Lords Sitting of 22 October 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
The Duke of Somerset—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Jeffreys—Took the Oath.

Tobacco: Advertising and Sponsorship
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will undertake to consult both Houses of Parliament before reaching any new voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry on advertising and sponsorship.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in accordance with previous practice both Houses of Parliament will be informed of the terms of the new voluntary agreements when they have been agreed.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I first most warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box, and also may I say what a pleasure it is that I am putting this Question to her. Is she aware that I would not have been here—I have come from hospital to put this Question—had not a ward colleague died yesterday morning of lung cancer due directly to cigarette smoking? In view of the fact that over the last few weeks 53 deaths at Bradford football club were due to smoking; that there has been an increase in smoking by children; that there is the absurd ruling that in spite of his condition an asthmatic taxi driver must take someone who is smoking; and, finally, that there is a massive increase in sponsorship by tobacco companies on television, does she not feel, and does the Secretary of State not feel, that both Houses have a right not just to be informed of a decision that has been taken but to be consulted about the decision on such a vital question?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for his kind remarks and to say how glad I am that he is able to be here to put the Question. I am profoundly sorry about the cases which he has quoted, but the Government believe that the system of voluntary agreements which are worked out in confidence with the tobacco industry are the most effective and flexible methods of controlling this area. This is of course in accordance with previous practice by successive Governments.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to my noble friend on her well-deserved promotion. I should like to ask her whether she would not agree that, on a matter so vital to the health and
954
wellbeing of the people of this country, Parliament may well have a valuable contribution to make and should therefore be consulted before the agreement is entered into, so that it may make that contribution. Looking at the realities of the matter, is it not a fact that an appearance in the background of a sponsored event may be far more commercially valuable than an overt advertisement placed on the same screen?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the custom of agreeing these voluntary agreements in privacy and in confidentiality has been, as I said, carried out by successive Governments. I feel sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be well aware of the questions which have been raised in this House, of the debate which took place in May this year, and that your Lordships' opinions will have been noted in this respect. In regard to sponsored events, the Government are satisfied that the voluntary agreement has worked well. It offers effective and appropriate means of control and allows the industry to make a significant contribution to sport.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not think that it would be better for the Government to bring in a Bill to abolish smoking altogether? I abolished it in my own case 50 years ago. It was quite easy.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord's question proves the point. His abandonment of smoking was voluntary. The Government continue to believe that the most effective method of control is by way of voluntary agreement.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend on her promotion. I should like to ask her what evidence there is of a decline in smoking as a result of this voluntary agreement.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is evidence of improvement. The latest general household survey figures, based on information collected in 1984, showed a further fall to 34 per cent. in the proportion of adult smokers. Since 1972, when the first voluntary agreement was concluded, smoking prevalence among men has declined by almost one-third and among women by about one-fifth. I think that the figures speak for themselves in demonstrating what can be achieved by these means.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, what do the Government say about the question posed in this week's Radio Times about a programme relating to the voluntary codes, where the question is asked: would any other killer of 100,000 people a year be dealt with so lightly?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not aware of this particular programme, but I believe that the controls continue to be strengthened all the time and that therefore progress is being made in this direction.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that before coming to the House some of us, not having seen who would be answering, were prepared to be rather nasty about this? On seeing how things stand, we still feel that we should like the noble

955
Baroness to say that the utmost pressure will be kept up to make sure that smoking is reduced, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, and that this pressure will be absolute, continuous and heavy.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that your Lordships' House is conducting a very special case in this matter. As I have said, I shall certainly make sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is well aware of the views of your Lordships.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the noble Baroness let the House know whether in matters like this, which affect tobacco sales and advertising, the Government are influenced at all by the £5 billion which the Exchequer gains from tobacco taxation? Perhaps more pointedly, are they also influenced by the saving which the DHSS achieves by the non-payment of the £1 billion or so in pensions which would otherwise have been paid to the 100,000 people who die every year from smoking-related diseases?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that both the Government and the tobacco industry are well aware of these figures, and I feel sure that note is taken of them.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, if the Government do not consult both Houses of Parliament before reaching a voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry about sponsorship and advertising, will they at least consult some friendly expert in public relations, such as Saatchi and Saatchi, so that they are not bamboozled and do not have the wool pulled over their eyes by the tobacco industry, as happened on the last occasion? I ask this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, rightly said, indirect advertising on television seems to have had even more effect than direct advertising would have had.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I feel that I cannot give that assurance. However, the Government are and have been happy to receive views from individuals or bodies on issues concerning the agreement. The department has meetings with representatives of the BMA, the Health Education Council and other bodies which are concerned in this.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether, in all the statistics which have been produced relating to tobacco, there has been any attempt to assess the effect of carbon monoxide poisoning, particularly in urban communities? That factor would seem to explain the significant difference between the effect of smoking in the countryside and the effect of smoking in urban areas.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree that this is a very important contributory factor to the sad consequences of lung cancer. I shall certainly do what I can to make sure that in any surveys or any future consideration of the problem these factors are drawn out. If there is any way in which I can help the noble Lord subsequently, I shall be happy to try to do so.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that there has been a tremendous change in public opinion concerning actions that the Government might and should take, and an increased awareness, and in the light of the concern that has come from all sides of the House about the need for the House to be consulted, will the noble Baroness draw this to the attention of the Secretary of State and will the Leader of the House recognise that there is very great concern that this issue should be discussed by both Houses before a decision is taken?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, as that question was addressed to me I shall simply say that, as far as this House is concerned, of course I am willing to discuss through the usual channels whether such a debate would help and when it could be taken. In regard to the other House, as my noble friend has said, she will inform the Secretary of State. I shall as well take it on myself to speak to the Secretary of State and to the other House as to what they might do in the matter.

Unemployment
2.49 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions can be drawn from the latest figures issued by them on unemployment.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the figures published for September were not as discouraging as might at first sight appear. There was a reduction of 3,000 in the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment to 3,180,000. Furthermore, the rate of increase in unemployment has moderated. Over the past six months unemployment has risen by an average of 5,000 per month, compared with 10,000 per month in the previous six-month period.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and obviously welcome the slight improvement to which he referred. But is he aware that the general figures show that in five of the 10 regions of the United Kingdom, excluding Northern Ireland which has the highest ratio of long-term unemployed in the United Kingdom, the figure for long-term unemployment has now reached more than 40 per cent.? In some of them it is now approaching the dangerous level of 50 per cent. Are the Minister and the Government really aware of the increasing despair and depression that is felt in the five areas to which I have referred? Does the Minister not agree that now is the time for urgent and drastic action in order to arrest the decline in employment? The palliatives at present being applied are nowhere near sufficient.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have to agree that the total number of unemployed people is far too high. The policies we are adopting are aimed at reducing that figure. It is true that a number of the unemployed

957
are so-called long-term unemployed; that is to say, they have been unemployed for 12 months or longer. The noble Lord will be aware of the new schemes we are introducing in an effort to make an indentation on that particular problem.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, in regard to measures to reduce unemployment, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that the Government are to be congratulated on resisting pressure for sanctions against southern Africa, which would increase unemployment here as well as in South Africa?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not want to get dragged into a discussion about South Africa. Certainly. it is true to say that any constraints on our trading arrangements with countries overseas is likely to make the unemployment situation worse rather than better.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, may I ask the Government to consider two simple steps which would help in reducing unemployment? The first is to reduce the cost of employing people. The second is to redress the balance of the advantage of installing capital plant and so forth as against employment. At the moment there is a huge advantage in the subsidies for capital expenditure whereas the cost of taking on new workers is very great.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is the case that major new capital plant does not always have the overall effect of reducing unemployment in a particular area, or even in a particular factory. The truth of the matter is that, these days, new machinery tends to use fewer people rather than more to operate it. I do not think that that effect is one which the noble Lord would wish to see.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister to reject immediately and firmly the suggestion in an article in The Times today, written by someone of a different political persuasion, which claims that in arriving at unemployment figures my noble friend the Secretary of State for Employment uses a computer which is defective and contains a certain bias?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I, too, saw the article written by Mr. Gordon Brown, who I am told is the Labour Member of Pariament for Dumfermline East. That article was littered with inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is it not the case that what the noble Lord the Minister has said today contradicts what he said to my noble friend at column 469 of Hansard for 15th October? He told my noble friend then that he was wrong to suggest that unemployment was increasing. Yet the Minister has told the House today that the rate of increase is moderating, which in fact means that unemployment is still increasing. Indeed, on the Minister's own figures on employment flows for August and September, unemployment is increasing at a rate of about 100,000 a year. Is it not the case that what the Minister told the House last week was quite wrong?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord could not have listened properly to the Answer I gave today, nor to the reply I gave the other week. What I am saying now in relation to the reduction in the increase referred to the last six-month period and not the last one-month period. For the month of September there was, as I said earlier, a reduction of 3,000 unemployed in the seasonally-adjusted level.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the proportion of unemployed people in the South-East who have been out of work for one year or more is not so high as in other areas of the country? Will that factor be borne in mind in the planned expansion of the Community Programme to which the Minister referred at an earlier stage?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall certainly be targeting the programme at the areas in most need.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister think again about the answer he gave my noble friend Lord Grimond? My noble friend was making the point that there are tax advantages attached to installing expensive capital equipment as against the penalties which are attached to employing people. We all realise that many types of capital equipment lead to a reduction in the labour force, but my noble friend was making the point that plant subsidies are a misuse of Government money if they result in unemployment.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is referring to the cost of employment referred to by her noble friend, then that certainly is a matter that we need to look at.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister not accept that the only conclusion being drawn by most informed opinion in respect of unemployment figures is that the Government have failed miserably to begin to deal with this massive problem? Does he not agree that it would be far better, instead of having the financial restrictions and penalties which are being imposed on local authorities, if the Government were to give back to local authorities the right to develop real jobs in the areas of genuine deprivation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, it seems to me that the policies of his noble and right honourable friends are of greatly increased public expenditure and the propping up of unprofitable industries in an attempt to solve the problem.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: That is not true, my Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, such action would merely ensure that inflation lifts off and that public expenditure gets out of control. That is not a solution to the problem.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, has been appointed to the crucial post of Secretary of State for Employment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of this House wish him well. However, it is absolutely essential that the noble Lord be here to answer questions on this subject.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, there was a Question last week on a subject of concern to the noble Lord's department, and there is again next Thursday. We realise that the Minister must be busy but his first duty is to this House. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for answering questions but may I ask him to confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, will be in the House on the next occasion that a Question on this subject is asked?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I wish to apologise to the House on behalf of my noble friend Lord Young. He had an engagement which he believed he could not cancel. I myself take full responsibility for having said that on this occasion my noble friend should fulfil another engagement, because having judged the merits of the case I believed that to be the right action. His absence is totally my responsibility. I will see to it that my noble friend is here in future. On this occasion, having been consulted, I thought that I had taken the right decision. My noble friend is himself anxious to be in the House when such matters are being debated. Obviously I must take responsibility for his absence in this instance.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it was unfortunate that the Government should dismiss after two days' study the carefully thought out report from your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Trade which makes the point that the decline in manufacturing industry, in which unemployment has unfortunately been generated, will take a long time to restore? If British companies are not willing to invest in such industries as computer printers and motor cycles—which have disappeared from the manufacturing face of Britain—then will not the Government at least encourage foreign entrepreneurs, particularly the Japanese, to establish plants in this country so that we may employ the skills of our people in manufacturing industries instead of entirely in the service industries?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should not want to anticipate whatever detailed response may be given to the report to which the noble Lord has referred. However, we have a sound record of encouraging foreign businesses to come to this country and set up manufacturing enterprises. Indeed, a great many have done so in recent months and years.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Employment is in Birmingham today speaking to teachers? The local newspapers and radio stations are full of his visit. I only hope that the noble Lord will be convincing the teachers that they ought to have more money for the excellent job of work they do in schools.
960
Does the noble Lord not agree that in areas of deprivation—and the West Midlands suffers the highest percentage of unemployed—where there is a great need for new housing, it would be wise of the Government to put more money into construction programmes which will also provide new homes for people?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that the long term solution to this problem—and I suspect there are very few short term solutions—is the creation of an industrial and commercial environment which will allow our firms to grow, to flourish and to prosper; and that is the principle we shall follow.
Lord Somers: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that if unemployment is increasing (and since nobody in the country does anything but regret that fact) in all probability unemployment is not due in any way to the policy of one party or another and that, in fact, that probably has nothing to do with it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is right to the extent that we are now dealing with the results of difficulties that have been arising not just over the past five or 10 years, but perhaps the past 20, 25 or even 30 years.

National Coal Board Financing Costs
3.1 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total cost of the National Coal Board to public funds by way of investment, subsidy or otherwise in the current year.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, The Government have made provision in supply estimates for total grants to the National Coal Board and expenditure under the redundant mineworkers payments scheme during 1985–86 amounting to £1,609 million. The board's external financing limit for the year, which comprises grants paid to the board and changes in the board's level of indebtedness, was set in July at £929 million, including the funding of the board's approved investment programme of £723 million.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for those impressive, if depressing, figures? Can he indicate to the House whether, in the light of the lesser demand that appears to be developing for coal, it is intended to reduce that figure in future years?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, no decisions have so far been taken for the future. However, with regard to the mineworkers' redundancy payments scheme, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has indicated that when this scheme runs out in March 1986 he will present proposals for a replacement scheme to the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the figures he has given for the current year include any contribution towards the costs of last year's coal strike, which are known to be considerable, or whether they were all covered during the previous year?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I can answer my noble friend on that point. The coal industry made extraordinary losses in 1984–85 requiring Government support of £2.5 billion, within which deficit grant accounted for nearly £2,225 million.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is that not the cost of confrontation? Could we not have saved the taxpayer some money if there had been a modicum of tact and a little conciliation?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, if the noble Lord will just consider the happenings of the past week, he will see that it is not only the Government who have been disappointed in the inept leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, will the Minister say either today or later whether his figures include any sums for what are generally called enterprise schemes in the localities of coal mines so that if there is a reduction in employment other employment is available nearby?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that the figure which I gave in my original Answer includes an amount for that purpose as it relates to 1985–86.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with his right honourable friend's remark in relation to the coal conversion industry that what we and the Government are in support of at the moment is, in his words, today's coal for tommorrow's industry? In those circumstances, is the investment in the coal industry not very well spent and therefore should not be criticised by his noble friends?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord is not being realistic if he does not imagine that capital investment in an industry which has had the problems suffered by the coal industry over the past 18 months would not be subject to close scrutiny and a degree of criticism. However, I say to the noble Lord that the level of Government grant and the extent of the investment programme in the industry are clear proof of the Government's commitment to the future of the coal industry.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Swinton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the teachers' dispute in England and Wales.

Associated British Ports (Port of Ayr) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Church of Scotland Trust (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Administration of Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Lord Denning: My Lords——
The Lord Chancellor: The Question is that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am sorry that I was a little hasty. Before your Lordships consider these 37 pages of amendments from the Commons I should like to make one or two general observations. First, when the Bill came before this House on Second Reading my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor stated that the provisions were relatively small, helpful and non-controversial. In its progress through the House the contrary has been shown—they are relatively large, unhelpful and highly controversial.
The particular amendments which I hope your Lordships will consider are those in Part I relating to solicitors. My noble and learned friend explained on Second Reading that hitherto solicitors' Acts have always been introduced by a Private Member and have not been Government Bills. In this case the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it would be the Government's responsibility, but went on to say:
"The Government therefore do not and should not seek ministerial control over the domestic concerns of the professions… the proposals in this part of the Bill come from the Law Society… the Government… should assist the Law Society whenever it is convenient."—[Official Report, 14/1/85; col. 779.]
I deduce from those statements that Part I of the Bill emanates from the Law Society itself.
Before we go into details, I should like to explain to your Lordships that one of the first provisions in this Bill was for disciplinary sanctions when solicitors do not do their work properly. In this House we tried, quite unsuccessfully, to get through some amendments. In the other place they have passed an amendment which improves it a Utile, but not all that much—I will not object to that. The most important thing that I hope your Lordships will consider is a new subject-matter altogether, which was not put before your Lordships on Second Reading or on any other stage. It is that in future solicitors should no longer be just individuals or partners in a firm, but should be

963
able to turn themselves into limited liability companies. If this principle goes through it will occur throughout all the professions: barristers I suppose and certainly the medical profession, chartered accountants and so on. Contrary to the whole practice of the profession for years, they will turn themselves into limited liability companies. For what reason? To save the partners from their individual liabilities and responsibilities.
That is a most important change in the law. It was not proposed in this House. It has been proposed for the first time in the Commons. Furthermore, it is contrary to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and the Royal Commission. The Law Society then did not put it forward. They said they would not seek any incorporation of this kind. They made it perfectly plain. Now in the Commons it has been put forward that in future firms of solicitors can be incorporated companies. That is a most important provision. It ought to have been in the Bill as presented to this House so that we could have discussed it on Second Reading and gone into it in plenty of time.
Furthermore, it now comes back to your Lordships at the top of the list, when there is a lot of other work before your Lordships to be completed. Is that right? When we come to the detail of these incorporated companies—about 18 pages of provisions—I shall ask your Lordships in this particular case not to accept this amendment of the Commons. At the moment I do not think I can object to your Lordships considering these amendments, but I make that as a general observation to start with.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish briefly to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and to express my surprise at the position in which we find ourselves with regard to the new clause to follow Clause 6. That new clause runs to two and a half pages and the schedule which goes with it runs to 16 pages, and together they make a very far-reaching change in the status of solicitors, who after all constitute the greater part of the legal profession in this country.
At this very late stage of the Session we find ourselves being asked to consider, and no doubt to approve, this far-reaching change, and we do so without having the advantage of the Notes on Clauses which are often available to guide us and without an Explanatory Memorandum which explains and to some extent justifies the provisions of the Bill. It seems an unusual use of the procedures of your Lordships' House and of the obligation which we have to consider amendments coming from another place.
It may be that at this stage of the Session there is nothing much that we can do about it, but it is to be hoped that we shall receive a full and convincing explanation of those changes when we come to them. Meanwhile I do not propose to discuss the merits.
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall not say anything more than that I think it would have been much better had both the noble Lords who have spoken raised this matter on the question when it arose and that they are entirely mistaken in saying that the House was not previously informed of it. I see nods
964
from the Front Opposition Bench. I undertook that these amendments should be brought forward on the Committee stage in your Lordships' House.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly rise to add to the observations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In fact I was the one who raised the matter by an amendment, when many members of your Lordships' House were present. I regret if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was not there but it will be found in the record of the proceedings. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that in principle he agreed with the idea, that the matter would be further considered and that suitable amendments would be made to the Bill. Your Lordships' House had this matter before it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to [Bill 115] as first printed by the Commons.]
1 Clause 1, page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (4).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may say in advance that I propose to ask the House to agree with the Commons in all the Government amendments which have come up from the Commons. Of course the amendments will be moved separately, but in moving this Motion I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 42, 43, 92, 95 and 96.
3 After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Powers of lay observers and Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in relation to inadequate professional services.
.—(1) After section 45(5) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (investigation by lay observers of Law Society's treatment of complaints) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) Where it appears to a lay observer, in examining any such allegation as is mentioned in subsection (1)—

(a) that there arises out of the complaint in respect of which the allegation has been made both—

(i) a question as to the professional conduct of a solicitor, and

(ii) a question as to the quality of any professional services provided by him; and

(b)that it would be appropriate for the latter question to be considered by the Tribunal with a view to determining whether to exercise any of its powers under section 47A in relation to the solicitor,

the lay observer may make an application to the Tribunal with respect to the solicitor.".
(2) After section 47 of that Act there shall be inserted—
"Power of Tribunal to impose sanctions for inadequate professional services.
47A.—(1) The powers conferred on the Tribunal by this section shall be exercisable on the hearing of—

(a) any application or complaint made to the Tribunal under this Act by or on behalf of the Society; or

(b) any application made to the Tribunal under section 45(5A) by a lay observer.

(2) Where, on the hearing of any such application or complaint with respect to a solicitor, it appears to the Tribunal that the professional services provided by the solicitor in connection with any matter in which he or his firm had been instructed by a client were in any respect not of the quality that could reasonably have been expected of him as a solicitor, then (subject to subsection (4)), the Tribunal may, if it thinks fit, do one or more of the following things, namely—

(a) determine that the costs to which the solicitor shall be entitled in respect of those services shall be

965
limited to such amount as may be specified in its determination and by order direct the solicitor to comply, or to secure compliance, with such one or more requirements falling within subsection (3) as appear to it to be necessary in order to give effect to its determination;

(b) by order direct the solicitor to secure the rectification, at the expense of the solicitor or his firm, of any such error, omission or other deficiency arising in connection with the said matter as it may specify;

(c) by order direct the solicitor to take, at the expense of the solicitor or his firm, such other action in the interests of the client as it may specify.

(3) The requirements referred to in subsection (2)(a) are—

(a) a requirement to refund the whole or part of any amount already paid by or on behalf of the client in respect of the solicitor's costs in respect of his services in connection with the said matter;

(b) a requirement to remit the whole or part of those costs;

(c) a requirement to waive, whether wholly or to any specified extent, the right to recover those costs.

(4) The Tribunal shall not exercise any of its powers under this section unless it is satisfied that it would in all the circumstances be appropriate to do so; and in determining whether in any case it would be appropriate to exercise any of those powers the Tribunal may have regard—

(a) to the existence of any remedy that could reasonably be expected to be available to the client in civil proceedings; and

(b) where proceedings seeking any such remedy have not been commenced by him, to whether it would be reasonable to expect him to commence such proceedings.

(5) Where the Tribunal has given a direction under subsection (2)(a) in order to give effect to a determination by it under that provision as to the costs of a solicitor in respect of any services provided by him, then—

(a) for the purposes of any taxation of a bill covering those costs the amount charged by the bill in respect of those costs shall be deemed to be limited to the amount specified in the Tribunal's determination; and

(b) where a bill covering those costs has not been taxed in accordance with paragraph (a), the client shall, for the purposes of the recovery of those costs (by whatever means) and notwithstanding any statutory provision or agreement, be deemed to be liable to pay in respect of those costs only the amount specified in the Tribunal's determination.

(6) Where a bill covering those costs has been taxed in accordance with subsection (5)(a), the Tribunal's direction under subsection (2)(a) shall, so far as relating to those costs, cease to have effect.
(7) In subsections (2)(c) and (4)(a) "client", in relation to any matter in which a solicitor or his firm has been instructed, includes any person on whose behalf the person who gave the instructions was acting.".").
42 Clause 40, Page 30, line 30, leave out ("provided in subsections (2) to (4) of this section") and insert ("follows").
43 Page 32, line 3, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
92 Schedule 6, page 63, line 35, at end insert—
("SOLICITORS ACT 1974 (c. 47)
2A. In section 47(2) (jurisdiction and powers of Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal), after "section 43" insert "or 45(5A)".
2B. In section 48(2) (orders of Tribunal), for "section 47(2)" substitute "subsection (2) of section 47, or was made under subsection (2B) of that section or under section 47A,".
2C. In section 49(3) (appeals from Tribunal), at the end add ", and an appeal against an order under section 47 excluding any person or persons from legal aid work (within the meaning of that section) shall lie only at the instance of any person so excluded.".").
95 Schedule 7, page 64, line 24, column 3, after ("8") insert ("(2)").
96 Schedule 8, page 65, line 3, at end insert—
("Powers of lay observers and Tribunal in relation to inadequate professional services
2A. In section (Extension of powers of lay observers and Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in relation to inadequate professional services)—

(a) subsection (1) applies in relation to a complaint whether it was made before or after the commencement of that section; and

(b) subsection (2) applies in relation to services provided by a solicitor whether they were provided before or after that commencement.".).

At present, both the Law Society and the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal are restricted to complaints of professional misconduct alone. The new powers introduced by Clause 1 of the Bill will enable the society to impose certain sanctions for shoddy or inadequate work. There will continue to be cases in which professional misconduct will be the main issue, and these will be for the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal. However, in cases where both misconduct and shoddy work arise, rather than leave misconduct to the tribunal and shoddy work to the society, I suggest that it must be sensible to empower the tribunal to deal with both elements at the same time. These amendments, which introduce a new clause into the Solicitors Act 1974 and make some minor consequential and drafting changes, achieve this. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.).
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this seems to me to be a sensible provision to add to the jurisdiction and powers of the tribunal, and we on this side of the House agree with the amendment.
Lord Denning: My Lords, this is a strange amendment. When we last had the Bill before us the Law Society were to be investigator, prosecutor and judge as to inadequate professional services. Some of us tried to sever the investigative procedure from the disciplinary and judicial procedure, but without success.
This amendment is rather strange. It is brought into a clause which is not about discipline at all but about the lay observer's functions. If you look at it, it repeats a great deal—two full pages—of what was in the earlier section. I do not object to it because it means that the Law Society will not be judge in its own cause. The matter can be investigated by the lay observer and I hope it will be. Then he need not go to the society but may go to the tribunal itself with. the necessary grounds. So the tribunal, which is a judical body with lay representation, will be dealing with the matter. This is a helpful amendment, though it does not go nearly as far into the question as I should like. On the other hand I shall not oppose it because it does go a little way in the right direction.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought that I had made it clear that this amendment deals with a very small point, which is the mixed case where the complaint relates both to shoddy work and to

967
professional misconduct. It therefore gives concurrent jurisdiction. I am glad to think that the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches thinks that is a good amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Page 3, leave out lines 28 to 40, and insert—
("(b) where a bill covering those costs has not been taxed in accordance with paragraph (a), the client shall, for the purposes of the recovery of those costs (by whatever means) and notwithstanding any statutory provision or agreement, be deemed to be liable to pay in respect of those costs only the amount specified in the Council's determination.
(6) Where a bill covering those costs has been taxed in accordance with subsection (5)(a), the Council's direction under subsection (1)(a) shall, so far as relating to those costs, cease to have effect.").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
I think that I can describe it as a technical amendment. It replaces a provision in Clause 1 which would have required a formal redetermination by the society whenever a direction as to costs was made which was then overtaken by taxation of the relevant bill. It is provided instead that in those circumstances the society's original direction shall simply cease to have effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 [Printed above.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 5, page 7, line 37, at end insert—
(" (5) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(4) A local weights and measures authority may institute proceedings for an offence under this section ".").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment will enable local trading standards departments to enforce the conveyancing restrictions contained in Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974. It is in response to concern which was expressed both in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Foot—I do not see him here this afternoon—and in another place about the unsatisfactory nature of existing arrangements for enforcing conveyancing restrictions in Section 22 of the Solicitors Act. The amendment accordingly enables trading standards departments to assume responsibility in place of the somewhat haphazard arrangements whereby it is left to the Law Society to institute proceedings. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it would seem appropriate that a public authority should have that responsibility and not the Law Society itself.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 After Clause 5 insert the following new clause
("Preparation of papers for probate etc. by unqualified persons.
. For section 23 of the Solicitors Act 1974 there shall be substituted—
"Unqualified person not to prepare papers for probate etc.
23.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), any unqualified person who, directly or indirectly, draws or prepares any papers on which to found or oppose—

(a) a grant of probate, or

(b) a grant of letters of administration,

shall, unless he proves that the act was not done for or in expectation of any fee, gain or reward, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceedding the first level on the standard scale.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a barrister or duly certificated notary public.
(3) Subsection (1) also does not apply to any act done by a person at the direction and under the supervision of another person if—

(a) that other person was at the time his employer, a partner of his employer or a fellow employee; and

(b) the act could have been done by that other person for or in expectation of any fee, gain or reward without committing an offence under this section.".").

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 97.
97 Schedule 8, page 65, line 16, at end insert—
("Restriction on preparation of papers for probate etc.
4A. Where a person has committed an offence under section 23 of the Solicitors Act 1974 before the commencement of section (Preparation of papers for probate etc. by unqualified persons) of this Act, he shall not be liable after the commencement to be proceeded against in respect of that offence unles the act constituting that offence would have constituted an offence under section 23, as substituted by section (Preparation of papers for probate etc. by unqualified persons) of this Act, if it had been in force at the time when the act was done.".).
These amendments clarify the position of unqualified staff in solicitors' offices who undertake probate work at the direction and under the supervision of their solicitor employer. This matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Morris, I think, in the House at an earlier stage and by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Unless I am mistaken, he raised the question too. I undertook at that stage to consider the matter further. The issue was returned to in the other place and these amendments were made.
The new clause puts beyond doubt the legality of unqualified staff preparing probate papers. Because the concept of supervision is not appropriate to the taking of instructions for a grant of probate, the statutory restriction in this respect is abolished so as to enable the solicitors' employees to take instructions without risk of committing an offence.
Amendment No. 97, to which I also speak, provides for transitional arrangements. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords—
The Lord Chancellor: I must put the Question, must I not, my Lords? This minuet becomes increasingly complicated.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not want further to complicate the minuet. All I wanted to do was to add to the tune by saying "Thank you very much" to the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am much obliged to both noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 After Clause 6 insert the following new clause—
".—(1) The Council may make rules.
Incorporated Practices

(a) making provision as to the management and control by solicitors of bodies corporate carrying on businesses consisting of the provision of professional services such as are provided by individuals practising as solicitors;

(b) prescribing the circumstances in which such bodies may be recognised by the Council as being suitable bodies to undertake the provision of any such services;

(c) prescribing the conditions which (subject to any exceptions provided by the rules) must at all times be satisfied by bodies corporate so recognised if they are to remain so recognised; and

(d) regulating the conduct of the affairs of such bodies.

(2) Rules made by the Council may also make provision—

(a) for the manner and form in which applications for recognition under this section are to be made, and for the payment of fees in connection with such applications;

(b) for regulating the names that may be used by recognised bodies;

(c) as to the period for which any recognition granted under this section shall (subject to the provisions of this Part) remain in force;

(d) for the revocation of any such recognition on the grounds that it was granted as a result of any error or fraud;

(e) for the keeping by the Society of a list containing the names and places of business of all bodies corporate which are for the time being recognised under this section, and for the information contained in any such list to be available for inspection;

(f) for rules made under any provision of the 1974 Act to have effect in relation to recognised bodies with such additions, omissions or other modifications as appear to the Council to be necessary or expedient;

(g) for empowering the Council to take such steps as they consider necessary or expedient to ascertain whether or not any rules applicable to recognised bodies by virtue of this section are being complied with;

(h) for the manner of service on recognised bodies of documents authorised or required to be served on such bodies under or by virtue of this Part.

(3) Notwithstanding section 24(2) of the 1974 Act (application of penal provisions to bodies corporate), sections 20, 22(1) and 23(1) of that Act (prohibition on unqualified person acting as solicitor, etc.) shall not apply to a recognised body; and nothing in section 24(1) of that Act shall apply in relation to such a body.
(4) Section 22(1), or (as the case may be) section 23(1), of that Act shall not apply to any act done by an officer or employee of a recognised body if—

(a) it was done by him at the direction and under the supervision of another person who was at the time an officer or employee of the body; and

(b) it could have been done by that other person for or in expectation of any fee, gain or reward without committing an offence under the said section 22 or (as the case may be) under the said section 23.

(5) A certificate signed by an officer of the Society and stating that any body corporate is or is not, or was or was not at any time, a recognised body shall, unless the contrary is proved, by evidence of the facts stated in the certificate; and a certificate purporting to be so signed shall be taken to have been so signed unless the contrary is proved.
(6) Schedule [Incorporated practices: supplementary provisions] (which makes provision with respect to the application of provisions of the 1974 Act to recognised bodies and with respect to other matters relating to such bodies) shall have effect.
(7) Subject to the provisions of that Schedule, the Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament provide for any enactment or instrument passed or made before the commencement of this section and having effect in relation to solicitors to have effect in relation to recognised bodies with such additions, omissions or other modifications as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient
(8) In this section—
"the 1974 Act" means the Solicitors Act 1974;
"the Council" and "the Society" have the meaning given by section 87(1) of the 1974 Act; and
"recognised body" means a body corporate for the time being recognised under this section
(9) Any rules made by the Council under this section shall be made with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls.")
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. It may be convenient to deal with a number of related amendments—namely, Amendments Nos. 7, 28 to 35 inclusive, 41, 60, 66 to 90, 98 and 101.
After Clause 6 insert the following new clause:
"(Penalty for pretending to be a body recognised under section [Incorporated practices].
7.—(1) A body corporate shall not describe itself or hold itself out as a body corporate for the time being recognised under section [Incorporated practices] unless it is so recognised.
(2) Any body corporate which contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.
(3) Where an offence under this section which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(4) In this section "the standard scale" has the meaning given by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.").
28 Clause 28, page 23, line 39, leave out from ("rules") to end of line 9 on page 24 and insert—

("(a) making provision as to the management and control by licensed conveyancers (or by licensed conveyancers together with persons who are not licensed conveyancers) of bodies corporate carrying on businesses consisting of the provision of conveyancing services;

(b) prescribing the circumstances in which such bodies may be recognised by the Council as being suitable bodies to undertake the provisions of such services;

(c) prescribing the conditions which (subject to any exceptions provided by the rules) must at all times be satisfied by bodies so recognised if they are to remain so recognised; and

(d) regulating the conduct of the affairs of such bodies.

