, and the operation seemed reasonably straightforward since the main ground of jurisdiction at present is the residence of one of the parties, a test which is not very different from domicile as defined in the Bill. However, apart from residence, some other conditions are employed in the laws concerned and these cannot be replaced without further consideration.
176
The difficulty is compounded because there is some doubt as to whether certain proceedings are within the 1968 convention or are excluded because they concern status or legal capacity. Affiliation proceedings, again, are a case in point. However, we are at least proposing to ensure—by Amendment No. 26—that if the European Court should hold that such proceedings are within the convention it will be possible to make any consequential changes in our law by an Order in Council framed under the powers given in Clause 45.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 30, page 18, line 33, after not "insert" (except as mentioned in paragraph (c))".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is purely drafting. It makes clear that subsection (2)(a) of Clause 30 is subject to subsection (2)(c) of Clause 30. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 30, pagel9, leave out lines 14 to 16.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. With this amendment I group Amendments Nos. 21 and 28, and I think I can say that they are all purely drafting amendments. They replace two identical definitions of the word "judgment" in Clauses 30 and 31 by a single definition which is inserted in the interpretation clause, which is Clause 48.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 31, page 19, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
"(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a judgment given by a court of an overseas country in any proceedings shall not be recognised or enforced in the United Kingdom if—"
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. With this group I place Amendment No. 15, the present amendment, and Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20.
Clause 31 prohibits the enforcement of foreign judgments in this country where the foreign proceedings were brought in contravention of an arbitration agreement. Amendments No. 15 and Nos. 17 to 20 inclusive make minor drafting improvements. Amendment No. 16 inserts two new subsections. Subsection (1 A) makes further provision as to when proceedings in a foreign court will be regarded as being contrary to an agreement for the purposes of

177
subsection (1)(a) Clearly, proceedings taken abroad will not be contrary to an arbitration or jurisdiction agreement if the agreement in question was void. However, the subsection covers certain other cases where the agreement, though valid, was unenforceable or incapable of being performed. An example would be where disputes under a contract were to be referred to a named arbitrator who in the event declined to act. If there was no mechanism for appointing someone else to act in his place, it would be reasonable to give the plaintiff resort to the ordinary courts.
Subsection (1B) will ensure that our courts will determine the validity of an arbitration or jurisdiction agreement in accordance with their assessment of the law to be applied and will not be bound by any decision of the foreign court as to whether the agreement was valid. The likelihood is, of course, that the foreign court will be bound by its own law to treat the agreement in such a case as invalid.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
16 Clause 31, page 19, line 29, at end insert—
"(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply where the agreement referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection was illegal, void or unenforceable or was incapable of being performed for reasons not attributable to the fault of the party bringing the proceedings in which the judgment was given.
(1B) In determining whether a judgment given by a court of an overseas country should be recognised or enforced in the United Kingdom, a court in the United Kingdom shall not be bound by any decision of the overseas court relating to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1) or (1A)."
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
17 Clause 17, page 19, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Clause 31, page 19, line 33, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (1)".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: If it will assist the noble and learned Lord and the House—may I say that his explanations are always so clear—when there are amendments in a grouping if he would like to take them, and if it is in order for him to do so, as an entity instead of seriatim, I will have no point at all to raise, I am merely thinking of the extreme amount of walking that the noble and learned Lord has to do—which I am sure is necessary in view of the present conditions in any event.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I should like to do so because it seems much more sensible than what I am doing. But I am told that I must deal with the amendments the other way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 31, page 19, line 39, leave out from first "of" to "section" in line 41.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 Clause 31, page 20, line 1, leave out "and" and insert "or".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
21 Clause 31, page 20, line 3, leave out subsection (5).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. This amendment is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 Clause 32, page 20, line 6, leave out Clause 32.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. With this amendment I group Amendments Nos. 24, 50 and 60. These amendments together substitute a new clause for Clause 28 and make consequential changes in the transitional provisions. The clause prevents a party who has obtained a foreign judgment from starting a fresh action in

179
England and Wales or Northern Ireland. Provided the judgment is entitled to recognition, his remedy is to enforce the judgment itself. The changes made in the revised clause are intended purely to clarify its effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
23 Clause 33, leave out Clause 33 and insert the following new clause:
"Certain steps not to amount to submission to jurisdiction of overseas court.
.—(l) For the purposes of determining whether a judgment given by a court of an overseas country should be recognised or enforced in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the person against whom the judgment was given shall not be regarded as having submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by reason only of the fact that he appeared (conditionally or otherwise) in the proceedings for all or any one or more of the following purposes, namely—

(a) to contest the jurisdiction of the court;

(b) to ask the court to dismiss or stay the proceedings on the ground that the dispute in question should be submitted to arbitration or to the determination of the courts of another country;

(c) to protect, or obtain the release of, property seized or threatened with seizure in the proceedings.

(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the recognition or enforcement in England and Wales or Northern Ireland of a judgment which is required to be recognised or enforced there under the 1968 Convention."
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23. With this amendment I group Amendments Nos. 49, 51, 53, 59 and 61.
Amendment No. 23 substitutes a revised clause for Clause 33 which deals with the consequences in English law where a party to foreign proceedings applies to the foreign court to contest its jurisdiction. The clause ensures that in such cases any judgment of the foreign court will not automatically be recognised here. The main change made in the revised clause is in subsection (1)(b) which as it stands refers to an appearance—and here I quote:
"to invite the court in its discretion not to exercise its jurisdiction".
The new paragraph makes clear that a defendant will be protected if his application is made on the ground that the dispute is covered by an agreement to arbitrate or to submit any dispute to another court. The other amendments are consequential. The clause in effect overrules the decision of the Court of Appeal in a case called Henry v. Geoprosco International [1976] QB 726. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will well know that this clause now, as amended, is of great help to practitioners who were in some doubt as to the position and certainly as to what they were committing their clients to when there was a contest in regard to jurisdiction. It will be of great interest to the legal profession to have heard what the noble and
180
learned Lord has said in explanation of this amendment from the other place.
The Lord Chancellor: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
24 After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
"Certain judgments a bar to further proceedings on the same cause of action.
. No proceedings may be brought by a person in England and Wales or Northern Ireland on a cause of action in respect of which a judgment has been given in his favour in proceedings between the same parties, or their privies, in a court in another part of the United Kingdom or in a court of an overseas country, unless that judgment is not enforceable or entitled to recognition in England and Wales or, as the case may be, in Northern Ireland."
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. This is consequential on something that I have already said.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
25 After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
"Persons deemed to be domiciled in the United Kingdom for certain purposes.
—(1) This section applies to—

(a) proceedings within section 3 of Title II of the 1968 Convention (insurance contracts), and

(b) proceedings within section 4 of that Title (consumer contracts).

(2) A person who, for the purposes of proceedings to which this section applies arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment in the United Kingdom, is deemed for the purposes of the 1968 Convention to be domiciled in the United Kingdom by virtue of—

(a) Article 8, second paragraph (insurers); or

(b) Article 13, second paragraph (suppliers of goods, services or credit to consumers),

shall, for the purposes of those proceedings, be treated for the purposes of this Act as so domiciled and as domiciled in the part of the United Kingdom in which the branch, agency or establishment in question is situated."
The Lord Chancellor:My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25. With this I group Amendment No. 29. Amendment No. 25 inserts a new clause dealing with certain cases where Sections 3 and 4 of the 1968 convention a party is deemed to be domiciled in the United Kingdom though he would not be domiciled here under Clauses 40 to 42. The new clause allocates jurisdiction in these cases between the courts of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Amendemnt No. 29 makes a consequential change in Schedule 4. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
26 Clause 45, page 29, line 41, at end insert "; or of any other statutory provision affected by any provision of either of those Schedules,"
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. This is consequential on what I have already said in relation to Amendment No. 12A. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
27 Clause 46, page 30, line 29, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2), the power to make rules of court for magistrates' courts, and in Northern Ireland the power to make Judgment Enforcement Rules, shall include power to make such provision as the rule-making authority considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of the provisions of the Conventions and this Act relating to maintenance proceedings and the recognition and enforcement of maintenance orders, and shall in particular include power to make provision as to any of the following matters—

(a) authorising the service in another Contracting State of process issued by or for the purposes of a magistrates' court and the service and execution in England and Wales or Northern Ireland of process issued in another Contracting State;

(b) requesting courts in other parts of the United Kingdom or in other Contracting States to take evidence there for the purposes of proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland;

(c) the taking of evidence in England and Wales or Northern Ireland in response to similar requests received from such courts;

(d) the circumstances in which and the conditions subject to which any powers conferred under paragraphs (a) to (c) are to he exercised;

(e) the admission in evidence, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in the rules, of statements contained in documents purporting to be made or authenticated by a court in another part of the United Kingdom or in another Contracting State, or by a judge or official of such a court, which purport —

(i) to set out or summarise evidence given in proceedings in that court or to be documents received in evidence in such proceedings or copies of such documents; or

(ii) to set out or summarise evidence taken for the purposes of proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, whether or not in response to any such request as is mentioned in paragraph (b); or

(iii) to record information relating to the payments made under an order of that court;

(f) the circumstances and manner in which a magistrates' court may or must vary or revoke a maintenance order registered in that court, cancel the registration of, or refrain from enforcing, such an order or transmit such an order for enforcement in another part of the United Kingdom;

(g) the cases and manner in which courts in other parts of the United Kingdom or in other Contracting States are to be informed of orders made, or other things done, by or for the purposes of a magistrates' court;

(h) the circumstances and manner in which a magistrates' court may communicate for other purposes with such courts;

(i) the giving of notice of such matters as may be prescribed in the rules to such persons as may be so prescribed and the manner in which such notice is to be given."

