Sitting of 4 April 1967

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 23rd March for the Easter Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF POWER

    European Coal and Steel Community (Discussions)
    Mr. Andersonasked the Minister of Power if he will give a progress report on his discussions with the European Coal and Steel Community on problems arising from the world surplus of steel.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): The first meeting with officials of the High Authority was held on Friday, 10th March.
    A preliminary exchange of views has taken place and a scheme of work for further study has been drawn up.
    Mr. Anderson: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if these discussions lead to a producers' agreement on output or markets this will not be used as an excuse to prevent the closing down
    2
    of uneconomic high cost units when alternative employment is available?
    Mr. Marsh: I will, certainly. Although an international steel agreement is one, it is certainly not the only posible answer to the present difficulties.

    Severn Estuary (Electricity Generation)
    Mr. Andersonasked the Minister of Power if he will give details of the discussions he has held concerning the scheme of a Bristol consulting engineer to harness the power of the Severn to generate electricity and create an enclosed harbour in the estuary which would be relevant to the Severn project.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): This cheme was considered by the Department's scientific staff, but as the proposals did not include an economic appraisal, a full examination of the project could not be made. The scheme could, of course, be further examined if a prima facie economic case were made out on the basis of fuller information.
    Mr. Anderson: I was hoping for a more forthcoming reply. Could my hon. Friend say whether the Department is willing to embark on a feasibility study, as this scheme could bring very great benefits to the two relevant development regions in the South-West and in Wales?
    Mr. Freeson: The position is that following the earlier submission on this

    3
    scheme we have been in touch with the proposers and have been awaiting any further submission which would provide the prima facie economic case we would wish to consider. I understand that the C.E.G.B. has considered the scheme briefly, but from the information submitted it is only fair to say that it has expressed doubts whether the scheme could be developed at a low enough cost to make it economically attractive.
    Mr. Corfield: In view of the number of electricity generating plants in the area, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the whole of south Gloucestershire and the Cotswold escarpment is becoming a cat's cradle of cables and will he bear that in mind before he establishes any more in the area?
    Mr. Freeson: I am very conscious of the concern of hon. Members and others outside the House with regard to overhead cables. My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of a feasibility study, which would take account, of course, of all other facilities in the area.
    Mr. Wilkins: Would my hon. Friend remember that there is no need for a feasibility study? There was a committee in 1933—I was a member of it—which studied the report in the inter-war years. So all the data on the subject of the Severn barrage are already available.
    Mr. Freeson: I would hesitate to say that this is one of a countless number of schemes, but I understand that over the years several schemes have been considered by the Department. Therefore, it would be even more important, if this scheme were to be proceeded with, to have a feasibility study.
    Mr. Palmer: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the proposed scheme has become much more topical now because of the development, for instance, in France of the Rance barrage? Might we not expect a little more progress on an issue of this kind?
    Mr. Freeson: I thought that my opening answer was not all that unsympathetic. I stated that if a further submission were made which provided prima facie economic evidence to pursue the matter, we would consider it further.

    Electricity Generating Stations, Scotland (Coal Prices)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Minister of Power what is the range of coal prices now charged to electricity generating stations in Scotland.
    Mr. Freeson: The range is from 89s. to 116s. a ton, but there are supplies of slurry costing from 8s. to 9s. a ton.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these prices are £1 per ton higher than those charged in England and Wales, and that they impose on electricity consumers in Scotland an extra burden of £5 million a year? In view of the increase in electricity charges in Scotland this week, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that Scotland is getting a raw deal?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the question of price levels is a commercial matter between the electricity board and the National Coal Board. I understand that discussions between the boards are taking place at present.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: In fixing the differential prices, does the authority take into account the use to which the electricity is to be put—namely, whether it is being used for national productive purposes or otherwise—and if so, in what way does it do it?
    Mr. Freeson: This is not a matter for my Department. It is a matter for discussion between the National Coal Board and the Electricity Board, and, as I have already indicated, discussions are taking place at the present time.

    National Coal Board Brickworks
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Power what is the expected profit or loss from the National Coal Board brick works during 1965–66; and if he will give a general direction to the Board to commission a study to report on the practicability of offering these brickworks for private ownership.
    Mr. Freeson: The board's brickworks made an operating profit of £93,000 in 1965–66, a net profit of £1,000. The answer to the second part of the question is "No, Sir."
    Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the net profit of £1,000 on the capital employed is an indication of how far below the proper standards of enterprise and skill these brickworks have been operated? Will he not reconsider his answer to the second part of the Question?
    Mr. Freeson: No. Too many general observations should not be drawn from this reply. There is a very chequered picture to be seen over a number of years. Let me quote some of the figures. The net profit in 1962 was £208,000; in 1963, £181,000; and in 1964, £663,000.
    Mr. Alison: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether these brickworks burn coal or oil and, since the profit is as low as it is at present, will he consider em-employing oil if only coal is used?
    Mr. Freeson: I could not answer that question without notice.

    Board Members (Salaries)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power if he will review the salaries of the board members of the gas, electricity and coal industries.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Power when he proposes to review the salaries of the members of the nationalised boards for which he is responsible.
    Mr. Marsh: I cannot yet say when it will be appropriate to carry out this review.
    Mr. Ridley: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that his previous assertion that the steel industry should be treated differently because it was not a monopoly and because it was a manufacturing industry is absolute bunk? Would he also agree that what he is doing, and I congratulate him on it, is paying the rate for the job? Will he say when he is to extend this principle to all publicly-owned industries?
    Mr. Marsh: As I have just said, I cannot say when it will be appropriate to carry out this review. There is clearly a difference between increases in salary and new salaries for new jobs. I agree that there is a problem here with the publicly-owned industries. If the hon. Gentleman's party had had the guts to face up to this a few years ago we would not be faced with it now.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the powerful arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman to justify paying relatively high salaries to members of the Steel Board apply equally to the other industries for which he is responsible? If the steel viscounts are to have the rate for the job, why not the coal barons or even the gas knights?
    Mr. Marsh: The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. We have a prices and incomes policy which clearly raises problems in changing remuneration for people already in receipt of such remuneration. This is an entirely different exercise—
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
    Mr. Marsh: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it seems to be different to increase someone's salary, rather than to set a new salary for a new job.

    Steel Nationalisation (Compensation Payment)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power what he estimates will be the total value of compensation payable to the present owners of the steel industry to be nationalised.
    Mr. Freeson: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on 31st January.—[Vol. 740, c. 40.]
    Mr. Ridley: On 15th March the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend said that the investment in the steel industry was worth £1,400 million. How can he justify offering £580-odd million in compensation?
    Mr. Freeson: I should have thought that this matter had been very fully debated in this House over quite a long period of time now. I will repeat what has been said, that the Government consider that the compensation terms set out in the Act are on the generous side of fair and just.
    Sir G. de Freitas: Could the Minister tell us what would be the effect of changing the Government's terms of compensation to reflect the true market value of these shares?
    Mr. Freeson: I imagine that there would be weeping on the Stock Exchange tomorrow.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Have the Government yet worked out what addition they will have to make to the financial target which they will set the steel industry by reason of the fact that they are buying the assets considerably under value?
    Mr. Freeson: As the hon. Member knows, this is a matter for detailed consideration by the Steel Corporation when it is set up.

    Coal Industry (Output and Manpower)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power what further decline in output and manpower of the coal industry has occurred in the first quarter of 1967.
    Mr. Freeson: Output in the 13 weeks to 18th March was 44·3 million tons as compared with 45·2 million tons in the same period a year ago. Colliery manpower fell during the 13 weeks by 4,300 against a drop of 10,300 last year.
    Sir G. Nabarro: As both tonnage of output of coal and manpower in the industry declined calamitously last year and are already declining in the first quarter of this year, would the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the proper estimate for 1967 is an output of only 160 million tons, employing only 400,000 miners?
    Mr. Freeson: I will confirm what has been said before, without referring to the rather exaggerated adjectives that we expect of the hon. Member, that coal production in the coming year will be sufficient to meet all demands.

    Coal Output (Electricity Requirements)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Minister of Power what is the estimated effect on coal output in 1972–73 of the reduced forecast of electricity requirements announced by the Electricity Council on 16th March.
    Mr. Alisonasked the Minister of Power by how much the National Plan's forecast of demand for coal by power stations will be cut back as a result of the Electricity Council's recently announced retrenchment programme.
    Mr. Marsh: The Electricity Council's forecast of 54,000 MW in 1972–73 implies a reduction of about 15 per cent, in the National Plan forecasts of United Kingdom power station fuel requirements in 1970. How this reduction will affect coal requirements will depend on future decisions on fuel policy.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is it not obvious that this is a massive cut-back in electricity investment? Is it not the case that it has been calculated to be about £400 million less than planned over the next five or six years, and ought not a statement of this magnitude to have been made in this House, not merely by a Press release by the Electricity Council?
    Mr. Marsh: There is a subsequent Question on investment. There is a relationship, particularly with generation. One cannot draw a direct mathematical relationship, as the hon. Gentleman seems to have done.
    Mr. Alison: Will the Minister bring up to date in quantified terms the actual tonnage to be consumed in 1970 to replace the figure published in Table No. 1, page 34, of Part n of the National Plan?
    Mr. Marsh: This must await the outcome of the fuel review.
    Sir K. Joseph: Will the Minister tell us whether he is proposing to make a statement to the House on the expected investment programme as it affects all the industries concerned, or are we to await the full fuel policy statement that he has promised to the House?
    Mr. Marsh: There are two separate questions here. One is the effect of the present figures of demand by 1970–71 and 1971–72. The other is quite separate, about the figures of investment, and there is a subsequent Question on this. As to the type of fuel to be used, this will emerge from the fuel policy review, and a Government taking any decision from that would clearly come to the House.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Would my right hon. Friend have a serious look at this problem? Is he aware that in America, when gas came into the economy, the demand for electricity rose tremendously? Would he, therefore, think five years hence, when the economy

    9
    has had that spurt forward, and the demand for electricity increases?
    Mr. Marsh: This is an important point, and this is exactly the purpose of trying to carry out a detailed and systematic review rather than a mathematical approach. One of the things which changes these electricity demand estimates is the increased performance of the gas industry.

    Nationalised Industries (Investment Plans)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied that he has adequate control over the investment plans of the nationalised industries for which he is responsible; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marsh: The nationalisation Statutes require the boards for which I am responsible to carry out their programmes of capital development on lines which are approved by me. I am satisfied that my powers are adequate for the discharge of these responsibilities.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is the Minister aware that the National Coal Board has invested over £500,000 in a company called Draysley Limited, which has been trying to develop the "stokermatic" boiler? Is he further aware that this investment has proved an abject failure and the money has now been entirely lost? What control does his Ministry exercise over diversification investment of this sort and magnitude?
    Mr. Marsh: One has to see this against a turnover of something like £800 million a year. I would have thought that the development of appliances was a perfectly proper function for the Board, and that the choice of the designs to be investigated and the arrangements for manufacture were also matters for the Board. Hon. Gentlemen cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they say that nationalised industries should be run as commercial concerns, and on the other they complain that they are not completely managed by Government Departments.
    Mr. Emery: Would the Minister say what action he has taken in order to
    10
    ensure the necessary investment for the proper exploitation of North Sea gas and whether this means that investments planned by other boards, which he controls, are having to be cut down? If so, which boards?
    Mr. Marsh: All the investment programmes of the nationalised industries are subject to control by the Ministry and to approval by the Government. I am satisfied that those regulations are sufficient. Whether I should get involved in the investment programmes arising out of the discovery of North Sea gas is another question, and I doubt whether Mr. Speaker would allow it.

    Central Electricity Generating Board (Capital Expenditure)
    Mr. Alisonasked the Minister of Power if he will give a figure for the estimated capital expenditure of the Central Electricity Generating Board for the period 1966–67 to 1970–71, in the light of the Electricity Council's recently announced retrenchment programme; and how this figure compares with the programme approved in December, 1965.
    Mr. Marsh: I expect to receive revised estimates when the C.E.G.B. submit its next capital development programme in May. These will take account of the Electricity Council's recently adopted load forecast of 54,000 MW for 1972–73.
    Mr. Alison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since he has given the figure of 15 per cent. cut-back by 1970, it is only reasonable that we should assume that the figure of 2,000 million which he gave in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) would be taken to be a scale of the reduction? Is not this a simply fantastic scale of cut-back in electricity investment?
    Mr. Marsh: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should raise this point again. The Electricity Council went to considerable trouble to try to explain the position to him and to point out that one cannot draw a direct comparison between investment and load forecasts. When we have the investment programme in the very near future, the hon. Gentleman will have the specific figures.

    North Sea Oil
    Mr. Osbornasked the Minister of Power what information he has received about the progress of exploration and drilling for oil in the North Sea.
    Mr. Freeson: Oil has not yet been found in commercial quantities.
    Mr. Osborn: In view of the optimism in the national daily and Sunday Press last month, would the hon. Gentleman make certain that reporting is correct and that his Ministry vets all claims as they come forward?
    Mr. Freeson: On the latter point, we are in constant receipt of factual information. However, we cannot be responsible for what the Press publishes in this matter.

    Nuclear Generating Capacity
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Power if he will increase the nuclear generating capacity to be installed in the years 1970 to 1975.
    Mr. Marsh: Plant programmes up to 1971 have already been settled. The amount of nuclear generating capacity to be installed in later years will depend on the fuel policy review and on the electricity boards' total requirements for new generating capacity.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nuclear generating capacity is now more than 10 per cent. cheaper than coal?[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Will he therefore adopt a policy of installing only nuclear capacity until the whole of our base load is provided by this means?
    Mr. Marsh: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would seem that in future nuclear generation will produce very real economies. But at present the sheer difficulty of finding sites for construction does not make the programme possible. We must have a fuel policy which takes into account coal, oil, gas and electricity as a combined operation.
    Mr. Biffen: Would the Minister say whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that nuclear generation is 10 per cent. cheaper than coal?
    Mr. Marsh: There is a lot of disputation about these matters. The thing which has to be taken into account is the capital cost, which will probably be lower in the years to come.

    Iron and Steel Board (Deputy Chairman's Salary)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Power since the capital investment of the electricity supply industry was about 12 times as large as that of the iron and steel industry in 1965, on what basis the deputy chairman of the Iron and Steel Board is to be paid approximately twice the salary of the chairman of the Electricity Council.
    Mr. Marsh: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made to the House on 15th March.[Vol. 743, col. 420–428.]
    Mr. Palmer: Is that Answer sufficient? Does not he think that the comparison which I have made indicates how much confusion has been caused in the salary structure of the nationalised industries generally by paying these ridiculously inflated salaries to members of the new Iron and Steel Board?
    Mr. Marsh: I am surprised that my hon. Friend should regard them as "ridiculously inflated". This is the first time that I have heard that view expressed. The size of capital investment is a factor, but it is by no means necessarily the most important in determining appropriate salaries for people in different industries. It is relevant to take into account what the market position is if one wants good management in the nationalised industries.
    Sir G. Nabarro: But is the Minister aware that, whereas the Chairman of the Electricity Council is paid £12,500 a year the Chairman of B.O.A.C. is paid £15,000 a year, although in terms of turnover the Electricity Council is hundreds of times larger than B.O.A.C? Cannot some equilibrium be restored?
    Mr. Marsh: As I said in reply to an earlier Question, one cannot say when this review will take place. However, I think that it is a great pity that hon. Members opposite did not recognise these anomalies, for which they are directly and completely responsible, a little earlier.

    Electricity Supply Industry (Investment Programme)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on the cutting back of the investment programme of the electricity supply industry; and on what assumptions this reduction in forward investment is based.
    Mr. Marsh: During the past three years electricity boards have amended their investment plans to align future capacity with re-appraisals of the expected future demand. These have led the Electricity Council to adopt the reduced load forecast for 1972–73 recently announced.
    Mr. Palmer: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that by cutting back the electrical base of the economy in this way he is making precisely the same mistakes which all his Conservative predecessors made? May we have a new policy and new thinking in some of these matters in due course?
    Mr. Marsh: It is possible to have a new policy, and this is exactly what we are engaged in at present. If increases in growth and domestic consumption and new factors like the rise of the gas industry impinge on these matters, clearly they must affect the forecasts.

    National Coal Board Foundries
    Mr. Osbornasked the Minister of Power what plans there are for encouraging the expansion of production facilities at the foundries of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Freeson: None, Sir, beyond a minor extension of capacity at the Board's Tredomen workshops.
    Mr. Osborn: Would the hon. Gentleman ensure that we have adequate information about the turnover and profitability of ventures to date in view of the unsatisfactory reply which I have had from the Chairman of the National Coal Board? Would he consider whether this is a venture which should be sold back to private enterprise?
    Mr. Freeson: Certainly not. This foundry has a capacity of 2,000 tons a year and has recently been producing up to 1,400 tons. It is an integral part
    14
    of the works and most of the castings produced are incorporated in the products of the works.

    North Sea Oil and Gas (Licences)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Power if he will make a further statement on developments and improvements in the licences granted to companies and persons drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea with a view to making that oil and gas available to citizens of Great Britain at a reason able price and to making the relevant profits available to the British nation instead of to private or public companies and persons.
    Mr. Freeson: There have been no changes in the terms of the licences granted.
    Mr. Hughes: But does not the Minister realise that I have asked him this Question many times and pointed out that it is contrary to the national interest to allow property of the British nation under the North Sea to be used for private exploitation instead of for the public benefit? Will he rectify the licences accordingly?
    Mr. Freeson: Whatever Members may feel about the past history of the arrangements made concerning North Sea exploration, the position is that the licences are contracts and the terms can be varied only by mutual agreement or by legislation.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the Minister consider using some of the benefit gained from the discovery of North Sea gas to remove the anomaly whereby gas in Scotland is one-sixth dearer than it is in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Freeson: That does not arise from the Question.

    North Sea Gas (Chemical Products)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Power what investigations have been made into the feasibility of manufacturing ammonia and other chemicals from North Sea gas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marsh: Studies by the chemical industry show that ammonia, alcohols

    15
    and acetylene could be made from North Sea gas if the processing plant were converted to use natural gas instead of naphtha.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chemical Industries Association estimates that use of the gas could save £20 million a year on the import of naphtha and would expand considerably the export of ammonia products and fertilisers? Is he further aware that the full use of the gas for chemical purposes can take place only if it is available at less than 2d. a therm?
    Mr. Marsh: I think that it would be 2d. a therm purely for acetylene. But, without going into prices too much, I have met the Chemical Industries Association and discussed this matter with it. There is no dispute about the need to get the full benefit. I understand that the Association had talks with officials yesterday.
    Mr. Brian Parkyn: Would my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having a two-price structure, depending on whether the gas is to be used for power production, as a fuel, or for chemical synthesis?
    Mr. Marsh: Direct contracts can be entered into with the chemical industry. The important thing is to get the full benefit of North Sea gas. Clearly, we can do this only if the price at which it is sold is such that people are prepared to buy it.

    North Sea Gas (Price)
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 20—Mr. Hamilton, whom we are glad to see back in the House.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power when he expects to reach a decision on the price to be paid for North Sea gas.
    Mr. Marsh: Discussions are still continuing.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that before any decision is reached his Ministry and the Gas Council will demand full access to the costs of the exploring companies?
    Mr. Marsh: The difficulty is that the costs have not been incurred. All that one can get access to—and the Ministry is quite satisfied with the information
    16
    which it has—are estimates and the information which enables technicians to produce estimates. We cannot find the costs before the activities have taken place.
    Mr. Lubbock: Can the Minister say how long these discussions have been going on and whether he thinks that it will be necessary for him to intervene to obtain an agreement between the Gas Council and the oil companies?
    Mr. Marsh: I do not know. I should have thought that they could probably reach agreement between themselves. This matter has taken a long time, but it has taken less than comparable negotiations in some other countries. But a more important thing than to get the decision quickly is to get the right decision.

    Coal to Oil Conversion
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Power what study he has made of the coal to oil conversion scheme planned in Southern Illinois, United States of America, details of which have been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: I am making inquiries about a recent Press report to which my hon. Friend has referred and will write to him. Meanwhile I have nothing to add to the reply given him on 21st March.[Vol. 743, c. 219.]
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Answer which he has just given will give satisfaction to some hon. Members on this side and that the fact that he will undertake an investigation will, I am sure, do something to give a much-needed encouragement to morale in the mining industry?
    Mr. Freeson: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. In all fairness, however, one must be careful. We have, at this stage at least, no further information to add to the recommendation in 1960 of the Committee on Coal Derivatives which indicated that the prospects of making oil from coal economically in this country were not particularly good.

    Nationalised Industries (Manufacturing Subsidiaries)
    Sir J. Edenasked the Minister of Power if he will give general directions to the nationalised industries for which

    17
    he is responsible that their manufacturing subsidiaries should compete fairly with the private sector.
    Mr. Marsh: No, Sir. Such directions are unnecessary.
    Sir J. Eden: Surely, now that we are witnessing a steady extension of the public sector, the right hon. Gentleman would wish to ensure that the taxpayer's money is not used in such a way as to undermine the interests of successful private enterprise. Will he ensure that nationalised industries, particularly through their subsidiaries, are fully accountable to this House in each year's report?
    Mr. Marsh: We have debated this subject recently at great length. My point is that the present powers are perfectly adequate to control the industry's diversification activities, but the Government expect the nationalised fuel industries which undertake commercial activities to do so in competition with private industry. I can never understand why the defenders of competition complain so bitterly when it is threatened.
    Dame Irene Ward: Have any instructions gone from the Minister's Department to the National Steel Corporation about the price of steel, or have any instructions gone from the National Steel Corporation to the companies concerning the price of steel?
    Mr. Marsh: There is no National Steel Corporation and, therefore, it is neither a body which exists to give directions nor a body which has any power over the companies to accept such directions.

    Irish Sea (Natural Gas and Oil Exploration)
    Mr. Fittasked the Minister of Power what plans he has for increasing the rate of exploration for natural gas and oil in the Irish Sea area.
    Mr. Fittasked the Minister of Power how many licences have been issued for exploration to discover natural gas and oil in the Irish Sea.
    Mr. Marsh: With permission I will answer Question No. 25 and Written Question No. 7 together.
    18
    Eighteen exploration licences and one production licence are current. The exploration licences entitle the holders to search for, but not to get, oil and gas over an area of approximately 5,000 square miles of the Irish Sea. The production licence entitles the holder to search for, and get, oil and gas over an area of approximately 500 square miles. I am considering extension of the area covered by the exploration licences.
    Mr. Fitt: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether any discussions have taken place with the Government of the Republic of Ireland which are likely to bring immediate benefit to both countries in this matter?
    Mr. Marsh: This is an interesting development, because the researches which I have been able to make show that my hon. Friend is the first Irish Member of the House to ask a Question of the Ministry of Power—which only goes to prove something or other. As to further licences, if sufficient interest were shown I would certainly be prepared to invite further applications for production licences in the Irish Sea. If the Government of Northern Ireland wish to hold discussions, we would, of course, be very pleased to follow through any views which my hon. Friend may be making on their behalf.

    Richard Thomas and Baldwin (Home-Grown Timber)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Power whether, on vesting day, he will give a directive to Richard Thomas and Baldwin to resume the purchase of home-grown timber from Dorset for the packing of exports of steel in ships in place of a wasteful purchase of imported timber for this purpose.
    Mr. Freeson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that there is a very large public investment in home-grown timber? Will he see that his Ministry does a little more to encourage its use?
    Mr. Freeson: The directive for which the hon. Member asks would not be of a general character but would deal with a detailed matter which would be the concern of the Corporation.

    Imported Oil
    Sir D. Rentonasked the Minister of Power whether he will take steps to reduce the United Kingdom's dependence on imported oil.
    Mr. Freeson: No, Sir.
    Sir D. Renton: Would it not be an aim of the forthcoming survey of fuel resources to consider how we can save foreign exchange by importing less oil? Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any steps are being taken to find an alternative to petroleum for the firing of motor vehicles of all kinds?
    Mr. Freeson: The right hon. and learned Member will, no doubt, know that the latter point is a matter not for my Department, but for the Ministry of Technology. As to the first point, he will also be aware that we are undertaking a comprehensive fuel policy review, which will take into account our future needs concerning oil and petroleum.
    Mr. Whitaker: As cheap natural gas would save us an enormous amount of foreign exchange which is spent on importing oil, is it not doubly contrary to the public interest for the oil companies to be keeping the price so high for their own reasons?
    Mr. Freeson: The price is not so far being kept high for their own reasons. The negotiations have not been concluded. In reply to the first point, we should keep the matter in perspective. While there is a great future for natural gas, there is no doubt that it will still be a relatively small proportion of the country's total fuel requirements.

    Coastal Waters (Oil Pollution)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Power what discussions he has had with experts to devise plans to protect Great Britain's beaches from pollution and to enforce regulations to prevent ships, foreign and British, from discharging oil and sewage into British waters.
    Mr. Marsh: I ask my hon. and learned Friend to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making later this afternoon.

  TECHNOLOGY

    Engineering Industry (Orders)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Technology how the total of engineering orders for the last available six months compares with the corresponding figures 12 months previously; what is the expected total for the six months in prospect; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): The volume of net new orders received by the engineering industries in the six months ending January, 1967, was 4 per cent. smaller than in the same period a year earlier. Specific forecasts of the rate of new ordering are not made.
    Mr. Biffen: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very disappointing that he should have to report a declining figure, particularly as, if one goes back a further 12 months, there was also a decline for that period? Will he now recognise that it is the ability of the industry to earn and retain profits which is more likely than anything else to result in an upturn in the engineering order index?
    Dr. Bray: It is also necessary for the industry to export, and it is pleasing to note that over the same period engineering export deliveries are up by 8 per cent. This could hardly have been achieved without an easing of the increase in the home demand.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that, if orders do not come in, the fact that there is an increase in exports simply means that the order books are running down and that this may cause a very great crisis in the engineering industry?
    Dr. Bray: Delivery times in many parts of the engineering industry are still too close by comparison with comparable times overseas. If the temporary fall in orders results in a permanent reduction in delivery times, this will be a pure gain.

    Telecommunications Industry
    Sir H. Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking, in conjunction with the Post Office Research Station at Dollis Hill, to make

    21
    the fullest use of the resources of the telecommunications industry.
    The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): The relation between the industry and the Post Office is one of the matter which the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation is at present examining, and the Government look forward to receiving its recommendations in due course.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While recognising the importance of what the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation is doing in this connection, may I ask the Minister to give an assurance that there will be a complete reappraisal of the research and development side of the industry concerning Dollis Hill as well as any financial reconstruction that may be necessary?
    Mr. Benn: The terms of reference of the I.R.C. are broad enough to cover the points which the hon. Member has in mind. I know from my experience at the Post Office that Dollis Hill's relations With the industry have been close. With the new status of the Post Office, it will be possible for that relationship to be even closer.

    Machine Tool, Telecommunications, Computer and Electronic Industries
    Sir H. Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to ensure that the departmental duties arising from the amalgamation of the former Ministry of Aviation with his Department do not preclude him from exercising his sponsorship function for the machine tool, telecommunication, computer and electronic industries.
    Mr. Benn: The purchasing power and advanced knowledge now brought within my Department will be of great value to my sponsorship activities for the industries mentioned.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does not the Minister recognise that, in view of the very great need for full implementation of the Lang Report in particular, this is a job which could well be a full-time one for a Minister and that if he has these many other jobs as well, this is a job which should devolve not only upon a Minister of State?
    Mr. Benn: The arrangement of business within the Department leaves the day-to-day procurement matters within the hands of the Minister of State. We have also the industry divisions which spread across into those areas that were previously looked at within the Ministry of Aviation. Although it is too early to say, I think that the present arrangement will meet the points which the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Dalyell: Would my right hon. Friend say what he is doing to help sponsorship of micro-electronics?
    Mr. Benn: I made a speech about this recently, inviting the industry to come forward with projects which we shall be very glad to examine and support.

    Atomic Energy Establishment (Culham Laboratory)
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement upon the future scale of work and of staffing at the Culham Laboratory of the Atomic Energy Establishment.
    Mr. Benn: I understand that the Atomic Energy Authority is at present considering the report of a working party set up to review the programme of the Culham laboratory, but that no decision on the future scale of work and of staffing has yet been taken.
    Mr. Price: Would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a feeling of disquiet amongst the staff at Culham as to their future and as to what the scale of activities at Culham is to be? Would he invite the Atomic Energy Authority to be reasonably precipitate in announcing to the staff what is to be the future of that laboratory?
    Mr. Benn: The considerations which the hon. Gentleman mentions about the staff are very much in mind, but, as he himself knows, these are the very issues which are in fact the subject of an inquiry elsewhere in this building. As soon as it is possible to reach a decision there will, of course, be full consultation with the staff. Here is a great centre of excellence and the treatment of it is a matter of great importance.

    Bristol Siddeley Engines
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Technology what is the total value of Governmental contracts with

    23
    Bristol Siddeley Engines Limited; and what are the comparable figures for new contracts negotiated in each of the last six years.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. John Stonehouse): New
    contracts placed by my Department with Bristol Siddeley Engines Limited over the past six years have averaged between £50 million and £60 million per annum.
    It is estimated that the value of uncompleted contracts is of the order of £140 million.
    Mr. Hamilton: Could my hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to have another look at the contractual procedures, in view of recent events, and could he give an assurance that this firm has not been paid twice for any work mentioned there, and that the directors have behaved with propriety throughout?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I would prefer not to anticipate the statement which I hope to make soon on this subject.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Fisher.
    Mr. Fisher: Owing to the contradictory statements made—
    Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member to ask Question No. 34.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Technology (1) whether he will authorise a public inquiry into the Bristol Siddeley contract;
    (2) whether he will devise a new and more satisfactory formula for determining the level of profits for firms undertaking Government work.
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Technology whether the Press statement of 25th March referring to the Bristol Siddeley repayment was made with his authority.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I would ask hon. Members to await the statement which I hope to make soon.
    Mr. Fisher: But, owing to the contradictory statements made before Easter, is the hon. Gentleman aware that neither the public nor the House of Commons has any idea where the blame lies or what steps should be taken to prevent this sort of thing in the future? Would he bear in mind the possibility of adopting the American target system which may be
    24
    more preferable than present arrangements?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I have nothing to add to my original statement, and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the original statement I gave to the House on the Wednesday before we rose for the Recess.
    Mr. Edelman: In order to prepare us for his further statement, would my hon. Friend say at what date Bristol Siddeley admitted to having received a double payment and whether it has now actually been repaid, and at what stage the firm conceded that it had engaged in gross overcharging?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I would ask my hon. Friend to contain himself with his usual patience.
    Mr. R. Carr: While we would like to exercise patience, because we believe a full statement is necessary, could the Minister tell us what he means by "soon"? Tomorrow is one thing, but next week would be too long.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I hope it will be tomorrow. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important that this statement should be made and that the House should hear it as soon as it can be made.
    Mr. Whitaker: How many other profits have gone undetected, does my hon. Friend think, contrary to the public interest? Is not the only way of safeguarding the public interest to nationalise these undertakings as recommended by the Plowden Report so as to make sure that their profits go to the public?
    Mr. Stonehouse: That is a very wide question and I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which I hope to make very soon indeed.
    Mr. Corfield: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, owing to the multiplicity of statements already made, Press reports have drawn extremely defamatory innuendoes both about private individuals and identifiable civil servants, and will he bear in mind the great importance of seeing that this is cleared up?
    Mr. Stonehouse: This is a point very much in my mind, and I am sure that the House and the public generally will welcome the fact that this whole question will be cleared up very soon.
    Mr. Maxwell: While agreeing that my hon. Friend needs to take time to prepare his supplementary statement, may I ask whether he can tell the House that he accepts the necessity in principle that firms obtaining Government contracts must open their books to the Government in exactly the same way as they do in the United States?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I hope my hon. Friend, and the House generally, will await the statement I hope to make.

  SOLID FUELS (LOCAL DISTRIBUTION)
  Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Prime Minister what is the division of responsibility between the Minister of Power and the Minister of Housing and Local Government in regard to the organisation of local distribution of solid fuels.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The sole Ministerial responsibility lies with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, who has a general statutory duty to promote efficiency in the distribution of fuel. He does not, however, regulate distribution in individual localities.
  Mr. Bell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Housing has published a statement in which he appears to support the withholding by the Coal Board of supplies from merchants who sell coal in smokeless zones and that the Scottish Division of the Coal Board appears to be doing that already? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no member of the Administration uses the monopoly supply position of the Coal Board so as to force people to stop doing what is still perfectly lawful?
  The Prime Minister: There have been one or two difficulties about smokeless fuels, even in smokeless zones, where the local authorities have a responsibility first for ensuring available supplies, but I will certainly go into the question with my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is here a planning difficulty, and that the Ministry of Housing might well act in liaison with the Ministry of Power in order to get land released for housing
  26
  and other purposes, for there is an enormous multiplicity of coal dumps in our great cities? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this problem?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will be aware, I think, of the report on coal distribution costs last year, recommending the rationalisation of coal distribution into big coal depots, which would certainly release land for housing and other essential purposes.

  EAST OF SUEZ
  Mr. Dickensasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's foreign and defence policies east of Suez in the light of recent developments.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the detailed surveys of foreign and defence policy given by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Defence in the defence debate on 27th and 28th February and to the 1966 and 1967 Defence White Papers.
  Mr. Dickens: Notwithstanding that reply, does not the Prime Minister feel that the time has now come for this country to reduce its defence commitments in South-East Asia in line with the official policy of the Labour Party? Will he not open negotiations with the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore accordingly?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Defence made clear to the House on 27th February that we have already brought home substantial forces from that area, and if my hon. Friend will study the supplementary answer I gave on the Thursday before the Recess, he will see that we are continuing, as a continuing project, to save resources not only in the total budget but on overseas expenditure by making maximum economies, with the maximum review of commitments possible.
  Mr. Tilney: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is very much the wish of the people who are in Hong Kong to have enough of our defence forces remain in that territory to deal with internal disorders?
  The Prime Minister: I think that everyone recognises the particular problem of Hong Kong and the dangers arising from threats to internal security.

  VIETNAM
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister what further consultations he has had with President Johnson over the Vietnam war.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend on 23rd March.—[Vol. 743, c. 1909.]
  Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the advertisement in The Times last week and the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement indicate the very grave concern in Britain at continued American bombing of North Vietnam, and could the Prime Minister tell the President or the Vice-President of the deep concern that there is in this country over what the Americans are doing and the lack of any enthusiasm in Britain for this American war?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think I require to see the advertisement in The Times last week or any other statements to confirm what I already know from my hon. Friend's Question and from other statements—that there is in this country deep concern over Vietnam, and it is our deeper concern that we should get a lasting and just peace there. That has been the Government's policy from the start. I have made clear on a number of occasions that the action recommended by my hon. Friend is not the best way to secure peace.
  Mr. Grimond: Did the Prime Minister discuss with the Vice-President of the United States the ultimate aims of American policy in the Far East? If so, will he tell us what they are? Did he explain to the Vice-President that if America is to gain the support of the British people for her policies in the Far East there must be a better understanding of what the ultimate aims may be?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Of course, I have had discussions with the Vice-President about Vietnam, and continuing discussions over the last two
  28
  years with the President of the United States. So far as their aims are concerned, these have been very fully set out in the 14-point statement made by the President of the United States, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with that. The problem of getting an immediate and early peace was discussed very fully after the visit of Mr. Kosygin here, and, of course, U Thant's proposals were accepted immediately by the British Government and the American Government, but, unfortunately, not by Hanoi.
  Mr. Mendelson: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that whilst U Thant, the British Government, the Soviet Government and other Governments are continuing their efforts to find a basis for negotiations, there should be no further military escalation of the war? Is it not very disturbing to see the pressure put upon the United States Government by certain circles in the United States to mine the harbour of Haiphong? Would he express the opinion of the Government, which he has expressed previously, that any such escalation would be highly dangerous and against the advice of Her Majesty's Government?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend recognises the very great pressures on the President of the United States, internally and to some extent externally, of various proposals of that kind. We have made clear all along, not only in Washington but in other areas, too, the grave dangers of any further escalation. That was a point which I discussed with Mr. Kosygin last July in Moscow, when there was a real danger of escalation. If we must use this piece of jargon, all the efforts of Her Majesty's Government, especially during Mr. Kosygin's visit and since, have been aimed at de-escalation as well as the prevention of an extension of the war either in area or in quality.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Prime Minister aware that the President of the United States and the American people are just as anxious to end this terrible war as he and his right hon. and hon. Friends? Will he also make it clear that Her Majesty's Government support their American allies in their attempts to maintain the independence of South Vietnam, and also that Her Majesty's Government will not undertake any further initiatives

  29
  without preparation and without the closest consultation with the United States Government?
  The Prime Minister: On the first point, I made clear in the last series of Questions before the Recess my firm belief—and I have said it many times—in the utter determination of the United States Government to secure a genuine peace and independence. I have also said that I believe that it is the wish of the Government of Hanoi to secure a satisfactory peace. But there is still the tremendous problem of building up trust both ways, and that is why reciprocal acts are necessary to avoid the danger of a resumption of fighting.
  On the last point, as to what we have been doing, some of which has become public and much of which has not, this has always been planned in a thorough manner not only with our co-Chairman and partner, the Soviet Union, but in the closest consultation with the United States. In the last series of talks, which went over many days in February, we were in constant discussion with the United States, which was essential for the objective which we were trying to reach.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Sir G. de Freitasasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the conversations he has had with the Heads of Government of the countries of the European Economic Community.
  Mr. Sandysasked the Prime Minister when he intends to make formal application for Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.
  The Prime Minister: As I told the House on 23rd March—[Vol. 742, c. 1754]—I have as yet nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 9th March—[Vol. 743, c. 332–3]—to Questions by the hon. Members for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt).
  Sir G. de Freitas: If a White Paper is published giving some information about the talks, will my right hon. Friend also consider, in order to put these talks into perspective, publishing the text of the speech which he made at the very begin-
  30
  ning of the talks to the Assembly at Strasbourg, since that speech is often referred to but very seldom read?
  The Prime Minister: That speech was put in the Library of the House. As to the possibility of a White Paper, we have not yet considered that proposal. The Government are considering what our next steps should be, and a full statement will be made to the House, either by a White Paper as well as a statement, or just by a statement, and there will be the fullest debate.
  Mr. Sandys: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has now completed his tour of visits and consultations, does he recognise the importance of not delaying longer than necessary his decision as to whether to apply for membership of the Community?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is fully recognised by the Government, and I repeat what I said in answer to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman on 10th November last, that I recognise that it is of paramount importance not to lose the momentum which has been created.
  Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister has stated publicly that all the information gained on the visits by himself and the Foreign Secretary to the European capitals is to be made available to his own party committees, and he has offered to make it available to party committees on this side of the House. Is he aware that it is not a satisfactory procedure that information should be made available privately to party committees? Will he not now, therefore, give a firm undertaking that all the information gathered in the capitals will be made available to Parliament as a whole and to the public in a White Paper before a decision is reached, so that we shall then be able to judge the basis for the Government's decision?
  The Prime Minister: I should be prepared to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman the basis on which the maximum amount of information can be made available, not only to hon. Members but more widely. He will recall from his own experience that he had many meetings with his own party when he was involved in these negotiations. It is not unusual or unprecedented. If

  31
  he wants to have access to the same material, or if he would like to arrange for one of his right hon. Friends to discuss it with us, we should be glad to make sure that that information is available to all parts of the House on an equal basis. As to its wider dissemination and publication—without giving away the confidential things said, for example, by those with whom we were talking—that is a matter which we should like to consider first.
  Lord Balniel: That answer is not satisfactory, surely. We understand that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the Parliamentary Labour Party on Thursday. How are other hon. Members to know the information which is given to them? Will it be by the usual distorted leaks which come from that Committee, or by the private hand-outs which the Prime Minister gives? Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider once again the possibility of issuing a White Paper.
  The Prime Minister: I agree at any rate with one word used by the noble Lord and that is his reference to the word "distorted" about proceedings at these meetings—[Interruption.]There have been accurate ones put out. I have been responsible for some of them myself. But I am prepared to discuss this with his right hon. Friend. I do not think that the noble Lord would suggest that I should come along and give a speech to the 1922 Committee, though I should be delighted to do so. Members of that Committee are not choosy and nor am I. However, it might be more appropriate for me to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman how we can make sure that an equal and corresponding amount of information on the subject is made available to the whole House.
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For my own guidance, is it not the case that meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party are private and that any information divulged there ought not to be made public?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the answer and is taking up Question Time.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (ELECTRICITY GENERATION)
  Mr. Lubbockasked the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the Prime-Minister of Northern Ireland the possibility of amending the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, so as to restore responsibility for electricity generation in Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom Parliament.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Lubbock: Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to the figures issued by the Ministry of Power, the cost of electricity generation in Northern Ireland is approximately 65 per cent. higher than the United Kingdom average? Is there not a prima facie case for saying that the electricity undertakings of Northern Ireland must be highly inefficient? Would it not be worth while discussing with the Government of the Republic the amalgamation of electricity undertakings throughout the whole of Ireland with a view to promoting increased efficiency?
  The Prime Minister: It is a fact that the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic have agreed in principle to the provision of a link to the electricity supply networks of each country, the main purpose of which is to increase efficiency and to reduce the need for excessive reserve capacity on both sides of the border. The two electricity boards are considering a form of agreement, and this is the most useful step which can be taken in the matter of efficient electricity supply.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Prime Minister aware that the average price per unit generated is slightly less in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales, so that question does not really arise? Is he further aware that the two countries, North and South, have agreed on the question of reserves being available in the event of breakdown in one country or the other?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the information which he has given to the House. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed this link between North and South, because during the Recess one of his hon. Friends attacked it on the basis that he

  33
  did not want any Southern electricity in Northern Ireland. I have been into this question. I find that there is no problem of the miscibility of green and orange electricity, because my inquiries suggest that electricity is colourless.