(2) In this Part "recognised body" means a body corporate for the time being recognised under this section.
(3) Rules made by the Council may also make provision—

(aa) for the manner and form in which applications for recognition under this section are to be made, and for the payment of fees in connection with such applications;

(ab) for regulating the names that may be used by recognised bodies;

(ac) as to the period for which any recognition granted under this section shall (subject to the provisions of this Part) remain n force;").

29 Page 24, line 12, leave out from ("that") to end of line 14 and insert ("it may undertake to provide as a recognised body, and for enabling such restrictions to be imposed by reference to criteria of general application.".).
30 page 24, leave out lines 15 to 17.
31 page 24, line 26, at end insert—
("(d) for empowering the Council to take such steps as it considers necessary or expendient to ascertain whether or not any rules applicable to recognised bodies by virtue of this section are being complied with;").
32 Page 24, line 33, leave out ("a person employed by") and insert ("an officer or employee of").
33 Page 24, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert ("undertaking to provide as a recognised body by any restrictions imposed in pursuant of subsection (3)(a) of this section.").
34 Page 24, line 40, at end insert—
("(4A) Section 22(1) of that Act shall also not apply to any officer or employee of a body corporate by reason of any act done by him if—

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the preceding subsection are satisfied in relation to that act; and

(b) it was done by him at the direction and under the supervision of another person who was at the time an officer or employee of the body; and

(c) it could have been done by that other person for or in expectation of any fee, gain or reward without committing an offence under the said section 22.").

35 Page 25, line 1, leave out ("as mentioned in") and insert "in pursuance of).
41 Clause 35, page 27, line 13, at end insert—
(" "officer", in relation to a recognised body, includes a director, manager or secretary;").
60 After Schedule 1 insert the following new schedule:
Section (Incorporated practices).
("INCORPORATED PRACTICED: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Interpretation
1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), references in this Schedule to a recognised body are references to a body corporate for the time being recognised under section [Incorporated practices] of this Act.
(2) References in this Schedule to a recognised body in relation to—
972

(a) a complaint (other than such a complaint as is mentioned in paragraph 16(1)(a)); or

(b) any such application as is mentioned in paragraph 15(2),

include references to a body corporate that was recognised under section [Incorporated practices] of this Act at the time when the conduct to which the complaint or application relates took place.
(3) References in this Schedule to an officer of a recognised body include references to a director, manager or secretary of that body.
(4) In section 87(1) of the 1974 Act the definitions of "client", "contentious business" and "non-contentious business" shall apply for the purpose of—

(a) this Schedule; and

(b) any provision of the 1974 Act in so far as it has effect in relation to a recognised body by virtue of this Schedule,

as if for any reference to a solicitor there were substituted a reference to a recognised body; and for those purposes "controlled trust", in relation to a recognised body, means a trust of which it is sole trustee or co-trustee only with one or more of its officers or employees.
(5) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), any expression used in this Schedule which is also used in the 1974 Act has the same meaning as in that Act.
(6) In this Schedule "the 1974 Act" means the Solicitors Act 1974.
Appeal against refusal of Council to grant recognition
2.—(1) Where the Council refuse an application by any body corporate for recognition under section (Incorporated practices) of this Act, that body may appeal to the Master of the Rolls against that refusal within one month of being notified of it.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the Master of the Rolls may—

(a) direct the Council to grant recognition of the body in question under section (Incorporated practices) of this Act; or

(b) affirm the refusal of the Council; and he may make such order as to the payment of costs by the Council or by that body as he thinks fit.

(3) Rules made by the Council with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls may make provision, as respects any application for recognition that is neither granted nor refused by the Council within such period as may be specified in the rules, for enabling an appeal to be brought under this paragraph in relation to the application as if it had been refused by the Council.
(4) The Master of the Rolls may make regulations about the procedure for appeals to him under this paragraph.
Account rules
3. Where rules made under section 32(1) or (2) of the 1974 Act are applied to recognised bodies in accordance with section [Incorporated practices] (2)(f) of this Act, the Council shall be at liberty to disclose a report on or information about a recognised body's accounts obtained in pursuance of any such rules to the Director of Public Prosecutions for use in investigating the possible commission of an offence by that body and, if the Director thinks fit, for use in connection with any prosecution of that body consequent on the investigation.
Interest on client's money
4.—(1) Where rules made under section 32 of the 1974 Act and containing any such provision as is referred to in section 33(1)(a) of that Act are applied to recognised bodies in accordance with section [Incorporated practices) (2)(f) of this Act, then, except as provided by the rules and subject to sub-paragraph (2), a recognised body which in pursuance of the rules maintains an account in which it keeps money received or held for or on account of its clients generally shall not be liable to account to any person for interest received by it on money in that account.
(2) Nothing in any such rules or in sub-paragraph (1) shall—

(a) affect any arrangement in writing between a recognised body and any of its clients as to the

973
application of the client's money or interest on it; or

(b) apply to money received by a recognised body being money subject to a trust of which the body is a trustee.

Accountant's reports
5.—(1) In section 34 of the 1974 Act—

(a) subsections (1) and (2); and

(b) subject to any rules made under that section and applied to recognised bodies in accordance with section [Incorporated practices] (2)(f) of this Act, subsection (3),

shall apply to a recognised body as they apply to a solicitor.
(2) A certificate under the hand of the Secretary of the Society shall, unless the contrary is proved, be evidence that a recognised body has or, as the case may be, has not delivered to the Society an accountant's report or supplied any evidence required under section 34 of the 1974 Act or under any such rules as are referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b).
Compensation Fund
6.—(1) On an application for recognition under section [Incorporated practices] of this Act a body corporate—

(a) shall pay to the Society with any fee required to be paid by virtue of subsection (2)(a) of that section a contribution to the Compensation Fund of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine; and

(b) where it appears from the application that the body has held or received clients' money at any time during a particular period specified in the application, shall also if so required by the Society, pay to the Society a further contribution to that fund of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine;

and Schedule 2 to the 1974 Act shall apply to amounts paid to the Society in pursuance of paragraph (a) or (b) of this sub-paragraph as if they were annual contributions or special levies paid in pursuance of paragraph (a) or (b) of paragraph 2(1) of that Schedule.
(2) Where the Council are satisfied—

(a) that a person has suffered or is likely to suffer loss in consequence of dishonesty on the part of an officer or employee of a recognised body in connection with that body's business (or purported business) as a recognised body or in connection with any trust of which it is or formerly was a trustee; or

(b) that a person has suffered or is likely to suffer hardship in consequence of failure on the part of a recognised body to account for money which has come into its possession in connection with that body's business (or purported business) as a recognised body or in connection with any trust of which it is or formerly was a trustee; or

(c) that a member of a recognised body has suffered or is likely to suffer loss or hardship by reason of his liability to any of that body's clients in consequence of some act or default of any officer or employee of that body in circumstances where, but for the liability of that member, a grant might have been made out of the Compensation Fund to some other person.

the Council may make a grant out of the Compensation Fund for the purpose of relieving that loss or hardship.
(3) Subsections (3) to (7) of section 36 of the 1974 Act shall apply in relation to grants under sub-paragraph (2) as they apply in relation to grants under subsection (2) of that section; and accordingly the reference in subsection (3) of that section to a grant under subsection (2)(c) shall be construed as including a reference to a grant under sub-paragraph (2)(c).
Solicitor who is justice of the peace not to act in certain proceedings
7. In section 38 of the 1974 Act references to any partner of a solicitor shall be construed, in relation to a solicitor who is an officer of a recognised body, as references to any other solicitor who is an officer of that body.
Prohibition on acting as agent for unqualified person
8. Section 39(1) of the 1974 Act shall apply to a recognised body as it applies to a solicitor.
Restriction on employment of person struck off roll or suspended
9. Section 41 of the 1974 Act (except subsection (4)) shall apply to a recognised body and its business as such as it applies to a solicitor and his practice as such.
Failure to disclose fact of having been struck off or suspended
10. Section 42(1) of the 1974 Act shall apply in relation to employment by a recognised body in connection with its business as it applies in relation to employment by a solicitor in connection with his practice.
Control of employment of persons convicted of offences of dishonesty and certain other persons
11.—(1) Where a person who is or was employed by a recognised body but is not himself a solicitor—

(a) has been convicted of a criminal offence which discloses such dishonesty that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for him to be employed by a recognised body in connect ion with its business; or

(b) has, in the opinion of the Society, occasioned or been a party to, with or without the connivance of any director of the recognised body by which he is or was employed, an act or default in relation to that body's business which involved conduct on his part of such a nature that in the opinion of the Society it would be undesirable for him to be employed by a recognised body in connection with its business,

an application may be made to the Tribunal with respect to that person by or on behalf of the Society.
(2) Subsection (2) of section 43 of the 1974 Act shall apply in relation to an application under sub-paragraph (1) as it applies in relation to an application under subsection (1) of that section, but, in relation to an application under either of those provisions, any reference in subsection (2) of that section to a solicitor or to his practice as a solicitor shall be construed as including a reference to a recognised body or to its business as such a body.
(3) Any reference in subsection (5) of that section to a solicitor shall be construed as including a reference to a recognised body.
Offences in connection with orders under section 43(2) of the 1974 Act
12.—(1) In section 44 of the 1974 Act

(a) any reference in subsection (1) to a solicitor or to his practice shall be construed as including a reference to a recognised body or to its business; and

(b) subsection (3) shall apply in relation to proceedings under this Schedule as it applies in relation to proceedings under that section.

Powers of Council in respect of inadequate professional services
13.—(1) In section 44A of the 1974 Act (except subsections (7) and (9))—

(a) any reference to a solicitor shall be construed as including a reference to a recognised body; and

(b) any reference to professional services provided by a solicitor in connection with any matter in which he or his firm had been instructed by a client shall be construed as including a reference to professional services provided by a recognised body in connection with any matter in which it had been instructed by a client.

(2) The powers conferred on the Council by section 44A(1)(a) shall be exercisable in relation to a body corporate in accordance with this paragraph notwithstanding that it is no longer a recognised body.
(3) If a body corporate fails to comply with a direction given to it by the Council by virtue of this paragraph, any person may make a complaint in respect of that failure to the Tribunal; but no other proceedings whatever shall be brought in respect of it.
Examination of files
14.—(1) where the Council are satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of investigating—

(a) any such complaint as is mentioned in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of paragraph 16(1) of this Schedule; or

(b) any complaint made to the Society and relating to the quality of any professional services provided by a recognised body.

the Society may give notice to the recognised body to which the complaint relates requiring the production or delivery to any person appointed by the Society, at a time and a place to be fixed by the Society, of all documents in the body's possession in connection with the matters to which the complaint relates (whether or not they relate also to other matters).
(2) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (12) of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act (intervention in solicitor's practice), together with paragraphs 12 to 16 of that Schedule, shall apply in relation to the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph as they apply in relation to the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9, and accordingly in those provisions—

(a) any reference to the solicitor shall be construed as including a reference to the body with respect to which the powers are exercisable by virtue of subparagraph (1) of this paragraph;

(b) any reference to a person appointed, or to a requirement, under paragraph 9(1) shall be construed as including a reference to a person appointed, or to a requirement, under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph; and

(c) any reference to any such documents as are mentioned in paragraph 9(1) shall be construed as including a reference to any such documents as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph.

Lay observers
15.—(1) Subsection (1) of section 45 of the 1974 Act shall apply in relation to a complaint about a recognised body or an officer or employee of such a body as it applies in relation to a complaint about a solicitor or an employee of a solicitor.
(2) Where it appears to a lay observer, in examining any such allegation as is mentioned in subsection (1) of that section—

(a) that there arises out of the complaint in respect of which the allegation has been made both—

(i) a question as to the conduct of a recognised body, being conduct capable, in his view, of forming the subject-matter of any such complaint as is mentioned in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of paragraph 16(1) of this Schedule; and

(ii) a question as to the quality of any professional services provided by the body as a recognised body; and

(b) that it would be appropriate for the latter question to be considered by the Tribunal with a view to determining whether to exercise in relation to the body any of the powers conferred on the Tribunal by paragraph 19 of this Schedule,

the lay observer may make an application to the Tribunal with respect to the body.
Complaints to Tribunal with respect to recognised bodies
16.—(1) The tribunal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any of the following complaints made to it under this paragraph with respect to a recognised body, namely—

(a) a complaint that the body has (while a recognised body) been convicted by any court in the United Kingdom of a criminal offence which renders it unsuitable to be recognised under section [Incorporated practices] of this Act;

(b) a complaint that the body has failed to comply with section 34 of the 1974 Act or with any rules applicable to it by virtue of section [Incorporated practices] of this Act;

976

(c) a complaint that the body has acted in contravention of section 39 or 41 of the 1974 Act or of any conditions subject to which a permission has been granted under section 41 of that Act; or

(d) a complaint that the body has knowingly acted in contravention of any such order as is mentioned in section 44(2) of the 1974 Act or of any conditions subject to which a permission has been granted under such an order.

(2) A complaint may be made to the Tribunal under this paragraph by any person.
Procedure on applications and complaints
17.— (1) In subsections (7) to (11) of section 46 of the 1974 Act—

(a) any reference to an application or complaint shall be construed as including a reference to any such application as is mentioned in paragraph 11 (1), 15(2) or 21(1) or any such complaint as is mentioned in paragraph 13(3) or 16(1);

(b) any reference to an application or complaint made under that Act shall be construed as including a reference to any such application or complaint as aforesaid made under this Schedule; and

(c) in the case of subsection (10)(c), any reference to a solicitor shall be construed as including a reference to a recognised body.

Powers of Tribunal with respect to recognised bodies
18.—(1) Where on the hearing of any complaint made to it under this Schedule the Tribunal is satisfied that a recognised body—

(a) has been convicted as mentioned in paragraph (a) of paragraph 16(1); or

(b) has failed to comply with section 34 of the 1974 Act or with any such rules as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of paragraph 16(1); or

(c) has acted as mentioned in paragraph (c) or (d) of that provision; or

(d) has failed to comply with any direction given to it by the Council by virtue of paragraph 13,

the Tribunal may, if it thinks fit, make one or more of the orders referred to in sub-paragraph (2).
(2) Those orders are—

(a) an order revoking the recognition under section (Incorporated practices) of this Act of the body to which the complaint relates;

(b) an order directing the payment by the body of a penalty not exceeding £3,000, to be forfeited to Her Majesty;

(c) an order requiring that body to pay the costs incurred in bringing against it the proceedings before the Tribunal or a contribution towards those costs, being a contribution of such amount as the Tribunal considers reasonable.

(3) On the hearing of a complaint under paragraph 13(3) relating to a direction given by the Council, the Tribunal may, if it thinks fit (whether or not it makes any order on the hearing under this paragraph), direct that the Council's direction shall be treated, for the purpose of enforcement, as if it were contained in an order made by the High Court.
(4) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 47 of the 1974 Act (power to increase maximum amount of penalty) shall have effect in relation to the sum specified in subparagraph (2)(b) of this paragraph as they have effect in relation to the sum specified in subsection (2)(c) of that section.
Powers of Tribunal in respect of inadequate professional services
19.—(1) The powers conferred on the Tribunal by section 47 A of the 1974 Act shall be exercisable on the hearing of—

(a) any complaint made to the Tribunal under this Schedule by or on behalf of the Society with respect to a recognised body; or

(b) any application made to the Tribunal under paragraph 15(2) of this Schedule by a lay observer with respect to a recognised body.

in like manner as they are exercisable on the hearing of any complaint or application made as mentioned in section 47A(1) with respect to a solicitor.
(2) Accordingly, in section 47A as it applies in relation to any such complaint or application as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (a) or (b)—

(a) any reference to a solicitor shall be construed as including a reference to a recognised body; and

(b) any reference to professional services provided by a solicitor in connection with any matter in which he or his firm had been instructed by a client shall be construed as including a reference to professional services provided by a recognised body in connection with any matter in which it had been instructed by a client.

Powers of Tribunal in respect of legal aid complaints
20.—(1) Where the Tribunal makes any such order as is referred to in subsection (2A) of section 47 of the 1974 Act in the case of a solicitor who is an officer or employee of a recognised body, the Tribunal may, if it thinks fit, order that any solicitor who is for the time being a director of that body shall be excluded (either permanently or for a specified period) from legal aid work.
(2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to a person being excluded from legal aid work shall be construed in accordance with section 47(6) of the 1974 Act.
Revocation of recognition by reason of default by director
21.—(1) Where—

(a) any order is made by the Tribunal under section 47 of the 1974 Act in the case of a director of a recognised body; or

(b) an order is made by the High Court or the Court of Appeal that the name of a director of a recognised body be struck off the roll or that such a director be suspended from practice as a solicitor; or

(c) any such order as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) is made in the case of a person employed by a recognised body and the act or omission constituting the ground on which the order was made was instigated or connived at by a director of the recognised body or, if the act or omission, was a continuing act or omission a director of the body had or reasonably ought to have had knowledge of its continuance,

the Tribunal may, on an application made with respect to the recognised body by or on behalf of the Society, by order revoke its recognition under section (Incorporated practices) of this Act.
(2) The Tribunal shall not take a case into consideration during any period within which proceedings by way of appeal may be brought which may result in sub-paragraph (1) being rendered inapplicable in that case, or while any such proceedings are pending.
(3) Any reference to a director of a recognised body in any of paragraph (a) to (c) of sub-paragraph (1) includes a reference to a person who was a director of the body at the time of the conduct leading to the making of the order referred to in that paragraph.
Costs: general modification of provisions of Part III of 1974 Act
22.—(1) In the provisions to which this paragraph applies—

(a) any reference to a solicitor or to a client of a solicitor shall be construed as including a reference to a recognised body or to a client of such a body; and

(b) any reference to a client's solicitor shall be construed as including a reference to any recognised body acting for a client.

(2) This paragraph applies to the following provisions of the 1974 Act (which relate to the remuneration of solicitors in respect of contentious and non-contentious business), namely—

section 56 (except subsections (1)(e) and (5));

sections 57 to 59;

section 60 (except subsection (5));

sections 61 and 62;

sections 64 and 65;

section 67;

section 69(1); and

sections 70 to 74.

Orders as to remuneration for non-contentious business
23. In relation to an order under section 56 of the 1974 Act regulating (in accordance with paragraph 22) the remuneration of recognised bodies in respect of non- contentious business, subsection (5) of that section shall have effect as if—

(a) in paragraph (a), for "the solicitor" there were substituted "the recognised body"; and

(b) in paragraph (d), for "the solicitor" there were substituted "any solicitor, being an officer or employee of the recognised body.".

Effect of contentious business agreements
24. A provision in a contentious business agreement made between a recognised body and a client that the body shall not be liable for the negligence of any of its officers or employees, or that it shall be relieved f rom any responsibility to which it would otherwise be subject in the course of carrying on its business as a recognised body, shall be void.
Effect on contentious business agreement of supervening incapacity of recognised body to act for client
25.—(1) If, after some business has been done under a contentious business agreement made between a recognised body and a client but before the body has wholly performed it, the body ceases to be capable of wholly performing it by reason of one of the following events, namely—

(a) the body ceases (for any reason) to be a recognised body;

(b) a winding-up order is made with respect to the body or a resolution for voluntary winding up is passed with respect to the body (other than a resolution passed solely for the purposes of its reconstruction or of its amalgamation with another body corporate); or

(c) the client terminates the retainer or employment of the body in favour of another recognised body or a solicitor (as, notwithstanding the agreement, he shall be entitled to do),

any party to, or the representative of any paru to, the agreement may apply to the court, and the court shall have the same jurisdiction as to enforcing the agreement so far as it has been performed, or setting it aside, as the court would have had if the recognised body w ere still capable of wholly performing it.
(2) The court, notwithstanding that it is of the opinion that the agreement is in all respects fair and reasonable, may order the amount due in respect of business under the agreement to be ascertained by taxation, and in that case—

(a) the taxing officer, in ascertaining that amount, shall have regard so far as may be to the terms of the agreement; and

(b) payment of the amount found by him to be due may be enforced in the same manner as if the agreement had been wholly performed.

(3) If in such a case as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) an order is made for the taxation of the amount due to the recognised body in respect of the business done under the agreement, the court shall direct the taxing officer to have regard to the circumstances under which the termination of the body's retainer or employment has taken place, and the taxing officer, unless he is of the opinion that there has been no default, negligence, improper delay or other conduct on the part of any officer or employee of the body affording the client reasonable ground for terminating its retainer or employment, shall not allow to the body the full amount of the remuneration agreed to be paid to it.
Taxations with respect to contentious business
26. Subject to the provisions of any rules of court, on every taxation of costs in respect of any contentious business done by a recognised body, the taxing officer may—

(a) allow interest at such rate and from such time as he thinks just on money disbursed by the body for the client, and on money of the client in the possession of, and improperly retained by, the body; and

979

(b) in determining the remuneration of the body, have regard to the skill, labour and responsibility on the part of any solicitor, being an officer or employee of the body, which the business involved.

Power of court to order delivery of bill of costs, etc.
27. Any jurisdiction—

(a) of the High Court to make any such orders as are referred to in subsection (1) of section 68 of the 1974 Act in relation to a solicitor (whether or not business has been done by him in the High Court); or

(b) of the county court to make any such orders as are referred to in subsection (2) of that section in relation to a solicitor,

shall be exercisable in like manner in relation to a recognised body.
Power of court to order recognised body to pay over clients' money
28. Any jurisdiction of the High Court to make, in the case of a solicitor who is acting or has acted as such for a client, an order requiring the payment or delivery up of, or otherwise relating to, money or securities which the solicitor has in his possession or control on behalf of the client shall be exercisable in like manner in the case of a recognised body which is acting or has acted as such for a client.
Actions to recover costs
29. Subsection (2) of section 69 of the 1974 Act shall have effect in relation to a bill of costs delivered by a recognised body as if—

(a) for the words from "by the solicitor" to "the firm" there were substituted "on behalf of the recognised body by any officer or employee of the body authorised by it to do so"; and

(b) for "the solicitor" (where last occurring) there were substituted "the recognised body".

Power of Society to inspect files relating to certain proceedings
30. Section 83 of the 1974 Act shall apply in relation to proceedings which have been brought with respect to a recognised body for any of the following purposes, namely—

(a) for the winding up of the body:

(b) for the appointment of a receiver or manager of property of the body; or

(c) for the making of an administration order under Part II of the Insolvency Act 1985,

as it applies in relation to proceedings in bankruptcy which have been taken against a solicitor.
Bank accounts
31. Where rules made under section 32(1) or (2) of the 1974 Act are applied to recognised bodies in accordance with section (Incorporated practices) (2)(f) of this Act, section 85, of the 1974 Act shall apply in relation to a recognised body which keeps an account with a bank in pursuance of any such rules as it applies in relation to a solicitor who keeps such an account in pursuance of rules under section 32.
Intervention by Society
32.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), where—

(a) the Council are satisfied that a recognised body has failed to comply with any rules applicable to it by virtue of section (Incorporated practices) of this Act; or

(b) a person has been appointed receiver or manager of property of a recognised body; or

(c) a winding-up order, or an administration order under Part II of the Insolvency Act 1985, has been made with respect to a recognised body or a resolution for voluntary winding-up has been passed with respect to a recognised body (other than a resolution passed solely for the purposes of its reconstruction or of its amalgamation with another body corporate); or

(d) the Council have reason to suspect dishonesty on
980
the part of any officer or employee of a recognised body in connection with that body's business or in connection with any trust of which that body is or formerly was a trustee,

the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act shall be exercisable in relation to the recognised body and its business in like manner as they are exercisable in relation to a solicitor and his practice.
(2) Those powers shall only be exercisable by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(a) if the Society has given the recognised body notice in writing that the Council are satisfied that the body has failed to comply with the rules specified in the notice and also (at the same or any later time) notice that those powers are accordingly exercisable in its case by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(a).
33. The powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act shall also be exercisable as mentioned in paragraph 32(1) of this Schedule where—

(a) a complaint is made to the. Society that there has been undue delay on the part of a recognised body in connection with any matter in which it was instructed on behalf of a client or with any controlled trust; and

(b) the Society by notice in writing invites the body to give an explanation within such period following the giving of the notice as may be specified in it, being a period of not less than eight days; and

(c) the body fails within that period to give an explanation which the Council regard as satisfactory; and

(d) the Society gives notice of the failure to the body and (at the same or any later time) notice that the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act are accordingly exercisable in its case by virtue of this paragraph.

34.—(1) Where the recognition of a body corporate under section (Incorporated practices) of this Act—

(a) has been revoked by an order of the Tribunal under this Schedule; or

(b) has expired and no further recognition of that body has been granted under that section,

the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act shall be exercisable in relation to the body corporate and its former business as a recognised body as they are exercisable in relation to a solicitor and his practice.
(2) Where the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act are exercisable in relation to a recognised body in accordance with paragraph 32 or 33 of this Schedule they shall continue to be so exercisable after that body's recognition under section (Incorporated practices) of this Act has been revoked or has otherwise ceased to be in force.
35. In connection with the application of Part II of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act for the purposes of this Schedule, in that Part of that Schedule—

(a) any reference to the solicitor or to his practice shall be construed as including a reference to the body corporate in relation to which the powers conferred by that Part of that Schedule are exercisable by virtue of paragraph 32, 33 or 34(1) of this Schedule or to its business (or former business) as a recognised body;

(b) any reference to paragraph 1 of that Schedule shall be construed as including a reference to paragraph 32 or 34(1) of this Schedule; and

(c) any reference to paragraph 3 of that Schedule shall be construed as including a reference to paragraph 33 of this Schedule

Privilege from disclosure etc.
36.—(1) Any communication made to or by a recognised body in the course of its acting as such for a client shall in any legal proceedings be privileged from disclosure in like manner as if the body had at all material times been a solicitor acting for the client.
(2) Any enactment or instrument making special provision in relation to a solicitor or other legal representative as to the disclosure of information, or as to the production, seizure or removal of documents, with

981
respect to which a claim to professional privilege could be maintained shall, with any necessary modifications, have effect in relation to a recognised body as it has effect in relation to a solicitor
(3) In the following provisions, namely—

(a) sections 481(3) and 490(3) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970; and

(b) section 30(5) of the Finance Act 1980,

any reference to a solicitor's client shall, in relation to a solicitor who is an officer or employee of a recognised body, be construed as a reference to a client of that body.
Modification of enactments relating to conveyancing etc.
(37). In the following provisions, namely—

(a) sections 10(2), 48 and 182 of the Law of Property Act 1925;

(b) sections 113 and 144(1)(vi) and (xxiv) of the Land Registration Act 1925;

(c) section 12 of the Land Charges Act 1972;

(d) section 13 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975; and

(e) sections 4(3) and 6(2) of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983,

any reference to a solicitor shall be construed as including a reference to a recognised body, and any reference to a person's solicitor shall be construed as including a reference to a recognised body acting for that person.")
66 Schedule 5, page 58, line 25, at end insert—
("Construction of references to recognised bodies)
.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), references in this Schedule to a recognised body are references to a body corporate for the time being recognised under section 28.
(2) In relation to any such allegation or complaint as is mentioned in paragraph 2(1)(a) (ii) or (b) of this Schedule references in this Schedule to a recognised body include references to a body corporate that was recognised under section 28 at the time when the conduct to which the allegation or complaint relates took place").
67 Page 58, line 39 leave out ("subsection (3) of').
68 Page 59, line 3, after ("an") insert ("officer or").
69 Page 59, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
70 Page 60, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
71 Page 60, line 6, leave out ("apply") and insert ("have effect").
72 Page 60, line 12, leave out from beginning to second ("is") in line 14 and insert—
("(b) any such order").
73 page 60, line 18, leave out ("an") and insert ("the").
74 page 60, line 27, leave out ("any of paragraphs (a) to (c) ") and insert ("paragraph (a) or (b)").
75 page 60, line 30, leave out (", or (as the case may be) to the conviction,").
76 page 60, line 38, at end insert—
("Revocation of recognition on grounds of fraud or error
5 A.—(1) Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee are satisfied that the recognition of a body corporate under section 28 was granted as a result of any error, or as a result of fraud on the part of that body, the Committee may, if they think fit, by order revoke that body's recognition.
(2) A body corporate may be granted recognition under that section notwithstanding that any recognition previously granted to it has been revoked under this paragraph; but if any such recognition was so revoked on the ground of fraud that body shall not be granted recognition under that section except on an application made in that behalf to the Committee.
Appeal against decision of Council in relation to grant of recognition
5B.—(1) Where, in the case of any body corporate, the Council—

(a) refuses an application by that body for recognition under section 28; or

(b) decides to grant recognition of that body under that section subject to any restrictions,
982
that body may appeal to the Discipline and Appeals Committee against that refusal or decision within one month of being notified of it.

(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the Discipline and Appeals Committee may—

(a) by order direct the Council to grant recognition of the body in question under section 28, either without restrictions or subject to such restrictions falling within subsection (3)(a) of that section as may be specified by the Committee in the direction; or

(b) affirm the refusal or decision of the Council; and the Committee may make such order as to the payment of costs by the Council or by that body as they think fit.