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their
182
Amendment No. 27. The purpose of this amendment, which stands by itself, is to expand the rule-making power for magistrates' courts in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. At present the rule-making power in Clause 48(3) only provides for rules to be made which relate to the recognition and enforcement of maintenance orders. However, rules will also be necessary to supplement the provisions of the convention and the Bill which for the first time gives magistrates' courts jurisdiction in maintenance proceedings against a defendant abroad in another contracting state. In addition to widening the power to take in rules necessary for such proceedings, the amendment also spells out the kinds of rule which may be required. I beg to move.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 48, page 31, line 30, at end insert—
" "judgment", subject to sections 15(1) and 17(2) and to paragraph I of Schedules 5 and 6, means any judgment or order (by whatever name called) given or made by a court, in any civil proceedings;"
4.50 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 14 and No. 21.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
29 Schedule 4, page 71, leave out lines 32 to 36.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 25.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
30 After Schedule 4, insert the following new schedule—
"PROCEEDINGS EXCLUDED FROM SCHEDULE 4
Proceedings under the Companies Acts
1. Proceedings for the winding up of a company under the Companies Act 1948 or the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960, or proceedings relating to a company as respects which jurisdiction is conferred on the court having winding up jurisdiction under either of those Acts.
Patents, trade marks, designs and similar rights
2. Proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered.
Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980
3. Proceedings under section 6 of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (recovery of sums paid or obtained pursuant to a judgment for multiple damages).
Appeals etc. from tribunals
4. Proceedings on appeal from, or for review of, decisions of tribunals.
Maintenance and similar payments to local and other public authorities
5. Proceedings for, or otherwise relating to, an order under any of the following provisions—

(a) section 47 or 51 of the Child Care Act 1980, section 80 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or section 156 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (contributions in respect of children in care, etc.);

(b) section 49 or 50 of the Child Care Act 1980, section 81 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or section 159 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (applications for, or for variation of, affiliation orders in respect of children in care, etc.);

(c) section 43 of the National Assistance Act 1948, section 18 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, Article 101 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 or Article 23 of the Supplementary Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (recovery of cost of assistance or benefit from person liable to maintain the assisted person);

(d) section 44 of the National Assistance Act 1948, section 19 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, Article 102 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 or Article 24 of the Supplementary Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (applications for, or for variation of, affiliation orders in respect of children for whom assistance or benefit provided).

Proceedings under certain conventions, etc.
6. Proceedings brought in any court in pursuance of—

(a) any statutory provision which, in the case of any convention to which Article 57 applies (conventions relating to specific matters which override the general rules in the 1968 Convention), implements the convention or makes provision with respect to jurisdiction in any field to which the convention relates; and

(b) any rule of law so far as it has the effect of implementing any such convention.

Certain Admiralty proceedings in Scotland
7. Proceedings in Scotland in an Admiralty cause where the jurisdiction of the Court of Session or, as the case may be, of the sheriff is based on arrestment in rem or ad fundandam jurisdictionem of a ship, cargo or freight.
Register of aircraft mortgages
8. Proceedings for the rectification of the Register of Aircraft Mortgages kept by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Continental Shelf Act 1964
Proceedings brought in any court in pursuance of an order under section 3 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964."
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30. This is consequential on No. 1.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
31 Schedule 7, page 80, line 13, insert in margin "[Article 5(1)]".
32 Schedule 7, page 80, line 15, insert in margin "[Article 5(3)]".
33 Schedule 7, page 80, line 17, insert in margin "[Article 5(4)]".
34 Schedule 7, page 80, line 21, insert in margin "[Article 5(2)]".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 31 to 34, which I would hope to be able to move en bloc, and also to Amendments Nos. 36 to 44.
This is a rather long series of very minor drafting
184
amendments. Against those rules in Schedule 7 which derive, to whatever extent, from provisions of the 1968 convention, there appear marginal notes referring in each case to the relevant provision of the convention. It is thought that this information will be useful to users of the legislation, particularly in view of the requirement in Clause 19(6) that in determining any question as to the meaning or effect of any provision in the schedule which is derived to any extent from the 1968 convention regard shall be had to any relevant principles laid down by the European Court in connection with the convention. it has been suggested to us that it would be helpful if these marginal notes gave more precise references to the particular provisions of the convention, so that, for example, the side note to rule 2 of Schedule 7 referred to article 5(1), article 5(2), et cetera of the convention, as appropriate. We agree that this would be useful and that is what this rather long string of small amendments is directed to.
I think it would be appropriate if this group of amendments, Nos. 31 to 34, were taken en bloc, and doing so will relieve the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor from having, to put the Question more often than necessary. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 31 to 34, inclusive.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on both his points, first of all in regard to the common sense of moving these amendments together, but really more seriously in regard to helpfulness of the sidenotes to which he referred. These will be very useful to practitioners. I am personally most grateful, and I am sure that most practitioners are, that there will be this reference to the convention which will make it rather snore easy to deal with the various clauses of the Bill in relation to the convention.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
35 Schedule 7, page 80, line 29, at end insert—
"(and provided also that—

(a) where a local authority exercises its power to raise an action under section 44(7) (a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 or under section 81(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; and

(b) where the Secretary of State exercises his power to raise an action under section 19(8)(a) of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976;

this Rule shall apply as if the reference to the maintenance creditor were a reference to the mother of the child);".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35. This amendment improves the Bill concerning the provision for Scottish courts to make maintenance orders. It ensures that in these cases in which a local authority or the Secretary of State is presently entitled by statute to raise an action for of affiliation and aliment in the sheriff court for the mother's place of residence against a defender resident in another part of the United Kingdom, the

185
local authority or the Secretary of State will continue to be able to do so in future.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their said amendment.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
36 Schedule 7, page 80, line 30, insert in margin "[Article 5(5)]"
37 Schedule 7, page 80, line 34, insert in margin "[Article 5(6)]"
38 Schedule 7, page 80, line 26, insert in margin "[Article 16(1)]"
39 Schedule 7, page 80, line 29, insert in margin "[Article 16(2)]"
40 Schedule 7, page 80, line 34, insert in margin "[Article 16(3)]"
41 Schedule 7, page 80, line 37, insert in margin "[Article 16(5)]"
42 Schedule 7, page 80, line 6, insert in margin "[Article 17(1)]"
43 Schedule 7, page 80, After Schedule 7, insert the following new Schedule—
"PROCEEDINGS EXCLUDED FROM SCHEDULE 7
1. Proceedings concerning the status or legal capacity of natural persons (including proceedings for separation) other than proceedings which consist solely of proceedings for adherence and aliment or of affiliation and aliment.
2. Proceedings for regulating the custody of children.
3. Proceedings relating to tutory and curatory and all proceedings relating to the management of the affairs of persons who are incapable of managing their own affairs.
4. Proceedings in respect of sequestration in bankruptcy; or the winding up of a company or other legal person; or proceedings in respect of a judicial arrangement or judicial composition with creditors.
5. Proceedings relating to a company where, by any enactment, jurisdiction in respect of those proceedings is conferred on the court having jurisdiction to wind it up.
6. Admiralty causes in so far as the jurisdiction is based on arrestment in rem or ad fundandam jurisdictionem of a ship, cargo or freight.
7. Commissary proceedings.
8. Proceedings for the rectification of the Register of Aircraft Mortgages kept by the Civil Aviation Authority.
9. Proceedings under section 7(3) of the Civil Aviation (Euro-control) Act 1962 (recovery of charges for air navigation services and proceedings for damages against Eurocontrol).
10. Proceedings brought in pursuance of an order under section 3 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964.
11. Proceedings under section 6 of the Protection o Trading Interests Act 1980 (recovery of sums paid or obtained pursuant to a judgment for multiple damages).
12. Appeals from or review of decisions of tribunals.
13. Proceedings which are not in substance proceedings in which a decree against any person is sought.
14. Proceedings brought in any court in pursuance of—

(a) any statutory provision which, in the case of any convention to which Article 57 applies (conventions relating to specific matters which override the general rules in the 1968 Convention), implements the convention; and

(b) any rule of law so far as it has the effect of implementing any such convention.".