ADEN
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement as to the state of law and order in Aden.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): A three-day general strike in Aden was called by the Front for the Liberation of the Occupied South Yemen (F.L.O.S.Y.) and the National Liberation Front (N.L.F.), beginning on the 2nd April, to disrupt the work of the United Nations Mission on its arrival on that day.
Sunday, 2nd April, passed off fairly quietly, but yesterday there were attempts at violent demonstrations. British security forces in support of the local police acted swiftly to maintain law and order. There were some incidents involving grenade-throwing and shooting.
As a result of these, I regret to say that reports so far show that three Arabs were killed and 11 of our troops, two Arab policemen and 10 Arab civilians were wounded. Our forces remain firmly in control of a difficult situation.
Mr. Thorpe: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Is he aware that the whole House will deplore these senseless acts of violence—which appear to have the active support of Cairo—against the civil population and our own troops? Perhaps I might ask one or two questions.
First, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that much of the trouble flows from the shotgun Federation of 1950 between Aden Colony and a whole string of feudal sheikhdoms? Does not he think that this Federation is doomed to failure, as happened in Central Africa and Malaysia? Can he say whether the terms of reference of the United Nations Mission, announced on 23rd February, are sufficient to advocate some change in the Federal structure? If not, will the Government consider appointing something along the lines of the Monckton Commis-
34
sion to make recommendations before independence?
Mr. Thomson: Whatever the errors of this policy, for which this Administration were not responsible, the main task now is to try to secure peaceful independence for South Arabia. We are satisfied that the terms of reference of the United Nations Mission give it full freedom to make recommendations about the securing of peaceful independence, and, therefore, we think that the duty of everybody is to co-operate with the United Nations Mission to try to secure a settlement.
Mr. Sandys: After all that has happened, why have the Government not banned the terrorist organisation F.L.O.S.Y.? Will he now cancel the Government's invitation to the terrorist leaders to return to Aden, and ask his right hon. Friend not to write any more grovelling letters to Nasser?
Mr. Thomson: I repudiate absolutely the right hon. Gentleman's quite offensive language about my right hon. Friend, who has just communicated further with President Nasser. The communication is, by its nature, confidential, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that what my right hon. Friend has said to President Nasser, in denouncing the terrorism, is the same sort of thing that he has said in this House. The task here is that of statesmanship, to try to produce a peaceful settlement. It is not to be secured by arbitrary banning. The task is to try to get people away from weapons and terrorism, and round the table for some civilised talks.
Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend agree that there will never be peace in Aden until the South Arabian Federation is dissolved? It should never have been created in the first place. If we are not careful we will be engaged in a full-scale colonial war. Is it not necessary to talk with all the nationalist leaders, including A1 Asnag?
Mr. Thomson: There is no question of a colonial war. There is a difficult situation in which British forces are maintaining law and order. The leaders of the Federation are South Arabian nationalists, as much as anybody else has the right to claim the title of being a South Arabian nationalist. The aim is to

35
try to get all the nationalists of South Arabia to abandon terrorism and to concentrate on what ought to be their real aim, and that is to secure the freedom and integrity of their own country.
Lord Balniel: As the rising scale of terrorism is designed to coincide with the arrival of the United Nations Mission in Aden, have the Government asked the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to remonstrate with President Nasser, who, at the moment, is running a school of subversion in the Yemen, and ask him to call off the gangs of terrorists which are under his direct control?
Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have remonstrated with everybody concerned in this unhappy problem. We met the United Nations Mission when it spent some days in London, and made exactly the appeal which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I make the appeal again, that the right course is for people to abandon violence and to co-operate with the United Nations Mission in seeking a peaceful settlement.
Mr. John Lee: Will my right hon. Friend please assure the House that whatever the situation may now be in Aden, there is no question of any delay in the withdrawal of British forces?
Mr. Thomson: We have told the House on a number of occasions, and the House has approved of our decision, that there should be independence in South Arabia not later than 1968, and that remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman honour our undertaking to maintain a defence agreement at least until the successor Government have had a chance of standing on their own feet against external aggression?
Mr. Thomson: This, too, has been debated in the House many times. The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not accept the interpretation which he puts on the arrangement made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) on behalf of the previous Conservative Administration. Nevertheless, our aim is to give every help that we can to South Arabia to establish its
36
independence and to have a viable and prosperous future.
Mr. Colin Jackson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, while the whole House condemns terrorism, there is a very sincere feeling of fear in the Port of Aden that the Federal forces may move in and deny freedom to the people of that area? Would not he agree that it is urgently necessary for the leaders of the nationalist forces, at present in exile, to return, to drop terrorism, and to come round the table for talks?
Mr. Thomson: Responsibility for internal security in Aden will remain in the hands of Her Majesty's Government as long as Aden remains a British Colony.
I think that the responsibility for the self-exiled leaders of various nationalist groups outside Aden coming in to cooperate lies squarely with them, and that the responsibility for the blood which flowed in Aden yesterday lies squarely with those who are themselves safely outside Aden.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: In view of the increase in violence which is taking place in Aden, will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question quite clearly? Is it the Government's intention to adhere firmly to their time-table for the withdrawal of British troops?
Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. I have just answered that question. It remains the Government's policy to seek independence for Aden not later than 1968.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. I am sure that, inadvertently in his statement the right hon. Gentleman said that three Arabs had been killed and 11 British. Will he correct that? I understand the true facts are that, very regrettably, 11 British soldiers were wounded and not killed.
Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I inadvertently read my statement without the proper punctuation. I should have said:
"I regret … that three Arabs were killed, and 11 of our troops, two Arab policemen, and 10 Arab civilians were wounded."
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Robert Carr. Private Notice Question.

RAILWAYS (DISPUTE)
Mr. R. Carr Mr. R. Carr (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement about the railway dispute in view of the threat of disruption to industry and passengers in many parts of the country.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): The National Union of Railway-men instructed all its British Railways guard members from midnight last Sunday not to undertake certain residual duties formerly carried out by the secondman on the footplate, which have fallen to guards as a consequence of the single-manning agreement of October, 1965. The issue mainly concerns freight trains, but some passenger services have been affected by sympathetic action.
The British Railways Board has offered an additional payment for those guards who, in its view, are actually involved in extra work. The union is claiming payment at a higher rate and for all guards.
Following an informal discussion under my chairmanship yesterday the parties resumed direct negotiations this morning, and I understand that certain suggestions emerged from this meeting which are now to be considered by the N.U.R. executive, which is to meet at 3.30 this afternoon.
Mr. Carr: Will the Minister accept that we all welcome the more hopeful note expressed at the close of his statement, and that I certainly do not wish to press him to express any views which might embarrass the settlement that we all want? I do not wish to apportion blame, either. But will the Minister, for the sake of everybody, bring home to both sides of the railway organisations concerned in this dispute that there is growing public concern about the way in which these negotiations have been allowed to drag on for such a long time, and that there is strong public feeling that it is the duty of both sides to see that this dispute is settled quickly and fairly in the national interest, without the disruption of a major strike?
Mr. Gunter: I understand that the negotiating committee of the N.U.R. executive, present at the meeting which has run on until after lunch, has agreed to recommend to its union executive this afternoon that the rail guards should resume normal work.
38
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I share his concern. Nearly 17 months have passed since a manning agreement was arranged and signed. It has been misunderstood for 17 months. Negotiations seem to have meandered on in a most peculiar way. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have expressed my concern and will continue to do all that I can in the matter.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the Minister also bear in mind that much public concern has been aroused over the apparently slow progress since strike action first began to be taken? Does he agree that the matter is of some urgency, both in the Midlands, where it is primarily a commercial matter, and at St. Marylebone—which includes the line which serves my constituency—where the effect on passenger services is most acute? Will he do what he can to effect the resumption of services, even if the basic dispute cannot be resolved until later?
Mr. Gunter: I can only reiterate what I have said.
Mr. Biffen: At what time does the Minister expect to be able to make a pronouncement on the question whether or not any settlement is consistent with the Government's prices and incomes policy?
Mr. Gunter: I shall have to wait another hour, to see what the boys have been up to.

"TORREY CANYON"
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the shipwreck of the "Torrey Canyon". I apologise for the length of the statement.
Hon. Members will have seen the White Paper, Command 3246, laid before the House today. This gives the sequence of events, the record of decisions taken by the Government, and sets out the main questions on which action, both national and international, should be taken, issues to which the Government are giving urgent attention.
Hon. Members who have had time to study the White Paper will have seen that from the day of the disaster the Government's prime objective was to keep to a

39
minimum the amount of oil fouling the beaches in the West Country and, indeed, along the South Coast and Bristol Channel. At the same time, oil having started to pour out from the moment of the shipwreck, the spraying of detergent on the discharged oil began that day and was intensified from the Monday onwards.
The Navy was on the job from the Saturday onwards and took operational control so far as the Government were concerned of all questions affecting the ship itself. From the Sunday, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy co-ordinated the conduct of the operation with the Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth, and I cannot pay sufficient tribute to the work of the Navy—and of my hon. Friend—in a situation unprecedented at any time in any part of the world.
Determined to do everything possible to limit the discharge of oil from the ship, the Government, with all the expert technical advice available to them, decided that it was right to give the salvage company, highly skilled and expert in these matters, an opportunity to get the ship off the rocks during the period of the very high spring tides due from the Thursday following the shipwreck. While there were inevitably doubts about whether the salvage company could succeed in this task, I am sure that we were right in this decision and in the massive help given by the Admiralty to the salvage authority. Every alternative method was most carefully and urgently analysed in the light of all the information available from such previous occurrences as had any bearing on the situation.
Clearly, the best course, if it had been feasible, would have been to pump off the oil into shallow draught coastal tankers close in to the reef. Quite apart from the extreme difficulty and hazard in the weather conditions of that week, it was physically impossible to pump off the oil, because the ship's pumps were out of operation and a naval survey showed that no tanker of sufficient size could get near enough for the operation to be reasonably safe.
With the very high explosive content of the oil gases on the ship, no operation of an engineering character involving friction
40
and the possibility of sparks could have been attempted. It would have been quite impossible to place generating equipment on the ship and to secure it in position and to do all other necessary repairs and adjustments required to get the ship's own pumps into operation. The tragic explosion which led to the death of the captain of the salvage team confirms the hazards which rightly influenced the minds of the naval authorities. Equally, operations to examine the damage under the ship by naval divers could not be carried out because the oil would have blocked the breathing apparatus and caused suffocation.
Another possibility considered from the outset was that of setting fire to the oil in the ship. As the White Paper makes clear, a previous case where a tanker had caught fire in the Persian Gulf provided a serious warning here in that after more than two months little more than half the oil on the tanker had caught fire and the rest of the cargo was, in fact, sold as crude oil when the fire died out. For the rest, a tarry residue of the kind most feared on holiday beaches was the main outcome of the fire. Moreover, the fire itself might well have blown out the sides of the ship and released a lot of unburned oil long before there was any chance of its being burned.
The course which was ultimately taken, once the hope of salvage had disappeared, was that of opening up the ship by bombing and attempting to set the oil on fire. The oil was in 16 separate tanks and the steel deck of the vessel itself was nearly 1½ inches thick. The risk we faced from the outset was that we would have opened up the ship and released up to 90,000 more tons of oil without any guarantee that it would be set alight and destroyed. On Sunday, 26th March, while the international salvage experts were still hopeful of floating off the ship on the high tides of the Monday or Tuesday, gales broke the tanker into two and then, on the following day, into three sections.
In these circumstances the Government took the decision to bomb the ship—not, of course, with the idea of destroying it, but of setting the oil on fire. Even so, this was a great gamble. Although scientific experiments on an inland lake with 1,000 gallons of Kuwait crude had been successful in burning the oil without any noxious residue, experiments made

41
on the sea with the same fire-raising methods, on an 8 square-mile patch of floating oil near Wolf Rock, failed to set the oil on fire. This appeared to rule out the hope we had had that when the ship was opened up and the oil poured out it could be immediately fired on the sea.
Despite the very great risk involved, the decision to bomb the ship went on and just before 4 o'clock on the Tuesday afternoon the ship was bombed by aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, and the fire maintained by R.A.F. aircraft dropping tanks of aviation fuel. As the House knows—and those of us who witnessed it were filled with a high sense of relief—the oil was, in fact, set on fire, though here again, despite every effort to keep the fire going with incendiary weapons, the fire died away and further bombing attacks were necessary in the next two days to destroy the last remaining tanks which had oil in them.
Meanwhile, almost from the time the ship struck the reef, operations with detergent, in which local fishing vessels played an important part, were put into force. These were supplemented by many other forms of attack on the problem as the oil reached the beaches.
The White Paper sets out in detail what has been done, and I am glad to see that hon. Members for the area concerned have joined with local authorities in the tributes paid to the leadership shown by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and other Departments concerned and the tremendous work done by all the Service Departments, and by the units of the Army and Royal Marines who engaged in the task. This was a successful improvised partnership between the Government authorities and the local authorities, with very successful calls on local authority services and on local civilian volunteers. It is right that I should pay tribute to the great resilience and vigour of the individual local authorities in the area. In addition, great efforts have been made by the erection of booms to keep the oil away from estuaries and harbours and to protect, so far as this was possible, marine life.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I turn to the lessons that must be drawn from this disaster. With tankers increasing in size, the possibilities of shipwreck or collision pouring perhaps hundreds of thousands
42
of tons of oil on to our beaches—or on to those of other countries—is one which requires urgent international action. Many hon. Members would have been surprised to find that the Seven Stones Reef was not within British territorial waters. That did not and has not deterred us in any action we considered right. Equally, we made clear our refusal to allow the ship, if it was towed off the rock, to be brought into British territorial waters.
We are now urgently considering the proposals which are to be put before the meeting of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation to ensure that new international regulations and any necessary changes in international law and practice can be pressed on with the urgency which is required. Without waiting for international agreement we are also considering any action which lies within our own control, including control of the routes taken by these giant tankers and other ships carrying potentially dangerous cargoes into British ports. The old concept of territorial waters is not enough. In addition, all possible scientific aspects of the problem are being further examined in the light of our own experience and the lessons we have learned during these past 17 days.
Equally, the question of legal liability and insurance must be considered both on a national and an international basis. While, during the fight to keep the oil off the beaches, we did not wait to settle matters of finance, compensation or legal liability, the Government now are urgently considering the question of the claims which must be pressed on behalf of the high cost falling on the taxpayer and the claims of local authorities. The House would wish to know that the Government have already instructed the Treasury Solicitor to inform the owners' solicitors of our intention to institute proceedings against them for damages.
Mr. Heath: On this side of the House, we should like to join the Prime Minister in the tribute which he has paid to the Services, local government, the voluntary organisations and voluntary workers for all that they have done and are still doing in this emergency. We should also like to express our sympathy and understanding with those who have suffered hardship or damage as a result of this

43
accident, and we shall certainly support every effort which is being made by the Government to alleviate it.
The Prime Minister will be aware that the whole country—all parts and not only the South-West—are gravely concerned about the consequence of any future occurrence of a similar kind, and what action the Government will take about it, on which, I think, the White Paper is somewhat vague.
Will the Prime Minister now undertake to set up a Select Committee of this House, or both Houses if he so wishes, to examine the consequences of the grounding of the "Torrey Canyon" and the effectiveness of the action taken by the Government so that Parliament itself can indicate what action it believes ought to be taken to deal with the future?
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said and for the tribute which he paid both to the Services and to local authorities and for the sympathy which he expressed. We are very urgently studying what are the lessons, nationally and internationally. When those studies have been taken a little further it will be our intention to report to the House. Then, I think, will be the right time to consider whether a Select Committee, to consider our findings and any other proposals which may be put forward, should be set up, but, certainly, the Government will wish to welcome all the help which the House can give in dealing with what is not exactly a new threat, but a threat always there on an international scale, and of which we have recently had this tragic experience.
Mr. Heath: I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister said that he will consider appointing a Select Committee and indicated certain timing, but I should have thought that after this incident he would have accepted that there is very grave urgency about these matters and that a Select Committee could perfectly well be making its inquiries and coming to a decision at the same time as the Government were also studying the problem. Will he therefore re-examine the question of timing from the point of view of urgency?
The Prime Minister: We will certainly consider this. If there is to be any kind
44
of inquiry, a Select Committee or any other, it is important that it should have made available to it as quickly as possible not only details of our own experience, but also the lessons which we have drawn, and we are very hard at work on that.
I was not quite sure from the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's question whether he has now abandoned the attacks on the Government which he made last week. I assumed from the tone in which he spoke last week that we should get a Motion of censure, but if that is not now his position, then I believe that the first thing is that there should be discussion between the usual channels to arrange a debate on this very important issue.
We shall propose that the debate shall take place as soon as possible so that the combined advice of all right hon. and hon. Members will be made available. Perhaps in that debate the question of what form of further inquiry is most appropriate could be outlined.
Mr. Heath: Perhaps the Prime Minister will read what I said last week, which was to call for exactly this sort of inquiry into the whole question. As the Prime Minister himself only last Friday emphasised the importance of Select Committees in Parliamentary procedure, surely it would be better to have this matter examined in detail.
The Prime Minister: This matter could, I think, be satisfactorily discussed in the debate which we shall now arrange through the usual channels. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's comments last week were designed to be helpful and contained a great deal of well-meant retrospective advice on what we ought to have done earlier, and I am sure that the House will want to consider the right hon. Gentleman's advice expressed on that occasion as well as any information that we can give to the House.
Mr. Hector Hughes: As the Prime Minister said that this disaster raises unprecedented problems in international law, may I point out that it also involves unprecedented questions in the law of contracts, the law of torts and insurance law? Will he, therefore, have them considered, for the benefit of those ordinary citizens who have suffered

45
damage in this disaster, by a committee of expert lawyers whose training fits them for this technical task?
The Prime Minister: Although this was a disaster, and we are all deeply concerned about what happened, I am not sure that that particular proposal would commend itself to the House, particularly since I can inform my hon. and learned Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been on this job almost from the day of the shipwreck and has been considering all the legal aspects involved. I gave to the House in my original statement part of the result of his consideration.
Certainly, we intend with regard to the law, to liability and to insurance matters, to pursue this internationally. But it is more than probable that action may have to be taken on a national level. It would also include, I think, some of the wider aspects of the maritime practice. For example, I do not know whether we can wait for the usual time for getting an international convention ratified to make sure whether ships of this size, carrying potentially dangerous substances, should be free to approach our shores in any way they choose and should not be proceeding from many miles out on routes laid down by the Admiralty.
Mr. Murton: In his statement and in the White Paper, the Prime Minister paid tribute to what local organisations have done. Would he consider a grant, first, to fishermen and, secondly, to those people who are concerned with the conservation of wild life, to help them in the most vital work which they have to do?
The Prime Minister: These questions are being considered. I have said that we are instituting proceedings hi view of the high cost to the taxpayer. The question of pollution is being carefully studied and I should not like to make any pronouncement or commitment on that at this stage.
Dr. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents of differing political persuasions have been deeply disturbed that this problem might be dragged into the party political arena? May I ask him to accept the appreciation of my constituents of the very prompt and effective action of the Government, of the Armed Forces, of the
46
local authorities and of all the other organisations and individuals who are helping to solve this very difficult problem?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. It was certainly my impression, when I attended a meeting called by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government of all the Cornish local authorities, irrespective of politics, or regardless of politics, that there was great appreciation of the line that had been taken. Certainly, the local authorities themselves did a tremendous job, not least some of the smallest ones, those which formed a group on the Lizard peninsula and showed the way, because they had to deal with the problem first.
Also, I should like to say how much encouragement was given by hon. Members of all parties who went into the problem with so much vigour and energy and expressed their appreciation of what the Government were doing.
Mr. Bessell: I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that matters of detail should be left till the general debate. Meanwhile, may I ask him whether he is aware that my constituents are extremely grateful to him and to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the dynamic work which was done? May I also ask him for an assurance that if there is any revival of contamination, the present efforts of the Government will not be relaxed?
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The present efforts are continuing. What happened in Newquay yesterday shows what happens when oil, apparently flowing past, gets deposited in a serious form on the local beaches, in this case on the Newquay beaches. The work on booms is being intensified to protect harbours and estuaries. The fleet of fishing and naval vessels is still at work, trying particularly to deal with oil outside the ports and harbours. The work of the Services is continuing. Till the danger is past—and this could be many weeks away, because of the habit of this stuff piling up for months afterwards—I know that the efforts of the local authorities will not be relaxed.
Dr. Bennett: One thing which seems incomprehensible is that no attempt appears to have been made to put a

47
demolition party on to this tanker in the fine weather at first so that, without prejudice to any salvage operations, all the tanks could be connected up to demolition charges. This would have saved the uncertainty of aerial bombing if the ship had to be demolished. Furthermore, in the House, only a month before this disaster, we were told that no public money was available for fighting oil that was driven ashore. Are we now to understand that the Government have changed their mind?
The Prime Minister: This was a national disaster which could have imperilled all our beaches, not merely in the West Country but further afield. The tourist trade in the areas concerned represents more than £100 million of expenditure a year and the Government were right, regardless of expense, to go into this job from the first night. The first £½ million was committed by the Ministers concerned on the Sunday night.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about what might have been done, of course all these things were very fully considered, in the light of the most expert technical advice from the salvage chiefs of the Admiralty itself as well as the oil companies and the rest, and of the naval advisers on this question. It shows the difficulties of making judgments at a distance from the operation if one has not been in touch with the conditions on the ship. It would have been a most dangerous and hazardous operation to have done what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
This ship was a floating bomb. A single spark could have caused an explosion. We were advised that even to knock a nail into a piece of wood with a hammer might have caused an explosion which might have blown the unburnt oil out without setting fire to the oil.
Mr. Rowland: Is the Prime Minister aware that the great majority of people in the country, presumably not excluding the editor of The Times, will be greatly pleased by the assurance given in the White Paper that at no time were legal or financial considerations inhibiting the Government's action?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. At no time, if we had decided that action contrary to normal inter-
48
national law and practice were required, were we inhibited from doing so. The timing of the spring tides was material. We listened to the expert advice to see whether the vessel could be floated off. We were doubtful, local opinion was doubtful, and many people at the Admiralty were doubtful and less optimistic than was the salvage company.
It was decided at the meeting in Culdrose that if they could not float it off by Tuesday, the last day of the spring tides, then more drastic action would be needed, but at no time were we inhibited by the thought of possible financial claims against us or by considerations of national or international law. It is right that this should be said.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what decision has been made in respect of the request by the South West Travel Association for a grant of £50,000 to undo a lot of unjustified scare publicity which might have the effect of frightening people out of booking their normal holidays in the South-West unless the situation can be rectified by prompt and effective action?
The Prime Minister: I believe that a small grant is being given for the purposes of publicity. When my right hon. Friend and I met the local authorities this point was raised with us, and from the outset I made clear that I am not cancelling my holiday in that part of the country, and my right hon. Friend said the same.
There has been a great deal of publicity correcting the, I think, alarmist reports which appeared during the first few days. The number of cancellations has, I think, substantially dropped off and a lot of people who have the wisdom to enjoy holidaying in the West Country are now snapping up the accommodation which has been cancelled. In the light of the great progress which has been made during the last three days in clearing the beaches which looked as if they would be spoilt for years to come, cancellations are quite unjustified.
Mr. Nott: The Prime Minister has said that all the expert advice was considered. Could he tell the House whether the advice of British Petroleum or Shell was considered with regard to the feasibility of firing this tanker in the early

49
stages and, if so, what advice they gave to the Government?
The Prime Minister: The oil companies were brought into consultation, I think, on the first night. They have great expertise on many of these questions and perhaps the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question enables me to put into more correct perspective the statement which appeared in one of the Sunday Newspapers. B.P. issued a Press statement on 3rd April saying:
"We spoke to the Government authorities on the Sunday after the 'Torrey Canyon' grounded and suggested that if she could not be refloated, and they were satisfied regarding the legal considerations, she should be fired."
This is a very different story from the one we read during the weekend, that they suggested the immediate firing. We followed this advice on when we should have a go at refloating with the spring tides, but we did not concern ourselves, as B.P. did, with the question of the legal considerations.
Mr. Murray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people outside this House view with distaste the Opposition's attempt to pour troubled waters on the oil? Would he say whether the committee that is co-ordinating the efforts to clear the oil will continue in being for some time just in case there are any further disasters of this sort?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The committee—both the headquarters committee and the local organisation—are being kept in being. As my hon. Friend knows, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Housing and Local Government have been assigned particular areas. As soon as danger appears in any of the areas they will immediately take charge of operations there with the local authorities and the Service Departments, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary did, under the direction of my right hon. Friend in Cornwall last week.
Mr. Emery: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the local authorities in Devon, which did so much on their own prior to the Government stepping in, did not receive any written communication from the Government until at least 10 days after the ship had run on the rocks?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy had a meeting with them before the period referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The greatest danger at the time—a lot depended on the conditions of the winds—was on the Cornish beaches. During that period of the weekend after the shipwreck, we feared that the oil would pour in great quantities on many of Cornwall's loveliest beaches and the priority was given there. But, at the same time, the machinery was set up for dealing with the Devon beaches if the oil spread.
All the local authorities were kept posted daily with the position, and the Press and television every night had the maps showing where the oil slick was. We were ready to move in, but we had to give priority to Cornwall. That was a risk, and this turned out to be right. So far as I know, Devon local authorities are not suffering from oil. If they do, they will be able to benefit from the great experience of Cornish local authorities, some of which have already been over to help them and tell them how to handle it.
Mr. Molloy: I am sure that the question of compensation will loom very large in the eyes of the British public. Can my right hon. Friend say that the local authorities and those who have suffered damage or cost in preventing damage will be consulted and helped by the Government in their efforts to obtain justice for the damage which the country has suffered?
The Prime Minister: I have said that the Government have already instructed the Treasury Solicitor to notify the owners' solicitors of our intention to institute proceedings. We are considering the whole question of what compensation local authorities will be entitled to. At this moment, I would not like to make pronouncements about individuals or individual interests. I think that it would be right for them to consult their own legal advisers to see what the position is.
We certainly intend to press our claims thoroughly. One of the difficulties under present international insurance law is the very low ceiling put on third-party insurance—if that is the right phrase here—and this is one of the things we want to consider urgently for the future.
Sir D. Renton: Pending international agreement as to the movement of tankers, will the Prime Minister do all he can to persuade the oil companies, that is, those in this country and those sending oil to this country, to desist from using very large tankers, bearing in mind the very great hazards of operating in our narrow seas?
The Prime Minister: I should make clear that the oil companies offered their full co-operation from the outset and have offered their co-operation on all matters of scientific research for the work of the Government inquiries to which I referred earlier. We shall not wait for international agreement to the question of approach to our shores.
On the question of the larger tankers—I do not go as far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman does, but that will be considered—I think that the answer is that from many miles out they must follow routes laid down for them by the Admiralty. The fact that this particular ship happened to be so far to the right is a matter for inquiry. I think that most people who know those waters could have plotted a better route for it. We shall have to ensure that these routes are followed in the future.
Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. Friend consider a study of the feasibility of destroying the navigational hazard of the Seven Stones reef by explosives?
The Prime Minister: That has been considered. Some of us who saw the bombing wondered whether it would happen as a by-product of the bombing operation. But it is an enormous area of very hard granite, and, short of a nuclear explosion, which might produce other hazards and which would have to be of enormous scale, I very much doubt that what my hon. Friend has in mind would be feasible.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the Prime Minister's answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) mean that he rules out the proposal to go for international limitation on the size of tankers? He referred in his statement to their increasing size. In view of the difficulty of handling them, and the great trouble which results when a large tanker has a disaster, will the Prime Minister at
52
least consider putting this proposal forward?
The Prime Minister: I did not rule it out. I replied to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this matter would be considered. But most urgently, because there are already ships of very large size afloat, we must consider national as well as international action to deal with the control of routing of tankers approaching our shores. This is a matter under our control; we can refuse them access if they refuse to follow routes laid down by the Admiralty.
Mr. Maxwell: Will my right hon. Friend consider making available to other Governments the bitterly bought scientific and technical experience which we have obtained so that, if any similar accident occurs elsewhere, they may benefit from it? Further, will he bear in mind that, in addition to requiring tankers to go by particular routes which the Admiralty lays down, we should improve the training for tanker masters as it has been conclusively proved that their present training is insufficient?
The Prime Minister: We have already been giving information to other countries. For example, the French Government, who are very much concerned that the oil might reach their shores, have sent over a mission and we have given them help. If the oil does strike France, we shall send people with experience, perhaps including local authority people, to show how it can best be handled. Our knowledge on this subject has come to us the hard way and we intend it to be made available to all other countries where the hazard might occur. We would deal with this through the work done under the international maritime convention to which I referred.
Mr. Sandys: In view of the limited effectiveness of detergent and fire, will the Prime Minister urgently consider the desirability of fitting a number of tankers with pumping equipment specifically designed for sucking up oil off the seas?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and some have this; but I do not think that it would have worked in this case because all the pumps were put out of operation by the damage to the boiler-house.
Mr. Sandys: That is a different point. I was asking the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be desirable, as part of an emergency service, to fit some tankers with special pumps specifically designed for this task.
The Prime Minister: I am sorry; I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. This is already being done for clearing up the existing oil slick. It is one of the experiments being carried out, and further research will go into it.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the limited value of detergent. Obviously, it has its limitations, but it has been surprisingly effective. The quantity of oil reaching the Cornish shores has been very much reduced by the action taken by the 53 naval vessels and trawlers, which had quite a big effect on the floating oil before it got there. The detergent has been highly efficient on the beaches themselves.
A tribute ought to be paid to the work of the Government research laboratory concerned, the Warren Springs laboratory, then, I think, under the control of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), for its research some years ago into the use of detergent for this kind of disaster. The detergent has been more effective than many people would have thought, but it could not, of course, do the whole job when there were 50,000 or 60,000 tons of oil floating about on the sea.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that there are sufficient stocks of detergent available, particularly of the non-toxic variety for use in estuaries?
The Prime Minister: Yes. Sir; production has been continuing and distribution is continuing, with airlifts and all the rest. There was a problem, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) knows, in respect of Newquay yesterday. Newquay had had very large quantities and had used—probably rightly, I think—most of those quantities in trying to keep the oil away from the beaches, so that there was virtually none left when it hit the beaches. But Newquay is getting detergent delivered now, and I am satisfied that we have enough detergent for present foreseeable requirements.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I endorse the Prime Minister's praise of the local authorities for the good work which they have done, but will he consider increasing the grant which has been made to them to 100 per cent, as some of the inland ratepayers feel it a bit of a hardship that they should have to shoulder part of the burden of a national disaster when their immediate interests were not affected?
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government have been very generous with the 75 per cent., their agreement that all expenditure going beyond a 2d. rate would be met by the Government, and the free supply of detergent. Considering that the scale of the operation was unknown, we might easily have been letting the Treasury in for the expenditure of very many millions of pounds, but it now looks as though the figure will be smaller. I do not think that it would be right to go as far as the 100 per cent, grant which the hon. Gentleman suggests. The local authorities have shown great willingness to co-operate, and I am sure that they would feel it right that, within the narrow limits left to them, they should make a contribution.
Sir J. Hobson: As there is limited liability, will not the effect of the Government's claim be greatly to diminish the value of anyone else's claim?
The Prime Minister: We have given notice of our claim. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, liability is limited and much too tight having regard to the damage which is possible here, but we are considering the damage done to the local authority interests and perhaps other interests concerned, with the idea that, when the claim is mounted, we can consider how far we could put in claims on their behalf as well. I would not at this stage like to pre-judge what we would do about local authority claims or individual claims. To use a phrase which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably fault, we have slapped in our writ right away, and we shall consider, within the limitations, how that should properly be spread.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

CONFERENCE ON ELECTORAL LAW
Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make, a further change to announce in the composition of my Conference on Electoral Law.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) has accepted my invitation to serve in place of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark).

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
4.20 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention a matter which I am informed reflects gravely on this House and many of its hon. Members.
On 23rd February I, with 85 of my hon. Friends, put a Motion on the Order Paper which called attention to certain facts taking place in Northern Ireland, with particular regard to the banning of the Republican Clubs. This excited a great deal of publicity in Northern Ireland and the next day a speech was made by the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland. It is to a report of that speech that I wish to draw your attention.
A newspaper reported:
"A blunt warning that the Unionist Party will resist to the full any attempt at Westminster to interfere with or limit the rights of Parliament at Stormont has been given by Minister of Home Affairs Mr. Craig."
The report continued:
"The Minister declared: 'Let me sound a note of warning: That Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right, and that this sort of attack and interference would mobilise Ulster loyalists in the same way as attacks by bomb and bullet.'"
Further, the report showed that he attempted to intimidate me in the performance of my duties as an elected representative of this House. It stated:
"Mr. Craig said that the activities of those running to Westminster on matters concerning only the Parliament of Northern Ireland because there happened to be a Socialist Government in power in London represented an attack on Ulster's constitution that could not be ignored."
I have been informed that that speech by the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland constitutes an attack on my integrity as a Member of this House and
56
on the affairs that it is the duty of this House to decide.
Allied with that, another publication in Northern Ireland known as the Protestant Telegraph, a bitter and virulent opponent of mine, had a headline:
"Why does Ulster's Rebel Leader go free?"
followed by:
"Arrest Fenian Fitt and rout the Republican
Clubs".
The report underneath said:
"Over 80 Labour and Liberal M.P.s have signed a motion tabled by Gerry Fitt, Republican Labour M.P. …"
and called me "an arch-traitor".
Alongside that report there was a letter couched in such terms as to give one the impression that I am a member of an illegal organisation in Northern Ireland, namely, the Irish Republican Army. That letter, alongside the article, is calculated to damage my reputation as a representative in Northern Ireland and to cast reflection on my political associations.
Further, the report named the chief sponsors of the Motion as myself, and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), Reading (Mr. John Lee), Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood), Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), and Salford, West (Mr. Orme). It continued by asking why I was not arrested for putting down the Motion with 85 of my hon. Friends.
The matter takes on a rather more sinister and serious aspect when one considers the speech of the Minister for Home Affairs and friendly correspondence which has taken place between him and the editor of that newspaper, as reported on page 4.
It would appear that there is collusion in this case and I wish you to give your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on whether there has been prima facie a case of breach of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will now bring me the newspapers of which he complains.
Copies of newspapers handed in.
The hon. Member has asked me to rule on the question of whether there is prima facie a case of breach of privilege. In accordance with the usual practice, I shall give a Ruling in 24 hours' time.

BILL PRESENTED
  RHODESIA (INDEPENDENCE)
  Bill to confer full independence upon Rhodesia, to furnish an initial constitution for that country, to repeal the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Ronald Bell; supported by Mr. John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Patrick Wall, Mr. Stephen Hastings, Sir John Eden, Sir Knox Cunningham, and Mr. John Hall; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd June; and to be printed.[Bill 226.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.25 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill transfers undefended divorce proceedings to the county courts. For the past 20 years or so county court judges having been trying the vast majority of undefended divorce cases. In 1966, of a total of 38,500 undefended cases, over 34,000 were heard by county court judges. When they do so, they sit as Special Commissioners and wear the robes of a High Court judge.
  The Bill recognises the reality of that situation and gives county court judges in name the jurisdiction which they have in substance exercised since the war. It does so by providing a framework for the rules of court and detailed administrative arrangements required for the transfer of undefended cases to the county court. The Bill is the logical outcome of the fact that although divorce jurisdiction has always been vested in the superior courts there has been an increasing tendency in the past 50 years to decentralise and to entrust it to judges and court officials who are primarily of county court status.
  In 1873, divorce cases were heard in London only. In 1912, the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes rejected the suggestion that divorce cases should be tried by county court judges, but recommended that nine or 10 county court judges should be appointed to sit as Commissioners of the High Court. Nothing was done about that proposal, and although provision was made in the 1920s for the Kings' Bench judges on circuit to hear certain undefended cases, it was not until the Second World War that there was any real change.
  The enormous increase in the number of divorce cases which occurred towards the end of the war meant that the matter had to be looked at again if there was not to be a complete breakdown in the administration of the law. In 1946, a

  59
  Committee over which the present Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, presided, found that there was an urgent need to introduce new arrangements for the disposal of cases, but it reaffirmed the view of the Gorrell Commission about the importance of keeping divorce in the High Court. It nevertheless recommended what some have regarded as a mere face-saving compromise. Instead of enabling county court judges as such to try divorce cases, it said that all county court judges were to be made Commissioners of the High Court for the purpose of trying divorce cases. They would be given power to try defended as well as undefended cases, although, in practice, they would concentrate on the undefended and in addition to those they would have time to try only the shorter defended cases.
  Immediate effect was given to those recommendations, and so for the past two decades county court judges have exercised a jurisdiction which is technically vested in the High Court.
  In London, they take it in turns to sit about once a fortnight in the Royal Courts of Justice. In the provinces, they sit at 49 so-called "divorce towns", which are towns at which matrimonial causes may be heard. The judge sits in the local assize court, if there is one available. Otherwise, he sits in his own county court. He also sits in chambers to deal with interlocutory matters, such as custody of or access to children, which would otherwise be dealt with by a divorce judge in London. When sitting at a divorce town, he is accompanied by the district registrar of the town or one of the registry officials.
  So far as I am aware, no one has suggested that the county court judges do not try these cases as well as do high court judges, or that they do so with less dignity or expedition. Nor do I think it likely that there will be any adverse effect on the respect accorded to the marriage tie if a county court judge sits in a purple robe instead of a black gown and is addressed as "Your Honour" instead of "My Lord".
  It is not intended that matrimonial causes shall be tried in every county court as part of ordinary business. Jurisdiction will only be given to the larger courts at
  60
  places with proper accommodation—probably, at the outset, in the towns which are already divorce towns. Arrangements will be made for matrimonial causes to be heard on days when ordinary court business will not be taken, so that there is no fear that divorce cases will have to take their turn in the list with hire-purchase cases or a series of possession cases.
  In one respect, the Bill does not give effect to the existing situation, and that is in regard to what are known as "short defended causes", which county court judges, sitting as Commissioners, now try. These cases are those estimated to take not more than three hours, but they often last much longer and the issues which arise in them are often as complex as in any other defended cases. It seems to us that, for jurisdiction purposes, the only logical distinction is between defended and undefended cases. Accordingly, county court judges are not given jurisdiction by the Bill to try defended cases.
  As I have said, the Bill provides the statutory framework for the necessary changes in form. Clause 1 provides for all matrimonial causes to be started in divorce county courts designated by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and, if undefended, to be heard by such courts as are designated by him as courts of trial or, if defended, to be transferred to the high court. The Bill does this by conferring the necessary rule-making powers on the rule-making authority constituted by Clause 7.
  The intention is to designate as divorce county courts only those courts which have proper facilities for the conduct of matrimonial proceedings. These are courts at which there is at present a district registry of the High Court with a divorce jurisdiction. There are 101 registries of this kind. At each of these, the county court registrar is also the district registrar of the High Court, so the registrars and staff of these courts already have the necessary expert knowledge of divorce procedure.
  It is not intended to give this jurisdiction to county courts at the smaller places where the staff have no experience of this work at present and only little prospect of gaining any since, were their courts to be given jurisdiction in future, only a small number of cases would be likely to be dealt with by them. The only court

  61
  which may become divorce county courts but where the registrar is not at present a district registrar with divorce experience are likely to be some half dozen courts on the periphery of Greater London. There is, of course, no district registry at these places because in Greater London all High Court cases start in the Strand.
  Clause 2 gives the divorce county court the same powers as the High Court to make orders for maintenance and other forms of ancillary relief and orders with respect to children and the family. Once again, this is to be effected largely by rules.
  Sir John Hobson: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain, under Clause 2, whether or not the position will be that, for ancillary relief, county courts will have jurisdiction only where the suit has been undefended while the High Court, apart from exceptional cases, will have jurisdiction when cases are defended? Will not this be the distinction?
  The Attorney-General: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I will deal with that. If what I have said does not satisfy him, perhaps we can return to the matter.
  Clause 2(2) requires proceedings to be brought in such divorce county courts as the rules may prescribe. It is expected, as I have indicated, that the rules will provide for an application for ancillary relief normally to be made to the court in which the relevant matrimonial cause is pending. Thus, any application in an undefended case for ancillary relief or an order relating to the children will be dealt with by the county court even if the application is contested. On the other hand, an uncontested application in a defended divorce before the High Court will be dealt with by that court.
  Rules are also required to provide for the transfer to the High Court of any proceedings pending in a county divorce court where such transfer appears to the court to be desirable.
  Clause 3 provides for the county court to have power to sanction a potential collusive agreement before presentation of a petition. Such application can be made either before or after presentation of a petition for divorce. It is for the court, of course, to consider whether
  62
  any agreement or proposed course is collusive and, if it is, whether it should be a bar to a divorce. As all proceeding will be commenced in the county court, it is necessary to give county court judges jurisdiction to consider these arrangements.
  Clause 4 makes special provision for matrimonial causes begun in the Principal Probate Registry at Somerset House and enables them to be treated as though begun in a divorce county court. Last year, 13,315 petitions were filed in the Principal Registry and over 33,000 in district registries. The number of cases dealt with and the degree of specialisation in divorce have given registrars and officials of the Principal Registry great experience in handling these cases. Rule 71(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules requires the practice of the principal Registry, indeed, to be observed in the district registries, and directions are issued from the Principal Registry for this purpose.
  We feel that it would be regrettable if that great fund of knowledge and experience were wasted by leaving the Principal Registry with only defended cases transferred to the High Court in London. All the rest of the work would have to be handled by county courts in the London area. Their registrars would have no experience of divorce and it would be difficult to provide them with sufficient trained staff.
  Having regard to transport facilities in the London area, a litigant, unless living or working on the outskirts, might well find it more convenient to come to the Strand than to make a cross-county or even a cross-country journey to his local county court. It would also be most inconvenient for solicitors and counsel to attend a number of scattered county courts instead of one court in the centre of London. There would obviously be difficulty in arranging county court sittings so that they did not clash.
  It is therefore proposed that in London and the Home Counties only six or seven courts on the periphery should be designated as divorce county courts while the remainder of the area should continue to be used by the Principal Registry, acting for this purpose as a divorce county court.
  The designated peripheral courts might be at Bromley, Croydon, Kingston,

  63
  Uxbridge, Watford, Edmonton and Ilford. If a person residing or working in the area of one of these courts consulted a local solicitor about bringing divorce proceedings, the solicitor would probably find it convenient to file the petition in that court, where all the interlocutory proceedings and any application for maintenance or other ancillary relief could be dealt with.
  However, the trial may be fixed to take place either at the local court, or at the place for the hearing of cases in the Principal Registry. This would probably continue to be in the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand where, as the House will know, London county court judges already sit as Special Commissioners of the High Court. There is no need for the Bill to confer on the Principal Registry power to deal with undefended matrimonial causes, because, obviously, it has that jurisdiction as an office of the High Court. It is necessary only to ensure that its jurisdiction is not excluded by the provisions of the Bill, requiring every matrimonial cause or ancillary proceedings to be commenced in a divorce county court, and that while a case remains undefended, it is dealt with in the Principal Registry as if it had been commenced in a divorce county court.
  Clause 5 provides for the jurisdiction conferred by the Bill on county court judges to be exercised by such county court judges as the Lord Chancellor may direct. Under the existing system, whereby matrimonial causes are tried by county court judges sitting as Special Commissioners of the High Court, nearly every judge outside London has at least one divorce town on his county court circuit. Those with little or no divorce work on their circuits in practice help at neighbouring divorce towns and the so-called floating judges, who have no circuits of their own, give assistance wherever needed.
  The judges with circuits in and around London take it in turn to sit fortnightly at the Royal Courts of Justice to try undefended matrimonial causes. These arrangements, which are under the general supervision of the Lord Chancellor, have worked satisfactorily and it is intended to continue them, with
  64
  minor adjustments, in the London area when the Bill comes into force.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: One of the difficulties is the right of solicitors to have audience in a county court. Is it intended by the Government that in the rules solicitors will have a right of audience in London cases tried at the Law Courts in the Strand?
  The Attorney-General: Under the Bill they will be of the same status as any other courts and the answer to that question is, "Yes, in such cases as solicitors care to appear". It is expected that they will not do so in the vast majority of cases—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—for various reasons. Solicitors may prefer cases to be conducted for their clients by counsel, and, indeed, in courts where solicitors have jurisdiction already in a very large percentage of cases they elect, for reasons of pressure on their own time and perhaps the feeling that the work might be better conducted by counsel, to brief counsel.[An HON. MEMBER: "Cheaper."] As has been said by that disinterested voice on the other side of the House, it may well be cheaper to do so.
  Although the effect of the Bill regrettably—and I say that it is regrettable as the titular head of the Bar—may result in a certain reduction in the volume of the work of the Bar, happily, there are no signs at this stage in the history of the Bar of unemployment in that great profession. I have been a little diverted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), who shakes his head at me so sadly in view of what I have said.
  Clause 1 gives the right of appeal on any question of fact arising in all matrimonial cases tried by county court judge, and it may here be appropriate for me to say something about the recording of proceedings in divorce county courts. Under Rule 72 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules, 1957, shorthand notes are taken of the proceedings of the trials of all matrimonial cases, including undefended cases, heard by county court judges as Special Commissioners. Although the notes are not often referred to in undefended cases, they are very useful on appeal to the Court of Appeal, or on application to the Divisional Court for a rehearing and, of course, to assist the

