Lords Sitting of 23 March 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 Southwell.
The Lord Parmoor—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Soviet Premises in Camden: Rate Arrears
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to secure that arrears of rates amounting to nearly £500,000 owed to the Camden Borough Council in respect of the Soviet Trade Delegation's premises in that borough are now paid with appropriate interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the collection of rates is primarily a matter between the rating authority and the occupier. But the Government have held discussions with Camden Council and the Soviet authorities over the years in an attempt to assist in resolving this long-standing problem. Our efforts will continue.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that somewhat cryptic reply, may I ask him whether or not, in the view of the Foreign Office, the premises of this mission are covered by diplomatic privilege? If they are not, is there anything to prevent Camden Council treating this defaulting ratepayer as they would treat any other defaulting ratepayer and so levying a distraint warrant? And if they did so in respect of the filing cabinets, might they not indeed find something of considerable interest?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, as to whether or not these premises enjoy immunity from the payment of rates, of course lies at the heart of this problem. In fact, Camden Council have asked for a certificate from the Foreign Office in connection with that point and we are now carefully considering how to respond.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is possible that the Soviet Union is not paying the interest which is due to other countries on borrowed money because the Communist philosophy is opposed to rates, profit and interest?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, what lies at the heart of the Soviet view of this matter is not something on which I could expand.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, although I welcome the Question and the fact that the Government are now replying to the Camden Council regarding a certificate, could the noble Lord say whether our trade delegations in Moscow pay rates?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we do not have anything in Moscow analogous to the Soviet trade delegations here in the United Kingdom. However, generally speaking, it is true to say that our trade representatives (if that is the right word) do form part of our missions overseas.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as this matter has now been outstanding for 13 years, can my noble friend give some indication as to what further length of time Her Majesty's Government's deliberations on this matter will require?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think my noble friend has underestimated the time this matter has been under consideration, but I must say in the same breath that I am afraid I cannot predict when the Government will be able to form their view on the matter.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, does the noble Minister recollect that some time in the 18th century somebody served a writ on the Russian ambassador to recover a debt that was due to him, and that our Parliament was so incensed over that proceeding that it hurriedly passed an Act making the serving of writs on ambassadors an offence punishable by corporal punishment?
Lord Trefgarne: Quite right too, my Lords!

International Sea-bed Régime
2.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the prospects for agreement being reached on provisions for an international sea-bed régime at the resumed United Nations Law of the Sea Conference.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government remain firmly committed to seek the adoption of a generally acceptable treaty by consensus on all aspects of the Law of the Sea. The United States concerns on deep sea mining and outstanding matters raised by other delegations will continue to be the subject of negotiations during the session which has just begun in New York, but obviously I cannot predict the outcome.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Does he agree that after more than seven years of negotiation it is to be hoped that the important matters already settled shall be given effect fairly soon? As regards deep sea mining, will the Government continue to keep closely in touch

925
with the three British companies which have been preparing to take part over the years in the new deep sea mining régime?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords. I agree with my noble friend on both points.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Lord prepared to say whether Her Majesty's Government will stand by agreements which had been very largely reached before the present Administration in the United States decided to cancel them all?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that is an oversimplification of the position of the United States. Certainly in the draft that had been agreed prior to the change of Administration in the United States there were a number of good things and some less good things as well. We agree with the United States that among the less good things was the deep sea-bed mining régime, and that is the matter which is particularly exercising the United States now. We certainly believe there is room for improvement in those proposals.

NATO Summit and UN Special Session
2.43 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will urge reconsideration of the decision to hold on 10th June a summit meeting of NATO at which President Reagan will be present, in view of the opening at that time of the renewed United Nations Special Assembly on Disarmament which it is hoped that Heads of State will attend.
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. As the Prime Minister has indicated, there is time for Heads of State and Government to go to the NATO Summit, which lasts one day, and the Special Session, which lasts five weeks.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister these questions: First, does not the failure of representatives from this country and NATO to attend the opening of this great opportunity to end nuclear weapons and bring about disarmament, show a deplorable indifference towards it? Is he aware that, when the World Disarmament Campaign mission went to Moscow, President Brezhnev gave a not unfavourable response to the appeal that he should attend the opening session? In the case of the visit of the Prime Minister, is it a fact that she is going in July, when the decisions on the Geneva Commission's recommendations will have been reached? I have seen an agenda. Who will represent us during the main discussions?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has not yet finalised the dates upon which she will be attending
926
the Special Session, but she certainly hopes to address the session when it is in progress in New York. As for the position of Mr. Brezhnev, I am afraid I have to say that he very often adopts positions which are of assistance to his propagandist views.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, has not the Special Session the most foreseeable of results? Everybody will agree on disarming everybody, except themselves, and is there really any point in our Prime Minister going?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, certainly, the Special Session will be an important event in the disarmament calendar. It will be considering proposals that emanate from the existing machinery in Geneva. But it is important to remember that the Special Session is, in fact, a deliberative occasion, rather than one on which treaties or other such documents will be agreed.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what will be the rank of the continuing head of the British delegation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the permanent head of our delegation to the UNSSD will, in fact, be the permanent head of our delegation in Geneva.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer the question of my noble friend Lord Brockway, on who will head the British delegation? If the Prime Minister is not to be present, is it possible that his noble friend Lord Carrington will be present on the opening day? And is the noble Lord aware that some of us would regard that as an improvement?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have just said, the permanent head of our delegation will be the present permanent head of our mission in Geneva.

SOUTH GEORGIA (FALKLAND ISLANDS DEPENDENCIES)
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on South Georgia Falkland Islands Dependencies.

Nottinghamshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
2.46 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, I do not intend to keep the House long, but I thought it might be useful if I raised a local voice at this stage to stress one or two aspects of the Bill. I hope that I have the great honour

927
to speak on behalf of one of our most illustrious counties. I need scarcely remind your Lordships that it is, after all, the home of a host of legendary figures, from Robin Hood to Lord Byron and Harold Larwood. The provisions of Part II of the Bill were introduced before the Government's policy, as set out in the consultation paper Local Authority Assistance to Industry and Commerce, which was published this month. A point here is the size of the small firms to which assistance might be granted.
Rather on the same subject, in Part VII of the Bill a provision would allow the county council to continue to provide for the use of other people artificial cricket pitches and other sports arenas which have been developed by the county playing fields officer, who happens to be a former groundsman at Trent Bridge; so, again, he is very well qualified to do this. The promoters hope to show that this provision will promote no threat to private enterprise in the area.
The Part of the Bill which I particularly wish to stress this afternoon is Part VI. This may be of more general interest to your Lordships and it deals with the licensing of massage parlours and sauna baths. Up to now, the local authorities and the police have co-operated to enforce provisions of local Acts in the interests of public health and morality. In fact, as a result of investigations carried out by the police vice squad and health officers during the past year, licences of four sauna baths and massage parlours—in other words, about one-quarter of the total in the City of Nottingham—have not been renewed, and that is an indication of the problem.
There is a need to consider the interests of the ordinary person suffering from lumbago, rheumatism, sciatica et cetera, who goes in for a rub of camphorated oil or wintergreen and finds himself offered, to his surprise, a whole range of sexual treatments in addition. The owners of respectable premises also work on the licensing system to protect the name of their profession and operation. There is no question of the local authority making money out of issuing licences. The charge hitherto has been 25p, and it is expected to be about £5 in future.
The present system has the support, among others, of Mr. Michael English, one of the local Members of the House of Commons and, as I say, of the police who have on their hands already enough problems with an escalating crime rate, particularly instances of rape. Your Lordships will be discussing tomorrow a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, concerning the problems of law and order. This is a very pertinent aspect of it. I do not believe that now is the time for any relaxation of the existing laws.
The thought that these licensing laws might be relaxed is the result of the removal of similar power from the Greater Manchester Bill during its passage through this House in 1979. On that occasion, the Home Office expressed the view that such powers were superfluous and that the whole matter could be dealt with under the Sexual Offences Act. I entirely agree that superfluous rules and regulations normally lead to increased bureaucracy, but in this case the number of premises is small and I feel that local authorities should be in a position to keep strict control.
I fear that recent subsequent trends have shown that
928
the original hopes of the Home Office, though laudable, have been misguided. There is no indication at present of the view of the Home Office. There was an inconclusive exchange here on the Local Government Bill on 11th March. The Home Office spokesman did not come out strongly in any direction. Therefore I conclude by saying that I hope that whoever in this House deals with the remaining stages of the Bill, will on this occasion leave these powers intact.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, for having drawn attention to certain aspects of the Nottinghamshire County Council Bill. There are four petitions against the Bill, two of which are concerned with Part VI which deals, as the noble Lord said, with establishments for massage or special treatment. These petitions will be referred in the normal way to a Select Committee which will certainly, I shall ensure, have available the words which have been spoken by the noble Lord. The other provisions, together with these, if the petitions were withdrawn, would be referred to the Unopposed Bill Committee, and again I should make sure that the noble Lord's speech is drawn to their attention.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