44 Schedule 8, leave out Schedule 8.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons Amendments Nos. 36 to 44 en bloc. They are all consequential on matters which either the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or I have dealt with earlier.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
45 Schedule 11, page 96, line 13, at end insert—
"Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (c.37)
1A. In section 15(1) (b) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 for the words "for separation and aliment" there shall be substituted the words "which contains a conclusion for aliment not falling within the scope of paragraph (a)(i) above".".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45. This amendment applies Section 15 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 to all actions for aliment raised in the sheriff court. Section 15 provides a system whereby an initial writ relating to a sheriff court action may be endorsed by a magistrate's court in another part of the United Kingdom and then served there as if it were a writ of that court. This ensures that the maintenance debtor in another part of the United Kingdom gets actual service of the initial writ. The amendment of Section 15 is made necessary by the repeal by the present Bill of sections 6 and 8 of the 1950 Act, which gave jurisdiction in particular circumstances against persons resident elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and their replacement by the more general provision of Article 5 (2) of Schedule 4.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their said amendment.—(Lord Mackay of Clash fern).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
46 Schedule 11, page 96, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 97 and insert—
"(3) In Scotland the sheriff court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action referred to in subsection (1) and such an action shall not be brought in any other court.
(3A) Subject to subsection (3B) an action which is brought in the sheriff court by virtue of subsection (3) shall be brought only in one of the following courts, namely—

(a) the court for the place where the debtor or hirer is domiciled (within the meaning of section 40 or 41 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982);

(b) the court for the place where the debtor or hirer carries on business; and

(c) where the purpose of the action is to assert, declare or determine proprietory or possessory rights, or rights of security, in or over moveable property, or to obtain authority to dispose of moveable property, the court for the place where the property is situated.

(3B) Subsection (3A) shall not apply—

(a) where Rule 3 of Schedule 7 to the said Act of 1982 applies; or

(b) where the jurisdiction of another court has been prorogated by an agreement entered into after the dispute has arisen.".

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46. This amendment to paragraph 3 of Schedule 11, Part II, corrects certain deficiencies in the amendment to Section 141 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as it formerly appeared in the Bill. That is the purpose of the amendment and I do not think I need to explain it further.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their said amendment.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
47 Schedule 12, page 99, line 16, at end insert—

Provision

Subject-matter

"section 23(1)(a), (2)(a) and (3).

Interim relief and protective measures in cases of doubtful jurisdiction."

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47. I will speak, if I may, to No. 52 in addition to No. 47. These amendments ensure that Clause 23, so far as applicable, and Clause 37, will come into force six weeks after Royal Assent instead of on a date to be appointed. Clause 23 is primarily concerned to ensure that our courts may grant interim relief such as a quia timet injunction pending a reference to the European Court. As your Lordships will remember, it was introduced into this House as a result of a proposal made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Generally, it will not apply until the 1968 convention itself comes into force for the United Kingdom. However, the clause refers also to domestic appeals and may be useful in those cases straight away. Clause 37 makes a minor amendment to the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 which was also introduced into this House, which can similarly be brought into force without delay.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment. (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
48 Schedule 12, page 99, line 19, leave out "28" and insert "(Proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland for torts to immovable property)"
49 Schedule 12, page 99, line 26, at end insert—

"Section (Certain steps not to amount to submission to jurisdiction of overseas court)

Certain steps not to amount to submission to jurisdiction of overseas court.".

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. They are both consequential on Amendment No. 23 and I think we might take them both together without offending too deeply.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Schedule 12, page 99, leave out line 27 and insert—

"section (Certain judgments a bar to further proceedings on the same cause of action)

Certain judgments a bar to further proceedings on the same cause of action.".

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their
188
Amendment No. 50. This is consequential on Amendment No. 22.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
51 Schedule 12, page 99, leave out lines 28 and 29.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51. This is consequential on Amendment No. 23. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
52 Schedule 12, page 99, line 33, at end insert—

"section 37

Overseas judgments counteracting an award of multiple damages."

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. This is consequential on Amendment No. 47. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
53 Schedule 12, page 99, line 47, leave out "33" and insert "(Certain steps not to amount to submission to jurisdiction of overseas court)".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53. This, again, is consequential on Amendment No. 23. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
54 Schedule 12, page 100, line 10, leave out "16" and insert "(Allocation within U.K. of jurisdiction in certain civil proceedings)".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 54. This is consequential on Amendment No. 1. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
55 Schedule 12, page 100, line 12, leave out "16" and insert "(Allocation within U.K. of jurisdiction in certain civil proceedings)".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 55. This, too, is consequential on Amendment No. 1. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
56 Schedule 12, page 101, line 5, at end insert—
Section (Security in Admiralty proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland in case of stay, &c.)
The power conferred by section (Security in Admiralty proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland in case of stay, &c.) shall not be exercisable in relation to property arrested before the commencement of that section or in relation to bail or other security given—

(a) before the commencement of that section to prevent the arrest of property; or

(b) to obtain the release of property arrested before the commencement of that section; or

(c) in substitution (whether directly or indirectly) for security given as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).".

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56. This is consequential on Amendment No. 10. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
57 Schedule 12, page 101, line 9, after "1920", insert "or".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57. If I may deal with this and the succeeding amendment No. 58 together, they flow from revisions to Clause 30 which deals with foreign judgments given against states and the revisions were introduced in this House. They make only consequential changes to the transitional provisions. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
58 Schedule 12, page 101, line 10, leave out from "1933" to "before" in line 11.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58. As I said, this is consequential. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
59 Schedule 12, page 101, line 27, at end insert—
"Section (Certain steps not to amount to submission to jurisdiction of overseas court) and associated repeal.
.—(1) Section (Certain steps not to amount to submission to jurisdiction of overseas court) shall not apply to any judgment—

(a) which has been registered under Part II of the
190
Administration of Justice Act 1920 or Part I of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 before the time when that section comes into force; or

(b) in respect of which proceedings at common law for its enforcement have been finally determined before that time.

(2) The repeal by this Act of words in section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 shall not affect the operation of that provision in relation to a judgment registered under Part I of that Act before the commencement of section (Certain steps not to amount to submission to jurisdiction of overseas court).".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59. This is consequential on Amendment No. 23. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
60 Schedule 12, page 101, line 29, leave out "32" and insert "(Certain judgments a bar to flat her proceedings on the same cause of action)".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60. This is consequential on Amendment No. 22. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Cornmons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
61 Schedule 12, page 101, leave out lines 31 to 43.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 61. This is the last and it is consequential on Amendment No. 23. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Relief from Forfeiture Bill
5.4 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mishcon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DERWENT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975].
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: Maybe I can helpfully commence all the speeches that I have to make—and I shall try to be as brief as possible—by saying that, following upon the Second Reading, and with the great assistance of the Lord Chancellor's department, there are amendments before your Lordships which will put this Bill, to which your Lordships were good enough to give a Second Reading, in a tidy, concise and clear form. It is against that background that I move the first amendment which is before your Lordships. This new clause, and the two which follow it, are designed to replace Clauses 1 and 4 of the Bill. This first new clause simply describes the rule of common law with which the Bill is concerned; namely, the rule which precludes a person from acquiring any benefit from an unlawful killing for which he is responsible. May I—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Derwent): I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think it would be more in order if we dealt with the first Question, That Clause 1 stand part, and then move to new clauses afterwards.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful for that correction. May I so do?
Resolved in the negative, and Clause 1 disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("The 'forfeiture rule'.
In this Act, the 'forfeiture rule' means the rule of public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing.").
The noble Lord said: I repeat my gratitude and, in order to spare your Lordships, I shall not repeat the first observations which I made and which I hope your Lordships will remember. I had got to the stage o saying that this Bill in no way alters the law, and certainly neither does the clause which your Lordships are now considering. The drafting of new Clause 1 is in general terms. It speaks of "acquiring a benefit", because the rule itself has often been judicially described in that way, and because it applies to a range o different kinds of benefit.
It will be observed that this new Clause 1 also speaks of unlawful killing. This is wide enough to cover not only the old felonies of murder and manslaughter, but also such crimes as causing death by reckless driving or infanticide. There are no authorities as to whether the rule applies in these cases, but on general principles there would appear to be no reason why it should not. The inclusion of the expression "in certain circumstances" will ensure that the new clause will not affect the question whether or not the rule is applied in such cases, which will remain a matter for the common law. It is not even certain that the rule will always be applied in all cases of manslaughter.
The authorities down to and including Re Giles, which was reported in 1972, suggest that it will, but in the most recent case of Regina v. Chief National Insurance Commissioner ex parte Connor, which was reported in 1981, 2 Weekly Law Reports, page 412, it was said in the Divisional Court, and it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice who reported the judgment, that,
192
"It is not the label which the law applies to the crime which has been committed but the nature of the crime itself which, in the end, will dictate whether public policy demands the court to drive the applicant from the seat of justice. Where that line is to be drawn may be a difficult matter to decide, but what this court has to determine is whether in the present case what this applicant did was sufficient to disentitle her to her remedy".
However, the court nevertheless held that the wife convicted of the manslaughter of her husband was not entitled to a widow's pension, although the Crown Court did not deal with her more severely than placing her on probation for two years. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall not repeat myself in the subsequent amendments. I simply rise to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said at the outset of his remarks. At Second Reading I undertook to give to the promoters of the Bill the advantage of the technical assistance in drafting which my office sometimes has at its command in order to ensure that the Bill, if it should meet with the approval of the Committee in other respects, would be technically correct so far as the drafting could make it. That does not alter the stance of neutrality which the Government adopt traditionally in relation to Private Members' Bills, but it does mean, I hope, that it will not fail for want of good draftsmanship. Therefore I am happy, with that qualification only, to accept the noble Lord's amendment and the others which stand in his name.
Baroness Phillips: I know that one always puts one's head into a noose in this House, either as an English-woman speaking in Scottish Bills or as a non-legal person speaking on matters that both Front Benches seem to consider to be their particular prerogative, since they are concerned with the law. I was not, unfortunately, present during the Second Reading of the Bill, but having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I find it all rather astonishing, to say the least. The noble Lord cited the case of a woman who, I understood him to say, had committed manslaughter and who was denied a widow's pension, but he did not mention, unless I misheard him, infanticide and murder. Bearing in mind the kind of violent society in which we live, I find it astonishing that we should be sitting here quite dispassionately discussing whether somebody who has unlawfully killed another may benefit from what would have been that person's entitlement. I question whether this is the right moment to bring forward this kind of legislation. I know that I am going to be a lone voice. However, I feel that I should voice that point of view at this time.
Lord Mishcon: There is no question of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, being in any way a lone voice. I do not blame her in the slightest, but if she had waited for Clause 3 of the Bill she would have seen that murder not only is excluded, at the request of another place, but also is excluded by this Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: As regards infanticide, it was a statutory offence—as the noble Baroness will probably know, being a magistrate—under which a woman originally, apart from statute, would have been guilty of murder, had she committed it. But even in the days of the death penalty the judge would always have carefully explained, in the relevant circumstances, that