  65
  Queen's Proctor in the exercise of his functions.
  It is clear that if on the transfer of divorce jurisdiction to the county courts shorthand notes were dispensed with and in consequence county court judges felt obliged to take a longhand note of every case, the dispatch of business would be seriously retarded. The Lord Chancellor has accordingly decided that, while every effort will be made to introduce mechanical recording facilities as soon as possible—and that practice has already been introduced in certain courts—existing arrangements for the taking of shorthand notes in matrimonial cases will in the meantime be continued.
  Clause 7 creates a new rule-making authority for matrimonial causes both in the High Court and county court. This authority will have power to make rules intended for the purposes of the Bill and also for the purposes of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1965, and it will, therefore, be possible to replace the existing Matrimonial Causes Rules by a single set of rules relating to matrimonial causes in both the county court and the High Court.
  Clause 8 deals with fees and provides that the court's fees to be charged in matrimonial causes, whether the proceedings are in the High Court or in the county court, shall be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury. At present, High Court fees are prescribed by the Lord Chancellor with the advice and consent of the Judges of the Supreme Court under the provisions of the Supreme Court of Juridicature Act, 1925, while county court fees are prescribed by the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury under Section 177 of the County Court Act, 1959.
  When divorce jurisdiction becomes exercisable by the county court as well as by the High Court, it will be convenient to have one authority with power to prescribe the fees to be charged in all matrimonial causes, and this will enable both the High Court and the county court fees to be set out in the same Statutory Instrument. As the vast majority of cases will go through the county court, it is thought that there is no need to require the advice and consent of the Judges of the Supreme Court in prescribing the fees. The Lord Chancellor will act with the concurrence of the Treasury.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: This seems to be the nub of the whole Bill. Can the Attorney-General say what those fees are likely to be and what saving is envisaged?
  The Attorney-General: I can say what saving is estimated, but at the moment I am not in the position to give details of the proposed fees. These are matters which are still under discussion between the Lord Chancellor and both branches of the profession. I shall say a word in a moment about the saving which it is expected will be accomplished by the Bill.
  Clause 9 enables the rules of court to provide that the costs allowed to solicitors and counsel acting for assisted persons in undefended cases are to be such fixed sums as may be specified in the rules, instead of being such costs as are allowed on taxation. A solicitor is still to have the right to ask for taxation if he wishes, but if he receives on taxation no more than he would have been allowed by way of fixed costs, he will have to pay the costs ordinarily allowed for drawing the bill and assessing the taxation.
  Clause 10 is the interpretation Clause and Clause 11 provides for the Bill to come into force on such day as the Lord Chancellor may appoint, so as to give time for the necessary rules and administrative arrangements to be made.
  As I have already indicated, one important effect of the Bill is expected to be a saving to the legal aid fund. The cost of providing legal aid in civil cases has increased five-fold in the last seven years. In the year 1965-66, no less than £3,320,113 of the total cost of legal aid of £5,575,000 was attributable to divorce proceedings, a remarkable figure.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the £5 million for total legal aid costs is a net figure, whereas the £3¼ million attributable to divorce proceedings is a gross figure? If he took the net figure of divorce costs, which would be the true comparison, would it not be nearer to £2 million?
  The Attorney-General: I will have that checked. I cannot give an answer at the moment. I thought that the two

  67
  figures were comparable, but I will return to the point later.
  It is not possible to forecast accurately the savings which will result from the transfer of jurisdiction to the county court in undefended cases, but, as I said in answer to a Question some time ago by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), it is expected to be about £400,000. Although, like most hon. Members, I support with enthusiasm our legal aid scheme—I know of no country with anything as good—we have a duty to save the taxpayer what we can, and this Bill should make a sizeable contribution to that desirable end.
  As I said, the Bill does no more than confer on the county courts a limited jurisdiction in matrimonial cases. It does not alter the grounds on which relief may be granted or lessen the court's duty to satisfy itself that the petitioner has made out his case and that proper arrangements have been made for the children. Subject to possible procedural simplifications, the jurisdiction will, of course, be exercised in the same manner as in the High Court. There is nothing in the Bill which could hinder any development in the substantive law of divorce which might prove to be desirable. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Grant: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, would he say whether the Legal Aid Advisory Committee under Lady Emmet has considered the saving to the Legal Aid Fund? If so, have the Government taken its advice?
  The Attorney-General: I have made a note of that question and will answer it in due course.
  4.52 p.m.
  Sir John Hobson: The modest result of this modest Bill will be a modest saving in cash. No one can forecast how great the saving will be, but there will be some, however problematical. We all ought to try to economise with public money, and, since the objections to the Bill, although valid to many, are not overriding, I would not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose it.
  We are grateful for the Attorney-General's careful exposition, in which he
  68
  showed his usual care and clarity. I was going to say, in view of his recent activities, that he has "oiled" its way through the House, but perhaps I should say "eased".
  The proposal to try divorce cases in the county court has serious implications. It is against the trend of the expert advice on the matter over the last 40 years on how divorce cases should be tried. The proposal to change the jurisdiction to the county court has met with the unanimous disapproval of the Royal Commission on Divorce and Matrimonial Causes under Lord Correll in 1912, the Denning Committee in 1946 and the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, presided over by Lord Morton of Henryton in 1956. Therefore, we are flying in the face of the expert and considered advice of those authoritative bodies.
  However, I concede that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government have a strong argument in pointing out that the substance of the matter has been that, for 20 years, county court judges have been the persons trying both undefended divorces and short defended causes. The House ought to consider carefully before taking a step of this nature whether it is likely to lead to any increase in the divorce rate. Everyone would regard it as a great public disadvantage if any step which we took led to an increase at the rate at which families break up. It is a false economy, as was said several times in the other place, to save a small sum on the Legal Aid Fund if the result is to create all the adverse social consequences of the break-up of more families.
  I do not think, however, that this Measure is likely to have that effect. Certainly it ought not to lead to an increase in the rate of break-up of marriages, which is the important point. It may lead to additional divorces because they are easier or cheaper, but that is a different statistic from the vital factor of the break-up of homes and families.
  I agree that the substantive law of divorce will have a vital impact when we deal with it. I am glad that the Attorney-General emphasised that this Measure will not affect what is becoming the most urgent problem of all, namely, the consideration of the substantive grounds of divorce and the law under

  69
  which marriages may be dissolved. The court in which that law is applied is unlikely to have much effect on the conduct of spouses who are contemplating breaking up a marriage. Neither spouse is likely to be less adulterous or cruel or more or less responsible in sticking to a difficult marriage because the substantive grounds for divorce are to be applied in a higher or a lower court.
  I therefore do not believe that the Bill will lead to any noticeable increase in the rate of break-up of families. Of course, I am reinforced in that view by the consideration that the vast majority of divorce cases are already, in substance, tried by county court judges, and also by the consideration that, in future, neither spouse who is about to break up a marriage will have any idea as to whether the proceedings will be in the High Court or the county court, unless it is collusive and he knows already that there will be no fight, in which case it will be the county court. In other cases it will be unknown until the pleadings are closed whether the case is to be defended or not.
  I therefore consider that this Bill is not likely to have a great effect on the rate of break-up of marriages, and is likely to produce a useful saving to the Legal Aid Fund.
  It is curious that the Government have produced what they admit to be only an estimate that the total saving will be £400,000, when they have not yet decided what the new level of fees will be. That is the figure upon which the saving will depend and no one can begin to estimate the figure until the new scales are known. It is reasonable to assume that, with the co-operation of both branches of the legal profession, there will be some agreed reduction in the level of fees and I am sure that both the Bar Council and the Law Society will do all they can to see that public funds are economised in this respect—
  Mr. David Weitzman: Perhaps the fees will be so arranged as to work out at £400,000.
  Sir J. Hobson: That attributes a greater desire for consistency on the part of the present Government than I would consider either necessary or desirable.
  The Attorney-General: That is a Scrooge-like attitude not characteristic of the present Government, I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Sir J. Hobson: I will refrain from commenting on such a claim by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and return to the Bill which, as I said, is designed to make a modest saving.
  As I see it, of the £5,750,000 spent on legal aid, 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. is the amount of the costs of divorces. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) asked a valid question about whether the Government had not, throughout all these calculations, been comparing a net figure with a gross figure. It is plain that the £5,750,000 figure is a net one and that it is the net amount of the legal aid provision which falls on the Exchequer after all recoveries and contributions—successful recoveries of costs and damages and so on—have been brought into the fund. But taking it on the basis of comparability as being a 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. figure, that means that about £4 million is spent on divorces in a year. If the net figures are comparable, and if a saving of £400,000 is to be achieved, that represents a saving of about 10 per cent.
  Taking that figure of 10 per cent., I believe that, in the end, the saving is likely to be less than that figure of £400,000. I have a strong suspicion that, in the long run, we will find that a good many cases will become defended which would otherwise have been undefended. It may be optimistic to assume that there will be anything like a saving of £400,000. However, it is plain that there should be some saving and, as I say, I do not feel that there are any substantial risks in the provisions of the Bill. I am willing to see an attempt make to provide some relief for the Exchequer from the total costs that fall on public funds in providing assistance in divorce cases.
  The real problem which Parliament must tackle—the basic question which must receive our attention—is that of the grounds of divorce. This Measure does not in any way affect those or make any difference whatever to the bases on which two spouses will be able in future to break up their marriage. Personally, I would have preferred to have seen that basic question being solved first, and

  71
  the procedural consequences of any decision then being considered. As it is, it seems to be putting the cart before the horse to first of all alter the procedure without knowing what the subsequent law will be and afterwards to alter the basic principles. The Government should give some explanation about why, since a Bill has been promised on the main issue in the next Session, it would not be more sensible not to tinker with the procedural provisions until we can see what will be the shape of the future problems with which the courts will have to deal.
  I am also favourably disposed to the setting up of local family courts. From the point of view of having a complete reorganisation of the ways of dealing with the problems affecting the family, both locally and centrally, this Measure does not touch that problem at all. I presume that it does not prejudice it in any way and that we can continue with the investigation, discussion and consideration of proposals along those lines in future—that is, without any prejudice being brought on those investigations by the Bill. I hope that that will be made clear. As I pointed out, these are objections of convenience and timing. While the Bill might have been more conveniently introduced after the main decisions of principle had been taken, nevertheless, if the Government want the Measure now, it would, I think, be wrong of my hon. Friends to oppose it.
  There are two points of detail which I might conveniently raise now. Although they are to some extent Committee points, they go to the main structure of the Bill. The real problem for lawyers and the courts on the break-up of a marriage is money and children—maintenance and custody. Anybody who has had anything to do with divorce proceedings knows that all the fights are really about money or children or both. The best that the courts can usually do is to try to make the best possible arrangements for the altered circumstances of the spouses and for the future of the children when a marriage has broken up and when the mess that remains must be cleared up as best as may be. I have always regarded this as the most useful function the courts can perform. Anybody who has had experience of these matters either professionally or
  72
  from observing divorcing couples is aware of the difficulties faced by such couples when they are trying, in the bitterness of separation, to sort out these problems in the wreck of the marriage.
  Clause 2 contains a curious provision which gives jurisdiction in these vital matters, which are ancillary to the main suit, to the county court or High Court according to whether the suit is defended or undefended. That seems to me to be wholly illogical. The question of whether a man has or has not a defence to a charge of adultery or cruelty has nothing to do with the case in this respect or with the nature of the problems of what, when adultery, cruelty or desertion has been proved, should be done about the financial adjustments which must be made between the parties or about the arrangements for the future of the children. There seems to be in this provision an odd division of the ancillary powers of the court, between the High Court and the Divorce Court upon the sole basis of whether the suit was defended or undefended. On interlocutory relief such as alimony pendente lite, it is probably at that stage desirable, if not essential, that the court that is to try the suit should be the court which has jurisdiction in these interlocutory matters. But once the decree nisi has been pronounced and the issues of fault on either side have been determined, these ancillary questions are completely different and I can see no reason why they should be divided on the basis of whether a suit has been defended or undefended.
  That raises an even more difficult problem. It is the problem of how one should divide them. I have a suspicion that in some cases, where the parties would wish to avoid the county court as the court of jurisdiction in these matters, the parties will go through the motions of defending cases for a half or quarter day so as to give the High Court jurisdiction. This may increase the number of defended cases and, thereby, the cost to the legal aid fund. It is possible that people will in future say, "We will conduct a small fight on a small issue and thereby see that the High Court gets jurisdiction".
  I would suggest, however, that since, by and large, the county courts will be dealing with the vast majority of cases, it is right to leave the general jurisdiction

  73
  for all these ancillary matters with the county court. I should have thought, however, that in addition to the powers that already exist in Clause 2(2) for the county court to send proceedings to the High Court where it considers that to be desirable in particular circumstances, there should also be additional provisions covering transfer.
  Since this is really a Measure which is intended to relieve the Legal Aid Fund, if neither of the parties are legally aided and both agree that they want the High Court to have jurisdiction, it should be possible—and should be provided by the Bill and by the Rules—that, on agreement between the parties where the Legal Aid Fund is not involved, then the parties should automatically have the right to take the proceedings to the High Court.
  It also seems odd that there should be an unbounded jurisdiction in the county court, after an undefended suit, to make an order for maintenance of any sum of money without limit. After all, the usual basis of our division between the High Court and the county court is that the High Court should deal with larger sums while the county court is intended to deal with smaller sums. A maintenance order of only £20 a week would involve a sum of £10,000 over ten years, and one appears to be giving to county court judges power to make orders affecting the transfer from one citizen to another sums as large as that, and often even greater sums.
  I think that the vast majority of cases should be dealt with by the county court, but that there should be a limit of, perhaps £600 a year on the county court jurisdiction. That is the basis upon which the High Court and the county court are divided in relation to other money orders. Such a provision would allow the county court to cover the vast majority of ordinary citizens, as not very many could expect a maintenance order of more than £600 a year. In my view, therefore, it is worth considering a limitation on the power of county court judges to exercise their ancillary jurisdiction to make an order beyond a certain amount, which I would be delighted to see quite high, but they ought not to be without any limit at all. As the Bill stands, if the divorce is undefended, the county court judge can make an order for maintenance for any sum he pleases. I do not consider that
  74
  to be right, and I shall refer to it in Committee.
  It is very odd to find that the principles of the Bill are not being applied to London generally. I quite appreciate the in-built inertia of the divorce registry and the undesirability—I take the Attorney-General's argument—of breaking it up. It has expertise and knowledge and power, and great experience. On the other hand, if we are to provide that London is to be dealt with differently from all the rest of the country—including Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and all the great cities, where the whole of the undefended divorce will be dealt with in the county courts—it seems that there is no difficulty in breaking up that part of the divorce registry into sections such as are necessary to be distributed round the various parts of London.
  We are now adopting the system previously employed for crime in London when we concentrated the trial of all criminal cases in two quarter sessions only in central London. That turned out in the long run to be unsatisfactory, and the arrangement of quarter sessions scattered all over London to take care of different parts of London has been a satisfactory decentralisation.
  At first blush, I would favour the idea that the county courts within London should be dealt with by the Bill in the ordinary way. They should be grouped together, so that certain of them should take an area of London with, perhaps, one for central London, and all the county court judges within that area could take it in turn to sit in that court, and the registry should be attached to the court where it usually sits. Undefended cases in London would then be dealt with in exactly the same way as in the rest of the country.
  There would be no great disadvantage and considerable advantage in this method, not least in releasing a great deal of accommodation in the already overcrowded Royal Courts of Justice. There is a difficult balance of convenience in doing the job in this way without making an exception of London as against breaking up and distributing a very concentrated body of expert people. However, the registry in the High Court, dealing with defended cases and particularly if it has an extended jurisdiction in ancillary matters, will still be very busy and will

  75
  be able to provide all the centralised expertise.
  This is only an idea that strikes me, and I think that it requires useful consideration and discussion. The exception of London is unusual, and I can see no real reason why, if the principle is valid for Birmingham, Liverpool and the rest of the country, it is also not valid for London. To conclude, as I have said, this is a modest Bill, providing a modest saving, and the House might very well accept it.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: I suppose that as a practising barrister I should declare an interest, but it is very many years since I appeared in an undefended divorce case. Nevertheless, I can speak with some little experience. I confess to serious misgivings at the changes contemplated in the Bill. As I understand it, all divorce cases will first go to the county court, where the pleadings will show whether the cases are defended or undefended. They will be sorted out—the defended going to the High Court and the undefended remaining in the county court.
  The Lord Chancellor in another place, moving the Third Reading, said that doubts were in substance dissipated, since it was realised that the Bill was creating a reality out of what is now a piece of hypocrisy. He spoke of the fact that today county court judges dressed as High Court judges and addressed as "My Lord" instead of "Your Honour" tried undefended cases. But is it really as simple as that?
  The provisions of the Bill, as has been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) are entirely contrary to the views expressed by two Commissions and the decision of the committee presided over by Lord Denning just after the end of the war. The Gorrell Commission of 1912 has been referred to. It is important to remember that that Commission came to the conclusion after detailed examination of evidence, that the granting of divorce affects family life, the status of the parties, the interest of the children and the interest of the State in the moral and social well being of its citizens, and that these things make it desirable to provide that cases of even the poorest should be tried in the Supreme Court.
  76
  The Denning Committee at the end of the war recommended, because of the great increase in divorce cases, trial by Commissioners. It must be remembered that the Commissioners were not always county court judges. The Lord Chancellor has the power, often used by him because of the pressure of work, of appointing county court judges, official referees, or barristers of certain standing to act as Commissioners to try High Court cases.
  Then we had the Morton Committee, which was not comprised of lawyers or clerics. I use those words because the Lord Chancellor in another place first referred to opposition to the Bill as coming from them. The Commission was on a broad basis. In 1956 it examined this matter in great detail. First, it thought that the exercise by Commissioners of High Court jurisdiction was unsatisfactory and hoped for a return to the situation when High Court judges heard all divorce cases. Again, like the Gorrell Commission, it expressed the view that it was a principle of the highest importance that the granting of divorce should be confined to the High Court.
  I pose the question: is it right to reject those carefully considered views? Is it right—because it was thought expedient for a period of time, possibly, to deal with a great number of cases to permit county court judges to be commissioners—to dismiss the present system as being hypocrisy?
  It is said that the new system will save about £400,000 a year. I listened with interest to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say about that figure. It is true that solicitors can deal with cases in the county court, and that may save some expense, but I am not at all sure that anything like £400,000 a year will be saved. I believe that it will be very much less—and in certain circumstances we might not even save money. I gather that it is the present intention to designate, in addition to those courts already functioning, about half a dozen courts on the periphery of London. There may be more in time; the Bill does not limit the number. This is merely the intention which has been expressed.
  Presumably it will mean district registrars with divorce experience in the additional courts, as well as shorthand writers. What about the increase of work in the

  77
  county courts, which are already overloaded? They constantly are having further tasks put upon them. Recently we had the Leasehold Reform Bill. That will provide additional work for county courts. In the first instance they will have to deal with all divorce cases, all the pleadings, and then the transfer to the High Court of all defended cases and disputes which are too complicated for county court judges to deal with. I echo the criticism made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington about maintenance and custody of children. I do not know whether the county court is the right place to deal with matters of that kind. It is true that some of them deal with some of those matters today and my right hon. and learned Friend may say that they deal with them very well, but there will be a great increase in the work.
  I am sure the Attorney-General is familiar with the many criticisms which are made in this respect. When the Rent Act was enacted there was the criticism that when cases came before the county court landlords desiring possession and tenants fighting cases had to wait for many months while in many cases the landlords did not receive rents. There are cases of great hardship, but we were promised that the work in the county courts would be speeded up. There was to be greater expedition, but I am not sure that we have had it. Complaints still continue of considerable delay because of the volume of work.
  Will the county courts be able to cope with the work or will more county court judges have to be appointed? If so, will this mean more expense? What about the defended cases dealt with in the High Court? Very often they turn out to be undefended. Are they then to be remitted to the county court with more delay and expense involved or can they be dealt with as undefended by the High Court judge? What about the volume of work in the High Court itself? If we take away the undefended cases, which to a large exent are the brunt of divorce work, will there be enough defended cases to keep High Court judges engaged, or will they be wasting their time? I see my right hon. and learned Friend smiling, but this is a serious point.
  The Attorney-General: I was smiling only because the real problem is to find
  78
  the number of judge hours to provide for the courts. Our anxieties in respect of delays exist already, but there is no lack of employment of judges. On the contrary, the problem is to speed up the process of bringing cases to trial.
  Mr. Weitzman: There has been no criticism today about speeding up all the work. It is dealt with expeditiously. It is serious to take undefended divorce cases away and leave them the defended cases. Will there be enough for the judges, or will they be wasting their time?
  Unless it can be shown that there will be a considerable saving in money, there is no justification for this change, and I doubt whether there will be a considerable saving. We have not had any figure given to justify the suggestion that £400,000 would be saved. I have instanced a number of points where as a result of this Measure there may be greater expenditure of public money. I think everyone agrees that the present system works well. County court judges perform their duties admirably and there is little delay. Why change the system unless the money saved is worthwhile and there are no countervailing disadvantages?
  My main criticism, following to some extent the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington, is of the piecemeal fashion in which a change of this kind is to be brought about. Divorce reform is long overdue. There have been a number of attempts made by private Bills to effect some reforms. They have been mainly unsuccessful in achieving their primary object.
  It is time that something was done to recognise the need for divorce where there has been a breakdown of a marriage. I was glad to see the desire expressed by the Lord Chancellor to see divorce law rationalised and the establishment of real family courts, but in the same speech I was disappointed to learn that there is to be no Government Measure dealing with that matter this year. It might be next year or the year after, and it was suggested that it might not be a Government Bill but a Private Member's Bill. We know what chance there is of such a Bill ever reaching the Statute Book. I do not like a short Measure of this kind, which can be used to delay further action,

  79
  being employed to show that the Government are doing something and that therefore the delay does not matter.
  This Measure is unnecessary, because the present system is working well. I deprecate the division between defended and undefended cases. Undefended cases often involve questions of collusion and other important matters of difficulty. They are just as important as defended cases. I hope that I can persuade someone on the Government side to give a promise that at the earliest possible moment a Bill will be introduced to deal with these matters. It should not be left to the efforts of a private Member. It should be a Bill dealing as comprehensively as possible with divorce reform. In such a Bill there could be inserted consideration of proposals of the kind now proposed.
  I echo the criticism that to put forward this so-called modest Measure is not warranted. It should be part of a greater scheme dealing with the question of divorce reform in all its aspects. I hope that the Government will tackle the whole problem effectively at an early date.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Body: It seems entirely appropriate that I, a former junior of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), should follow him and agree with every word he has said. The main argument for this Bill appears to be that it will save £400,000. I think everyone in this House will welcome any such economy, but I do not understand why the Government have turned a blind eye to a very simple alternative way of saving precisely the same sum of money. The saving, we are told, will be because there will be a fixed county court scale of costs which will be applied in all undefended suits. That is wholly admirable, but why cannot precisely the same be applied in the Divorce Division now?
  This has been proposed by experts and no one can find any sensible reason for doubting the advantage of such a course. It would mean the end of the present system of taxing costs which has caused costs in undefended cases to rise from £90 ten years ago to £120 now. Counsels' fees have not gone up accordingly in that time, but the increase has been en-
  80
  tirely in solicitors' costs. We should realise, and I do not think it is appreciated by the Government, that counsels' clerks are doing a fair proportion of the work for which solicitors are paid. Counsel and their clerks sometimes have to do one-third of the work for one-seventh of the fees. There is no reason why there cannot be a fixed scale of costs in undefended suits. This could be in line with county court scale and it would mean that the present system could be maintained and, at the same time, the £400,000 could be saved. I hope that the House will be given some explanation as to why this proposal has not been adopted.
  An explanation should also be given as to why there has been this division between defended and undefended actions. Why should defended actions stay in the High Court and undefended actions go to the county court? Is it suggested that defended cases are too difficult for county court judges to try? If this is the suggestion, it is inconsistent with the praise which county court judges have received, and very rightly, both here and in another place when the Bill was introduced.
  The reverse is the case. As a rule, defended cases are easy to try, as compared with undefended cases. I speak with certain knowledge that the Attorney-General has been engaged as counsel in a number of defended actions. I am sure he will agree that, by the time the judge begins to give judgment in a defended action, after the parties and their witnesses have given evidence and have been cross-examined, and after all the arguments and submissions have been heard, those involved know exactly what the outcome of the judgment will be.
  As to undefended cases, it must be recognised that many a petitioner has gone to the High Court and obtained a decree when in fact he or she should have left the court empty-handed. Often a wife—I say this with regret, as I say it with experience—has trumped up a case against her husband, usually on the ground of cruelty, and her husband has declined to file an answer. He may have adopted this course because he wanted to get rid of a bad wife, or it may be that he did not have the funds available to contest the suit. Having been divorced, he finds some months later that he has lost his rights in respect of the children

  81
  and also has to support his former wife for the rest of her life.
  A judge with experience of defended causes can sometimes, with three or four perceptive questions, penetrate an undefended action and cause it to be dismissed. This is why there are more undefended cases dismissed by High Court judges than there are undefended cases dismissed by county court judges. In round figures, seven times as many undefended cases are dismissed by High Court judges as by county court judges. The Attorney-General may not have been outside the High Court when a county court judge is trying one of those long lists of undefended cases. Sometimes, usually in the early afternoon, an usher comes bustling along the corridor to say that one of the High Court judges has finished his own list and that he will take two or three cases from the county court judge's list. Again I can speak from experience. I know the flurry of excitement which is caused outside the court and the jockeying that occurs to prevent one's case from being transferred to the High Court judge.
  This is a serious matter. High Court judges are continually trying defended cases and undefended cases and, as a result, they have a great wealth of experience in penetrating bogus undefended actions. They are judges who set high standards and who insist upon the rules being observed. This is not a criticism of county court judges as such. The truth is that only about half of the county court judges have any real experience of dealing with defended divorce matters. Only by hearing both sides of a succession of divorce actions over a period of years does a judge acquire sufficient judicial skill to be able to test an unmeritorious undefended suit.
  This is why I believe that the Bill will, in its way, bring about a number of injustices. I do not wish to overstate my case. I do not think that there will be a large number, but I am certain—I say this from having handled quite a number of undefended actions over nearly 20 years—that there will be a number of injustices. This is why I much regret the Bill.
  The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North
  82
  spoke about the status of the two courts. It seems strange that, if I lose my finger, the case is heard in the High Court, whereas, if I lose my wife, the case may be heard in the county court. If my car is in a collision, the case may be heard in the High Court, but if my marriage has a collision the case will be heard in the county court. I do not understand the Government's sense of values. I much regret that the Government do not appreciate that a broken home may have deeper and graver consequences than a broken limb.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) rebuked my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for having brought the Bill in at this stage. It ill-becomes the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deliver that rebuke. Since I entered the House eight years ago, I have on innumerable occasions asked former Governments to bring in a Bill similar to this. I refreshed my memory a little earlier today. On many occasions I addressed Questions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was Attorney-General, asking him to do precisely what the Government are now doing. On each occasion he gave me the most equivocal of replies. Therefore, such a rebuke comes ill from him.
  It does not prevent me from addressing such rebukes. That is a different matter. I speak from stronger ground. I rebuke my right hon. and learned Friend only for bringing in a Bill which so obviously is too little and which so clearly is too late. It is a very modest Bill. It strips away a little of the humbug and hypocrisy with which our divorce laws and procedures are replete, in so far as the Bill acknowledges that people do not change their characters or their competence or their capacity as a result of switching from a purple to a black robe. To that extent at least, as was said in another place and as was repeated today by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Bill is an acknowledgement of the realities of the existing situation.
  I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) into the demarcation disputes which were implied in his speech. I am disinterested

  83
  in following a course as to the relative merits of one or other branch of the profession presenting a simple undefended divorce. It ill-becomes anybody with any sophistication and who has had a clinical experience of the divorce courts not to acknowledge that nothing like the competence is required to put through and handle effectively a simple defended divorce case in comparison with the prolonged and detailed work which is sometimes required when handling a dispute in a matrimonial court before magistrates. It ill-becomes any member of the Bar, in rationalising concern about monetary matters, to present arguments which the Lord Chancellor regards, not surprisingly, as he indicated in another place, as specially interested. Therefore, I do not intend to follow my hon. and learned Friend into such demarcation disputes. I merely say that if the intention is to save money, if it is that there should be some relief from the Legal Aid Fund, then the Bill will fail in its purpose unless care is taken that there are not disincentives for solicitors to take a case in the court.
  I am troubled that the Attorney-General, speaking, as he says as the titular Head of the Bar, takes the attitude that he assumes that solicitors will not be very vigorous in coming forward to take cases in the county court divorce courts. I think he should be encouraging them. If the object is to save money, he should be saying, as I hope I am saying, that it is the duty of solicitors to endeavour to ease the present burdens that fall on the legal aid fund by assuming a role which does not require them to duplicate their work and write out long briefs and present them to a young barrister so that he may merely get up and read for ten minutes something from a piece of paper in front of him. It should be the duty of the Attorney-General to call to the solicitors to help the Legal Aid Fund by showing a preparedness to act as advocates in the county court which will now have this jurisdiction.
  More than that, I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to say something about agency work for solicitors. If we are aiming at reducing costs and are not getting rid of one piece of humbug only to substitute another, then since we know that in most provincial
  84
  cities there are a handful of firms which by their nature are doing a considerable amount of divorce work and specalising in it, it is surely high time, given the existing overheads in all solicitors' offices, that we got rid of the old rule in county court work that it is not possible for solicitors to use another solicitor to appear for them in court. Otherwise, as the titular head of the Bar, the Attorney-General is in danger of being accused of trying to maintain a restrictive practice for the Bar. If his object is to save money, he should see to it that the Bill enables a solicitor to use any solicitor advocate in the town if he is prepared to do the work. Since one solicitor advocate may be appearing in a case and he may have eight or nine undefended cases, it would be convenient to all concerned that he should handle the other cases which may be in the hands of other solicitors in the town. I hope that this comparatively small detail can be reconsidered if it is the aim of the Bill to save some of the costs.
  But since it must be clear to the Attorney-General already—it is clear to me from the number of hon. Members who are seeking to speak—that he is likely to get a reception for the Bill which is certainly a little less than enthusiastic, I should like to talk about the matter raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). When for the moment he deserted his unnatural conservatism—it is very alien to him and his disposition—and moved away from his professional position—again concerned, I fear, with a lot of restrictive practices—he came to the hub of the matter, which is that this unimportant little Bill is absurdly late. I cannot say that it expresses a particularly dynamic view after having taken all this time to emerge from the Labour Government after being frozen by past Governments. But it has come too late.
  The Lord Chancellor has said in another place that divorce law reform is in the air. That, unfortunately, is exactly where it is—in the air. It is high time the Lord Chancellor brought it down to earth. After we have had the Law Commissioners Bill brought before the House, a Bill which was highly praised, a Bill expected to be a revolution almost, a Bill which appointed highly skilled men

  85
  who, as all would acknowledge, are doing a splendid job, it is not good enough that when their Reports are published they are not debated in the House of Commons.
  The Lord Chancellor declared in emphatic terms in a debate in another place last November the Government's neutrality to the debates on the reform of our divorce laws. "Neutrality" is one thing when it comes to a substantive matter. It is another thing apparently when it comes to saving a few hundred thousands pounds. There is a long and dishonourable tradition of neutrality on the part of Governments in avoiding initiating any divorce law reform. But the existence of the Law Commissioners and their Report on divorce create an entirely novel situation which surely makes it intolerable to the House that the Lord Chancellor, having called for the Report, should now on behalf of the Government apparently abdicate all responsibility for the manner in which consideration is to be given to the Law Commissioners' robust and realistic suggestions. It cannot be good enough.
  The Law Commissioners in their divorce Report have been exceedingly sensitive to opinion in this House. They understood from the Second Reading of the Law Commissioners Bill that this House was jealous of its jurisdiction. They understood that because there was a novelty in the situation the House was sensitive that there should not be proposals by an outside body which went beyond lawyers' law and included the reform of social law. Anyone who has read the Report on divorce by the Law Commission must be strikingly aware that the Law Commissioners have responded to the mood of this House and been exceedingly careful in the manner in which they have presented a number of options for the House to consider.
  The Report has been out for months, and it has been discussed in the other place. What is happening here? The Report has said, in terms as clear as possible, what the alternatives are and what the Law Commissioners regard as specific proposals. The Report says:
  "If Parliament should indicate a clear preference for one or other solution and the matter were then referred back to the Law Commission for action, we have no doubt that we could work out detailed legislative proposals."
  86
  What action have the Government taken? Bringing forward a little Bill of this character is in no way meeting the challenge that has been presented. Why is the Lord Chancellor apparently savaging his own proposals? What is the diffidence about asking the House of Commons to discuss the matter? What is even more disconcerting to the House is that if one reads the debate on this Bill in another place one finds a cosy atmosphere being built up which is a follow-through from the original cosy atmosphere of the debate on the Church's Report on Divorce, to discussions to which apparently the Lord Chancellor is privy. There are discussions going on at this moment between the Church and the Law Commissioners.
  This has been clear from what the Lord Chancellor has said is happening. Has not this House got the right to consider these proposals? Has not this House the right to determine what the divorce law of the country will be? I confess to deep disappointment, because it appears to me and many others that initiative for law reform has been wrested by the Home Office, which is showing great courage and is prepared to assist in genuine and zealous reforming measures. Knowing as I do the reputation of the Attorney-General and his awareness of the need for changes in the substantive law, I cannot help but feel disappointed that after some years of Labour Government this silly little thing should be coming before us.
  I will endeavour to encourage the Government. This House was kind enough to give me leave to introduce a Matrimonial Causes Bill. It will be published this week. It will adopt one set of proposals made—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Member, but I must remind him that it is outside the scope of this Bill to embark upon a debate of the reform of the substantive law of divorce.
  Mr. Abse: There have been many references to this by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, who made it aboundantly clear that they consider that the defect of this Bill is that

  87
  it should be coming before the House when the substantive proposals are in embryo and should have been disposed of before this Bill was treated in this way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that and other hon. Members have said the same. It is perfectly in order to oppose this Bill on the grounds that it is premature and that the substantive law of divorce ought to be dealt with first. It is outside the scope of this Bill to advocate specific reforms in the substantive law of divorce.
  Mr. Abse: I will satisfy myself by saying that my Bill will certainly be dealing with substantive law. Adopting the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I hope that the Government will give consideration to the idea that before this Bill becomes law, we should be able to have a debate upon the substantive law and the proposals of the Law Commissioners.
  The difficulty is that we have here a Bill which clearly says, despite the report of the Law Commissioners, that the existing powers affecting children should be vested in the county courts. We are doing this at a time when the Law Commissioners in their Report have expressed their disquiet about the position of children. This Bill vests in the county court judges powers enabling them to deal with questions affecting children in the same way as they are at present dealt with by the High Court. Yet we all know, as the Law Commissioners have stressed, that one of the most serious and disturbing aspects of the breakdown of marriage and divorce is the effect upon children. They are the innocent victims of their parents' marital difficulties, and they are vitally affected by the matrimonial proceedings.
  Why should we confer powers which are already in existence and which the Law Commissioners have said are provisions which have been
  "… widely criticised as inadequate, both in their scope and in the way that they are working in practice …".
  They go on to say:
  "… we propose as soon as possible to institute an investigation—possibly in collaboration with an outside body—into this."
  Where is the sense of timing to introduce a Bill dealing with this matter on the
  88
  assumption that it will save a little money but which will allow jurisdiction concerning the future of these children to be dealt with in a way which has been acknowledged by the Law Commissioners to be inadequate?
  Although this is a Bill which is in some ways a response to something for which I have called for over eight years, it is certainly a very dusty answer. It limps behind events and behind the change in public opinion. It shows far too much pusillanimity on the part of the Government, whose Law Officers I know have the knowledge, wisdom and reforming zeal to bring before the House, or help to do so, the changes exhaustively suggested by the Law Commissioners.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: It must be a little galling to the right hon. and learned Attorney-General to find that every speech made from both sides of the Chamber has been critical of the Bill. Even the hon. Member for Ponty-pool (Mr. Abse) has hardly sung a paean of praise. He has complained about it for reasons entirely different from mine. He has complained that it is too late and too little. In so far as he, as a practising solicitor, like myself, wishes to snatch work away from the Bar I do not intend to follow him, because I have enough work to do without seeking more.
  In so far as he is critical of the Bill because it is a small botched-up Measure which was not taken in the context of the general reform of divorce law, I agree with him. I suspect that I shall be as out of order in following him in this as he was in raising it. The only argument that I can find advanced for this Bill is that it will in some way save the taxpayers' money. My first comment is that it is remarkable and pleasantly surprising to find this Administration anxious to save the taxpayers' money. This is largely illusory, for reasons which I shall elaborate.
  I should like to deal first with the point raised by me with the learned Attorney-General in an intervention on the general cost of divorce to the Legal Aid Fund. The Lord Chancellor unwittingly misled the other place when he was giving the average figures. According to my reading of the Law Society's Sixteenth Report of the operation and finance of the Legal

  89
  Aid Acts for the year 1965–66, the total net cost of legal aid generally was £5,500,000, whereas the net cost of divorce under that heading was just over £2 million. That puts matters in a rather different perspective. It is different from saying that £3,500,000, which is the gross figure, is spent on divorce.
  It is right to point out also that the average cost of a divorce has slightly diminished over the last year. The average cost, I understand, is something like £75, which is less than in the preceding two years. It is a fair comment to say that divorce is about the only commodity which has reduced in price in the last three years.
  The saving angle of this Bill is very curious, because the Law Society has not been properly consulted about the principles of the Bill. It has been presented with a fait accompli, and told that the principles of the Bill are already decided. It has been asked to consider questions of principle and remuneration. Whether there is any saving depends upon the negotiations which are still in progress for a new county court scale. It seems to me quite remarkable that the Government should have introduced a Bill, the main object of which is alleged to be to save taxpayers' money, when there is no evidence that any saving will be made and when they admit that negotiations are still going on to see whether they will be made.
  We are not told whether the work of solicitors and members of the Bar will be reduced. My view is that precisely the same amount of legal work will be involved to members of the profession whether divorces are heard in the county court or in the High Court in the Strand. If exactly the same amount of work is involved, it will be very surprising if either of the two professions agree to do the same amount of work for less remuneration.
  By and large, I cannot see that there will be anything more than the absolute minimum saving to the Legal Aid Fund, against which must be set the extra costs which may very well arise by virtue of the transfer involved in the Bill. There is the extra cost of the shorthand writers. This is a factor which has to be taken into consideration. There is the increased staffing of the registries of the county
  90
  courts. Increased staffs will be required for the service of proceedings which in the High Court is carried out by the parties.
  There is the argument that this is a matter of convenience to the parties. I suppose that it would be very convenient to the parties if they could go to the post office and collect their divorce over the counter. I do not think that this is a valid argument. I do not believe that the convenience argument commends itself to either side of the profession. The inquiry agents, who are very much concerned with attending the hearings of divorce proceedings, have said that this will cause them great inconvenience, because, instead of having to attend a central court in London, they will have to spend time flitting about the country to attend courts. Section 89 of the County Courts Act, 1959, prevents a solicitor principal from instructing another solicitor to act as his agent advocate. That will have to be remedied, otherwise considerable difficulties will be caused as a result of the Bill.
  We are told by the Lord Chancellor that a Bill setting up family courts will be introduced next Session. Therefore, why on earth introduce the Bill at this stage? What is the urgency for it? The Attorney-General should explain why it should be brought in so urgently, even if the hon. Member for Pontypool wanted him to bring it in years ago. I would pose to him the point which I raised in an intervention in his speech, namely, whether the Committee, under the chairmanship of Lady Emmet, which is advising on legal aid matters, has considered the cost element and, if so, whether the Government have taken it into consideration in producing the Bill. Will we hear anything from the Committee? What is the Committee doing if it is not to pronounce on this point?
  It is apparent that there have been remarkably few consultations and discussions with outside bodies about the Bill. The Lord Chancellor seems to have made up his mind obstinately that divorce proceedings shall take place in the county courts, and has advanced that view regardless of outside views. Two Royal Commissions have pronounced against it, as the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney,