East Lindsey District Council Bill [H.L.]
The Bill was read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Canada Bill
2.54 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington, 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 Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Constitution Act, 1982 enacted]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Trefgarne: I understand that it has been agreed through the usual channels that we should have a short debate on Schedule B stand part. I therefore do not propose to say anything at this point.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule A agreed to.
Schedule B [Constitution Act, 1982]:
Lord Stewart of Fulham: The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that it has been agreed through the

929
usual channels that there should be a short debate on Schedule B. It was agreed that there should be a debate on Schedule B. I cannot pledge myself, of course, on behalf of my noble friends as to the length of the debate, but nobody wishes to prolong it unnecessarily. We have the peculiar position that Schedule B contains in effect a whole Act of Parliament, so it can be a wide-ranging debate. Schedule B will in fact become the Constitution Act of Canada.
As is to be expected, it begins by the cataloguing of certain fundamental freedoms which citizens of Canada will enjoy. One notices particularly paragraph 2: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion, et cetera; freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. And the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
There is one omission which noble Lords will notice. There is no quite clear and explicit assertion of the right not to be deprived of your property. Very commonly in constitutions such a matter is set out very plainly indeed. It is true that there is the paragraph:
"Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure".
This may be a matter for lawyers to argue. But, if the Government requires, say, one's land for a public purpose, is that an unreasonable search or seizure? Would you be able, by quoting this paragraph, to prevent the Government acquiring your land? Moreover, nowadays Governments never will put themselves in the position in which they could never acquire a piece of land, because circumstances they cannot foresee may make it extremely desirable in the public interest that they should.
What one would expect is an assertion of the right not to be deprived of one's property except after a due legal process and with proper compensation. Rather surprisingly, an explicit provision of that kind is lacking. It is the more remarkable as we have good reason to suppose that the Canadian Government, both the federal and the provincial Governments, will in the future be desiring to acquire lands now regarded as belonging to Indians. In view of the amount of feeling that there is on this whole question, one would have expected the Act to contain an explicit provision that people, whether they be in origin European or of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, cannot have their land taken away from them unless there is good reason, a legal process and proper compensation.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, can help us at all about this, because it is a puzzling omission. Many of us, I think, would be reassured if he could say that he has good reason to suppose that despite this rather surprising omission of wording the lands of the Indian peoples will be protected.
Lord Trefgarne: I am afraid I have to say that I really cannot help the noble Lord. As was explained and repeated during the Second Reading debate by myself, by my noble friend Lord Carrington and by many other noble Lords who spoke (although I recognise that there were contrary views expressed as well), this is not a matter for the British Government. The inclusions or omissions in the Bill of Rights which
930
we are to attach to this Bill at the request of the Government of Canada are their own work. The British Government had no part in the framing of it and therefore have no responsibility for what is included or omitted.
3 p.m.
Lord Morris: Another point that was made very clearly on Second Reading was the general agreement that these matters were not, as the noble Lord has just suggested, a matter for the British Government; I think everyone would agree with that. But, manifestly, it is a matter for the Parliament of the United Kingdom and for the Parliament of Canada. Any Government of whatever colour who are in power in the United Kingdom form an integral part of Parliament. In other words, the Government are wearing two hats. I quite appreciate why the Government find difficulty in these matters, but it is as part of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that the noble Lord opposite is referring to them. I wonder whether there is any comment on that?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Perhaps I could give my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham a word of support. It has become known that the Canadian Government are preparing legislation, which is already in draft, which gives either the federal or, under certain circumstances, a provincial government the right to expropriate. There appears to be no appeal against this and no provision for an independent decision on the question of compensation. This is rather worrying. Although none of us would wish to divide over, or oppose, the passage of this Bill, or unduly hold up the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, I believe it ought to be made known to the Canadian Government that a number of us are rather worried by these developments and hope, when the Government do achieve the responsibilities which rest upon them in this Bill, that they will exercise them with consideration for what has been said in both Houses about the rights of the original inhabitants of that country.
Lord Trefgarne: In answer to the first part of the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, I will merely say that I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. In response to the second part of the noble Lord's intervention, I would refer him to my own words during the Second Reading debate of this Bill last week. I shall read my own words from column 824 of Hansard for 18th March:
"While the Government fully respect the right of noble Lords to express their views on subjects about which they feel strongly, I do not think it would be right for the Government to put these views to the Canadians who are in any event, as I have said, well aware of them".
I was, of course, speaking in response to an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I went on to say:
"Whatever our private views, it is not a British responsibility. Canadians have acknowledged that it is their responsibility: it would be an affront to suggest that they will not take that responsibility seriously".

931
In reply to my noble friend Lord Morris, I will tell him that my answer from this Dispatch Box was on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and, although I am proud to be a Member of your Lordships' House, it is in that capacity that my words must be judged.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I may refer to the noble Lord the Minister to the time-honoured expression that precedes any one of our Acts of Parliament? It is incorporated, as is the proper usage, in the Bill now before this House. Perhaps I may be allowed to read the time-honoured words which occur in this Bill:
"Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same…".
Unless words are meaningless, is it not a fact that although in this House we are honouring the sovereign rights of Parliament in Canada, we are entitled to tender advice in this House to Her Majesty through the present Government? And are the Government not entitled to pass on to the Canadian Government the fact that, although this Bill has been passed because it was our duty to pass it, the view was tendered that this House did hope that, with the glorious history of the Canadian people linked with our history and safeguarding the same principles of liberty and justice, the rights of the Indian people would be properly protected in this connection? It is behind this paragraph that I support the observations made by my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham.
Baroness Gaitskell: I am given to understand that all the different countries in Canada have sovereignty except the Indians. The Indians are still a colonial people. Whether or not we are going to be very fussy as to whether we can give advice to the Canadian Government and to Mr. Trudeau—we are suddenly getting very prim and fussy about this—is it not true that everyone in Canada has sovereignty except the Indian people? I understand that that is the crucial issue, and surely we can express an opinion on that?
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I had rather hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was going to rise again. I do see his difficulty; the view that he has expressed, that he is a spokesman for the Government. But, after all, the debate on Second Reading was enlivened and enriched by contributions from noble Lords who knew Canada well. I wonder whether I may express the hope, in view of the unfortunate gagging of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne (which we understand), that there may be those who have knowledge of Canada and who are able to give us some reassurance on this matter. It is an important point. We know that this question of land ownership, particularly as it affects the Indian peoples, is important and pressing in Canada, and there is this rather surprising absence of any constitutional safeguard. I hope that we may be able to have a reassurance from some quarter.
Lord Morris: This is purely supposition, but I suspect the reason why there is no direct reference within the Charter of Rights, within the statute of liberties, in this enactment is that if there was this protection
932
enacted, there would be no way in which the Government could discriminate between the property of the aboriginal peoples and the property of the European immigrants.
Lord Somers: I consider that one feature of this Bill which is regrettable, not to say disgraceful, is the fact that it has been prepared and is being rushed through Parliament before any consultation whatsoever with the Indians themselves. From a Government who have made so much fuss about the rights of indigenous peoples, particularly in Africa—as we have seen, sometimes with regrettable results—I believe this is a shocking example of complete insincerity. I believe it is likely to lead to serious trouble in Canada.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: It seems to me that we are rapidly reaching a position of complete frustration in your Lordships' House over this Bill. It seems all we shall do is beat the air, unless we resolve to do something. If we resolve to do something, it will be either not to pass the Bill or to amend the Bill. Otherwise we are sending messages across the Atlantic to the people and Government of Canada of which they may or may not take any notice. We have been told by the Minister who has just spoken that at any rate Her Majesty's Government will not act as postmen. The Canadian Government are familiar with a good deal of what has been said already and can probably anticipate much of what is to follow. Have we not to recognise that the aim of the Canadian Government has been first and foremost to obtain wide enough consent among the Canadian people and the provincial governments to enable this request to be made? They have been waiting for this opportunity and this consent for a long time.
It has been open to the Federal Government to make this request long ago, had they obtained the necessary degree of consent of the provincial governments and people to do so. It is only now when they have reached sufficient agreement to enable the Federal Government to come to the Westminster Parliament and say, "Grant our request to patriate the British North America Act 1867". In doing that, it is only of secondary importance, I submit, to the Canadian Government that they should attempt to give this Parliament enough assurances to persuade us to grant that request with willingness and peace of mind. They do not think it matters to us what they do as long as they have got enough consent to enable the Federal Government to request us to do what they are now asking us to do. In other words, we have been waiting to do their bidding for a century, and they have just made up their minds that they can ask us to do that bidding—and here it is: this is the Bill before us.
I think we are going to be in difficulties throughout the Committee stage of the Bill, because the Canadian Government, I have no doubt, regard the British North America Act 1867 as an anomaly peculiar to Canada, not shared by Australia, New Zealand, least of all by South Africa. This is really the last remaining formal and flimsy tie with the United Kingdom Government, which should be brought to an end the moment the Canadian Government have the authority from the Federal Parliament and people to make their