193
the death penalty would never be inflicted, although it was mandatory upon him to pronounce it. Before putting on the black cap he would always have explained that to the woman. It is only in the rarest conceivable case that a woman who has committed the infanticide of a very young baby during the period (which I forget for the moment, but it would be a very few weeks) could possibly benefit from that baby's estate. There will be cases in theory, but whether one has ever arisen in practice I am not quite sure. It is certainly a very remote possibility.
Lord Mishcon: As always, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Power to modify the rule
.—(1) Where a court determines that a person (in this section referred to as "the offender") who has unlawfully killed another is, apart from this section, precluded by virtue of the forfeiture rule from acquiring any interest in property mentioned in subsection (4) below, the court may make an order under this section modifying the effect of that rule.
(2) The court shall not make an order under this section modifying the effect of the forfeiture rule in any case unless it is satisfied that, having regard to the conduct of the offender and of the deceased and to such other circumstances as appear to the court to be material, the justice of the case requires the effect of the rule to be so modified in that case.
(3) In any case where a person stands convicted of an offence of which unlawful killing is an element, the court shall not make an order under this section modifying the effect of the forfeiture rule in that case unless proceedings for the purpose are brought before the expiry of the period of three months beginning with his conviction.
(4) The interests in property referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) any beneficial interest in property which (apart from the forfeiture rule) the offender would acquire—F

(i) under the deceased's will (including, as respects Scotland, any writing having testamentary effect) or, the law relating to intestacy or by way of ius relictiius relictae or legitim;

(ii) on the nomination of the deceased in accordance with the provisions of any enactment;

(iii) as a donatio mortis causa made by the deceased; or

(iv) under a special destination (whether relating to heritable or moveable property); or

(b) any beneficial interest in property which (apart from the forfeiture rule) the offender would acquire in consequence of the death of the deceased, being property which, before the death, was held on trust for any person.

(5) An order under this section may modify the effect of the forfeiture rule in respect of any interest in property to which the determination referred to in subsection (1) above relates and may do so in either or both of the following ways, that is—

(a) where there is more than one such interest, by excluding the application of the rule in respect of any (but not all) of those interests; and

(b) in the case of any such interest in property, by excluding the application of the rule in respect of part of the property.

(6) On the making of an order under this section, the forfeiture rule shall have effect for all purposes (including purposes relating to anything done before the order is made) subject to the modifications made by the order.
(7) In this section—
"property" includes any chose in action or incorporeal moveable property; and
"will"includes codicil.").
The noble Lord said: This second new clause enables the courts to modify the forfeiture rule as it applies to a defender. The courts are given discretion to order that the rules shall not preclude him from acquiring part of the interest which he would acquire by succession as the result of a death, the size of the part being for the court to determine, according to the justice of the case. The new clause enables the court to modify the undoubtedly rigid all-or-nothing aspect of the present rule. At present the rule either applies or does not apply. There is no middle course. Indeed, the right honourable and learned gentleman the Solicitor-General referred to this matter when the Bill was in another place and said that it was a part of our law which quite obviously needed to be looked at.
Thus a widow who had killed her husband, who might therefore deserve to be deprived of his liquid assets, would also be liable to be turned out of the matrimonial home if it belonged to him. If the nature of the case was such that, like the Connor case to which I referred only a moment or so ago, the court did not think it necessary to impose a custodial sentence, that could be somewhat harsh. The new clause places no restrictions on the proportions in which the court can divide the benefits to which the offender would have been entitled, apart from the rule, except that it cannot grant him the whole of the benefits he would have had, since that would be tantamount to disapplying the rule, and the court's powers to do that are not to be affected by the Bill.
Subsection (1) ensures that the court's powers under the section will be available whenever the forfeiture rule, as described in the first new clause, applies. The subsection refers simply to "the court". This term is not defined because no definition is necessary. The forum will be determined by reference to other factors. For example, if the offender is seeking to claim a legacy under his victim's will, he will, like any other beneficiary in a comparable position, start administration proceedings against the personal representatives. Alternatively, the personal representatives could themselves start such proceedings if they desired directions from the court. Such proceedings would be brought in the Chancery Division; or, if the estate was worth less than £30,000, it would be brought in the county court. On the other hand, a dispute over a nomination under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965—that would come under Section 23 of the Act—would go to a magistrates' court if the rules of the relevant society so provided.
Subsection (2) lays down the criterion by which the court's discretion is to be exercised. As regards "other circumstances"—I am quoting from the new subsection mentioned in the amendment —"as appear to the court to be material", the purpose is that the court should not be precluded from having regard to such consideration as the needs and resources of the offender and of others who are interested in the estate. However, unlike Inheritance Act applications where the applicant starts with no rights under the will at all or, at most, with rights which he claims are inadequate, in cases under this clause the offender prima facie has rights or would have, apart from the forfeiture rule. Therefore, the matter should not necessarily be approached in the same way as an Inheritance Act

195
application. These other considerations are, therefore, not spelled out but are covered by general words.
As to subsection (3), your Lordships will see that it sets a time limit on the commencement of proceedings for an order under this clause. If I remember correctly, it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who referred to this matter as one of the difficulties created by the Bill as it appeared first before your Lordships at Second Reading. The difficulty to which he referred was the difficulty of personal representatives who would not know whether or not they could proceed to distribute the estate. The discretion, or the additional discretion which this Bill will confer on the courts in relation to the forfeiture rule, will inevitably bring with it an element of uncertainty. Personal representatives administering an estate can at the present time with reasonable confidence treat a convicted murderer or manslaughterer as precluded by the forfeiture rule and proceed accordingly without going to the trouble and expense of seeking directions from the court.
In future, however, the personal representatives would, if this Bill is passed, have to bear in mind the possibility of proceedings under the Bill. The best way to meet their difficulties is, it is thought, to fix a deadline after which the personal representatives will know for certain whether or not there will be proceedings under the Bill. Subsection (3) accordingly provides in effect that a convicted person must commence proceedings for an order under this clause within three months of conviction, failing which the court would have no power to make an order modifying the rule. In other words, if he did not start proceedings within that time, the personal representatives would be safe to treat him as excluded.
Subsection (4) lists the inheritance and analogous interests in respect of which applications could be made. Broadly speaking, they can be described as rights of succession to property. This is in line with the provisions of the original Bill, except that subsection (4) also covers special Scottish interests, statutory nominations, and, lastly, donatio mortis causa. Subsection (4)(a)(i) deals with inheritance by will or the intestacy rule. I understand that under Scottish law it is possible for some writings not readily recognisable as wills—for instance, certain provisions in marriage contracts—to be given testamentary effect as if they were wills. The words in subsection (4)(a)(i) ensure that they are covered by this clause. Turning to (4)(a)(ii), this deals with statutory nominations. As your Lordships will know, some statutes and statutory instruments authorise persons who own, or who are entitled to, certain types of property to dispose of them by nominations during their lifetime but which take effect on their death. Examples which will readily occur to your Lordships are savings in public securities such as National Savings Certificates, and property in industrial and providence societies.
Turning to a matter that I mentioned a moment ago—that of donatio mortis causa, which is referred to in subsection (4)(a)(iii)—such gifts made during the life time of the deceased but recoverable until any time at until his death have not been the subject of any judicial decision, so far as I or anyone advising me can trace, in relation to the forfeiture rule. However,
196
because they are in certain respects analogous to legacies, it is quite possible that a court would hold that they were covered by the rule, and therefore they are mentioned here so that relief can be given in respect of them if necessary and if appropriate.
Subsection (4)(a)(iv) refers to special destinations, and here I had to be advised, as always in respect of Scottish law. I am told that under Scottish law, a special destination is a provision in the title deed to property saying to whom the property will pass on the owner's death. It may be found in the title deed of heritable—we would know it as real—property or in a document of title relating to moveable—we would know it as personal—property, for instance a share certificate. Such a provision is given testamentary effect even though it is not a writing of the deceased person. I suppose the most common example is where a husband and wife own a house in common and the title deeds provide that on the death of either partner, his or her share will pass to the survivor. It appears that the clause should apply to property passing under "a special destination" as it applies to property under will.
Subsection (4) (b) deals with the situation where, for example, a remainderman under a trust kills the tenant for life and thereby would succeed to the property but for the forfeiture rule. That situation is not otherwise covered by subsection (4) (a) because the offender is not succeeding under the deceased's will or in any other way provided for in that paragraph. Subsection (5) specifies the orders which the court may make, and subsection (6) makes the provision necessary to ensure that the court order takes priority over the forfeiture rule. Lastly, subsection (7) contains two interpretations. The gloss on property—if I may use that expression—is to ensure that debts and similar things are covered. So far as England is concerned—and by that I mean England and Wales—this subsection reflects the corresponding interpretation in Section 25(1) of the Inheritance (Provisions for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Application for financial provision not affected by the rule
.—(1) The forfeiture rule shall not be taken to preclude any person from making any application under a provision mentioned in subsection (2) below or the making of any order on the application.
(2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) any provision of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975; and