  91
  North (Mr. Weitzman) said. The Church is largely against it. The Law Commission, Bar Council and Law Society have not really been consulted. Have the judges been consulted? I understand—I put it no higher than that—that the county court judges have decided against it. All in all, this is a hasty and ill-conceived Measure which I very much regret.
  But, even if a saving to the taxpayer results, which I doubt, there is a fundamental point of principle which should be considered. It is true that one can exaggerate the importance of a Measure of this nature. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said, one can exaggerate the effects which the Bill will have on the attitude to matrimony and divorce generally. Nevertheless, in recent years, there has been a whittling away of the importance of matrimony in the minds of the public. The respect for marriage has been diminishing. Every day we hear some crackpot pop singer or film star pontificating stupidly on the subject.
  Any case which can be made out is a case for making marriage more difficult than making divorce easier. As a practising solicitor who has had a great deal to do with divorce cases, no one is more aware than I am of the farce and artificiality of much of our divorce law; there is no doubt about that. But that is not an argument for making divorce easier. Nor is it an argument in favour of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Pontypool said, it is an argument for considering the whole range of marriage and divorce.
  Sophisticated people like the Lord Chancellor say that it is absurd and humbug to state that the same judge wearing different robes will have a different status. But this is not the way in which the public view it. The majesty of and respect for the High Court still have a very sobering effect on people. Whether the judge is a county court judge wearing different robes or not, he sits as a High Court judge in the High Court with that status. One might equally argue that a Parliamentary Secretary, speaking on behalf of the Minister, should not speak at the Dispatch Box and that it would be more honest if he went to the back
  92
  benches. But he stands in for his Minister in the same way as the county court judge represents the High Court.
  It would be a retrograde step if we moved towards the "dog licence theory" of marriage, or the idea that one can get a divorce from the post office. It is very regrettable that, as a result of this Bill, the bonds of civil marriage are regarded as less important than a civil debt of £401. That is its effect.
  When speaking in the debate in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Pearce, posed two questions at the end of his speech. He said:
  "Do you think that divorce is a very, very important matter? Secondly, do you think it is of any help in propping up marriage, in discouraging divorce, that it should be dealt with by the highest court in the land?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th February, 1967; Vol. 280, c. 193.]
  My answer to both questions is a very emphatic "Yes". Marriage and family life are the foundations of a civilised society. I do not want the Bill to pass without recording my protest at a Measure which I believe is based on an entirely false premise—that of saving the taxpayer money—and which, at best, can provide only a minimal or even illusory saving of public money and, at worst, may further reduce respect for the much battered fabric of matrimony.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I must declare my interest, as other Members have done. I am a Member of the Bar. I am thinking of resigning. I have listened to the general secretary of my union today blissfully throw away £400,000 of the incomes of members of the Bar without turning an eyelid, and the former general secretary of the union, from the Opposition Front Bench, calmly pats him on the back for doing it.
  If this were a matter of the pay and conditions of delivery drivers in the Midlands, and if a former colleague were now in the House, I have no doubt that we should hear a great deal more about the Government's proposal to cut the standard of living of some of the working members of the population. But, because members of the Bar are involved, this is apparently accepted without demur. I believe, contrary to what some hon. Members have suggested, that there will be a saving to public funds as a result of the

  93
  Bill. But, by and large, the saving will come out of the pockets of the Bar. The purpose of the Bill is to allow solicitors to handle undefended divorces. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) that there are many solicitors who are quite capable and competent to do undefended divorces in the county court. There are a great many who are incompetent, but I suppose that that applies to the Bar, too.
  I know that it is a comparatively easy and simple form of litigation for the practitioner, but it is also highly responsible if anything goes amiss, because this is a form of litigation in which the result can be disastrous if anything goes amiss. I concede that it does not often happen, but when it does the consequences are fearful. When one has conducted an undefended divorce action in the High Court and finds that a decree is denied, that the other party has no ground for a decree and that the parties must remain in holy deadlock for some considerable time, this is a highly responsible part of any advocate's work, and it merits the kind of pay which is given to work which is highly responsible. It is all very well to say that it is easy for an able practitioner to do it. It is easy for a garage mechanic to find out what is wrong with my car, even though I could not do it, but I pay him a sum commensurate with his ability to find out what is wrong with it. The same is true of the Bar.
  I am in favour of doing away with restrictive practices, and I should welcome the abolition of this restrictive practice if we were not going to substitute for it another restrictive practice. When I was a young and struggling barrister I did a good deal of the work which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, work in matrimonial cases in magistrates' courts. This is often much more difficult and in the end much more determinative of what the result would be in the High Court. I did this work because I needed the money. The work was sent to me by solicitors, who normally took ten to fifteen guineas for this work and gave me three guineas. They did nothing. I did the work.
  After a little while a change took place, as legal aid was given in the magistrates' court in matrimonial cases. I was suddenly being paid more than I could get for an undefended case in the High
  94
  Court. For a little while I was happy and prosperous. But before very long the solicitors in the Law Society decided that this was an unfair form of creaming off and they made representations to the Government about the increasing costs of legal aid and how wrong it was that all this money was going into matrimonial cases. Before very long, a ruling was made that counsel should not be engaged in matrimonial cases in the magistrates' court unless the fee came out of the fee given to the solicitor for his work—an inclusive fee. We then reverted to the old system whereby the solicitor got the fee and the poor barrister, struggling at the beginning of his career, did the work.
  I cannot see that replacing one form of restrictive practice by another is an advance, and therefore I am not wholly enamoured of the argument that we have to move with the times and to abolish restrictive practices. I should be a great deal happier if I could see some of the restrictive practices of both sides of the profession going equally. I should look with a great deal more favour on some of the representations of solicitors about the Bill if I could see conveyancing fees being altered to the benefit of the public.
  I do not want it to be thought that I should be against a fundamental, radical change in the way in which we deal with divorce. I believe that the time has come for the country to face up to the problem of what we should do about the divorce laws. We have stumbled by an historical accident into allowing this part of human relationships to be governed by lawyers in legalistic terms. I welcome the new initiative which has been taken by the Churches in the Report about marriage. I do not share the view of that Report which was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool and to some extent by the Law Commission—the view that it is impracticable. It is impracticable as long as we look at the problem of the dissolving of marriage through lawyers' eyes and in legalistic terms. It is true that in legalistic terms it is probably impossible to staff the courts and to provide the courts with enough time to look into the causes of the breakdown of marriage. But why should lawyers be engaged on this task at all? This is a problem of human relationships. This is a problem as much for psychiatrists and social workers as it is for lawyers. Why should not the whole question of the

  95
  breakdown of marriage be considered by committees not necessarily consisting of lawyers—although no doubt there would be legal representation—but consisting of people who are interested more in saving a marriage than in making a judicial decision about whether a marriage has broken down? If we were to approach the problem of the breakdown of marriage from this point of view, it would be unnecessary to argue whether we ought to have divorce in the county court or divorce in the High Court.
  I agree with what has been said in the debate to the effect that before we had the Bill we ought to have started a fundamental reappraisal of the kind of legislation we ought to have about divorce. From my experience I do not believe that it helps the family to try to decide who was at fault, where the guilt lies or whether one party was more guilty than another in order to decide what the maintenance should be and who should have the custody of the children. This is not the way in which we govern human relationships in any other part of our life, and I do not believe that it should be the way in this most intimate form of human relationships within the family. A completely new study ought to be made along the lines suggested by the Churches' Report, but perhaps going even further. For that reason I would say that this Bill is irrelevant to the main problems facing us and that this pitiful saving of money—in my view it is pitiful—is rather a wasted effort.
  When I came to the Bar, undefended cases were paid 5s. 2d. After a few years that was raised to 10s. 2d. which, I think, is the rate at the moment. That change was made as a result of the representation of the then Chairman of the Bar Council, the present Lord Chancellor. For him now to suggest that we ought to make a saving, in effect by cutting the fee of members of the Bar, seems highly ironic. If all that we are trying to do by the Bill is to make a saving of public funds, why would it not have been possible to do this simply by cutting the fees which are paid both to members of the Bar and to solicitors in undefended actions? This would have had the same effect. If we are saving a sum of £400,000, we are not doing so simply from court costs. It must be in
  96
  relation to fees. If it can be done by the saving of money in the amount of fees awarded, why should not the present system continue with a reduced rate of fee? I should have thought that to have been a simple way of doing it without the trouble of putting a Bill through the House of Commons.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: I shall strike a slightly discordant note because I support this Bill, and I welcome the intention behind it; I think I am the first Member on either side to do so. I think it is absolutely and clearly right to try to cheapen undefended divorce, and the Bill seems to me to be a step in that direction.
  I wish simply to refer quite shortly to the vexed question of the right of audience referred to by other hon. Members and touched on by the hon. Gentleman the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). This, to my mind, is a perfectly straightforward issue of principle. Section 89 of the County Courts Act, 1959, perpetuates the old restrictive practice which, incidentally, is over a hundred years old. In Section 10 of the County Courts Act, 1852, one sees that
  "it shall be lawful for the party to the suit or other proceeding, or for an attorney of one of Her Majesty's Superior Courts of Record, being an attorney acting generally in the action for such party, but not an attorney retained as advocate by such first mentioned attorney, or for a barrister retained by or on behalf of the party, on either side … to address the Court …".
  That was the position in 1852, and that was re-enacted again in Section 89 of the recent Act. Of course, in those days they called solicitors "attorneys"; now they are called solicitors. Hon. Members on both sides will know the provisions of the 1959 Act, but I will remind them of these words:
  "In any proceedings in a county court any of the following persons may address the court, namely—

  (a) any party to the proceedings;

  (b) a barrister retained by or on behalf of any party;

  (c) a solicitor acting generally in the proceedings for a party thereto, but not a solicitor retained as an advocate by a solicitor so acting;

  (d) any other person allowed by leave of the court to appear instead of any party."

  97
  Put quite simply, this prevents a solicitor who is handling a case, but who cannot for any reason personally appear in court, from instructing a colleague, another solicitor, to present the case on his behalf. Let me give an example.
  I must declare an interest: I am a solicitor. My firm in Chippenham is typical of firms in a provincial area. We do a certain amount of undefended legal aid divorces. Under this Bill, Chippenham will not have a county court where cases will be heard, because there is no High Court Registry in Chippenham. Cases will be heard in Bath, some 12 miles away. I imagine, and I hope, that many solicitors like me will take on the presentation of simple undefended cases in court. I hope that that is the Government's intention, and I hope that the Attorney-General will tell us whether it is his intention to encourage solicitors who feel competent and who have done all the work in preparing the case to stand up in court in front of a judge and present the case. I hope that I will do so on most occasions, but there will be occasions when, for instance, there is a three-line Whip, or I am on the Standing Committee on this Bill, or have some other urgent engagement, which will make it quite impossible to go down to the court and present the case.
  Under the present ridiculous, old-fashioned restrictive practice it is impossible to ask a colleague, who is also a solicitor—from Bath, in the case I am giving—who has perhaps very long experience of this sort of case, to take the case on. One would have to get a barrister from Bristol or from London to go down to take the case. There is a further point which needs emphasising and that is that it will also be necessary to send down a representative from the solicitor's firm to sit behind the barrister to take instructions from the client.
  As has been said before in this debate, if it really is the Government's intention—I believe it is—to reduce costs by this little Bill, surely the Government ought not to maintain this totally unjustified piece of red tap. I am familiar, of course, with the argument put forward by the Bar Council and touched on by certain hon. Members today, but I think the time has come now to make this change.
  I hope that, as a result of this Bill, more and more solicitors will feel able
  98
  to take divorce cases themselves, and therefore I hope that in the fairly near future appointments will be made from the ranks of solicitors to the county court bench, and I happen to be one of those who hope that in due course appointments will also be made from the solicitors' profession to the High Court bench as well. I think it quite right that solicitors should use their experience on the bench, and I hope that solicitors will not be limited simply to being county court registrars or coroners. There are many solicitors who are experienced people, who are not only lawyers but also men of the world in the fullest sense of that term, who would make excellent county court judges, and would be able to act in just those sorts of cases we are discussing this afternoon. Probably the Attorney-General will not be able to give detailed answers to all these points when he winds up the debate tonight, but I can assure him that to deal with these matters Amendments will be put down when the Bill is in Committee, and I hope that they will have a good reception from the Government in Committee.
  I conclude as I began, by saying that I welcome this Bill and I am the only Member to have said so up to now.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: I shall be the second Member to give, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) did, a welcome to this Bill. Of course, like my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), I wish that we were discussing a family courts Bill instead. One of the big difficulties in this House is to get enough time for any reform, and we spend much of our time in this Chamber and upstairs on modest Measures which would be better spent on major ones. Apart from that, I think that most of what the hon. Member for Chippenham has said about the Bill I myself would endorse.
  This is, partly, a Bill about saving. I do not think that this House at the present time should be so reticent about saving a sum of approximately £400,000 a year, because this money is, I would submit, needlessly spent at the moment. By saving this money we would get no worse process of law or any diminution of court process, but rather a saving of money which at the moment is needlessly spent, needlessly spent, as my hon. Friend

  99
  the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) rightly and honestly pointed out, because barristers have got to be employed in cases which solicitors could perfectly well do themselves, because of the operation of the present system whereby undefended divorces are tried in the High Court and it has to be a barrister who presents a case.
  As for the £400,000, if in fact that is the figure, even taking the legal aid figures which my right hon. and learned Friend referred to, my calculation is that it is something like 12 per cent. to 15 per cent. of the cost of legal aid divorces, and whether it is a gross figure or a net figure, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) discussed at such length, I do not think matters a great deal. Certainly, if it is a net figure, the saving is to the Exchequer, but if it is a gross figure the saving is to the litigant. Someone is saving as a result of this, and someone is saving because the old system is being eroded and the matter is being brought more up to date than before.
  We have heard about the two Royal Commissions which discussed this matter in detail and concluded against it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) referred to that in 1912, when there were about 600 divorces a year being heard, not the 35,000 to 40,000 divorces a year which are being heard at the present time, and when there were no county court judges hearing divorce cases at all, undefended cases or defended divorce cases, when divorce was a very rare action to be brought before a court, except, virtually, by members of the aristocracy or very wealthy people.
  Dignity has been talked about. I would prefer the dignity of a judge in a black robe in a proper court building, rather than, as would happen in certain provincial towns today, a case being heard in a room on the fifth floor of an office block—what is called a divorce court. Obviously the room is a court room, but it is not a court building. That is what is going on at present in our divorce law, where undefended divorces are heard by a divorce commissioner or county court judge sitting not in a court building but somewhere in an office block upstairs.
  100
  There would be no loss of dignity, therefore, by this Measure.
  Mention has been made of solicitors practising in the county court, and I need not declare an interest because, although I was a solicitor before I came to the House, I no longer practise. In this connection, it must be remembered that the majority of divorces start not in the divorce court or in the county court but in a magistrates' court before lay magistrates, the parties being represented by solicitors or sometimes by no one at all. That is where many divorce cases start, and that is the arena where the facts are tried. Once a case is over in the magistrates' court and a separation is granted on the facts, that separation is the basis of the undefended divorce which is the end product and which everyone knows will be the end product before starting in the magistrates court.
  Solicitors deal very competently with separation cases in the magistrates court and with the tangled issues involved. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool that it is somewhat impertinent to consider that solicitors who have to fight issues in a magistrates' court are not competent to go to the county court and discuss the rather minor details which often are heard before the divorce court itself in a hearing lasting four, five or six minutes if the list is fairly long.
  I endorse what my hon. Friends the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) and the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) said about Section 89(c) of the County Courts Act, 1959. In this Bill, which is designed to some extent to modernise divorce procedure and specifically to save money in divorce procedure, it would be indefensible to leave in that 120 year old rule which was brought in at a time when there were signs of unemployment in the profession. At times of acute unemployment, there may be cause for restrictive practices, but there is no cause for them today. If my right hon. and learned Friend does not amend that Section, it will be a bad example to show to employers and trade unions indicating that the Government see a clear restrictive practice before them and do nothing about it.
  I would go further than the hon. Member for Chippenham on the practical

  101
  effects of the rule. He said that if an hon. Member who happens to be a solicitor could not get to a court, it would be desirable for him to get a colleague to go along. However, it goes deeper than that. Most divorces have in them the element of desertion. It may be simple desertion for three years. It may be desertion coupled with adultery or cruelty. The fact that it is desertion means, very often, that the deserting party not only deserts from the matrimonial home but from the town in which it is situated. The situation arises very often where the parties to the marriage live miles apart. If Section 89(c) remains in operation a solicitor for one party who needs representation on matters of custody, access and, most of all, maintenance will either have to go himself to the court or will have to brief counsel and send a senior member of his staff to assist counsel in that court. Counsel cannot take statements from witnesses, amend discretion statements and so on, which very often are matters arising immediately before the hearing. Alternatively, the solicitor will have to engage an agent solicitor in that other town, and counsel as well. If Section 89(c) were amended, the solicitor could easily brief another solicitor in that other town who was equally competent, without sending people to sit behind him, and that solicitor could deal with all matters which arose. That would result in a further saving in costs.
  I welcome the Measure, as the hon. Member for Chippenham has done. It is a good Bill. I wish that it was the family courts Bill, but it is not. Let us be thankful for what we have. However, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will look into this serious matter of a restrictive practice right under the nose of the Government, not only for the sake of the Bill but for the sake of the example which it gives to the whole country.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Percival: As a practising member of the Bar, I, too, must declare an interest. However, like the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), it is some years since I had a financial interest in undefended divorce.
  I wish to echo the three points made by my hon. Friend the Member for
  102
  Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), not for the purpose of repeating them, because I shall seek to avoid repetition of the precise grounds put forward by him, but because I believe that they are three points which are regarded as important by a lot of people. Certainly I regard them as of great importance, and I wish to refer to them again for that reason and to stress that my hon. Friend is not the only one who takes the view that they are important but that he speaks for a good many other people, including myself.
  Before the debate concludes, I hope that the Attorney-General will give us a little more information about the savings which will result because, as my hon. Friend said, that is the only reason of substance put forward for the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said that we must be careful that, even if the saving is £400,000, we do not throw away something else to effect that saving. He said that £400,000 is not an insubstantial sum and, therefore, if the Bill will save it, it is an argument in favour of it. However, I suggest to the Attorney-General that, so far, we have had no convincing particulars of how that sum is to be saved, and I put it to him in the following way.
  There are 40,000 divorces a year, and that means a saving of roughly £10 on each divorce. However, 4,000 are defended, and there will not be a saving there, so perhaps a better estimate would be £12 10s. Nothing will be saved on the court set-up because, at least in the initial stages, there will be additional expense involved in providing additional staffs and offices to cope with the extra work in the county courts. The saving will not be there. I should like the Attorney-General to tell us, either when he comes to reply or later, whether the initial extra cost which is expected to result has been calculated. If it has, it means that not only has one to take £12 10s. off the costs. One has to take off a proportion of the extra costs as well.
  I suggest to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) and others who might take the

  103
  same view that one merely confuses and bedevils the issue if one goes too deeply into who does what and into what the hon. Member for Pontypool called demarcation disputes. What matters is not who does what, but what the costs are for any given item. I would illustrate that briefly by following up the hon. Gentleman's example. He gave the House the impression that if all the work was done by solicitors, that in itself would mean a substantial reduction in costs, and he referred to occasions when he might be doing eight or nine cases in the local county court and handling others as agent for his legal brethren round about.
  There may be a fallacy there. If counsel are employed, it means less work for the qualified man to do in the solicitor's office. If he instructs counsel to advise on whether there are grounds for a case, that is one job less to be done in his office. If he does not instruct counsel, it has to be done in his office by a qualified man. If he does not instruct counsel to advise on evidence, it has to be done by a qualified man in his office. If he does not instruct counsel to attend the hearing, a qualified man will have to attend. It will not do to send a clerk as is done in many cases.
  Mr. Oakes: If a solicitor employs counsel, he has to attend court himself, or send a senior member of his staff to sit behind counsel.
  Mr. Percival: Perhaps it is permissible to speak from personal experience, even if it is of a few years ago. That is contrary to my experience. One often had a typist, or the newest office boy. I make no complaint about that because, in some cases it was unnecessary for there to be anybody else and that is why they were sent. If counsel are not to be instructed, that practice will not continue, and qualified men will have to be sent. That immediately raises the question whether there are enough qualified men to do this work. I understood that there was a shortage, but never mind about that for the moment. It does not matter who does it. It must be somebody who has qualified at the Bar, or through the Law Society.
  What matters is what the fees will be for each item, whoever does it. This is
  104
  what will determine whether there is a saving or not. It will also determine who will do the work, because I agree with what was said by one hon. Gentleman opposite, that if the fees are too low solicitors will instruct very young members of the Bar. After all, why should they not do so? I do not complain that this is wrong, because we know what happens. What will determine whether there is a saving is the fee which will be paid for each item. Once that it determined, that will determine whether the work will be done by a solicitor or by a young man at the Bar. At the moment we have no information about those fees. Stories have been going around about an overall fee of £45 for a solicitor doing a case. There have been stories that the reduction is counsel's fee is to be one guinea, and I hope that the Attorney-General will carry the matter further when he winds up the debate.
  It is difficult to believe that any estimate can have been made of the saving unless some estimate has been made of what the costs are to be in future. One cannot begin to see what the picture will be. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are talking in the air about who will do the work until we know what fees will be paid. I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to help the House a little more about this when he winds up the debate, because it is only by getting that information that the House can judge whether there is any weight in the contention that the argument in favour of the Bill is the saving that will be made.
  I support what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington and by one other of my hon. Friends about the timing of this Measure. At the conclusion of his speech in another place the Lord Chancellor spoke of the desire to set up family courts, and said that whilst these could not be promised this year, he could not see any reason why they should not come in next year. I would not dream of holding the noble Lord to a year. Something may happen to prevent it for another year, but the Lord Chancellor was speaking of this as something imminent. I go further than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington who suggested that this was an error of timing. I put it higher than that, and I put my point in the form

  105
  of a question. Can it be right to start now to reorganise the county courts, to build up the county court registries so that they can deal with 40,000 cases, to get the extra accommodation, and to get the extra staff to deal with the consequences of this Bill when, within the next year or two, or perhaps three, we are proposing to have a different system altogether which will destroy all that?
  This is not only premature. It is more than just a question of timing. It is sheer folly to do this if what one has in mind is another kind of court to be introduced within a year or two. The folly of it is emphasised by the fact that I do not believe there is anybody in this House, be he a lawyer or not, who does not agree that the important thing is to have family courts. Why can we not get on with providing them, and not have the upheaval which will be caused by this Bill, to say nothing of the extra expense which will be involved? Why can we not concentrate on getting on with the plan for family courts?
  Finally, I beg the House not to underestimate the importance of what we are doing with regard to the institution of matrimony. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington told the House that the Gorrell Commission, the Denning Committee, and the Morton Commission—and they were not all lawyers, but lawyers and laymen representing a great cross-section of opinion which should be respected—having considered all the things about which we are talking, said that it was in the interests of preserving the status of matrimony that its dissolution should be dealt with in the High Court. They are not the only people who have said that. During the Second Reading in another place the noble Lords Lord Pearce and Lord Denning made moving and weighty speeches on this very issue. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we must not exaggerate this. Nor must we overlook it. If we are really satisfied that there is some substantial advantage which is proved, it might be right to say that that outweighs the risk of further lowering the status of marriage, but unless some substantial advantage is proved, I think the House ought to pay attention to the view which is held by many people with a great deal of experience that this transfer might increase the divorce rate by lowering the
  106
  status of marriage in the minds of a few more people. I hope that all these matters will receive a lot more serious consideration before the House parts with the Bill.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I shall not immediately follow the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), although I shall advert to some of the points he made.
  I would like to apologise to the Attorney-General, and indeed to the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), for not being present to hear their opening speeches, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate.
  I do not welcome the Bill. I do not think that it is justified at this juncture. I am a believer in the reform of our divorce law, and of our divorce procedure. In fact, I am one of the sponsors of the Bill to which the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) referred. There is a great danger apparent during this debate to have special pleading on behalf of the solicitors' profession or the Bar, but this really is not a matter with which we are concerned in this House, or should not be. It is for the professional bodies to fight out these matters. We are concerned with them only in so far as they affect the public, as our laws are made to serve the public and to preserve society.
  I think we must remember that marriage is still firmly the basis of society in the Western world, particularly in this country. If we are to have fundamental changes in our law, these changes should be properly debated. I think the suspicion has been created that this Bill is trying to introduce divorce law reform by the back door, and that ought not to be the process employed.
  I cannot believe that there will be a saving of £400,000 by this procedure. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Southport effectively demolished the suggestion that there would be this saving, and other hon. Members have done so, too.
  When schemes are put forward for reform on the basis of financial savings, those who make the calculations so often over-estimate the savings, or completely ignore additional costs arising out of the reform. I am not convinced that money

  107
  will be saved in this case. In any event, although the sum of £400,000 is not an insubstantial one, such a saving would not be a justification for the Bill.
  Another argument put forward concerns the convenience of the parties. I am a practising member of the Bar but not usually concerned with undefended divorce, although I was detained this afternoon by a divorce case which, originally defended, subsequently became undefended. Years ago I was concerned in lots of undefended divorce cases, and in my experience most parties preferred to have their cases tried away from their home towns.
  It is not without significance that there is a rule which prevents the publication by newspapers of evidence in divorce cases. Only the judgment can be published. In an undefended case all that the judge does is to pronounce or refuse a decree nisi and that alone is published. That is in order to protect the parties. If divorce cases are tried in every county court town members of the public will be tempted to attend in order to hear evidence concerning their neighbours.
  In undefended divorce cases most of the witnesses are professional. In the High Court or at a divorce centre these professional witnesses would normally deal with many cases, but if the courts at which they have to attend are scattered their fees will naturally be higher. All these matters must be weighed in the balance in considering the interests of the parties. Under our present divorce law, most litigants would certainly not want their cases to be dealt with in their immediate locality.
  Furthermore, in an undefended divorce case a judge depends very much upon the advocate who is conducting the case. An undefended divorce case can sometimes be very difficult. The advocate has to consider what he should disclose to the court and what he should not. The question requires experience and judgment. Such a case is not normally left to a young and inexperienced barrister but to one more experienced. I am not arguing now that an experienced solicitor might not do it equally well, but it will be more expensive to get a man to handle a single difficult undefended divorce case, whether he be a solicitor or
  108
  a barrister, whereas if a man is doing other cases as well, as normally he is doing today, his fee will be no different in respect of difficult cases. It will be difficult to persuade an experienced and senior man to undertake an isolated difficult case.
  As the Lord Bishop of Exeter said in another place, the effect of the transfer of undefended divorce cases to the county courts is not known. We do not know what the effect will be on the public mind. The Gorrell Commission of 1912 and the Morton Commission in 1956 both came down firmly against a transfer of divorce cases to county courts. In a Bill of this kind, how do the Government justify a basic change in our divorce procedures without having a major debate on divorce, particularly when they are flying in the face of the recommendations of the Commissions?
  Even on the Government's own case there is little to be gained by the Bill. It is difficult for the Government to say to the public, "We are concerned simply with a matter of convenience and the saving of £400,000. That is our concern, and we are introducing this Bill for that purpose." The hon. Member for Pontypool knows that I am in favour of basic changes in our divorce law. Some of that law approaches the farcical, as does the way in which it is sometimes manipulated. Injustices are often caused to innocent people by the stubborn and selfish attitude of one partner to a marriage. The question of divorce reform should be discussed fully and widely in the country and in the House. But that is no justification for this puny Bill.
  In various speeches, including a speech by the Lord Chancellor in another place, suggestions have been made that a judge is the same judge whether he is wearing his county court robes or sitting as a Commissioner in the High Court. But this is a question of status. In the minds of the public the High Court is concerned with major cases—serious matters, the crime of murder; serious civil cases; important libel cases—whereas county courts are concerned with such matters as a failure to pay rent or to pay hire-purchase instalments. If we transfer jurisdiction in divorce cases to the county courts without further ado, in the mind of the public we might be devaluing the status of marriage and divorce in a similar

  109
  way, and this is a course which should not be embarked upon lightly.
  Serious arguments can be put up on both sides. I agree that divorce should be cheaper. I am in favour of setting up family courts, which should have jurisdiction in divorce matters, but we are not concerned with that now. We are concerned with a Bill which merely transfers divorce jurisdiction to the county courts. It is not without significance that in 1964 High Court judges hearing undefended divorces refused decrees proportionately in seven times the number of cases that county court judges, sitting as Commissioners, refused them. It is not that High Court judges take a different view of the sanctity of marriage; it is, I suspect, that they hear so many defended divorce cases that they are a little more circumspect in accepting evidence that is otherwise unchallenged. If that were not the case it would be difficult to explain the enormous difference between the results of undefended cases heard by High Court judges as compared with those heard by county court judges.
  In view of the Report of the Royal Commission and the views of the Lord Bishop and the Churches, already expressed, it is clear that this change of jurisdiction is in itself completely unjustified. If the Lord Chancellor is right, and we can expect legislation on family courts next year, what justification is there for introducing this Bill now? The reasons put forward by the Government are quite unsatisfactory. They are the slimmest reasons that could be imagined, on any possible view. Many arguments can be put forward showing why divorce cases should not be transferred to the county courts now, and I hope that the Government will have serious second thoughts about the Bill. When we do have a discussion on divorce law and procedure it should be a fully fledged debate on the fundamental principles involved.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Buck: It would be appropriate if, like other hon. Members, I declared an interest in that I am a practising member of the Bar and I occasionally do undefended divorce cases. I have it on the very best authority—that of my clerk—that my interest in the matter is not very great
  110
  and that I am unlikely to find an expanding practice in this sphere so that my interest is strictly limited.
  I agree with every word that was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). Like him, I think that it would be a great pity if this became a demarcation dispute between the Bar and solicitors.
  It could be said that today has not been a very happy exercise for the Attorney-General or for the Government. Until my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) spoke, the nearest that the Bill had had to a compliment was the remark of the hon. Member for Pontypool that the Bill was too little and too late—that is, other than the self-laudatory remarks of the Attorney-General.
  Let us consider the background. As has been pointed out by other hon. Members, the whole question of whether divorce should be considered in the county court has been examined authoritatively on several occasions. In 1912—it is true that the circumstances then were different—we had the Royal Commission under Lord Gorrell which led to a complete rejection of the suggestion that divorce cases should be tried in the county courts. We next had a Committee under Lord Denning, which considered similar matters, although it had more limited terms of reference. Mr. Justice Denning, as he then was, was asked to consider how the immediate situation after the war, when there was a great increase in the number of cases to be tried, should be dealt with. This Report conceded that county court judges should sit to try divorce cases but governed by High Court procedure, with the assistance of members of the Bar appearing before them and with the usual procedure which takes place in the High Court. Lord Denning suggested that both types of divorce should be dealt with in this way, defended and undefended.
  In 1956 we had a further Royal Commission under Lord Morton of Henryton. This was a complete reconsideration of all the matters which had been considered in 1912. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes)—I do not see him in his place—said that the situation was different in 1912, the implication being that the Royal Commission of 1912 no longer had great validity. But it has

  111
  much more validity when we consider that it was all reviewed no so very long ago by Lord Morton's Royal Commission when it was reaffirmed as being of the highest importance in divorce and matrimonial cases that the matters should be considered by the High Court. This extremely powerful Royal Commission made the recommendation that divorce should be considered by the highest court of the land. It is of interest that there are many high judicial authorities who have not changed their minds since the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Morton and that there are important members of the ecclesiastical world who subscribe to the same view. It is difficult to see how the circumstances have changed.
  The proposition which was basic to the Royal Commission and its thought was that the state of matrimony is of profound and fundamental importance—not only of obvious importance to the individual but of profound and fundamental importance, too, to the nation. This being the case, the view taken by successive Royal Commissions was that the nation should lose no opportunity in stressing this importance. I hope that I shall be forgiven by my lawyer friends if I say that it comes to this—that matrimony should not only be important but that it should be seen to be regarded by the State as being important and that no opportunity should be lost to emphasise the high importance of the state of matrimony and the view which the nation takes of it. Thus, the Commission strongly recommended that matters of status and matrimony should be dealt with by the supreme court of the land.
  What has happened over the last 20 years is highly relevant. This is the case put forward by those who wholeheartedly support the provisions of the Bill. Over the last 20 years county court judges have dealt with undefended divorce cases in an entirely satisfactory way. But it does not necessarily follow, it is not clear as the Government suggest, that because this has happened they should now do so in their county court status and not in the enhanced status with which they have performed these duties up to now.
  The proposition obviously has attractions, but let us consider what is being
  112
  said. A county court judge is capable, and is to continue to be capable, of being elevated from time to time to a superior status. From time to time a county court judge is asked to become a commissioner. He is elevated in status. But no one can be happy about a Bill which says, "It is true that county court judges can be given additional status when they are asked to do work of special importance, but we do not think it necessary to give them the highest possible status which they can attain when they try divorce cases." This hardly enhances the status of matrimony in the eyes of the nation.
  I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would deal with this point, which applies even more cogently in the case of registrars. The one hundred and one registrars in the country have two hats, as it were. They have their hat as registrars of the High Court and they also have their less important hat as county court registrars, and they are to continue to have their two hats to wear. But the Bill says, "You are to have your everyday status when dealing with matrimony. You are elevated to superior status only when dealing with such important matters as claims above £500."
  I do not think that we should be very sanguine about the effect which this will have in fostering the status of matrimony—and it was the status of matrimony which was one of the basic reasons why such authoritative bodies as have considered this matter have come firmly to the view that it should be considered by the supreme court of the land.
  May I put another point to the Attorney-General—although not a point which I should stress as it is in danger of becoming a demarcation point. Over the last 20 years, when, it is agreed, we have had the satisfactory disposition of our undefended divorce cases, county court judges have had appearing before them counsel supported by solicitors, which is the normal way under our legal system of dealing with more important judicial matters. Does the Attorney-General think that this has been of any value in the last 20 years? I have talked to several county court judges who take the view that it has been of considerable value in dealing with the large number of cases in an orderly way and in a way full of decorum and with the minimum of deception by anybody. They say that this system has been of considerable help over

  113
  these years in maintaining the high standards which we have seen. Does the Attorney-General agree with that or does he feel that this system whereby the solicitor instructs a barrister had had no effect at all? If so, then it is right that as head of the Bar he should say so. If he thinks that the system has been of considerable value over the last 20 years, is he entirely happy about an alteration in it?
  There will certainly be some saving by these proposals. It is difficult to discuss this matter before we have some figures. I understand that the negotiations over fees are advanced and perhaps we can have some guide lines now about the expected scale. There is understandable alarm on both sides of the profession at the wording of Clauses 8 and 9.
  "The fees … shall be such as the Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury may from time to time by order made by statutory instrument prescribe."
  That is not exactly reassuring to my legal colleagues. What criteria will the Lord Chancellor use to decide the fees? Will it just be what the Treasury agrees? The bedfellow of the Treasury's concurrence makes one pessimistic about what will be decided.
  Further I am sure that, at a later stage, the right hon. and learned Gentleman-will have no objection to an Amendment to the effect that fees shall constitute fair remuneration. We can perhaps discuss that later—
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman will realise that these are the arrangements which presently exist in respect of county court fees.
  Mr. Buck: Yes, but there is no such formula about their fairness. Therefore, when the Lord Chancellor's bedfellow is the Treasury, both sides of the profession feel that some formula which would be a tactful reminder of their fairness would not be amiss in Clause 9. There can be no objection to such an Amendment if they are to be fair.
  I should be interested to know how the figure of a saving of £400,000 was arrived at and what detailed study was done to form it in conjunction with the Law Society and the Bar Council. The Bar would be interested to know the basis of the guess of 25 per cent. of undefended cases likely to be undertaken by solicitors. I imagine that the right hon. and learned
  114
  Gentleman will clear up the question of the total cost of legal aid.
  The figures which he will know were put forward by the Lord Chancellor in another place, who said that the total cost of legal aid was over £5½ million during the year 1965–66, of which £3¼ million was the cost of divorce, and he then gave other figures. Was like compared with like? What is the basis for the suggestion of a saving of £400,000?
  I should be much happier had we been discussing today a Measure to set up family courts or to reform our divorce law. It is a pity that we should have this relatively unimportant, or certainly not very useful, Measure at this stage. If the Government speed along their plans to set up family courts and soon present us with that legislation, this somewhat unhappy little Bill might not do very much harm.
  7.15 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) gave the Bill his support, however qualified. I wish that some of his approval had been radiated to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), who was almost wholly critical. It is, at any rate, happy to feel that whatever divisions there may be about the Bill have not been on party lines.
  I spite of the criticisms which have been made, I remain satisfied that the Bill, although admittedly modest, is useful, practicable and—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)—overdue. It rationalises what has been going on for 20 years and is a logical development of it. There is no evidence that the fact that the vast majority of divorce cases since the war have been tried by county court judges has lowered the status of marriage. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman my predecessor that it is extremely doubtful, to put it at its lowest, whether to give county court judges in name jurisdiction which they have been exercising so long in practice will damage the institution of marriage.
  The Bill is procedurally desirable and a necessary measure of tidying up. It would therefore be wrong to hold it up pending a major Bill rationalising the substantive divorce law. I entirely agree

  115
  about the need for that and can only hope that the enthusiasm expressed on both sides of the House about proposals to rationalise the law will maintain their momentum to the time when that law is considered by the House.
  It is immensely encouraging, as my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said in another place, that the gap between the views of the committee appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and those of the Law Commission is narrowing. That kind of development leads to hope that the measure of rationalisation generally demanded in the House today may not have to wait very long.
  However, that is not the matter with which the Bill is concerned. It is a limited procedural Bill and will certainly not delay rationalisation of our divorce law. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) wondered whether county court judges would be able to cope with the work involved in the Bill. I think that they will. They have done so up to now and, of course, under the Bill they will no longer be required to try short defended cases, although for an interim period the arrangements whereby they have been sitting as Commissioners they continue. But the intention is that they should do no more short defended cases.
  Perhaps we can pursue most of the questions asked in Committee, but I will deal with some. It is our view, in regard to jurisdiction on ancillary matters, that the sensible division of jurisdiction is to leave the same judge to deal with every aspect of a case, if that is practicable. The Denning Committee and many other Committees have said that the judge who deals with the substantive issues should, so far as practicable, also deal with the ancillary matters.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington asked why the general principles of the Bill were not applied to London. Careful thought has been given to this matter. There was not a central, or convenient county court which could be, so to speak, taken over for these purposes. It has been felt that the balance of convenience for litigants and the legal profession is best served by concentrating the work in the principal registry but providing for some
  116
  courts, conveniently placed on the periphery of the Greater London area, to do divorce work as well.
  A great deal of discussion has taken place in the debate on the relative role of barristers and solicitors. I agree with what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said; that this is, above all, a matter for the professions to decide between themselves. I was asked by the hon. Member for Colchester whether, however, I agreed that the contribution of counsel in the past in their part in divorce proceedings had been valuable. Of course that contribution has been valuable. I ventured tentatively to express the view in opening the debate that solicitors may think that, by and large, this work could still perhaps conveniently be dealt with by counsel in a large number of cases. I was asked by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) whether I would encourage solicitors to handle these cases. All that I can properly say is that it is not for me either to encourage or discourage solicitors to appear in undefended cases. No doubt they will seek to do what is best in the interests of their clients and the administration of justice. I am bound to agree—not because he is my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor but as a matter of opinion—with what the Lord Chancellor said in another place; that it would be both difficult and unsatisfactory to alter the rules relating to agency to apply to divorce cases only.
  A number of questions have been addressed to me about the financial aspects of this matter. I have gone into the figures which I gave in opening the debate, and I find that the two figures are comparable. I was about to say that the hon. Member who asked me about this matter, the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), was not in his place, but I notice that he has moved into a position of greater significance, or whatever it might be, on the Opposition Front Bench. The figures are comparable. Both are gross figures—£5,575,000, of which £3,320,000 is attributable to divorces. The extent of the legal aid commitment is clear from that. I have the figures with me for the previous year, 1964–65, and they show that the gross figures were very much the same as the gross figures for last year. The grand total was £5,184,000 in respect of payments to

  117
  solicitors and counsel for profit, costs, disbursements and fees. The figure in respect of matrimonial causes for similar payments was £3,154,000. The same sort of ratio has applied as the years have gone by—with, of course, the gross expenditure to the taxpayer increasing phenomenally.
  It has seemed to the Government—who are under constant pressure, certainly from the Opposition, to reduce public expenditure—that we should see if something could fairly be done in this sphere without in any way damaging the administration of justice or the proper respect for marriage. What is proposed will, we believe, achieve a substantial saving.
  I gave the tentative figure of saving some time ago of £400,000. The figures I shall give are somewhat tentative and may prove to be an underestimate. As a series of Administrations have learnt, Government estimates of expenditure have a way of being greater than was estimated. That is why I thought is better to strike a more modest figure, in considering what could be saved if the proposals which my noble Friend has in mind are accepted. I hasten to repeat what I said at the outset; that they are at present a basis for discussion, but it is hoped that they will be thought by the professions to be reasonable and acceptable.
  The basis of the savings is as follows. They will be effected as a result of the Bill in the 27,000 legally-aided cases a year and the calculation is made on the assumption—which is, admittedly, a very tentative one—that perhaps 25 per cent. of these cases will be conducted by solicitors. We have taken soundings with the Law Society. There have been consultations with the Law Society about this matter and, of course, with the county court judges and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. The reaction that we have had is that the probability will be that about 25 per cent. of these cases will be conducted by solicitors, and the rest by counsel. We may be wrong in that estimate. That is why I repeat that these are tentative figures.
  The savings will be on these lines: where a case is conducted by a solicitor without counsel, there will result a saving in counsel's fees of £18 12s. 4d. and a saving in solicitor's charges of £6, making
  118
  a total saving of £24 12s. 4d. Multiplied by a quarter of the 27,000 legally-aided cases gives one a grand total of £166,210. Where counsel is briefed to conduct a case, the saving in counsel's fees—that is, the difference between the High Court and county court fees—will be £2 2s. 4d. and the saving in solicitor's charges will be £16. Thus, there will be a saving in those circumstances where counsel was briefed of £18 2s. 4d. a case. And if that is multiplied by 20,250, one achieves a total saving of £367,331. On this calculation, the saving to the taxpayer reaches a total of over £500,000. Those are the sort of figures which it is hoped will be accomplished as a result of scales which, it is thought, are reasonable but which, as I say, are still the subject of negotiation.
  I therefore commend this Bill to the House as achieving a measure of improvement in our court agreements which is long overdue and, at the same time, rendering some relief to the harassed taxpayer.
  Mr. Percival: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, will he answer two questions? Do I understand that one of the savings to which he referred lies in the fact that where a solicitor does all the work that is at present done by counsel he will receive £6 less than he now receives?
  The Attorney-General: That is so, yes.
  Mr. Percival: Secondly, has any estimate been made of the extra expense involved in this reorganisation? This is a net saving on solicitors' and counsels' fees—is it said that there will be no extra expense?
  The Attorney-General: I should have thought not. The court fees will be county court fees.
  Perhaps I may take this opportunity of correcting what I inadvertently said to the House—rather encouraged by the hon. Member for Colchester. The fees mentioned in Clause 8 refer to court fees. The remuneration to counsel and solicitors is dealt with in Clause 9. I misled myself and the House by taking up the point on Clause 8. These, however, are the facts. Court fees will probably remain unchanged, and I do not expect that as a result of these arrangements there will be any increase

  119
  of expenditure which will in any sense be substantial to be set off against the savings I have indicated.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confer jurisdiction on county courts in certain matrimonial proceedings, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the payments out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 which may be attributable to any provision for the payment under that Act to a solicitor or counsel acting in an undefended matrimonial cause of a fixed sum instead of an amount ascertained on taxation or assessment of costs; or for modifying Schedule 3 to that Act in relation to proceedings treated at any stage as pending in a county court.—[The Attorney-General.]