(3) Rules made by the Council may make provision, as respects any application for recognition that is neither granted nor refused by the Council within such period as may be specified in the rules, for enabling an appeal to be brought under this paragraph in relation to the application as if it had been refused by the Council.").
77 page 60, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
78 page 61, line 1, after ("Paragraphs"), insert ("1(2),").
79 page 61, line 2, after ("3") insert ("or 4").
80 page 61, line 10, leave out (" (3) ").
81 page 61, line 10, at end insert—
(" (aa) a person has been appointed receiver or manager of property of a recognised body; or").
82 page 61, line 11, after ("order"), insert (" or an administration order under Part II of the Insolvency Act 1985,").
83 page 61, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—
(" (c) the Council has reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of any officer or employee of a recognised body in connection with that body's business,").
84 page 61, line 19, leave out ("that Part of that Schedule") and insert ("Part II of Schedule 4").
85 page 61, line 43, leave out ("his") and insert ("its").
86 Page 61, leave out lines 45 and 46 and insert—
("8A.—(1) Where the recognition of a body corporate under section 28—

(a) has been revoked by an order of the Discipline and Appeals Committee under this Schedule; or

(b) has expired and no further recognition of that body has been granted under that section,

the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 4 shall be exercisable in relation to the body corporate and its former business as a recognised body as they are exercisable in relation to a licensed conveyancer and his practice.
(2) Where the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 4 are exercisable in relation to a recognised body in accordance with paragraph 7 or 8 of this Schedule they shall continue to be exercisable after that body's recognition under section 28 has been revoked or has otherwise ceased to be in force.
9. In connection with the application of Part II of Schedule 4 for the purposes of this Schedule, in that Part of that Schedule—
(aa) any reference to the licensed conveyancer or to his practice shall be construed as including a reference to the body corporate in relation to which the powers conferred by that part of that Schedule are exercisable by virtue of paragraph 7, 8 or 8A(1) of this Schedule or to its business (or former business) as a recognised body;").
87 page 62, line 2, after ("7") insert ("or 8A(1)").
88 page 62, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
89 page 63, line 9, leave out ("behalf) and insert ("account").
90 Page 63, line 10, after ("to") insert ("account to").
98 Schedule 8, page 65, line 16, at end insert—
("Orders modifying provisions so as to apply to incorporated practices
4B. Any provision made by an order under subsection (7) of section (Incorporated practices) after the commencement of that section may be made with retrospective effect as from that commencement or any later date.").
101 In the Title, line 3, after (" 1974;") insert ("to regulate the provision of solicitors' services in the case of incorporated practices;").
Despite what the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches said and what my noble friend Lord Renton said, this was referred to in detail in this House before it went to the Commons; there was an undertaking about an amendment of this kind in another place, and that is all that has been done.
May I say to the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches that again he has not done his homework, and I wish that he would. He is absolutely wrong in thinking that the purpose of the amendment is to introduce limited liability. That is not so. The Law Society does not intend—and the council would not make rules to that effect—to allow incorporation with limited liability. The Bill does not require limited liability. The intention is that incorporation should be with unlimited liability. As I say, it was perfectly well discussed before in this House.
It really was rather discourteous of both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord not to give me prior notice of their intention to put forward this absolutely bogus point.
Lord Renton: My Lord—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, may I put the Question now?
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to make a full and sincere apology to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Although I take full responsibility for it, and for the mistake which I made, what I said at the beginning of the proceedings was based upon information which I had not checked and in the circumstances would not have had time to check. I agree with him that in the circumstances it would have been much better if I had checked the information and given notice to him of what I was going to say. I am sorry that I did not do so. I therefore wish to withdraw unreservedly what I said at an earlier stage. However, having said that, I greatly look forward to hearing from the Lord Chancellor a fairly full and detailed explanation of the proposals which he is about to give to the House.
Lord Denning: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Renton has apologised, its is equally for me to do so if I have not done my homework. I had only a short time and I did not have time to go through the entire thing. I apologise.
I agree that Lord Benson's Commission recognised that it would be a good thing for companies with unlimited liability to be sanctioned, but where do we find a word of that in this amendment to limit the provision? Let us look at the provision:
"The Council may make rules… as to the management and control by solicitors of bodies corporate carrying on businesses consisting of the provision of professional services such as are provided by individuals practising as solicitors".
984
I may not have done my homework and the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend may say I am wrong. But it is for the council to make all those provisions. There it is: delegated legislation. That is why I raise my objection. If this is not limited to cases where there is unlimited liability, the observations made by Lord Benson's Commission are pertinent.
3.30 p.m.
Paragraph 30.16 of the Benson Report says:
"The traditional method by which professional people carry on business is as sole practitioners or in partnership firms. This is so in the overwhelming majority of professional practices in this country and abroad. Practice in this form signifies the total commitment of the practitioner to his client because all the partners in a firm are jointly and severally responsible to the firm's clients to the full amount of their partnership and their private assets."
Paragraph 30.22 states:
"We consider, therefore that incorporation of a solicitor's firm as a limited liability company should not be permitted."
Paragraph 30.23 goes on:
"This view is shared by the Law Society which … does not seek authority for solicitors to carry on business as limited liability companies. The Society does not think that the profession at large would be in favour of practice with limited liability, and this is borne out by the evidence of a number of provincial law societies and by the Young Solicitors' Group of Law Society."
There it is. It may be that I am under a misunderstanding, but I should like it to be made clear in the clause that it is only in regard to corporations with unlimited liability, and if that is so, I would not have any further objection.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for what he has said most generously and very aptly, and if I seemed slightly nettled I can only apologise to the House. I can only say to my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches that if he had consulted me beforehand I would have told him everything about it.
In fact, the situation is that the amendments relate to incorporated practices in respect both of solicitors and licensed conveyancers, who approach the matter pari passu with solicitors. The amendments are concerned to provide, as the noble Lord pointed out, rule-making powers by the Law Society who have hitherto and for hundreds of years governed their own profession with perfect propriety and absolute responsibility. Really, there is no reason to suppose they were intending to introduce limited liability any more than my own bank has done so, and there is no reason to fear it in future.
I would agree it is probably an undesirable thing, but I think the solicitors' profession ought to be trusted to make their own rules and to govern themselves. This is simply an enabling section, and in preparing the new provisions contained in Amendments Nos. 6 and 60 it became apparent that improvements could be made in the way in which provisions already in the Bill for licensed conveyancers were drafted. A number of amendments, none of any great substance, are therefore also made in Clause 28 and Schedule 5.
My Lords, the matter was fully debated in the other place, so imagine my astonishment when, having been briefed that they were neither complicated nor

985
controversial, I had this outburst from the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches who had not bothered to consult me.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I now enter the completely peaceful arena and merely say that I did raise this matter in your Lordships' House at the instance of the Law Society. The noble and learned Lord in his courtesy said what he has repeated to your Lordships; and I can say this to your Lordships—and I hope it will completely satisfy the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton—that in all my discussions with the Law Society there was not the slightest doubt but that unlimited liability would be the ground upon which registration would be authorised; that limited liability at no time would be countenanced. Your Lordships will see that anybody who pretends to be a licensed incorporated body will under these amendments in fact commit a criminal offence.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has put the matter rather better than I did, but then he is in a position to do so and his experience speaks for itself.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 [Printed above.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have spoken to this. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Page 8, line 41, at end insert (", and that the conveyancing services provided by such persons are provided both economically and efficiently.").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. This places a general duty on the council to ensure that licensed conveyancers provide economical and efficient services, and reflects the concern of the Government that the council should not act unduly restrictively in making its rules, although it remains essential that the rules should ensure adequate consumer protection. I beg to move.
Perhaps as a matter of procedure I ought to mention that there is as an amendment to this amendment Amendment No. 8A, and I will first put the Question and then call on Amendment No. 8A from the Woolsack.
Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 8
8A Line 1, after ("that") insert ("subject thereto").
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. This is not, I hope, quite such an explosive proposal as the last amendment to which the House gave its attention, but it is not a purely semantic proposal.
986
The origin of the amendment is this: that in the provisions of the Bill at Clause 8 there is provided a general duty on the council
"to ensure that the standards of competence and professional conduct among persons who practise as licensed conveyancers are sufficient to secure adequate protection for consumers".
When one looks further forward, into Clause 16 of the Bill, to the code of conduct, one finds that the council, in making rules for regulating that profession, are to do so in pursuance of the general duty referred to in Clause 8(2). So it is an important clause, providing the confines within which the code of conduct is to be formulated.
The proposal of the other place is that in addition to a duty to ensure the standards of competence and professional conduct among such persons there should be also a duty to ensure that the conveyancing services provided by such persons are provided both economically and efficiently. In this House and elsewhere, as your Lordships will be aware, there has been much discussion on the subject of conflict of interest and the difficulties that could arise particularly in the case of a licensed conveyancer employed by the proposed mortgagee, a building society or a bank, and so on, and who is also employed by the purchaser. There can be little doubt that such a dual employment would improve the economics so far as the consumer is concerned and may well enable the transaction to be carried out more efficiently. But at the same time, there is the danger with which your Lordships are very familiar and which was adverted to at an earlier stage of the Bill by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that there might be a conflict of interest as a result of which the proposed purchaser might be placed in difficulty.
The purpose of this amendment which I am moving to the Commons Amendment is to make it quite clear that the requirement both of competence but more particularly of professional conduct is to have priority over that of economics and efficiency where there may be a conflict. If it were not for that, there is the possibility of the two being apparently equated in the clause should Commons Amendment No. 8 be carried. If the complaint was made that someone who acted as a licensed conveyancer for more than one party had acted to the detriment of the consumer—that is to say, the purchaser—he might say, "Well, what I did was plainly more economic so far as the purchaser was concerned. He got the work done much more cheaply, and that is my answer".
At the same time, it could well be that the answer would not be a satisfactory one if there was some question of conflict of interest as a result of which the purchaser might have been placed in some jeopardy. It is purely to guard against that possibility that it is proposed that those words should be added so that the degree of importance between the two considerations is clearly emphasised. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 8A be agreed to—(Lord Silkin of Dulwich.).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not believe that there is a ha'porth of difference between the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken and myself as to the policy to be pursued. The clause, as it would read

987
with Amendment No. 8 but without Amendment No. 8A, is as follows:
"It shall be the general duty of the Council to ensure that the standards of competence and professional conduct among persons who practise as licensed conveyancers are sufficient to secure adequate protection for consumers".
I have added in the proposed Amendment No. 8.
"and that the conveyancing services provided by such persons are provided both economically and efficiently".
As I understand it, that means that the council is under an equal obligation to fulfil both conditions; that is to say, that it has got to be for the adequate protection of the consumer and it has to be done economically and efficiently. The effect of inserting the words "subject thereto" is, I should have thought, unnecessary if it achieves the result to which the noble and learned Lord spoke and dangerous if it were construed, as it might be, in a different sense.
The amendment that I have proposed ensures that both conditions have to be fulfilled and if the council fails to do both it will be failing in its duty as provided by the amended Clause 8. If you put the words "subject thereto" into it, I think that it would be adequate, or might be considered adequate, if they protected the consumer in the more expensive of two ways. I believe that that would be the inevitable result that the courts would give it. I would therefore ask the noble and learned Lord not to press his amendment. My assurance to him is that I do not think there is a ha'porth of difference between us if we come to forget the terms of the two amendments and look at the policy that they are intended to achieve.
Lord Morris: My Lords, it is clear to me from Amendment No. 8 that the "and" in the wording is conjunctive rather than disjunctive. What concerns me about Amendment No. 8A is that it casts doubt on the conjunctiveness—what an awful word that is—of the word "and". I cannot see that it adds anything. It just confuses the issue.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his assurance that there is nothing between us on the meaning and effect that we desire to produce by this clause. I hope that I am correct in taking him to mean by that that in the circumstances that I posited of a conflict of interest then the council's duty would be to seek to avoid such a conflict unless that conflict was unlikely to do any harm to the purchaser. If that be so (and I hope that I have understood the noble and learned Lord correctly) then what has been said in this short debate will have been noted and heard. In those circumstances, it is, I think, sufficient for me to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 11, page 10, line 33, leave out subsection (2).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Commons
Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 inclusive, 39, and 61 to 63 inclusive.
10 Page 11, line 12, at end insert—
("(5A) Where—

(a) an application for a licence is made in accordance with section 10 by a person who, at the date of the application, already holds a licence under this part; and

(b) no new licence is issued to him in pursuance of the application before the time when his existing licence would, apart from this subsection, expire in accordance with subsection (5).

his existing licence shall not expire at that time but shall continue in force until a new licence is issued to him in pursuance of the application or, if the application is refused by the Council—

(i) until the end of the period within which an appeal may be brought against the refusal under section 25(1)(a); or

(ii) if such an appeal is brought, until the appeal is determined or abandoned.").

11 page 11, line 18, leave out ("of expiry of his previous licence") and insert ("when his previous licence expired in accordance with subsection (5) (or would have so expired but for subsection (5A))"),
12 Clause 15, page 14, line 18, leave out ("addresses") and insert ("places of business".).
13 page 14, line 25, at end insert—
("(2A) Any change in a licensed conveyancer's place or places of business shall be notified by him to the Council within the period of fourteen days beginning with the date on which the changes takes effect.").
39 Clause 33, page 26, line 22, leave out ("specified in his licence") and insert ("of any place specified in the register as his place of business or one of his places of business").
61 Schedule 3, page 51, line 18, leave out from ("relation") to end of line 28 and insert "to proceedings before the Discipline and Appeals Committee under this Part.
(2) As respects proceedings before the Committee under section 22"),.
62 Schedule 4, page 54, line 15, at end insert ("; or
(iii) has expired and no further licence has been issued to him under this Part of this Act.").
63 Page 54, line 48, at end insert ("or has otherwise ceased to be in force under this Part of this Act.").
The amendments relate to the procedure for issuing licences and other connected matters. Their primary purpose is to ensure that where a licensed conveyancer's application to renew his licence is not dealt with by the council in time, he will still be able to practise until his application has been considered. A related amendment broadens the rule-making power of the discipline and appeals committee. The remaining amendments make it clear that the register of licences will record the business address of a licensed conveyancer. I think that I can almost describe these amendments as technical. But that is what they do.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it would seem that the words contained in Clause 11 (2) were really a superabundance of caution, and the Bill is the better without them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 to 13 [Printed above.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it will be best, I believe, if the House agrees, that I move Commons Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 inclusive. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 13—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 17, page 15, line 17, after ("practices") insert ("(or purported practices)").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with this amendment I beg to be allowed to speak to Commons Amendment No. 15.
15 Page 15, leave out line 21 and insert ("practices (or purported practices) as licensed conveyancers").
The amendments make clear that the council can pay compensation to persons who have suffered loss as a result of a licensed conveyancer's dishonesty or negligence, even where he was practising outside the terms of his licence. I hope that this will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
15 [Printed above.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move formally that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, is the Statement now cleared?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it is, yes.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I sat down.

Teachers' Dispute in England and Wales
3.50 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend.
With the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the teachers' dispute in England and Wales. The Statement is as follows:
"Intense efforts have been made in recent months by the Government to bring this damaging dispute to a satisfactory conclusion. I regret to say that they have so far been unsuccessful. Some of the teacher unions have chosen to continue to disrupt the
990
education of the pupils in their charge rather than accept—or even to discuss—the offer made to them. I deplore this, the damage it causes and the example it sets.
"In August the Government offered the prospect of an additional £1,250 million for teachers' pay over four years from next April, a sum equivalent to an extra 4 per cent. on the present pay bill, rising to an extra 9 per cent. by the fourth year. On 12th September the employers made an offer constructed upon the conditional Government willingness to see this substantial extra investment in teachers' pay. Under that offer all teachers stood to receive increases in April and November. Those on their scale maxima would have got additional increases in either September or next March. The average end-of-year increase would have been over 8 per cent. In addition, one in five classroom teachers would have benefited significantly from the additional 70,000 promotions planned from September 1986 All of this would have been on top of any normal annual increase negotiated from April 1986. All classroom teachers at present on Scale 1 or Scale 2. even without promotion, could have looked forward to £10,500 plus whatever is negotiated each year on pay. In return for these proposals, which would have brought real benefits to the education service, as well as substantial improvements in pay for large numbers of teachers and in promotion prospects, the teachers were asked for a clear commitment to the professional fulfilment of their duties and an acceptance of a pay system which would have offered relatively greater rewards to promoted teachers and to those holding senior leadership posts.
"The teacher unions took just twenty minutes to reject this offer. Since then some unions have been engaging in forms of industrial action explicitly intended to cause the maximum disruption to the education service at the minimum cost to the teachers involved in the disruption. This is deplorable and underlines why we so urgently need an agreement to define more clearly the teachers' professional responsibilities.
"Since then I regret to say that the employers by a small majority have been willing to make offers relating to pay alone. Even before the teacher unions confirmed that their demands far outstrip the employers' capacity to pay, I repeated the Government's position. We refuse to provide any additional resources for a "no strings" pay deal which would be a reversion to the discredited approach where negotiations on pay are separated from negotiations on pay structure and conditions of service. Separation has for years meant "you pay us now and we will talk about reform later"—simultaneous negotiation of all elements provides the only credible way forward. Notwithstanding the passage of the original deadline, therefore, the Government remain ready to consider whether additional resources could still be approved within the £ 1,250 million envelope for 1986–87 and subsequent years provided the conditions for reform are met. The Government are also willing to set aside resources—from within the total of £ 1,250 million—to help employers cover the cost of

991
supervising pupils at midday. I have discussed this proposition with the employers and it is agreed between us that officials should now clarify the way ahead.
"The Government will continue to make every effort to see a bargain struck which would provide improved pay and prospects for teachers in return for a better career and promotion structure, the clarification of teachers' duties, and an end to the disruption.
"Our objective is to improve the standard of teaching in schools and the quality of our education system. This is why we have agreed to the commitment of such substantial additional resources towards improving teachers' salaries. But we are not prepared to release the resources without simultaneous action on teachers' duties and the pay structure to ensure that the nation receives a fair return for this very large investment."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable Friend's statement.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement, although I must express profound disappointment at the Statement itself and, indeed, its tone. The Secretary of State is proposing nothing new, nothing constructive, to help to bring this very worrying dispute any nearer to a solution. I fear that the attitude he takes up with the teachers can only alienate them. We should like to express our sympathy to the teaching force, which is a very professional body coping in a situation where resources are all too scarce.
As reports from Her Majesty's Inspectors and only yesterday from the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations make all too clear, it is not surprising that morale is low. The Government's inconsistent policy in the public pay sector must make the treachers feel undervalued. The local authorities have tried to help bring the dispute to an end by trying to reach an agreement on this year's salary claim, but unfortunately this has not happened. As the situation has developed, can the Secretary of State sit back and let the education service disintegrate before his eyes, because there is no doubt that the education service and the children are now suffering badly?
Surely the only sensible solution is to set up a completely independent inquiry with an independent chairman respected by all parties to the dispute. There should be a remit to report as soon as possible. The Government should commit themselves to funding whatever the independent committee on inquiry recommends. That would seem the only sensible, the only possible, way forward at this stage. It is what I had hoped might be in the Statement. Instead there is merely a reiteration of the Secretary of State's position, which we in fact already knew.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl for having repeated this Statement. We certainly deplore the way in which the dispute has dragged on for so long at the expense of schoolchildren.
992
There are a number of unhappy points about the present situation. As I understand it—and I confess that I am no educationist—the Secretary of State for Education has a duty to provide education under the 1944 Act and it hardly seems to me to have been helpful that at the weekend he should have suggested that prosecutions should be brought aimed at seeing that teachers fulfil their duties. Nor does it seem to me to be helpful—and the noble Baroness, Lady David, has already made some reference to this—that parents should be having to find so much money to fund essential school equipment.
However, in a situation like this one is anxious to say nothing that will make the situation worse and to be as positive as possible. Let me, therefore, welcome at least on point in the Statement—that is, that the Government are willing to set aside resources to help employers cover the cost of supervising pupils at midday; and we welcome the point that this proposition is to be discussed with the employers.
For the rest, I hope that the House will forgive me if I revert to a point that I have made before in the interests of a long-term solution. It appears that the teachers are looking for a settlement now which offers them the promise of an eventual return to the position which they occupied in what might be called the pay league table immediately after the inquiry conducted some years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. However—and here I may be viewing things rather differently from the noble Baroness—is it not part of the overall problem that when matters relating to the pay of a particular group, in this case teachers, are examined in isolation, attention is concentrated on the situation from the viewpoint of the group concerned rather than from that of others affected by it? Does not the present impasse strengthen the case for disputes in the public services generally in the last resort to be settled by a single independent standing body whose findings could be overturned only by resolutions to that effect by both Houses of Parliament?
4 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think it is customary for me to say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for the way in which they have received the Statement. However, I find it difficult to say that in the case of the noble Baroness because, although I have always found her extremely reasonable both inside and outside the House, I must admit that today I find her totally unreasonable. The noble Baroness has launched an attack upon my right honourable friend and upon the education service. I should point out that spending on each pupil is at its highest ever level, and pupil-to-teacher ratios have never been better than they are today.
The noble Baroness said that my right honourable friend has done nothing constructive about this dispute. In the course of negotiations in January the employers offered 4 per cent. or arbitration; in May they offered 5 per cent. or arbitration; in July, informally, they offered a phased deal worth 5·85 per cent. in the year and 6·43 per cent. next year, conditional upon agreement on reforms; and on 12th September they offered a package of pay

993
improvements—pay, promotion, structure reforms and agreement on teachers' duties—worth 5·85 per cent. in the year and 8·06 per cent. in 1986–87. On October 14th, informally, they offered a no-strings pay rise worth 6·9 per cent. in the year and 7·5 per cent. by the year end. All those offers have been rejected by the teachers. As the Statement says, the last offer was rejected in 20 minutes. Certainly the teachers are not putting forward a constructive approach; it is coming from my right honourable friend.
The noble Baroness also asked about an independent inquiry. My right honourable friend has said that he is prepared to consider that. However, it would have to cover conditions as well as pay. In fact, the employers, who I understand are mostly made up from friends of the noble Baroness, proposed this but the unions threw it out. I do not know where we go from here, but it is untrue and unfair to blame it all on my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked about my noble friend's call to employers last week on television to take disciplinary action against teachers or to take them to court. The distinctive feature of the dispute is the ability of those taking industrial action to minimise the consequences to themselves of the action that they are taking. At the same time they aim to cause the maximum possible disruption to the education service in which they are employed. In those circumstances, I firmly believe that my right honourable friend was quite right to question whether their employers should adopt a more robust approach to refusals to undertake duties which the great majority of people—teachers included—have been doing anyway for a long time, and which many of them consider to be a normal part of their job.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, on a matter of clarification, the noble Earl used the figure of £10,500. Who and what proportion of people in the teaching profession will receive that under the new agreement?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the answer is that no one will because the teachers have turned it down. However, that was the offer which would have resulted to the basic teacher on scale 1.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, for 30 years I had some responsibility for the negotiation of teachers' salaries. I am glad to say that we did not have a strike. I accept that difficulties can arise—indeed, difficulties did arise. They were precisely similar difficulties to those which have now arisen, and they arose when the teachers' salaries had fallen behind other people's salaries for several years. It was in that situation that the Plowden Committee was set up. The teachers received an increase of 30 per cent. to try to restore the position to that which was appropriate. However, in the Plowden Report there was a recommendation which I regarded as being of great importance to try to secure that a similar situation would not occur again. It was the establishment of an independent review body. We have independent review bodies for nurses, doctors, dentists, policemen, the services and judges. Why not one for teachers? That recommendation was rejected by the Government.
994
That proposition has been put to the Government again—not once but many times—and it has been consistently rejected. When the Prime Minister was taking through the other place the proposals relating to the judges and senior civil servants, she made a point in support of her case that there had been independent review bodies' reports on nurses, doctors, and dentists, all of which had been accepted. Seven days before that, the Government had rejected the establishment of an independent review body for the teachers. I wonder whether the noble Earl the Minister can tell me why.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that the answer is: once bitten, twice shy; and twice bitten, damn foolish. I believe that the noble Lord. Lord Rochester, referred to the Houghton Report. This is a report which the teachers are always quoting, saying that in 1974 their pay levels were brought up to date. At that time this was in the expectation of (and I quote the report):
"Professional standards of performance in return".
That report was followed by the Clegg Report some six years ago, which again set large pay levels, having taken into account:
"The wide range of extra curricula activities which are part of the professional obligation of teachers to pupils, parents and schools".
Both times the contents of the teachers' job were not set down in contractual terms. For years and years there have been talks on them, and still we have reached no agreement. I think that the answer to the noble Lord—who I greatly respect and who I know extremely well as we worked together for many years—is as I have said: once bitten, twice shy; twice bitten, look jolly carefully at it.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is this not another case of confrontation at very high cost? And in this case the cost is being borne by the children.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, in a nutshell, yes I think it is. However, I believe that the confrontation is coming from the teachers and not from the Government.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that many people outside think that the teaching profession is doing enormous damage to teachers and to their claim to professional status by indicating a willingness to damage the education of children in their care in pursuit of their own financial interests? In those circumstances does my noble friend not think that to give them a separate review body of the kind suggested by the noble Baroness opposite would be exceedingly badly received by public opinion generally?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I very much agree with what my noble friend has said. Of course, my right honourable friend is only too well aware of the enormous damage resulting from this dispute. The education of many millions of children is suffering; their parents are suffering; and damage is being done to the educational service, which will take a very long time to repair. Both the Government and the employers—and I stress this again to the noble Baroness, Lady David—have made great efforts to

995
find an honourable settlement. However, goodwill is needed on both sides.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister agree that ultimately the education service is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and that when things have come to as bad a pass as they have, surely it is up to him to make a further move and do something?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the only something that he can do is to produce a lot of money and give it to the teachers. The Government are not prepared to do that without some commitment from the teachers that they will sign some form of contract which clarifies conditions of service.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Secretary of State has an absolute power of veto in the Burnham Committee? Is it not a fact that the employers wished to make an offer which the Secretary of State banned them from making, and that that is what started the trouble?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I simply do not know. I know that there was a disagreement between the employers and my right honourable friend on the last offer they made; but the offer was made and the teachers refused it.

Administration of Justice Bill [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
Commons amendments further considered.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
16 Clause 17, page 15, leave out lines 32 to 34.
17 page 16, line 32, at end insert—
("(5) In subsection (3) "authorised insurers" means a person permitted under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 to carry on—

(a) insurance business of class 13 in Schedule 2 to that Act; or

(b) insurance business of classes 1,2, 14, 15, 16 and 17 in that Schedule.").

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, may I move Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, and speak to 40, 57 to 59, and 64 and 65.
40 Clause 35, page 27, line 10, at end insert (" "fees" includes charges, disbursements, expenses and remuneration;").
57 Schedule 1, page 48, line 6, at end insert—
("(2A) In paragraph 5(2), after "bank" insert "or other financial institution".").
58 Page 48, line 8, leave out ("paragraph 7(1),") and insert ("paragraph 7—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1),".).

59 Page 48, line 10, at end insert ("; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), after "bank" insert "or other financial institution".".).

64 Schedule 4, page 55, line 17, after ("bank") insert ("or other financial institution").
65 page 56, line 21, after ("bank"), insert ("or other financial institution").
These are related drafting amendments which clarify the use in the Bill of the terms "authorised insurers" and "fees", and expand the definition of "bank" in the Solicitors Act 1974 and in the Bill. I
996
think I can call them all drafting amendment. If the House gives permission I therefore move Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 together and will move the others separately. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
18 Clause 22, page 19, line 37, leave out ("("the defendant")").
19 page 20, line 6, leave out ("defendant") and insert ("licensed conveyancer").
20 page 20, line 7, leave out ("defendant") and insert ("licensed conveyancer").
21 page 20, line 10, leave out ("defendant") and insert ("licensed conveyancer").
22 page 20, line 13, leave out ("defendant") and insert ("licensed conveyancer").
23 page 20, line 16, leave out ("defendant") and insert ("licensed conveyancer").
24 page 20, line 18, leave out ("defendant") and insert ("licensed conveyancer").
25 page 20, line 25, leave out ("("the defendant")").
26 page 20, line 30, leave out ("defendant") and insert ("licensed conveyancer").
27 page 20, line 40, leave out ("defendant") and insert ("licensed conveyancer").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 18 to 27 are all related and therefore they can be moved en bloc. They substitute the words "licensed conveyancer" in Clause 22 for the existing word "defendant". I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who first moved these amendments at the Committee stage in this House and I then agreed to consider them. They were raised again in the other place and the Government then readily accepted them. I therefore beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 to 27.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 to 27.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, as a matter of courtesy. It was the right thing to have done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
28 to 35 [Printed above.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 28 to 35.I spoke to these amendments in connection with Amendment No. 6.I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 to 35.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
36 Clause 30, page 25, leave out lines 21 to 27 and insert—

("(a) sections 69 and 75(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925; and

997

(b) sections 14(1) and 144(1)(iii) and (xiv) of the Land Registration Act 1925,").

37 Page 25, line 32, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In the following provisions, namely—

(a) sections 10(2), 48 and 182 of the Law of Property Act 1925;

(b) sections 113 and 144(1)(xxiv) of the Land Registration Act 1925;

(c) section 12 of the Land Charges Act 1972;

(d) section 13 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975;

(e) section 11(8) of the Estate Agents Act 1979; and

(f) sections 4(3) and 6(2) of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983.

any reference to a solicitor shall be construed as including a reference to a licensed conveyancer or to a recognised body, and any reference to a person's solicitor shall be construed as including a reference to a licensed conveyancer or recognised body acting for that person.".)
38 Page 25, line 40, leave out (", or by any employee on behalf of,").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can move Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 en bloc. These amendments are again drafting amendments which modify various enactments which refer to the word "solicitor" to provide that they should, where appropriate, also apply to a recognised body. Clause 30 already applies such enactments to individual licensed conveyancers, and therefore these words which would then become superfluous are removed. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36 to 38.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
39 to 43 [Printed above.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 39 to 43 have already been spoken to: Amendment 39 with Amendment 9, 40 with Amendment 16, 41 with Amendment 6, and 42 and 43 with Amendment No. 1.I therefore beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 39 to 43 inclusive.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos, 39 to 43—(The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
44 After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Reimbursement of additional costs resulting from death or incapacity of presiding judge, etc.
.—(1) Where—

(a) the judge, or (as the case may be) any of the judges, presiding at any proceedings to which this section applies becomes temporarily or permanently incapacitated from presiding at the proceedings, or dies, at any time prior to the conclusion of the proceedings; and

(b) any party represented at the proceedings incurs any additional costs in consequence of the judge's incapacity or death,

the Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit, reimburse that party in respect of any such additional costs, or in respect of such part thereof as he may determine; but the amount of any such reimbursement shall not exceed such sum as the Lord Chancellor may by order prescribe for the purposes of this section.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), this section applies to—

(a) proceedings in the civil division of the (Court of Appeal;

(b) civil proceedings in the High Court; and

(c) proceedings in a county court;

and, in the case of any interlocutory proceedings falling within paragraphs (a) to (c), applies separately to any such proceedings and to any other proceedings in the cause or matters in question.
(3) This section does not apply to proceedings in the civil division of the Court of Appeal if the incapacity or death of one or more of the presiding judges does not reduce the number of the remaining judges to less than two.
(4) For the purposes of this section the amount of any additional costs incurred by any person as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) shall be such amount as may be agreed between the Lord Chancellor and that person or, in default of agreement, as may be ascertained by taxation.
(5) Where any proceedings to which this section applies—

(a) are due to be begun before a judge at a particular time; but

(b) are not begun at that time by reason of the judge becoming temporarily or permanently incapacitated from presiding at the proceedings or by reason of his death,

subsection (1) shall have effect in relation to the incapacity or death of the judge as it has effect in relation to any such incapacity or death of a presiding judge as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection, but as if any reference to any party represented at the proceedings were a reference to any party who would have been so represented but for the judge's incapacity or death.
(6) In this section (except subsection (3)) 'judge" in relation to any proceedings, includes—

(a) a master, registrar or other person acting in a judicial capacity in the proceedings; or

(b) a person assisting at the proceedings as an assessor or as an adviser appointed by virtue of section 70(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981;

and, in relation to any such person as is mentioned in paragraph (b), any reference to presiding at any proceedings shall be construed as including a reference to assisting at the proceedings.
(7) Any order made by the Lord Chancellor under this section shall be made with the concurrence of the Treasury, and shall be so made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(8) Any sums required by the Lord Chancellor for making payments under this section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.")
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44. The new clause fulfils an undertaking which I gave at an earlier stage of the Bill that provision should be made for payment from public funds of costs wasted because of the death or incapacity of a judge.
The new provision does not impose an open-ended financial commitment on the public purse but will enable wasted costs to be reimbursed up to a fixed sum which will be variable by statutory instrument. We shall be consulting widely on the question of what the amount should be, but it is likely to be in the region of £5,000 to £10,000. I beg to move.
Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this is an important amendment. For a long time it has been felt that payment ought to be made from public funds when a judge dies or becomes incapacitated and costs have

999
been, in those sad circumstances, ineffectively incurred. Happily, it is not a contingency which arises frequently.
When the matter was first raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, at that stage—and I say this without criticism in view of the second thoughts which developed—the noble and learned Lord was not in favour of the idea. But then generously at Report stage he allowed my noble friend to refer to a letter which the noble and learned Lord had written which contained an undertaking to which effect was given in another place in the amendment which was there carried to the Bill.
My noble friend's proposal imposed a mandatory duty on the Lord Chancellor to make good the loss. The clause as it now stands gives a power to the Lord Chancellor, if he thinks fit, to reimburse the party in respect of any additional costs. There is a second limitation; namely, that the amount of any reimbursement shall not exceed such sums as the Lord Chancellor, presumably with the concurrence of the Treasury, "may by order prescribe for the purposes of this section."
I confess that I see the force against an open-ended commitment, but it may well be that in the further negotiations as to the maximum sum, which is now as low as £5,000 or may be as high a figure as £10,000, there will be some good trading upon that which may result in better protection than the figure of £5,000 proposed for the unfortunate litigant. I do not wish to seem ungenerous but be thankful for mercies. They are not wholly small mercies which are tendered to the hapless litigant who has found himself unable to achieve the object of his litigation by, alas, human frailty and the lapse of life and of time.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think that all of us accustomed to practise in the courts will acknowledge that this is indeed an important and welcome provision. Of course it applies only to civil proceedings, and I would assume rightly so. But I recollect a few years ago that rather a long case at the Central Criminal Court had to be started all over again because of, first, the illness, and ultimately the death of the judge trying those proceedings.
It might be helpful in the long run if my noble and learned friend were able to give the reason why criminal proceedings are not included. I assume that it is because so far as the prosecution is concerned it is public funds anyway and they would have to lump it, and in so far as an innocent defendant who is found not guilty is concerned I assume that the court's discretion would be available to help him if necessary; but a word from my noble and learned friend on that point could be helpful.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as the one who had the privilege of moving this amendment, which had the full support of the Law Society, I want to express my personal gratitude (as my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has been kind enough to do on my behalf) to the noble and learned Lord for the fact that his thoughts and decision obviously counted with another place in seeing that the Commons amendment is now before your Lordships. As my
1000
noble and learned friend said, it is right that I hoped for a mandatory provision, that there would always be compensation in these cases. I do not want to be ungenerous, but your Lordships will see that this is a discretionary matter within the full discretion of the Lord Chancellor of the time.
Will the noble and learned Lord indicate to the House the kind of matters that would exercise his personal mind in using that discretion? If it is to be discretionary, I believe that it would be useful to have on the record the views of somebody such as the noble and learned Lord that may guide future Lord Chancellors. I hope that what he says will be sufficiently wise for me to pray that noble and learned Lords who in the future hold that high position will. be guided by what he says. If, on the other hand, I find that the discretion will be so limited I shall pray in the opposite direction.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I said in opening that there would be fairly wide consultation on the amount. I shall try to take into account people's opinions on a wider scale, if I am permitted to do so. I am grateful to both noble Lords on the Front Bench, and in a moment I shall be grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton and shall refer to his speech. At this stage I cannot say in detail what would influence my discretion. But I should say that the House will recollect that when we held this debate before I pointed out that in long and complicated cases it was already the practice of the parties to insure the life of the judge, which was a suitable precaution to take. I am happy to see my noble friend Lord Morris in his place. He was less enthusiastic than he might have been in support of what was then the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We do not want to stop the practice of insuring judges' lives in long and complicated cases.
If one reflects about it, it is obvious (although perhaps it was not obvious to me then, as it should have been) that in a simple and not so complicated case it would not occur to the parties to insure the judge's life or his health. It would be most unusual to do so. It is to deal with what I might call the run-of-the-mill case that this concession is being made. I do not think I can go further than that today, but that is the kind of thing I have in mind.
Turning to my noble friend Lord Renton, it may be part of the explanation that the Home Office is responsible for the criminal law and the Lord Chancellor is responsible for civil law. This is one of the inscrutable dispensations of providence that we all have to live with, although we are not wholly able to explain them. Nonetheless, that is the case. My noble friend has put his finger closely on the merits of the case, although not having had notice I cannot speak for my right honourable friend who is not now learned.
The fact of the case is that prosecution costs come out of the public purse, anyway, so the prosecution has no interest in insuring the fife of the judge or getting compensation if he dies. The successful defendant, that is, the acquitted defendant, receives his costs out of the ordinary courts from the central fund, so he may not have much value from a concession of this kind. In any case, 90 per cent. of the costs of defended or undefended cases in the crown court are paid for out of legal aid. The situation vis-á-vis the criminal case

1001
would not be at all the same as that inter partes in a civil case. That is the best I can do for the moment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
45 After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
("Limitation of damages in respect of acts by resident magistrates etc. in Northern Ireland
.—(1) Where in any action brought against a resident magistrate or other justice of the peace in respect of anything done by him in the execution or purported execution of his office as such a magistrate or justice the plaintiff would (apart from this section) be entitled to recover—

(a) damages in respect of any sum paid or levied under a conviction or order, or

(b) damages in respect of his imprisonment under a conviction or order; or

(c) damages in respect of his detention, or any other restriction of liberty imposed on him, under an order made under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2),

then, if this section applies to the recovery of any such damages by virtue of subsection (3), (4) or (5), the plaintiff shall not be entitled to recover the amount of the sum so paid or levied or (as the case may be) to recover any sum beyond the sum of one penny as damages in respect of any such imprisonment, detention, or restriction of liberty as aforesaid, and shall not be entitled to any costs.
(2) The enactments referred to in subsection (1)(c) are—

(a) section 48 of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961 (hospital and guardianship orders);

(b) section 5(1) of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (detention in a young offenders centre);

(c) section 74(1)(a), (b) and (e) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (powers of courts on finding of guilt of juvenile offenders);

(d) section 75 of that Act (power to commit juveniles in default to remand homes); and

(e) section 140(2) of, and paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to, that Act (orders made in the case of persons subject to training school orders).