(b) sections 31(6) (variation etc. of periodical payments orders) and 36(1) (variation of maintenance agreements) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and section 5(4) of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976 (variation etc. of periodical allowances).").

The noble Lord said: The insertion of this new clause means that we are covering the other kinds of case which the old Clause 1 of the Bill was intended to cover—namely, where even apart from the forfeiture rule, the offender stands to get little or nothing under the victim's will or the intestacy rules but where, apart from the rule, he might have been able to apply for and be granted financial relief out of the estate

197
under the Inheritance (Provisions for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
As I understand it, there is no reported case on whether the forfeiture rule operates to debar an offender from making an application under the 1975 Act for provision out of his victim's estate or, even if he is not debarred from making such an application, whether it operates to debar the court from making an order in his favour. This clause is designed to make it clear that the rule does not of itself debar either of these things. Subsection (1) is the main provision. That simply states the proposition that the forfeiture rule shall not be taken to preclude applications under the enactments listed in subsection (2) or the granting of relief on such application. Subsection (2) sets out the relevant enactments. Subsection (2)(b) covers analogous provisions of the divorce legislation. I believe that may satisfy your Lordships by way of an explanation of what this new clause seeks to do. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Application to the court for relief by widows]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the negative, and Clause 2 disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon: moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Commissioner to decide whether rule applies to social security benefits.
— (1) Where a question arises as to whether, if a person were otherwise entitled to or eligible for any benefit or advantage under a relevant enactment, he would be precluded by virtue of the forfeiture rule from receiving the whole or part of the benefit or advantage, that question shall (notwithstanding anything in any relevant enactment) be determined by a Commissioner.
(2) Regulations under this section may make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for carrying this section into effect; and (without prejudice to the generality of that) the regulations may, in relation to the question mentioned in subsection (1) above or any determination under that subsection—

(a) apply any provision of any relevant enactment, with or without modifications, or exclude or contain provision corresponding to any such provision; and

(b) make provision for purposes corresponding to those for which provision may he made by regulations under section 115 of the Social Security Act 1975 (matters relating to adjudication).

(3) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) Section 166(2) and (3) of the Social Security Act 1975 (provision about extent of power to make regulations) shall apply to the power to make regulations conferred by this section as it applies to the power to make regulations conferred by that Act, but as if for references to that Act there were substituted references to this section.
(5) In this section—
"Commissioner" has the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1975; and
"relevant enactment" means any provision of the following and any instrument made by virtue of such a provision:

the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,

198

the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939,

the Polish Resettlement Act 1947,

the Family Income Supplements Act 1970,

the Social Security Act 1975,

Part II of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975,

the Child Benefit Act 1975,

Part I of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976,

section 12 of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977,

section 14 of the Social Security Act 1980,

and any other enactment relating to pensions or social security prescribed by regulations under this section.").

The noble Lord said: This new clause is designed to deal with the social security aspects of the Bill, which were also mentioned on Second Reading. Unlike the clauses covering succession rights, this new clause does not alter the scope of the forfeiture rule or give the adjudicating authorities any new direction to grant relief from the forfeiture rule. It simply provides that in all the situations that can be envisaged where the question of the application of the forfeiture rule could arise, in relation to entitlements to a state benefit, that that question shall go direct to be determined by a commissioner rather than starting at the bottom of the adjudicating ladder. Although the purpose of this new clause is thus fairly simple, its provisions—as is so often the case with the law relating to social security—are somewhat complex. With your Lordships' permission, I will go briefly through the subsections.
Subsection(1)secures that if a forfeiture rule question arises under a relevant enactment, and that relevant enactment is defined in subsection (5), that question is to be determined by a social security commissioner. Subsection (2) will enable the Secretary of State for Social Services to make regulations providing for the reference to the social security commissioners by other statutory determining authorities under the relevant enactments of forfeiture rule questions arising under those enactments.
Subsection (3) secures that regulations made under the clause will be subject to annulment by a resolution of either House of Parliament, Subsection (4) extends to regulations made under this clause general provisions relating to the making of subordinate legislation under the Social Security Act 1976 and other relevant enactments. Subsection (5) contains definitions of commissioner and of the relevant enactments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Exclusion of murderers from benefit]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): The Question is, That Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill? As many as are of that opinion will say, Content? To the contrary, Not-Content?
Several noble Lords: Not-Content.
The Lord Chancellor: No; Content. Leave it to me.
Lord Mishcon: I would be grateful if the Question could be put again.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill? As

199
many as are of that opinion will say, Content? To the contrary, Not-Content? I think that the Contents have it.
Several noble Lords: Not-Content.
The Lord Chancellor: Clause 3 deals with the question of murder, raised by the noble Baroness. I thought it had been inserted by request of the Commons to exclude murder, and I thought the noble Lord's intention was to continue to include it.
Lord Mishcon: The intention is not only there but it has been put there more clearly by the new Clause 5. That is the purpose of the new Clause 5, to which I will come in a moment, if your Lordships agree that Clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill.
Resolved in the negative, and Clause 3 disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Exclusion of murderers.
Nothing in this Act or in any order made under section [Power to modify the rule] or referred to in section [Application for financial provision not affected by the rule] (1) of this Act shall affect the application of the forfeiture rule in case of a person who stands convicted of murder.").
The noble Lord said: I thought the Committee was in fact murdering my amendment, but now I come, if I may, to a very short statement, which is that, Clause 3 having been left out, it be replaced by this new clause. It is simply a drafting improvement. It makes no change of substance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Interpretation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the negative, and Clause 4 disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon: moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland.
. An Order in Council under paragraph 1 (1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which contains a statement that it is made only for purposes corresponding to the purposes of this Act—

(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.").