933
request. If that is the position, then we can, I think, reconcile ourselves, resign ourselves, to expressing our anxieties our faith if we have any, our hopes if we can muster them, that all will be well with Canada and with its people in the future. Apart from that, it seems to me our function can only be to embark on a step which would have grave constitutional consequences and which your Lordships' House would shrink from taking, however strong the grounds for doing so.
3.12 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: May I ask whether we are having another Second Reading debate? It would appear to me that we are reaching that point. Issues have been raised that have been debated over and over again in another place and in your Lordships' House. I have read every part of the debate and listened to much of it in your Lordships' House. To go back many years to the Statute of Westminster, I recall how controversial it was at the time, but, if my recollection of what happened is correct, I can recall that we agreed that so far as certain of our dependencies were concerned they were to have complete sovereignty. That is what I understand we have decided by accepting the Second Reading of this Bill. As for frustration, I must confess I do not feel in the least frustrated about what should be done.
What is the position? I do not suppose there is a single Member of your Lordships' House who has not some sense of emotion about the situation in which the Indians find themselves in Canada, just as we have a sense of emotion, although they are not dependencies, about the condition of the minorities in the Ukraine and elsewhere in the Soviet Union, or about the condition of the Aboriginals in Australia, or about the condition of and very often the protests from Maoris in New Zealand; nevertheless, we do not propose to interfere with the sovereignty of any of those countries.
There is a certain element of emotion, and I understand it. How can we refrain from compassion about people who feel themselves inferior? It is terrible to feel inferior. Everybody wants to be superior, or at any rate to approach as near to it as one can. Therefore, it would seem to be that, however emotional your Lordships may be about it, we cannot refrain—and I say this without any frustration or hesitation—from consenting to Canada having complete sovereignty over all its affairs, and we can only leave it to the Canadian people to decide how they are going to apply that compassion. The only way we can comply is to leave them to their own devices; surely it cannot be otherwise.
If there is one Member of this House for whom I have respect—I have respect for most people, of course, but there are some exceptions—it is my old friend and colleague Lord Stewart of Fulham. I have a very high regard for him and I have had respect for his observations and interpolations in the course of debates both in another place and in your Lordships' House. But I think he is going just a little bit too far. I go so far as to say this about him. I always knew him to be logical but never really emotional. This is a new chapter in his history, if he will forgive me for saying so.
934
I cannot appeal to your Lordships' House—what right have Ito appeal?—but I can point out that we have now given the Bill its Second Reading, and the other place has done so. I would remind your Lordships how often the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said to us that even if we sometimes disagree with the other place we are not to oppose them on Second Reading. What is our position in respect of another place? I would say that when we disagree with the other place and regard them as provocative and mischievous I can understand the concern; but when we agree with them it would seem to me that our situation, for what it may he worth, is superfluous. I think it is superfluous in this respect in that the Bill has been accepted. We have accepted it. We have made our comments of a compassionate character. Leave it where it is.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that he wants us to impress upon the Canadian people two principles. The first is that the ownership of property should not be changed without the due processes of law. The second is that there should be proper compensation if property is taken over. I recall, rather wryly, that all my political life I have been trying to impress those principles on the Socialist Party in this country. I can only say I am very glad that they have been converted. But I hope we shall not feel that Parliament should lecture the people of Canada on these principles; they, I think, understand them as well as we do.
Baroness David: It is obviously not our province to give advice, but I think that the later stages of the Bill give us a chance to find out exactly what the Bill means. I think that after Second Reading some questions were left unanswered, and it is within our province now to try to find out exactly what the meaning of certain sections is. I should like to direct my attention for the moment to Sections 25, 27 and 35. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord, Scarman, gave what seemed to me to be excellent descriptions of those sections. I want to know whether their opinion of what is in those sections is accepted by the Government and whether we can assume that that probably is what the Canadian Government would accept, too.
I should like to read what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said as regards Section 25 because what he said was put so much better than I could possibly do it. He spoke first about Section 35 and the use of the words "existing rights", and then he said:
"What do we find in Section 25? We find a most useful indication as to where those existing rights are to be found. In the Proclamation of 1763, and in the land rights of the rights of the Indians to land settlement. If one just takes this constitution as it now stands and assumes it to be under discussion in a court of law, there cannot be any doubt that that is being protected in Section 35. If there were any doubt, Section 25 throws the most valuable light upon it. And I have little doubt that the Canadian courts would pay heed to the eloquent speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning…in giving the leading judgment in the English Court of Appeal, where he described the Royal Proclamation, which is expressly mentioned in Section 25, as a Bill of Rights'; not as a treaty. Courts of law municipally are rarely concerned directly with treaties, but as an Indian Bill of Rights, not to be altered without the consent of the

935
Indian peoples, there is much in those two sections which, I would suggest to the Indian peoples, contains much to give them confidence for the future."—[Official Report, 18/3/82; col. 796]
I want to know whether Her Majesty's Government agree with that description of what is in Sections 25 and 35. Do they accept that "existing rights" means what the noble and learned Lord has said? Why was "existing" put in? Can they give us that explanation? Are there some rights which have gone, which no longer will be respected? Can the Minister please tell us something about that?
Lord Trefgarne: These provisions were drafted in Canada, by Canadians, for Canadians. I regret that I cannot help the noble Baroness further.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Morris: The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, made a very important point when he suggested that Second Reading had, indeed, passed and that we had had the opportunity to make speeches at Second Reading. However, he said implicitly that this debate is liable to descend into total chaos unless it is ordered very carefully indeed on the debate as to whether Schedule B shall stand part. Perhaps I may, with all due humility, suggest that, having dealt with the point of property rights generally, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, we could then pass on to the next provision of the Bill, which I assume-I do not know—will be Section 25, and debate that as and when we get through the schedule. I think that we will not have any answer from Her Majesty's Government at all because they appear totally incapable of wearing two hats simultaneously which, on other occasions, they seem to have had no difficulty whatever in doing. I appreciate their difficulties as far as this is concerned, and I appreciate that there are problems here. But the fact is that Parliament has raised these questions in both Houses, and that they can only sit there looking embarrassed and attempt to wash their hands of these particular issues is something which I find, at the very least, disturbing and extremely ignoble.
Lord Trefgarne: I am sorry that my noble friend feels that way, but I have to tell him that the doctrine of collective responsibility is such that I cannot speak from this Box except as a member of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: Surely, even subject to that limitation, it is possible for the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to answer this simple question? He was not asked something profound about the Canadian constitution, but whether he agreed with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said on Second Reading. Surely he could screw up his courage and tell us whether he agrees with that or not, because it would help us to get on.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, of course expressed a detailed and considered view on certain of the provisions of this Bill, and for me to agree or disagree with the noble and learned Lord would be to express a view upon the merits of these proposals. I decline to do so.
Lord Morris: The problem with Section 25, as was raised on Second Reading, is that it is largely a clause of interpretation and construction and is in no way itself a guarantee of rights. Moreover, it is only a clause of interpretation and construction as regards other provisions in the Charter of Rights—that is Sections 1 to 34 inclusive—and not as regards Schedule B as a whole. This position was made very clear in the Canadian Parliament when the Parliamentary Secretary of State to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Irwin, when referring to this clause said:
"In other words, if they have rights, then they will not be extinguished through the Constitution".
The tragedy is that this cannot be substantiated, and certainly not as respects Section 25, for under Part V which, as your Lordships will know, is the procedure for amending the constitution of Canada, it is perfectly possible for any part of the constitution to be altered or repealed, including Section 25 itself, without any consultation whatsoever with the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
Additionally, Section 25 is drafted in vague terms, which echo Mr. Irwin's words, "if they have rights". For example, it refers to "any" aboriginal treaty or other rights, and "any" rights or freedoms which have been recognised by the Royal Proclamation and "any" rights or freedoms that "may be" acquired by way of land claims settlement. There is no admission or concession of rights—simply that, if there are any, then they will survive other provisions in the Charter (in other words, the first part of the Bill) and would, for example, supersede the clause affecting, for instance, multicultural heritage.
In the other place amendments were tabled to try to rectify this position. They were very simple and they are part of the record. They were drafted to provide that the line accords with Article 2 of the International Convention on Human Rights so when the Charter was interpreted the international convention, in its application to aboriginal peoples, would take precedence over provisions in the Charter and remove the inference that aboriginal rights are merely possibilities.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Hankey:I want to support the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in this matter. I really think that your Lordships must recognise the longevity of this question. It has been going on for years and years and years. At last Mr. Trudeau with, I think, great political genius, has succeeded in settling a sort of agreement among the provinces, some of which have been quite adamant in maintaining their rights on this subject, and we have the compromise before us today.
It is no good thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, can get up and explain what the Canadian Government think or what the province of Quebec thinks or anything like that, or even, with any safety, what the Indians think, although the Indians have been here and have handled their affairs, I think, very ably; and I have been interested to attend some of their meetings.
The fact is that this Bill has been presented to us and at last we are in a position to get rid of what is a major anomaly in one of the constitutional factors of the British Commonwealth. For goodness sake, do not let us go busy bodying about and endanger the whole