(3) This section shall apply to the recovery of any such damages as are mentioned in subsection (1)(a) if the court is satisfied that the plaintiff was guilty of the offence of which he was convicted or (as the case may be) that he was liable by law to pay the sum he was ordered to pay.
(4) This section shall apply to the recovery of any such damages as are mentioned in subsection (1)(b) if the court is satisfied—

(a) where the plaintiff was imprisoned following a conviction, that he was guilty of the offence of which he was convicted; or

(b) where the plaintiff was imprisoned for any default—

(i) that he was by law hable to pay the sum of money he was ordered to pay or (as the case may be) required to do so or abstain from doing something other than the payment of money, and

(ii) that any such liability had not been discharged or any such requirement had not been complied with;

and in addition that the duration of his imprisonment did not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law for the offence or default in question.
(5) This section shall apply to the recovery of any such damages as are mentioned in subsection (1)(c) if the court is satisfied—

(a) in the case of an order made under section 48 of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961, that the plaintiff—

(i) was guilty of the offence of which he was convicted or (as the case may be) did any such act or made any such omission as is referred to in subsection (2) of that section, and

(ii) (in either case) was suffering at the time when the order was made from any such mental disorder as is referred to in subsection (1) of that section; or

1002

(b) in the case of an order made following a conviction or other finding of guilt (not being an order falling within paragraph (a)), that the plaintiff was guilty of the offence of which he was convicted or found guilty; or

(c) in the case of an order made following any default, that sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (4)(6) are applicable in relation to the plaintiff; or

(d) in the case of an order made under either of the provisions referred to in subsection (2)(e), that the conduct of the plaintiff leading to the making of the order was such as to warrant the making of an order of that nature by a court having power to do so;

and in addition, where the duration of any detention or other restriction of liberty that could be ordered in pursuance of the enactment in question following any such conviction, finding of guilt, default or conduct as aforesaid was subject to any limit prescribed by law, that the duration of the detention or other restriction undergone by the plaintiff under the order did not exceed that limit.
(6) Any reference in subsection (1), in relation to the plaintiff in an action, to his imprisonment or detention or to any other restriction of liberty imposed on him as mentioned in that subsection includes a reference to any act done by any person in connection with carrying out the sentence or order resulting in that imprisonment, detention or restriction of liberty, as the case may be.
(7) The provisions of this section shall apply in relation to—

(a) a county court judge sitting in connection with an appeal under Part XII of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981; or

(b) a member of a panel formed under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (juvenile court panels),

as they apply in relation to a resident magistrate.
(8) In this section—
"default" means failure to pay, or want of sufficient distress to satisfy, any fine or other sum of money, or failure to do or abstain from doing anything required to be done or left undone;
"resident magistrate" means a resident magistrate or deputy resident magistrate appointed under Part II of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964;
and any reference to an order made under any enactment includes a reference to an order purporting to be made under that enactment.").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, these amendments concern Northern Ireland, and I should like, with Amendment No. 45, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 inclusive, 53, 54, 93 and 99.
47 Clause 61, page 44, line 30, after ("57") insert (", (Limitation of damages in respect of acts by resident magistrates etc. in Northern Ireland)").
48 page 44, line 31, after ("to") insert ("the Justices Protection (Ireland) Act 1849,").
49 page 44, line 32, at end insert (", and paragraph 13 of Schedule 8;").
53 Clause 62, page 45, line 18, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(" (3) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on the day this Act is passed—

(a) section (Limitation of damages in respect of acts by resident magistrates etc. in Northern Ireland);

(b) Part IA of Schedule 7 and section 60(2) so far as relating thereto;

(c) section 61;

(d) this section and Schedule 8.").

54 Page 45, line 23, leave out ("and 51 to 59") and insert ("51 to 57 and 58 and 59").
93 Schedule 7, page 64, line 2, at end insert—

PART IA REPEAL COMING INTO FORCE ON ROYAL ASSENT
Chapter 12 & 13 Vict. c. 16.

Short title Justices Protection (Ireland) Act 1849.

Extent of repeal The whole Act so far as unrepealed.").

99 Schedule 8, page 66, line 27, at end insert—
("Limitation of damages against resident magistrates etc. in Norhern Ireland
13. Nothing in section (Limitation of damages in respect of acts by resident magistrates etc. in Northern Ireland) shall apply in relation to an action if the sentence or order in respect of which the action is brought was passed or made before the passing of this Act.".).
("Increase of penalties under Soliciotrs Act 1974
14. Nothing in paragraph 5A or 5B of Schedule 1 shall affect the punishment for an offence committed before the commencement of that paragraph.".).
These amendments all concern the same point. Those of us who follow Northern Irish affairs will remember a decision of your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity a year ago, in 1984, in a case called McC v. Mullen and Others. That case made it clear that a civil action for damages may be brought against a magistrate for acts done without or in excess of jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the plaintiff may have been guilty of an offence and suffered no greater punishment than that prescribed by law for that offence.
The new clause follows the pattern already set for England and Wales by Section 52 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, which, while retaining the right of access, will limit to one penny the amount of damages a plaintiff may recover in such circumstances. At last Northern Ireland has caught up with us. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be happy to welcome this proposal. When one bears in mind the life that resident magistrates and justices and those applying the criminal law in Northern Ireland have to undergo, the least we can do is make this concession to the magistrates and those who are covered by the clause. I remember with sorrow those who gave their lives for the performance of this duty. This is the least we can do for them.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I personally—and I speak for my party—think it is high time this was done.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble and learned Lord and to my noble twin Lord Donaldson of Robertsbridge.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it is Kingsbridge.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to be associated with what they have said about the magistracy in Northern Ireland, which is a constant source of anxiety to me and, alas, too often a source of unhappiness. I am grateful for what they have said and hope that people will take note of it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
46 After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
("Consequential provisions relating to building societies.
.—(1) A building society may, at any time during the period of three years beginning with the commencement of this section, alter the rules of the society by resolution of the board of directors so as to provide for conveyancing services to be carried out on the society's behalf, in relation to estates or interests in land in England and Wales, by all or any of the following, namely—

(a) a recognised body within the meaning of section (Incorporated practices) of this Act;

(b) a licensed conveyancer, and

(c) a recognised body within the meaning of Part II of this Act.

(2) Where any alteration of the rules of a building society is effected under subsection (1), the society shall send to the central office two copies of the alteration signed by three members and the secretary and a statutory declaration by an officer of the society that the alteration was effected by resolution of the board of directors.
(3) Where copies are sent to the central office in accordance with subsection (2), and the central office find that the alteration is in conformity with the 1962 Act and this section, they shall return one of the copies to the secretary or other officer of the society with a certificate of registration, and shall retain and register the other copy.
(4) If a building society fails to comply with subsection (2), the society, and every officer of the society who is in default, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.
(5) The power to alter its rules under subsection (1) shall cease to be exercisable by a building society if, during the period of three years mentioned in that subsection, a special resolution is passed altering (in any respect) the rules of the society in pursuance of section 17(1) of the 1962 Act (alteration of rules).
(6) Section 34(4) of the 1962 Act (restriction on commissions for introduction of mortgage business) shall apply to a body or person falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of this section as it applies to a solicitor.
(7) This section and the 1962 Act shall be construed as if this section were contained in that Act, and in this section—
"the 1962 Act" means the Building Societies Act 1962;
"conveyancing services" shall be construed in accordance with section 7(3) of this Act;
"licensed conveyancer" has the meaning given by section 7(2) of this Act;
"the standard scale" has the meaning given by section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may take, with Amendment No. 46, Amendments Nos. 50 to 52.
50 Clause 61, page 44, line 32, at end insert—
("(bb) section (Consequential provisions relating to building societies);").
51 page 44, line 37, leave out second ("and").
52 page 44, line 39, at end insert ("; and
(c) section (Consequential provisions relating to building societies) does not extend to Northern Ireland.").
These amendments enable building societies to alter their rules where necessary by a simplified procedure so as to permit licensed conveyancers to act for building societies in connection with the mortgage. My noble friend Lork Selkirk raised this matter on Report. I undertook then to give it further consideration. The amendments were accordingly made in another place. I therefore beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.
Moved, that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46—(The Lord Chancellor.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
47 to 54 [Printed above.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think I can take Amendments Nos. 47 to 54 en bloc. I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 in connection with Amendment No. 45; Nos. 50 to 52 were spoken to with Amendment No. 46, and Nos. 53 and 54 with Amendment No. 45.I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 54.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
55 Schedule 1, page 46, line 21, at end insert—
("5A. In section 21 (unqualified person not to pretend to be a solicitor), for the words from "a fine" onwards substitute "a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.".
5B. In section 24 (application of penal provisions to body corporate)—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), for the words from "a fine" onwards substitute "a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the. standard scale, and"; and

(b) in subsection (1)(b), for the words from "a fine" onwards substitute "a fine not exceeding the fourth level on the standard scale.".").

56 Page 47, line 44, after ("interpretation"), insert—
("(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) in the definition of "contentious business", for "section 175(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925" substitute "section 128 of the Supreme Court Act 1981";

(ii) after the definition of "solicitor in Scotland" insert—

" "the standard scale" has the meaning given by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982;"; and
(b").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may take Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 together and speak also to Amendment No. 100.
100 Schedule 8, page 66, line 27, at end insert—
("Increase of penalties under Solicitors Act 1974
14. Nothing in paragraph 5A or 5B of Schedule 1 shall affect the punishment for an offence committed before the commencement of that paragraph.").
The purpose of these two amendments and the third which I mentioned, No. 100, is to ensure consistency between the penalties provided for under Clauses 31 and 32 of the Bill and those provided for corresponding offences under the Solicitors Act 1974. They accordingly raise to the fourth level on the standard scale the penalties for pretending to be a solicitor and for officers of a corporate body who allow an offence to be committed. They also correct a reference in the 1974 Act to a statute which has since been superseded. I beg to move that the house do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 55 and 56.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
57 to 90 [Printed above.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we now come to a long block of amendments to which I have already spoken. I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 57 to 59 and 64 and 65 in connection with Amendment No. 16; to Nos. 60 and 66 to 90 with Amendment No. 6; and Nos. 61 to 63 with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 57 to 90.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
91 Schedule 6, page 63, line 31, at end insert—
("1A. In section 22(1) (secrecy), at the end of paragraph (b) add "; or
(c) for the purpose of facilitating the proper performance by any tribunal of functions under—

(i) section 47 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (jurisdiction and powers of Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal) in connection with the making of such an order as is referred to in subsection (2A) or (2B) of that section, or

(ii) any of sections 37 to 39 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (legal aid complaints against barristers or solicitors).".").

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment ensures that the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and a Senate disciplinary tribunal will properly be able to have access, in determining a legal aid complaint, to information furnished for the purposes of Part I of the Legal Aid Act, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 22 of that Act relating to the secrecy of legal aid information. Without this amendment, Section 22 of the Legal Aid Act 1974 would prevent these tribunals from having access to all the information they might need to consider, since they would not be themselves tribunals established under the 1974 Act. This amendment ensures that they will be able to perform their duties properly. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
92 and 93 [Printed above.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendments Mos. 92 and 93 have already been spoken to, No. 92 with Amendment No. 1 and No. 93 with Amendment No. 45. I beg to move, therefore, that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
[THE LORD CHANCELLOR.]
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 92 and 93.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
94 Schedule 7, page 64, line 17, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 113(a) (i).").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment to Schedule 7, which inserts a repeal consequential on the changes relating to the Registry of County Court Judgements made by Clause 49.I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 94.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
95 to 101 [Printed above.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we now come to Amendments Nos. 95 to 101. and I think to the end of this saga. They have all been spoken to and I can give details of the amendments with which they are already connected. I therefore beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 95 to 101.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to thank all the noble Lords who have taken part.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to thank, on behalf of the House, the noble and learned Lord for his infallible courtesy. There were one or two moments earlier today when perhaps there was a slight departure from his normal high standards but I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will now find that all is forgiven.
It has been an important Bill. Administration of Justice Bills tend to be pot-luck. The Lord Chancellor tends to put in all he can and get by without his Cabinet colleagues noticing that he is putting a lot in. That is my recollection from my own experience. However, this has been an important Bill. It has provided, among other things, for a new profession of licensed conveyancers, which has given rise to some concern but now we wish that profession good fortune and a successful service to the public.
Then, as in all administration of justice Bills, there are surprising items like the provision which reduced time limits for actions for libel and slander from six years to three years, again a desirable step from the point of view of public understanding and the common weal, I think on the whole. However, I must not take up more time, save to thank the noble and learned Lord again for his guidance and assistance in this Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think there is one very small lesson for even my noble and learned friend to learn from this Bill and it is this: A Bill which starts as quite a modest measure of less than 40 pages, and can be described—as I think my noble and learned friend described it, in effect—as a Bill dealing with a few fairly minor points, can grow and grow like Topsy and increase its length by 50 per cent. by the time we say goodbye to it.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should just like to say one word and to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for getting through a relatively large number of helpful provisions in this Bill. Although I have made one or two errors, and although I have not done my homework, the Lord Chancellor, as always, has been able to correct me and put me right. I thank him for it and I wish the Act well.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, by leave of the House, I can only say thank you very much to all who have spoken. If I occasionally earlier this afternoon showed mild signs of irritation, I can only say that I am duly sorry. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that there are always important lessons to learn. However, I should never get these matters through at all without the co-operation of the House on all sides. I should like to express my great gratitude to all those who took part in this debate and not least to my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches. Thank you all very much. I remember that Solon said in the latter part of his life: "I am always learning, however old I get."

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
4.50 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House' that she, having been informed of the purport of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved the amendment:
page 41, line 34, leave out Clause 55.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is one which gives us an opportunity to look at Clause 55. It was introduced more or less as an amendment at Report stage. I tend to look more than once at amendments that are introduced belatedly like that on a subject which has not been discussed in the Commons at all. When it was amended here at Committee stage there was a very considerable change because at that time the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that what we were doing was merely bringing Scottish law into line with English law.
We could hardly say that now, because I think that what was in the mind of the Lord Advocate at that time—and we must remember that the Committee stage was before the Recess—was that negotiations were going on throughout the United Kingdom in respect of a new contract for chemists. Scotland was trailing a bit behind in these negotiations. Indeed, the English contract was finished some time in June and, I think, was due to come into operation at about the beginning of this month.
Your Lordships will understand that the Scots, having looked at things, then decided, "We'd better get our legislation in the same way and in the same shape as in England and Wales so that when our turn comes we can introduce it". But what happened was that, despite all that was being said in England—and there was considerable opposition to the new contract for the chemists in England—the new Minister of Health and Social Security discovered that the opposition in England and threats of legal action were such that the department, looking again at its legal powers, decided that they were not enough. I understand that the position now in England is that they are going to introduce primary legislation—not amending legislation as a by-blow of a handy Act, but primary legislation—with full discussion of the whole thing so that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security will have the powers, if Parliament gives them to him, to introduce this new contract.
But in Scotland they were still negotiating the contract and the negotiations were not accepted. I think Mr. McKay went to the British Pharmaceutical Council in Scotland on 9th October, not all that long ago, and it was accepted overwhelmingly there by that council. I have never known of anything of any importance being rushed so quickly because, although they have put in an amendment to bring us up to what was English law and, as they thought, sufficient, the English having discovered that their law was not sufficient, the Scots then decided to use this Bill to give this additional power to the Secretary of State. I do not think that that was at all evident to us all when we discussed this last week. Certainly, I had not received a single scrap of paper about it from anyone either for or against it.
But then I started reading about it and discovered that things were not quite as they seemed according to what we were told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. Indeed, one MP—and we must remember that all this took place, the putting down of this amendment, while the Commons were not sitting, though there is nothing wrong in that—was still writing to the Secretary of State and, when we were discussing it, was about to receive a reply from the Prime Minister, about complaints that that MP had had about Clause 55. It means that if we pass this, we are out of line with England. It means that the new Scottish contract will be in operation; whereas the people who started it will now not have it, I gather, before 1987. That is the position they have got themselves into in England and Wales. As for the canny Scots, we decided that we would race in with this new piece of legislation and cover the situation,
Now what happens? Under the present contract, I believe, the position is that a pharmacist can start up anywhere and will be on the list and it will depend on
1010
himself as to what he is able to make of his business. Two things are happening now. First of all—and this is something which I think the Government can act on under existing legislation—the financing of the new contract is going to mean a lower payment to the smaller pharmacy. It could be terribly important, for it might be serving an area where there is none for miles around. Whereas at the present time the small pharmacists get an advantage over the bigger ones, which do a bigger business, their emolument is being reduced and that of the larger ones is being increased relatively speaking.
To the income to the smaller pharmacists—and you find them in rural areas, you find them on the outskirts of towns and in housing areas—it will mean a loss of about £1,200 to £3,000 per year. This must be added to the burdens that they are already carrying in Scotland with the recent increase in rates and the fact that the introduction of the new lists for chemists under the limited list scheme has meant a reduction in the number of prescriptions. In addition, there has been the increase in the cost of prescriptions, which has meant that people who are not getting help from the state have to think twice about whether they will have two prescriptions or one prescription. It means that there has been a squeeze already upon the smaller chemist, who will find it difficult to compete, and this is virtually the last straw in that respect. And it is the small people who are going to be hit.
It was suggested, I think in an article in the Scotsman in September, that the number of people affected in Scotland—and we must remember that there are about 1,300 chemists in Scotland—will be about 209; and that 106 chemists who are dispensing less than 1,000 prescriptions will be the worst affected and will be likely to close. I would think that that is 50. I know a gentleman who takes a different point of view and who very much knows what the Government are doing and he was suggesting to me that the number would be 75. But I noticed that, in England and Wales between the months of June and September, where in June it had been suggested that 200 would close, it was 600 by the time it came to September. The source of that information is the Guardian and a very timely article that was in today's The Times.
There it is. It is the smaller man who is going out, who is going to be squeezed. It is the person who has been badly squeezed. Additionally to the financial squeeze—and this is highlighted very considerably in respect of this new clause—the Government are taking the power within regulations to enable a committee of the health board, to be called the pharmacy committee, to determine whether or not there should be any pharmacist in any particular area. If within two miles there is another pharmacist, they will be denied the facility of having a chemist's shop in the area. We have not been given any of this information. I have had to glean it very quickly. Indeed, for any newcomer there is the double business, involving whether or not he will get on to the list and whether or not—apart from the pharmacy—the place where it is proposed to be will be allowed by this new committee.
We have not been told how this new committee will be formed. I was told this morning by, I think, a member of the Pharmaceutical Council of Scotland—a Mr. McConnell—that it will be done on

1011
the basis of the health board with three health board laymen, three chemists and, probably, a layman as the chairman. We are giving to this (so far as the general public is concerned) unknown, faceless committee, the right to determine where a chemist's shop will be and how many there will be, whether in a High Street, a rural area or anywhere else. I should be fair. I think that in Scotland there are about 50 pharmacies which could not be justified by the business they do. But they are essential and I think they will get support at the present time, though there is no guarantee that they will continue because the pressure is on to save money. My concern is for the customer.
Mr. Craigen, the Member of Parliament for Maryhill, has been taking up this matter. He has been visiting the chemists in his area and he received a letter from one who said:
"Under the terms of the new legislation, small pharmacies will be penalised financially and in addition small pharmacies presently dispensing fewer than 1,300 prescriptions per month will be closed.
"As a small community pharmacist serving the people of Milton"—
that is in that constituency in Glasgow—
"as I have for the past twelve years, I will become a victim of the new legislation and the community which I have served will be deprived of a dispensing service in their own area which they have enjoyed for over thirty years.
"I need not point out to you the undoubted disadvantages of this proposed action on the people of Milton"—
that is an area of multiple deprivation. The letter continues—
"The first victims would of course be the elderly, the disabled and mothers of young children who, at present, can rely on the services of neighbours to uplift prescriptions in the course of their daily shopping."
It will be very difficult. They will probably have to get somebody to travel by bus to some other area, and bus fares are not something that can be ignored these days. The letter continues that they will
"have to make a journey to the Saracen Street area"
which is outside their area—
"by bus themselves or ask the good neighbour to do this on their behalf."
I know that the idea is to get a more efficient service, and by that I mean one that costs less, but it means that people will certainly be deprived of what is presently a competitive service.
I do not like the idea of introducing in this kind of way a new power, not for the Secretary of State, but for a new body—a sub-committee of a health board. They will be able to determine. The House does not know the guidelines which have been laid down. In fact, I doubt whether many people know what the new contract involves, and this is probably part of the bargaining for this new contract. I suggest that it would be far better, as they have to wait in England and Wales, for us to wait in Scotland as well. That will give us time to talk about it and find out who is right and whether everybody in Scotland agrees about it.
So far as I understand, in England and Wales—and it happened in Scotland, too—an action committee has been set up. It has blossomed and we now have that competitive organisation, the British Pharmaceutical Association. I have no indication of how many members it has, but I gather that in Scotland there is quite a number. It may be that this is
1012
all right, but should we take this step in advance of England, meaning that we were just hoping to catch up and go ahead with this, rather than wait and do it all at the one time? This is the kind of thing at which we should look twice, depending as it does on an important service to old people, to young people, to people who are sick, as well as the effect upon a certain number of chemists with the effect on employment.
We should be given a Utile more time and the Government should, without any further prodding from me, withdraw this clause. That does not mean to say that they cannot bring it back, perhaps at the same time as the English legislation. They could combine the two, as a Minister suggested in regard to rates reform. That would be much simpler than what is being suggested. So my plea to the Government is to withdraw this clause, so that we can get far more information about who will do it and who will be the people detrimentally affected. I do not think that doing this so quickly is the proper way to legislate. There was the new contract decided on 9th October, snags were already discovered in England, and then between the 9th and the 15th October the Government took action in Scotland. That is not the right way to do things and I suggest that the Government withdraw the clause. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, in all the years that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and I have sat on opposite sides of both Chambers, I do not think I can recall a single occasion when I felt drawn to support an amendment moved by the noble Lord. But there must be exceptions to every rule and I must confess that I am very much of a mind to support his amendment this afternoon, although I should hasten to say that I am not sure I would do so for exactly the same reasons as those that he has advanced.
I am concerned, in particular, about the second aspect of the consequences of this amendment to which the noble Lord referred. He referred to the impact of what I would call the proposed reduction in cross-subsidisation between the larger and smaller chemists which, as he rightly pointed out, does not arise directly from this amendment, although it is very much related to the whole question of the new contract. He referred also to what I believe arises directly from this clause as it now stands in the Bill, the proposition that the Secretary of State should be empowered to introduce regulations by which a pharmacy committee should control access by incomers to the pharmacy profession to an NHS contract.
I think that the way in which this clause was amended last week in Committee was just a little bit naughty. Your Lordships will recall that in the summer the noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised on an Unstarred Question the whole matter of the proposed new pharmacy contract, and since the noble Lord is here in person I certainly do not intend to elaborate on the debate which he staged then. But I think your Lordships might, at least, agree that he and other noble Lords expressed considerable concern about the nature of this proposed new contract.
5 p.m.
I read reports in the press, during the Recess, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross, did, to the effect that

1013
the Government have discovered, as the noble Lord said, that primary legislation would be required to bring in the new contract with pharmacists along the lines which the Government were proposing. I am bound to admit that, having read this, I took the opportunity to forewarn my honourable friend the Minister for Health in another place that I could not help feeling that such primary legislation might come in for some criticism and disagreement in your Lordships' House, certainly judging from the Unstarred Question debate of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in the summer. My honourable friend told me that there was absolutely no decision about taking primary legislation. Quite obviously, apart from anything else, there was the question of whether there was a slot for such primary legislation.
But in Scotland things were easier. On 15th October at Report stage my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate moved his Amendment No. 32. At col. 524 of the Official Report he said:
"The provisions now sought do not differ in principle from those which Clause 55, as originally drafted, sought to achieve. The amendment to Section 27 does not in itself alter the right of a pharmacist to be included in a health board pharmaceutical list and thereby enter into a contract with the National Health Service … Regulations may make the right of a person to have his name and premises included in a health board's pharmaceutical list… subject to the board's pharmacy practice committee being satisfied that the granting of an application for inclusion in the list is necessary or desirable from the point of view of securing adequate provision of pharmaceutical services to the NHS in the locality of the proposed pharmacy".—[Official Report, 15/10/85; col. 524.]
In other words, it certainly very substantially altered the terms of potential entry into NHS contracting in the pharmacy trade. I must say that it proposed to alter it in what I find an extremely worrying way.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to this new body, the pharmacy committee, which he said had not been at all clearly spelt out to us. It is my understanding—I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will correct me if I am wrong—that this is to be a body consisting of three chemists, three gentlemen from the local family practitioner committee (who presumably, by the sound of it, will be doctors) and a lay chairman. They will be empowered to decide whether or not it is necessary or desirable that a new pharmacist should have access to an NHS contract. If they decide that the new pharmacist should not be so empowered, he has a right of appeal. To whom? Not to the Secretary of State, not to an independent arbitrator, but to the adjacent pharmaceutical committee made up of a precisely similar group of people.
I accept that chemists will be in a minority on these new bodies—a minority of three out of seven—but I submit to your Lordships that a body consisting of three chemists, three doctors and a lay chairman is not perhaps the most certain body to resist suggestions that a little additional competition in the interests of the customer would not be necessarily in the interests of the pharmaceutical profession. In other words, it seems to me that this proposal smacks considerably of rigging the entry into the profession by a professional cartel.
I know that my right honourable friends have pointed out that as things stand the open access to the right to provide NHS prescriptions is extremely costly for the health service. I would be the last to complain
1014
about measures aimed to achieve economies in the health service. I must point out to your Lordships that the only economy expected to be achieved by this proposal for the United Kingdom as a whole is £2 million a year net. That is not really a vast sum. Furthermore, I would submit to your Lordships that the fundamental reason why the present system of open access to the right of NHS prescribing is so costly to the health service is that it is done on a cost plus basis. I should have thought that we might have learnt by now, not least by the experiences of the Ministry of Defence, that a cost plus basis is a recipe for wasting public money. It is that at which we should be looking again rather than arranging a fairly marginal saving by any standard on the cost of the pharmacy contract, and in return giving to the profession something not wholly removed from a power of veto on new entry into the prescribing aspect of the profession's work.
For those reasons, I am bound to say that I find myself for once in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he make it clear whether the saving of £2 million which he suggested—I heard a higher figure—is not related to Scotland?
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I bow to the greater knowledge of the noble Lord on that point. The figure is £4 million gross but £2 million of that is earmarked for return to the profession, so it is £2 million net in public expenditure terms. It was my understanding, although I stand to be corrected by the noble Lord, that it was a United Kingdom figure. If the noble Lord is telling your Lordships that it is purely an England and Wales figure, I accept his judgment on that.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it may seem curious for an Englishman to be speaking on a Scottish Bill (and I apologise for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord T aylor of Gryfe, is not able to be here today as he certainly would have joined in the debate) but I do not really apologise because I think that this is the thin end of a wedge which will hit us South of the Border, and in any case there is a matter of principle here in which we should all be interested. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for having raised this amendment on Third Reading today.
I have been lobbied by pharmacists in Scotland. I wonder whether we can continue to use the word "pharmacist" rather than "chemist" because chemists and pharmacists are rather different and we are talking here about pharmacists. As a long time chemist who was not a pharmacist, I object to the confusion. I have been given an example which illustrates the problems that already exist and the problems that are created by the Government's amendment. May I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that this is a very curious way of introducing legislation. There is a tendency, particularly for English Members of your Lordships' House, to let the Scots get on with it and to be assured that noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, are keeping a beady eye on Scottish legislation and will not let anything slip through on the nod. I am not saying that he failed on this occasion as far as Scotland is concerned but, as I