The noble Lord said: I understand that Clause 4 should be dropped from the Bill because in the light of amendments already made it is neither necessary nor appropriate. I beg to move, therefore, that the clause be left out.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: It has been left out. I have called Amendment No. 6.
Lord Mishcon: I only wanted to make sure it had been left out. With regard to this new clause, since the law of Northern Ireland—and, if I may, I will speak to Amendment No. 9 as well in order to shorten the Committee's proceedings—is broadly similar to that of England and Wales as regard the forfeiture rule and its operation, this new clause, which goes with Amendment No. 9, enables corresponding provision to be made for Northern Ireland, but by Order in Council subject to negative rather than affirmative resolution in Parliament. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("Relief from").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would shorten the Short Title of the Bill from"Relief from Forfeiture" to simply "Forfeiture". There are two drawbacks to the existing Short Title. Again, if I remember correctly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor cast some eye upon the name previously given to this Bill and it was not a very favourable eye, for the reason I am going to mention. There are two drawbacks to the existing Short Title. One is that it is very similar to an expression which has a particular meaning in an entirely different area of law; namely, the law relating to leases. In that context it is usually phrased as "relief against forfeiture", as, for example, in the heading to Section 38 of the Supreme Court Act which was passed last year. The similarity is close enough to be a potential source of confusion.
The other drawback is that the Bill is no longer entirely about relief from forfeiture; in particular the new clause about social security to which I have just spoken is only about jurisdiction—it does not confer any new discretion to grant relief. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
("(1A) Section [Commissioner to decide whether rule applies to social security benefits] of this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument; and sections ["The forfeiture rule"] to [Application for financial provision not affected by the rule] and [Exclusion of murderers] of this Act shall come into force on the expiry of the period of three months beginning with the day on which it is passed.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment inserts a new subsection into Clause 5 to make provision for the commencement of the Bill. Its effect is, first, that this clause, Clause 5, and the clause about corresponding provision for Northern Ireland will come into force immediately upon Royal Assent. Secondly, the clause concerning the jurisdiction of Social Security Commissioners will come into force on a date to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Lastly, the rest of the Bill will come into force three months after Royal Assent is given. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 19, after ("Act") insert (",except section [Corresponding provision for Northern Ireland],").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment in conjunction with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I do not propose, with your Lordships' leave, to move Amendment No. 10. It was originally tabled on the ground that Clause 5(3) was unnecessary and that its wording would no longer fit in with the revised structure of the Bill. But those advising me have asked for a little more time to enable them to consider further whether some express provision would be desirable to clarify the application of the Bill to deaths which occur before its commencement. In those circumstances, I hope the Committee will agree with me that it would be better to defer the whole question until the next stage of the Bill, and I accordingly do not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 11:
In the Title, line 1, after ("relief") insert ("for persons guilty of unlawful killing").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' leave, may I speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. With regard to No. 11, as your Lordships will see, it is after "relief" to insert, "for persons guilty of unlawful killing"; and then No. 12 is to leave out from "rights" to the words on the Marshalled List and insert the words,
"to enable such persons to apply for financial provision out of the deceased's estate and for the question whether pension and social security benefits have been forfeited to be determined by the Social Security Commissioners".
Both these amendments are consequential on the changes already made in the Bill. The Long Title thus revised would state accurately what the Bill now does. In particular, the Bill no longer amends the inheritance provisions of the Family Dependants Act 1975, and provides in part for special jurisdiction to be vested in Social Security Commissioners. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 11A:
In the Title, line 2, leave out ("rights") and insert ("interests in property").
The noble Lord said: In the course of the Second Reading of this Bill, which now bears hardly any resemblance at all to the original Bill, I must confess that the inclusion in the Long Title of the word "rights" jarred slightly. Far be it for me to try to outdraft parliamentary draftsmen, but the major reason why it does jar is that I believe that the term "rights" should more properly be reserved for the fundamentals of our law rather than its minutiae. When I turned to the vade mecum of the non-lawyer, namely, the Oxford Companion to Law, I was delighted when I looked under "right" to read, "a much ill-used and over-used word".
My amendment seeks to replace the word "rights"
202
by the term used in the Bill in the main, "interests in property". Your Lordships will notice that in the new clauses throughout the amendments the term "interests in property" appears in addition to the word "benefit" in the very first new clause.
On the other hand, I can understand certain objections to the wording "interests in property" in substitution for "rights", in that the new clause which deals with social security benefits refers to them as "entitlements" or "eligibilities" for any benefits or advantages. These benefits and advantages are normally settled by way of cash or cash equivalents, which in themselves are a property right, or indeed a chose in action or chose in possession, which would be covered by the term "interests in property". However, I would have no objection at all to some other term in substitution for "rights" because my dislike for, "rights" is stronger than my affection for, "interests in property". The word "entitlements" might well form a better drafting amendment than one suggested in the Marshalled List. However, I depend very much on advice from learned and not so quite learned Lords on this matter. I hope that this might be considered helpful to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I was hoping for the assistance upon this matter of a very noble and a very learned Lord, but I see that I am not to have it because he is still observing his benevolent neutrality. I should like again to thank him not for the neutrality but for the benevolence which has made his officials be of such help to me. If your Lordships have had any learning at all this afternoon, would you kindly attribute the learning to the officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department and not to me.
Incidentally, I congratulate the noble Lord on getting through the powers-that-be in order to put down this amendment. I had understood, it may be quite incorrectly, that one could not move an amendment to the Title unless it was consequential upon some other amendment that either one had put down or somebody else had put down to the Bill and which had gone through. If I am wrong, then the noble Lord is right; if I am right, then the noble Lord is to be congratulated on his ingenuity at getting through our traditions.
Having said that, I must say that, although I cannot see any great harm being caused by the amendment, I do not think that it would achieve any useful purpose. The one thing that it would produce is a grammatical oddity, because at the moment the Long Title speaks of "inheritance and other rights" or, in full, "inheritance rights and other rights". With the amendment it would, if set out in full, read:
"inheritance interests in property and other interests in property"
and therefore would look extremely odd. I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to press the amendment. I promise him to consider what he said with those who are advising me. At the moment I am sure that he will not take that as an undertaking at all to reconsider the present Title, but I certainly will give consideration to what he has been good enough to say this afternoon.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not want to escape from my duty of impartiality as regards this matter, but I

203
would just say to my noble friend that I am not sure that I share his belief that the word "rights" in English law ought to be confined to fundamental rights. I think that there might be a great deal of inconvenience attached to it if it had this confined meaning, despite the vade mecum to which he has had recourse.
However, there is an objection to this amendment which I think is inescapable and which has not anything to do with the technical rules of the House. The fact is that the Bill affects pension rights and rights under the Social Security Acts generally, and those are not interests in property. Therefore, to restrict the Title in this way would have something worse, I think, than a drafting difficulty attached to it.
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton: I should like to add one note in agreement with the last two speakers on the question of rights. One of the classes of interest in property referred to in the new subsection (4)(a) is legitim and ius relicti and ius relictae. Those are always known as legal rights in Scotland—the rights of the spouse and the children to succeed. It would not make sense to call them anything other than legal rights. So that is a further reason for retaining the word "rights" in the Long Title.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lords from whom, as usual, I have learnt.
Lord Morris: I am most grateful to all noble and learned Lords who have spoken, and not for the first time I have learnt a very great deal. On reflection, I, too, am not very happy about the "interests in property" insertion and prefer the single word "entitlement" but as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has so kindly suggested that he will consider the matter, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 12:
In the Title, line 2, leave out from ("rights") to ("; and") in line 4 and insert ("; to enable such persons to apply for financial provision out of the deceased's estate and for the question whether pension and social security benefits have been forfeited to be determined by the Social Security Commissioners").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

The P.110 Project
5.46 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now review the P.110 project as a replacement for the Jaguar in the light of the current interest in European co-operation and the future requirements of the Royal Air Force.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House for the short notice of this Unstarred Question. The business of the House is so crammed daily with major Bills at this time of the Session that it is increasingly difficult to fit in an Unstarred Question at a reasonable hour. This is an unusually reasonable
204
hour. I am grateful for this opportunity to draw attention to the P110 project which has been, of course, on the Order Paper under "No named day" for some weeks. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for indicating that he will take part. As a distinguished late chairman of British Aerospace, T look forward very much to what he has to say and I hope that he supports the project.
The P.110 project I think can accurately be described as the next generation of supersonic fighter aircraft to replace the Jaguar in the 1990s. It is a British industry concept from the derivative of other projects which have been considered and studied over the years. Informed opinion tells me that the P.110 design performance could out-match any of its likely competitors in the 1990s—that is the F16E, the F18L and the Mirage 4,000. Coupled with that is the industrial significance of the project if it gets the go-ahead. It is something that industry considers with a very high priority.
The history of the P.110—and my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—arose from a common desire to find a replacement of Jaguar through a European collaborative venture. The Government suspended support last year on the grounds that no commonality could be found among the respective air forces and so there was no foreseeable collaborative agreement. British industry at that stage set up a group of seven companies under the leadership of the British Aerospace Company to continue to fund the P.110 project by private funds. It committed £25 million so that this project could be continued until the end of the year.
Since mid-1981 a number of important issues have progressed. First, as I understand it, an understanding has been reached between the European industrial partners—that is the MBB and the A1T from Italy, to participate with private funding if the project is supported by Her Majesty's Government. Secondly, there has been a comprehensive market analysis of the sales potential of this project which has shown, even on a cautious basis, a very encouraging possible return on investment.
Thirdly—and I think that this is very important—at least 40 per cent. of the development costs will be saved by using the same engine and avionics as that used in the Tornado. This obviously gives an advantage on time-scale and, indeed, a more accurate estimate of the eventual sale costs.
Fourthly—and, again, I hope that my noble friend will confirm this—there has been a continuous and helpful discussion with the Royal Air Force as to their requirements. All this has been achieved in the last 12 months by private funding. But clearly this funding cannot be sustained much further without vital Government support being reactivated. As my noble friend will know, the crunch time is rapidly approaching.
I recognise that the funding problem is complex, particularly for the Royal Air Force to commit themselves with their limited resources. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how much further industry can go without a Government commitment. A sales order of a paper project without Government blessing is next to an impossibility.
To get agreement among potential home air forces on commonality of specification is, by the experience of Tornado, a marathon of tortuous negotiations, unless