937
thing by pressing the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to make statements which he really cannot reasonably be asked to make and would not have the right to make even if he wanted to do so. This Bill is before us to settle.
I have been in touch with the Canadian High Commission as regards the Indians and I can confirm the fact that the Indians now have the federal franchise. I think I am also right in saying that they have the franchise in every province as well. So they take their place as citizens of Canada, and I do not think that the Canadian Government or the provincial governments are likely to be unreasonable or unjust in this matter. We must certainly hope that they will not be as regards property rights. Therefore, I venture to recommend your Lordships to let this Bill go through.
Baroness Gaitskell: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him a question. In spite of what he says, do the Government have to support some colonialism in the Canadian Government? That is the question to which we have to apply ourselves.
Lord Hankey: I always listen carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, says because she has a great sense of justice. But, if I may say so, I think that the word "colonialism" has a sort of taint to it. It needs to be made more precise. I do not honestly think that there is colonialism; that is why I ventured to confirm with the Canadian High Commission that Indians have the provincial and the federal franchise as voters, and they take their place in the great Canadian community—and it is a very great one.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I respectfully ask your Lordships' Committee whether your Lordships see any advantage or profit in continuing this debate when it is perfectly plain that my noble friend the Minister cannot reply on behalf of the Government, and when it is equally plain that much of what has been said by your Lordships is apt to cause most severe misunderstanding?
Lord Gladwyn: We should like to associate ourselves with what the noble Lord has just said.
The Chairman of Committees: The Question is—
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I do not think that we can get rid of the Bill quite as quickly as that.
Several noble Lords: Why not?
Lord Stewart of Fulham: If I am allowed to, I shall explain why I think so. We understand the difficulty of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, though I am bound to say that I think a number of my noble friends would find it easier to understand his difficulty if, in his manner, he showed a little more understanding of the very genuine feeling that animates the points that are being raised in this Bill.
We are asked to consider the injustices that are being done to Ukrainians and to many other minorities throughout the world. If, by some quirk of history, we had to pass legislation which dealt with the position
938
of minorities in difficulty in any part of the world, we should almost certainly feel entitled to talk about it.
On this side of the Committee there is no suggestion that we are trying to prevent the passage of this Bill. We have only been discussing it a little over half an hour. It is a Bill of great importance. The schedule is an exceptional schedule, containing a whole Act. If I may say so to my noble friend Lord Shinwell, that is why the debate is bound to resemble a Second Reading debate—because this is a very unusual schedule.
I also think that noble Lords have forgotten the attitude that Mr. Trudeau himself had towards the possible treatment of this Bill by this House. He said, and is on record as saying, that the British Parliament will pass it holding its nose. He did not suggest that we should do it holding our tongues. I think that he was too pessimistic, because that phrase implies that we should pass the Bill with distaste. We are not doing that. I believe this to be a most valuable Bill and most necessary in the course of history, but I (and a great many others) am simply taking the opportunity—and not doing any more than Mr. Trudeau apparently expected us to do—to express certain anxieties. That is an entirely legitimate process. If the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, feels—and I can understand this—that he cannot answer, there are those who are acquainted with Canada whose contributions to the debate would, I think, be valuable. For example, I accept the partial reassurance we were given about the fact, of which most of us were aware, that the aboriginals in Canada possess the franchise. But they are still a minority. There is still a question of what may happen to them.
Let me give one further example which arises from a later part of the Bill. In Clauses 32 and 33 and again in Clause 38, there is this very remarkable constitutional provision that the Canadian Parliament or the legislature of any province can pass Acts which conflict with the statements of fundamental rights, despite what the constitution says. It is a very unusual provision in any constitution, and it will be interesting to see how it works. Furthermore, if the constitution is amended, in certain circumstances it is open to any province to opt out of the amendment.
However, all these rather exceptional powers are possessed by the provinces; they are not possessed by any representatives of the Indian people; that is to say, if the parts of the constitution which explicitly guarantee Indian rights were removed from the constitution under the amending procedure, it would not be open to the Indian community to say—as a province could say—"This alteration to the constitution does not apply to us". In that respect, they would appear to be put in an inferior position compared to the other inhabitants of Canada. I do not accept the proposition that it is unreasonable even to mention this matter in this Committee. If the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, feels that he cannot take a further part in the proceedings, I think that there are some who can.
However, it ought not to be accepted that those of us who are concerned about certain aspects of this Bill want to wreck the Bill. We do not. We know very well that very shortly the Bill will become law. We have no objection to that. However, it would be interesting to see whether more constructive answers could not be made than have so far been advanced.