  FUGITIVE OFFENDERS BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  FUGITIVE OFFENDERS BILL

    New Clause No. 1.—(CERTIFICATE BY SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEED FOR RETURN OF PERSONS.)
    The Secretary of State may at any time certify under his hand that the return of any person under this Act is essential in the interests or necessary for the security of the Commonwealth or of the United Kingdom or of the country by which the request for his return was made and that it would not cause injustice to that person to stand trial in the requesting country, whereupon section 4 of this Act shall not apply.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7.33 p.m.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This new Clause is designed to deal with the exceptional kind of case; that is to say, crimes committed by Fascists or racists in a Commonwealth country; crimes which, though technically, and, indeed, quite obviously, political, are nevertheless such that none of us would think suitable subjects for the grant of political asylum. When we moved a somewhat similar Amendment in Standing Committee suggesting that in the case of crimes of this kind there should be an exception, and that it should be possible to return the offender notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill relating to political asylum, the hon. and learned Undersecretary of State admitted, in effect, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) had made out a good case.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman put three points in reply. He said, first, that our Amendment was outside the scheme agreed by the Law Ministers who discussed the scheme of the Bill. That may be so. It is a reply that was all too often put up by the Government, and one which we in our turn recognised as having some validity. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it is right or proper that the mere existence of the scheme should be called in aid to justify something that appears to be totally wrong, and which would be generally accepted to be totally wrong—that we should, in effect, insist that political asylum should be given

    121
    to a person who had committed a perfectly straightforward racist act.
    It would horrify our citizens if, for example, there was a conspiracy in one country in South Africa to do something of a terrible kind in a neighbouring country, and we were to say, "No, this is a political act. We cannot ourselves take any action, because it is not an offence in this country. We cannot return you to the country in which you have offended because of the provisions of this Measure."
    The Under-Secretary then said that our Amendment would be ineffective because it would require a decision to be taken before it had been possible to inquire into the facts of the case. That was a valid objection, but we have overcome that difficulty by the form of this Clause.
    Finally, the hon. and learned Gentleman argued that the matter should be dealt with by special arrangements to be made under Clause 2(3). Clause 2 deals with designated countries—that is to say, the countries to which the Bill is to apply. Under subsection (3) it is possible for the United Kingdom to make arrangements, and to give effect to them by Order, with particular other countries. Those arrangements may be
    "… subject to such exceptions, adaptations or modifications as may be specified in the Order."
    I should like to have a perfectly clear assurance from the Government on what the effect of the words "exceptions, adaptations or modifications" may be. I believe that, coming in this Clause, they must mean only such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as may be necessary to give effect to the Clause; in other words, as relating to the particular country which it was sought to designate.
    It seems most extraordinary that in a subsection of a Clause dealing with designation it should be possible, in effect, to import a wholly different scheme, as would have to be the case if the Under-Secretary's argument were valid. The only variations which could be made under the subsection would be such as were necessary for the general purposes of the Clause, and not for bringing in something totally new.
    When I suggested to the Government that they were here really proposing to legislate ad hoc, I received a very swift reply from the Under-Secretary. He said
    122
    that he very carefully sought to avoid making any such suggestion and it was in no sense the suggestion of the Government. If that is the case, the whole of his proposal is quite otiose.
    This kind of case is one which we shall not be able to see until it has actually occurred. I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Government to make general alterations in the law as a result of a treaty between ourselves and some other country in order to deal with a particular case which has already occurred. I should have thought that it was ad hoc in whatever terms the new proposals may be.
    If I am not right about that, I hope that the Under-Secretary will say what the intention of the Government is in the case I have supposed where an event has occurred and an individual is here seeking asylum of a technical kind, having done something which everyone in this country would agree is wholly wrong and objectionable and subversive of the interests of this country, of the Commonwealth country concerned, or the Commonwealth as a whole. If that is the position, what do the Government intend should be done? There should be some special provision as proposed in this Clause.
    The Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): First, I shall deal with the worries which the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has about the effect of Clause 2(3). Subsection (3) is very wide. It gives effect to paragraph 16 of the scheme agreed at the Commonwealth Law Ministers Conference. That paragraph said that nothing in the scheme should prevent the making of arrangements between two or more parts of the Commonealth for further or alternative provision for the return of offenders.
    There would not be ad hoc arrangements. It would not be a case whereby a particular refugee had arrived here whom it was felt should be returned although he was a political offender and as a result a special arrangement would be made between the Commonwealth country and ourselves. What is envisaged is that two Commonwealth countries, in giving effect to and applying the scheme, would do so on a reciprocal basis and may wish to go rather further than the scheme.

    123
    It was argued that Australia and New Zealand, having an extremely close relationship, might wish to make provision for many more offences to be returnable than those under the scheme. It was envisaged that India and Pakistan might want to make special provisions for themselves. Under subsection (3) the United Kingdom might wish to make with an individual Commonwealth country a special general arrangement which would include more offences than those specified under the scheme. That is permissible under subsection (3) and it would deal with the position where a special offence existed and it might be desirable to extend the list.
    Sir John Hobson: The Under-Secretary has mentioned the possibility of extending the list. The power also includes power to vary the political offences Clause.
    Mr. Taverne: Of course, this would be involved; the right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. If, for example, we wished because of a defence arrangement with a special Commonwealth country to extend the list to include the offence of espionage, which clearly is a political offence, Clause 4 would have to be modified in that particular agreement. Subsection (3) enables that to be done in relation to a special country.
    The points made by the hon. Member for Hendon, South were very similar to those which were raised in Committee. He gave the example of the racist, but the new Clause as it stands would cover many more examples. Indeed the Clause goes very much wider than the Amendment moved in Committee. At the basis there lies a difference of approach between the hon. Member and the Government and a difference of approach from that of the Commonwealth Law Ministers.
    7.45 p.m.
    The hon. Member and one or two of his colleagues have been throughout rather more concerned with national considerations and relations with Commonwealth States and keeping out certain undesirables than with the status of the political refugee. The Commonwealth Law Ministers Conference took the view that on the whole the rights of political refugees should so far as possible be paramount. This is the view which under-
    124
    lies the extradition Acts and also the provisions of this Bill. The new Clause is a particular example of an attempt to make State considerations override individual considerations.
    On questions of security, if the certificate were given as envisaged by the new Clause, the refugee would have no right to prove in the courts that his was a case of political offence and no right to produce evidence to show the motives for which his extradition was sought.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On the earlier occasion the hon. Gentleman objected on exactly this point—that this is mistimed—but under the new Clause there would be no need for the certificate to be given until after the hearing in the court, in which case the hon. Gentleman's objection fails.
    Mr. Taverne: That is not so. The new Clause says "section 4 of this Act shall not apply". All the objections which the person concerned could raise under Clause 4 he could no longer raise if the certificate were given. He would no longer be able to prove that this was a political offence or that he had already been acquitted or convicted of the offence. None of the safeguards under Clause 4 against prosecutions for offences other than the one for which he had been returned would survive. All those safeguards in Clause 4 can be waived by the Secretary of State.
    I attach very great importance to the right of access to the courts because we know how political pressures can build up for the return of political offenders. A particularly good speech was made at the Conference by the Attorney-General of Jamaica, which especially stressed that we must retain this access to the courts. It may be that considerations of security or of national interest may cause a Government to override the rights of an individual. I do not see how this would work unless the certificate were granted at an early stage because the certificate can be given at any time. Presumably if the Secretary of State is to give a certificate, he will not allow the whole paraphernalia of procedure in the courts to be gone through but will give it straight away.
    The new Clause goes further than the Amendment which was moved in Committee. Under the new Clause it is not

    125
    only on grounds of security that the Secretary of State can exclude the courts; it is also if it is essential in the interests of the Commonwealth or the United Kingdom or the country by which the request for the person's return is made. So national considerations could override individual considerations. There would be carte blanche in effect to override the individual's rights, the rights of the refugee in favour of the national interests involved.
    I am rather surprised that hon. Members opposite, who are very much concerned with individual liberty, should support a Clause of this kind. There was no demand for this at the Commonwealth Law Ministers Conference. It was then thought that this was a political right which refugees should have. I ask the House not to give a Second Reading to the new Clause, for although there are close defence relationships and reciprocal arrangements with Commonwealth countries, no such arrangements as are proposed exist with our partners in N.A.T.O. with whom our defence relationships are also very close.
    Sir J. Hobson: This raises a difficult problem of the balance of convenience between the liberty of the subject and the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole, of another Commonwealth country, or of this country. The Under-Secretary has overlooked the fact that the Clause requires the Secretary of State to satisfy himself, before giving any certificate under it that those interests make the return of an individual essential,
    "that it would not cause injustice to that person to stand trial in the requesting country".
    We start upon the basis that an individual has come here against whom there is a prima facie case that he has committed an offence which would normally require his return to trial to the requesting country. We then add the element that it is an offence which is of a political character. The Clause as drafted would enable the Secretary of State to give a certificate at the very earliest stage, but I would have hoped and expected that he would not normally consider giving it until the courts had investigated the matter, until all the facts had come out and were known, and until it was possible to judge the attitude of the prosecution and the attitude of the citizen concerned,
    126
    his approach to the offence alleged against him, and the evidence laid against him.
    The Government are saying that it matters not what are the consequences of the crime; it matters not how important it may be that such a man should be properly tried on the strongest possible evidence against him; if he can only show that he acted from a political motive, he should stay here and have the complete protection of Clause 4. That is a very extreme position. I appreciate the basis for it.
    We on this side suggest that there are occasions, and there should be a power in the Government to act on such occasions—they may be rare; they will certainly be exceptional, but they cannot be excluded—when it is plain that the safety of this country or of the Commonwealth requires that a man should stand trial in the country where he has committed an offence of which there is prima facie evidence.
    Although I agree that we would expect most Secretaries of State to be very reluctant to exercise that power, and although I agree that the tradition of this country is that we should keep here proper political refugees, nevertheless there are crimes of the nature of espionage, crimes which affect the security of the State, where the Secretary of State ought to have the reserve power.
    The odd thing is that the Government admit that the Secretary of State should have the reserve power, because they say that for certain individual countries we will make special arrangements to enable us to do that very thing, but we shall do it only for our best friends; we shall not do it for the Commonwealth as a whole, unless a country is in the category of a Commonwealth country having a special arrangement with us which enables the British Government to do it, it does not matter that the security of the Commonwealth country is severely at risk; such a country will not be able to secure extradition, even though another country with which we have an agreement of a different form will be able to secure the return of a high security risk.
    The problem, therefore, is whether we should reserve this power for individual special arrangements between this country and other countries, or whether it ought not to be a reserve power, an

    127
    exceptional power, but one which can be generally used for any Commonwealth country.
    Mr. Taverne: In the kind of case envisaged by the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), the certificate would have to be given before the court came to try the person concerned. There is no power in the Secretary of State to return someone whose case has been decided in his favour by the court. If the Secretary of State does not give the certificate before he is tried by the court, and if the person concerned satisfies the court that he is a political offender, it follows that he would be discharged and, therefore, the certificate would not have any effect. The only way in which the certificate would work would be to give it before the trial and, therefore, to exclude any access to the court.
    Question put and negatived.

    New Clause No. 2.—(ORDERS TO LEAVE UNITED KINGDOM AND TO PROHIBIT RETURN.)
    (1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a person could have been returned under this Act but for the provisions of subsection (1) of section 4 of this Act whether or not an application for his return has been made and that person is a person to whom section 6 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 applies, then the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, make an order requiring him to leave the United Kingdom and prohibiting him from returning there so long as that order is in force.
    (2) The provisions of subsection (3) of section 9 and of sections 10 and 11 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 shall apply to a deportation order made under this section and to the person to whom it relates in the same manner as if the deportation order under this section had been made under section 9 of that Act.—[Sir J. Hobson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The last new Clause dealt with a situation where someone who was a security risk to the Commonwealth or to this country or to the other country concerned was required back. This Clause is intended to deal with the different situation where a person who is a Commonwealth citizen has committed a criminal offence of a political character in a Commonwealth country.
    128
    The curious situation under our present law, and under the law as it will stand under the Bill if it becomes law, is that, if the person who has committed that offence in a Commonwealth country, it being an offence of a political character, is an alien, the British Government have power to say, "Although we are prevented, because you are a political refugee, from extraditing you so that you can stand trial in the country where you committed this offence, nevertheless we shall deport you to some other country, or at any rate expel you from this country and where you go is your concern and not ours. We do not want you here". This is a power which the Government will be able to exercise in respect of an alien who has committed an offence in a Commonwealth country, whether or not that offence is of a political character. The ordinary situation will be that it is an offence of a political character.
    Under the Bill as it stands, if the person who has committed that offence is a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, the British Government will have no power to deport him and we shall have him within the bounds of this country for the rest of his natural life. It may be said that, if he commits an offence here, we may be able to deport him. I do not think that we shall be able to exercise that power, if we have already refused to send him back for trial in a country where the charge is outstanding.
    Let me deal with some examples of what could happen. I gave them in Committee, but they are worth repeating. Let us suppose that in Zambia a monstrous offence by Fascist agents or Communists—I mind not which—is committed upon some prominent political figure for political reasons. The persons who commit that offence reach this country and obtain entry before it is discovered that they are required for trial on that offence. If their return is demanded so that they can stand trial for that montrous offence, they may say that it was an offence of a political character; and they will not, under the Bill, be returnable to the Commonwealth country which requires to try them. If there are two or more and if one of them is an alien, he can be deported from this country. However, if any one of them is a Commonwealth

    129
    citizen, he will not be capable, under the law as it stands, of being returned.
    There are not only political crimes. There are religious crimes which are dealt with by Clause 4. There are crimes committed on the grounds of nationality. There are crimes committed on the grounds of race.
    8.0 p.m.
    If any such person who has committed a crime for any of these reasons comes to this country and we do not want him and nobody would think it right that we should keep him—he is perhaps a Communist, a Fascist or a racist, a person utterly detestable whom we think ought to be tried, and he may have committed an offence of which no one in this country approves—we have to keep him within our gates if he is a Commonwealth citizen.
    It is extraordinary that the Government should deny to themselves the power to say at least to the man, "We will not send you back to be tried because it is a political offence, but you can at least get out of this country and find somewhere else to go." There will be some occasions when such a man may have no other country to go to and there may be difficulties as a result, but there will be other cases where he has committed a crime in a country other than his own. It is possible to imagine that a citizen of Pakistan may commit a serious political, religious or racial crime in India and reach this country and secure the protection of Clause 4. Then according to the Bill we are bound to keep him in this country, although we could easily have said, "Why do you not go back to Pakistan, to the country of your origin, which is another Commonwealth country?" Why should we have to keep him in this country because his offence was of a political, religious, nationalist or racist type?
    While I entirely agree with the view which no doubt is the basis of the Bill—it has also been expressed by the Under-Secretary—that normally this country, with its traditions, expects to give asylum to political refugees and even to those who have committed dastardly crimes for political reasons, there is no reason why we should assume that burden in every single case. There may be many occasions which will bring in the doctrine
    130
    of political asylum and involve this country in keeping people who are not desirable and whom we do not particularly want. But that is not to say that we have to keep every single one of them however detestable they may be and however unacceptable their crime is to every person in this country and even when there is another third country to which they could go, and perhaps their own country.
    While I recognise that for any Secretary of State who may have such a power committed to his authority there will be difficult problems, I really would have thought it not very difficult for a Secretary of State to say to a man coming from another country, "You have committed a crime in a third country. We do not want you here. We hate you and your crimes. Go home." That is all that we are suggesting in the Clause.
    Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I should like to add a question to that put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). If I repeat something that was said in Committee I must apologise. I was not in the Committee. I was in another Commonwealth country at the time, though I hasten to add not as a potential request for asylum.
    My right hon. and learned Friend instanced a case where a dastardly attempt was made on racial grounds in an African country belonging to the Commonwealth and the person or persons concerned managed to gain entry to the United Kingdom before the crime was discovered. He then asked why we should deny ourselves the opportunity, if we had it, of eventually getting rid of such undesirable persons, if possible.
    I want to ask a question elaborating on the matter of gaining entry to this country. Suppose there had been a fanatical sect in some Commonwealth country which had preached and practised genocide against another tribe or another religion and then two or three of them turned up at our ports without any of the certificates required under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, saying, "We want asylum. We have not got Category C or Category B or Category A. We are not relations of anybody here. We have not got work permits. Unless you let us in the only place to which

    131
    we can go is the country where we have—and we admit it—committed these crimes which are of a political, religious or racial nature. Let us in. If you do not let us in it is equivalent to denying us asylum."—which the Under-Secretary says is so important and so over-riding. That would be the effect if such persons appeared and said, "We have done these things. We did them from deeply held religious, racial or political motives. We have no way of getting away from the results of our crime except here. No other country will have us except the country of our origin, which is trying to get us back because it wishes to prosecute us for these offences."
    What is the immigration officer to do in these circumstances? Does the right of asylum apply then? I am assuming that a clean breast is made of all the facts by the would-be entrants to the United Kingdom. Can the immigration officer then say, "I am not concerned with the right of asylum in these circumstances. All I am concerned with is the fact that you have not got the right vouchers issued by the Home Office or the Ministry of Labour. You must go back there even though you say—and I believe you—that you will be standing trial for a serious political, racial or religious offence." Is that the situation? If it is the situation, is it not absolutely in conflict with the great principles of asylum which the Under-Secretary has been putting to us this evening?
    What, then, is the way in which these two principles can be harmonised in such a situation? If such persons are to be allowed in by the immigration officer I think we shall find a lot of immigrants who are unable to get into this country except by confessing to religious, racial or political offences. If that is to be the passport, if that is to be the only way that they can get in, it may be that they will be tempted to commit such political, religious or racial crimes in order to get in.
    I must assume, and I think that we must all assume, that if a person has committed these crimes but is without the right documents for entry into this country, albeit he is a Commonwealth citizen, he will be turned back at the port by the immigration officer, who in these circumstances, of course, denies the right
    132
    of asylum which the Under-Secretary has in such very high flown and no doubt highly creditable terms commended to the House. Which is to prevail in these circumstances?
    Mr. Taverne: The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has put forward a fairly difficult proposition, as he no doubt will recognise.
    First, I think it has to be recognised by the House as a whole—the Government do not shrink from this—that often in granting political asylum one will give asylum to some undesirables and that in refusing the return of someone sought for a political offence one will refuse to return someone who may in many ways be an undesirable character. Either one rejects altogether the idea of political asylum or one faces the fact that some undesirables will certainly be admitted.
    The question that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised about the people at the port involves a number of difficult issues. In the first place, there is nothing in this Measure which affects the decision to be taken at the ports. As I understand it, if at this moment someone presents himself at a port or airport without proper, valid travel documents, he will be refused entry into this country, but if he can show that he is a genuine, bona fide political refugee he will be allowed in.
    Whether those who committed the crimes which the hon. and learned Member mentioned would be classed as political refugees is somewhat doubtful. The political offences under Clause 4 do not include racial or religious offences. What it does refer to is not the returning of someone whose trial may be prejudiced on account of his race, religion or nationality, which is something quite different. If one looks at the definitions such as they are, established by the courts in previous cases, the term "political offence" is given a fairly restrictive meaning. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has tested me with an example which is not a very real one.
    I do accept the fact that retaining some political offenders will mean retaining some undesirables. The new Clause is not dissimilar to an Amendment moved in Committee and fairly elaborately discussed. I certainly concede that this is a difficult matter. I do not pretend to argue that there is no merit in the

    133
    proposition put forward from the Benches opposite. What hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to do, however, is essentially to reconcile two fundamentally different matters, extradition law and deportation law. They are trying to put two contradictory provisions in the same Statute.
    In Committee I made the point that the power of deportation should be exercisable on the merits of an individual case, as happens with the deportation of aliens. There, the question of deportation is quite separate. Someone can be deported because he is in many respects undesirable, irrespective of whether an application for his return has been made. There is no link in that sense between deportation and the Extradition Acts.
    There is no specific provision in the Extradition Acts providing for deportation when someone has been shown to be a politically undesirable person, whose return is sought. I suggest that it is inconceivable for any Government to say on the one hand that they will not return a person because he is a political refugee, and on the other to say that they intend to deport him nevertheless. To meet the criticism which I advanced in Committee, that the questions of deportation should be generally considered, the question of deportation law should be justified on general grounds irrespective of whether an application is made, the new Clause has said that the power could be exercised where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person could have been returned:
    "… whether or not an application for his return has been made …"
    That leads to further difficulties and it only goes to show how essentially irreconcilable these two concepts were. If there is no application made, how is the Secretary of State to decide that if an application had been made a prima facie case would have been made out to the court? How can he decide what the court would have decided, if evidence had been produced before the court? He cannot do this. It may be said that perhaps the requesting country could submit evidence to the Secretary of State, which it does not produce before the courts, because it does not make any official application.
    This would be a way of getting round the courts, by-passing them, and removing
    134
    the essential safeguards. The difficulties in which this new Clause finds itself show the fundamental irreconcilability of the two concepts. There are some other minor criticisms that I would make. There are none of the safeguards now existing in the case of deportation of a Commonwealth citizen. It is a point which I do not think the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) really met in Committee.
    The further point is that it is taking a very theoretical example of the case where some other country would be willing to take a person, and where this kind of case could come forward. There have been only a few political offences since the war, either of extradition cases or fugitive offenders cases from the Commonwealth, and it seems wrong to extend deportation powers in order in a very theoretical, possibly very occasional case, to induce a third country to accept a particular person whom they would not have accepted if we had had no power to deport. For these reasons I ask the House not to accept this new Clause.
    8.15 p.m.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Some political refugees are brave and honest. Those of us who read romantic novels may think that a great many of them are. My own experience, I regret to say, and I am not particularly cynical, is that very few of them are. I am afraid that very considerable numbers of political refugees are extremely dubious characters. Not only is there dubiety about whether their actions were motivated by political considerations, but there is also dubiety about what they are likely to do when they reach this country.
    The trouble about this Bill is that it lets them all in. Not only does it give power to let them in, but it absolutely insists that they have to be allowed in.
    Mr. Taverne: It does not say that they can be let in. The position about people coming in is the same. It deals only with cases where their extradition is sought once they are in.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This was put very fairly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). Nowadays in most places where

    135
    political offences are likely to be committed there is an air service which communicates very quickly with London Airport.
    One can be pretty sure that if a serious political offence is committed, those concerned will soon be arriving in London and when they arrive at the airport, as I read this Bill, they have to be allowed to remain here. That is the machinery of the Bill, there is no discretion. That is the real danger. It may be that one has to take a balance between what is desirable in the interest of individual freedom and what is desirable in the interests of peace and security, and wider public considerations.
    It may be that a person arriving here able to tell a story which sounds as if it might be true, to the effect that he has committed a political offence, must be allowed to come here and be accepted as a political refugee. What I am bothered about is that the Bill seems to go much further than this. I have grave doubts about the effect of Clause 4 upon Part II of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
    Having listened carefully to what the Under-Secretary of State has said, I am not certain whether Clause 4 does not oust the Commonwealth Immigrants Act altogether. India has been mentioned already. Suppose an Indian committed a political offence in Pakistan and then got to Britain. As I understand it, the effect of Clause 4 would be to forbid our authorities from sending that individual back to India, although India is quite irrelevant from the point of view of the political offence. This seems to be wrong.
    This is not taking a balance of any sort. It is wrongly worded; the thing has got out of step with itself, and I want to see this corrected. To some extent the Bill affects the provisions of Part II of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The Under-Secretary said that it would be ludicrous in one Measure to say that a man can remain here on account of political considerations, but that the Government can trump up a case for sending him back under Commonwealth immigrant considerations. That would be quite wrong. But for how long would it be wrong? If a man is admitted from a
    136
    Commonwealth country and is given asylum in respect of a political offence, does that asylum last for only a month or two, a year or two, or, as I understand it, for ever? In other words, once he is here, is it impossible ever to return him to a Commonwealth country? That is the effect of the Bill, and it is going too far. It is quite outside the scope of what is intended by the Bill. We are not balancing considerations. We are doing something which if it occurs—and it will occur sooner or later—will tend to shock people's consciences.
    I accept some of the criticisms which the Under-Secretary of State put forward. All that we can do is to raise these points by the machinery which is available to the Opposition. But I think that our point is the good one, and that the Government have not met it either in the Bill or in their arguments. They should consider the matter again. There is a real difficulty here which should be dealt with.
    Question put and negatived.

    Clause 2.—(DESIGNATED COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES AND UNITED KINGDOM DEPENDENCIES.)
    Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 33, to leave out 'subsection (1) of this section' and insert:
    'this section, other than an Order to which subsection (6) applies'.
    This Amendment and Amendment No. 2 are drafting Amendments to tidy up the references to be followed for the making of Orders in Council under the Clause. In Committee, the Government accepted an Opposition Amendment that certain orders should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We made it clear that there would be a need for drafting Amendments because there was no reference to Orders in Council under subsection (2,c). The purpose of this Amendment and the next Amendment is to put the matter right.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 37, leave out under' and insert:
    'containing any such direction as is authorised by'.

    Clause 4.—(GENERAL RESTRICTIONS ON RETURNS.)
    Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 28, at the end to insert:
    (5) The reference in this section to an offence of a political character does not include an offence against the life or person of the Head of the Commonwealth or any related offence described in subsection (3) of section 3 of this Act.
    In Committee, an Opposition Amendment was moved providing that the assassination of the Head of the Commonwealth should not be regarded as a political offence. That Amendment was, I think, warmly welcomed on both sides, and we stated that we would accept it in principle subject to a drafting point—because it did not, in our view, deal with attempts—and subject to discussions with the Palace and informing the Commonwealth.
    We have established that Her Majesty would not wish to object to such a provision. In the circumstances, steps have been taken to notify the Commonwealth of the intention to make an appropriate Amendment to the Bill. The whole House will, I think, welcome the Amendment, and we are grateful to the Opposition for putting it forward in the first place.
    Sir J. Hobson: We regarded it as one of the major blemishes of the Bill as it appeared originally the omission of any reference to an assassination or attempt at assassination, a conspiracy to assassinate, or any other criminal act connected with or preparatory to the assassination of Her Majesty. We thought it a very great defect in the Bill. We are grateful to the Government for accepting the principle of our Amendment and for the steps which they have taken to secure Her Majesty's gracious approval of the Amendment, to consult the Commonwealth and to table a carefully drafted Amendment to give effect to something of which the whole committee expressed its favourable opinion. We are glad that this omission has been rectified. We are sure that the Amendment is an improvement of the Bill.
    May I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for the previous two Amendments which were also helpful in achieving the objects to which we referred in Committee. I did not thank him when
    138
    we were discussing them. Perhaps I will be allowed to do so now.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6.—(ARREST FOR PURPOSES OF COMMITTAL.)
    Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 5, line 41, at the end to insert:
    "and may be so executed by any person to whom it is directed or by any constable".
    The purpose of this Amendment and of the consequential Amendment No. 7 is to deal with a small loophole in the Bill. It will enable a warrant issued under the Clause, and similarly a warrant issued under Clause 9, to which the second Amendment relates, to be executed not only by the persons to whom it is addressed, but by a constable in any part of the United Kingdom, including the Islands.
    It is already possible for any person to whom the warrant is addressed or a constable acting in his police area to execute the warrants in England and Wales under Section 102 (2) of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, and in Scotland the position is also covered by Section 39 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1963. No provision exists, however, for warrants to be executed in Northern Ireland or the Channel Islands. This is what the Amendment provides for.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 9.—(ORDER FOR RETURN TO REQUESTING COUNTRY.)
    Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 8, to leave out "may" and to insert "shall".
    The Clause deals with orders which may be made by the Secretary of State for return to the requesting country. As the Clause is drawn, it would appear that the Secretary of State has discretion only to issue a warrant ordering a fugitive offender to be returned to the country which has requested his return and that his discretion cannot be exercised where the return of the person is prohibited by Clause 4 because the offence is a political one or for any of the other reasons given in Clause 4, or where it is prevented or prohibited by the following subsections of Clause 9. If, however, those prohibiting and inhibiting provisions do not stop the

    139
    Secretary of State from sending the fugitive back, as I read the Clause it would appear to give him discretion as to whether he shall or shall not send the fugitive back.
    I understood the Under-Secretary in Committee to confirm that that was the intention of the Clause, but since he has stood throughout the whole of the proceedings on the basis of the agreement of the Law Ministers of the Commonwealth and the Scheme which was drawn up, when one reads the Scheme it would appear that everybody has to be sent back unless, under and in accordance with the Scheme or by a provision of the law, it is to be prevented.
    The first subsection of the Scheme drawn up by the Commonwealth Law Ministers, which appears in Cmnd. 3008, is that
    "The general provisions set out in this Scheme will govern the return of a person from one part of the Commonwealth, in which he is found, to another part thereof, in which he is accused of an offence; and in particular his return will only be precluded by law, or be subject to refusal by the competent executive authority, in the circumstances mentioned in this Scheme."
    As I read the Scheme, there is no provision giving the Secretary of State or a Minister an absolute discretion in any circumstances to refuse to send an individual back again. If this is intended to be a Scheme which is binding between the Commonwealth countries so that everybody is to be sent back unless either the law precludes it or the Scheme itself gives a power in the Minister to refuse, it seems to me that the wording of line 8 should be that the Secretary of State "shall" return the person by warrant unless under the other provisions of the Bill he is prevented from doing so or unless in the subsequent provisions of the Clause there is a power in the Secretary of State not to make an order.
    Clause 9 is dealing with various circumstances—in which, for instance, the offence in the other country is punishable by death. The Secretary of State is to have a discretion whether he will or will not make an order for the accused's return. But all those provisions are totally unnecessary, for Clause 9(1) already gives the Secretary of State a complete and absolute discretion whether he will issue a warrant or not.
    140
    8.30 p.m.
    What is much more unsatisfactory is that subsection (1) contains no directions as to the basis on which such discretion is to be exercised. There is nothing about whether the Secretary of State considers it just, or whether it is in the interests of anybody, or whether the accused would be prejudiced. No indication of any sort or description is given as to the basis on which the Secretary of State could exercise discretion and refuse to issue the warrant, so that the whole of the provisions of the Bill or the scheme or the intention of the law Ministers or Parliament were fulfilled. It seems to me that if such a discretion is to be granted the grounds on which it is to be exercised should also be expressly stated.
    As I say, the scheme agreed between the Commonwealth Law Ministers requires return unless by law or by the scheme itself the person is not to be returned.
    Mr. Taverne: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has argued that I am, as it were, impaled on my own argument and that this is inconsistent with the scheme. It is desirable to stick to the scheme as far as we can, though we have just made one minor Amendment, in a sense, of the scheme, an Amendment which has been generally accepted, relating to the position of the Head of the Commonwealth. However, I do not believe that this residual discretion is really inconsistent with the scheme.
    First let me say something about the reason for it. It is very similar to the discretion which is provided for in the Extradition Act, 1870, of which Section 11 says that when certain things have been proved "it shall be lawful" for the Secretary of State to return the offender. "It shall be lawful" has very much the same effect as the words which are used in this Clause—"may … unless". It is very much the same.
    In the Extradition Act there was nothing imported like "if he thinks it just". I think this would tend to link the exercise of the discretion with the question whether the fugitive had received justice, which has already been provided for; and to link it with compassionate circumstances could invite a whole lot of undeserving fugitives' pleas which could not properly be entertained, and it would also

    141
    suggest to the Commonwealth that we were unilaterally introducing a new factor not recommended by the Commonwealth Law Ministers.
    Nevertheless, under the Extradition Act it was the position, and we felt it to be so here, that very occasionally some exceptional circumstances might arise where despite all the criteria being satisfied it would be unthinkable to return the offender. It would have to be a wholly exceptional kind of case—where, for example, the offender was dying, or suffering from an incurable disease, where it really would be an affront to the public conscience to return him. In fact, no such case has ever arisen under the Extradition Act, and it has been in force for 97 years; so it is not a discretion which is going to be very frequently exercised.
    I do not believe it is contrary to the spirit of the scheme. The relationship between the scheme and the Bill is really very similar to the relationship between the various extradition treaties and the Extradition Act. Those extradition treaties frequently provide, as the Swedish extradition treaty provides, that extradition shall be reciprocally granted subject to the provisions of the treaty for the "following offences". Despite the provisions of the treaty that extradition shall be granted in certain cases, there is still the residual discretion in Section 11, and there have been decisions by the courts to show that that residual discretion is not affected by the explicit words of the treaty. Therefore, certainly one can give a firm undertaking that this will not be a general discretion to add to the ordinary circumstances provided for under the scheme. It will be only for something very exceptional, like, for example, someone who is already dying.
    It is worth noting that Nigeria has already considered that such a discretion is not inconsistent with the scheme. Nigeria has passed an extradition decree which follows this scheme closely. In Section 9(2) it provides that the Attorney-General
    "… unless it appears to him that the surrender of the fugitive is precluded by law, may by order direct that the fugitive be surrendered.…"
    A similar residual discretion is provided there, and it seems to be very much in line with the various extradition treaties
    142
    and the provisions of the Extradition Act
    Amendment negatived

    Clause 12.—(CUSTODY.)
    Amendment made: No. 7, in page 11, line 3, after 'directed', to insert 'and all constables'.—[Mr. Taverne.]

    Clause 16.—(APPLICATION TO CHANNEL ISLANDS AND ISLE OF MAN.)
    Mr. Taverne: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 12, line 25, after 'effect', to insert:
    '(except for purposes of the references to the United Kingdom in section 3)'.
    The effect of this Amendment is to base the operation of the double criminality rule provided under Clause 3(1,c) on the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not on the law of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
    There was some debate in Committee about whether or not one should restrict it to the law of England. It was felt by the Government that, since these proceedings may be brought in a Scottish court, it would seem absurd to have a double criminality rule which prevented a Scotsman being returned for something although it was an offence against the law of Scotland. Therefore, it would seem desirable to have the law of England and Scotland and, since I stand in fear of being accused of discrimination against Northern Ireland, which was a charge made once or twice in Committee by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, we felt that Northern Ireland law should also be had regard to. On the other hand, clearly it would be inconvenient to have to find out what would be the law of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and those, therefore are excluded.
    As for the law of Scotland and Northern Ireland, in practice this will not lead to many difficulties, because there are no substantial differences in the law of the different parts of the United Kingdom over the range of offences specified in the first Schedule.
    Amendment agreed to.
    8.38 p.m.
    Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

    143
    I suspect that everything which should have been said about the Bill has been said by now. Substantially, it represents the scheme which was agreed at the Commonwealth Law Ministers' Conference. As far as we are aware, the principles which were there established have been accepted or certainly have not been found unacceptable by the different parts of the Commonwealth. It was then agreed that the Law Ministers would recommend it to their respective Governments and, as far as I know, no objections have been raised.
    I am glad that we have been able to enact legislation speedily in this country, and I must say how much we appreciate the assistance and the constructive criticisms which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have made in the course of the passage of the Bill. It shows that the United Kingdom is concerned to implement the scheme agreed by the Law Ministers, and I hope that it will encourage other Commonwealth Governments to follow the example of Australia and Nigeria also, and that soon there will be a uniform code throughout the Commonwealth.
    8.40 p.m.
    Sir J. Hobson: I do not intend to take up much time with further debate on this Bill. We had a very good debate on many points on Second Reading and in Committee. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the thanks expressed by him, and we from our side thank him
    144
    for his assistance to the House and to the Committee at every stage of the Bill in explaining the provisions and advancing the arguments so carefully and clearly, even if we did not always find ourselves in agreement with him.
    I will not, even at this stage, conceal that I am not entirely happy about the Bill. The whole basis on which it proceeds is that one ought to deal with fugitive offenders between this country and the Commonwealth on precisely the same basis as one deals with fugitive offenders between this country and all foreign countries, however distant and remote they may be. I have always taken the view, and I hope I have expressed it throughout the proceedings on the Bill, that the relationship between this country and the Commonwealth ought to be of a special nature, and one of the features of a close association between states is the desire to assist each other in the administration of justice.
    To the extent that for this purpose we are putting the Commonwealth on a basis of equality with all other foreign countries instead of giving it a special position, is, I consider, a diminution of that special relationship between this country and the Commonwealth. However, we have been through all the arguments in favour of the Bill at every stage, and I do not think that it would be tolerable or useful to add anything further.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  SUPERANNUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  8.41 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  With the best will in the world I think it is difficult to make this Bill sound interesting. I think that almost my first task as Financial Secretary was to move the Second Reading of its predecessor, the 1964 Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I said then that it was a modest Bill, and this one is, if anything, even more modest.
  But however modest, I think it serves a useful purpose. It really has two main purposes. First, to make a number of minor changes to improve the superannuation position of small groups of staff in certain public services, or to establish superannuation arrangements where none existed before. Secondly, to cover gaps and remedy technical defects which have come to light in the legislation which governs the superannuation of staff in those services.
  It really is almost impossible to make anything that is truly a Second Reading speech on a Bill of this nature, because the Bill, by its nature, is really a collection of Committee points. I shall not weary the House by going through the Bill and seeking to explain all its provisions at this stage. If there is any particular point on which any hon. Member seeks further explanation, if I have your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House to speak again, I shall be glad to deal with it.
  Perhaps I could refer briefly to one or two points. Clause 1 is perhaps unfortunately of somewhat topical interest, because it provides power to grant annuities and allowances to civil servants in compensation for injuries which they may have sustained as a result of civil disturbances, whether or not they were actually on duty at the time of receiving the injury, and some civil servants, particularly those serving abroad, may be liable to such injuries.
  For many years such awards have been made, but recently legal advice has called
  146
  in question the propriety of doing so on the ground that these awards under the existing law should be made only when the injury was sustained while the person was on duty at the time. This extension will now rectify the position and make it clear beyond doubt that these awards can be made in respect of injuries received at any time, whether or not the person was actually on duty. We propose to make this in a sense retrospective to apply to all injuries received after 14th July, 1949, as that is the effective date of the section which the Clause amends.
  Perhaps I should refer briefly to the provisions which give a right to superannuation benefits where, at the moment, none exist. They are to be found, first, in Clause 9, which provides for the payment of pensions to full-time presidents or chairmen of industrial tribunals. Until recently these have been part-time appointments, but as a result of the increased jurisdiction conferred under the Redundancy Payments Act, the Selective Employment Payments Act and the Docks and Harbours Act it has been found necessary to make a number of full-time appointments. Clearly we cannot expect to find people of the appropriate calibre to serve full-time in these positions unless we provide for their superannuation.
  Similarly, Clause 14 empowers the Secretary of State for Scotland to grant superannuation benefits in respect of service as a full-time commissioner on the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. Clause 10 makes a small extension in the scope of the superannuation scheme to which Members of the House contribute. At present the scheme provides for the payment of a pension to children up to the age of 16, or up to the age of 22 where they are still engaged in full-time education. The trustees of the scheme recently proposed—and I readily accepted their suggestion—that the scheme should be amended so as to permit the payment of life pensions to the children of deceased Members who are incapable of earning a living because of permanent physical or mental disability.
  Finally, Clause 13 enables the Home Secretary to apply the Police Pension Regulations, suitably amended, to police cadets. The intention is that this power should be used to extend the injury provisions of the Regulations to cadets when

  147
  they begin to share the special risks to which policemen are exposed.
  That may be all I need to say in outlining the provisions at this stage, but I shall be glad to try to deal with any other points which hon. Members may wish to raise. I commend the Bill to the House as being, although a modest Bill, a useful one. The net cost of the provisions—and I am afraid it is a lengthy Bill, owing to the technical nature of its provisions—is expected not to exceed £60,000 a year, and may fall below that amount.
  Although the scope of the Bill is not very wide, and it will affect relatively few people, its provisions will be of the greatest importance to those few people. I hope that the House will agree that the Bill is not of a controversial nature, and that it may be given a Second Reading.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I am glad to be able to start the summer session by agreeing with the Financial Secretary. I do not expect that this agreement will last long, in view of the Budget which we shall have before us next week. I agree that this is a very modest but welcome Bill. It is so modest that many pension organisations which would normally be active in this sphere have not even heard of it. I hope that they will look at it before the Committee stage. I agree that it is also modest in its financial provisions. I note, however, that it takes about 22 pages of close printing to spend a net sum of about £60,000. I hope that that does not augur ill for the length of the Finance Bill that we shall have after the Budget.
  I agree with the Financial Secretary that the Bill consists of a series of miscellaneous provisions with no connecting principle, and that its details, in each separate provision, would be far better dealt with in Committee. It is the kind of Bill which, when I was in another Department, would have been referred to as a "rag-bag" Bill, in which, apparently, instructions would have been given, "There are a lot of new changes which need to be made. Put them into a Bill, providing it does not cost very much."
  148
  Whoever has drawn up the Bill has done his job very well.
  I am sure that I carry the whole House with me when I say that further and more detailed discussion should be left to the Committe. We accord the Bill the welcome that it deserves.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  SUPERANNUATION MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to pensions and other similar payments, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund, as the case may be, of any increase in the sums so payable under any other Act which is attributable to any provision of that Act of the present Session—

  (a) extending the classes of persons to whom or the cases in which pensions may be paid under any Act other than that Act of the present Session;

  (b) providing for a person's pension in respect of service for which his remuneration is reduced because he is already receiving a pension in respect of any other public office to be computed as if that remuneration had not been reduced;

  (c) amending the provisions as to pensions of Governors within the meaning of the Governors' Pensions Act, 1957;

  (d) repealing section 18(2) of the National Health Service (Amendment) Act, 1949;

  (e) making provision with respect to the pensions of persons transferring from one employment to another;

  (f) transferring pension functions from one Minister to another;

  (g) providing for pensions in respect of service as a medical commissioner on the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland;

  (h) making provision as to the pensions payable out of the Metropolitan Police Fund to persons other than constables;

  149

  (2) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of certain pensions in respect of service under the government of the former mandated territory of Palestine;

  (b) of pensions in respect of certain service as president or chairman of tribunals established by regulations made under section 12 of the Industrial Training Act, 1964;

  (3) the making good out of moneys provided by Parliament of income tax deducted under the law of Pakistan from certain pen-
  150
  sions to which section 272 of the Government of India Act, 1935 applied.

  In this Resolution, the expression 'pension' includes any payment in connection with injury, death or retirement.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Nine o'clock.