205
someone bangs their heads together. Equally, any proposal for Government to fund a new military aircraft by themselves I believe is accepted as being distinctly unlikely by all but the most optimistic.
So what is the answer? I believe that the answer is a new concept that is emerging from this project of a partnership between Government and some European industries, each carrying a share of the funding and, by doing so, each showing a faith in the project. The funding of this project, where £600 million in development costs have already been borne by another development and over a time-scale of, say, seven years, allows an annual commitment of not very sizeable sums in comparison to a defence budget of £4.1 billion. I think that we are talking in the range of a Government contribution of about £15 million a year and going up to not more than £60 million in any one year.
The industrial benefits of a successful PI10 project is something that I need hardly stress to my noble friend, with his long and distinguished experience in industry. By the 1990s the production line of the Tornado will be tailing off. At present 55,000 jobs are directly concerned with this aircraft. This is perhaps an argument more appropriately addressed to the Department of Trade than to my noble friend's department, but it is an argument fortified by the aerospace industry's proud record of achievement. One must not forget that it is an industry of high technology, which still supplies 12 per cent. to 15 per cent. annually of the world's market needs; an industry where over 60 per cent. goes to export. But it is an industry of high technology and, as my noble friend will know, it does not stand still; it needs timely Government support.
My noble friend's right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave such verbal support for the industry way back in 1980 when she spoke at the Farnborough 80th Dinner. She said:
"The importance of the aerospace industry to the British economy cannot be over-estimated. Indeed, if we had to produce the ideal example of an industry with high added value export products, we need look no further than aerospace."
I think that those were encouraging words.
Besides, of course, the very strong industrial argument supporting this project, there is I believe the good military argument that we should produce our own aircraft where possible or at least on a collaborative venture basis. Memories will not have dimmed of the purchase of the F1-11 aircraft and its subsequent cancellation. It was a mistake that cost us £400 million based on prices 12 years ago. The development of the Harrier and the Sea Harrier has proved a wonderful success and perhaps I could pay tribute to the brilliant design and performance of these aircraft as well as, of course, the outstanding bravery and skill of the pilots who carried out such effective operations over the Falkland Islands.
The purpose of this short debate, and hopefully the value of it, is to seek an updating of the Government's thinking on the P110 project. I hope that my noble friend can confirm tonight that industry regard the P110 as a top priority project; that the Royal Air Force are close to agreeing that the P110 will meet requirements; that the reaction of European industry's is an encouraging sign of collaboration. This project, I believe, offers a great opportunity for our aerospace
206
industry. On the face of it, it offers a sensible and digestible investment from Government and a new concept of partnership. I am sure that my noble friend's heart is in the right place. I earnestly hope that his undoubted wisdom will grasp and support this opportunity nd that his reply tonight will encourage us all.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I think that we should all agree that the noble Earl is mistaken if he thinks that he has to apologise for asking this Question at short notice. It is more a matter of congratulations on his initiative. In my view, we are indebted to the noble Earl for raising this Question this evening. If I may say so, he has a sustained and informed interest in all aerospace affairs, and his opinions and judgment deserve to be considered with care.
We are also fortunate in having the noble Viscount to answer from that Box. He may well be one rung down the aristocratic ladder from the noble Earl, but he is several rungs nearer the point where decision-making in these matters takes place. What he has to say this evening will be studied with great care and with some anxiety, not least by those people outside this House who are engaged in the industry.
I think it is true to say that the shape of Britain's aerospace industry in the future will be influenced—probably decisively—by the eventual decision on the P.110 fighter. It is not for me to say what a wonderful aircraft it will be. There will be more professional views than mine as to that. But I do know its pedigree and I do know those responsible for it, and I am confident that there need not be doubts about its performance for the role intended.
But what I want to stress is the importance of the project for the British industry. I should like to put down the reasons for stressing that importance. First, I emphasise that I say "British industry" and not simply or narrowly "British Aerospace". The aeroengine industry and the equipment industry as a whole, including the electronics, are also importantly concerned. It has never been my view that a British aircraft designer should be exclusively limited to United Kingdom engines or to United Kingdom equipment and, of course, the market outside the United Kingdom is important to the suppliers as well. Nevertheless, it is vital for the long-term future of the wider industry that there should be major aircraft projects originating in Britain, or at any rate with Britain as a prime partner.
I understand, as the noble Earl himself has indicated, that both Rolls-Royce and Marconi recognise this fact to the extent that they have been prepared to fund a part of the money needed to get the P.110 to the present study stage. The fact of this joint venture by the three companies seems to me something which this Government should encourage, and is another important reason why the Government should now take a more positive decision about the future of the project.
The third reason that I offer for consideration is that a soundly based British industry in the aerospace business must have an on-going partnership with our friends in Europe. I took the view when I had something to do with these matters, that on the civil aircraft side Rolls-Royce and British Airways both looked too fixedly—I shall not say gullibly—at the

207
attractions of the United States aircraft industry. This is not an occasion for going into details, but I would say that the attitudes they struck two or three years ago underrated the possibilities of European co-operation. The experience of the last two years or so only strengthens the opinion that I then held.
That was the civil side. On the military side I trust that the partnership with McDonnell Douglas on the marvellous Harrier aircraft will prove beneficial to all concerned, but it still remains true that the British aerospace industry will be more soundly based and the national capability will be strengthened if we can forge a successor to the European Panavia partnership. As I mentioned capability and the Harrier, may I say that it is thought by those who understand these matters that the P110 could well be an important factor in the development of the supersonic V/Stol capability of the future.
These are the three reasons which I hope will be taken into account when the Government take a decision on the P. 110 project, but I suppose they would be considered longer-term or strategic reasons. There is the importance to the aerospace industry as a whole. There is the significance of this need to foster the joint venture exercise between British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and the electronics industry. And, thirdly, there is the fact that the project could strengthen our essential ties with Europe. But there are other more immediate reasons. One is the present productive position, and the need to get a proper balance in the industry, and the need for new business if the resources are to be economically utilised and run-down avoided,
I, and many others—and I am sure the noble Earl—would be delighted if the noble Viscount was to say this evening that the Government propose to bring forward the new orders for the Sea Harrier. There are places on the production line, I understand, for that aircraft which the Services undoubtedly need. But it is also essential to keep the designers employed on this 110 project. I have said that the private venture money has been put into the work so far, and the noble Earl has described what this has amounted to, but the noble Viscount will be the first to agree that it just is not possible to continue to spend millions of pounds unless there is an agreed requirement at the end of it.
Everyone will know of the Treasury problems facing the present Government, but the industry has made it possible so far to help along this project, and I believe it is true to say that no large sums of money would be required this year or next. But an understanding, a commitment, there clearly must be if British industry is going to maintain its potential in this field. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give some encouragement.
I add just one more thought, and I hope that if I say this it will not dissipate any goodwill I may have with the noble Viscount. The thought is this: there will be enormous numbers of people of different backgrounds, of all parties, and of none, who will say that it would be an absolute tragedy if the British Government decide that they cannot afford to equip our forces in the 1990s with an aircraft capable of fighting beyond visual range, and yet they also say that they must go on to spend billions on the Trident
208
nuclear illusion. As I say, I ask the noble Viscount not to be diverted by this comment, but to concentrate on the other points which the noble Earl has made so well, and to give us an encouraging statement about the future of this quite remarkable possibility in new fighter aircraft.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, the noble Earl and my noble friend have both referred to the Harrier and the Sea Harrier aircraft. I cannot resist seizing this opportunity, when I see the noble Viscount on the Front Bench, of referring to remarks I made two weeks ago that are not at all irrelevant to what we are talking about now. I spoke then as a former pilot of the folly of sending so few aircraft with the task force to the Falklands. I gave certain figures, which the noble Viscount said were wrong. He said that I had misled the House but he did not wish to correct me.
The figures that I gave were that there were 20 Sea Harriers with the task force, and that figure is not disputed. That figure is in the public domain. I estimated the number of pilots who would have been there to fly them based on my knowledge of Fleet Air Arm squadron procedure, and I gave the figure of two dozen. I have since ascertained the correct figure confidentially and I cannot reveal it. I can only say that it was extremely close to the figure I then gave, and that cannot be disputed.
It is disgraceful that the Fleet Air Arm and the Air Force should have been so weak that when these circumstances arose it was necessary to send such a nugatory force with a tiny number of pilots and aircraft to fly under conditions of enormous hardship—over 1,000 missions were flown—in the Antarctic in winter. I therefore hope that, whatever the Government do on the question of this fighter aircraft, or any other fighter aircraft, they never again embark on an operation which demands so much, and too much, of a gallant body of men, of which I am proud to have once been a part.
6.7 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important matter and for the constructive way in which he has done it. I am also grateful for theconstructive way in which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who knows so much about this industry, has joined him in this Question. I will, if I may, leave for one moment, while I just check one remaining figure, a quick answer, which has little to do with the Unstarred Question, in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken.
Let me start by saying that the Government really do understand not only the important defence questions about future combat aircraft, but the very great importance of the P.110 programme to the British aircraft industry and to the many firms that depend upon that industry. I listened, and will draw the attention of all concerned, to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in this connection. Indeed, recently the chairman of BAe has made clear to me that of all the aircraft projects which his firm is considering, that is, all the projects, civil and military, his board attach the highest priority to the P.110 project.