939
May I, without offence, say this to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel? He is profoundly a Scot; I, only by descent and not by upbringing. But it is well known that the Scottish nobility pursued the process of acquiring land without compensation from the peasants for several centuries, after which they became strong champions of the rights of property.
Lord Polwarth: I am no expert on the technicalities of this measure, but I am one of the Scottish nobility. In addition, however, I have had the privilege of knowing Canada and the Canadians for 48 years. I go there regularly. I have been there at least three times during the course of the debates on this measure in Canada. I should simply like to say that the more I listen to what we are saying this afternoon, the more actuely embarrassed I am becoming about what will be the reaction of our Canadian friends.
Of course we all have deeply held views, and I fully respect them in every way. But the crux of this is that surely Canada is a nation that is fit to order its affairs and arrange its own constitution. Surely, all we are being asked to do is to acknowledge that fact and let them get on with it. I see no way in which anyone on behalf of our Government can answer for the detail of their constitution. Surely they are a people of sufficient maturity—I know they are—to respect common human rights. I hope that we shall not now go too deeply into the mire. The views have all been aired at different stages, and I hope that we shall now let the Canadians get on with the job in the way that a great people like them are so capable of doing.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Before the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, replies, may we ask him, not necessarily to explain the Bill (appearently he cannot do that), not necessarily to say anything against it, but simply to say a few words for it before we come to the end of the proceedings?
Lord Trefgarne: I understand the anxiety of noble Lords on these matters, but the questions that have been put to me during the course of the debate this afternoon have, in general—in fact, I think, exclusively—been ones of interpretation. I believe your Lordships generally agree that it would not have been right for me to offer interpretation of what is essentially Canadian legislation, albeit, by virtue of an historical anomaly, currently passing through your Lordships' House. The final word on interpretation of this legislation will therefore lie in due course with the Canadian courts, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me therefore for not offering further elucidation this afternoon.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he would permit this Committee to abandon this matter with some reassurance and some quietude of mind? I think all of us will accept what he has just said. It must be his decision. Personally, I understand it, but questions of interpretation are not for Her Majesty's Government here; they are for Her Majesty's Government in Canada and for the courts in Canada. We accept that because he has just said it, and we have to accept it. I personally would have accepted it even without his saying it.
940
What I ask the noble Lord—what other noble Lords are asking him on this side, and I think in their hearts possibly on every side of the Committee—is this: would he, in his own inimitable, diplomatic and tactful manner, pass on to Canada's very reputable and honoured representative in this country the deep concern that was expressed in this House both this afternoon and on Second Reading? If he would merely say that he would do that, this debate would not have been in vain and on all sides of the Committee we could pass to other clauses in this Bill, possibly with great speed.
Lord Shinwell: May I ask a question before the noble Lord the Minister replies? Suppose we decided, as we have decided, to accept the Bill, but to add an addendum in the form of a letter, or an instruction, or a suggestion, or a piece of advice to the Canadian Government—apart from accepting the Bill, and agreeing to Canada's sovereignty—that they should do certain things in accordance with the wishes of Members of your Lordships' House about the Indian section of the Canadian community, what would the effect be in Canada? It would start the whole thing up again. Surely that is obvious. But I should like an answer to that question.
Lord Shepherd: In my time in your Lordships' House I have spent time on quite a number of constitutional Bills bringing colonies into independence. I cannot recall any previous occasion when your Lordships' House spent so much time in Committee on a constitutional Bill. Canada has been an independent member of the Commonwealth, I was going to say for many years, but it is for very many years. It has been a leader in many things, certainly in the fields of human rights. I can understand the anxieties, but there are anxieties—are there not?—in any country in regard to minorities. The minorities problem exists even within our own state. Legislation itself cannot deal with it. I share the view that has already been expressed that it is a matter for the people of Canada through its Parliament to deal with the anxieties which quite genuinely have been expressed here this afternoon.
However, I do not believe that the way we are conducting this Committee stage is conducive to our own relations with Canada or, I believe, in regard to dealing with the position of the minorities in Canada. I am sure, like many other noble Lords, that there has hardly been a day when I have not received some form of paper from one organisation or another, one state, one province or another. It is not as though we have not been made aware of all the problems and anxieties of this legislation.
This legislation could have been here last year. The Prime Minister of Canada thought it right—and I believe he was correct—to take a slower course, and it is now before your Lordships' House. This is a Bill that ought to be proceeded with without much further discourse. I believe that further discourse is more likely to be counter-productive to what those who are making their case want.
As I understand it, we are in Committee, and there are no amendments. I have been Leader of the House, and I have a Leader of the House sitting beside me. What do we do? How do we move out of Committee stage? Is there a Motion to do that which could now

941
be moved?—not "That the noble Lord be no longer heard" or that we should proceed to next business, but perhaps that the Report be now received; I am not sure of the phrase that would be applicable. Perhaps the Government Chief Whip or the Deputy Leader will give us some assistance. It is entirely up to your Lordships' Committee, but my own feeling is that the sooner this Committee stage is concluded the better. If that is the will of the Committee, then those who have more recent knowledge than I have perhaps might move the necessary Motion.
Schedule B agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

South Georgia (Falkland Islands Dependencies)
3.48 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will now repeat the Statement being made by my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, I will with permission make a brief statement on developments in South Georgia, a Falkland Islands dependency.
"We were informed on 20th March by the Commander of the British Antarctic Survey Base at Grytviken on South Georgia that a party of Argentines had made a landing at Leith Harbour nearby. The Base Commander informed the Argentine party that their presence was illegal as they had not obtained his prior authority for the landing. We immediately took the matter up with the Argentine authorities in Buenos Aires and the Argentine Embassy in London and, following our approach, the ship and most of the personnel left on 21st March. However, the base commander has reported that a small number of men and some equipment remain. We are therefore making arrangements to ensure their early departure."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Statement, so far as it goes. I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us, as reported in the press, that this particular group of Argentinians were in a ship chartered by Salvesen and that no permission was sought from the governor or the Foreign Office, or indeed from the base commander who represents the governor and has, I think, the status of a magistrate? Could the noble Lord say how far this was recognised? Was the Argentine flag substituted for the Union Jack because the ship was in British waters? Is it true, as reported on the radio, that a British patrol ship—which I take it to be HMS "Endurance"—has been asked to remain? Does this not strengthen further the case for the retention of HMS "Endurance" so that the White Ensign can fly in these waters?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I understand that the party, or at any rate the bulk of the party, which landed from an Argentinian ship has now been withdrawn together with the Argentinian flag, with only a small party of a few men remaining. If the Argentinian Government were to ask permission for that small party to remain, I imagine that request would be granted, while, if permission were not sought, I suppose a constitutional issue would arise and that conceivably in certain circumstances it could become acute. In the circumstances, would the Minister agree that there is a case for referring the whole question of sovereignty to the International Court and abiding by its decision?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, a number of points have been raised by noble Lords and I am obliged to them for their response to the Statement. It is true that a flag was hoisted for a time while the party, or the bulk of the party, was ashore. I cannot confirm that it was or was not an Argentinian flag—although I imagine it was. The vessel, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pointed out, was chartered by a company operating in the area. I understand that the company informed the British Embassy in Buenos Aires that they were sailing for South Georgia, but it had been made quite clear to them that they had to seek clearance from the British authorities at Grytviken before landing on British territory. As for the small number of personnel who are still there, as the Statement said, we are making arrangements to ensure their early departure. The question of their remaining does not therefore arise.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, do the Government view this as an official Argentinian Government action or perhaps the over-zealous action of a few individuals?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. It appears that the personnel involved represented an Argentine commercial company run by a Mr. Davidoff which has a contract to remove equipment from disused whaling stations on South Georgia.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to consider the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, which he chose to ignore; namely, whether Her Majesty's Government would reconsider the question of reinstating HMS "Endurance" in the light of these events? Indeed, these events were forecast in the debate of HMS "Endurance", when it was said that such a thing was likely to happen. In addition, bearing in mind that the West Germans have built an ice patrol ship which will be patrolling these waters in the very near future, may I ask my noble friend whether that signifies anything to the Government regarding their decision on HMS "Endurance"?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, plans for the future of HMS "Endurance" are for longer-term consideration in the light of developments. We are of course committed to support and defend the Falkland Islands and their dependencies to the best of our ability.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am extremely encouraged by the Minister's last remarks, as he will realise

943
that it is a matter for further consideration; and if the case needed strengthening, it is this particular incident. Is it the Minister's view that we should not play the incident up too much in that it is a minor one? The fact remains that the ports in South Georgia, like Stromness, Leith and Grytviken, are ghost towns. I have seen a great deal of extremely valuable equipment which other people sometimes use without permission, and I take it that that is the incident in question. I take it that the emphasis of the Statement is with regard to our sovereignty over South Georgia. After all, the Falkland Islands are 300 miles from the Argentine and South Georgia is 700 miles from the Falklands, as I know to my cost, over a fairly stormy sea. At no time has it ever been owned or, I think, claimed by anyone except the British. The Argentines launched a claim a long time ago but they have never had any occupation there. Will the Minister or somebody complain to the British company concerned, who may be trying to take their own equipment back through an Argentine company, and tell them that they are in danger of causing an incident? After all, it is not so many years ago since shots were exchanged between the Argentines and members of the British Antarctic Survey.
Lord Trefgarne: We have made clear to the Argentines, my Lords, that this situation is not of our seeking. Our hope is that this unfortunate incident can be surmounted with the least possible consequences for our political relations.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1982
4.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to continue in operation for a further year the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. Unless renewed, the Act is due to lapse tomorrow. The order was approved in another place on 15th March. I will remind your Lordships briefly of the context in which the Act's renewal is being sought. The Provisional IRA bombing campaign in London last October and November is still fresh in our minds. On 10th October, a nail bomb exploded outside Chelsea barracks. Two civilian passers-by were killed and more than 40 soldiers and civilians wounded. On 17th October, Lieutenant-General Sir Steuart Pringle was severely injured when his car blew up. The shock and injuries he suffered might easily have caused his death; I am sure your Lordships shared the admiration I felt at Sir Steuart's recovery.
On 26th October, the Provisional IRA placed two bombs in Oxford Street, one of which exploded, killing Mr. Kenneth Howorth, the Metropolitan Police bomb disposal officer who was attempting to make it safe. The other was defused by a colleague of Mr. Howorth. The murder of Mr. Howorth is a tragic but salutary reminder of the considerable debt we
944
all owe to those whose job it is to protect us from the evil of terrorist violence. On 13th November, the London home of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General was severely damaged in a bomb blast. Fortunately, those responsible had miscalculated; my right honourable friend and his wife were away at the time of the explosion. On 23rd November, the IRA filled a toy pistol with explosive and placed it where any child might have picked it up, on the roadway outside Woolwich barracks. It blew up, injuring two women.
Against that background, it is perhaps surprising that the use of the Act in Great Britain over the last year has in general been at a considerably lower level than in earlier years. As your Lordships will know, the police can under the Act detain a person for up to 48 hours on their own authority, and for a further five days if my right honourable friend agrees. Since the Act came into force, and up to the end of February this year, more than 5,300 people had been detained under the Act in Great Britain, 257 in the last year. During the course of the year, 50 extensions of detention were granted beyond 48 hours in Great Britain. Under Part II of the Act, my right honourable friend has the power to exclude from Great Britain, or from the United Kingdom as a whole, those whom he is satisfied have been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. Since 1974, the police in Great Britain have made 320 applications for exclusion, of which 277 have been granted. The equivalent figures for the past year are 13 applications and eight orders signed. None of those excluded in the past year made representations to have their cases considered by one of the independent advisers, whose work my right honourable friend and Secretaries of State of all Governments, have always much appreciated.
The figures relating to the last year are the lowest for any year since the Act was introduced. But it would, I believe, be wrong to argue from that that the Act is less necessary or less effective than it has been in the past. It cannot be doubted that the powers that it provides for the police operate as a deterrent to those who would come here to commit acts of terrorism. That applies not only to those who have been excluded by my right honourable friend or his predecessors, but also to those who acknowledge the difficulty—as indeed they sometimes do, under questioning—of slipping through the port controls operated by the police. The police are themselves fully aware that while their primary task is the protection of the public, they must carry it out in such a way as to cause the minimum inconvenience to ordinary members of the public.
Your Lordships will know that a scheme was introduced in 1979 to review exclusion orders three years after they are made, if the excluded person wishes it. This provides an opportunity for those who have given up all involvement in terrorism to demonstrate this to the Home Secretary. My right honourable friend considers all such cases personally. Under these arrangements my right honourable friend has revoked nine exclusion orders since I last reported to your Lordships, and has confirmed two others. Eleven cases are currently under review. Altogether 12 exclusion orders have been revoked as a result of a