GAS
  Northern Region (Sales)
  Northern Region (Sales)
  North Sea Supplies (Price)
  North Sea Supplies (Price)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Smith's Stamping Works (Coventry) Ltd.
  Smith's Stamping Works (Coventry) Ltd.
  National Steel Corporation (Head Office)
  National Steel Corporation (Head Office)
COAL
  Prices (Scotland)
  Prices (Scotland)
  National Coal Board (Brickworks Executive)
  National Coal Board (Brickworks Executive)
TECHNOLOGY
  Experimental Fast Reactor, Dounreay
  Experimental Fast Reactor, Dounreay
  Machine Tools (Export Statistics)
  Machine Tools (Export Statistics)
  Bristol Siddeley Engines Ltd. (Excess Profits)
  Bristol Siddeley Engines Ltd. (Excess Profits)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Decimal Currency
  Decimal Currency
  Bank Overdrafts (Nationalised Industries)
  Bank Overdrafts (Nationalised Industries)
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Taxation Revenue (Companies)
  Taxation Revenue (Companies)
  Mr. Gibson (Member of Parliament's Letter)
  Mr. Gibson (Member of Parliament's Letter)
  Canada (Capital Investment)
  Canada (Capital Investment)
  Defence Aid
  Defence Aid
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Close Companies (Dividends)
  Close Companies (Dividends)
  Oil Duties
  Oil Duties
  Overseas Portfolio Investments
  Overseas Portfolio Investments
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Centre of Environmental Studies (Research)
  Centre of Environmental Studies (Research)
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Sewage Disposal
  Sewage Disposal
  Atomic Energy Centres (Landscaping)
  Atomic Energy Centres (Landscaping)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Far East (British Forces)
  Far East (British Forces)
  Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland
  Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  British High Commissioners (Scientific Staff)
  British High Commissioners (Scientific Staff)
  Hong Kong (Working Hours of Women and Young Persons)
  Hong Kong (Working Hours of Women and Young Persons)
  Sierra Leone (British Citizens)
  Sierra Leone (British Citizens)
  BRITISH COUNCIL (SCIENCE OFFICERS)
  BRITISH COUNCIL (SCIENCE OFFICERS)
  ADEN AND SOUTH ARABIA
  ADEN AND SOUTH ARABIA
  EMBASSIES (SCIENTIFIC COUNSELLORS)
  EMBASSIES (SCIENTIFIC COUNSELLORS)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
BOARD OF TRADE
  "Torrey Canyon" (Inquiry)
  "Torrey Canyon" (Inquiry)
  Japanese Handkerchiefs (Dumping)
  Japanese Handkerchiefs (Dumping)
  Butter Oil (Imports)
  Butter Oil (Imports)
AVIATION
  Airport Runways (Construction Time)
  Airport Runways (Construction Time)
  Boeing 707 Aircraft
  Boeing 707 Aircraft
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  East German Citizens
  East German Citizens
  "Torrey Canyon"
  "Torrey Canyon"
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  NORTHERN IRELAND (LEGISLATION)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (LEGISLATION)
  AVIATION CONTRACTS
  AVIATION CONTRACTS
  "TORREY CANYON"
  "TORREY CANYON"
  BRISTOL SIDDELEY ENGINES LTD.
  BRISTOL SIDDELEY ENGINES LTD.
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dairy Products (Imports)
  Dairy Products (Imports)
  Dairy Herd (National Plan)
  Dairy Herd (National Plan)
  Fisheries Policing Conference
  Fisheries Policing Conference
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Royal Navy (Oil Pollution Prevention)
  Royal Navy (Oil Pollution Prevention)
  Malta, Malaya and Nigeria
  Malta, Malaya and Nigeria
  Brigadiers (Private Soldiers)
  Brigadiers (Private Soldiers)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Welsh Sports Bodies (Grants)
  Welsh Sports Bodies (Grants)
  Welsh Agricultural College
  Welsh Agricultural College
HOSPITALS
  Pontypool and District Hospital (X-Ray Facilities)
  Pontypool and District Hospital (X-Ray Facilities)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Population, Wales (Migration)
  Population, Wales (Migration)
  Oral Contraceptives (Thrombo-Embolism)
  Oral Contraceptives (Thrombo-Embolism)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Unemployment (Scotland)
  Unemployment (Scotland)
  Vacancies (Wales)
  Vacancies (Wales)
  Guarantee Arrangements
  Guarantee Arrangements
  Lowest-Paid Workers
  Lowest-Paid Workers
  Wages Councils (Earnings Statistics)
  Wages Councils (Earnings Statistics)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid
  Aid
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Waiting List
  Waiting List
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Royal Palaces, Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens, Wales
  Royal Palaces, Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens, Wales
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Retirement Pension (Earnings Limit)
  Retirement Pension (Earnings Limit)
RAILWAYS
  Passenger Services (Basic Railway Network Map)
  Passenger Services (Basic Railway Network Map)
  WITHDRAWAL
  WITHDRAWAL
  MODIFICATION
  MODIFICATION
WALES
  Welsh Language Books
  Welsh Language Books

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon
The Earl Beatty—Took the Oath.

ARREST OF SUSPECTED ARMY DESERTERS
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) the number of persons arrested in the United Kingdom last year and in the last five years for desertion and absence without leave from the Army, stating the number in each period arrested under Section 74 of the Army Act;

(2) the date of the last arrest in the United Kingdom, prior to that of Mr. Leslie Parkes, of an alleged deserter or absentee without leave from the Army under Section 74 of the Army Act;

(3) whether in any case prior to that of Mr. Parkes a person has been arrested under Section 74 of the Army Act after magistrates have refused to hand him over to military custody after his arrest under Section 186 of the Army Act.]

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, in round figures, there were 2,000 Army deserters and absentees arrested last year, including 500 arrested by military police under Section 74 of the Army Act. This proportion was broadly the same over the past five years; and with your Lordships' permission I will publish the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The answer to the second part of the noble and learned Viscount's Question is
844
that arrests under Section 74 are regularly being made, as the figures show, and there was an instance a few days before the arrest of Mr. Parkes.
The answer to the last part of the Question is that no precedents are known under the 1955 Act. Under the corresponding provisions of the 1881 Act we have traced one similar case occurring since the war.
Following are the figures referred to by Lord Shackleton:

Police arresting

Military

Civil

1962

…

…

…

491

1,801

1963

…

…

…

466

1,737

1964

…

…

…

412

1,534

1965

…

…

…

421

1,498

1966

…

…

…

496

1,514

The figures do not include voluntary surrenders.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, thank the noble Lord for the information that he has given, but can he say whether any of the 500 arrests under Section 74 to which he has referred were made with the intention of avoiding bringing the men before the magistrates?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know that I am prepared to accept the implication of the noble and learned Viscount's question.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether instructions are to be given that the military authorities in future will not order the arrest of any soldier who has been discharged by a civil court? Would not my noble friend agree that it is highly undesirable that the military authorities should act contrary to the administration of justice by our civil courts?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, as I have indicated, other than the case I mentioned there are virtually no precedents in recent years for military re-arrest as in the Parkes's case. But my right honourable friend (this was one of the points I promised would be looked into when we debated this matter previously) agrees that this procedure ought not to be used in future, and instructions to that effect are being issued. There may have to be special arrangements in Scotland where circumstances are different.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, while I am not concerned whether or not the noble Lord accepts any implication

845
in the question I put to him, would he be good enough to answer it? I asked him if he could say whether any of the 500 cases of arrests under Section 74 to which he referred were effected with the object of avoiding bringing the man before the magistrates. That is a relevant question. If he cannot answer that, perhaps he can say why the arrests were made under Section 74 and not under Section 186?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am still surprised that the noble and learned Viscount should have framed his question in that particular form. I have already mentioned that this is an exceptional case. Perhaps it might help the noble and learned Viscount if I say that there is a routine which applies in virtually all cases of arrests of deserters, as opposed to this isolated case of re-arrest. A military policeman and a civil constable go together to arrest a suspected deserter or absentee. If he denies that he is a deserter, he must then, under the procedure followed, be arrested by the civil constable and brought before the magistrates. But of course it is quite common for the soldier to admit that he is an absentee, and it is then the practice that he is arrested by the military policeman and sent back to his unit. That is when Section 74 is used, and it explains why it is used so often. It has indeed been sanctified by very high courts.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the further information that he has given—though I should have been grateful had he given it in the original Answer—may I ask him this further question? He referred to this being an isolated case after an arrest—an isolated case of re-arrest. But the noble Lord may remember that on February 22 he said it had happened in a number of cases that Section 74 had been used, even after previous arrest.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I cannot recall that. Certainly there has been one case, and if I was inaccurate in saying that there were a number of cases, I will of course apologise. We have been able to trace only one case; that was the Beach case. There was another case where a man was nearly arrested, and where it was in fact proposed to make an arrest; but the individual himself volunteered to come along to discuss the matter.

S.E.T. REFUNDS TO PENSIONERS
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many officials are employed and at what estimated annual cost to deal with the examination of claims and refund of payments to old age pensioners in respect of selective employment tax contributions paid by them for domestic help or otherwise; also what annual gain or loss in revenue it is anticipated will accrue to, or be suffered by, the Exchequer thereby.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the number of staff at present employed by the Ministry of Social Security at the Selective Employment Tax Repayments Office, which deals with all claims for refund of this tax from employers of domestic or nursing assistance in private households is 61, and the estimated annual staff costs amount to £78,000. Nearly 28,000 of the 33,000 claims dealt with during the period up to February 28, 1967, were made on the basis that the household included a person over the age of 70; the claimant does not have to be a retirement pensioner. The total amount provided in the Estimates of the Ministry of Social Security for 1967–68 in respect of refunds of selective employment tax is £1½ million.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, can he say whether at the end of any year there would be a loss or a gain to the Revenue in respect of the payment of this particular tax by old age pensioners? Would he also say how many of the staff are new employees of the Department, or whether they have been seconded from other Departments?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble friend's second question, but the answer to the first is that obviously the refunds made of this tax—and we estimate that for this coming year they will be £1½ million—represent, I think, almost the total loss to the Revenue.
LORD WISE: My Lords, if there is neither loss nor gain, would it not be advisable for this tax to be abolished?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, that certainly does not arise out of this Question.

TANZANIA AND COLONIAL CIVIL SERVANTS' PENSIONS
2.45 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (i) whether they are aware that the failure of the Tanzanian Government to pay the pensions of former Colonial civil servants, who served in Tanzania, and now retired in South Africa, is causing hardship to the pensioners thereby affected; and (ii) in view of the recent undertaking given by Her Majesty's Government that should any pensioner find himself in difficulty due to the default on the part of any overseas territory, Her Majesty's Government would render immediate assistance, they would agree that in the above case action by them is now called for.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWEICK): My Lords, it was recently brought to our notice that the Tanzania Government pensioners resident in South Africa had not received their pensions since the nationalisation of the banks in Tanzania. I understand, however, that the non-payment of these pensions arose from a failure in the system for transmitting payments, and that the payment of pensions has now been resumed.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply and while appreciating the difficulties which are involved in these cases, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that many pensioners are in receipt of no income other than the pensions they have earned? Would not the noble Lord agree that as soon as any overseas Government defaults in the payment of a pension to any pensioner, Her Majesty's Government should make good that default while pursuing their inquiries?
848
If this were done, it would obviate a great deal of hardship.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says: that if pension is not paid to pensioners difficulties do arise. We have given undertakings to help in such cases. I assure the noble Lord that when it was brought to our notice that there was a delay in the payment of these particular pensions a good deal of effort was made on their behalf, and, as I understand it, payment has now been resumed. If the noble Lord has any information to the contrary, would he be good enough to let me know?
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given them Private Notice; namely, whether they will make a Statement on the situation in Aden.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with permission may I say that my noble friend Lord Chalfont will reply to that Private Notice Question shortly after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Longford, the Leader of the House, will then make a statement on the "Torrey Canyon".
It may be for the convenience of the House if I say to your Lordships that Vice-President Humphrey of the United States will address both Houses in the Grand Committee Room, Westminster Hall, at 4.15 this afternoon, not at 3.45, as previously announced.

UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME BURGESSES' LANDS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TERMINATION OF REVIEWS) BILL
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Repeal of duty to undertake review of administration of education in Inner London Education Area]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I beg to move to leave out Clause 2. This is a clause, in effect, to repeal the provision in the London Government Act 1963 that by 1970 there should be a review both of the Inner London Education Authority and of the work of the Youth Employment Service in London. As this is legislation by reference, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I read out the relevant provision in the 1963 Act. It is in subsection (6) of Section 30, which this clause of the present Bill purports to repeal. Subsection (6) reads:
"The Minister of Education shall carry out, and not later than 31st March 1970 lay before Parliament a report on, a review of the administration of education in the Inner London Education Area for the purpose of determining whether, and if so to what extent, in what part or parts of that Area, and subject to what, if any. conditions, all or any of the functions of the local education authority relating to education should be transferred to, or to a body including a member or members appointed by, the appropriate council, that is to say, as respects the City the Common Council or as respects an inner London borough the council of that borough …"
Your Lordships will recollect that the Royal Commission on Local Government in Great London made recommendations for education which were not acceptable to the Ministry of Education of that day—indeed, they were thought to be not successfully workable—and in the end the 1963 Act contained the present proposition: that there should be an Inner London Education Authority being, in fact, a committee of the Greater London
850
Council, which should be in control of all forms of education in what was the old county of London and is now known commonly as Inner London. This was a unique proposition, and it was for that reason that the framers of what became the 1963 Act provided very wisely for a review of its working after a period of some five years.
It is, of course, unlike any other education authority in the country. In every other education authority the members of the council concerned—whether the county council or the county borough council—appoint to the education committee of that council those who have a special interest in education and wish to serve on the education committee. The I.L.E.A., if I may use the shortened form, is the only education committee in the whole country on which membership is compulsory—compulsory, that is to say, for the great majority of its members—because the Authority consists of all those persons who are elected to serve on the Greater London Council for the 12 Inner London boroughs; that is to say, 40 people who are elected, not to be members of the Inner London Education Authority, but to be members of the Greater London Council, and, in addition, one representative from each of the 12 inner London boroughs and the Common Council of the City.
That is the first flaw in the composition of the I.L.E.A.; that you find a number of people compelled to serve on it who have no wish to do so. If any of your Lordships wished to stand for Westminster, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth, or any of the other Inner London boroughs, as candidates for the Greater London Council, if elected you would find yourselves automatically, and possibly against your will, obliged to serve also on the Inner London Education Authority. Inevitably, one finds a number of those people whose main interest in local government, and whose desire to serve on the Greater London Council, arises not in education but in some other local government service, such as roads, housing, planning, or what you will.
Your Lordships may think that the obvious remedy for such people is to resign from the Inner London Education Authority, but that they cannot do. The I.L.E.A. is the only statutory body in the whole field of democratic local government from which it is literally impossible

851
for the majority of its members to resign. In the whole of the rest of the field of local government, if you do not attend a meeting of a council or of a committee for a period of six months you automatically cease to be a member of that council or committee, unless special leave of absence is given. But you could stay away from the I.L.E.A. for the whole three years and you would still be a member of it. It cannot be an ideal system that people are forced to serve on a body in local government from which they cannot resign, and are forced to serve on an education authority even though education happens to be a minor interest of a particular individual in the local government field.
That is not the only disadvantage. The Inner London Education Authority spends over £100 million a year on current account, but it has no direct financial responsibility to the electors. The whole theory of financial responsibility in local government is founded on the proposition that those who vote for the money have to answer to the electors for their actions every three years or so. But nobody stands for election to the Inner London Education Authority; they stand for election only to the Greater London Council. There are no elections by the public to the I.L.E.A. It was no less an authority on London local government than the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth who, in debates in your Lordships' House on the London Government Bill, called attention to this serious weakness in the structure which was proposed for education. The Greater London Council must accept financial demands of the I.L.E.A., and pass them on to the boroughs by way of precept. So far as I am aware, it is unique in local government that the major spending committee of the Greater London Council cannot have its budget questioned by the Council of which it is technically a committee.
LORD BROCKWAY: May I interrupt the noble Lord? Who introduced this system which the noble Lord is so heavily criticising?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The Government of which I was a member introduced this system, with a provision that after five years it should be reviewed. The Party to which the noble Lord belongs vigorously opposed the Act which constituted the I.L.E.A., and it is
852
now apparently supporting a proposition to keep the I.L.E.A. in permanent existence.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, but the noble Lord introduced it.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I know. If the noble Lord says that the positions are curiously reversed, I am quite prepared to accept that. But, quite frankly, I was not seeking to make a Party point of this. It is perfectly true that it seems strange that we should be this way round, but we are, and we have to debate the situation in the light of this Bill which the present Government have put before us.
I was going on to say that there will, indeed, be an anomalous situation if one day we find that the Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority are under different political control. The economic administration of one body might be thwarted by the extravagant administration of the other. The body which was seeking economic administration would be powerless in any way to check the actions of the other, and this, again, must he unsound according to local government principles.
The reasons, so far as I am aware, for the inclusion of subsection (6) of Section 30 of the 1963 Act were, first, that the I.L.E.A. was a unique body. There was no previous experience of such a body in the whole educational field throughout England or Wales, or, indeed, in the whole local government field, and that alone would be a sufficient reason for providing that its workings should be looked at after a period of years. The second reason, I would say, for the inclusion of the review provision, was that the setting up of the Inner London Education Authority was a departure from the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission in two respects. I have already explained how it was a departure from their recommendations as regards the administration of education in London. Not only that; it was a marked departure from the Royal Commission's recommendation that the boroughs should be the main units of local government in Greater London. Here we have the greatest of all local government services—certainly financially, and many would say in public

853
importance also—put right outside borough control.
There is only one other quotation with which I would beg leave to weary your Lordships, and that is a quotation from what has always seemed to me one of the most penetrating paragraphs in the Report of the Royal Commission. It is paragraph 199:
"The thing that came out most clearly from the evidence of the government departments was that they have in general, with the exception of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, very little concern with the wellbeing and efficiency of the system of local government taken as a whole. They are mainly concerned with ends, to which local authorities are one possible means among others; that is to say, their main function is to ensure that certain national services, which are in part administered by local authorities, are properly performed in accordance with national standards. The Ministries therefore could tell us a great deal about standards and techniques in (for instance) education … But they had reflected little (if at all) on the place of each service in the system of local government …"
The wisdom of those remarks has been further emphasised, I think, by the fact that the Inner London Education Authority, for the reasons which I am indicating, constitutes a breach of so many of the accepted principles of our whole local government system. It is contrary to good local government principles in two outstanding respects. First of all, it is a committee on which, as I have explained, membership is compulsory and resignation is impossible. Secondly, it is contrary to good local government principles in the absence of normal financial responsibility to the electors.
This makes up an overwhelming case for a stocktaking review at some stage. I am perfectly ready to accept that 1970 may not be the ideal year in which to do this. It may be too early. I for one certainly cannot tell what such a review would recommend. Generally, the opponents of having a review at all speak as if the review would recommend making each Inner London borough the education authority, and they then argue that these authorities would be not large enough or good enough. If the review did reach that final conclusion, it would be fin important finding which Parliament would have to consider. But, frankly, I do not think it would reach that conclusion, and I am strengthened in that view by what
854
is happening in some of the Outer London boroughs—Enfield, for example, which I think is showing itself not properly qualified to be an education authority according to its present policies. I think, however, that the review, while it might well leave the boundaries of the Inner London Education Authority unchanged, would unquestionably seek to remove the weaknesses and anomalies which I have been pinpointing.
The opponents of any review say that the London teachers are against any change in the I.L.E.A., and that the education provided in London is very good. So it ought to be. Think what the roads of this country would be like if there was no external control whatever by the Treasury of the spending on roads, and if the Ministry of Transport could demand and get from the Exchequer all the money it wished! That is the position of the I.L.E.A. as regards education in Inner London, because there is no one—not the Greater London Council, not the boroughs, nor anyone in the whole local government field—who can challenge its budget. The position of the I.L.E.A. as regards education in Inner London is exactly similar to what the position of the Ministry of Transport would be if it could have unlimited money for road improvement.
But although throughout the whole field of local government—indeed I would say national government, too—the crucial test of good administration is how to get the best value out of a limited amount of money, I am not resting my case solely on the curious financial position. I rest it also on the weaknesses in the structure of the Inner London Education Authority which I have described—weaknesses which nobody can deny. I hope we can all agree that we want to work towards the best possible pattern for educational administration in Inner London, the inner part of the capital City. It is because the Government seem to think that the present pattern is ideal, and because I have shown that it is not ideal, that I am moving to omit Clause 2.
3.6 p.m.
LORD ST. HELENS: I should like briefly to support my noble friend. I was going to say that I took a large part in the discussion on the original Bill, but that is not so, although I was extremely active in South London during its passage.

855
There was tremendous interest, certainly in my part of the world, which (ironically, I think) was stirred up by the schoolteachers themselves. The schoolteachers were tremendously in favour of having the Inner London Education Authority, and in order to engender support for it they stirred up (if I may use that phrase) the parents-teachers associations. The parents then combined with the teachers and discussed this, and quite apart from any political reasons they themselves became very strongly in favour of the Inner London Authority, the large blanket authority.
In supporting my noble friend, I should like to say most clearly that from my own experience I think it would be disastrous if the administration of education was returned to the boroughs. I am tremendously in favour of the Inner London Authority. One may say that the schools in the boroughs, geographically speaking, have completely lost contact with the boroughs they knew; and this, I think, came out very strongly in the debate on this subject in the House of Commons. Indeed, geographically the boroughs themselves have hardly any identity to the visitor who drives through the Inner London boroughs. But because I am in favour of maintaining the Inner London Authority that does not mean that I am not in favour of having a review of the educational position in 1970. I think this review is essential. My noble friend used the words, "the crucial test". If the Government have nothing to conceal, if they are not afraid of anything, I cannot see why on earth they should mind having a review of the position. It springs to my mind that if the Government wish to cancel the review they have something they want to hide, something from which to run away; otherwise there would be no reason for cancelling it.
I feel most strongly that as regards education we want something in the nature of a Royal Commission to look at London from a purely educational point of view. I feel most strongly that the administration of education in London and elsewhere is not being dealt with from a purely educational point of view. I refer specifically, of course, to the compulsory introduction of comprehensive education, not only throughout London, but in the country as a whole. This is most bitterly
856
regretted by the parents in many parts of England, and particularly in London. We discussed this on the London Government Bill, which postponed the elections in London. I cannot help feeling that the reason for the abolition of this review, although it will not affect the London elections, is because the Government are determined to push through the comprehensive system purely from a social point of view, or largely from a social point of view, and are prepared to disregard the educational point of view.
There is a great deal which needs to be looked at within the field of education in London. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor mentioned a great many of the points. There is the financial position, which, after all, is of great interest to the ratepayers of London. They are entitled to know how their money is being spent, and whether it is being spent in the best way. Personally, I think the most important issue from the parents' point of view is the question of parental choice. And, let us face it, the parents in London are getting less and less chance of exercising their parental choice as to the sort of school to which their children will go. Anybody who has been a Member of Parliament in London will be able to support me on this point. The number of occasions when disappointed and disgruntled parents come to see their Member of Parliament because their child is being hustled into some particular school or the other by a local authority without consultation with the parents is really quite frightening.
But there is no more that needs to be said. My noble friend has put the case extremely well and clearly. I cannot help feeling that the revoking of the review by the Government is allied to the cancellation of the London Government elections. Admittedly, the timing is different; but it seems to me that the Government do not wish an impartial authority to have a really clear look at the education in London until they have completed their own plans to far beyond the point of no return. It is for that reason that I support my noble friend.
3.12 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: I will not weary the Committee to-day with the long arguments which have ranged over the years on this subject of the reorganisation of London Government, and particularly

857
in relation to the structure of education in Inner London. Perhaps, before I speak, I should declare an interest, in that for the last three years I have been Vice-Chairman of the Education Committee of the Inner London Authority. I intervene to-day only because I feel I must correct some of the false impressions that have been given to the Committee through some of the statements that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and by the noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, on a subject in which I have been personally involved as a member of that Authority. I was very sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, describe the activities and the powers of the authority in the way he did, confining his remarks in the main to organisation and structure, referring very little, if at all, to the subject of education which I regard, as do those of my noble friends sitting on this side of the House, as the most important issue before us to-day. For it is not the statutory structure of the Authority but the service it provides for London children and London parents that really matters.
No-one, I believe, in all the debates over the years on this subject, has ever challenged the quality of the education service given to London children. Nor, I would maintain, is this service such a good service for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He implied in his remarks that the service was good merely because the Inner London Education Authority could spend the ratepayers' money like water and therefore provide the best. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, knows as well as I that every single sum of money and every item of expenditure is presented, fortnight by fortnight, to the public meetings of the Education Committee by its specially constituted Finance Sub-Committee and it is open to every member of the public both to listen to the debate and to read the details in the published agenda of the Education Committee.
With regard to the point about compulsory membership, all the members of the Inner London Education Authority are elected members of other public bodies as well. All of them are either elected members of the Greater London Council or, alternatively, elected members of the Inner London boroughs who
858
nominate one each of their members to serve on the Inner London Education Authority. They therefore, as individuals, all have responsibilities other than education, either in their role as elected members of the Greater London Council or as elected members of the Inner London boroughs or the Common Council of the City which sends one representative to the Inner London Education Authority.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, implied that the purpose behind Clause 2 of the London Government (Termination of Review) Bill was to allow comprehensive education to develop further in London and to stop public criticism of this policy. But those who are familiar with the London Education Service know that comprehensive schools were being developed in London long before I.L.E.A. was dreamt of by the then Government in 1963. The evidence of this is that we have to-day in London some seventy-eight comprehensive schools already in operation and over 53 per cent. of London school children are going to them. These figures alone indicate that the development of comprehensive education is no new experiment in London and is connected in no way with the establishment of the I.L.E.A. or with the clause of the Bill before the Committee this afternoon.
LORD ST. HELENS: May I interrupt the noble Lady? I entirely agree with what she says. It is quite true that comprehensive schools have been developing for a long time. Certainly on this side of the House we are not against comprehensive schools. But the Labour Government now introduce a completely new element; that is, they are developing the comprehensive schools at the expense of the grammar schools. This is what we object to.
BARONESS SEROTA: I am not sufficiently familiar with the procedures of the Committee to know whether it is in order for me to answer that point.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
BARONESS SEROTA: The real issue is not that of the parents' choice of school as such. Parents can choose grammar schools until they are blue in the face; but it is the school that really chooses the child. Those of us who are

859
concerned with the development of a wide range of secondary education for all children, giving opportunity at all levels and all ages, believe that this can be done only through comprehensive schools and not through selection at 11-plus (which is now known to be inaccurate) and separatism in secondary education.
My prime reason to-day for supporting Clause 2 of the Bill and for urging the Committee to reject the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is that for the last seven or even, perhaps, ten years we have had uncertainty hanging over the future of London education. This clause in the Bill will, at last, remove that uncertainty at a time when London, like all education authorities, is under tremendous pressure: the implementation of the Plowden Report, the development of secondary education and the need to expand teacher training to meet the coming population explosion in the primary schools, together with the need to exert all our efforts to make provision for those children who will be staying till 16 with the raising of the school-leaving age in 1970, are the educational reasons, rather than the organisational reasons, for which I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment, agree to the clause submitted by the Government and thus allow the I.L.E.A. to continue its great work with a certain future.
3.18 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): I am very glad that my noble friend Lady Serota has gone into the educational arguments; it relieves me of the necessity to do so. All I have to say is that I entirely endorse everything that she has said—as I think do all noble Lords on this side of the House. The noble Lady declared an interest in the manufacturing end of the product called London education. Perhaps I should also declare an interest in the consuming end of the product, in that I have had five children educated by the Inner London Education Authority, three of them in comprehensive schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, correctly said that the I.L.E.A. itself was the fruit of the rejection by the Conservative Minister of Education in
860
1963 of the advice of the Royal Commission on the organisation of education in London. It seems to me that that rejection was the only correct attitude to take at that time. It was correct then because it was right to do it by an Inner London Education Authority and it would have been wrong to do it any other way. In my view, that is still the situation. The noble Lord made much of the point that I.L.E.A. is the only education authority in the country from which you cannot resign. I do not want to go too much into this subject, because the resemblances and differences between I.L.E.A. and other education authorities are extremely complicated, but I think he did not put it quite correctly. You cannot resign, if I am right in so thinking, from any education authority at all in the country. The education authority is the local council. If a man is elected a councillor, then he is a member of the education authority. He may or may not be a member of the education committee of the council which is the education authority; and, if he is, he may of course resign from that committee without ceasing to be a member of the education authority. I do not want to elaborate the point unnecessarily, but it is important to remember that education committees are not themselves education authorities and that their recommendations may be overruled by the parent body, the council, which is itself the education authority.
The noble Lord touched on the question of control of spending and my noble friend Lady Serota had strong words to say about that. One may say this or that about control, but no one can claim that there was anything hidden about the spending of I.L.E.A. Perhaps I might enlarge on this point for a moment. It is true that I.L.E.A. decides the amount of money to be raised by precept by the rating authorities in the areas, and how that money is to be "dished out" for education purposes; but the actual making of the precept is done by the G.L.C.
One more point about precepts: I.L.E.A. is composed, in part, of direct representatives of the London boroughs—that is to say, the rating authorities, and I think we all know that if I.L.E.A. proposed a precept which was impossible, or very unwelcome to the rating authorities, it would soon hear from the representatives of those rating authorities which

861
sit on I.L.E.A. That explains how part of the education expenditure in Central London is met. Another part is met by means of loans raised by the education authority, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will not have forgotten how, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, it was his duty to sanction such loans; although, of course, in sanctioning or not sanctioning them, he would have paid great attention to the opinion of his colleague the Minister of Education and Science of those days. The ordinary controls of local authority expenditure exist in this field just as in any other. There is nothing special about I.L.E.A., and I think that the analogy of a Ministry of Transport, with no Treasury or Parliamentary control, is a completely false one.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Helens, struck what I found to be contradictory notes. He said that he was tremendously in favour of I.L.E.A., but that he would still like it to be reviewed. He asked why, if the Government had nothing to conceal, they should fear a review. I would say to him, if he is tremendously in favour of I.L.E.A., why bother to go to all the expense and uncertainty of having this review? In fact, from what he said a little later in his speech, it appeared that the noble Lord did have something against I.L.E.A.; that was, its pursuit of a comprehensive policy in Inner London education. I would point out to the noble Lord that if we had a review, and if it recommended a change in who should be in charge of education in Inner London, that would not of itself have any effect whatever on the comprehensive question. The successor education authorities would be just as free as I.L.E.A. is to have comprehensive education or not to have it. Omitting this clause, and having the review will not do anything about the compulsory nature of service on I.L.E.A. It will not do anything, I think, about most of the objections, or doubts, or cavils, which have been raised in this debate to the I.L.E.A. concept.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, himself read out the sections of the Act which we now seek to amend and which describe what the purposes of this review should be. I think it would be
862
fair, to put them in lay language, to say that the review should be directed to seeing whether education in Inner London ought to be run by some other authority or authorities and not by I.L.E.A. Therefore, in so far as we are criticising the function or details in the nature of I.L.E.A., we should do wrong to insist on having this review. We should do right to insist on having it only if we were criticising the very existence of I.L.E.A., and it is noticeable—and, I think, comprehensible—that from neither side of the Committee has such a criticism been made. The Inner London Education Authority is, and we all know it, the wonder and admiration of the educational world. It is so because the L.C.C. education system was so before 1963. This is why the Party sitting opposite did not break it up with their London Government Act of that year, and why the present Government mean to maintain it. I ask the Committee to reject this proposal to leave out Clause 2 and to allow this education authority, which is one of unexampled merit and efficacy, to get on with its job, without this Sword of Damocles, however small, hanging over its head.
3.26 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to be good enough to elaborate upon something which he said? He said something to the effect that, whatever sort of authority might be responsible for administering education in Inner London, that authority would be just as free as the present one to continue, or not to continue, with a policy of developing comprehensive education. How does the noble Lord justify that assertion, in view of the circular sent out last year by the Secretary of State for Education and Science (I think it was Circular 10/65 or 10/66) which required all education authorities to submit, within a specified time, their plans for turning all secondary schools into comprehensive schools; and also with the very much more recent threat which the Minister issued, to the effect that education authorities must not expect money to be forthcoming, or permission to be forthcoming, for building new secondary schools unless they were to be of a comprehensive character?
LORD KENNET: As I understand it, the policy of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and

863
Science towards the comprehensive question would be the same whether education in a given area was in the hands of one authority or of many.
LORD NEWTON: In other words, there will be no freedom at all for any authority responsible for administering education in Inner London?
LORD KENNET: The House will not expect me to go along with the noble Lord's interpretation of that circular.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: May I ask one question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet? At the time when I.L.E.A. was preserved, there was great argument about whether the education authority should be broken up into the boroughs or whether we should retain the London County Council area. I was very much for I.L.E.A. at the time. There was then the question of reviews, and there were some people who wanted reviews in order to have another chance of breaking up the central London authority. I was very much against that, but I pointed out at the time that it might well be that one would wish to have a review in order to enlarge the area of I.L.E.A., because I think that the education of the Greater London area is very much all of a piece, and I was rather sorry that we had left it flexibly open in the Bill. Of course my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor knew much more about it than I did, and therefore it went through in that form. Are the Government quite sure they do not want to have a chance to enlarge I.L.E.A.?
LORD KENNET: I think the trouble about that is that the review in question was to be carried out only in the Inner London Area and not in the Greater London area. I might have some sympathy with the wish of the noble Viscount to extend I.L.E.A. to cover Greater London but it could not be done by this review.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I do not seek to prolong this debate. First, may I say how happy I am to see the noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, able now to take a controversial part in our debates. I think that her speech today, following her maiden speech, will make everyone realise what a powerful as well as a valuable contributor she will be. I am sorry, that I have to cross swords with her.
864
She criticised me for referring to administration and not to education. I thought that she was falling into the error, which was pointed out by the Royal Commission, in paragraph 199 of their Report which I have quoted, of believing that we can treat each of these social services in the local government field as a thing by itself. We must consider local government as a whole and try to fit the administration of each of these services into the pattern of local government structure. I think that when the noble Baroness comes to read her speech she will find that she has propounded a curious theory of financial responsibility. I always understood that financial responsibility meant that those who voted the money were answerable to the electors at the next election, whereas she has laid down the principle that there would be sufficient responsibility provided a meeting were held in public to which any of the 2½ million electors interested might care to come to hear what was said. Certainly I was not seeking to convict the I.L.E.A. of financial maladministration or anything of that kind. I was simply making a point about financial responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that the London boroughs could appoint their representatives to the I.L.E.A. and that they would make a fuss it they were dissatisfied with the way the money was spent or with the amount of it. But I would remind him that the representatives of the London boroughs are in a small minority; that the majority consists of G.L.C. elected members for Inner London boroughs, and that more than 50 per cent. of the revenue of I.L.E.A. through the rates is provided by London boroughs which are under the control of the Party that is in the minority on I.L.E.A.
LORD KENNET: I wonder whether, before passing from this point, I could say something about accountability to the electorate for expenditure. Members of I.L.E.A. are G.L.C. councillors who are elected from one part of the area, the Inner London area. Inner London electors know perfectly well that they are electing a member who will also be on the Education Authority, and if they do not like the way he spends the educational precept they can "chuck" him out at the next election for that reason, as for any other.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The noble Lord fails to appreciate that the candidates for the G.L.C. from the Inner London boroughs are standing for election to the G.L.C. on G.L.C. policy and not standing for election to I.L.E.A.
LORD KENNET: Is it not true to say that any councillor standing for election is standing for election to a local government body in all its aspects, education as well as any other?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Exactly, as I think the noble Lord him-self pointed out. In the normal case, the council is the education authority, the controlling authority, but in this case, despite what he said about the G.L.C. being the precepting body, the G.L.C. have no power whatever to challenge the expenditure of I.L.E.A. They have to accept it and add it to the precept they make on the boroughs.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said I had had responsibility for sanctioning L.C.C. loans for educational purposes, and my noble friend Lord Eccles I think implied that I was responsible for the 1963 Act. He alleged—wrongly—that I knew more about it than he did. As a matter of fact, I was not the Minister responsible for introducing that Bill, though I was the Minister responsible for recommending the setting up of the Royal Commission. As regards the L.C.C. loans for education, before the days of the G.L.C. they were not sanctioned by any Minister. The L.C.C. received their sanction for capital expenditure direct from Parliament.
Having said that, I would not invite my noble friends to take their opposition to this clause to a Division. As I said in my original speech, it may well be that this stocktaking of I.L.E.A., which must happen some day, should not be held in 1970 but at some other date, when there has been longer experience. I think that five years is rather a short period. It may be that the actual words in subsection (6) could be improved upon and that there should be a committee with no statutory terms of reference to undertake the stocktaking (I prefer that word to "review") when that time comes. I would recommend my noble friends not to divide on this matter and indeed, so as to close the matter and
866
enable us to go on to other business, I will seek leave to withdraw my Motion.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

ADEN
3.38 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"A three day general strike in Aden was called by the Front for the Liberation of the Occupied South Yemen (FLOSY) and the National Liberation Front (N.L.F.) beginning on April 2, to disrupt the work of the United Nations Mission on its arrival on that day. Sunday, April 2, passed off fairly quietly but yesterday there were attempts at violent demonstrations. British security forces in support of the local police acted swiftly to maintain law and order. There were some incidents involving grenade-throwing and shooting. As a result of these I regret to say that reports so far show that three Arabs were killed; and 11 of our troops, two Arab policemen and 10 Arab civilians were wounded."
That is the end of the Statement.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. The whole House will deplore these outrageous and senseless attacks on troops, policemen and civilians. Having said that, may I ask Her Majesty's Govment whether they feel that the terms of reference of the United Nations Commission, and indeed the Commission itself, are strong enough to make any real contribution to the situation in Aden and its future? Would they consider setting up a body like the Monckton Commission to take a fresh look at the

867
whole future of Aden, because many of us doubt whether it can survive in its present form?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's comments are slightly outside the frame of reference of the original Statement, but of course Her Majesty's Government will take note of what he has said.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can say how long the United Nations Mission are likely to be in Aden? If they are likely to be there for any length of time, can he say whether the Government are satisfied that there are sufficient troops to keep order?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot say at the moment exactly how long the Mission will be there. They will be there, presumably, until they have satisfied themselves that they have enough information to report back to the United Nations. But Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that they have the resources in Aden at the moment to deal with any situation that might arise as a result of the presence in Aden of the United Nations Mission.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that this is another case where a United Nations peace-keeping force might have played a most effective role? Is any consideration being given by the Secretary-General and the Security Council to organising a peace-keeping force, in order to avoid the necessity for our own troops standing in the breach on this occasion?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, until British troops are withdrawn from Aden, under the terms of the present policy of Her Majesty's Government, it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and of British troops to aid the civil Power in Aden to maintain law and order. This they are doing, and I think the House would wish to note and pay tribute to the restraint they have shown in dealing with the crisis so far.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. May I say, as one who, with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield, has been connected with the mining industry for many years how much we lament the death of Lord Williams of Barnburgh who was a miner and was in our union over many years. I think his life work will stand by itself, and particularly the work he did as Minister of Agriculture.
This is a Bill:
"to amend the enactments providing for benefits out of the National Injuries Fund in respect of industrial diseases; and for connected purposes."
It is a Private Member's Bill from another place, where it was introduced by the Honourable Member for Merthyr Tydfil; and it went through all its stages there with Government support. The Bill deals with the connected diseases of bronchitis and emphysema with pneumoconiosis. While the Bill does not go all the way I should like, at least it represents a landmark in the history of our fight over the years on occupational diseases. For the 12 years preceding 1965 (these are the latest figures I have) there were 37,203 men certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis. This does not take into consideration the many reexaminations made by the medical boards on men previously certified as suffering from the disease, where the finding is that the condition has deteriorated. And there are many hundreds more in industries other than coal mining who suffer from byssinosis. I am pleased to say that to-day the numbers of these cases are showing a decline, but there are still over 1,000 a year, and it must be remembered that there are thousands fewer men now employed in the mining industry. There is nothing like this in any other industry. The figures are appalling. The disability, suffering and deaths from chest affections have given us a great deal of cause for thought over many years.