1015
said before, this is the very thin end of a very big wedge. It is unfortunate that it should be introduced in a Bill which really has very little to do with the subject of this amendment. Certainly the terms in which it was moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate last week would have given nobody any suspicion of the issues at stake.
This is my illustration. Let us imagine a small town which two years ago had one pharmacy situated close to a doctor's surgery. The pharmacist had owned this pharmacy for 20 years or more. Suddenly along comes another pharmacist who sets up a practice much closer to the doctor's surgery. It is that kind of thing that I understand this system is intended to stop. Nevertheless there have been cases like that, and I seek to show that in fact this clause will make the situation worse.
As a result of this leapfrogging, the original pharmacist begins to lose business to the new one. After a time his business drops below the crucial level. He is forced out of the National Health Service under the terms granted to this committee. His income anyway is therefore reduced by between £100 and £200 a month. Dispensaries dispensing more than 1,300 items a month will be untouched. The owner then has no alternative but to shut up shop. Although he will receive compensation of approximately £16,000 in this case, it is not enough to pay redundancy and settle on his stock at a loss. This, after a number of years of operating in the health service, is not good enough.
The ultimate irony is that the new pharmacy will dispense national health prescriptions for the whole town and will be largely protected from any future competition. This is extremely curious, coming from this Government in particular. They are great believers in market forces and in small businesses, yet they seem by this amendment to be attacking the very people whom they seek so often to support. It may be said by the Government—and I am sure that it will—that this change is being made after consultation with the appropriate body. However, I must tell the Government that that appropriate body, because it was having secret discussions with the Government, did not check with its own contractors or even with the pharmacists. They have not been allowed to vote on whether or not they want this deal. That surely cannot be good enough.
It is my understanding that the saving in Scotland is likely to total £250,000. Therefore the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, must include the whole of the United Kingdom and not relate just to Scotland. It is interesting that that figure is being bandied about. It must mean that it is the Government's intention to extend this particular system throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom—again, as far as I know, without any consultation with the people involved and certainly without any consultation with Parliament. That is why I say that this is the thin end of the wedge, because the Government are using the figures at the thick end of the wedge to justify what they are doing at the thin end.
I am not an expert on this subject, but the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has opened up a very
1016
interesting debate. This matter is not one that should be going through on the Third Reading of a rather complicated and tortuous Bill. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has been complimented on his flexibility at the Report stage of this Bill and for the way in which he listened to the requests made to him at earlier stages. I hope that on this occasion he will be equally flexible and do as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, suggests; that is, allow this whole matter to rest until it can be fully debated in a proper measure brought before Parliament to cover the whole of the pharmaceutical business in the United Kingdom. I certainly support the amendment.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, wondered whether his reasons were the same as those of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in opposing Clause 55. Even from the Cross-Benches I have begun to learn that in politics, if one can find people who will agree with one on a certain action or inaction, it is not necessary to probe too deeply to discover whether their reasons precisely coincide with one's own. For my money, the fundamental objection in principle to Clause 55 is that in place of relying as hitherto on financial incentives and disincentives to influence the number and location of dispensing chemists, the Government are now proposing to unleash the ultimate sanction of compulsion and prohibition against the opening of new small businesses in the form of what are popularly called chemists' shops and what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, correctly named the new pharmacies.
I first ventured to raise this issue in the form of an Unstarred Question in June, when I warned that the Government risked bringing themselves into some degree of ridicule by supporting the lobby of existing chemists in ending the open entry into the retail market. I can only say that it has turned out at least as badly as any critic could possibly have anticipated. Thus after the previous Minister of Health, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, had nailed his colours to this already crumbling mast, his successor, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, announced in public that the Government could not do the chemists' dubious work for them by shutting the door on new pharmacies in the United Kingdom—in England and Wales—because,
"present powers are almost certainly inadequate to introduce the limitation of entry provisions.".
Mr. Hayhoe went on to say:
'"New primary legislation is required to provide the necessary powers".
As the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, this explains how it came about that suddenly at Committee stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, moved an amendment to add a new clause, Clause 55. When on scrutiny that clause was found to be inadequate, the noble and learned Lord went on at Report stage to move an amendment which enlarged Clause 55 into a complex rigmarole that is impossible to understand without the benefit of several highly-paid lawyers but which purports to give the Government power to restrict the entry into the market of new retail pharmacists.
In passing, one paradox is that Scotland, which has led the way in liberalising shop opening hours and

1017
licensing laws, is here chosen to pioneer the exactly opposite process of regulation and outright restriction.
5.15 p.m.
At Report stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, sought to justify that backward step as implementing an agreement between the Minister of Health and representratives of the profession in the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee. The truth, which was already public by last May, was that when the terms of the secret negotiations were out in the open the Company Chemists' Association completely repudiated the agreement, which its own representatives on the negotiating committee had no mandate to accept. So there is no wide agreement by pharmacists and chemists on this matter.
Indeed, in the present issue of the Pharmaceutical Journal the president of the Pharmaceutical Society, which is the pharmacists' professional body, expresses severe misgivings about the whole process and the proposal. He concludes by expressing the view that:
"The recent proposals strike at the basis, structure and operation of the entire pharmaceutical profession".
He added that he hoped to see a wider debate next time. I have to ask: why wait until next time for this wider debate? If we follow the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, into the Lobbies it will not only be good exercise but will get rid of this trumped-up amendment now. Then the wider debate can commence before legislation has cast these far-reaching changes into tablets of stone.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am rather concerned about a curious aspect of this affair—the imposition of a fetter upon the liberty of a person to exercise his calling without any form of appeal to the courts of law. I ask my noble and learned friend whether, from the depths of his legal experience, he is aware of similar precedents in any analogous circumstances. Shutting the door on new pharmacists is inevitably a subject for primary legislation. Primary legislation can do anything, as all your Lordships know. But ought it to deprive a man of exercising his calling without recourse to the ordinary courts?
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. At Report stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate stated that this new contract had the substantial agreement of pharmacists. It certainly appears from strong representations made to me, and I understand to numerous other noble Lords, that there is a vociferous body of pharmacists who are strongly opposed to this measure and who claim to represent at least 40 per cent. of the pharmacists in practice. If that is the position surely it is wrong suddenly to add to this Bill a form of rationing of premises which is not to apply to England, so that one has the curious result that certain small chemists in Scotland will be paid less per prescription than the chemists in England. That will certainly raise anger in the future.
I also ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate: has the Scottish Consumer Council been consulted? Of course, ordinary people as distinct from pharmacists are concerned as to where pharmacies will be. The Scottish Consumer Council was consulted
1018
in great detail on the small claims provisions in the Bill, but was it consulted about this provision?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I have obviously listened very carefully to all that has been said by noble Lords in various parts of the House but I am bound to say that I cannot commend the acceptance of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that the clause should be dropped.
On Report I explained that in Scotland, as in England and Wales, the Government had reached substantial agreement with representatives of the profession on a new contract for community pharmacists, but that progress towards implementing those proposals could not be completed until regulations were available which authorised restriction on entry to health board pharmaceutical lists. I accept, of course, that that power under regulations required primary legislation.
I should make it clear that certainly my understanding is that the new contract proposals which were agreed after negotiations, which proceeded over a period of months prior to October of this year, are supported by the substantial majority of pharmacists in Scotland. May I say at the outset that the body with which my honourable friend the Minister dealt with is, of course, a body which represents all pharmacists in Scotland. Indeed, it was at a meeting of the pharmaceutical general council on 9th October this year that the motion to approve the new contract proposals was approved unanimously by those who were present. My information is that 39 of the 44 members of the council were present.
The general council itself draws its membership from all 15 health board areas in Scotland. The council is recognised by the Secretary of State as representing the general body of community pharmacists in Scotland on remuneration matters and on terms and conditions of service. It is an elected body and, as I said, on this particular occasion those present at the meeting voted unanimously to accept the new contract proposals. Before Report stage I received a letter from the Scottish Department of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain—that is, the professional body for all pharmacists—which expressed strong support for the proposals. I understand that other noble Lords may have received such a letter.
I accept, of course, that a number of pharmacists are opposed to the scheme—notably small contractors who, in general, are not opposed to the contract limitation as such (and that is all that we are dealing with at Clause 55) but who consider that they may be at a disadvantage as a result of changes in remuneration. We are not dealing with that aspect in this clause. I also accept that there is apparently some opposition from some multiples according to a leading article in last week's Pharmaceutical Journal. However, that article indicated that it was in the interests of the profession that the Bill should now be translated into law. I understand that that was said in the editorial comment which appears in the 19th October edition of the journal. That would suggest, at least to me, that there is general support throughout the pharmacists' profession for what is intended by the powers given under these new arrangements.

1019
The new arrangements are designed to provide a network of pharmacies located where they can best serve the needs of patients without the extravagant use of National Health Service resources. They include greater incentives for economy and efficiency and disincentives against over-supply, while at the same time providing safeguards for the funding of essential small pharmacies. There is no suggestion that those pharmacists already on the list should be required to give up their contracts. I wish to make that entirely clear.
However, there is special provision to enable small pharmacies adversely effected by the contractual arrangements to withdraw from their National Health Service contracts or to relocate their business to areas where they could better serve the needs of the patients. It is certainly not the intention that additional National Health Service dispensing contracts should be refused where there is a genuine service need. The overall package aims to and, I believe, does achieve a realistic balance between competition and efficient provision of National Health Service dispensing services. It thus frees the resources for other demands on the National Health Service. The Government are satisfied that the new arrangements are in the interests both of the public and of the pharmaceutical profession as a whole, and that there is a width of support from within the profession, as I have already mentioned, which serves to endorse this view.
I answer certain of the points raised by noble Lords in this way. In the first place, issue was taken with the fact that the amendments were put down at a late stage. Of course, the amendments were originally considered by your Lordships at Committee stage. At that stage it was the principle upon which the new contracts were being negotiated; they had already been set out and they included restriction of entry. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is quite correct in saying that, thereafter, it became recognised that the legal powers to restrict entry in the way in which it is intended by the additional amendments which I proposed on Report are not, after all, available. Certainly it is clear that my honourable friend in another place has indicated that primary legislation would be required for England and Wales although, having read The Times today, there appears to be some doubt on that on the part of the profession itself. However, I note that in that article the professional body—the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee—appeared to support the proposals which are, for Scotland, within the context of this clause.
5.30 p.m.
I do not fear coming before your Lordships to suggest that Scotland should be in the vanguard of a change. I have never thought that that was necessarily a bad thing at all. However it gives your Lordships an opportunity today to consider what is intended within the context of these amendments. I make it abundantly plain that what the amendments seek to do first of all is to require that an applicant, in applying to be placed upon the list, also needs to state the premises from which he will operate. That of course is a necessary precursor to being able to determine whether the applicant, who will only be concerned with National Health Service dispensing—I can assure
1020
my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that he is not precluded from acting as a pharmacist in the ordinary way, but would simply not be on the list for a particular health board area for acting to provide pharmaceutical services—could meet a need which was not already being catered for.
We should then be rid of one of the difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, alluded; namely, that of leapfrogging, that is to say, where a person who is already on the list providing pharmaceutical services perfectly satisfactorily finds himself in competition with a new entrant who, by reason of good fortune, is able to find premises closer at hand, say, to a doctor's surgery and who thereafter takes away a part of that pharmacist's business. That cannot be good for the general standing of the pharmaceutical profession so far as the dispensing of contracts is concerned.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord would permit me to interrupt him, I know that this is the Third Reading but I think it is fair to say that I accepted that point. What I sought to suggest was that in fact in certain instances these provisions could make it worse and not better.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, as I understand it, it was suggested by the noble Lord that these provisions would mean that the small pharmacist who was already in business would thereafter find that his business had disappeared to the extent that he was required to give up business. What I am pointing out to your Lordships is that he would not be placed in that position if these regulations were already in force; that is to say, the second pharmacist would not be in the area to compete with him unless, as is suggested here, it were already established that it was for the proper provision of services and to meet a need that that second pharmacist had come into the area. That is the point which I think the noble Lord was making, and I hope that I have answered him in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, mentioned certain figures in relation to remuneration and I simply say again that I am not suggesting that we are dealing with the matter of remuneration in these particular amendments. But I think it is only right and proper to make it absolutely clear that while it may be that if a pharmacy closes it will be less convenient for some, it is not the case that those pharmacies providing an essential social service in areas where they are needed will be deleteriously affected.
There is at present an essential small pharmacies' allowance which is primarily but not exclusively of benefit to rural pharmacies. Under the new arrangements this will be enhanced in particular for the benefit of those in the smallest subscription groups. So the Government fully recognise the difficulties which arise in this area.
My noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, made reference to the provisions for the new committee. Of course, under the 1978 Act, to which these amendments are directed, it is the duty of every health board to make, in accordance with the regulations, certain arrangements in respect of its area for the provision of pharmaceutical services. This clause sets out to ensure

1021
that the regulations will contain the power first of all to provide that the health board shall set up a particular committee in order to deal with the matter, that committee being the pharmacy practices committee which is referred to in the clause. Furthermore, it goes on to provide that there shall be, by way of regulations, provision of an appeal from the decisions of that committee. Obviously, at the end of the day this will be a matter for regulations, but I am advised that the proposal as thought of at present would be that the pharmacy practices committee would comprise four lay health board members and three pharmacists, with a lay chairman. Of course I make clear, as your Lordships will have observed, that it is the duty of the health board to make provision within its area for pharmaceutical services.
So far as the appeal committee is concerned, it is proposed that it would be made up in a similar fashion, that is to say, with four lay members and three pharmacists who have no interest in the applications. Obviously, what has been said in your Lordships' House would necessarily be taken into account in the final determination of these matters so far as regulations are concerned.
I think that my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne in a sense complained of the fact that this matter appeared to be brought into this Bill at a late stage. I hope that I have been able at least to explain how it was that this matter came to arise. Nevertheless, I believe that the purpose behind this clause is a proper and a salutary one, which I commend to your Lordships.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble and learned friend but it would appear that he is leaving the question of appeal. Could he just clear up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell? Is there any precedent for appeal running from one of these professionally dominated bodies to the adjacent hunts?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am always chary of giving an immediate reply, but I am fairly confident that such provision is not unknown in this field. I think I am correct in saying that there is something of a similar character as regards disciplinary proceedings under the National Health Service regulations. I say that off the top of my head and I may well be wrong. As I say, I cannot answer the point directly and, should it be necessary, I shall certainly undertake to attempt to answer my noble friend in writing in due course.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord just deal with this for a second as it is on the point that he has answered? Appeal to the Secretary of State in relation to disciplinary hearings in England and Wales is surely open. Are we to understand that it is different in Scotland?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I do not think that I was attempting to suggest different. There is in fact an appeal at the end of the day to the Secretary of State. I think I am right. I hasten to add that I say what I did with caution, but I am fairly confident that there is a similar procedure elsewhere
1022
within National Health Service regulations. It may be that I am wrong. As I say, I undertake to follow this matter up if necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, on the Cross-Benches referred to the question of restriction as something that is in a sense new to the NHS. I would take issue with him on that. I do not accept that the new arrangements are contrary to the basic principles of the NHS. There the general aim is to secure that where possible a service is available where there is a need. It is clearly desirable, as I said earlier, that there should not be over-provision in some areas to the detriment of national health services generally. It is that unnecessary over-provision that this clause is designed to meet.
Nor is limitation of entry, as such, contrary to the principles of the NHS, since certain noble Lords will be aware that in the comparable area of general medical services there is machinery designed to control entry and to assist in securing the provision of those services throughout the country. The principles behind these further proposals and amendments to the 1978 Act are not in themselves novel.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, referred to a vociferous body of opposition He mentioned about 40 per cent. of pharmacists as being opposed to the new contract proposals. I have endeavoured to make inquiry about this. That is not in accordance with the information I have been given. Estimates must vary, but my information is that the pressure group which has been formed—the British Pharmacists' Association—claimed recently to have about 100 members in Scotland, and that is out of about 3,000 pharmacists registered in Scotland. I should add that, of that 100, some may not necessarily be community pharmacists. I am also advised that there are in the order of 1,100 community pharmacists in Scotland. The information that I have—and I recognise that it may well be inaccurate—is that about 60 of those have joined the unofficial body. That does not seem to me to suggest that the pressure group controls as much as 40 per cent. of all pharmacists.
The noble Lord also asked me about consultation with the Scottish Consumer Council. I have to say quite unequivocally that the Scottish Consumer Council was not consulted. This has always been a question of negotiation between the Government and the responsible professional body. As I indicated, that has taken place over a period of time and resulted in acceptance by that body in the manner which I have described on 9th October of this year.
I have taken some time endeavouring as best I may to respond to the arguments that have been put forward from all quarters of the House. I make it clear that the Government would wish that these new arrangements, based upon this clause, should be available to Scottish pharmacists in due course on the basis of the new contract provisions agreed with the general council. I would say only that it is the Government's view that there is much to be gained from what is proposed in this clause. For all those reasons, and bearing in mind that, as I have indicated, the Government will make certain that the essential small pharmacies allowance will continue in being, I invite your Lordships to reject the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we are grateful to the Lord Advocate for taking his time in answering the debate. The fact that he did so was an indication of the importance of this, which he probably did not appreciate when he moved the amendment on Report. In a way, I felt rather sorry for him. All the speeches that were delivered from the Cross-Benches, from his own Benches, from the Liberal Benches and from these Benches were against him. He had not a friend in the place. But I suppose that he will say, "I am the representative of the Government. I represent this great majority", and what not.
That may be exactly what is happening in the pharmaceutical industry. People were mandated to go ahead with secret negotiations. May I quote what I thought was a very apt comment by Mr. Jim Bannerman from Glasgow, who is a former president of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain? He said:
"As in all representative bodies you have a negotiating committee with a mandate, but they are not mandated to wipe people out".
That is the essence of all this: people are being wiped out.
I think that the noble and learned Lord was a bit unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. This is a restriction on qualified people practising their profession. It is taking away a right that they presently have, and it is taking away a right only in part of the United Kingdom. When he started amending Section 27 of the 1978 Act at the Committee stage he thought that he was giving Scotland the same powers as England and Wales. Now we are way beyond England and Wales in the power to restrict—in the power that will be given to a sub-committee of a health board to say that there will not be a pharmacy. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that everybody in Scotland calls it the chemist shop. Let us keep with the people.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, asked whether the Scottish Consumer Council was consulted. The noble and learned Lord says, "Oh, no; this was always done by the negotiating committee". When customers—patients who are ill and their families—are being deprived of a service which is there or would readily be there, considering the consumer does come into it. On this occasion it should have been worthwhile for the Government to consult the consumer.
I do not think that the case has been made out for delay. If the provision is going to come later in primary legislation for England and Wales, why not see that the steps are taken together? I think that it is very important that chemists in Scotland or chemists who intend to set up business in Scotland should not be impeded, when they will have the freedom in England and Wales until the primary legislation is effective, I understand, in about two years' time.
That is all I am saying. We are not voting against the provision. We want to withdraw it so that the Government can introduce it and let us have a proper debate. Many noble Lords, I think, wish that this was just the Committee stage, with a full debate on Report and Third Reading to follow. We do not have all the
1024
information about the committee and about the appeal. There is nothing in the clause about the appeal. We have nothing about the contract. There is not a single person here who has seen the new contract, which is now only going to be applied in Scotland. That is the bit that sticks in my throat a little.
Let us go canny and be traditional Scots; let us see exactly what is in this poke, whether it is a pig or anything else. Let us introduce the primary legislation when everyone can have the opportunity of having a go at it. I must proceed with my amendment, and I trust I shall have support from right-minded people in this respect.
5.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 75.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Leathers, V.

Ampthill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Auckland, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Aylestone, L.

McNair, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brockway, L.

Milford, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Munster, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Caradon, L.

Northbourne, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Chitnis, L.

Peart, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Craigavon, V.

Raglan, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Rochester, L.

Ennals, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rugby, L.

Ezra, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gallacher, L.

Scanlon, L.

Galpern, L.

Selkirk, E.

Glenamara, L.

Somers, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Soper, L.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayter, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L

Kintore, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Belstead, L.

Butterworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Caithness, E.

1025

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chelmer, L.

Long, V.

Cox, B.

Lyell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Darnley, E.

Mancroft, L.

Davidson, V.

Margadale, L.

De La Warr, E.

Marley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Morris, L.

Effingham, E.

Mottistone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orkney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Portland, D.

Gainford, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rochdale, V.

Geddes, L.

Rodney, L.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Savile, L.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Swansea, L.

Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harvington, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Vickers, B.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Inglewood, L.

Young, B.

Killearn, L.

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
In so moving I would like to thank your Lordships for giving this Bill, in most of its parts, a general welcome. The provisions in the main—I say "in the main"—are not controversial, and together they constitute an extremely useful compendium of measures that will effect substantial and worthwhile changes in various aspects of Scots law. In particular, your Lordships will recollect that the Bill implements no fewer than four reports of the Scottish Law Commission—those on irritancies and leases, rectification of documents, negligent misrepresentation and evidence in cases of rape and other sexual offences.
Importantly, it also paves the way for a new procedure for small claims. It introduces a number of new provisions relating to the care of children and provides for increased penalties for drug trafficking offences. In Committee and at Report, the Bill was extended and improved with the inclusion of provisions relating to the incorporation of solicitors and extension of the powers of the Commissioner for Local Administration. A number of those amendments have resulted from suggestions which were made by noble Lords, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. I am most grateful to them and, indeed, to all who have taken part in the debates on the Bill for their helpful contributions which have led to valuable modifications in the Bill.
More generally, I should like to thank your Lordships for the care with which this House has considered this piece of legislation. I think that I can
1026
confidently say that it probably has few rivals as to the extent of the subjects and interests which it still covers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I also welcome the Bill in general. It has been improved in the last few minutes. I should like to deal with two or three points, two of them perhaps of greater interest to more members of the general public in Scotland than some other parts of the Bill. The first is the small claims procedure which, I think, will be generally welcomed. I would, however, like to sound a warning note which I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is also aware of. It is that the effectiveness of the small claims procedure will depend crucially on the rules that the Sheriff Court Rules Council will formulate. If these are complicated, too rigid and legalistic, the whole procedure will just not work.
The other measure to which I should especially like to draw attention is the provision that the local government ombudsman shall now have power over the Scottish Special Housing Association and new town tenanted houses. This will be a very useful measure for the many tenants who have complained to the ombudsman but who have been unable to have their complaints dealt with. In general, I welcome the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons amended.

Oil and Pipelines Bill
6.3 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to say a few words before we actually pass this dreadful Bill. First, however, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for his courtesy during all stages of the Bill. That is probably the last nice thing I shall say about him. Nevertheless, he has been courteous and all those who have taken part will, I am sure, wish to thank him for that.
This is a Bill that has not exactly set the world alight. There has not been a great deal of interest in it. I appreciate the efforts of those few who did take part during the various stages of the Bill, notably the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Ezra, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Perhaps the lack of interest stems from the realisation that this Bill is merely the final act in the Tory farce of disengaging the state from any real participation in the North Sea oil industry. In doing so, they have rendered this country almost unique among the oil producing nations of the world. The Norwegians have certainly not disengaged themselves from the North Sea. Neither have the

1027
Arabs disengaged themselves from their oil industry. But the British Government have done it, and they have done it just about completely.
The Opposition have tried hard during the Committee and Report stages to improve the Bill. Indeed, we have striven to persuade the Government to accept amendments with a view not only to ensuring that they would have some real control over security of supply but also to ensuring that the agency itself operates more effectively. But all to no avail! Despite the fact that all of us from the Opposition Benches have stripped our contributions of party political rhetoric and have concentrated on the fundamental needs of the nation's oil policy, the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Gray—he has, as I say, been courtesy itself: of that there can be no doubt—has been accompanied by an attitude of complete obduracy, no doubt dictated by his masters in the Cabinet. Stonewall Hamish, no less!
However, even at this late stage of the Bill, I must return to the question of security of supply and reiterate the Opposition's view that it is nothing short of scandalous that the Government should wilfully disengage themselves from proper and direct involvement in arrangements to secure the nation's oil supplies in the event of crisis. I said at Second Reading that the Government were elected to safeguard Britain's national interests, not to subordinate them to informal assurances from the oil companies. That remains my view. Nothing that has been said from the Government Front Bench during the passage of the Bill through the House assuages in any way our fears about the security of our oil supplies. Indeed, quite the reverse.
The complacency of the Government in this regard has become more evident as the noble Lord opposite has struggled on amendment after amendment to defend what he himself knows to be the indefensible. He knows perfectly well that only three months before this Bill was introduced he was advocating the very policy that we have been advocating from these Benches during the passage of the Bill. So he knows himself that the Bill is indefensible.
Even our attempts to see that Parliament is properly informed, involved and consulted have been stonewalled by the noble Lord opposite. Indeed, in cricket parlance, the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, has made Trevor Bailey look a veritable Ian Botham by comparison. This debate tonight is the end of a long chapter in the North Sea oil saga, a chapter redolent of Tory dogma which sacrifices the vital interests of the nation and the people to the vagaries of the market place. But it is not the end of the story. For the Labour Party fully intends that state participation in the North Sea will be restored and that Government will have a real influence in ensuring security of supply. I give notice now that when the Labour Party is restored to office at the next general election we will indeed see to it that we re-enter the North Sea in every respect and safeguard the nation's vital oil interests.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for his very kind remarks which he has made about the way I have tried to handle the proceedings during the progress of this
1028
Bill. I can perhaps reciprocate by saying that although he is always hard hitting and forthright he has, from my position at this Box, a twinkle which is unmistakable and which reveals a good sense of humour at the same time.
I shall take up the points which he made in a minute or two, but I should first also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who contacted me today and said how sorry he was that he would not be able to be with us this evening, and also the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, as well as my noble friend Lord Lauderdale for the part which all of them played during our deliberations.
We have had a very interesting series of debates over this Bill. During the Committee and Report stages I have been able to describe the Government's reasons for introducing this Bill and their plans for the proposed Oil and Pipelines Agency. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Energy in another place has already announced the names of three distinguished people who will be appointed to the agency's board. I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has now also designated Mr. Christopher Finch for appointment as a non-executive member. He has no further appointments in mind. Mr. Finch is currently the BNOC board member for finance and will bring to the agency wide experience of the financial aspects of oil trading and of public corporations. That will be particularly valuable in the transition from BNOC to the agency.
Perhaps the most important theme running through our debates—and rightly so—has been the security of oil supplies. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, returned to that subject again today. Without repeating the substance of earlier debates, I should like to make one or two points on this subject. OPA, or indeed BNOC if it were to continue in its old form, has no special relevance to a major interruption in oil supply. For such a case we have international obligations and mechanisms and if those fail we have the full panoply of powers under the Energy Act, which enable Government completely to control any oil produced from the Continental Shelf or imported into Britain. Our concern is therefore limited to what are known as "sub-crises" when oil supplies to IEA countries are reduced by less than 7 per cent.
The first point I want to make is a simple one. We cannot guarantee security of supply just because we are self-sufficient. Quite apart from the costs that would be incurred if we were to adopt an isolationist policy, North Sea oil is itself not 100 per cent. secure. It is produced in a hostile environment. It is a volatile and inflammable fluid processed in large, complicated and technically advanced plants. Isolating the United Kingdom from the world market would reduce rather than enhance security.
Secondly, the sub-crises of the seventies—which did so much damage to the world economy—did not in fact reduce supply below normal demand. It was the anticipation of a shortage that led to a surge in demand from both consumers of oil products and their supplying companies. I am afraid, prompted by consumer Governments, this was the situation; and that was the penalty which our countries have to accept.

1029
To anticipate such surges in demand would require massive investments in infrastructure which would be idle most of the time. The cost simply would not be justified. Most importantly, the damage done to the world economy did not stem directly from any physical shortage but from the ratcheting up of world oil prices.
We did not and cannot isolate the United Kingdom economy from the world economy. Accordingly, the main national objective for a future sub-crisis must be to seek to moderate the effect on world oil prices. That can be achieved only through international cooperation. I am glad to be able to report to noble Lords that in the last two years the International Energy Agency governments have advanced significantly both in their recognition of that objective and their contingency arrangements for achieving it in a sub-crisis.
My fourth point is that imposing novel arrangements in a sub-crisis is likley to worsen local dislocations and increase confusion. Diversion of the physical flows of oil from their normal channels, unless very carefully handled, will be apt to lead to higher price rises because it will compartmentalise markets. The following point is very relevant to the Oil and Pipelines Agency's role. Governments in any future sub-crisis will succeed best both in matching United Kingdom supply and demand and therefore in moderating price increases if they play, so far as possible, with the grain of the market and of established patterns of trade and distribution.
I make these points not because they are politically controversial. The behaviour of previous Administrations has shown that they were well aware of them. But in detailed debates on what might be done to enhance security it is so easy to forget the limits of what is practical or desirable.
The noble Lord has already given notice that should his party be elected to power they will immediately create once again a Government presence in the North Sea. I think that this would be a tragedy. The development of the North Sea has been due to the expertise and the enterprise of the private sector. And the fact that oil came ashore within five years from the date of the first discovery of oil in the North Sea was as the result of the very great expertise of Hamilton Brothers in the Argyle Field. This was followed by BP in Forties Field.
It so happens that I was on the opposition Front Bench at the time that the British National Oil Corporation was created. I remember so well saying that one day we would see the end of this corporation because we considered that there was no place for this in oil production in the North Sea; but in the interim period we wished the corporation well. I have to say that in some regards it performed a useful function but it has now outlived its usefulness. That is, indeed, why we introduced this Bill, virtually to remove the last of the powers of the BNOC and transfer them to a very minor body by comparison.
In conclusion, may I say that I believe this Bill to be a small but very important Bill. I thank your Lordships for your tolerance in dealing with it in this House, and I finally commend the Bill on passing.
On Question, Bill passed.

United Nations (Namibia) Bill [H.L.]
6.19 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is indeed timely that this Bill should come before the House at this moment, in view of the end of the Commonwealth Conference tonight and the events in Nassau over the last few days. Let me say right away that I welcome the Prime Minister's conversion to the policy of sanctions, even though it is belated and reluctant. We are not concerned about the semantics of whether she likes to call them "measures" or "sanctions". That does not make any difference to their practice. However, it is somewhat undignified to find that the Prime Minister of Britain should be dragged kicking and screaming by the Commonwealth into the real South African world, a world where the stench of death, the agony of children, the desperate grief of parents—wives, fathers and mothers—is the reality with which we are dealing.
The Prime Minister says that she has made a small concession. It is small—too small. Nevertheless it is a concession on principle and, just as President Reagan was forced by his Congress to accept the principle of sanctions, so our Prime Minister has at last recognised that that principle must be observed by this country. Of course once you observe that principle there is no retreat. I do not doubt that events in South Africa and the continued concern of the international community will force greater tightening of screws in the future.
I believe that it is also unfortunate that the Prime Minister has acted in the way she has at Nassau, because if sanctions are to have any constructive effect at all they must be backed by a strong political will, not by the apologias that the Prime Minister has been offering the world by the sneering compliance to the Commonwealth will. That is the way to get the worst of both worlds. It would appear from the Prime Minister's attitude over the last few weeks—indeed, over the last few months—that she prefers the schoolmarm admonitions, whether to President Botha or to other members of the South African regime. made presumably with her tongue in her cheek because they are continually accompanied by the economic support which this country has been giving to the apartheid regime.
The Prime Minister talks about dialogue. Dialogue with President Botha? What has happened since President Botha visited Chequers 18 months ago? Would the Prime Minister—indeed, would any noble Lord or noble Baroness in this House—like to tell Mrs. Moloise, the family of Steve Biko, the husband and family of Ruth First, Winnie Mandela, Mrs. Sisulu or Helen Joseph that dialogue is changing events in South Africa? Indeed, would they like to tell the families of the 800 Africans who have been killed in the last 12 months and the thousands more victims who have suffered during that period that dialogue is working? Would they like to tell the victims in Botswana, Angola, Namibia or Mozambique that the policy of dialogue is changing South African attitudes?
Dialogue started a long time ago. Back in 1908–09 there was a national convention organised by the Government of this country, which was then a Liberal

1031
Government. No blacks were at that convention. It brought forward the Act of Union 1909, in which this country gave power to the white minority in South Africa to rule that country. However, let us note that even at that time there were, as there always have been since, certain brave white men and women and certain brave Afrikaner men and women who saw the danger. It was William Shreiner who came to this Palace and submitted an appeal to the Parliament and Government of Great Britain. It was William Shreiner, an Afrikaner, who saw the danger of the inclusion of the colour bar in that constitution and who described it as:
"A blot on the constitution".
He was right and this Parliament was wrong.
The dialogue continued, and has continued ever since. That dialogue did not prevent the massacre of the mineworkers by the Smuts regime in the 1920s; it did not prevent this country giving independence to racialist South Africa in 1931. It did not prevent the removal of the Cape African vote or the strengthening of influx control, of land consolidation in the 1930s—land consolidation which provides 13 per cent. of the land for 80 per cent. of the population, and 87 per cent. of the land for the whites. In that white land are included the gold mines which were stolen from the Africans—the gold mine areas which were inhabited by Africans before they were expelled by force of white arms.
It did not prevent discrimination against the Asians in the 1940s; nor in the 1950s did that dialogue or the influence, the persuasion and the voices of British critics prevent racial classification, the Group Areas Act, the Mixed Marriages and Immorality Acts, the abolition of the Cape coloureds, the African franchise, the Bantu Education Act, the Suppression of Communism Act, giving the Government power to describe anyone who differed from them as communists, nor the series of terrorism Acts which have been constantly used and which are still being used against any opponents of the Government. It did not prevent the Sharpeville massacre of 1960; it did not prevent the massacre at Soweto in 1976.
There is a long and very tragic backlog of blatant persecution, and the people of South Africa today are suffering from the effects of that backlog. But now their pent-up anger has burst. However, the Government have been very vociferous in condemning terrorism and in refusing to talk to anyone who does not denounce terrorism. Let me tell the Government from my own personal knowledge that all African organisations, all Cape coloured organisations, all Asian organisations and all those multi-racial organisations containing men and women of all races, tried and tried for decade after decade to use peaceful means for reform.
In the 1950s I pesonally was working with Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisula for peaceful methods of reform. Perhaps that is why in 1959 the South African Government banned me and have never allowed me back in the country. We organised days of protest because strikes were illegal, and that was a euphemism for a strike. We organised passive resistance where thousands of men and women
1032
voluntarily went to jail by purposely breaking apartheid laws. We organised the Freedom Charter in 1955, which asked for nothing more than basic human rights.
Note too that during the whole of this period until the present day the Africans who have been revolting against the present regime and the past years of discrimination have always accepted that the white community of South Africa is genuinely South African. They have neither threatened nor have any desire to expel any white man, woman or child from South Africa. Yet every one of these attempts to use peaceful means for reform was crushed. Crushed by what? Crushed by violence, and crushed by state violence. It was state violence that began the horrible, terrible circle that is now almost completed—the use of the terrorism Acts against anybody who opposed the Government. The imprisonment, the flogging, the torture was state violence under every regime over the past 40 years. Africans themselves turned to violence only when every avenue of peaceful change had been closed to them.
It is hypocrisy for Her Majesty's Government to refuse to talk to leaders of the African National Congress or the United Democratic Front, describing them as terrorists, as people of violence, when they are prepared to talk to President Botha himself—President Botha, who was a member of the Ossewabrandwag, the pro-nazi organisation during the war—and other white leaders who have continually and consistently employed violence against blacks, coloureds and Asians.
It is said that economic development will destroy apartheid, and that therefore we should not impose sanctions. Yes, my Lords, there is an argument that theoretically economic development could undermine apartheid. But every time that the Afrikaner community have been faced with the choice of economic development or preserving their ideology, they have chosen to maintain their ideology. Indeed, they have stood traditional Marxism on its head; they have preferred theory to the economic interests of their community.
Yet I will give to the Government—and here I think that the noble Baroness who is to reply and I would agree—that there has been some change. Yes, there has. I believe that the change has been largely because Afrikaners have deliberately entered the business and financial world over the last 15 to 20 years, and therefore they have seen that job reservation is uneconomic. They have modified it. They have not destroyed it, but they have modified it. They have seen that trade unions can help production, and so they have been legalised although, as in the gold mines and coal mines, they still use the police, and there are sackings of their members when the trade unions try to take strike action.
There has been some talk of relaxing influx control; perhaps, but so far only talk. There has been subordinate representation in Parliament, but very subordinate and not including the vast majority of the community which is black. There has been a wiping away of the sex Acts, which frankly concerned very few Africans and have been much more the concern of the Afrikaner community itself.