945
3-year review, 14 following representations to an adviser, and six for other reasons.
Most of the Act's provisions apply in Northern Ireland, as well as in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland in 1981, 495 people were arrested under Section 12 of the Act, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland granted 403 applications for extension of detention beyond 48 hours. He also excluded 11 people from Northern Ireland, or from the United Kingdom as a whole.
When my right honourable friend sought renewal of this Act in another place, he emphasised that he did so in no routine spirit, but only after the most careful consideration, and with the deepest regret that these powers remained necessary for a further year, and I echo those sentiments. The Act contains powers which those of us who care for the liberty of the individual cannot be happy to see remain on the statute book, albeit as temporary provisions only. But the list of crimes with which I began my speech will have reminded your Lordships, should such a reminder be necessary, that we are not dealing here with a normal situation. What we have is a group of very violent men and women who express their alleged sense of political grievance by means of bombs, and who do not scruple to murder and maim innocent members of the public if they believe that that will somehow further their political cause.
My right honourable friend remains convinced that for the coming year these extraordinary powers will remain a vital weapon in the fight against terrorism. But we recognise, and indeed we share, the concern expressed in both Houses over the years as to the effect of the powers on those freedoms which in this country we rightly value so highly. As my right honourable friend has announced in another place, he has decided that the time is now right to hold a review of the operation of the Act—a matter which has been raised in the House on previous renewals of the order. It will be recalled that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, carried out a most valuable review in 1978, and the present review will have the same terms of reference; namely:
"Accepting the continuing need for legislation against terrorism, to assess the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, with particular regard to the effectiveness of this legislation and its effect on the liberties of the subject, and to report."
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe has agreed to conduct the review. The intention is that it should be completed, and the report published, before the Act is next due to lapse.
As a result of Lord Shackleton's report, a number of improvements were made to the operation of the 1976 Act. One of the purposes of my noble friend's present inquiry will be to examine how these have worked out in practice. It will also examine all the powers in this legislation, consider their use since the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, reported, their benefits and drawbacks, and any complaints that have been made about them. The review will, I hope, help us all to be better informed when we discuss the question of whether the Prevention of Terrorism Act is being operated as we would wish. In the meantime, my right honourable friend and I are convinced that we continue to need the protection which the Act affords. I therefore ask your Lordships to support the Government
946
in the Motion for renewal. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
4.5 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, the more that we are called upon to debate orders of the kind that is before your Lordships this afternoon, the more distasteful the experience becomes, and none of us relishes the prospect of debating the renewal of this temporary legislation. I have not the slightest doubt about that. We regard the legislation as repugnant, principally I suppose because of the appalling nature of the criminal acts which led to the introduction of these laws in the first place, and the acts which have been perpetrated since then and which have led to the repeated renewal of the legislation. I am sure that we are united on that. I hope, and feel certain, that we are also united in the view that these laws are unpalatable because they offend the rights, freedoms and liberties which we in this country hold dear; and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was right to acknowledge that yet again today. I should like to thank him, too, for his valuable and comprehensive survey of the operation of the Act over the past year.
Last year I said I felt that, despite our feelings of repugnance towards these provisions, the time had not yet come to abandon the legislation, and I think that that view, shared widely among so many of us, has been borne out by the further grotesque acts of violence and terrorism that we have seen in the past 12 months. Here I would join the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in condemning in the strongest possible terms the actions of the criminals responsible. We would also want to express our sense of deep sympathy for the victims and their families, and to underline what has already been said about the courage of those involved in these ghastly incidents—not least the gallant Royal Marines Lieutenant-General, Sir Steuart Pringle (to whom reference has already been made by the Minister this afternoon) whose cheerfulness and fortitude since sustaining his injuries have been an example to all, and indeed the Metropolitan Police bomb disposal officer, Mr. Kenneth Howorth, and the others involved in the incidents to which the Minister has referred.
I hope, too, that our gratitude and feelings of admiration can be passed on to all those in the emergency services in Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the police, fire and ambulance services, the bomb disposal personnel, the armed forces, and others who helped to deal with, and prevent, acts of terrorism. I know that those are feelings that are shared in all parts of your Lordships' House, and by my noble friend Lord Blease and my other noble friends.
I now turn to the question of the continuance of the powers in the Act. Let me say at once that I welcome the decision of the Government to hold an inquiry into the working of the Act. However, it is a matter of regret that it has taken the Government so long to come to that decision. My right honourable and honourable friends in another place were urging that course upon the Home Secretary a year ago when the powers last came up for debate, and although we on this side of your Lordships' House did not then press