869
This is not the whole of the sombre picture, however. Many hundreds of men are suffering from emphysema and bronchitis, which we consider—and we nave a great deal of medical support behind us—are associated with employment in a dust-laden atmosphere. It is generally agreed that there are different kinds of emphysema. Focal emphysema already qualifies for disablement benefit, but in its diagnosis there is a requirement of X-ray abnormalities. The fact remains that emphysema may be present without any X-ray change, and it is now well held that emphysema in the presence of pneumoconiosis should be accepted as an industrial disease.
Bronchitis is increased considerably by pneumoconiosis. The bronchial tubes are damaged. It will be appreciated by your Lordships that constant inhalation of dust results in men constantly coughing, and that in turn must affect the bronchial tubes. Sir Barnet Stross, who was for many years the Member of Parliament for Stoke, did great work in the field of research on these diseases. He said on February 3, 1961, as recorded in Hansard:
"Every time men cough as a result of breathing noxious dust they are damaging their bronchial tubes and lungs. The cough is given to us in the first place as a possible means of protecting ourselves, but prolonged coughing over many years damages more than the bronchial tubes. We do not need doctors to tell us this. It destroys the elasticity of the lungs and ultimately prevents the interchange of oxygen and carbon-dioxide in the tissues. That is why men cannot breathe, and why they cannot work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1398.]
My Lords, those of us who have spent a life in the coal-mining industry have seen healthy men coming into the pits and falling victim to pneumoconiosis, emphysema and bronchitis, and have seen their terrible plight. It is most distressing to see men gasping for breath, coughing incessantly, and awaiting the end of their lives, for in most cases, of course, these diseases are progressive.
What is the cause of this disease of bronchitis? We know that whenever the incidence of pneumoconiosis is high, so is the incidence of bronchitis. Statistics show that in many of our mining areas where pneumoconiosis runs at a high rate, so does associated bronchitis. Therefore it seems, on probability alone, that pneumoconiosis and bronchitis should be
870
scheduled as industrial diseases. The case is far stronger when we look at the evidence of the cases of emphysema and bronchitis existing with pneumoconiosis. Here it is not a matter of the law of probability, and medical evidence very strongly supports the view that where pneumoconiosis is accompanied by bronchitis and emphysema, disablement benefit ought to be paid. Even medical specialists who have serious doubts about this condition as the cause of bronchitis say that, even though they cannot decide in favour of bronchitis and emphysema being due to mining, industrial conditions at least accelerate and aggravate it.
I could quote many medical experts to support my contention, but two will suffice. Dr. Howells was appointed some time ago by the Miners' Union to investigate pneumoconiosis in mining. His conclusions were that many difficulties could be resolved by changing the legislation so that general emphysema and bronchitis occuring in the presence of pneumoconiosis should be recognised as industrial hazards and total disablement benefit paid to those applicants in whom the two conditions were present in combination. Then, again, Dr. Rogan, the Chief Medical Officer of the National Coal Board, though cautious in his approach, said in his paper on pneumoconiosis:
"Bronchitis diagnosis by questionnaire also varies widely in prevalence, ranging from 9 per cent. to 43 per cent. Though relationships between bronchitis and pneumoconiosis may still be unsure, we have concluded that the high prevalence of pneumoconiosis tends to be associated with a high prevalence of bronchitis. We have also noted, when we correct our data to allow for the effects of age, that symptoms of bronchitis tend to increase as the pneumoconiotic conditions advance."
We have had many cases of men who received entitlement to benefit for pneumoconiosis in life and who, on death, after a post-mortem, were certified as having died from bronchitis and emphysema. In cases like this the widow has no entitlement at all. Another feature of our agitation over the years has been the criteria of diagnosis. We have seen some men examined and certified, while others are not, though they show the symptom of gasping for breath in the same way as those who are certified; and people cannot understand why one man should be certified while others working

871
in the same conditions are not. This Bill at least will eradicate some of the discontent and dissatisfaction which we have experienced over the years.
In Australia and South Africa emphysema and bronchitis are accepted as industrial hazards and their victims are compensated; and several countries, Socialist and non-Socialist, are well in advance of us in this respect. The problem of pneumoconiosis is still large and serious. The long-term problem is being tackled by the Coal Board and the Miners' Union through research into the application of improved methods of dust suppression, yet the figures are still high. Many men in the later years of their life are declared to be totally incapacitated. In a survey taken in 93 collieries all over the country it was found that 12·4 per cent. of those X-rayed had the disease. In the ageing group, 30·2 per cent. of those aged 55 years or over were declared suffering from pneumoconiosis, compared with 2·7 among the younger men. Many others show the same symptoms and are incapacitated but are certified as suffering from bronchitis and emphysema.
This Bill provides that those declared to be 50 per cent. disabled, or over, with pneumoconiosis with the presence of these two diseases will be declared to be totally incapacitated, and this is a great step forward. While the Bill does not go all the way to meet our claims, it does for the first time establish the principle of associating emphysema and bronchitis with pneumoconiosis; and I should like to thank the Minister for giving this to these suffering men.
Many of us have had considerable experience under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. We experienced many hundreds of men declared to be suffering from pneumoconiosis who, when examined, were assessed to be only 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. disabled. These men had the choice only between total and partial disability. Many of them may not be actually disabled from pneumoconiosis, but now when they appear before the Board under this Bill may well be found to be fit for very little work. If now they are 50 per cent. incapacitated by emphysema or bronchitis they can come within the terms of this Bill, and this is of great importance.
872
Under the old Compensation Acts men were not paid compensation on their injury but were paid for their loss in earning capacity. Under this Bill men will qualify if they are certified as seriously disabled. Under the old benefits scheme there was no declaration of assessment, but that will now be brought into the Bill and many men will come within its provisions. The old cases and the supplemental cases, that is, all those who contracted pneumoconiosis before July 5, 1948, and all the time-barred cases, will come within this Bill. They will get a little more compensation, because the old cases were not compensated under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. But I would urge upon the Minister who is to reply to this debate to continue the research to determine on the medical evidence available the connection of bronchitis and emphysema with pneumoconiosis. Our experience over many years shows this connection even in those with an assessment of less than 50 per cent. I hope that the Government will keep the 50 per cent. limit under constant review.
My Lords, while I have dealt specifically with these diseases as they affect miners, because I know the mining industry best, the Bill affects also those with byssinosis and silicosis in industries other than mining. Potteries, quarries and textile industries are involved in this Bill. The Bill makes it clear that only those under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and the old Workmen's Compensation Act who have a 50 per cent. pneumoconiosis assessment and a condition of bronchitis or emphysema will have these diseases taken into account in the total assessment of their disability. For this I am grateful, and I live in the hope that, having established for the first time the connection between these diseases, medical research will prove beyond doubt that the 50 per cent. limit is too high.
In days gone by we had a long struggle to get silicosis established as an industrial disease. In those days the doctors said that silicosis was not due to work in the mines. After years of argument and agitation they agreed that there was such a thing, but they said it was connected with silica and a man had to prove that the stone he worked with had a 50 per cent. silica content. Then men were certified as suffering from silicosis though they I had not been handling silica. Doctors

873
found by examination that such men died from silicosis. Then the medical people came to the conclusion that any dust was injurious to the lungs, and they extended the diagnosis to one of pneumoconiosis. For years now we have agitated that bronchitis and emphysema were connected with pneumoconiosis, and at last in this Bill there is a limited recognition that this is so.
The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, Section 58(1)(a) says:
"Where any person is found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis accompanied by tuberculosis the effects of tuberculosis shall be treated for the purpose of this part of the Act as if they were the effects of the pneumoconiosis."
This Bill extends that section to include emphysema and bronchitis as if they were the effects of pneumoconiosis, if the assessment is 50 per cent. or over. This will give to over 4,000 people some benefit from the National Injuries Fund. The establishment in this limited way in the Statute of the connection of emphysema and bronchitis with pneumoconiosis is, I believe, a start on the march ahead, and some day these two diseases will be scheduled as industrial diseases, proved to arise from a man's employment when working in a dust-laden atmosphere.
Meanwhile, I think the thanks of us all go to the honourable Member for Merthyr Tydfil and to the Minister who, in the face of great difficulties, have established in a Bill that there is a connection between these diseases and pneumoconiosis. All of us who have lived with these problems and have seen the suffering entailed by those who misfortune it was to contract pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and silicosis welcome the Bill and regard it as an historic occasion. Whatever disappointments there may be for those whose disability is less than 50 per cent., let it be said here that this should not detract from the many virtues embodied in this Bill. It must be regarded as a significant step forward, and a step in the right direction. With thanks to the Minister and all those in the other place who have sent this Bill here, it is with great pleasure that I beg to move its Second Reading.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Blyton.)
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him just one question?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!

OIL POLLUTION: THE "TORREY CANYON"
4.5 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place. I will use his own words.
"Honourable Members will have seen the White Paper (Cmnd. 2346) laid before the House to-day. This gives the sequence of events and the record of decisions taken by the Government and sets out the main questions on which action, both national and international, should be taken, issues to which the Government are giving urgent attention.
"Honourable Members who have had time to study the White Paper will have seen that from the day of the disaster the Government's prime objective was to keep to a minimum the amount of oil fouling the beaches in the West Country and indeed along the South Coast and Bristol Channel.
"At the same time, oil having started to pour out from the moment of the shipwreck, the spraying of detergent on the discharged oil began that day and was intensified from the Monday onwards.
"The Navy were on the job from the Saturday onwards and took operational control, so far as the Government were concerned, of all questions affecting the ship itself. From the Sunday my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy co-ordinated the conduct of the operation with the Commander-in-Chief Plymouth, and I cannot pay sufficient tribute to the work of the Navy—and of my honourable friend—in a situation unprecedented at any time in any part of the world.
"Determined to do everything possible to limit the discharge of oil from the ship, the Government, with all the expert technical advice available to them, decided that it was right

875
to give the salvage company, highly skilled and expert in these matters, an opportunity to get the ship off the rocks during the period of the very high spring tides due from the Thursday following the shipwreck. While there were inevitably doubts about whether the salvage company could succeed in this task, I am sure we were right in this decision and in the massive help given by the Admiralty to the salvage authority.
"Every alternative method was most carefully and urgently analysed in the light of all the information available from such previous occurrences as had any bearing on the situation.
"Clearly, the best course, if it had been feasible, would have been to pump off the oil into shallow draught coastal tankers close in to the reef. Quite apart from the extreme difficulty and hazard in the weather conditions of that week, it was physically impossible to pump off the oil because the ship's pumps were out of operation and a Naval survey showed that no tanker of sufficient size could get near enough for the operation to be reasonably safe. With the very high explosive content of the oil gases on the ship no operation of an engineering character involving friction and the possibility of sparks could have been attempted. It would have been quite impossible to place generating equipment on the ship and to secure it in position, and to do all other necessary repairs and adjustments required to get the ship's own pumps into operation. The tragic explosion which led to the death of the captain of the salvage team confirms the hazards which rightly influenced the minds of the Naval authorities.
"Equally, operations to examine the damage under the ship by Naval divers could not be carried out because the oil would have blocked the breathing apparatus and caused suffocation.
"Another possibility considered from the outset was that of setting fire to the oil on the ship. As the White Paper makes clear, a previous case where a tanker had caught fire in the Persian Gulf provided a serious warning here, in that after more than two months little more than half the oil had caught fire and the rest of the
876
cargo was in fact sold as crude oil when the fire died out. For the rest, a tarry residue of the kind most feared on holiday beaches was the main outcome of the fire.
"Moreover, the fire itself might well have blown out the sides of the ship and released a lot of unburned oil long before there was any chance of it being burned.
"The course which was ultimately taken, once the hope of salvage had disappeared, was that of opening up the ship by bombing and attempting to set the oil on fire. The oil was in sixteen separate tanks and the steel deck of the vessel itself was nearly 1½inches thick. The risk we faced from the outset was that we would have opened up the ship and released up to 90,000 more tons of oil without any guarantee that it would be set alight and destroyed.
"On Sunday, March 26, while the international salvage experts were still hopeful of floating off the ship on the high tides of the Monday or Tuesday, gales broke the tanker into two and then, on the following day, into three sections.
"In these circumstances the Government took the decision to bomb the ship, not, of course, with the idea of destroying it but of setting the oil on fire. Even so this was a great gamble. Though scientific experiments on an inland lake with a thousand gallons of Kuwait crude had been successful in burning the oil without any noxious residue, experiments made on the sea with the same fire-raising methods, on an eight square-mile patch of floating oil near Wolf Rock, failed to set the oil on fire. This appeared to rule out the hope we had had that when the ship was opened up and the oil poured out it could be immediately fired on the sea. Despite the very great risk involved, the decision to bomb the ship went on, and just before 4 o'clock on the Tuesday afternoon the ship was bombed by aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, and the fire maintained by R.A.F. aircraft dropping tanks of aviation fuel. As the House knows—and those of us who witnessed it were filled with a high sense of relief—the oil was in fact set on fire. Though here again, despite

877
every effort to keep the fire going with incendiary weapons, the fire died away and further bombing attacks were necessary in the next two days to destroy the last remaining tanks which had oil in them.
"Meanwhile, almost from the time the ship struck the reef, operations with detergent, in which local fishing vessels played an important part, were put into force. These were supplemented by many other forms of attack on the problem as the oil reached the beaches.
"The White Paper sets out in detail what has been done, and I am glad to see that honourable Members for the area concerned have joined with local authorities in the tributes paid to the leadership shown by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and other Departments concerned and the tremendous work done by all the Service Departments, and by the units of the Army and Royal Marines who engaged in the task. This was a successful improvised partnership between the Government authorities and the local authorities, with very successful calls on local authority services and on local civilian volunteers. It is right that I should pay tribute to the great resilience and vigour of the individual local authorities in the area.
"In addition, great efforts have been made by the erection of booms to keep the oil away from estuaries and harbours and to protect, so far as this was possible, marine life.
"Finally, Mr. Speaker, I turn to the lessons that must be drawn from this disaster.
"With tankers increasing in size, the possibilities of shipwreck or collision pouring perhaps hundreds of thousands of tons of oil on to our beaches—and to those of other countries—is one which requires urgent international action. Many honourable Members would have been surprised to find that the Seven Stones Reef was not within British territorial waters. That did not and has not deterred us in any action we considered right. Equally we made clear our refusal to allow the ship, if it was towed off the rock, to be brought into British territorial waters.
"We are now urgently considering the proposals which are to be put before the meeting of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
878
Organisation to ensure that new international regulations and any necessary changes in international law and practice can be pressed on with the urgency which is required. Without waiting for international agreement we are also considering any action which lies within our own control, including control of the routes taken by these giant tankers and other ships carrying potentially dangerous cargoes into British ports. The old concept of territorial waters is not enough.
"In addition, all possible scientific aspects of the problem are being further examined in the light of our own experience and the lessons we have learned during these past seventeen days.
"Equally the question of legal liability and insurance must be considered both on a national and an international basis. And while, during the fight to keep the oil off the beaches, we did not wait to settle matters of finance, compensation or legal liability, the Government now are urgently considering the question of the claims which must be pressed on behalf of the high cost falling on the taxpayer, and the claims of local authorities. The House would wish to know that the Government have already instructed the Treasury Solicitor to inform the owners' solicitors of our intention to institute proceedings against them for damages."
That concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
4.16 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like first to associate myself with the tribute which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has paid to the Services for their hard work in trying to clear up the mess which has come about as a result of the grounding of the tanker. Many of them lost their Easter leave, and I think we should all be very grateful to them for what they have done. I am also grateful to the noble Earl for having repeated this Statement in this House. I think all your Lordships would like an opportunity of studying the Statement, and indeed the White Paper, rather more carefully than has been possible so far.
I do not know whether the noble Earl could tell us why the Press had the White

879
Paper at midday yet it reached your Lordships' House only at 2.35 p.m. this afternoon. It could be, of course, that that had something to do with the defacing of the White Paper which I have in my hand. Something seems to have been crossed out which, though it appears the Press were allowed to read it, we were not. I have a friend who used a little detergent on this pollution, and he tells me that what has been crossed out are the words "and clearly cheaper". I wonder whether the noble Earl could confirm that. If that is the right reading of these words, I can quite understand why he wanted them crossed out.
At first blush I think the White Paper leaves a great many questions unanswered, and we may have to return to it later; perhaps it may be possible to return to some of the questions in the debate on Thursday on oil pollution, or it may be that we shall have to press for some kind of inquiry, not so much as to why the tanker ran aground but as to what lessons may be learned from this disaster.
To-day, I would confine myself to asking the noble Earl two specific questions. First, has he any idea of what the overall cost of this effort is likely to be? I notice that in the White Paper the Government say they cannot draw up a balance sheet, but I think the House would be very interested to know what order of cost will be involved in clearing up the mess.
Secondly, I notice that in the last sentence of the Statement the Government say that they have instructed the Treasury Solicitor to inform the owners' solicitors of their intention to institute proceedings against them for damages. What exactly does this statement mean? Does it mean that those who have suffered damage—for example, the fishermen off the South-West Coast; possibly the local authorities, and those who are going to suffer, possibly the tourist industry—have a claim for damages against the owners of the oil or the underwriters? Or does it mean that those people who have suffered damage may claim damages from the Government, who will recover them from the owners of the oil? Or does it mean that there is going to be an interminable legal argument as to whether anybody is responsible and whether any money is payable to these people? I think it would
880
be helpful if the noble Earl could answer some of these questions, because they are important to the people who live in this area.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for repeating this long Statement, and I should like to associate myself with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in the tribute he has rightly paid to the Services, and also to the local authorities, who were faced in this disaster with a most unprecedented task. I agree with him, too, that we shall need to study the White Paper, and also, possibly, to consider the results of the inquiry now being held in Italy, before making any detailed comments on this matter and putting any detailed questions to the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
There is only one question that I should like to ask. This meeting of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation will, of course, be a momentous meeting, and this body will have to take into consideration urgent and important questions. Matters of international law and practice will have to be dealt with which have never been dealt with before. Will the House have an opportunity of learning from the Government the proposals which the Government are to make to this body at its forthcoming meeting?
4.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will forgive me, I will comment on the remarks of the Party Leaders and then reply to anything he wishes to say. I am grateful to both the Opposition Leaders for the restraint they have shown; there was certainly no disposition to try to take any advantage of this situation. I would only assure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we on the Government side have no reason whatever to be apologetic over these happenings, although there are many causes for regret when a great disaster of this kind takes place. There will be a debate on Thursday on matters within this area, and if at any future time noble Lords wish to discuss it, we shall be the first to oblige them.
The noble Lord asked me why the White Paper was not received here by 12 o'clock. I must look into that. I cannot give him the answer offhand, but

881
I can assure him that the detergent which his friend used on the White Paper was not the most effective. I imagine that all the best detergents were in use elsewhere. At any rate, the words which his friend thought he read beneath the ink were not the actual words. I gather that the real words in paragraph 13 were simply redundant; they were tautology. Therefore, they were excised, rightly, in the interests of good English. So there is nothing at all sinister, nothing whatever to hide. But I am sorry that the White Paper did not reach the House by midday. I do not know why that was. I will look into it. I have given the noble Lord the facts. The noble Lord's friend was wrong. His detergent, while no doubt excellent for other purposes, did not work in this case.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked two specific questions. He asked whether I could give him even an approximate assessment of the damage. He will not be surprised to hear that I am afraid I cannot give him any sort of figure. But certainly the approach of the Government, which I am sure he shares, is a desire to eliminate the damage, or reduce it to the minimum. But we are keeping the whole issue under consideration, as is natural, and further statements will be made in due course.
But I would answer the noble Lord's second point a little more clearly. It will be understood that Her Majesty's Government are not legally responsible for the payment of compensation in respect of damage sustained by individuals. Any claimant who wishes to bring an individual claim against the owners of the tanker will be well advised to consult his solicitor about the legal complexities before embarking on such a course. I think that is clearly right, although obvious, advice. I do not think there is anything more I need say now about the noble Lord's general comments, except that we all regret this disaster and we share in the tributes which he paid, and which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, paid, following the example of the Government, to the Services, to our friends and allies from abroad and to many other authorities, national and individual.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I had intended to say a few words upon the subject of bronchitis with which I am
882
closely acquainted. But now that we have moved on to another subject, I feel it right, even in the light of Lord Carrington's characteristically generous comments on this tanker business, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that somebody should say that on the whole Press comment on this whole business has been grossly unfair. I feel strongly that the Government, on the whole, have handled this situation just about as well as it could be handled. They had to hold on to this ship for as long as there was any hope of salvage and, when there was no hope of salvage and it broke up, they had to bomb it; and they did. I think a great deal of the Press comment, particularly in leading articles, has been grossly unfair. As I say, on the whole the Government have handled this extremely well. I even took the trouble to write a letter to the Prime Minister to say how well it had been done, and I think somebody should get up and say that. That is all I want to say.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House one question, which arises from certain Press reports of words of the Prime Minister? Can the noble Earl assure use that the Government carry in their minds no general condemnation for those who sail under flags of convenience, as many of those maintain the highest standards of maritime safety, and do so only to avoid unfair discrimination and penal taxation which would kill maritime trade?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, would expect me to say anything on the general issue involved. Certainly there is not a blanket condemnation of those who sail under these flags. But, as regards the other issue he raised, I think I should refer him to paragraph 46 of the White Paper, which he will no doubt study when he has time.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, on the question of claims, may I just press the noble Earl a little more? I understood him to say that anybody who thought he had a claim would be well advised to consult his solicitors. That, of course, is sensible advice. But surely the Government have some responsibility

883
to help these people who have suffered damage. Are they not even going to try to help these people themselves by pressing claims on their behalf against those who are responsible for the damage? It seems to me that the Government should not just wash their hands of this matter, and say that it is up to those concerned to consult their own solicitors. I think the Government should be prepared at any rate to try to help those who have suffered this damage.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I fully appreciate what the noble Lord has in mind, but at this stage it would be wrong of me to give the impression that those who have suffered damage can look to the Government for redress. I think I should be misleading the people concerned if I gave that impression. All I can say is that the Government are looking into the issues which the noble Lord has raised. May I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boothby? It could have been argued that a strong Leader of the House would have suggested that he was out of order; but in the circumstances, I thought it would have been carrying virtue to an absurd point if I had tried to interrupt him when he was paying this generous tribute.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I am always out of order.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.28 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, whenever a noble Lord or a Private Member in another place introduces a Bill which can have the effect of reducing suffering or making suffering easier to bear, one is always pleased and one likes to congratulate the mover upon it. In this case, I readily congratulate the noble Lord on bringing forward this Bill. One feels a double sympathy with him, because it is plain from the way in which he introduced it that it is not the Bill he would have liked to have introduced, and indeed that it is not the Bill which was originally introduced in another place.
884
The Bill as originally introduced— this is the measure of it, although perhaps not the right measure— would have cost some £20 million a year. From what the Parliamentary Secretary said in another place, as I understand it, it is estimated that this Bill will cost about £300,000 a year, and that the cost will fall on the Industrial Injuries Fund. The disparity is due to the introduction of subsection (2) into Clause 1, which limits the circumstances in which emphysema and bronchitis are to be treated as if they were effects of pneumoconiosis to those where the effects of the pneumoconiosis by itself are assessed at 50 per cent. disablement or more. I think it is fair to say— I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, would not disagree with this— that his main argument in favour of the Bill is that it represents a "foot in the door". What we have to consider is whether it is a foot in the right door, and whether in the long run it will be of advantage to all who gain benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act through industrial diseases.
What is well known is that the reason why some people are given higher levels of benefit than others under national insurance, for example (although I take national insurance and industrial injuries together) is because there is a causal relationship between the occupation and the disease in the one case and not in the other. If I may quote Section 56 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, it says:
"A disease or injury may be prescribed for the purposes of this Part of this Act in relation to any insured persons if the Minister is satisfied that—

(a) it ought to be treated, having regard to its causes and incidence and any other relevant considerations, as a risk of their occupations and not as a risk common to all persons; and

(b) it is such that, in the absence of special circumstances, the attribution of particular cases to the nature of the employment can be established or presumed with reasonable certainty."

That at once brings one to the question: Why has the level of 50 per cent. been chosen? I wonder whether the noble Lord can say what 50 per cent. disablement involves in the way of incapacity for work in the case of pneumoconiosis and susceptibility to other complaints, because logically to justify this provision the medical profession should be able to assume is that it is when a person is

885
50 per cent. disabled by pneumoconiosis, and not at any lower level of disablement, that he becomes susceptible to consequential bronchitis or emphysema. Is this so, and is this what the evidence shows? The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, in introducing the Bill said— and I took down his words— that medical evidence very strongly supports the view that where pneumoconiosis is accompanied by emphysema and bronchitis disablement benefit ought to be paid. He justified that later on by saying that the high prevalence of pneumoconiosis tends to be associated with the high prevalence of bronchitis.
Where we are just now in this matter was indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, when he said:
"… doctors have always accepted in cases of severe pneumoconiosis under the Act that there was a much more intimate connection… between the pneumoconiosis and any accompanying respiratory diseases in that they make disablement due to pneumoconiosis much worse."— [OFFICIAL RITORT. Commons, 22/12/66.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, could the noble Lord say from what column he is quoting?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I quote from column 882. I have had the experience, which I know noble Lords opposite have had— certainly the noble Lords, Lord Blyton, and Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who have spent a lifetime either working with the miners or representing them in Parliament; and I must say they have done their task extremely well— of visiting the research establishment at Llandaff, and I have seen sections of a lung which was affected by pneumoconiosis. I am bound to say that having seen that one wonders how the respiratory tracts work at all. I should be surprised if there were not some causal relationship between subsequent— and I think one has to say "subsequent"— bronchitis and emphysema and the original pneumoconiosis.
The difficulty with which we are faced is that if there is such subsequent bronchitis or emphysema, if it is clearly attributable to the pneumoconiosis and resulting from that, then it seems that doctors give a higher assessment than they would give on the pneumoconiosis
886
alone. If my recollection is correct, this is what happens. The difficulty is that the Bill is deeming that a causal relationship exists where a causal relationship in the individual case does not necessarily exist. All I would say is that this may be a dangerous precedent so far as the Industrial Injuries Act is concerned.
The noble Lord said that the 50 per cent. level would have to be carefully watched. I think that it must be watched for the reason I have given. On balance I think it is reasonable— and I hope the noble Lord who is to reply will say this — to take the view that in the case of bronchitis and emphysema accompanying pneumoconiosis, where the pneumoconiosis disablement is assessed at 50 per cent. or more, the high probability is that it has been caused by the pneumoconiosis or is an indirect effect of the pneumoconiosis. Therefore, in general it is fair to say that with emphysema and bronchitis accompanying the pneumoconiosis, where there is a 50 per cent. disablement assessment of the pneumoconiosis, this should be taken into account in assessing the total amount of disablement. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give an answer on that point.
For the good of all who receive industrial injuries benefits, I attach importance to the maintenance of this causal relationship. If one does not maintain that causal relationship, there is no reason for maintaining a different kind of benefit for industrial diseases than for any other diseases, or for diseases which are incurred, or can be presumed with reasonable certainty to be incurred, in one's occupation but which can be incurred elsewhere, and for industrial injury benefit to be paid in that kind of circumstance. I think this is a very important point of principle. As I have said before, it is highly desirable that where possible the benefit of the doubt should always be given in a case of this kind, and in the past I believe it has been given; that is to say, that where there has been emphysema and bronchitis accompanying pneumoconiosis, and the pneumoconiosis was relatively severe, that assessment has been higher because of the accompanying bronchitis and emphysema. I think it is reasonable that this should be made a general rule. I come back to the "foot in the door".
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I say—
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I just finish this passage? If the "foot in the door" means that, irrespective of whether there is any causation in this matter, the additional assessment should be given where diseases accompany a prescribed disease, then I think that would be a dangerous principle. It seems to me that it is only where that additional disease is attributable to the prescribed disease, or at any rate can be reasonably said to be consequent upon it, that I think it is right to give the benefit of the doubt in this way and to pay the higher disablement benefit.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, what the noble Lord is saying is that if it can be proved that emphysema and/or bronchitis follow from the fact that the man had pneumoconiosis, that is to be taken into account in giving him not only the benefit of the doubt but also a higher benefit.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is not quite right. What I said was that reasonable benefit of the doubt should be given. Noble Lords who belong to the medical profession may be in a position to give the benefit of their experience to the House to-day, but I myself should have thought it would be a very difficult matter — and in my experience it is a difficult matter— to be able to prove while the person is still living that the additional disease follows or is consequent upon the prescribed disease. What I am saying is that, in general, there must be a reasonable presumption that it is so, and that where there is a doubt then the benefit of the doubt could be given to the applicant. But what I am venturing to warn your Lordships about—
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, before the noble Lord finishes that point, and it is a most interesting argument, I should like to be clear in my own mind whether I understood him correctly. Did he say that where bronchitis or emphysema or both accompanied pneumoconiosis, the medical boards gave a higher assessment?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is what I understood from what the Parliamentary Secretary said in another
888
place, and it is my own recollection that this is what was done, unless, of course, it could be plainly established that the bronchitis or emphysema was not a consequence of the pneumoconiosis. I understand that this is what is normally done and this is my recollection, also.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I pursue this point? My experience has been that when a person who is certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis is also suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema, there is an offset. Where it has been so found by the pneumoconiosis medical panels, they make an offset for the bronchitis and the emphysema and give a lesser assessment than the man would be entitled to for the degree of his disability.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, of course this is a point which the noble Lord should put to his noble friend, and I hope that his noble friend will deal with it. There may be circumstances when this would be the appropriate thing to do, but, if my recollection is correct, that is not what was generally done where the assessment for pneumoconiosis was relatively high and where there was, as the Parliamentary Secretary said in another place, a much more intimate connection between the two in that the other diseases make disablement due to pneumoconiosis so much worse. I have always understood that this was the way in which the Act was administered. I hope the noble Lord will deal with this in due course.
What I think is extremely important is that the research which is being carried out should be continued. As I said before, I find it difficult to conceive that emphysema and bronchitis are not connected and do not flow from even a small amount of pneumoconiosis. But this is purely a personal opinion from what one sees of a dissected lung and so forth. I think we should all be delighted if that causal connection were established, but there are two sides of this problem. First of all, if that causal connection is established and bronchitis and emphysema develop following upon the pneumoconiosis, then I think that certainly the whole House would wish that the emphysema and bronchitis should be taken into account. There is also the other side which is equally important, and that is the prophylactic side. One cannot help

889
feeling that anyone who has a predisposition to bronchitis would be very ill-advised to go down into the mines at all, as with a weakness of that description one would feel— and I speak entirely without medical knowledge— that pneumoconiosis might be more likely to develop than in other cases. These are the questions which arise in my mind on this Bill.
As I said at the outset, it is a Bill which will do some good, if we are to accept the sum of £300,000 as a reliable estimate of its cost, and I am sure it is the most reliable estimate which can be made in very difficult circumstances. But it goes a very small way indeed towards the objective of the Bill which was introduced in another House, which would have raised the cost of disablement benefit by 50 per cent. overall, by £20 million from the £42 million last year, and which would have been a very far-reaching measure. It is for this reason, and since we are concerned here with only one group of diseases, that I am bound to urge caution on the House in regard to this whole matter, in order that we may keep firmly in our minds that in order to justify special rates of benefit for industrial diseases there must be this direct causation between them.
4.46 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I say something from the medical point of view about the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been raising? I think there is no possibility at the present time of proving these causal relationships. The causes of bronchitis and emphysema are very complex. The one factor which correlates most strongly with the development of bronchitis and emphysema is, of course, the inhaling of cigarette smoke, which is the best possible example of atmospheric pollution. This is not to say that there are not other causes or that a man who is in a state of pulmonary disease due to pneumoconiosis and is constantly coughing will not develop emphysema and bronchitis on top of it, because it is extremely likely that he will. Moreover, if he is one of those unfortunate people who have a tendency, which we do not at the present time fully understand, to develop bronchitis and emphysema, whether aggravated or not by cigarette smoking, and he has pneumoconiosis, then his
890
symptoms and eventual demise from pneumoconiosis will unquestionably be hastened.
Therefore I would support this Bill, but I would try to divorce from it any idea that we have at present any likelihood of proving these causal relationships, because there is no medical way of distinguishing, either during life or after death, between chronic bronchitis and emphysema caused by one set of circumstances, from chronic bronchitis and emphysema caused by another set of circumstances. Therefore the only thing we can fairly do at this time in our present state of ignorance— and, of course, a lot of further research is quite properly being done— is to give the unfortunate sufferer the benefit of the doubt, especially if his pneumoconiosis is such that it is causing a real disability. I had nothing whatever to do with the drawing up of this Bill, and I do not know the exact reasons why the figure of 50 per cent. was decided upon, but in view of all the doubts and uncertainties it seems to me a not unreasonable choice to have made.
4.50 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I never approach the question of pneumoconiosis without some emotion and for two very simple reasons. First, I have lived for the whole of my life among men who have suffered from it. Also, I recall the last winter when my own father, who had worked in the pits for many years, was alive. In his last few hours I remember him saying to me: "My boy, in view of the difficulty in breathing which I have had for so long, and in view of what I have suffered, I hope that this is the last winter I am going to live". When the medical certificate was produced, it gave the cause of death as pulmonary emphysema and cardiac failure. In the case of my own brother, after an autopsy just over twelve months ago (he had worked in the dust of the coalmines for more than fifty years) there was the same medical certification, naming pulmonary emphysema. As my noble friend Lord Blyton has said, the incidence of emphysema and bronchitis among miners is very high indeed.
I should like for a moment to return to a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the question of off-sets. The noble Lord

891
had a long and useful experience as Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I was there for a short time, and it was my experience then, as it has been since— and this was also mentioned in another place by one of the honourable Members— that off-sets take place not only in the field of industrial disease but also in the field of industrial accident. Take, for instance, the case of a man who has had an accident to his knee or to his back. I know this is a short digression from the Bill which is before us, but I want to join issue with the noble Lord on this point.
I have known many men who have gone to medical boards (and finally, in some cases, to medical appeal tribunals) who have been told that, either from respiratory disease or from accident, they are disabled, say, 50 per cent., but that there is a condition of arthritis. Who knows but that the accident triggered off this complaint known as arthritis? And yet, irrespective of that, the medical board has said that although the degree of disability is, say, 50 or 60 per cent., there is to be an off-set of 10, 20 or possibly 30 per cent. for the condition of arthritis, either in the knee or in the back. The same thing applies so far as respiratory diseases are concerned. The degree of disability may be 80 per cent., but on the clinical findings of the panel the degree of disability from pneumoconiosis may be given as only 50 per cent. because, instead of giving the person the total 80 per cent. which his disability warrants, there is this 30 per cent. off-set and he is given benefit based only on the disability arising from pneumoconiosis.
The noble Lord also said that the Bill which is now before us, and which was introduced so ably by my noble friend Lord Blyton, is not the original Bill. Neither is it— and I may have a few words to say about how I feel respecting the prescription of bronchitis and emphysema. Like the noble Lord, I too have been to Llandaff, and have seen many of the things he has seen, and much of the good work that has gone on at that medical research centre by way of defining simple pneumoconiosis from complicated pneumoconiosis, from modulated pneumoconiosis, from pneumoconiosis accompanied by tuberculosis, and so on and so forth— and it is indeed a most interesting place to visit,
892
My Lords, like my noble friend who introduced the Bill I would give it a welcome and support. It was introduced in another place as a Private Member's Bill, and after suggested Amendments had been incorporated it now has the support of the Government. I am pleased to be able to say that, judging from the speeches from all sides of the other place, it has the support of members of all Parties. Whilst the Bill is not as comprehensive as I should like it to be, my verdict upon it is that it is a good little Bill. It recognises as qualifying for benefit respiratory diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, if— and this is a big "if", I know— accompanied by pneumoconiosis. I make no pretence as to where I stand so far as these two respiratory diseases are concerned, in spite of the observations made by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I should like to see both emphysema and bronchitis prescribed in the schedule of industrial diseases attached to the Industrial Injuries Act.
There are two main reasons, I think (and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made reference to this matter), why, in this field, only this little step is being taken. The first is the cost. It was said during the debates in another place that if emphysema and bronchitis were prescribed the cost to the Industrial Injuries Fund would be in the region of —20 million per year. But I doubt whether that is the greatest obstacle to prescribing these two respiratory diseases. I think the real obstacle is medical opinion. I do not want to read all that was published in the British Medical Journal of January 8 of last year as a result of the setting up of a medical committee by the Minister for National Insurance because it is too long. But perhaps I may summarise the report.
The kernel of the Committee's conclusions was that there is still not enough medical evidence to indicate that emphysema and bronchitis are due to occupational hazards. It is said that the researches into these two dreadful respiratory diseases are to continue, and I hope that the time is not far distant when the medical experts on these respiratory conditions will be convinced that these two dreadful diseases are occupational hazards. Whilst, as I have said, this Bill, by bringing in emphysema and bronchitis, is only a small advance, it is to me a recognition that certain

893
respiratory diseases are occupational hazards. As my noble friend said, this has been a very long and hard road.
I was reading during the Easter holidays a history of the Derbyshire mines in which was described the conditions of work in the Derbyshire pits in the middle of the last century. I know this is going a long way back; but it has some relevance in a debate dealing with respiratory diseases. In the history it was stated:
"Working under such conditions" —
and the conditions that were described were: long hours, from 13 to 15 hours a day; going down the pits at 6 o'clock in the morning and not coming up before 9 o'clock at night—
"the miners had a short expectation of life."
It continued— and this is the operative sentence—
"Most of them, by the age of 40, if they had not a confirmed asthma suffered from difficult breathing and had a look of premature old age."
It was not until thirty or forty years after that that the first Workmen's Compensation Act (for accidents at work) was placed on the Statute Book in this country; and it was not until sixty or seventy years after that that silicosis was prescribed as a respiratory disease and became part of the Schedule to the Act.
I was also interested to read in the Observer of last Sunday some comments on the loss of the "Torrey Canyon" and the effect that it might have on the tourist industry in Cornwall. The writer said:
"China clay mining flourishes, and there is £2,500 million worth of tin reckoned to be lying below Cornish soil. But if tin mining does spring to life again it won't be Cornish miners. South Crofty, one of the tiny handful of working mines, has to import its miners from Europe and the North of England."
The writer goes on— and this is the important sentence—
"Too many Cornishmen remember the dreadful suffering pneumoconiosis caused."
Yes, my Lords, in the field of respiratory diseases it has certainly been a long, hard road to get some monetary compensation for the suffering that has ensued. In 1928 the disease of silicosis was first prescribed; but, as my noble friend said in his admirable speech, not only had a man then to be suffering from silicosis but it had to be proved that there was at least 50 per cent. of silica
894
in the strata. This applied until 1938, when some modifications took place and the handicap of percentages was removed.
Then, in 1943— and this year produced a very important development in this field of respiratory diseases— I remember going along with a deputation to the then Secretary of State, Home Office, who later became a Member of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Ingleby, to whom I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute. He was not only Secretary of State, Home Office, but was at one time Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. In my humble judgment, the humane way in which he approached the question of these respiratory diseases in 1943 deserves that a tribute should go on the record here to-day. It was arising out of those deputations that this horrible word "pneumoconiosis" was coined. It is not everybody who can pronounce it; I have difficulty myself in so doing; but its creation and use represented a big step forward, because from 1928 the prescribed disease had to be caused by silicone dust and up to 1938 a percentage of silica in the strata had to be proved. But in 1943, when the word "pneumoconiosis" was coined, it was held to refer to disease from any kind of dust; it was to apply to any person in any occupation who was suffering from dust in the lungs— call it "reticulation", call it "fibrosis", call it what you will. "Pneumoconiosis" included disease from any kind of dust affecting the lungs of a person in any occupation (not only a coal miner, not only a tin miner) and that person could be compensated under the Act. Not only coal dust or stone dust or asbestos dust, but any kind of dust that caused reticulation or fibrosis of the lungs brought the affected person within the ambit of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Then, in 1948, I believe, on the inception of the Industrial Injuries Act, if pneumoconiosis was accompanied by tuberculosis, that would also be taken into account in assessing the degree of disability.
But what has happened meanwhile? In the meantime, not only those who suffered from respiratory diseases from 1948 but even the old cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act (those who were totally and partially disabled) have been supplemented; and further, as my

895
noble friend also said, a very important section who had been left out in the cold for so long (those whom we refer to as the "time-barred pneumoconiotics") have been brought in. Under this Bill we move a step nearer— I am quite sure about that— to the prescription of bronchitis and emphysema as industrial diseases due to occupational hazards. The noble Lord made some reference to the 50 per cent.; I, myself, think it is too high a proportion. A man who gets an assessment of 50 per cent. from the medical panel is almost under sentence of death. I agree with the noble Lord that if we are going to draw a line in this initial stage of bringing in emphysema and bronchitis, it should be at much less than 50 per cent.
My Lords, I think we can describe this Bill as doing a very valuable piece of ambulance work for the 3,000 or 4,000 beneficiaries who will participate in the £300,000 from the Industrial Injuries Fund which was mentioned by the noble Lord. I had proposed to make some remarks about offsets, but having dealt with that, I will leave the point. I said that this Bill is to me a very valuable and important piece of ambulance work; but we cannot have effects without causes, and pneumoconiosis, emphysema and chronic bronchitis, to use the terms used in the Bill, result from something; there is some cause for these illnesses being inflicted on individuals in occupations where these hazards are found. It is the amount of dust particularly in those mines in Britain where there has been a high degree of mechanisation during the past few years. At one time we used to say, "If we can get coal cut by machines, we may have less dust". Experience has proved that we are getting more dust. I wish to pay tribute to the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. Co-operating together they have taken a number of measures to allay the incidence of dust in underground workings. These include water infusions on the coal face; sprays on the conveyors and on the loader heads— all these things have played a part in minimising the incidence of dust in the coalmining industry. I hope that the causes will be dealt with more effectively in future than has been the case in the past.
When my noble friend reported on the accident off the Cornish coast in which
896
the oil tanker the "Torrey Canyon" was involved, I thought of the amount of money which has, rightly and justifiably, been spent on clearing the oil from the sandy beaches of Cornwall. For generations the lungs of many healthy and brave men, particularly those working in the mining industry, have been clogged with foreign material, and I thought that if only a tithe of the amount expended in Cornwall had been spent on more research into the causes of the diseases to which I have referred, we might not have as high an incidence of pneumoconiosis as we have to-day. I welcome the Bill, and join my noble friend in expressing my gratitude to the honourable member for Merthyr Tydfil, a very old friend of us both, and also to the Minister, for bringing this Bill forward. In my view it is a step in the right direction.
5.14 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate and I should like to congratulate my noble friend, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, on his eloquent contribution. As he said, this is a Private Member's Bill, introduced by the honourable Member for Merthyr Tydfil, Mr.S.O. Davies, who is also an old friend of mine. We heard a very important speech by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, who is one of the most highly respected medical men in the country. I understood him to say that it is not possible to prove that bronchitis and emphysema are caused by pneumoconiosis. The contribution made by the noble Lord has proved of great assistance to me in winding up the debate. I am sure that all noble Lords will read what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, had to say, as well as other speakers in this debate.
Like everyone else, my sympathies are with the men who go down in the pits, or work in some other industry where there is a lot of dust. We all feel that they must be inhaling something which will affect their lungs. I feel the effect even when I get near the diesel fumes which may emanate from a taxi or a bus or one of the new locomotives. But I understand— I say this with great regret— that the cause of these complaints has not yet been proved. My noble friend Lord Blyton referred to what happens in Australia and South Africa, where industrial injury payments for bronchitis and emphysema are paid.