209
However, the House will also know that there are very severe problems facing the Defence Ministers of every country and these are caused by the ever increasing cost of much more sophisticated and much more powerful platforms and weapon systems. The White Paper, written before the Falklands, which we have recently released, spells all this out in Chapter 4, which has to a degree escaped attention because of the priority of other matters so far. That chapter shows clearly that the increase in costs of weaponry has been running at a considerably faster rate than the 3 per cent. per annum increase in defence expenditure which this Administration have announced through until the year 1985–86. For most main weapon systems the increase in real terms has been between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent. per annum.
That is the main reason for pressures on budgets and there are masses of individual good cases for extra expenditure. At the risk of becoming a gramophone record, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that the pressures are not caused to any major extent by the need to modernise our independent strategic deterrent and to adopt the Trident system. The expenditure on Trident has barely started and the pressures are already with us and have been with us for years. Over the years Trident expenditure will amount to approximately 3 per cent. of the defence budget.
Of course, there are pressures on us not only for a new combat aircraft from British industry but to increase our requirements of many other things, and the Falklands campaign has provided the background for many legitimate cases to be made. So it is against that background that the House should consider that the development costs of a new combat aircraft are bound to be of the order of £1,000 million. I say to my noble friend that that figure is after taking account of the development already performed for Tornado and of the engine developments planned for the Tornado aircraft. It was against that background that Cmnd. 8288 stated that we were unable to afford any direct or early replacement for the Jaguar aircraft, and that was restated in March of this year by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence Procurement, Mr. Geoffrey Pattie.
It is also true, the Government believe, that no other individual European country is likely to be able to afford the full development cost of a new combat aircraft and all its equipment and weapon fit. Against that situation, British industry have, I know, been working constructively, and I shall return to that shortly. I should, however, remind the House that we are in the process of replacing a substantial proportion of the RAF's fleet of aircraft; 385 Tornadoes will he in service by the end of the decade and the GR 5, which is the RAF version of the V/STOLAV8B, should also come into RAF service in this decade. We shall study in detail the magnificient record of the present Harriers in the South Atlantic, but this too may well lead to pressures to spend more money to build on the great success of this design. I shall leave until another day and a more appropriate one I am sure one will arise before long—to discuss the general question of replacements arising out of the Falklands operation.
I shall at this point, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has taken the opportunity to re-raise a question
210
he asked me when I was answering questions after one of the statements on the Falklands operation, tell him that I am now enabled, without risk to security, to give him the figures which led to my saying at the time he raised it previously that he had not got his facts right. I also drew his attention to the fact that air battles today were with missiles as well as aircraft: 28 Sea Harriers were deployed to the South Atlantic and 14 RAF Harriers, making—if I my arithmetic is correct-42 Harriers deployed. Fifty-three pilots were deployed. The casualties were in fact covered when he previously raised the question, and therefore I believe the statement I made to him on that occasion—I apologise if it was rather brief—was an accurate statement.
Lord Kilbracken: I was referring, my Lords, and said quite clearly I was referring, to the number of aircraft and the number of pilots who sailed with the task force. I specified that. What the noble Viscount has given are the figures for the total number of aircraft and total number of pilots who either sailed with it or joined it subsequently. That is a completely different matter. My figures are right. They are no longer confidential and I can tell him that there were 27 pilots to fly the 20 Harriers which sailed with the task force.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I shall look up the noble Lord's words and write to him yet again. In my reply on that day I drew his attention to the fact that reinforcements were sent there at various stages and that the number of aircraft deployed was very much greater.
The House will remember that the Air Staff Target 403 for future combat aircraft was originally set out in order that there should be a replacement of the Jaguar in the early 90s. France and the Federal Republic of Germany also had comparable future combat aircraft requirements. Budgetary difficulties in all the countries have led to these discussions being pursued in what must be described as a low key. But discussions with our potential partners have gone on and the possibility of advanced V/STOL beyond the AV8B has also been discussed with the United States. The decision in Cmnd. 8288 that we could not afford to proceed with the development of an early Jaguar replacement, was, of course, unwelcome to the aerospace industry, and particular importance lies, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, pointed out, in the need for new design work to occupy the very skilled teams of development and design engineers in BAe and in the other companies. The problem will, of course, become a production one too when the programmes for Tornado and AV8B begin to decline.
The industry's response to this situation has, as noble Lords have made clear, been to put forward the P.110 as a private venture to meet what they perceive to be the future requirements of the United Kingdom and other countries. The House will not need to be reminded of the importance of volume of production and of numbers of aircraft which are required to turn development costs of this size into sensible propositions. Noble Lords have referred to the companies which have worked with BAe on this project, and I commend their effort. They include Rolls-

211
Royce, Marconi, Dowty, Lucas Aerospace, Ferranti and Smiths Industries.
The P.110 is based to a great degree, as has been said, on Tornado technology, but I understand it will embody many technological advances. It is designed primarily as a fighter aircraft, although it would have a capability for ground attack and other roles. It is conceived as a twin-engined single seat fighter powered by an improved version of the Rolls-Royce RB 199 engine. I further understand that the idea is that some 40 per cent. of the airframe is planned to be made out of carbon fibre composite, saving very considerable weight by the use of this new and immensely strong material. It would involve a further development of what is termed the "fly by wire" technique, which is in fact a sophisticated electronic means of ensuring very fast and absolutely reliable performance control. The advances that have been made by BAe Warton in this area are very striking, even to the lay visitor—and I have been lucky enough to have been there—and the company is continuing to advance its technology in this area.
As has been mentioned, the industry has, I understand, had talks with the industries of other countries. The industries of other countries face the same problem of keeping their highly skilled teams employed in the future. These initiatives are to be commended because the size of the development costs in total requires that the British industry must seek partners, and the more industry-to-industry discussions that go on, the more likely, in my view, it will be that collaboration in the future will be more economic than it has sometimes been in the past.
Of course, the industry is pressing the Government to commit themselves to an order for the P.110, and at this point I should tell the House what stage has been reached. The industry has made a presentation to the Royal Air Force and to the experts in the Ministry of Defence, literally this week. The first task has to be for the RAF and the experts to examine all the highly complicated facets of the proposal now put forward by the industry, with a view, first, to examining whether they are satisfied that the aircraft, if developed, will meet the requirements of AST 403. That will take some time.
The second question will be to review the stage that the industry has reached in discussions with other European industries, to examine the progress made in discussions with other Governments, which Ministers and officials in the MOD have been fully supporting, in order to judge what the market prospects for the aircraft might be; and then there will be the need for Government-to-Government discussions. In fact, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement has recently had some discussions with the German industry and with the Federal Government.
I understand that the industry plans to deliver to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the very near future—we have not yet got it—a confirmation of the presentation that it has made to officials verbally, and the industry will include in it certain propositions which I also understand will involve a suggested plan for phase by phase progress. I have no
212
doubt that the proposition will ask for the support of the British Government.
It was obvious from my noble friend's introduction of the Question that he has been given more details of the proposition than I have yet heard, and as yet neither I, nor my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, has actually received it. I have noted what both noble Lords have said about the possibility of the request for the commitment from the Government at this stage being relatively small. However, commitments will have to be examined in both directions. There is perhaps a request for a commitment by the Government to a certain phase. But the commitments which the Government must make will also have to be examined against the degree of commitment and certainty that we have that the industry can produce within the specifications, and against the degree of—I shall not say certainty—reasonable assurance about the further stages of the programme, which I am sure will to a large degree be dependent on the first stage.
I have to say that it will not be possible for the Government to give an instantaneous reply to a project of this magnitude, which they have not yet received, and which requires a very considerable degree of consultation. In the meantime, our position has not altered from that stated in Cmnd. 8288—that we were unable to afford as then estimated and put forward any direct or early replacement for the Jaguar. But we hope very much that the industry's efforts, up to this stage on a private basis, to develop a commercially sound proposition will enable the industries of this country, of the Federal Republic, and possibly also of France and Italy, to see a way forward which would be attractive to the Governments and the air forces of the countries concerned. The air forces, including our own Air Force, continue to believe, and to advise their Governments, that at a stage in the 'nineties there will be a need for a future combat aircraft.
We shall have to look in detail at the question of the performance specifications of the P.110 and at the total commitments, both immediate and inherent in any immediate agreements to the first phase, before we can see whether we can help in what must be a combined project involving many parties. The Government will therefore examine with the greatest care the proposition that they are about to receive. It will take a little time, even though we will go as fast as is possible with a project of this size.

Iron and Steel Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.