1033
Then there has been the offer of the restoration of citizenship. What kind of citizenship? Citizenship without any political rights. What is this citizenship that is being offered? Is it simply, as it appears to be, a paper claim to be a citizen of South Africa without any rights accompanying it? Yes, there has been a fear of economic collapse. A fear among the international business community and among South Africa's own business community of the undermining of confidence in the future of that country. There have been internal and external pressures, and not least the black boycott of white stores, which has been attacked by the police, and which has shown white South Africa that this time the blacks really mean business.
When we talk about these reforms as cosmetic we do not suggest that they have not slightly raised the burden upon non-whites in South Africa, but we say that they have never touched, and have no intention of touching, the fundamental issues of human rights. They have been given too late, they are too peripheral, and they have no ultimate objective whatever of establishing a genuine democratic society.
Then it is said that sanctions will push the Afrikaners back into their laager. But the real issue is this: do we really believe that President Botha, or any other white administration of the foreseeable future, intends to surrender the white monopoly of power? Any knowledge of South African history reveals this as simply self delusion. The reforms that have been praised by Her Majesty's Government are no more than the reconstruction of the administration to maintain white supremacy. It is pressure, not words, which is needed if South Africa is to change from the oppressive regime we see today.
We are also told that sanctions will harm the front line states. Well, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Lesotho, Angola, Namibia, Mozambique, all have had experience of, and are experiencing, what happens without sanctions; what happens when there is simply the admonition which comes so easily from the lips of Western ministers. The front line states have unanimously called for international sanctions despite the knowledge that they will suffer under them, because they believe that it is better to bring apartheid to a quick end, even through suffering, than to go on with the conditions, the attacks, and the dangers under which they are living today.
We are told that sanctions will harm black South Africans. Yes, it is known. But only a few weeks ago the Sunday Times published a poll showing the overwhelming majority, 77 per cent., of black Africans in favour of sanctions, despite the fact that in South Africa it is a punishable offence to say that you approve of international sanctions.
We have seen Desmond Tutu and Allan Boesak, both men of peace, calling for sanctions in order to end the horrors in which they live today. A quarter of a century ago Chief Luthuli made exactly the same plea to end apartheid with the help of the international community rather than to continue with simply paper criticisms.
We are also told that British jobs will suffer if sanctions are imposed. The numbers have undoubtedly been exaggerated, but yes, there is a threat to certain British jobs if widespread sanctions
1034
were imposed. But at its conference the TUC, which has some interest in British jobs, has unanimously supported the imposition of sanctions. On the 30th and 31st of this month, at a conference in London, the seafarers' unions are meeting together with 30 other countries to organise an oil boycott by which the seafarers are determined to stop the oil going to South Africa.
Lord Soames: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way for a second? He has spoken about the attitude of the leaders of the front line states towards sanctions. The noble Lord knows something about it. I think I know a little about it, too. In my view there is great relief in a number of those states and among their leaders that in fact heavy sanctions have not been imposed by the Commonwealth upon South Africa, because they know full well the damage that they would have done to their countries.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that of course is a matter of opinion. I would not deny for a moment that there are many people in those countries who are relieved that sanctions are not being imposed. After all, we called upon Zambia to impose sanctions in 1965, and Zambia suffered for those sanctions. But what did we do when we imposed sanctions? We did not help Zambia. We knowingly allowed those sanctions to be broken by our own people, sabotaging the efforts of the Zambians. The Zambians suffered, but they took their decision quite openly. I would agree with the noble Lord that there are some people in the front line states who are relieved, but the front line states and the other members of the Commonwealth, and those of us who support this Bill, are not asking for total sanctions; but I shall come to an answer to the noble Lord if he will give me one moment.
So far as jobs in this country are concerned, it is not only the threat of the imposition of sanctions which could threaten jobs in this country; it is also the refusal to participate in international sanctions, as has been seen by the reactions of the leaders of India and Nigeria, to give just two examples. We may be throwing away our own economic future in those markets of the world we have to consider if we are to restore the manufacturing industry of this country—those markets which are at present half closed. The lesson of this—and this is the answer to the noble Lord—is that now is the time when we should be preparing to help the front line states and the Africans in South Africa. We should be imposing EC regulations on British companies in South Africa much more strictly than we are doing. We should be working with the TUC to prepare for any form of threat to jobs in this country. Now is the time to do it, because it seems quite clear that the strong probability is that in six months' time, when the Commonwealth reviews what has happened in South Africa, there will be an even more clamant demand for increasing rather than decreasing sanctions.
The Bill is especially concerned with Namibia within the South African situation and within the situation between South Africa and Namibia. We should remember that it was this country which passed over the mandate for the administration of Namibia to the South Africans in 1920. We have a special

1035
responsibility there. The International Court and the Security Council have both declared the South African administration of Namibia to be illegal. We have gone along with the American leadership, with the weak and watery contact group, for several years now. What have they done? They have constantly been duped by the South African Government, which is a master of duplicity and procrastination. But the economic heights of Namibia are held in this country. Eight multinational companies based in this country control the basic economy of Namibia. It is only with the approval of the British Government that the South African administration has been able not only to remain in Namibia but to allow their companies illegally to rape the resources in Namibia—the diamonds, the fish and the uranium—and we are buying illegally from that régime in Namibia. The imposition and use of sanctions is necessary not only to assist those forces who are demanding human rights in South Africa, but also to bring this country back within international law and to put economic pressure behind that international law, so far as it applies to the administration of Namibia, and to the attainment—as has been approved by the United Nations and supported by this Government—of Namibian independence.
This Bill does not call for universal sanctions; it does not call for total sanctions of any kind. It gives the Government and Parliament the opportunity of showing where the people of this country stand in the struggle now going on in South Africa and in the crucial issue of international law regarding the South African occupation of Namibia. I hope that the Government will see that this is an opportunity to put into practice the sentiments expressed in Nassau over the last two weeks. They will see that economic sanctions, as has been the case since the formation of the League of Nations, is an alternative to violence; that sanctions can help to bring violence to an end; that sanctions can help to bring negotiations both within South Africa and between South Africa and Namibia. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that some 3 million whites plus tens of thousands of Asians have been expelled or squeezed out of various parts of the South African continent over the past 30 to 35 years? How can he convince the whites and, for that matter, the Asians, of South Africa that the same thing will not eventually, not necessarily immediately, happen to them if the one man, one vote system were introduced in a unitary state, notwithstanding the protestations of the ANC?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I would simply refer the noble Lord to the example of Zimbabwe. I was in Zimbabwe along with other Members of Parliament 12 months ago, on the first parliamentary mission. We unanimously found that in Zimbabwe, although some whites had left they had left voluntarily and that others were coming back. We unanimously found in regard to race relations that, miraculously after seven years of bitter civil war and 50 years of domination by the white community, under the new black government there was no racial revenge, that racial harmony existed between Government and
1036
whites—there was a white man in a very prominent position in that Government—and that racial harmony existed between white, black and brown communities.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, but he would agree that 70 per cent. have, in fact, left.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hatch of Lusby.]
6.46 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, for a number of reasons. First, I would remind your Lordships of the way in which the Bill is framed:
"An Act to give effect in United Kingdom law to United Nations Security Council and General Assembly Reolutions on Namibia.".
It is appropriate that at this time of the 40th anniversary of the United Nations when there is an effort to secure a world community in which questions are settled peacefully, that we are being called to consider what we can do to implement what the United Nations has said about peoples who are in danger of being forgotten. In this context I believe that this is the sort of Bill which ought to secure support from all parties. It is not a party political matter. It cuts across the parties and I hope very much that noble Lords from all political persuasions will feel they can vote for the Bill on Second Reading tonight.
I visited Namibia in 1981 at about this time of year on an invitation from the council of churches there which represents more than three-quarters of the Christians in Namibia. I should like to remind your Lordships of the importance of the churches in Namibia which is not generally understood in this country, even for people who know something about that country. We live in a highly secularised society in which the churches are not as influential as they were in years gone by. In Namibia the churches are very influential indeed, particularly among the black African population which constitutes 83 per cent. of the total population.
During that visit I had the opportunity of travelling widely in the country, although it was a comparatively short visit, and in particular I visited the war-torn areas in the north. Along with other colleagues in the British Council of Churches we listened to story after story of the most appalling suffering that was being wrought by the war in the north and on the borders of Angola; a war which was being maintained by the South African defence forces and their activities. Those to whom we spoke were prepared to admit that on occasions suffering was caused to them as well by members of SWAPO, the resistance movement, the South West African Peoples' Organisation. But they had no doubt that the great mass of their sufferings was caused by the activities of the defence forces of South Africa, an illegal colonial-style occupation and a war that was just dragging on. We also found in talks with many people up and down the country that there was widespread support for SWAPO, but this was not simply from the majority Ovambo tribe, but that it cut across different tribal and racial groups. I believe it is important to say that because the contrary has often been asserted.

1037
We found that there was very little popular support so far as we could judge—and I believe that this has been confirmed by other independent observers—for the parties which are involved in the transitional government which has been set up by the South African authorities and which I understand is now in the process of setting up an information office in London.
We found also, somewhat pathetically, that there is still a great deal of faith in Britain, with her long links with Southern Africa, and a faith among the people to whom we talked that somehow Britain could use her influence constructively and effectively to bring about an end to this disastrous situation. However, we had to try to reply to the comments that were made about the ineffectiveness of the contact group of five powers, of which Britain is one. It was said that this was not proving very effective in bringing the war to an end. Many of us believed that one reason for this was that what was said by the contact powers and the diplomacy being conducted was not really backed by the threat of effective sanctions of any kind.
Since the time when I visited that country, these sufferings have continued. They have, if anything, grown greater and constantly there are reports coming out of Namibia of continuing horrors and sufferings as a result of the war. A few days ago, I received a press release from the churches in Namibia. Perhaps I may quote briefly from it. It is only one unknown man; why should he concern us? However, this is typical of what is happening:
"According to church sources in Namibia, the inquest by the South African government into the death in detention of Mr. Tomas Nikanor has been adjourned until January with 'no conclusive findings' thus far.
An active member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, [he] … was arrested by the South African security police on 22nd January&On 29th January [of this year] the South African police announced that Mr. Nikanor was dead, having 'hung himself with his socks' on 27th January.
No charges had been made".
According to his wife Mrs. Nikanor's attorney, the family do not believe that he took his own life.
"Mr. Smuts said that suicide 'is not part of the Ovambo culture;".
The pathologist for the family testified that the cause of death was not inconsistent with manual strangulation, a severe blow to the neck or pressure to the neck.
That is just one small example of one individual which is typical of the sufferings taking place in Namibia today, in which people are looking to this country to try to bring the kind of pressure which can bring this terrible war and this occupation to a conclusion.
I may say that the findings of our own delegation from the British Council of Churches have been subsequently confirmed by other delegations which have visited Namibia on behalf of the churches, a Roman Catholic delegation in particular and our own Anglican delegation last year. As a result of that, representations have been made to our own Foreign Office, in which those who have gone on these delegations have appealed for more effective steps to be taken, for sanctions to be implemented and for effective support from this country for United Nations resolutions.
1038
The churches in Namibia are calling for an end to South African occupation and for international action. As I have said, the Council of Churches represents all the main churches in Namibia and is remarkably representative of public opinion there.
Perhaps I may be permitted to quote briefly from a statement which they made to a visiting delegation from the United States recently:
"Endless negotiations on minor grounds prolong the acute agony and suffering of our people, as they only increase the numbers of our people who die as a result of the war&It is in the interests of all our people, therefore, that every effort be made to immediately resume discussions aiming for a cease-fire date, and start of implementation in accordance with Security Council Resolution 435&We reiterate that it is our continued conviction and confidence that the only practical peaceful solution lies in the hands of the United Nations".
It is the authority of the United Nations which is rejected by the occupying South African power.
There are two special concerns of the churches in Namibia at the present time—perhaps three. One is the activities of the organisation known as Koevoet. In Afrikaans I understand that that means "crowbar". Archbishop Hurley at the South African Catholic Bishops' Conference characterised the activities of Koevoet as responsible for murders, assaults. rapes and robberies in Namibia. These activities continue with apparently comparatively little check on them.
Secondly, there is the question of the conscription of black Namibians into the South African defence forces. This is a matter of the deepest concern to the churches, which have protested many times to the South African authorities. They believe that their young men are being forced into the army in order to fire on their fellows and take part in their war for illicit, illegal purposes.
Then there is the question of foreign companies at work in Namibia, to which the noble Lord. Lord Hatch, has already referred, and the fact that firms from this country are exploiting the resources of their country as they see it. There is no doubt that after independence SWAPO or any succeeding government representative of the people would wish activities to be continued but properly controlled, but at the moment it is regarded as exploitation, and illegal exploitation at that. Perhaps it is not irrelevant to say that British firms have been implicated in what I have just referred to: the conscription of young blacks to serve in the South African defence forces.
I know that there may be some of your Lordships here tonight who would doubt the effect of sanctions. This point is often made. Nobody is saying that sanctions would automatically bring this tragic situation to an end. There are complex pressures at work. The imposition of sanctions is only one element in the overall situation. However, many of us believe, I think with good proof, that there would be more effective pressure on the occupying South African power to withdraw and to see that its interests do not lie in this continuing colonial war.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has already referred to the argument of the effect on black Africans. It is perfectly true that there would be some suffering in Namibia. However, I think it is essential for us to listen to responsible black opinion so far as we possibly can. By responsible black opinion I mean black opinion

1039
that represents the mass of people in the country and not those who may have other reasons for wishing to avoid sanctions.
It is noticeable that Namibia is estimated to be one of the 10 richest countries in Africa by gross domestic product. Yet its peoples are as poor as those of Tanzania. That says something to us, does it not?—that in fact so much of this wealth is being exported or it is going to only a tiny proportion of the population, principally white but also some blacks, and not benefiting the mass of the people. Therefore the effect on black Africans would in many senses be minimal so far as Namibia is concerned.
The effect on our own employment has already been referred to. However, I believe there are many people in this country who would rather look at the long-term interests for ourselves and our grandchildren of a stable and peaceful world, who would much rather look at Britain's moral status in the world rather than simply looking in the short term at problems with our own economy. However, I have to add this. As is sometimes said about the world development lobby, which I am glad to say is being active outside this House today, it is of course very easy for middle-class, comfortable people to assert, to put forward policies from which others would suffer. This is why any effective sanctions policies must be taken seriously so far as concerns domestic policies in this country, and the effect on those who might suffer be mitigated as much as possible.
Thus I should ask your Lordships to take this Bill very seriously indeed and, in the interests of the suffering people in Namibia, to support it tonight.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I wish very briefly this afternoon to express the support of the Alliance for the ideas behind this Bill. The case for applying to South Africa the sanctions and measures which it envisages is not that that country is alone in denying basic civil rights to millions of its citizens. There are plenty of members in the club of police states. Nor is it that South Africa, even with all the torture and the deaths of young people which have become daily news, the most brutal regime of recent times. It is true that Uganda under Obote, for example, suffered the murder by the army of hundreds of thousands of people and we must all hope that a better day may dawn for that unhappy land.
There are different and compelling reasons why the apartheid system in South Africa calls for a special and massive effort on our part to bring about change. First, it embodies in the government of the country and in the daily lives of its citizens what most of us feel in our hearts to be the most evil and the most dangerous doctrine ever to have been preached and practised by whole nations: that human beings can be treated as inferior on the basis of their race. It is the direct descendant of the ideology of the holocaust. In the strict sense of Gladstone's words about another regime, it is the negation of God erected into a system of government.
Secondly, South Africa is historically and economically tied up with the Western democracies
1040
and dares to claim that it is defending our values. The economy of South Africa depends upon the economies of the Western world. South Africa needs the Western democracies, which are therefore in a position to say, and have an obligation to say, "We are not in the business of financing racism".
That is the general position. But that position has been given added force by the events of the last few weeks. The economy of South Africa has suddenly become immensely more vulnerable than it was even before. There are some reasons to be sceptical about the effectiveness of long-term sanctions, however strongly their moral justification. You only have to look at the way that Rhodesian sanctions were evaded, not least by firms operating from this country; or the scandalous way in which the current arms embargo is being flouted. But I think that there is no doubt at all that immediate international sanctions applied now would terrify both the South African government and the business community. Indeed, the business community has recognised the need to talk to leaders of the black majority. Western banks are beginning to see that baling out South Africa is, in commercial terms, a bad risk.
Even President Reagan, as has been mentioned, has been forced into accepting a package of sanctions which, although weak and limited, is far beyond what Mrs. Thatcher has been prepared to contemplate. In this situation, Britain's position is crucial and our attitude is disastrous. The position is crucial because it was we (as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has said) who gave South Africa her constitutional independence; and there can be no doubt that, in any international situation which involves her, we have a part to play, a part which we have a duty to play. Our attitude is disastrous because we have effectively succeeded in watering down over the past few days an important Commonwealth initiative where we alone stood out, basing our case on an argument which held no kind of water and which I hope I have already demolished.
We it was. It was not a question of the old Commonwealth against the new or white against black—those divisions would have been equally disastrous and more understandable. But it was Britain against the rest. All reports told us this, all the journalists told us this. Mrs. Thatcher seemed to be proud of it: Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Botha's sole ally in a hostile world. Almost equally reprehensible is our attitude towards the United Nations. The right reverend Prelate has already touched on this and, although it is highly relevant to the Namibia question, I shall leave that topic aside for the moment, not least because I have to speak about it in your Lordships' House during the Archbishop's debate next week.
I come to this Bill very briefly. It is our practice on these Benches not to take a party line on Private Members' Bills and many of my colleagues feel that this Bill is not the most suitable vehicle for the registering of this House's views on this matter, that there are ways which we could devise to express our views. But I do not wish just to say that. I have a suggestion to make. If this Bill goes through, well and good! I, for one, will be wholeheartedly pleased and so I believe will all my colleagues. But even if it does not, I believe that there is a job that this House has to do and I think that we ought certainly to join together all

1041
those who are really concerned about this matter and to call for and put forward a resolution backing sanctions against South Africa and, in particular, calling for the full implementation of United Nations Resolution 435 on Namibia.
My party, at its recent assembly, passed a very full motion on that subject, and we ourselves would like in this House to forward in any way we can the task of expressing the feelings of a very large number of Members of your Lordships' House about the situation in South Africa and the steps which Britain should take. I invite the Labour Party and other interested Peers to join with us in devising a suitable vehicle whereby this House can express its feelings on this matter. Meanwhile, unsuitable or not, I for one certainly intend to vote for this Bill. In no circumstances could I do otherwise.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, strive as I may, I cannot find even the smallest excuse to join in the customary thanks to the promoter of this Bill. No such thanks were proffered by those noble Lords who spoke earlier. The only reason that I can thank the noble Lord for promoting this Bill is out of courtesy; and rather paradoxically courtesy is never small. So I unreservedly thank him. I am afraid that the real reason for my reluctance is that in my view this Bill is devoid of any merit, save maybe for the citation clause and that it is well printed on nice paper.
I am astonished that not one of the previous speakers, and not least the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, truly spoke to this Bill at all. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, did so in that he felt that it would not be an appropriate vehicle. In that, I entirely agree. I could go further and say that if a Lobby correspondent from Mars had descended upon this House and listened to the three opening speeches he would have had very little evidence from what had been said, before I stood up, that we were discussing a Bill that has ambitions to enter the statute book. Rather, he would have come to the conclusion that this was a general debate on south-west Africa.
This Bill is mischievous, unnecessary and, with respect, utterly useless. It is mischievous in that it abuses the Private Members' Bills procedure of the House by attempting to use statute law as a vehicle for raising issues more properly raised in general debate. It is mischievous in that the noble Lord opposite, together with the right reverend Prelate below, have not even bothered to understand what role domestic law, let alone international law—whatever that may mean—plays in inter-governmental relations. This may be because they are not lawyers. Neither am I, but as a miserably unimportant member of the legislature the very least that I have tried to understand is what is the role of the law. We are discussing the law. We are discussing a Bill of Parliament.
This Bill is further mischievous in that the promoter knowingly promoted this Bill in the full knowledge that not only was its substance more appropriate to the executive action of government than to statutory expression, but also that it did not have a cat in hell's chance of seeing the light of day as an Act. This Bill is
1042
totally unnecessary in that the Secretary of State already has powers that are sought in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. The Secretary of State has all the powers in the world to pass those regulations with regard to civil aviation and exchange control.
Despite the fact that it would be highly unlikely that any sane Secretary of State would even dream of taking executive action which results in the setting aside in the most cavalier style of international treaty obligations which this Bill purports to achieve by virtue of Clause 1, this Bill is useless in that it is incapable, certainly in respect of Clauses 2, 3 and 4, of practical fulfilment. Can anybody tell me how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of all people, can by order, say, prohibit dealings in travellers' cheques by a resident of Gibeon on the Orange River? Can anybody tell me how Her Majesty can by order in council prohibit, say, the French from netting fish on the Orange River at Kalkrand? This is precisely what Clause 4 is suggesting.
Successive British Governments—and I include socialist Governments, which the noble Lord who promotes this Bill purports to support—have taken the view that the South African occupation of Namibia is unlawful and have been working for Namibian independence. Although Her Majesty's Government hold South Africa's mandate to have terminated, they do not consider that that was by virtue of the 1966 General Assembly resolution, nor do they consider that the General Assembly has the authority and claim to establish a United Nations Council for Namibia.
It is my understanding that Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the claim of the United Nations Council for Namibia to be a legally administrating authority for Namibia, nor do they accept decree No. 1, which is the underpinning point to Clause 4 of the Bill, as valid or binding on member states or their governments. Furthermore, resolutions of the General Assembly to the same effect are not binding.
I suggest that it is a matter of right that any British individual or company, forgetting whatever they achieve for the wellbeing of the people of Namibia—and believe me, my Lords, they do—should follow the position of Her Majesty's Government. It is my understanding that that is the position of Her Majesty's Government today and it is also my understanding that it is exactly the same position as that taken by preceding administrations. I believe that it is totally inappropriate for Parliament, by means of a Private Member's Bill, to compel the Government to take executive action in relation to international obligations. Furthermore, Clause 2(4) appears to attempt to create—and this is quite astonishing—a latterday Court of Star Chamber. It is quite unprecedented for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to institute or administer prosecutions. This is the proper function of the law officers of the Crown.
This Bill brings to mind one of the targets of Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner in "The Mikado"—namely,
"The pestilential nuisance who praises every country but his own".

1043
It reminds one of generations of primary school teachers and nannies, whose favourite question to their charges was,
"If you were king, what law would you pass?"
I cannot believe that your Lordships would be so naive as to give this Bill a Second Reading. Furthermore, I cannot believe that the noble Lord who is promoting this Bill has taken any counsel of anyone or anything, other than his own imagination. I am certain that if he had done so the advice that he would have received would have been to withdraw this Bill.
Should he see fit not to do so, he will be placing so many of his noble friends on the other side of the House—many of whom, in all humility, I count as utterly delightful and wise colleagues and friends—in the invidious position of voting, wittingly or unwittingly, for a measure that can do nothing other than harm. Not least, any further attempt to bring this Bill any closer to the statute book would bring your Lordships' considerable repute into serious disrepute.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I, to a certain extent, can sympathise with the last speaker. He is in great trouble, it seems to me, because he has not appreciated that this is principally a matter of the moral law from which the application of statute law must necessarily be stipendiary. I want heartily to support the intention behind this Bill, notably because it can be modified, I dare say, in Committee, but also because it represents something which in part is of the substance of what I believe this country, and all the people who are concerned with justice, should approve and should seek to make possible in legislation.
Let me start where I believe the necessary initiation of our attitude must begin. The constitution of South Africa is a theological document, the second article of which proclaims the sovereignty of God and that it is God's intention that the creation of the South African community should be an expression of the racial condition which the high priest of apartheid—none other than the late Malan, who was a predicant of the Dutch Reformed Church—announced to be the creation of God and irremovable by man. I intend—I hope with charity—to indict the Dutch Reformed Church as guilty of apostasy and I would presume to give the evidence to that end.
But I preface what I have to say by reminding myself that I stand on no pedestal of purity and that one of the best definitions of Christianity I know is one sinner telling another sinner where grace is likely to be found. But that ought not to prevent me from making what I believe to be a statement about the essential characteristics of the Christian faith represented, or so-called represented, in the Dutch Reformed Church, or rather the NGK. I shall not try to pronounce that in Dutch, but if noble Lords will allow me to use the Dutch Reformed Church to define one of the churches, and the principal church in the complex of religious life in South Africa, that will do.
Upon two bases have been erected apartheid's spirit and the apartheid programme. One is the highly dubious use of the old Old Testament with particular reference to one of the sons of Noah whose name was
1044
Ham, who was involved in a primitive condition of alcoholism. Out of the results of his unfortunate existence it was assumed that the whole area of black life was intrinsically inferior to that of white life as the Old Testament apparently said.
The second is the appropriation by the Dutch Reformed Church of the promises made to the ancient Israelites as if they had equal opportunity of being fulfilled among the Voortrekkers. On no occasion has the original 1665 Dutch Reformed Church repudiated these quite iniquitous and thoroughly immoral propositions. Perhaps noble Lords will allow me for a moment to tell the story, which I do not think is genuinely appreciated, of the way in which the various efforts to modify this quite wicked concept of the Christian faith and its application to human beings have been rejected by those who had the power not to accept the modification and in fact to destroy it.
The Cottesloe conference of 1960 represented the attempt made by many of the members and smaller churches in South Africa to modify apartheid. This was indignantly repudiated, and in fact the Christian Institute, which was a revolutionary body within the general church, was prohibited and finally was regarded and was condemned as an illicit organisation. In 1968 not only was the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa separated by its own decision from its original partners in the Netherlands, but it went on to say that it was completely convinced that it represented the ultimate purpose of God and that there was no kind of compromise with any other communion within South Africa.
I could give chapter and verse for this indictment but I should like to say—although I do not like saying it at all but it has to be said—that so long as the Government of South Africa is pledged to that kind of so-called Christianity it is apostate and should be excommunicated, although I do not know how one would do it. That does not mean that one has no fellow feelings with publicans—I almost said republicans—and sinners; what it does say is that there is an element of such hostility to the practice as prevents the kind of cosy friendship and fellowship which otherwise I am quite sure would be an amenable kind of practice and indeed a very generous attitude. I do not believe that that is possible and without any rancour I do indict the Dutch Reformed Church, the NGK, of being the principal and irreconcilable foe of the processes of justice and peace and indeed of the abolition of apartheid.
But what do you do? Let me first remind myself that there is no morality merely in passing resolutions as to the iniquity of your fellow members. The parable of the good Samaritan has been somewhat more popularised lately—indeed, by none other than the Prime Minister—but there is no virtue in the priest walking by, shaking his head and saying, "How unfortunate it is for this poor man. I wish I could help him but of course I can't". There would be no added virtue if he got in touch with the Levite who also passed that way and they had a conference and decided that it was all very iniquitous and that they were thoroughly against it. Virtue which, in Milton's immortal phrase, is "unexercised and unbreathed". ceases to be virtue. Therefore, if I do believe that principally the Dutch Reformed Church in South

1045
Africa is the instigator and the expression of something which is unchristian, I am under an obligation, as I am sure this House would feel itself under an obligation, to do something about it.
I am a pacifist and therefore, much as I sympathise with liberation theology, I cannot believe that by the exercise of violence, even in a so-called justifiable cause, the results would be as desired and would be beneficial. At the same time I do not believe that all sanctions are justifiable. I am quite sure that certain cultural sanctions are even more important than some economic ones. But to embark upon a principally nonviolent attitude of hostility to the principles that operate in that regime is not only justifiable but is imperative. If we are to make anything of our moral stance, then it must be in the proposition to which we must be ready to accede that it may hurt in many ways and it may affect our own well-being, our own affluence and our own amenity. It is this concept of the price which it is necessary to pay if you are to embark upon a moral course that without impudence I would invite your Lordships to consider.
Here we are presented with a particular kind of evil. There is a great deal of injustice and apartheid in practice all over the world but in most cases it is not enshrined within the constitution of the country in which it is practised. In South Africa that is so. Therefore it has a peculiar iniquity; and in confronting that peculiar iniquity I would regard a measure like this, though it is imperfect and though it contains many assumptions, as a necessary process. I probably share with the last speaker a concern for some of the difficulties which will emerge, but on the moral issue I am quite sure that the present Administration of South Africa is linked with an unchristian concept, an immoral concept, of government in which ordinary people are regarded as tools within the framework of institutions rather than as having, as other speakers have already said, that ineffable right to say together "Our Father" and to believe in so saying that they belong to the same family.
It is in that regard that, whatever the particular and immediate difficulties that would emerge if this Bill became law, I believe it is imperative for those who concerned with justice to regard it as a necessary process which would immediately transform the general atmosphere in which in this country as well as in the rest of the world we could represent ourselves as those who are seeking justice and mercy and are not unprepared to pay the price for both.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to follow my noble friend Lord Soper. He will not be surprised when I say that I share entirely the views which he has expressed. I have had a very long association with African affairs. I have been concerned with the transfer of power to most of the former British colonies and attended their independence ceremonies.
My first association with South Africa was when I went to that country at the invitation of Field Marshal Smuts. I was then the under-Secretary of State at the Dominions Office. Field Marshal Smuts was a remarkable man. He impressed me tremendously, particularly when he said that peace and security could
1046
never be assured in southern Africa except on the basis of the equality of the races, and that it was his ambition to help to try to bring that about. It was probably a factor that led to his electoral defeat when Dr. Malan became the Prime Minister of South Africa. He was clearly determined to stop that move and to turn things around, so that we have the evil, repressive system of today.
One of Dr. Malan's first actions was to take away rights from non-white Africans by placing coloured voters on a separate electors' roll. My noble friend Lord Hatch has already spoken about other significant reactionary moves which added to that evil departure upon the standards which Field Marshal Smuts tried to set.
It was because of that change of attitude that non-whites were compelled to resort to measures which ultimately led to the Sharpeville massacres in 1960. It was inevitable that with such a policy South Africa could not continue as a member of the Commonwealth, which she left in 1961.
Unfortunately there is much discrimination in the world today, but the most wicked form of discrimination is based on the colour of a person's skin. That is the case in South Africa. The system is brutal and unjust. The Government rule by terror. For decades, many of us have been warning South Africa that there would be bloodshed and destruction unless they abandoned the system of apartheid.
It cannot be denied that the South African Government have provided black Africans with better educational opportunities than the western colonial powers have done. Most of the leaders of the South African nationalist movement received their education at Fort Hare or Lovedale—two outstanding educational establishments in South Africa. Those nationalist leaders—highly intelligent and well trained—are denied the opportunity of having a voice in the running of their own country. They are forced to revolt in order to obtain their rights. Their desire to discuss matters peacefully and rationally was shown by their meeting recently with white African businessmen in Lusaka.
The violent methods used by the South African security forces to prevent peaceful demonstration is inevitably leading to civil war. Black Africans are now better informed than ever before. They have transistor radios and television. They know what is happening in their own country and in the rest of the world. Their leaders would prefer to lead their people towards a peaceful democratic state but they are being forced to take violent action to obtain their rights.
Today, South Africa is a high risk and unstable country. The fact that white South Africans are entirely dependent on their black servants puts them in a very vulnerable position. If ever the time comes when black Africans feel that they have reached the end of the road then black servants could use violence or poison their masters' food.
South African businessmen are aware of the dangers of apartheid and are doing everything they can to try to overcome it. It is true that they are in the minority, but this development was illustrated by the way in which a number of white businessmen went to Lusaka to talk to the African nationalist leaders. It might be a