947
for such an inquiry—for it had just been rejected in another place—we noted with some approval that that call had been made.
It is clear that a further review of the Act is overdue. In our debate last year I had occasion to point out that, as the statistics then showed, mercifully rather less use had been made during the previous year of the powers of the Act than had been the case before that, and from the figures just produced for 1981 (to which the Minister has referred this afternoon) it is clear that substantially less use of the powers of the Act has been made over the past calendar year than has been the case since the provisions were first brought in on 29th November 1974. The Minister has reviewed those figures, and I therefore do not propose to refer to them in any further detail this afternoon.
The figures for exclusion orders, too, are even more significant than the figures for detentions compared with the previous year; for whereas a year ago we were able to say that the use of detention in 1980 was well down on the previous year, exclusion orders in 1980 were about the same as in the two previous years and were more than double the numbers for 1977 and 1976. But last year, 1981, not only detention orders but also exclusion orders were well down; and, again, the number of extensions of detention, granted last year, 1981, as I think the Minister pointed out (and I quote the recent statistical bulletin published by the Home Office in January) was much lower than in the previous year. Perhaps I may just say here that those statistical bulletins, thorough as they are, are very helpful indeed.
So, clearly, there has been a very significant drop in the use of all these powers in the Act over the past year. We probably cannot say for certain why that is, but it may be—certainly I like to think it is—because of the efficient way the powers in the Act are being used and because of the deterrent effect of this legislation on the terrorist. But it could be because there are fewer acts of terrorism, which in itself could be a measure of the effectiveness of the Act, or it could be (let us face it) because the terrorist is becoming more cunning or the Act is being used less effectively, or both, though I doubt that combination of factors.
Whatever the reason, what these figures do at least is to help to justify the need for a thorough, fresh, independent inquiry into the workings of the Act. But let me acknowledge at once that it is never going to be possible precisely to evaluate or, indeed, to publicise the effectiveness of all activities connected with these matters, involving, as they do, the security of the state; nor connected with the deterrent effect of this sort of legislation, for we are never likely to know about all the crimes which have been prevented.
I would also welcome the Government's choice of the person who is to carry out this inquiry to which the Minister has referred—the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. He is a most distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, a man with an outstanding service record, and one who has also served as an armed services Minister—not unhelpful in these circumstances. Incidentally, that is a qualification he shares with the other distinguished Member of your Lordships' House to carry out an inquiry into the working of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts; namely, my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who, as the Minister noted, undertook
948
the first inquiry and reported in 1978. Indeed, that was a most valuable report. Furthermore—here the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, shares another distinction with my noble friend Lord Shackleton—he is a respected former Leader of this House.
We note that the terms of reference for this new inquiry are to be the same as those laid down by my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary, Mr. Merlyn Rees, for the inquiry conducted by my noble friend Lord Shackleton. The Minister has quoted those terms of reference in full this evening, so I do not propose to quote them again, but I would just recall the opening words:
"Accepting the continuing need for legislation against terrorism…".
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary, will at the very least not discourage the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, from looking into the question of whether this particular piece of anti-terrorist legislation is or is not now needed at all. Even if the Home Secretary cannot quite bring himself to ask the noble Earl to examine that fundamental point in his inquiry, I hope he will not discourage him from doing so; for it is in my submission certainly open to the noble Earl to interpret the terms of reference as enabling him to look into that and to recommend accordingly.
Because, as we have seen, the terms of reference begin with those words that I quoted:
"Accepting the continuing need for legislation against terrorism…"—
not specifically for this particular piece of legislation against terrorism because, as your Lordships know from the fact that this very week the Taking of Hostages Bill was given the Royal Assent—in fact, only yesterday—there is other anti-terrorist legislation as well. So it is in our submission fully open to the noble Earl to consider that fundamental point if he chooses to interpret the terms of reference in that way without necessarily being specifically asked to do so, though it would he much better if he were to be either asked to do so or, indeed, as I have suggested, at least not discouraged from doing so.
The noble Earl might perhaps also be asked to consider—and here I would raise this point specifically with the Minister—whether the Act should be re-introduced as a Bill next time. This is a matter which has been suggested in our previous debates by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and I have had occasion to support him more than once in this respect. In my submision it would be very useful indeed if that was another matter which could be looked into by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when he comes to undertake his inquiry. Because, of course, one of the difficulties in which we always find ourselves when considering an order of this kind is that we do, as your Lordships know all too well, simply have to take it or leave it; there is no opportunity whatsoever for the amendment of it. In saying that about the review of the Act, I appreciate, of course, that the ultimate decision about whether or not to retain this legislation is for the Government and for Parliament.
I have paid tribute to a number of valued public servants tonight, and so has the Minister, and I hope I shall not be straying too far from order if I mention one other. Indeed, he has a distinguished record in helping

949
to counter terrorist activity as well as in other respects, so your Lordships may feel that it is in fact relevant. Many of us will have been sorry to hear of the impending retirement of Sir David McNee as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and anyone who has had the good fortune to work with this outstanding officer will know of his high qualities. I should like to pay tribute to him for his splendid work for the public—indeed, for us all here in London, in Scotland and elsewhere. I wonder whether the Minister can say anything further about the advice that he may have received from the police as to whether or not the Act is continuing to prove of use and should be continued.
I have only one other point. I feel, as perhaps many of us do, that we cannot allow this moment to go by without deploring the continued support given over the past year in the United States by a small minority of people (mercifully, only a small minority of people) to the fund-raising activities of the criminals, like those in the IRA, who perpetrate these atrocities, who kill and maim innocent children, women and men, and who destroy the homes and means of livelihood of those unfortunate souls who are affected by these obscene acts. Unfortunately, we have heard more of this sort of support recently. All decent Americans abhor these money-raising activities. I hope that still more will be done by the Government, and indeed by any of us with contacts and connections there, to try to get this despicable traffic in blood money (as it can only be called) stopped.
We all look forward to the time when we no longer need to debate orders and laws of this kind. We also look forward to the report of the noble Earl, and I hope the Minister will say that he will do what he can to ensure that it is debated as soon as possible after it is ready. In the meantime, I certainly would not advise my noble friends to stand in the way of this order.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his introduction of this order. I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, in his condemnation of those who make the order necessary by their evil deeds, and in his praise of those with the courage to stand up to the unfortunate results. I think it is a safe assumption that no one in this House is in favour of terrorism. The order is to continue for a further 12 months the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976. Therefore it might be assumed that everyone would support it automatically, but I have heard it said that if the Russians moved into Northern Ireland then terrorism would very soon be brought under control. I believe that this highly improbable situation has an element of truth in it and it illustrates the point that one can feel that the processes of suppression of terrorism can be taken too far.
The full title of the Act whose continuance we are discussing is the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provision) Act 1976—and I repeat, "Temporary Provisions". We are worried that this Act may be treated as a permanency, something for which it was never intended. It is perhaps worth noting that virtually everyone who speaks on it, whether in this House or in another place, says that he regrets it; but Governments of both major parties press on seemingly regardless. Let me re-emphasise lest I be misunderstood that we hate the vicious action of
950
the terrorists as much as anyone; we want to see the power of the IRA broken beyond repair. It is just that we are not convinced that the somewhat automatic approval of this order is necessarily the best way forward.
I have great respect for Mr. Gerry Fitt, Member for Belfast West in the other place, in whose considered opinion the retention of this Act on the statute book is exactly what the IRA want. This is at times a mad world, but the bombing campaign carried out in Northern Ireland at the time of the debate in another place confirmed two things. First, IRA must have wanted the order to be opposed; and, secondly, if we did not know it before, we are dealing with madmen who will use the bullets and the bomb without mercy to gain their evil ends.
Probably no one would disagree with the opinion that it would be better to be wrongly detained in a police station overnight than, as an innocent person, to be blown to bits by some mindless criminal. But we have to reassure ourselves that the civil liberties are interfered with as little as possible. I will mention here a point that I suggest is particularly disturbing. The principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty is basic to the English legal system. But I submit that under this Act is it the innocent person who must sometimes establish his case. Once detained (and although released without charge) the great majority of those held under the Act are frequently referred to by the Home Secretary as terrorists. It is a tragic result of the evil policies of the IRA that to be an Irishman can be sufficient in some cases to be held to be guilty. That is just what the IRA want.
We would not deny that the powers to make exclusion orders and the powers of detention have proved their worth and that the Act as a whole has played its part; but I must say that we are unhappy about rubber-stamping its continuance too easily, even with the review promised by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. We on these Benches would prefer another course of action which was proposed by my noble friend Lord Wigoder in the debate on the renewal of the order last year and to which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, referred. It was supported then, as now, by the Opposition Front Bench, as I understand it. This is that, while this Act should be allowed to remain on the statute book—it is inconceivable that we should oppose this order—there should be introduced a new Bill to take its place. This would be subject to proper parliamentary scrunity in all stages in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will look at this as a constructive proposal designed to see that any legislation serves its purpose to the full and, most important, with the minimum of interference with our civil liberties.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, having been responsible for introducing the 1974 and the 1976 Bills to the House, I should like to speak briefly and to welcome on behalf of my noble friends the decision of the Home Secretary to invite the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to conduct the inquiry. I think that four years after the inquiry by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is about right. I think that the Home Secretary has been right to ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, with