1047
useful investment for British businessmen to consider doing the same.
It is certain that the policy pursued by the present South African Government will create even greater instability. A generation of South Africans under the age of 24 have lived their lives while Nelson Mandela has been in prison. They are denied any rights as citizens and nearly 4 million of them are out of work. They are demanding their freedom. They have a right to do so and we should show them, by the action we take in this House tonight, that they have our support.
The Bill which is before your Lordships' House this evening complements the South Africa (Sanctions) Bill which received its First Reading in another place just before the Summer Recess. This Bill seeks to enact measures agreed by the United Nations to bring about a free Namibia. It covers the voluntary measures which the United Nations Security Council agreed earlier this year.
That resolution called for member states to consider taking appropriate voluntary measures against South Africa—including ceasing new investments there, reexamining maritime and aerial relations and prohibiting the sale of krugerrand gold coinage. It is tragic that Britain, which created the Commonwealth, should be isolated from all her partners. In the western world, only Britain and the United States failed to support the resolution. Since then, however, the United States has decided to ban new investment and the sale of krugerrand coins. The least that we can do is to follow America's example, thus ensuring that we are not completely isolated from our friends and allies.
At the recent Commonwealth Conference in the Bahamas, the Government agreed to ban the sale of krugerrand gold coins after persistently refusing to take any action whatsoever. There will also be a ban on trade fairs and missions being supported by Government funds. As my noble friend Lord Hatch has said, this is the principle accepted by the Government. The Commonwealth countries as a whole will in due course expect the Government to follow the lead set by our partners in the Commonwealth in progressing more in the application of sanctions, to put an end to the system that prevails in South Africa. The Government must show more decisive leadership than they are at the moment.
It is with much joy that I welcome the move made by my noble friend Lord Hatch today and I congratulate him on introducing this Bill.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, I am anxious to say some words in this remarkable debate from an international point of view on the question of the evil of delay. I was in the United Nations some 10 years ago when it was clearly decided by, I believe, every state there represented that Namibia should be free. I do not intend to speak this evening on the wider issues of South Africa, on which I hold the strongest views, but about Namibia in particular.
It was decided by the international community a decade ago that the people of Namibia, who were once the responsibility of this country but responsibility for whom was subsequently transferred by our action to
1048
South Africa, should enjoy freedom. No one disputed that. No one doubted it. The people of Namibia accepted the decision of the international community with happiness and rejoicing. But now, much later, we are meeting here in this country, throughout the Commonwealth and the world, faced with the situation that our decision for freedom has been denied, that the people who had been led to expect by our declared decision that they were to be freed are told "No", that they are to remain in subjugation.
How long must this continue? How long must it be that, when a decision is taken without dispute by the international community, one country can, by its manoeuvre and by its frustration, obstruct the will of the world? If that is to be so, it may be that the institution which was created 40 years ago is useless.
It is not only in this particular matter that delay has been so serious. It has been serious enough—has it not?—in the Middle East. Indeed, in practically every other main dispute in the world there has been dreadful delay owing to the failure of the world organisation to act on its decisions. It has taken decisions and done nothing about them. We hear the phrase "constructive engagement"; but when I hear that phrase I think it really means "destructive indifference". The great issues of the world on which we have taken decisions based on the highest necessary principles are now being destroyed not by opposition, not even by doubt, but by failure to act.
If I had to choose one instance in the world where this is most typical—and I can think of many others—it is Namibia. Namibia is a separate entity. It is entitled to its own freedom and was granted that freedom by the international community, but now sees no action to carry that out. On the contrary, it sees fighting taking place in Angola, based on Namibia, and the destruction of Namibian forces. That is the opposite of the freedom that was promised.
It is on that attitude that I say these few words tonight. I believe it is essential in the wider issue that I raise that we in this country should not be misled by anyone else but should be prepared to make use of the international instrument for peace, and not destroy it by indifference and by language which means nothing. I am not speaking tonight on the Bill before us on the wider issues of southern Africa and it is not my business tonight to speak about sanctions generally. However, I would say that unless, with our encouragement, urgent action is now taken to give the people of Namibia the freedom they were promised, then it is not only a disgraceful betrayal of the people of Namibia but we are also working against the interests of future world peace.
It is on that aspect of the matter that I hope we will reach our conclusion tonight and say that no longer shall this miserable evil of delay be allowed to take charge of international affairs. Here is an issue where we can be absolutely clear and not be prepared, as a nation, to delay or neglect the obligation which we undertook.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I must apologise for not being here for the debate so far. Unfortunately, I undertook to run a friend's practice for him this week

1049
so I have been running in and out between surgeries. I have just now finished one. However, I have been lucky because I arrived just in time to hear my noble friend Lord Caradon. His was a very moving plea from someone who has been involved in the work of the international community for many years. It was a moving plea to this House that we should do our duty by the international community of which we are a part.
It is in that setting that we must see the Bill. The international community made certain specific decisions about Namibia. Those decisions have been flouted by the South African Government. Of course, I have always been a strong advocate of an international police force. Therefore, if your Lordships ask me what I would be doing, I have given the answer already. However, we do not have an international police force so we must take whatever other weapons are available to us.
The weapon of economic sanctions is one that can be used lightly to push or can be used powerfully. The extent to which we use it and the way in which we use it, to my way of thinking, is constrained by the situation inside South Africa. The people there who have been oppressing the majority of the population do so for economic and social gain. It is because they are doing it for those reasons that any evidence that the economic and social gains may not be available unless they change course could be of significant effect. Therefore, I think the slight push contained in this Bill is what is required at this stage.
It is not merely over Namibia that the South African government have behaved dishonourably. They have behaved dishonourably to Mozambique. They made an agreement but continued to support the revolutionary movement in Mozambique against the Mozambique government in spite of that agreement. In addition, the South African government broke faith with Angola and did not honour the agreement they made with Angola. Therefore, the South African government must be made to understand that the international community is not always going to sit by and allow them to behave as they please without any query as to why and without any attempt to make them change course.
Therefore, I hope that tonight your Lordships will give a straightforward answer by giving the Bill a Second Reading. We need to be able to make the South African Government realise that they cannot just flout the international community. There is much talk about constructive dialogue, but constructive dialogue has been going on all the time. After all, Harold Macmillan's "wind of change" speech is now more than 25 years old. That was an attempt at constructive dialogue. It never got us anywhere. At no stage so far has constructive dialogue got us anywhere, and it is because of this that we have to take an additional step. As I see it, this additional step is that we must use economic pressure. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that economic pressure can be effective. What happened to them recently when they found that their loans were not being rescheduled easily indicates the way in which they will in fact react to economic pressure. I think that applying pressure in the economic field, not necessarily by means of a blunder-
1050
buss, but applying a steady, increased pressure will have some effect. In any case, it at least shows that the international community is not prepared to have people thumb their noses at it. I hope that the House will pass the Bill.
Lord Morris: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who is my noble friend in the non-technical sense if I may be allowed to address him as such, sits down, may I ask him this: how can the domestic law of the United Kingdom further the ends that he suggests in his speech?
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, this country is South Africa's biggest support in terms of investment, in terms of loans, and in terms of the economic tie. Therefore the withdrawal of that economic support must have some effect on South Africa. It is all very well to say "They will jump elsewhere", but. if the international community is applying such pressure, then of course "jumping elsewhere" is not so easy. The law of this land applied in the economic field in order to bring pressure on South Africa can in fact have such an effect.
7.53 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words at this stage, and first of all apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, the right reverend Prelate, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for being unable to be here to hear their speeches.
This whole Bill gives rise to emotion, and emotive issues affect the feelings of the heart rather than the thoughts of the mind. It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the principles of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, but on this occasion I am bound to say that I do. Many of us in our own way regret sincerely the state of unhappiness, the troubles and the difficulties in southern Africa of which we hear every day. We all deprecate, regret, and I think disagree profoundly with the system of government which gives rise to the concept of apartheid. However, that is as far as the noble Lord and I may be able to go in agreeing this evening, because I venture to suggest that his Bill is not the right way to deal with the problem.
South Africa, to which I shall refer principally if I may, which is one of the greatest and most beautiful countries of the world, which has been one of our greatest allies in the past, and is one of the countries still allied more towards the West than in any other direction, is in need of great help. We are a Christian nation and we should be led by Christian beliefs.
Perhaps I may disgress for one moment and tell your Lordships something of my own personal experience and my broken marriage. When I saw my vicar and told him about the situation and that I was the "fly in the ointment", for want of a better phrase, I said to him, "I suppose, vicar, I should really absent myself from taking Communion". "No", he said, "not in the least. You are at a cross-roads of your life at the moment and you need God's help more now than you have ever needed it before. You will come to Communion and I will give it to you." I have never forgotten that. I hope that it did me a lot of good. I was very grateful.

1051
This country ought to adopt the same attitude toward the difficulties that southern Africa and Namibia are experiencing at the moment. To try to impose sanctions, which is what this Bill is about, can only do harm to the country as a whole. It will not harm only the white man and the existing rulers; it will be harmful also to the black population of South Africa. It will do them no good in the long run. It is the wrong way to proceed. We ought to recognise and accept that a sovereign state is entitled to attend to its affairs in the best way it possibly can. We have seen clear demonstration over the years—I know it is not quick enough, nor does it go as far as some of your Lordships would like—that South Africa has tried to make some move to include her coloured population in the affairs of the country. But South Africa must be allowed to operate at its own speed. I appreciate that that speed is not fast enough for some people, but going too fast will break the system. We have seen what has happened in the rest of southern Africa, the whole of southern Africa. It is no secret; we know it perfectly well.
Two people were talking in a bar together some time after Ghana or Nigeria or Uganda or wherever it was became independent, and subsequently suffered troubles.One man turned to the other and said, "You know, the trouble with our country is that we were given independence too soon. We were not ready for it." Of course it is our desire that the native population to whom the country belongs should be more involved with the running of their country but it should be done gently, slowly, carefully and patiently.
I understand the thinking behind this Bill, but I feel that it is really the wrong way and that it is the wrong moment to proceed. Therefore I ask that your Lordships do not give this Bill a Second Reading.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like very briefly to add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Mountgarret and that of the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Like everyone else in your Lordships' House and outside it, I regret apartheid. We should like to abolish it overnight, but it is not possible. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, I know from my knowledge of Africa that we must go slowly. I am not an economist but I hope that I have common sense. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that South Africa needs the West financially because South Africa must be a strong South Africa.
There are 3 million whites in South Africa. There are 182½ million coloured people. Therefore to cut South Africa off from the West by sanctions would be disastrous not only for the South African Government but for the coloured population as well. The noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, referred to education. I know that the Government of South Africa, with money made available on the whole by whites to educate the coloured population of South Africa, are trying to educate as many people as they can within that 18½ million population. But I think what is more important to us, with all that we have learnt about the top of Africa, is the food situation in Africa. I was in South Africa about 2½ years ago, in Johannesburg. They had had a disastrous maize crop and South
1052
African money was being used to buy millions of tons of maize from Canada, with South African rands earned by the people who are running South Africa. If we put sanctions in their way, the coloured population will suffer far more than the whites. If they have a bad harvest I envisage that the whites will not be able even to feed 18.5 million people. Those people rely on them not only for the stages of their education but for food.
I agree with my noble friend that this is neither the time nor the way to help the people of South Africa or Namibia. I hope that the Bill will not be given a Second Reading.
8 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby has introduced a Bill on a subject of critical importance and also delivered a wide-ranging speech in support of it. The Bill is also important against the background of the Commonwealth Conference. My noble friend has raised the problem of Namibia in this House on several occasions over the past few years and, as we know, he has great experience of southern Africa. His Bill deserves the most careful consideration. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out in his knowledgeable speech, we should try to deal with it, if we possibly can, in a non-party political way.
Namibia is unfortunate because, although it has great resources and potential, as the right reverend Prelate said, its history and geography have made it a pawn in the complex and unhappy politics of southern Africa. Many attempts have been made to find an equitable and democratic solution to the problem but they have all failed thus far, and we must ask who or what is to blame for that failure and also what part our Government have played in seeking a solution.
I mentioned the resources of Namibia, and perhaps we should record those in this debate because they are relevant to an understanding of the developing story. It is a large country—larger than France and the Federal Republic of Germany combined. Because only 1 million people live there the population density is very low. Out of that million about 10 per cent., or 80,000, are white, and they own 43 per cent. of the land, including some of the most fertile and mineral-rich areas. The indigenous inhabitants—some 900,000 of them—are allocated 10 homelands which comprise some 40 per cent. of Namibia. The rest of the territory is under the direct control of the South African authorities.
As the right reverend Prelate told us, Namibia is potentially very rich. Large quantities of diamonds, silver, copper, lead, zinc and uranium are mined there. The mining sector provides, on average, about 50 per cent. of the GDP, 60 per cent. of the export revenues and between 40 and 50 per cent. of the territory's income. Properly organised, agriculture, cattle, farming and fishing—Namibia has a coastline 869 miles long—could prosper in due course. A detached observer—the observer from Mars, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said—looking at these advantages might say that here is the basis for a happy and thriving community. It is a sad commentary on civilisation in the last years of the 20th century that we must reply that the contrary is the case, for here is a country riven by war, used as a puppet by its powerful neighbour and

1053
with an economy in the depths of depression, with all that that means for its unfortunate native population.
The all-party delegation which visited Namibia earlier this year summed up the position. These were its words:
"Namibia is a tragedy and one which the British Government and the West as a whole should now give a much greater priority. It is, above all, a human tragedy … about people, mainly entirely innocently involved in a wider conflict, not of their making and longing for an end to their nightmare".
The prolonged war, political uncertainty, to some extent the world recession and drought in some areas, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has just referred, have all contributed to six years of almost unbroken economic decline in this potentially prosperous country. It is by any standards a major tragedy.
I referred to the efforts to resolve the problem; and, as my noble friend Lord Caradon said, we must start with the United Nations and Security Council Resolution 435, which we support and which the Prime Minister and other Ministers have also indicated that they support, although some reservations (to which I shall refer presently) have been made by them. The Bill enshrines the resolution, as I understand it. One of the key elements in that resolution was that free elections to a constituent assembly should be held in Namibia under the supervision of the United Nations. As we know, South Africa refused to accept that resolution. It held its own restricted elections which SWAPO declined to recognise. The resulting "government" fell in 1983 and South Africa returned Namibia to direct rule under the Administrator-General.
The latest development in this saga of dreadful South African policies was the setting up of the puppet government last June. As the Economist, a detached newspaper, said at the time:
"The trouble is that any regime installed by the South Africans is almost bound to be seen by local blacks as a puppet".
They flouted the United Nations and ran counter to world opinion, but that, unhappily, is nothing new in the recent history of this South African Government as they plunge from tragedy to disaster. It is a miserable experience to switch on one's television set and see the things that are happening in that sad country today. As my noble friend Lord Bottomley, with his great experience, said in his speech, it is a classic example of failure to govern the country properly; it is a classic example of far too little far too late.
This Bill is justified because the conclusion cannot be avoided that South Africa has no real intention of permitting United Nations sponsored elections—of agreeing to free elections—because it believes that they would lead to a SWAPO electoral victory. The present internal crisis of South Africa makes it unlikely that Mr. Botha will move an inch in view of the implications of what might be regarded as a concession to black opinion. I think that he will be required to move more than an inch in due course, and this Bill may help him forward.
The consequence of this action by him—that is, the setting up of the puppet government in June—was that the Security Council voted by 13 to nil for the imposition of voluntary sanctions against South Africa as a means of exerting direct pressure for attaining
1054
Namibian independence. Our Government followed the United States in abstaining in that vote on what was really a fairly mild resolution.
That leads us to consider the Government's general attitude towards Namibia and the way that they have conducted themselves. As has been said by several speakers, we have special responsibilities because of our historic associations with that part of the world. As on some other issues, the attitude of the Government has been ambivalent. On the one hand, they have announced support for Resolution 435; on the other, they have tended unobtrusively to bow to United States prompting. There was a good example of this in the other place last year when (at col. 160 of Hansard on 5th June 1984) the Prime Minister uttered these words:
"Independence for Namibia, we say, must come under resolution 435—that is. in a way acceptable to the international community—and I do not believe that that will occur until there is also in parallel the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola".
It was, as we recall, South Africa supported by the United States of America who insisted on "linkage". As we have seen, Her Majesty's Government followed on in due course. There are several examples of the Government criticising South Africa on the one hand and then on the other making reservations which dilute the criticism and its effect. For example, the Foreign Secretary last January said: "We do not recognise linkage as a precondition for settlement". That is something we can all agree with. He went on to say in the same sentence, "but the fact that linkage has been made cannot be ignored". This House must recognise, and the Government Front Bench must agree to it, that there has been this unhappy ambivalence running throughout the statements of the Government during the last two or three years.
Again, the stance of the Government over the imposition of the new "government" was certainly not one of outright condemnation. The Government have also intimated their willingness to meet informally South Africa's Namibian friends, which would only help to win de facto recognition for the regime, which is precisely what South Africa wants.
My Lords, nor have the Government prevailed on the Government of South Africa to comply with the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, and this is deplorable. Anyone who has experience of politics must realise there are complexities which are economic, and complexities which are commercial. The noble Baroness can run through, as I can. the British investments in South Africa, the figures of imports and exports, and so on. No one in Government can ignore those facts, or the consequences for this country. One must weigh them in the balance against what is happening in South Africa today. There are moments—and the right reverend Prelate was right to remind us—when it is right to take a moral stand on these issues, when the moral aspect outweighs the economic and commercial aspects.
I would particularly appreciate the view of the noble Baroness the Minister on the current importance of "linkage". Do the Government still regard the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola as a prerequisite to free elections under United Nations

1055
auspices and therefore to independence? It is a simple question requiring a simple answer.
My Lords, in conclusion, this is not the moment to discuss the Commonwealth Conference. No doubt we shall have a Statement from the Prime Minister which will be repeated in this House in due course. But it is clear that Namibia was closely related to the main subject under discussion in the Bahamas and the Bill in fact covers some of the matters agreed upon. It is always possible to criticise a Private Member's Bill because it is always possible to say it is a pity the parliamentary draftsmen were not called in to amend this or change that. I have never seen a Private Member's Bill introduced without the proposer saying he is quite prepared that the Government will look at it if they accept the principle. What my noble friend is asking the Government to do is to accept the principle of sanctions. Neither he nor we are asking the Government at this stage—and no one here thinks this Bill is likely to become law in this Session of Parliament when we are in the last few hours of the Session—for more than that the principle of this Bill should be adopted by them. We are glad that the Prime Minister indicated in the Bahamas that she was prepared to move to some extent. Indeed, the Bill itself refers to the importation of krugerrands into this country, and this is one of the concessions the Prime Minister in fact made.
My Lords, support for the Bill would help to clarify the attitude of the Government on this acute problem. The Bill contains a list of practical measures which would bring pressure to bear in an effort to change the policies of South Africa. For all these reasons, this Bill deserves the most careful consideration. It is, in letter and spirit, in line with the United Nations' policy. A continuation of the present chaos will only make matters worse. Indeed, it will create the very conditions which those who support the South African Government openly or covertly fear most. They are grim possibilities. The prospect for South Africa is truly grim. No one in this house, of whatever party or point of view, would wish to see South Africa drifting into chaos, with all the consequences for both the black and white populations. It is the duty of the British Government, supported by every political party in this country, to do all they can to avoid that disaster. For these reasons, my Lords, I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
8.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I speak this evening to give the view of the Government on the Bill now before this House. We have listened to a long debate this evening and I think I might say that with the notable exceptions of my noble friend Lord Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, few of your Lordships have addressed the Bill which is the subject of the debate. Indeed, the debate has been about the system of apartheid. There have been many occasions on which I have put the Government's view on this policy before your Lordships. I do so again this evening, and say it is a system which we find abhorrent; I wish to make that quite clear.
1056
I now turn to the Bill which is the subject of our debate, and I should like to start by putting the position of the Government on Namibia. As noble Lords are aware, the United Kingdom has long been involved in international efforts to end South Africa's unlawful occupation of Namibia. Through our membership of the Western Contact Group we helped to draw up and to negotiate the United Nations plan for Namibian independence. This plan, which was endorsed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 435, represents the only basis for independence which has the support of all parties concerned and the international community. I should like to assure the House and all those who have spoken this evening—and perhaps I may particularly refer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who I thought was rather dismissive of the Western Contact Group—that Resolution 435 has come about to a large extent because of its efforts, and we as the Government remain fully committed to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, at the end of his speech asked me about the Government attitude to linkage. I say to the noble Lord and to the House that the Cuban withdrawal from Angola is not part of the Security Council Resolution 435. Nor do we recognise it as a precondition for a Namibian settlement. But the South Africans have made it clear that they will not agree to the implementation of Security Resolution 435 unless a satisfactory arrangement on Cuba is found.
We shall continue to take every opportunity to urge the South African Government to put the United Nations plan into force without delay and without preconditions. We shall insist that it offers the only internationally acceptable solution, that there is no viable alternative to genuine independence for Namibia, and that any unilateral transfer of power that might take place now or in the future to bodies established by the South African Government would be totally unacceptable.
Let me say here that our attitude to the current interim administration is that we do not recognise it. We will not hold discussions with the new administration in its official capacity. This does not affect the negotiations towards Security Council Resolution 435. Indeed, the previous internal arrangements in 1978 and 1981 did not last and already there are signs of disagreement within the MPC on key constitutional issues. In our view, the establishment of the multiparty conference interim administration in Windhoek by the South African Government earlier this year in no way alters their responsibility to implement the United Nations plan and to bring Namibia into internationally recognised independence. We shall continue to press home this inescapable fact.
Having said that, I shall now explain why we consider the United Nations (Namibia) Bill would not help to achieve this objective—something which, having listened to this debate, I can say every single one of your Lordships who has spoken wishes to achieve. Indeed, we believe that it could even put at risk the implementation of the United Nations plan. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 25th September that we would join with our European Community partners in endorsing a number of restrictive and positive measures towards

1057
South Africa. These measures drawn up in Luxembourg on 10th September represented a legitimate and necessary political signal to the South African Government.
At the same time, the measures sought to avoid any destabilisation of the South African economy or harm to those in southern Africa whom we are seeking to help. This balanced approach has now been echoed by the agreement reached this Sunday at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Nassau. To quote from the Commonwealth accord on South Africa:
"We have agreed on a number of measures which have as their rationale impressing on the authorities in Pretoria the compelling urgency of dismantling apartheid and erecting the structures of democracy in South Africa".
These measures have been taken in response to (and again I quote from the accord):
"South Africa's continuing refusal to dismantle apartheid, its illegal occupation of Namibia and its aggression against its neighbours".
Like the European Community package these measures are designed to send an important psychological signal to the South African Government and impress upon them the urgent need for fundamental changes without harming those whom we are seeking to help.
In reaching agreement on these measures, we made clear to our Commonwealth partners the risks inherent in the adoption of economic and trade boycotts designed to damage the South African economy. We remain firmly of the view that economic pressure of that sort would not act as an effective lever of change in southern Africa. Indeed, it would be unrealistic to expect anything other than a hardening of attitudes both in South Africa and among the white population of Namibia in response to such pressure.
With the one exception of the importation of krugerrands, the measures proposed in the Bill before your Lordships' House go well beyond the measures that were agreed in the Commonwealth accord. We believe therefore that the Bill would not only be damaging and counter-productive, as I have already indicated, but would also cut across the important initiative agreed in Nassau. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, who referred to differences between Britain and the front line states, that the agreement in the Commonwealth accord that has just been reached includes of course the front line states, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Tanzania as well as India and Nigeria. Whatever may have been the intention of the noble—
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that, in fact, from all reports, the majority of leaders of the Commonwealth countries were pressing for measures of the kind envisaged in the Bill?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is not for me, I think, to speculate on what might or might not have been discussed at a meeting at which I myself was not present. I can only stand by the accord that has been reached which is of importance within the Commonwealth. It is an accord that has been reached by all the members of the Commonwealth and it has a value. And that is what it says.
1058
Whatever may have been the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in introducing the Bill, it was presumably not. to undermine the concerted and constructive pressure towards reform being brought to bear by ourselves and our partners either in the Commonwealth or in the European Community. However, unilateral imposition at this time of the economic measures proposed by the Bill could very well have exactly that effect by precipitating a hardening of attitudes within the South African Government. The importance of concerted action has been recognised by the Commonwealth heads of government throughout the discussions leading up to the accord that concludes by stating that:
"in pursuing this programme jointly, we enlarge the prospects of an orderly transition to social, economic and political justice in South Africa and peace and stability in the Southern African region as a whole".
We cannot therefore countenance the adoption of measures outside the scope of those already agreed within the Commonwealth programme.
The Bill does not restrict iself purely to the question of economic measures. Paragraph 4 permits the enactment of,
"such provisions as appear … necessary or expedient for enabling the United Nations Council for Namibia Decree No. i for the protection of the natural resources of Namibia to be effectively applied".
These provisions would have the effect of recognising that the United Nations Council for Namibia has exclusive rights over the management and exploitation of Namibia's natural resources.
In establishing a body with the powers that it purported to confer on the Council for Namibia, we consider that the General Assembly acted beyond its competence under the United Nations charter. Consequently, the United Kingdom does not recognise the claim of the council to administer the territory. Successive United Kingdom Governments have therefore taken the view that pronouncements of the council, such as Decree No. 1, do not impose any obligations upon us. Indeed, there are no mandatory United Nations measures at all which prohibit trade with Namibia. In no way therefore does the Government's position conflict with our international obligations. Thus, the Government see no reason to interfere with trade or investment in Namibia.
In conclusion, I should like to repeat what I said at the beginning—that we remain fully committed to the achievement of internationally recognised independence for Namibia under the United Nations plan. For the reasons that I have outlined we believe that the adoption of this Bill would not help that process and could even be prejudicial to it. While we will therefore continue to take whatever action we judge to be effective in bringing about the early realisation of Namibian independence, we are unable to support the adoption of the United Nations (Namibia) Bill and to give it a Second Reading.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, this is a Second Reading debate which is normally based on the general principles of a Bill. Most of the Members who have participated in the debate have addressed themselves in that way. As my noble friend Lord

1059
Cledwyn said from the Front Bench, what we would ask the Government to do is accept the principle, not the details, of the Bill. As he said, it is obviously not going to be possible within this Session to go through all the stages of the Bill, although I assure the House that there will undoubtedly be further Bills introduced in the new Session. What we are asking is that the House recognises that what has been done so far in the use of words and resolutions has not changed the situation in South Africa nor in Namibia, and that the rapidly worsening conditions within South Africa and within Namibia have occurred despite the condemnation such as that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, tonight.
I appreciate her views. I appreciate the views as expressed by the Government on the system of apartheid. But those views have been expressed for years and years. They have not helped the people who are today losing their lives in South Africa. Nor have they helped the people who have been suffering from imprisonment and torture during that period. The President of South Africa visited the Prime Minister last year. I understand that the Government have asked and now the Commonwealth has demanded that Nelson Mandela be released from jail. What has happened to all these words? The consequence has been nothing except that the whole escalation of violence has gone unchanged.
What has been the effect of the contact group? I met the contact group when I was in Zambia several years ago. Has it brought Namibia any nearer to independence? Has it stopped the oppression of the South African administration within Namibia?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has asked me a number of questions. But the question to which he ought to address himself is: will sanctions bring about the objectives which he is seeking? There is no evidence that they have been effective in the past.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sorry, but I thought that I had dealt in my opening speech with the question of the validity of sanctions. If the noble Baroness wishes further evidence I suggest that she reads a new, very extensive book published by the International Institute for Economic Affairs in Washington. It is an examination of the use of sanctions on each occasion—several hundred of them—since the First World War. I simply quote one statistic from that book. According to that examination, on 36 per cent. of the occasions on which sanctions have been used they have been effective.
They are effective on certain conditions: first, if there is a political will behind them; secondly, if they are limited to a specific objective, as this is limited to the objective of the independence of Namibia; thirdly, if they are carried out thoroughly with seriousness and with commitment. I would remind the noble Baroness that sanctions were very effective when they were used by South Africa against Lesotho not very long ago; and they were very effective back in 1956 when it was American sanctions which brought the invasion of Egypt by Britain and France and Israel to an end. It
1060
was the refusal of the Americans to allow dollar reserves to be used for oil by this country which effectively ended that invasion. One could go on. There are plenty of examples of the successful use of sanctions.
What I am suggesting here is simply that the principle of sanctions should be accepted. The details can be worked out. Nobody has suggested in this debate that sanctions should be applied at this stage on a total and widespread basis. But the noble Baroness has been arguing that her views (which I applaud and share) on apartheid can be most effective if they are put in words. I would simply ask: what has happened since those words of the Prime Minister to President Botha? What has happened in Botswana?—bombed by the South Africans. What has happened in Angola?—invaded by the South Africans. What has happened in Mozambique?—support for the guerrilla movement against the government. What has happened in Namibia?—further armed intervention by the South Africans in support of their administration. This is since the words were spoken by the Prime Minister to President Botha.
The noble Baroness has suggested that this Bill could undermine the Commonwealth and EC initiatives. That is surely not so. There are other countries in the Commonwealth and in the EC who have applied much stronger sanctions than those agreed at Nassau. There are other groups, such as the Nordic Group, who have applied stronger sanctions. I am asking this House to recognise that we are facing a desperately dangerous, tragic situation in South Africa.
I have been asked many times whether revolution is not imminent in South Africa. After Sharpeville I said, no. After Soweto I said, no. Today this has been going on for 14 months. Nearly 1,000 people have been killed. The central objectives of political sharing of power in South Africa, elections and independence in Namibia, are now clearly in the sights of the African people. This will not go away. The wealth of international opinion has been shown to support the application of sanctions. We have been isolated. This kind of escalating violence will leave South Africa as a derelict, smouldering, burnt-out shell of a state unless we can do something to help them to stop it. I suggest that it can be prevented only by external action to assist the South African people, to assist the internal negotiations in South Africa, to assist those who are working for justice, and to assist people to start talking to each other in South Africa.
I hope that the record of the British Government will not be one of appeasement in the face of this challenge, because I believe that the British people are now widespread in their demand for something more, as has been shown in many demonstrations round this country. I hope that the Government and the House will recognise this challenge and allow the Second Reading of this Bill to endorse the principle of sanctions, their use to be applied according to the circumstances of the next few months. I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
8.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill be now read a second time?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 52.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley. L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bottomley, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Brockway, L.

Milford, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.[Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Dean of Beswick, L

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Rhodes, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Glenamara, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gregson, L.

Soper, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon. L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Belstead, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monson, L.

Davidson, V.

Morris, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Mountgarret, V. [Teller.]

Effingham, E.

Munster, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Polwarth, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Richardson, L.

Greenway, L.

Rochdale, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shannon, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hooper, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Inglewood, L.

Swinton, E.

Killearn, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kimball, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion for Second Reading disagreed to accordingly.

Nuclear Armaments
8.45 p.m.
Lord Brockway Lord Brockway rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take the initiative towards securing the international signature of a comprehensive ban on all nuclear tests as proposed in the preamble to the non-proliferation treaty, and whether they will revitalise that treaty by discussing with the nuclear arms-holding countries the substantial reduction of their nuclear armaments.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The non-proliferation treaty is the most hopeful treaty signed in recent years. It is the world's only multilateral treaty aimed at halting both the spread and the build-up of nuclear weapons. Its provisions
1062
were, first, that the non-nuclear signatories agreed not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons; secondly, that the nuclear states:
"undertook to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament—and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".
Its third provision was that all signatories agreed:
"to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time and to continue negotiations to this end".
The fourth provision was that all parties agreed that the object to the treaty would be realised:
"under appropriate international observation", thus accepting the principle of verification.
These momentous decisions were reached by 130 nations, including the United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain, and by 124 non-nuclear states. There is no evidence that the non-nuclear states have not carried out their obligations under the treaty. Unhappily, there is abundant evidence that the nuclear powers have not done so. They agreed that they would pursue negotiations relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.
In fact, the total number of strategic nuclear weapons has risen from 6,000 in 1970—the year the NPT came into force—to 20,000 this year. Acceleration has taken place not only in the numbers but in their destructive force. The Committee of World Scientists five years ago reported to the United Nations that a bomb had been created 4,000–4,000!—times as deadly as the bomb which fell on Hiroshima.
As for general and complete disarmament, the United States and the United Kingdom have sought to kill the comprehensive disarmament programme proposed by the Committee on Disarmament at Geneva. The non-nuclear states are furious at this failure. I have spoken to a number of them and have been impressed by the depth of their despair. I have spoken to some of the representatives of the non-nuclear states which have not signed the treaty. They say, "Why should we join the NPT when the superpowers repudiate it by expanding their nuclear arms?"
The opposition of the non-nuclear states to accepting the NPT was expressed vigorously at the third review of the treaty held in September. Importantly, they accompanied their criticism with a call to the nuclear states to conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty. There was no accepted communiqué, but the final consensus document, while stating that the objective of nuclear disarmament remained unfulfilled, called emphatically for the resumption of negotiations this year on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Speech after speech emphasised this. It is not too much to say that this is the way to save the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If it is not done, the NPT will be killed at the fourth review, which would be a terrible tragedy.
My Lords, there is hope. The United States of America, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom accept in this treaty the necessity for a comprehensive test ban treaty. The Senate of the United States has called on President Reagan to negotiate. The Soviet Union has proposed a moratorium. The United States

1063
of America and the United Kingdom say that the difficulty is verification. This treaty accepts the need for international observation. Scientists say overwhelmingly that verification is now possible. The Soviet Union has gone far to accept it.
One cannot avoid the conclusion that it is political will rather than technology which is holding up verification. I beg the Government to act. Their conscience will not be easy if failure to do so destroys this treaty; this treaty of hope for ending the fear of a nuclear war.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, there are noble Lords in all parts of the House who deeply admire Lord Brockway's indefatigable campaigning for disarmament and peace. We are grateful to him for raising this important subject tonight, especially since this subject has been ignored to an extraordinary extent in the media. The whole of the NPT conference has had hardly a mention in the newspapers or on television.
There is one point on which it may be that I differ from the noble Lord. I wonder whether he would agree with me that it is really quite surprising how few countries have actually developed nuclear weapons over the past 10 or 20 years. I confess that I remember predicting myself 20 years ago that a large number of countries would develop their own nuclear weapons, and yet in the past 20 years I think only India has had a nuclear test. What the reasons are we can argue about. I suppose that it is partly because the possession of nuclear weapons is nowadays a great deal less prestigious, and seen to be a great deal less useful, than was the case at one time. In addition, possession of nuclear weapons is still expensive and still likely to offend other countries, including the United States and the Soviet Union.
However, one reason for the failure of proliferation to proceed more rapidly is the existence of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the conferences which have been held. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was right when he stressed the importance of maintaining the treaty and maintaining the enthusiasm and the loyalty of the signatories to it.
Even though, as the noble Lord said, the treaty has been breached by the nuclear signatories to it, the loyalty of the non-nuclear signatories to the treaty has been admirable and, so far as I remember, not a single one has resigned or withdrawn from the treaty. It is important to maintain it. The way to maintain it is to ban all nuclear testing. This would freeze new developments in nuclear weapons by the nuclear states, which itself would help the progress of disarmament and arms control. A ban on all tests would also deter the so-called threshold countries from crossing the threshold, and it would confirm the 127 non-nuclear signatories to the treaty in their resolution not to develop nuclear weapons themselves. Therefore, this is a matter of great importance, and it is surprising and shameful that the United States and the United Kingdom should refuse to resume negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty.
1064
Such a treaty would simply build on the foundations of the partial test ban treaty which has been useful and successful. The comprehensive treaty was 90 per cent. agreed when it was abandoned in 1980. This refusal to negotiate on the treaty isolates the United States and the United Kingdom from virtually the entire world. Not only from the 127 non-nuclear signatories to the treaty but from overwhelming opinion at the United Nations, in the European Parliament—which has urged the United Kingdom and the United States to resume negotiations—and I have no doubt from public opinion in this country.
Why do the United States and the United Kingdom take this view? At the end of this conference of the non-proliferation signatories they declared that they could not accept early resumption of negotiations because of verification. That was the reason they gave. I think most noble Lords would agree that verification is essential to a worthwhile treaty, not perhaps 100 per cent. verification and I think the Government accept this, but verification to ensure that no testing of military significance can take place undetected. Without going into all the scientific arguments I think I would agree that at present the state of the art of detection cannot give watertight verification without stationing seismograph stations in the Soviet Union and without the Soviet Union's agreement to on-site inspection.
The Government accept the assurances of the Soviet Union that they will grant this. Their granting of it was a most remarkable and encouraging new development in the Soviet attitude on arms control and disarmament. But as I read the statement of the United Kingdom Government they accept that this is not a trick by the Soviet Union, as it might have been. Heaven knows! often in the past the Soviet Union has put forward tempting proposals on disarmament and arms control with a view to isolating the United States and the United Kingdom and other Western governments. But this is not the view of the British Government.
Therefore we ask why do they reject a resumption of negotiation? I cannot believe that with seismograph stations positioned in the Soviet Union, with the Soviet Union granting on-site inspection of suspicious explosions and having looked at the opinions of distinguished scientists and experts in this field, that verification is impracticable. Why do the Government not wish to start negotiation? Why do they argue that before negotiations start there must be more technical studies, and so on? I find myself driven to the conclusion that the Government are temporising and that the United Kingdom and United States Governments do not wish to cease nuclear testing—or at least the United States do not wish to cease nuclear testing and that the United Kingdom is tagging along behind.
It is true that a test ban would impede the United States programme of nuclear arms development. I am led to conclude that the United States and the United Kindom believe that if tests are allowed to proceed they can gain a military advantage over the Soviet Union and that this advantage is large enough to justify them in obstructing a test ban treaty, undermining the non-proliferation treaty, isolating themselves from world opinion and presenting the

1065
Soviet Union with a diplomatic and propaganda triumph.
I am sure that when the Minister replies she will assure us that the British Government want a test ban treaty. Will she also assure us that when the subject comes up at the United Nations next month in committee I of the General Assembly, and when it comes up in December at the plenary session, the British Government will not vote against the resumption of negotiations on the treaty? If she cannot give this assurance to the House, we must draw our own conclusions about the motivation of the United States and British Governments on this matter.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend on asking this question. If I am in a position to ask anyone anything should I reach anything like his venerable but extremely active age, I shall be very surprised and pleased indeed. We are all the beneficiaries of his action this evening. I should like to say that I think he deserves better attention than he has received from the Government Benches. I should like to suggest a possible new rule and that is that the more important the subject the fewer the number of Conservative noble Lords will be present to take part in it. Of course, the reverse applies equally.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has been moving closer towards my view of these matters for a long time. He probably believes that the reverse is taking place, but from here it seems that he is gradually moving full circle and will perhaps conclude a not undistinguished political career on the Benches from which he started.
The unilateral action of the Soviet Union in declaring a moratorium of nuclear weapon testing demonstrated to the world that in this respect they are not the villains of humanity's bedtime story. If, as I have been saying for some time, our civilisation is threatened, in my view the threat comes from Washington nowadays rather than from Moscow. If the nuclear guillotine falls, the name of the executioner might be Reagan with Madam La Thatcher as his accomplice. The Americans have put up all sorts of explanations for their failure to accept the chance presented to them to halt the steady climb to nuclear extinction. First, they said, the Russians had just completed "a flurry of tests": those were their words. This was quickly exposed as a typical product of the Reaganite lie factory. In reality the Soviets had only had seven tests up to August last when the moratorium was declared, which was well below both their own average of previous years and also below the American total, which continues to be well ahead of the Russian figure. Then the Americans said that if the Soviets were to resume testing no one would know and the whole thing might be a ploy—claiming, in short, that tests cannot be verified. This is also the product of the Washington fiction works. Verification, as the noble Lord has suggested, is now very little problem, especially since, as he pointed out, the Soviet Union has agreed to accept on-site, seismic monitoring. Quite apart from that, satellite observation is now quite fantastically accurate, so accurate that I am reliably
1066
informed that they do not like to tell us precisely how accurate it is; it is completely staggering.
Every year regularly since 1963 the United Nations has called for an end to nuclear testing. A comprehensive test ban treaty was on the verge of completion in 1982 when nuclear Reagan withdrew from the negotiations. Neither of the present governments, the Government of the United Kingdom or the Government of the United States of America, is eager to resume negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty. Yet if they do not do so, it becomes clear that the Non-Proliferation Treaty will be in peril, as my noble friend has made clear, for the nuclear powers are already in breach of it. They are in breach of Article VI of the treaty. This article provides, indeed makes it a condition, that the non-nuclear powers will remain non-nuclear and the Treaty in effect will continue to exist only providing the nuclear signatories move towards nuclear disarmament. This they have singularly failed to do.
They have not only failed to do so but they also show every sign of continuing to move in the opposite direction. Even Star Wars, or the so-called strategic defence initiative, proves to be a form of nuclear escalation after all. According to the Daily Telegraph, no less, American research is now proceeding into an X-ray laser which would require the explosion of a hydrogen bomb in space as its trigger. So much for the President's announcement of a non-nuclear strategic defence initiative. It is unlikely to be non-nuclear. However, it was sold by the President as a non-nuclear device—yet another product of the Washington disinformation machine. The question of whether the President himself is a dupe, a villain or a little of both becomes academic.
The draft report of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Third Review makes it clear that the non-nuclear nations are disillusioned with the nuclear powers. This is inevitable. If nuclear powers not only hang on to their weapons but continually increase them, the incentive for the non-nuclear powers to remain so disappears. By its moratorium on testing, which expires at the end of this year, the Soviet Union has provided what may be the last opportunity we shall have to draw back from the abyss which Lord Mountbatten perceived so long ago. If Britain and America do not seize what may be this last chance and agree to renew serious negotiations for a test ban treaty, the chance may be lost with consequences which perhaps defy description. The Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of the few agreements which have held the world as a whole back from going hell for leather for a nuclear arms race in which all countries able to do so take part. The noble Lord has drawn attention to this and I think perhaps he would agree with me that this treaty played a considerable part in ensuring that we did not have so heady a nuclear arms race, or, rather, so much proliferation as might have been expected.
However, what has taken place instead of horizontal proliferation is vertical proliferation by the superpowers themselves, so that we have more and more nuclear weapons confined to relatively few nations. Needless to say, this is completely upsetting those nations which have agreed to a nuclear non-proliferation treaty on the assumption that by so doing

1067
they would assist the nuclear powers to reduce rather than to continue to increase the preponderance and the exclusiveness of their own nuclear armaments. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is one of the few agreements which I think have remained effective. The USSR has recognised that in practice by its present action. This Government is the only one capable of persuading the United States Government to do the same. I think that they have the power and the ability to do that. If they were to decide to exercise that power, they might well go down in history as the saviours of the world. Are they going to exercise the opportunity? Dare they take the possible chance on this one issue to be seen, as they would be seen, and accused, as they would be accused, of changing sides? But they would not really be doing so; they would simply be coming down on the side of humanity. And that is what they should decide to do.
I hope that the Government will do that; that they will not respond in either a complacent or a joking fashion; and I am not going to suggest that the noble Baroness is accustomed to do that. But we shall know then, if the Government do not say that they are going to take this action, if they do not that they are going to join in with the non-nuclear powers and say, "This has got to stop", that, if it was any good taking to the hills, the time would now be to make plans to do so.
Finally, the draft report of the Third Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons will be published in a day or two. In the coded language of such documents—and I have a copy of the draft here—the report calls on the nuclear weapon states which are parties to the treaty, (that is to say, the USSR, the USA and the UK) to resume negotiations this year; that is to say, before the Soviet moratorium expires this year. That means that the USA and ourselves are asked to stop testing nuclear weapons in agreement with the USSR.
Now, finally, I have been accused of playing Cassandra but, unhappily, Cassandra was right: her world was destroyed. Tonight, the Government can prove this Cassandra wrong by saying that they will urge the USA to accept this proposal to conclude a test ban treaty with the USSR. I hope with all my heart that they will do so.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in this short but important debate which has been initiated by my noble friend Lord Brockway's Unstarred Question, I should like to be thought of as speaking as a doctor and talking about preventive medicine. The malady that concerns us is too disastrous and overwhelming to respond to treatment, even palliative measures after a nuclear explosion would be pitifully inadequate. Most physicians who have really considered this problem and have not just defensively avoided thinking it through, realise that the only ethical stance is to back every possible move to defuse or reverse the nuclear arms race. Political activity may not be part of normal medical practice but we may be forced into it sometimes by matters of conscience; and, in parenthesis, I may say that that does not apply only to nuclear issues.
1068
Therefore, I was very pleased indeed that the work of an organisation that I support, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear Wars (IPPNW, for short) was recognised early this month by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. Ever since this body was founded in 1980 through the collaboration of the Soviet and American cardiologists, Professor Lown and Professor Shazor, who first met during numerous international scientific conferences over a period of years, the organisation has tried to build bridges to increase understanding and reduce tension; for instance, by organising open debates between American and Soviet doctors, one of which was actually broadcast live on Soviet television.
The prize money will be used to further this work rather than to go into individual pockets, and of course the organisation, the IPPNW, has been attacked as being pro-Soviet or naively playing the Soviet game, by people who really know nothing about its real work. The Nobel Prize assessors themselves are very hard headed Swedes who take great care with their vetting process and give prizes only on the strength of solid achievements. I wonder whether the noble Baroness who is to reply will join me in congratulating the IPPNW on being awarded this prize.
We are now at an important stage in nuclear negotiations. The summit meeting between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev is not far off, the Geneva disarmament talks are still in being and the Soviet Union's two initiatives—a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, that has been mentioned, and the offer to reduce strategic weaponry—are still "on the table". Those of us who are suspicious of Soviet motives, and also many realists, may say that these Soviet initiatives are because the Russians are thoroughly scared by present American moves, particularly the destabilising effect of the "Star Wars" or SDI initiative.
In order to match this, the Soviet Union will either have to spend enormous extra sums on space defence—and their technical prowess in this field is acknowledged to be inferior to that of the United States—or they will have to manufacture and deploy a far greater number of missiles even, in order to swamp the ABM defences of the United States. Either of these two alternatives would stretch the Soviet economy almost to breaking point.
A cynic, who might also be a realist, would say that this is perhaps one of the aims of the United States in suggesting the strategic defence initiative. At the same time, if this were to take place, the dangers of war launched by either side would escalate enormously. Many of us fear that, unless checked by outside voices, the United States' nuclear defence programme is locked into an unstoppable expansion. It certainly seems that equality with the USSR is not enough. Superiority is the aim. This seems to be a highly dangerous situation considering the degree of overkill already possessed by both sides.
Luckily, there are strong voices in the United States and in Europe who recognise the dangers and who want to cry "Halt!" The "freeze" movement has a very strong popular backing in the United States, and if a freeze were achieved it would still leave the "overkill" capacity intact. But, at least, it would provide a breathing space to work out a fair, balanced and verifiable mutual reduction in nuclear weapons.

1069
But heralding the freeze, the comprehensive test ban treaty is the logical first step. We need not be very far away from that agreement. As has been mentioned by all speakers, the non-nuclear signatories to the non-proliferation treaty have called for the resumption of negotiations on the test ban treaty by the end of the year. My noble friend Lord Jenkins spoke of this. The USSR has already declared its moratorium for the rest of this year. I think that the United Kingdom is in a very strong position to take the initiative and exert its influence on the USA to change its stance.
We have at various points since 1957, when negotiations started on this test ban treaty, come close to agreement and the partial test ban treaty of 1963 has been honoured. When comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations were abandoned in 1980, the draft was really on the verge of being in an acceptable form. As my noble friend Lord Jenkins said, the United States Senate voted 77 to 22 in 1984 to resume
1070
negotiations, but the US Government has failed to do so.
We have heard about the difficulties with verification of underground tests, but, as all noble Lords have said so far, scientists now feel that the technical problems have been largely overcome. I think that any that remain could be the subject of an intensive international collaboration in reseach—a possible topic of any resumed talks on the treaty.
There is every reason for restarting these negotiations now and urgently. Moves towards this resumption could be started before the summit meeting, while the Geneva talks are still in progress and before a new and dangerous lap of the nuclear arms race starts. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will tell us that the Government will do all that they can to get going again the negotiations on this achievable and vitally important treaty.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Rea and all other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in congratulating my noble friend Lord Brockway on initiating it. Few people inside or outside this House are more steeped in the policies of disarmament or more vigorous in the cause of disarmament and peace, and over such a prolonged period. As we shall not be sitting on 1st November, perhaps we may be forgiven for anticipating that day and expressing the hope that my noble friend Lord Brockway will have a very happy 97th birthday.
My noble friend could hardly have chosen a better moment for this debate. Since he tabled his Unstarred Question before we rose for the Summer Recess, the third review conference on the treaty has taken place. Not only that, but my noble friend must have been somewhat more encouraged by the outcome of the conference than perhaps he expected to be when he put down his Question. The predictions about this conference from many commentators and experts, right up to the time it was taking place, were very gloomy. The failure of the previous five-yearly review conference in 1980, which ended without agreement, was recalled and a similar outcome was predicted for this one. As we know, and as has been said to your Lordships tonight, agreement was reached at last month's conference. It is a commendable achievement but it provides no grounds for euphoria or for undue congratulations.
The treaty itself, which came into force in 1970, has been one of the very few great achievements to come out of arms control negotiations. It is true that the conference last month reaffirmed its importance and the continuing need for it, and the outcome was largely a positive one; but the conference also produced, as the final declaration seems to have shown, some salutary warnings for ourselves and for the United States and the Soviet Union. I should mention that any references I make to the final declaration are to the draft, for that is all I have seen; and I am informed that the final authorised text has not yet been made available in Geneva.
I say "warnings", for the final declaration by implication criticised the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union, the depository states of the treaty, for the failure to fulfil the pledge contained in Article VI of the treaty:
"to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".
It is fair to say that we and the other two countries, in supporting the declaration, conceded that we had not succeeded in fulfilling the pledge in Article VI of the treaty and also agreed that we should make greater efforts to ensure effective measures for the cessation of the nuclear arms race and for those other aims in Article VI. As noble Lords have mentioned tonight, the conference, in its final declaration, also called on the nuclear weapon states to resume negotiations this year for ending all test explosions for all time; in other words, for a comprehensive test ban treaty.
1072
My noble friend's Question embraces those very subjects and his request to the Government is very much in line with both the contents of the treaty itself and the calls made by the conference in its final declaration. As Her Majesty's Government are a party to that declaration it is hard to see how the noble Baroness the Minister can make anything other than a positive response to my noble friend's Question. I readily acknowledge that we, Britain, supported the United States in making a reservation, which was noted in the final declaration and which said that while there was a commitment to the goal of an effectively verifiable ban, the first priority was deep reductions in existing arsenals, which after all is an aim in the present negotiations in Geneva with the Russians.
That need not cause the Government any great difficulty in responding to my noble friend Lord Brockway. He simply calls for discussions with the nuclear powers on,
"the substantial reduction of their nuclear armaments".
It is true the first part of my noble friend's Question asks the Government,
"whether they will take the initiative towards securing the international signature of a comprehensive ban on all nuclear tests",
but since such a treaty is the aim of the Government, we hope that they will not shrink from taking a leading part in getting those negotiations going again. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say. I hope very much that she will be positive and forthcoming. As this is the first chance we have to discuss the conference since it took place, I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House a report on it as well.
There are several other points I should like to raise. I said just now that the conference declaration contained a salutary warning to the nuclear powers. What I meant was simply this. The treaty is plainly of great importance. It has had great influence in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, as we know. But its adherents and the treaty itself expect progress on those other spheres of disarmament. We cannot expect the non-nuclear weapons states to prolong their patience and exercise restraint indefinitely, waiting for the rest of us to act. If we want to safeguard this treaty then we must deliver something substantial long before the next review in 1990—if we are to save it before it comes up for renewal in 1995. Here I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken tonight and who made that point.
I should like the Minister to state how she sees the prospects for resuming the negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Can she give the House any idea of the timescale and what sort of date the Government regard as being realistic to aim at? Given the will, it should not take long to get negotiations going again. We know how speedily talks can be concluded. We have the experience of the partial test ban treaty in 1963—the treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. Negotiations on that treaty began between the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia on 15th July 1963 and ended on 25th July. The treaty was signed on 5th August and it entered into force on 10th October that same year. This shows what can be done. My noble friend Lord Rea made reference to that treaty in his speech tonight.

1073
The terms of a comprehensive test ban treaty were close to being settled and finalised in 1980 but the negotiations lapsed in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. If the talks foundered because of the deterioration in East-West relations at that time, then that cannot possibly apply now, because major talks are now taking place, as we know, on other matters. There is the Reagan-Gorbachev summit in about four weeks' time. If it was right to negotiate before and possible to get close to an agreement then, why is it not right to negotiate now, and to try to bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion?
It is said that one of the problems is verification. Why was it possible to negotiate in 1980 when verification was something that had to be dealt with then, and what has changed to make it impossible to negotiate now and to seek a solution on verification—especially as, at the very least, verification is much less of a problem now than it was then? Here again, I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in his speech on this particular topic, and with what my noble friends Lord Jenkins of Putney and Lord Rea also had to say on the subject.
Indeed, there is a growing body of influential, informed and expert opinion which is convinced that verification is no longer a problem. If such a claim can be countered, it would be interesting to hear the reasons; but certainly it is claimed that developments in detection techniques, seismic monitoring and satellite surveillance are making verification easier all the time and make it possible to meet our needs in this respect. My noble friend Lord Rea was one noble Lord who referred to this. Perhaps I should also say that I very much welcome as well his reference to the Nobel Prize.
We are told that seismologists from East and West agree that explosions of more than one kiloton can be detected. We are also told that most seismologists accept—some are said to be more pessimistic—the judgment of the head of the Institute of Earth Physics at the Soviet Academy of Sciences (Academician Mikhail Sadovsky) that the United States' system of seismic stations guarantees in practice, with a high degree of probability, the detection of underground nuclear explosions of substantially less than one kiloton in Soviet territory. If that judgment is suspect we ought to be told.
There is a further point. We are also told that with seismic monitoring stations on site on Soviet territory—this has also been referred to tonight; and the Russians agreed to this, let us remember, in 1978—the assurance would be even greater. Only the very smallest nuclear explosions could escape detection and they would not be of military significance.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us, therefore, what, if any, are the Government's remaining worries about verification, and whether or not she would agree that there are at least grounds for believing that they could be overcome through negotiations and, at the very
1074
least, that there are most compelling grounds for trying to resolve them through negotiations.
Several noble Lords have referred to the question of the moratorium, including my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney and, I think, my noble friend Lord Rea, so I shall not go further into that now. Earlier this year we heard that China is willing to join the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia in an ad hoc committee to produce a ban on nuclear tests. That was heralded as a major reversal in Chinese policy Not only are there compelling reasons for the urgent resumption of talks, but the moment could hardly be more propitious. We very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will feel able to respond accordingly.
9.37 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for asking this Question, and I too add my congratulations on his birthday, which I gather he is about to celebrate. We all wish him many happy returns.
I welcome the opportunity provided by the Question to put the Government's views on record soon after the end of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in Geneva and while the United Nations General Assembly First Committee is meeting in New York.
The United Kingdom has played and will continue to play its full part in all these discussions commensurate with its international standing. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, right away, because he asked whether or not the United Kingdom and America had killed the comprehensive programme of disarmament at the conference on disarmament in Geneva, that this question is not borne out by the facts, which are that the united Kingdom has continued to take part in the discussions on the comprehensive programme in Geneva. However, these discussions have revealed that there is no consensus as yet on the content of a comprehensive programme of disarmament; for whatever the noble Lord may argue, it is not possible for the British Government to force others to take up initiatives if they are not willing to respond. This is a general point which is of particular relevance to the proposals for negotiating a comprehensive test ban treaty. In accordance with its international obligations the Government remain committed to the pursuit of a verifiable comprehensive test ban.
Perhaps I may answer a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in his speech in which he suggested that Britain and the United States might be seeking advantage over the Soviet Union and say that I really do not think that even he can take this suggestion seriously.
The British Government's aim in arms control negotiations is not to seek advantage but balance, and at a greatly reduced level of forces. We accept that a ban would be a significant step forward toward arms

1075
control and disarmament in the context of substantial reductions in the numbers of nuclear weapons which we and our allies are trying to achieve in other fora. For these reasons the United Kingdom has presented to the Conference on Disarmament at Geneva a total of three important working papers designed to contribute to resolving the problems which continue to stand in the way of concluding a comprehensive test ban treaty. In 1983 we tabled papers on "Peaceful Nuclear Explosions in Relation to a Nuclear Test Ban" and "Verification Aspects of a CTBT." Earlier this year, in July 1985, we tabled a third paper, "Seismic Monitoring for a Comprehensive Test Ban".
It is disappointing that the technical issues raised by the first two papers have not received the attention which they deserve. This is because—and this is even more disappointing—the detailed work taking place in Geneva in 1982 and 1983 was interrupted by the refusal of some non-aligned and Warsaw Pact delegations to agree this year to a renewed mandate for an ad hoc committee on a test ban. I hope this information answers some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Boston, raised about where we are on this important question of verification.
Despite a further attempt by Western delegations to secure agreement to a broader mandate in 1984, and in spite of the fact that a large number of states voted at the United Nations last year to resume work on the basis of the broader mandate, it has still not been possible to reach agreement on how to take matters forward because of the attitude of a minority of countries. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked how Britain will vote on the comprehensive test ban resolutions at the United Nations and I can tell him that we shall of course need to study the text of any resolutions put forward but we shall support resolutions which seem likely to offer the prospect of concrete progress and not other resolutions.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does that mean that the noble Baroness will vote for resolutions which promise a resumption of negotiations?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think that I can add anything further to the answer that I have given the noble Lord. We shall clearly vote for those resolutions on which we think there will be progress, but not others. I hope I have said enough to indicate that we should like to see progress on this matter. As my remarks continue I think that the noble Lord will appreciate what we have to say on that.
The British Government deeply regret that, with the voting in the United Nations last year, it has not been possible to reach agreement on how to take matters forward because of the attitude of a minority of countries. We believe that discussion in the Conference on Disarmament at Geneva can make a substantial contribution to the resolution of these issues. Negotiations on an effective and verifiable comprehensive test ban would have no realistic prospects of success while these problems remain unresolved.
1076
Perhaps at this point I may answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asked, which was about the United States proposing to test nuclear explosions in space as part of the SDL I think that the noble Lord is referring to press reports to this effect. I should like to remind him and the House that only last week the American Secretary of State reaffirmed to the North Atlantic Assembly in San Francisco that the SDI research programme would be conducted in accordance with treaty obligations.
While the British Government have difficulty in accepting that agreement cannot be found on the terms of how to make progress at Geneva, we recognise that there are real problems to be resolved. What we had hoped, and still hope, to achieve at Geneva was agreement on method of working towards their resolution.
In many respects these problems are familiar. During the trilateral negotiations of 1977 to 1980 it did not prove possible to resolve a number of important compliance questions. Some may be inclined to assert that technical advances in detecting and identifying nuclear tests can now give the necessary degree of confidence that any comprehensive test ban treaty would not easily be circumvented—a point which noble Lords opposite have put. The Government place great store on a serious and detailed assessment of this issue, for it is at the very heart of the prospects for a comprehensive test ban treaty. If we cannot achieve that necessary degree of confidence there would be no point in concluding the treaty in the first place; indeed, it would be dangerous to do so.
If a country could evade the provisions of the treaty it could gain a significant military advantage. Not only would this defeat the purposes of the treaty but it would also confront the governments which were complying with the treaty with some difficult choices. Had the evasion of the treaty been detected in time to allow counter-measures? Was the evidence of the evasion convincing enough to justify such counter-measures, particularly in the eyes of public opinion? And, if we were confident in the answers given to these questions, would we be able to uphold the treaty by ensuring that the other party could be deterred from evading the treaty?
These are real concerns which the British Government ignore at the peril of their responsibilities to the British people and, indeed, to the world as a whole. The judgment of the Government is that the detection and measuring capabilities available to us at the moment are not adequate to provide the degree of confidence we require. The papers I have referred to earlier are contributions to the debate on resolving the outstanding issues with a view to achieving this degree of confidence. The July 1985 paper, for example, points to the areas where further work is needed. It concludes that it might be possible to design a monitoring network which would be able to detect a seismic event of about four on the Richter scale against the background level of seismic noise. It might also be possible to identify a seismic event as a nuclear explosion where it had a yield above a few tens of kilotons.
But the paper also makes clear that these results must be treated with caution. They are based on data

1077
which are incomplete and involve a good deal of extrapolation. More work needs to be done to confirm that these detection and identification thresholds are indeed achievable. More work also needs to be done to make sure we understand the full range of evasion techniques which might be used. Finally, even if work on these issues was successfully concluded there would still be the problem that militarily significant testing could take place below these possible inspection and identification thresholds.
As I have said, these are real concerns, but the British Government are working to try to resolve them. We shall continue to do so. But beyond this I do not believe it would be prudent to go at this stage.
9.49 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since it is believed, in some quarters at any rate, that the reasons that the noble Baroness has been putting forward for doubting the viability of verification are not in accordance with scientific opinion, would it not be possible, as it is in the case of the SALT II treaty, to continue and to match the Soviet moratorium so that the whole thing can go along while the tests are being put in? If there was a violation it would immediately become apparent. In those circumstances, would it not be possible to avoid the deadline which we face at the end of the year by going along with the Soviet Union in practice, even if our Government and the American Government are not yet ready to put their names to a document?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope the answer that I gave to the House will be sufficient to answer the question the noble Lord has just asked. I have indicated that there are real doubts, which have been expressed by those who are competent to judge these matters, that it would be very difficult to get the kind of verification we require. These are concerns which the British Government cannot ignore because they have a responsibility to the British people and to the whole of the world. So far as the recent Soviet proposal for a moratorium on testing is concerned, this contains no new ideas and, indeed, ignores the problems of verification and of peaceful nuclear explosions, so there are real difficulties there.
Your Lordships will be aware that the third conference to review the non-proliferation treaty was held in Geneva during September. Her Majesty's Government played an active role at that conference, and were delighted that, in contrast to the previous review conference, held in 1980, it reached a successful conclusion on 21st September with the adoption by consensus of a final document strongly endorsing the treaty. That final document included a solemn declaration by the parties expressing their conviction that the treaty is essential to international peace and security, their support for the treaty's objectives and their determination to enhance the implementation of the treaty and strengthen its authority.
This is not to say, of course, that there were not differences of approach, or that the general feeling at the conference was that enough had been done to further the cause of arms control and disarmament.
1078
Indeed, all states' parties expressed disappointment that there had not been greater progress towards the implementation of Article VI of the treaty, which calls on the parties to undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective control. At the conference the Government made it clear that the United Kingdom remains committed to progress towards a comprehensive test ban on nuclear weapons in all environments and reminded delegates that, as I have already explained, the West have proposed that the Geneva Conference on Disarmament should examine all relevant test ban issues, including verification, with a view to negotiation of a treat y. But it would be premature for substantive negotiations on a comprehensive test ban to be resumed while the outstanding technical problems remain unresolved.
The satisfactory outcome of the review conference is at variance with the predictions of some observers that it would be a disaster unless new and very far-reaching steps were taken. The substantive final document resulting from the conference, and the fact that there are now 130 parties to the treaty (making it the most widely-supported arms control treaty in existence) I hope will reassure those who had doubts about its vitality. It is alive and well. What remains is for us to continue to work in a balanced and organised way towards the complete realisation of its aims, and to convince those countries which have so far not signed that they should now join the vast majority of states who have already done so.
House adjourned at seven minutes before ten o'clock.