951
his wealth of experience of public service to undertake this inquiry and I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, in saying that I hope that once we have the result of that report we shall have an early opportunity of debating it in this House.
I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Boston, in paying tribute to the retiring Metropolitan Police Commissioner, though I hope that we shall have the opportunity to do so later on nearer to the date of his retirement. I think that Sir David McNee has played a notable part in the battle against terrorism in this country, and it is right to recognise that. The only other point I would make is that I have little doubt, having been involved in this matter for a number of years, that, if it had not been for the passage of the 1974 and 1976 legislation, many people now alive would be dead. That was the case for the legislation.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the reception they have given to this order. It gives no pleasure to the Government—as it gave no pleasure to the previous Government—to introduce these orders, but we believe they are necessary. I am grateful to your Lordships for sharing that recognition. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, asked me a specific question about the attitude of the police to the necessity for these powers under the 1976 Act and the supplemental order. I would join with your Lordships in paying my tribute also to Sir David McNee, the retiring Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. The Metropolitan Police stand in the forefront of the operations against terrorism, and Sir David has shown splendid leadership, in this respect as in every other way, during his time as commissioner.
My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, is this: The police tell the Government that the powers contained in the Act remain a vital weapon in their fight against terrorism. It might help to put it in context if I refer to a recent case where the use of the Act was instrumental in the success of a police operation. In April last year, a routine check was made at a postal sorting office in Glasgow of three parcels posted in Canada to addresses in the Strathclyde area. The parcels were found to contain arms and ammunition. After inquiries, 19 people were arrested under the powers of the Act. As a result of interviewing these people, and after extension of detention beyond 48 hours had been granted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, a further quantity of firearms, ammunition and detonators was discovered which had been destined for use in Northern Ireland by members of the Ulster Volunteer Force. Of the 19 people detained, nine were subsequently charged with offences including conspiracy and contravention of the Firearms, Explosive Substances and Prevention of Terrorism Act. Eight of the nine were found guilty and received sentences of imprisonment ranging from four years to 11 years.
That is a concrete example of the effectiveness of these powers and the use of the powers made by the police. The review which my noble friend Lord
952
Jellicoe has agreed to undertake will show us whether the powers taken as a whole are being used as we would wish and whether changes to the legislation are necessary. While the threat from terrorism remains at the current level, I believe that it would be folly to allow the powers to lapse and that is why there are the introductory words to the terms of reference which my noble friend has accepted.
I should therefore like to say, in answer to the direct question which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, put to me, that taking into account that there are those introductory words which make it clear that in the Government's view it is necessary to continue to have legislation against terrorism, my noble friend's terms of reference do not preclude him from looking at possible changes in the content of the Act, nor would they preclude him from considering the question of the Act becoming a permanent part of our legislation.
May I finally say that I very much agree with Lord Boston's remarks about the dangers of arms coming across the Atlantic. Arms smuggled from the United States have been used frequently in terrorist attacks, including murders of members of the security forces and civilians. The United States Government are well aware of that, and they continue to take energetic measures to prevent such traffic. I hope that recent publicity will have brought the same point home to those who make financial contributions to terrorist front organisations.
Those are the reasons why this order again comes before your Lordships' House. It comes on this occasion with the undertaking that there is now to be a review of this legislation. I believe that is right. I am grateful to your Lordships for welcoming that.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he will accept one small correction in my own remarks I referred to the Taking of Hostages Bill as having received the Royal Assent yesterday. In fact it passed through your Lordships' House and received a Third Reading here before going on to another place to be considered there. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bishopston for that correction.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982
4.32 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, that the regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the first of the two Motions on the Order Paper before us today which are in my name, I hope that I shall have the leave of your Lordships to speak to both at the same time. The regulations increase the income limits for legal aid in civil proceedings and for legal advice and assistance by approximately 9 per cent. They are intended to ensure that persons with the same real income in the coming year as those who qualified in the past year will be eligible to receive legal aid, subject, where appropriate, to a similar contribution. Your

953
Lordships approved the equivalent regulations for England and Wales on 23rd February this year.
The Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982 raise the upper disposable income limit, above which a person is not eligible for legal aid, under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967, to make legal aid available to persons with disposable income of not more than £4,400. The lower limit—the level below which a person is not required to make a contribution from income—will increase to £1,850. The limits for disposable capital rise by a similar percentage so that the upper limit above which legal aid may be refused if it appears that the applicant could afford to proceed without it, becomes £2,725 and the lower limit, below which no capital contribution need be paid, becomes £1,310.
Your Lordships will be pleased to note that these regulations bring to an end an anomaly that has complicated the granting of civil legal aid in some cases following an oversight in the Legal Aid Act 1979, which omitted to confer on the Secretary of State the power to increase the lower limit. The position has therefore been—and will be until 1st April 1982—that free legal aid has been available for those with disposable incomes below £1,500, and that from those with incomes between £1,500 and £1,700 the nominal sum of £1 has been required as a contribution. The regulations do not refer directly to the removal of this difficulty but footnote (a) indicates that Section 26 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980 restored the power to increase the lower income limit once more. The disappearance of the nominal £1 requirement will simplify the work of the Law Society of Scotland in administering the legal aid schemes.
The Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982—the second order that stands in my name raise the upper disposable income limit for persons seeking legal advice and assistance from £85 to £93 per week and increase the disposable capital limit from £600 to £655.
A further set of relevant regulations—which are not subject to affirmative resolution and therefore do not fall to be considered by your Lordships—will come into effect from 1st April 1982. The Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1982 increase the lower disposable income limit, below which no contribution has to be paid, from £40 to £44 and amend the scale of contributions payable for persons with incomes between that lower and the revised upper limits. The effect of these increases is to maintain the level of availability of legal aid to 70 per cent. of households with children. A similar coverage was secured when legal aid was first introduced in 1950, and that level was broadly restored in 1979, after slipping back somewhat during the intervening period.
The volume of cases continues to grow. In the latest full year for which figures are available for Scotland the 12 months up to 31st March 1981—just over 20,000 certificates were issued for legal aid in civil proceedings and there were 95,000 successful applications for legal advice and assistance. These regulations will ensure that legal aid or advice and assistance will continue to enable many people to enforce or defend their legal rights. My Lords, I beg to commend these regulations
954
and move the first Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 2nd March he approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
4.38 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, being neither a lawyer nor a Scotsman, it is with some trepidation that I rise in the absence (owing to the speedy transaction of earlier business this afternoon) of my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan, to respond to the moving of these regulations by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I thank him for introducing and explaining the somewhat complex regulations to your Lordships this afternoon.
I am comforted in my task this afternoon by the fact that the English and Welsh equivalent of these regulations was approved by your Lordships on 23rd February. In so far as the regulations ease the paths of deserving applicants for legal aid, they are of course clearly very welcome. However, in so far as they fail to reinstate the level of benefits otherwise eroded by inflation, they are clearly not so welcome.
I have with some care read the reply given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the questions raised on 23rd February by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. But I am still not wholly clear as to the resulting position. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, would be so kind as to confirm that the levels of eligibility in relation to both capital and income fail to recover in real terms the position which existed in November 1979, that being the date on which the levels were last raised. If the level is now lower than at that time, by how much lower is it in percentage terms? Is there any valid reason why there should be any shortfall in the level now proposed as compared with the level agreed in 1979?
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said in his introduction, and may well argue again, that the limits have been increased to ensure a similar level of coverage to that achieved in November 1979. However, the point of my question is to establish what the levels should be now if they were increased in accordance with the Retail Price Index and the percentage by which the new levels fall short of that index. Surely there can be no excuse for not increasing the levels in line with inflation. As it is, there will be some people who were eligible and now are no longer eligible, even though they may just have received increases in their incomes in line with inflation.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I, too, on behalf of my colleagues here, would like to welcome the provisions contained in these regulations. I should also like to pursue the question raised on index-linking, which has become a very fashionable term these days. I should like to know whether, in view of the fact that the Government borrowing is now to be index-linked together with taxation allowances, we are passing regulations today which might be slightly out of date 12 months from now, and whether in fact index-linking was looked at in connection with the provisions in these regulations now before us.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful, as I am myself, to the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for what they have said about these two orders today. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised the very valid question—raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—of index-linking of the 1979 limits and the rise in value of the limits I have introduced today over and above those of 1979. I am afraid I have not got a precise and detailed answer compounded over the full period but I will ascertain the precise statistics requested by both noble Lords in as succinct a form as possible, and I will write to them. I hope that will satisfy your Lordships.
However, I should like to suggest that the accepted criteria of legal aid in Scotland and in England and Wales have for many years been at this level of 70 per cent. of households with children who would be eligible for legal aid. The uprating of the limits is only one factor, though an important one. I would ask your Lordships to consider the other important elements in matching income to these limits. The elements which go into the calculations of relevant income are such things as supplementary benefit allowances, the thresholds of income tax, child benefits, national insurance contributions and so on. We think it could be misleading to have regard to only one factor: that is, the limits. The 70 per cent. coverage of households in Scotland and England and Wales remains in the Government's view the most effective measure for legal aid. That said, I will repeat my promise to ascertain the information requested by both noble Lords, and will write to them.
I would beg your Lordships' indulgence in making one minor correction. In introducing these orders I mentioned that legal aid would be available to persons with a disposable income of not more than £4,400. That is the figure in my prepared text, and I must apologise for not having matched up that figure with the figure which appears on the order before us. The figure that I should have mentioned is £4,440. With that humble apology to your Lordships, I commend the first order standing in my name.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these regulations earlier. I beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 2nd March be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.