897
Those diseases are not endemic in those countries. As I understand it, if you can find a doctor who can prove that a disease contracted while at work has resulted in your suffering from bronchitis and emphysema, the Government or the appropriate Department will pay a claim.
It is not the same in this country. Here everyone over middle age has bronchitis, or a great number of people have. I was rather shocked when I heard this. I understand that if any noble Lord coughs to-morrow morning, he has bronchitis. I did not know that I had it although I sometimes cough in the morning; but there you are! It does not prove that the disease arose from my occupation; and that is the real issue before the Ministry and before both Houses of Parliament. I should be as delighted as anyone if it could be proved that miners suffering from bronchitis or emphysema had contracted these diseases from working in the pits, or if workers in the cotton industry or the woollen industry or the slate quarries or the tin mines of Cornwall were suffering for the same reason. I am sure that the Minister of Social Security would be delighted to find that she could go to the Treasury and say that this had been established beyond any reasonable doubt. The men who had worked themselves almost to death and suffered illness in the service of the nation could then get benefit from the Industrial Injuries Fund to which they, as well as the employers and the State, had contributed. They would be entitled to draw increased compensation for suffering from one or more of these terrible respiratory diseases.
My Lords, I was asked why the figure of 50 per cent. was chosen. It seems that the level of 50 per cent. disability has been selected on the best medical advice available because it is associated with the transition from simple pneumoconiosis (which is less severe and not progressive) to the severe and complicated form of the disease. I will not say any more about that now, but I can assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Minister of Social Security and her Ministry will go on with their research and inquiries into whether it is necessary to keep the figure of 50 per cent., and will also go on with their researches to see whether it can ever he established that bronchitis and emphysema
898
are caused by a man's occupation. I cannot promise anything, but that is the wish. As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield pointed out, the Ministry of Power, which controls the National Coal Board, and the National Union of Mineworkers, are spending in the neighbourhood of £1 million a year on research, which shows that the Government as a whole are very sympathetic.
If the Bill receives the Royal Assent, a considerable amount of work will still have to be done. In the first place, amending regulations will be required to make changes in the prescribed diseases regulations for industrial injuries cases, the "supplementation" and "benefit" schemes for "old cases". The Ministry will have to identify the cases likely to benefit and call them up for examination where necessary. This will, of course, be in addition to the ordinary work of the pneumoconiosis medical panels, the administrative boards which deal with old cases and the local offices of the Ministry. The Ministry's staff have already been giving thought as to what will be required and are anxious to launch the scheme as quickly as possible. I am sure they will do this with the efficiency we have come to expect of them. It is difficult to forecast when the Ministry will have been able to deal with all the cases affected but they hope, all being well, to make substantial progress in clearing cases likely to benefit under the Bill by the end of the year.
Both Parliamentary Secretaries, first Mr. Harold Davies, and then Mr. Loughlin, changed the character of the Bill considerably by the inclusion of the old cases. The Bill as originally presented did not provide for them. It now embraces two particular groups: first, those entitled to weekly payments of compensation related to an existing loss of earnings for the disease under the former Workmen's Compensation legislation. Their compensation is supplemented by weekly allowances from the Industrial Injuries Fund under the Workmen's Compensation Supplementation Act 1951 as amended by the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Amendment) Act 1965. Secondly, there are those whose disease developed so slowly that, as my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield said. they were time-barred for workmen's compensation purposes. They now receive weekly allowances from the

899
Industrial Injuries Fund under the provisions of the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Act 1951.
For technical reasons, it is not possible to put these "old cases" on all fours with industrial injuries cases. For one thing, the assessment of their disability is differently carried out. But the Bill provides that if a man is classified in one of the particular groups I have just mentioned as an "old case" and is partially disabled by pneumoconiosis (of gravity comparable to an assessment of 50 per cent. under the Industrial Injuries Scheme), he shall have any chronic bronchitis and emphysema taken into account, if all his chest disabilities would bring him into the range of allowances payable to a man totally disabled by pneumoconiosis alone.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield referred to the Bill as "a great little Bill". The Government have accepted it and changed it, and I am glad to see from my reading of the debates in another place that my honourable friends there and my noble friend here are satisfied that it is going some way towards dealing with this problem, though obviously they would have liked it to have gone further. I hope that I have given some encouragement to them. The Government are just as keen as they are to find out if these two diseases are caused by the occupation of the sufferers and to see whether they cannot do something to include these poor people in the scheme as a whole.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I will not detain the House much longer, but I should like to clear up two points. To the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench I would say this. If a man is before a Board for pneumoconiosis, his condition is determined by the X-ray plate. Any other disability he may have is not taken into consideration at all. That has been our experience for the last twenty years. To my noble friend on the Front Bench I would say this. Do not think that a man in Australia or South Africa who has a cough can go to his doctor and get a certificate to enable him to get compensation. He cannot. He has first to prove that he works in an industrial atmosphere. These two diseases are scheduled under the Pensions Acts of those countries as industrial diseases, particularly
900
in relation to the mines in South Africa and Australia.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I accept that. In fact, I would go further. If the man can give medical proof that bronchitis or emphysema arose through his occupation, he would get pension or benefit.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, quoted an experience which is contrary to my own. I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord who answers for the Government if he would be good enough to let us both know the Government's view on this matter before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD BOWLES: Yes, my Lords, certainly.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, with that, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS, &c.) (SCOTLAND) BILL
5.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Power to discontinue, reduce or transfer contributions]:
On Question, whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord a technical question. In circumstances where houses have been transferred, the Bill does not specifically say that the powers of subsection (3) of this clause will still be applicable to the transferred houses. Can we be quite certain that they will be applicable to them also?
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES):My noble friend beside me says, "That is a snorter!" It certainly is. Perhaps the noble Lord will give me time to look at this point, and communicate an answer to him in due course?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Right of parties to certain agreements secured on, or related to, unfit houses to apply to sheriff for adjustment of the agreements.
18.—
(3) In determining in any case what order, if any, to make under this section, the sheriff shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, and in particular —
(a) in the case of a heritable security or charge,
(i) to whether the heritable creditor or person entitled to the benefit of the charge acted reasonably in advancing the principal sum on the terms of the heritable security or charge; and in relation to this sub-paragraph he shall he deemed to have acted unreasonably if, at the time when the heritable security or charge was created, he knew or ought to have known that in all the circumstances of the case the terms of the heritable security or charge did not afford sufficient security for the principal sum advanced, and
LORD DRUMALBYNhad given Notice of two Amendments to subsection (3)(a)(i), the first being to leave out "acted reasonably in" and to insert instead, "when". The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if these two Amendments were taken together, since they relate to the same point. This clause deals with the provisions relating to the assessment of compensation for unfit and certain other houses. Subsection (3) deals with the circumstances to which the sheriff is enjoined to have regard in considering all the circumstances of the case. As I understand it— and I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will confirm this— whatever may be the answers in the particular circumstances to which he is told he must have regard, the sheriff is still left free to make an order with respect to the debt, and can
902
make it modifying or discharging any outstanding liabilities. In other words, he is still left the full discretion. The only discretion he is not left is in deeming:
" whether the heritable creditor or person entitled to the benefit of the charge… knew or ought to have known that in all the circumstances of the case the terms of the heritable security or charge did not afford sufficient security for the principal sum advanced":
and deeming whether, in those circumstances, the heritable creditor or person entitled to the benefit of the charge did not act reasonably in advancing the principal sum.
What I have tried to do in my Amendment is to remove the concept of acting reasonably, because I do not think this concept ought to be an overriding consideration. I do not know whether the noble Lord has ever had his wife say to him: "You are being far too reasonable" This is just the case one has in mind here. We are considering the case of a family who may be without a house at all. They are given the offer of a house. It may be a poor thing, and most inadequate. The price may be excessive, and they cannot get possession of the house unless they pay a sum. They naturally go to someone who is prepared to put up that sum, and they, in turn, are prepared to accept the implications of the debt. It may be quite unreasonable to advance the sum. On the other hand the person who advances it may have to consider the alternative, and the alternative may be that the family has no house at all.
One can see that there are three distinct kinds of case involved. The first, and the one at which the clause is clearly directed, is the case where the person who advances the sum is acting in co-operation with the person who is charging the sum — the person who is letting the property. In a case of that kind, where the sum charged is excessive, one can have no sympathy at all.
Then there is the intermediate case, where the person advancing the sum has some interest in the person having the house. For example, the person who advances the sum may be an employer of the tenant, and he may have an interest in having his tenant settled in accommodation and being able to operate from a

903
secure lease, albeit a poor one. He is advancing the sum for totally different reasons, and it may be quite reasonable, and even prudent, for him to do so in all the circumstances. But I can see that in a case of that sort he has something to gain from it.
Then there is the third case, where the sum is advanced out of pure compassion. It may be quite unreasonable, and totally imprudent, to advance it, but even in that case the sheriff is bound to take the view that the person acted unreasonably if he knew or ought to have known that there was not sufficient security provided by the heritable security. My contention is simply that it is quite unnecessary to fetter the sheriff in this way. All that has to be done is to direct his particular attention to this aspect and say that he shall have him weigh up all the factors together. This is what he is going to do, anyway, regard to this consideration, and then let and I rather regret that violence is being done to the concept of acting reasonably in this case. While, on the one hand, it may be the right criterion to apply, on the other hand, to say that, whether or not a man has acted reasonably, he is to be deemed to have acted unreasonably in all the circumstances seems to me to be quite wrong in principle.
My Amendments are directed purely to removing this concept of reasonability from the provision. If they were accepted the subsection would read:
"In determining in any case what order, if any, to make under this section, the sheriff shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, and in particular—
(a) in the case of a heritable security or charge.
(i) to whether the heritable creditor or person entitled to the benefit of the charge when advancing the principal sum on the terms of the heritable security or charge knew or ought to have known that in all the circumstances of the case the terms of the heritable security or charge did not afford sufficient security for the principal sum advanced …"
I should have thought that that gave the sheriff a perfectly clear direction as to what he had to take into account. To my mind, at any rate, it is a better criterion to apply than the criterion of acting reasonably and directing the sheriff to deem somebody to have acted unreasonably whether or not in fact the sheriff thinks that in all the circumstances
904
he did act unreasonably. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 17, leave out ("acted reasonably in") and insert ("when").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: Subsection (3) of Clause 18 lists various factors to which the sheriff is to have regard in considering whether he should grant relief of outstanding liabilities relating to a house which is declared unfit and where compensation is therefore regulated by Statute. These liabilities may arise out of obligations secured by a heritable security or charge, or under a hire purchase agreement. The sheriff is to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, but in addition the subsection lists specific matters which he must consider. Sub-paragraph (a)(i) contains two provisions. First, it lays clown that the sheriff must in particular have regard to whether the heritable creditor acted reasonably in lending the amount he advanced on the terms of the heritable security. Secondly, the last eight lines of the sub-paragraph provide that the heritable creditor shall be deemed to have acted unreasonably if he knew, or ought to have known, that there was insufficient security for the sum advanced.
As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, the two Amendments propose to remove both these provisions and to substitute for them a single provision that the sheriff must in particular have regard to whether the heritable creditor knew or ought to have known that there was insufficient security for the sum advanced. The argument in support of the Amendments is that this simpler approach will achieve the same effect as the present subparagraph without involving the sheriff in difficult questions of deciding what constitutes reasonable or unreasonable behaviour. The sheriff, however, will be quite familiar with the problem of deciding the reasonableness of a person's actions having regard to the circumstances of a particular case. The "reasonable man" approach is a perfectly common and perfectly workable legislative and legal formula and should not in practice lead to difficulties. It has not in the past.
The main arguments against the two Amendments are these. The first

905
Amendment removes the general requirement placed on the sheriff to have regard in particular to whether the heritable creditor, et cetera, acted reasonably in advancing the sum involved. It consequently narrows the considerations to which the sheriff's attention is directed, and this is undesirable. The sheriff must consider in each and every case whether the creditor acted reasonably in all his dealings, and not only in relation to the degree of security provided by the property. The setting out of this requirement in the subsection will be of help not only to the sheriff but also to the parties in any case before him.
The second Amendment involves the deletion of the "deemed to have acted unreasonably" provision. This provision is, however, essential to the proper working of the clause as a whole, since it makes clear how the sheriff should deal with cases where the sum advanced by the heritable creditor bears no relation to the security. In certain circumstances it is conceivable that a creditor may have advanced more than the property is worth and yet did not act unreasonably: for example, as the noble Lord cited as a possibility, he may have acted from a personal desire to help a relative or friend to find a house. The result of his action, however, could be that an unreasonable price was paid for a sub-standard house. The Government are determined that the prices of such houses must not be inflated in this way, and this provision guards against it.
I may say that similar Amendments to those moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, were moved in another place—similar but not identical. For instance, the Amendments moved there did not have the effect of the noble Lord's first Amendment, to take out the words that the creditor must be reasonable. They did, however, take out the second part, that he would be deemed to be unreasonable; and they went further and took out the phrase about knowing or being deemed to know, which the noble Lord has left in. But in another place the Amendment was withdrawn on an assurance by my honourable friend the Minister of State that he would look at the matter. He stated that he would not look at it himself but would consult with the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The mover of the Amendment,
906
in withdrawing it, said that if the decision was that the Lord Advocate was satisfied that these words were necessary for the proper working of the clause, he, the mover of the Amendment, would be content. Subsequently my honourable friend the Minister of State so wrote to the mover, in detail, and included the assurance that the Lord Advocate required the continuation of these conditions.
I would draw to the attention of noble Lords the fact that in another place there was a great deal of consideration in the Committee of a considerable practice which exists, particularly in the West of Scotland, of getting inflated prices for houses; and it was felt, not that these words are necessary to deal with the kind of helpful friend who would advance money in circumstances in which a building society or more commercially minded organisations would not look at the proposition, but that they are directed rather at those who are seeking every possible way of finding loopholes through the law as it exists. The feeling in another place, which I most definitely share, is that to take these words out would be helping not the kind people, but those who seek every opportunity of turning over an honest or a dishonest penny. I am quite certain that that is not the noble Lord's intention, and he may be reassured to a certain extent if he considers that where the original action of the creditor was of a purely charitable kind, it is very unlikely that this is the kind of case which would ever come before the sheriff in any event. It would be a poor reward if a man did so act towards a relative or friend, if the relative or friend turned on him and attempted to take advantage of his generosity in this way.
However, there is a safeguard even in these conditions, and I would particularly draw the noble Lord's attention to this. The sheriff is not required by the clause to make an order that the creditor has acted unreasonably if in all the circumstances of the case (this is in lines 13 and 14) he does not consider it just to do so. So even where the man is deemed to be acting unreasonably, it does not follow that the sheriff will make an order if, on consideration of all the circumstances, he does not think this is the proper thing to do. For these reasons, I think we have in this clause something which will give

907
protection where protection is needed but will not confer protection on those who are unworthy, whether they come into the category of those who are seeking to do things which the law ought not to permit or of those—and I think this is much more unlikely—who seek to abuse the generosity of a friend or relative.
5.47 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation and for the ample way in which he has dealt with the Amendment. There is, I think, this one difficult point. He has said that the Government are determined that prices shall not be inflated. The difficulty, of course, lies in the fact that the Bill will be retrospective as well as prospective. I am afraid that I do not share the noble Lord's optimism that none of the worthy cases (if I may put it this way) will be caught. I recognise how very difficult it is to devise a clause which will do perfect justice in a matter of this kind; and, of course, I think we are all anxious to see that there is no profiteering at the expense of people who are in great need of housing, especially where the houses offered are most inadequate. But I wish I could share the noble Lord's optimism that this provision will do justice.
One can only rely on the discretion of the sheriff, as one does with the most complete confidence. But, as the noble Lord agreed, it seemed to me that the whole of his argument was demolished by the fact that at the end of the day the sheriff could make what order he liked. What I rather object to is this introduction of a fixed criterion of reasonableness. How many times in Committees and in the Scottish Grand Committee in another place have we argued this question of reasonableness and always been told, "You must leave it open"? Now the Government come along and put an absolutely fixed determination on it, and the sheriff is in this particular respect and in determining this issue given no discretion at all. I regret that; I do not think it is right. It may be precedented, and perhaps the noble Lord can give me precedents, but even if there are precedents I should not consider them to be good ones.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord finishes on the note, "Heads I win, tails you lose": no matter what precedents I give, he is not going to be satisfied. However, I will not attempt to give precedents. All I will say is that my experience in the past is that the objection to the use of the words "reasonable" or "unreasonable" relates to the difficulty that anyone has in achieving a standard definition of what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable". I have no doubt that many times in the past that objection has been raised in another place, as it has been here. In this case the Government are attempting to give a definition of what is "unreasonable", and the noble Lord then similarly objects to the action being defined. So, as I have said, it is a case of "Heads I win, tails you lose". If it is left undefined it is objectionable; if it is defined it is objectionable.
All I wish to say in conclusion, and in asking the noble Lord not to press the Amendment, is that the legal advice which we have received is that the Bill is more likely to achieve justice in this form than it would be if it were amended, either along the lines which he has suggested or those which have been suggested in another place. At least there was merit in another place, that the mover of the Amendment was persuaded not to take the matter further because he was convinced on legal grounds, if not on any other grounds.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think we need pursue this matter any further. I do not remember ever having tried to define what is "reasonable in the circumstances". What we have tried to do is to narrow down the question of the sphere and the reasonableness of action in particular circumstances, but in view of the assurances given by the noble Lord and the legal advice that he has received, and while thanking him for having considered the matter again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
5.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extension of powers of local authorities in connection with provision of off-street parking places]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I have to inform your Lordships that no Amendments have been set down for this Bill. The question, therefore, is that I report this Bill, without amendment, to the House.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: May I make a few comments on Clause 1? It will be within the recollection of the Committee that on the Second Reading of this Bill, as we had already had a long day discussing the Road Safety Bill, we took this Bill formally so that we might raise such matters as arise on this Bill, on the Motion that Clause 1 stand part. As there are only two clauses, and the whole business is contained in the first clause, it will not take very long.
The purpose of the Bill is to remove the time limit of five years which was put in the 1960 Act when local authorities were given the power to develop sites comprehensively for making off-street car parks, and for other purposes. My right honourable friend Mr. Marples, when he was Minister of Transport, inserted this safeguard, I think rightly, because it is objectionable in principle that local authorities should use ratepayers' money to develop sites and to finance trading operations which may be in competition with the ratepayer himself. Therefore it was thought necessary to limit the experimental period in order to show whether or not, in practice, local authorities used this power unfairly.
In the event, experience has proved that there has been no injurious effect at all. In fact, my own impression is that the danger has been quite the reverse.
910
Local authorities are not getting on fast enough with the provision of off-street parking spaces, and my remarks will be directed chiefly to that point, on which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be able to give an answer. It is, of course, common knowledge to your Lordships that there is a shortage of parking spaces in almost every town of any size in the country. This is to the inconvenience of everybody, and it is often also against the interests of road safety and traffic flow, because the result is, naturally, excessive on-street parking.
There are two questions which I think need to be answered. First, why are local authorities so slow in providing more parking spaces? And I suppose it is fair to ask also why private garages do not spring up to meet the need. Here I must turn to the integral part of off-street parking spaces which is, of course, the provision of on-street parking control by parking meter schemes, or something similar, because, quite obviously, no motorist will pay to park his car in an off-street car park so long as he can park it "for free" on the street. Here is the answer why private garages do not spring up. Some have tried this, and painfully they have learned that the uncertainty about local authorities' introducing parking schemes is so great that private business people who erect an off-street garage are likely to stand and look at it standing empty for years before anything happens. In other words, they simply cannot afford to do it.
I should like to ask the noble Lord what is the view of the Government in this matter. It is a serious point. Over the past few years we have seen the benefit of parking meter schemes in the centre of London. In my judgment they have been of tremendous benefit. The short-term parker can leave his, or her, car in the middle of London, and this is most convenient. It costs more in the middle of London, but that is only right, because there will be a quicker turnover; and the result is that there is somewhere one can leave a car for a short time. At the same time, the traffic flow is greatly improved and, what is probably most important of all, the bus flow is kept properly moving. London Transport complain most bitterly about what they call the "glue pot ring". This is the ring outside the parking meter area in the centre where there is no parking control

911
and cars simply clutter the streets, including the main traffic arteries, and buses lose as much as an hour in their schedule simply because they cannot get through the congested highways.
Why are the G.L.C. not getting on with the scheme they propounded over a year ago, that they would make a great extension to 40 square miles, to cover the "glue pot ring"? I had hoped to see parking meters springing up all over the area, properly controlled, and at the same time the building of off-street car parks. I warned the noble Lord that I was going to ask him these questions, and I hope that he will be able to tell us something about this point. I come back to the Bill and ask him this question. When we have agreed this Bill, which is obviously right, what prospect is there that local authorities will build off-street car parks?—because this is really what we wish to see. I suppose it would not be unfair if at the same time I were to ask him whether he would give local authorities a little encouragement by removing the nonsensical income tax liability from the parking meter income. I am sorry to say that this was a mistaken heritage which my Government left with him. Will he not use his influence to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove parking meter income tax liability so that local authorities might get on with this?
I have one further point. When a local authority is encouraged to use a site for an off-street car park, I would suggest that it is often a sounder proposition for them to let it at an economic rent to private management who will then have all the problems, which are quite considerable, of profitably operating an off-street car park. In that way the ratepayers may very well be better off at the end of the day by receiving economic rent from the site; and maybe the users will be better served because the key of management is usually—not always, but usually—in better hands when somebody's livelihood depends upon it. I have noticed this practice in the United States. It is a quite common practice, and on the whole it seems to benefit all concerned.
May I conclude by saying that I certainly support the Bill. I am sure it is right that the time limit should be removed. Far from there being any
912
danger of local authorities exploiting this advantage of private enterprise, they have been doing nothing at all. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell your Lordships that the Government are going to do something to encourage them to get on with building more off-street parking places.
6.03 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, first of all for having given me notice of some of the points he intended to raise, and also for giving me an opportunity to explain a little more fully than I did on the Second Reading the operation of the Act which this Bill, when it is passed, will revive. The clear fact, of course, is that congestion, particularly in our main cities, arises through the explosion—if one might use the phrase—of car ownership. That is something to be welcomed, particularly if it can be kept under some degree of control. But really the problem arises because the roads that we have inherited are roads that no planner in his senses would have ever put on paper. I think it will also be recognised that you cannot alter the roads quickly. In fact we all know that even to make a minor by-pass requires a good deal of time. I will come on to that point, because it is to a certain extent one of the problems of the local authorities in the provision of off-street parking and also the provision of parking meters.
Traffic management is a young science. Experts travel the world seeing each other's problems, none of them really being able to find the right solution. In fact one wonders—and I think this is something that must be considered—whether it is right and proper that one should suddenly change the whole aspect of the city and all the ancient attractions the city may have, merely to provide some new major road through the city. These are all aspects that must be considered. Clearly we have to look at traffic management as a science, and we are learning all the time. The fact is that this particular power has proved very useful. As the noble Lord knows, local authorities are able to provide the car park by itself but in most cases, particularly in the cities, this proves to be at a prohibitive cost. The Act permitted local authorities to provide car parking

913
facilities in buildings which could be used for other purposes. In other words, the purposes for which the building was used, apart from car parking, provided a degree of revenue that helped the ratepayer to bear the cost of providing facilities which are not for the ratepayers themselves, because we recognise that in cities many people are driving cars who are not ratepayers of that particular locality.
During the five years of the Act some 32 car parks were approved in such places as Central London, Westminster in particular, Leicester, Maidstone, Blackburn, and they have provided some 15,000 car parking spaces. To give an idea of the cost—and remember those 15,000 spaces—the capital invested was in the region of some £15½ million. This is a very sizeable figure. The other aspect to which the noble Lord referred was possible competition with private enterprise. To the best of my knowledge there have been no complaints in this matter, and for this reason: that because it has proved a useful experiment, we did not think it necessary to maintain the five-year limit on this particular legislation.
The noble Lord then asked how local authorities generally are getting on with the provision of off-street parking. Of course, cost is a major factor. I think the noble Lord will remember that it is only in the Greater London area—the Greater London Council and the boroughs—where there is a clear duty laid upon the authority to secure the provision of off-street car parking. The other local authorities have a responsibility but not a duty, and it may well be that Parliament should consider—certainly the Government are giving it consideration—whether the duty that has been laid upon the London boroughs and the Greater London Council should not be imposed on local authorities throughout the country.
One of the difficulties when one comes to parking meters is the machinery that we have imposed before anything can be done. If you take the case of a parking meters scheme in London, or for that matter any other local authority, the local authority has to seek permission of the Minister. At least this was the case until recently. And then it was for the Minister to make an Order. Then there have to be wide consultations.
914
To give an example, in Southampton the local authority sought permission for a scheme, and there were over 5,000 objections. This clearly creates great administrative difficulties, and certainly it turns consideration for weeks into months, and in some cases getting close on to years. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will remember that we have changed the procedure by an Order that your Lordships' House passed recently, the Parking Places (Transfer of Function) Order (No. 414), which provides that the local authorities themselves can now make Orders with the consent of the Minister. This of course will save time.
With regard to the London area, as the noble Lord said, the Greater London Council produced a scheme to cover some 44 square miles. This was a three-year plan, and it commenced in February, 1966, with a target date for completion early in 1969. There were 11 boroughs concerned and there were to be 44 parking meter zones. The first steps—the surveys—have now been taken by all the boroughs. Five boroughs are committed in principle to introducing schemes by the target date; six boroughs are still negotiating with the Greater London Council.
The Government believe that this scheme, which in some senses is in its early stages, will be one of gathering momentum, and we have no reason to believe that the target date should not see almost the completion of the entire scheme as proposed by the Greater London Council. I am quite sure, and I share this view with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that we have to clear our streets in some way. Here parking meters can play a part; but if I may speak personally in this matter, sometimes I cannot help but feel that parking meters have played some part in creating the congestion. I think that in the end the solution must be in the provision of off-street parking facilities by the authorities. This is an expensive matter, and clearly the ratepayers have much to say on it. Therefore I hope that while local authorities are on a voluntary or permissive basis we shall certainly stimulate them to the best degree possible to provide increased off-street parking and to make full use of this Bill when it becomes an Act. Already a number of local authorities are pressing the

915
Government for approval of their various schemes.
With regard to the noble Lord's request on income tax, at this time of the year I merely take note. As he said, it was a heritage that he was unable, regretfully, to deal with during his own time. I can only say that I wish he could have dealt with a good deal more of the heritage that he left us. However, certainly on this occasion I do not propose to be provocative; but I hope the noble Lord will at least assist us in the speedy passing of this piece of legislation.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

NORTH DEVON (MELDON RESERVOIR) WATER ORDER 1966
6.15 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON had given Notice of his intention to move, That the North Devon (Meldon Reservoir) Water Order 1966, laid before the House on January 17 last, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to move the Motion in my name to annul the North Devon (Meldon Reservoir) Water Order 1966. I have received assurances, which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can confirm on behalf of the Government, that it is their intention to withdraw this Order and to lay a similar Order in due course.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it might be convenient if I gave the noble Lord—
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, may I just finish what I was going to say? So as to keep in order, I represented to the Leader of the House and to the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms, as well as to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, that to proceed with this Order after the Petitioners have been denied a hearing by the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means sitting together, would indeed have been a breach of undertakings that were given by the late Mr. Arthur Greenwood when he was Lord Privy Seal at the time of the passing
916
of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act in 1945.
I should like to express my gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for the fair, honourable and prompt way in which they looked at the undertakings that were given and for having withdrawn this Order in order fully to carry them out. I must also express my regret that some Peers who have come here specially in order to speak upon this Motion will find that the debate will not take place, but I am sure they will share my appreciation of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I think I should assure the noble Lord and your Lordships' House that it is the Government's intention to withdraw this Order and to lay a similar Order in due course. But I should make it quite clear that we have withdrawn it, not because we have any doubt as to its quality but merely because we did not think it right, in view of the speech that the noble Lord will be making shortly and the issue that he may be raising, that the House should be put in a position of difficulty. Therefore we feel that by making this gesture we leave the matter open; but I should make it perfectly clear that it is the Government's intention to re-lay this Order in due course.

SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS: AMENITY SOCIETIES
6.18 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON rose to ask the Chairman of Committees whether it would not be desirable to change the rules on locus standi so as to allow amenity societies to petition against Special Procedure Orders. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord Chairman of Committees the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Question arises out of the Petition of the Dartmoor Preservation Association, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Ramblers Association, the Youth Hostels Association (England and Wales), the Dartmoor Rangers Club, the Dartmoor Ramblers Club of Plymouth and the Exeter

917
Rambling Club, who laid a Petition and general objection against the North Devon (Meldon Reservoir) Water Order 1966.
It is the task of the Lord Chairman and of the Chairman of Ways and Means to consider, under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Acts 1945 and 1965, whether Petitions are proper to be received. It will be my first submission that in refusing locus standi to these Petitioners the Chairmen fell into error. They were the more likely to fall into error owing to a mistake for which I do not think the Parliamentary agent could be held to be blamed: that the Parliamentary agent was not present when the two Chairmen met to consider this question of locus standi. In considering the matter the two Chairmen could turn to two precedents which might be held, and no doubt were held, to justify refusing these Petitioners locus standi. The more recent one was in 1910, the Bradford Corporation Bill. I do not think that I need go into the details of that, beyond saying that it is not clear on what ground locus standi was refused. The next most recent precedent was one in 1902. Since then, so far as I can ascertain, all the precedents are in favour of granting locus standi to amenity societies.
At the risk of wearying your Lordships, I quickly will read the outline of the nine cases. There was the Swansea Corporation Private Bill in 1954–55, when the Gower Society was able to argue against the Bill. There was the British Transport Corporation (No. 2) Bill, in 1955–56, when the Inland Waterways Association, the Kennet and Avon Association and others were granted locus. There was the Fylde Water Bill, in 1955–56, when the Ribble Fisheries Association and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, Lancashire branch, were allowed to petition. There was the Liverpool Corporation Bill, in 1956–57, when the Council for the Preservation of Rural England was allowed to petition. And then, perhaps the most remarkable of all, there was the North Devon Water Bill, in 1958–59. Not only was the Dartmoor Preservation Association, which your Lordships will remember was one of the Petitioners in this case and the one perhaps most locally and intimately affected, allowed to petition against the Bill, but as a result of the Petition the Bill was, I think, rejected.
In 1961–62 the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, the purpose of which was to restrict commoners' rights in Epping Forest, was petitioned against by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Commons Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society joining with them. There was the Welsh Shipping Agency Bill, in 1963–64 to authorise extensive marine works in the Bristol Channel, and in this case the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, with two local authorities, were allowed to petition against the Bill.
More recently, there was a Bill which I am sure is very present in the memories of your Lordships, the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Bill, introduced in 1965–66, when a large number of amenities societies were allowed to petition. Then, most recently of all, there was the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill of 1966–67, where the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Commons and Open Spaces Protection Society were allowed to petition and secured the removal from that Bill of a clause which would have allowed tents and caravans to occupy public open space in Hainault Forest. These—and this point will be of importance in my argument—were all Private Bills. I know of only one precedent where an Order under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Acts 1945 to 1965 has come up, and in that case the High Wycombe Rye Protection Society were allowed to petition against the Order and were successful in defeating it.
My Lords, with this strong body of precedent over the last twenty or thirty years, it is at any rate arguable that the two Chairmen, without the assistance of a Parliamentary agent to draw their attention to these precedents, fell into error when they denied locus to these amenity societies, some of whom were national and some of whom were local. The decision may have been correct. If the decision was correct, then I would say that it is necessary to amend Standing Order 117. The Lord Chairman has, I think wisely, declined to give reasons for the decision. The Chairman of Ways and Means has been a little more forthcoming in a letter written to a Member of the House of Commons. I should

919
like to read to your Lordships Standing Order 117, which states:
"Where any society or association sufficiently representing any trade, business, or interest in a district to which any Bill relates, petition against the Bill, alleging that such trade, business, or interest will be injuriously affected by the provisions contained therein, it shall be competent for the Select Committee to which the Bill is committed, if they think fit, to admit the Petitioners to be heard on such allegations against the Bill or any part thereof."
It would appear that the Dartmoor Preservation Association is not deemed to be an association, and therefore is not deemed to have an interest in the district to which the Bill relates. I should have thought that to be a perverse construction to put upon the words.
Why do I make so bold as to claim that, if the Chairmen's decision was correct, the Standing Order should be amended? First of all, because it is completely contrary to the assurances that were given by the then Government at the time of the passing of the 1945 Act. I should like to deal with the contention of the Chairman of Ways and Means that the same considerations do not apply in the case of orders under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Acts as under Private Bills. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill on October 18, 1945, the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth (then Mr. Herbert Morrison, at that time Lord President of the Council), said—and I quote from col. 1381 of the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT:
"… it is contemplated that the procedure will not differ substantially from that under which Provisional Orders and Private Bills are now examined by a Committee of either House, that is to say, the petitioners and other persons having a locus standi will be entitled to be represented and place their cases before the Committee."
I contended that as, under that Act, a Petition of general objection could be referred to a Committee upstairs only if a Private Member of the House of Commons was able to carry a Motion to that effect, this put an almost intolerable burden upon Private Members. It meant that a Private Member had to keep the House up until late at night in seeking to persuade some of his friends to support him in what might be a local constituency matter; and it would be almost impossible for him to do so effectively if the Government chose to use their powers.
The late Mr. Arthur Greenwood said on November 14, 1945, OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, at column 2180, in answer to my representations upon the subject:
"I cannot speak for any future Government, least of all for a Government drawn from the opposite Benches, but I can speak for His Majesty's present Government. I do not want to mince my words at all, and I give the most specific assurance that we do not regard this Bill as a weapon with which to beat down opposition or to carry proposals through without due regard to all the interests who ought to be considered. I think it would be wrong to use the Bill in that way, and so long as this Government continues I can assure hon. Members that this specific pledge which I have given will be honoured to the full."
I would once more express my appreciation to the noble Earl the Leader of the House and to the Government for the very fair and generous way in which, faced with that quotation from a previous Labour Government, they have acted in withdrawing the Order.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much.
LORD MOLSON: Mr. Greenwood went on to say that it would be necessary to draft the Standing Orders carefully, in order to give effect to the intentions of the Bill. At column 2183 he said:
"On the point of Standing Orders"—
I am leaving out a few words, but without altering the sense—
"… It is vital that the two chairmen… should have guidance as to how they should conduct and carry out the very heavy responsibilities… which will be cast upon them… It is the intention of His Majesty's Government that those Standing Orders shall be such that no Petitioner's rightful claims shall ever be rejected. I cannot use any stronger language".
For twenty years it was generally thought that the amenity societies had a locus standi for petitioning under this Special Parliamentary Procedure, just as they had under Private Bills. In 1965 the present Government, as a result of suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, did what I had asked should be done in 1945, which was that a Petition of general objection should go almost automatically to a Committee upstairs. Again, when the Parliamentary Secretaries are speaking we have the clearest possible indication that it was never the intention of the Government in their amending Act of

921
1965 in any way to narrow the rights of Petitioners—quite the contrary.
Mr. MacColl said this on February 24, 1965, OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, at column 531:
"This is a measure which… is designed to strengthen our proceedings in connection with Special Orders and as a protection to the public who are affected by those Orders."
Then he went on to describe the change to which I have referred. When it was suggested to him that perhaps the powers of the Chairmen to disallow Petitions had been unwisely extended, he said on the same day at column 538:
"If there is any doubt about a Petition, let it be sent to the Committee and let the Committee throw it out."
On the Third Reading, Mr. Mellish, his colleague, in explaining the Bill, said:
"… the bias in future will be towards allowing a petition of objection to go to a Joint Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 4/5/65; col. 1188.]
Therefore, it seems to be perfectly clear that the intention of both Governments when they were legislating, and the understanding of Parliament, was that very full rights would he given to interests affected to petition against an Order.
My second argument is this. If in the case of a Private Bill a statutory undertaker who wishes compulsorily to acquire somebody else's land has to justify his action to a Select Committee and to do so in the face of the arguments of amenity societies, it would indeed be an abuse if, by choosing another kind of procedure—that of the Special Parliamentary Procedure—he was able to do so without the Petitioners being heard. I am quite sure that Parliament would not tolerate a state of affairs in which a person, seeking compulsorily to acquire somebody else's land, was able, by resorting to one expedient rather than another, to diminish the rights of Petitioners to put forward their case.
But it is even worse than that. It is argued by the Chairman of Ways and Means that if, in fact, the Promoters of practically any of these Private Bills had chosen to question the locus standi of the amenity societies, the Court of Referees of which he is Chairman would have disallowed the Petitions of the amenity societies. It is said that it was out of the generosity of mind of these statutory undertakers that they did not object to the Petitions of the amenity
922
societies being heard. I really cannot quite swallow that story. I really cannot believe that when a statutory undertaker is trying to acquire land he deliberately abstains from questioning the locus standi of amenity societies. The fact of the matter is that, until this decision, it was clearly thought by those engaged in practice at the Parliamentary Bar that amenity societies would be granted locus standi to object.
And what of the future? Once this decision has been given, it will follow as the night the day that in all future cases when a statutory undertaker proceeds by Private Bill he will object to the locus standi of amenity societies, and we are told by the Chairman of Ways and Means that the locus standi will probably be refused by the Court of Referees.
Let us just look at the way this will work out. Let us take the case of the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Bill, which occupied Committees of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords for no less than 32 days. We are now told that had the Cleveland Valley Water Board chosen to question the locus standi of the large number of amenity societies petitioning against it there never would have been any proceedings upstairs. The amenity societies would have been told that they had no business to appear there and to argue the case.
My next argument is that this line is contrary to the policy of Parliament over the last 100 years. The Commons Preservation Society was founded 102 years ago for the purpose of preserving for public use commons in the London district. Three of its most conspicuous and earliest successes were preventing the Lord of the Manor of Hampstead Heath from selling it as building land, similarly in the case of Wimbledon Common and similarly in the case of Ham Common. Does it really make sense that now, 100 years later, the same Society should be told, as it has been by the Chairmen, that it has no locus standi to object to Okehampton Common being compulsorily acquired and submerged under water?
I take another point. If that has been the line of Parliament for 100 years, what about the general tendency of thought in Parliament (and outside Parliament, too) during the last few years? Surely the

923
whole tendency under the Labour Government of 1945 to 1951, under the Conservative Administrations— although some of the decisions given by them were open to correction—and under this Government has been that the preservation of the countryside is a matter of the greatest interest. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside legislation, with which the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will always be honourably associated, was intended to give protection to the countryside, and to preserve it for the present generation and for posterity; and there is a White Paper which the present Government have presented, Leisure in the Countryside, in which we are promised there will be legislation next year. A decision of this kind, that the amenity societies are not to be heard in Petitions, is completely against the whole current of opinion, both in Parliament and in the country.
Those are the reasons why I say that if, in fact, the decision of the Chairmen is correct, then the Standing Orders affecting these matters must be amended. The Order will be relaid, and the Chairmen will have to sit again to consider the locus standi of the Petitioners against the Bill. I hope—there is no harm in hoping—that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will don the white garments of a penitent and that the decision on the next occasion will be different from that on the last. For that reason I do not want to make his position in any way more difficult. I have ventured, because I think it is only right, to criticise the decision at which he and his colleague arrived on the last occasion. I do not expect him to answer my arguments in detail "off the cuff". He will be sitting in a quasi judicial capacity on another occasion, and I think it would be quite unreasonable if I expected him in any way to express any opinion as to whether, on another occasion, the decision might be different. I shall not at all regard him as evading the issue if he does not say much upon this matter. But, my Lords, if the Chairmen come again to the same conclusion, then, in my submission, the Standing Order must be amended. It must be so amended as to give effect to the intentions of the Government and of Parliament when the Act of 1945 was passed, and to establish what has in fact been the practice during the last twenty years.
6.45 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure that everyone who has heard the noble Lord's speech will wish to congratulate him upon the way in which he has presented this very difficult case, upon, the amount of work and effort he has put into preparing it, and upon his public spirit in bringing this matter forward. He has dealt with the thing so thoroughly that he has left me with very little to say. But in the first instance I should like to put to him that, unfortunately, the decision of the Chairman of Committees was a correct one if one takes Standing Order No. 117 literally. I think it is remarkable that, in spite of the vicissitudes of many years, this Standing Order has remained as it is. The noble Lord read it out earlier in his speech, but for the benefit of noble Lords who have forgotten it may I say that it says that those who are concerned with trade, business or other interests and who are injuriously affected have a right to lodge a Petition. Unfortunately, reading those words from a legal point of view, "other interest" can mean only an interest similar to trade or business.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way one moment, I would point out that Standing Order No. 117 says:
"…trade, business, or interest…",
The noble Lord inserted the word "other", and said, "or other interest". I am to follow him, and I shall be glad to do so, but I do not think the ejusdem generis rule applies at all.
LORD SILKIN: I am at a great disadvantage in arguing with a noble and learned Viscount who is a former Lord Chancellor, but I am entitled to my own view, and I am expressing only my own view and not the noble and learned Viscount's. My own view is that these words are ejusdem generis. I was hesitating to use that language, but I think they are; and I think that is the way in which it has been interpreted over the years from time to time. I say "from time to time" because the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has quoted a number of cases where the Committee have taken a different view. There are certain other cases. Therefore, while in my view there seems to be no doubt as to the literal meaning of Standing Order No. 117, the

925
fact remains that over a number of years the Committee have not acted in accordance with that Standing Order, but have waived it in a way which seems to me quite irrational. For that reason, there is no doubt at all that we ought to put this thing right, have the Standing Order looked at again, and amended in a way that will meet the wishes and convenience of the House. If we do that, I have no doubt at all as to the lines upon which this amendment will be made.
The present position is, of course, a highly illogical one. It is devoid of any common sense to say, for instance, that those who are engaged in the preservation of Dartmoor—the Dartmoor Preservation Society—have no interest in the preservation of Dartmoor. It is just plain nonsense to say that they have no right to make representations. This is a society which was set up deliberately to protect the amenities of Dartmoor. Yet when a scheme is proposed which, in their view, is going to be injurious to the amenities of Dartmoor, under the Standing Order, literally interpreted, they have no right to make representations or to lodge a Petition.
I think Lord Molson's Question is very relevant. If it means that we are going to be told that this matter will be considered by the Procedure Committee and that a new Standing Order will he considered which will be more in line with present-day thinking and with some of the decisions of the Committee in the past, then the debate will have been worth while. I am not seeking to establish—and I do not think the House is seeking to establish—that my noble friend, as Chairman of Committees, has acted improperly. I do not think he has; nor do I think if he had seen and discussed it with the agents concerned and or had even heard the precedents that he need necessarily have come to a different conclusion. Once his attention had been drawn to this Standing Order and to what it means, I think he had no other alternative. But the fact remains that this is wrong and devoid of common sense; it is inequitable and, I am sure, contrary to the wishes of everyone who has given the matter a moment's thought. I hope in these circumstances we shall get a favourable reply to the Question put by the noble Lord.
6.53 p.m.
LORD WOOLLEY: My Lords, in rising to speak in your Lordships' House for the first time, may I ask for your tolerance and indulgence, and may I also express my great appreciation of the privilege of being a Member of this House? I certainly do not count myself in any sense qualified or worthy of this privilege, and I fear that by the time I have sat down many of your Lordships may agree with me. I speak as a farmer; and it may seem surprising therefore that I should choose to make my maiden speech on so technical a subject in the company of such distinguished lawyers. Indeed, I am not competent to go into the technicalities which noble Lords who have spoken hitherto have elucidated so cogently; but I am concerned about where all this leads. May I here be allowed to join with the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, who paid tribute to the late Lord Williams of Barnborough. As a farmer and as a member for many years of the National Farmers' Union, and having worked closely in years gone by with the late Lord Williams of Barn-borough I, too, should like to pay my tribute to a great man. This is a tribute to which I am sure the whole of the agricultural community would subscribe.
My Lords, as a farmer I speak for those who are usually on the rather rough, receiving end of these Orders. Certainly, so far as trade and business interest is concerned, we are very much involved—to the tune of some 50,000 acres per year, remorselessly, year by year. It is a very serious and grave national problem. I know that in speaking here as a farmer I am by no means unique. I know there are a great many Members of this House who have both extensive knowledge and deep interest in the industry of agriculture, as anyone reading or listening to the debates on Agriculture Bills in this House would quickly be aware. We feel very keenly the position in which we are liable to be placed if there is too great an opportunity, too freely and frequently used, for interests to be prosecuted which are important but which, I suggest, are subsidiary to the main interest and purpose of land, which is clearly the production of food.
I would not for one moment seek to belittle the importance of amenity.

927
Indeed I would claim as a farmer that I am in a calling which, with our partners, the agricultural landlords and the agricultural workers, with their skill and craft, is the greatest preserver of the beauty of the British countryside. It is not the preservationists who present the beautiful face of rural Britain; it is the farmers and their men and the landlords who have done so much for the beauty of this country. This is not to show any lack of sympathy with the preservationists; but I took the trouble—because I thought the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was going to propose the annulment of the Order—to go down to Devon to see Meldon Valley. I am bound to say that, if this is the sort of case on which the preservationists feel so strongly, if this is something that really inspires them to a great crusade, having been involved over a good many years in a good many cases all I can say is that I have never seen a case where the affront, the damage to the various interests, was more minimal than it is in this particular case.
I may be out of order in discussing the merits of this particular proposal, but I use it as an example. It is a steep defile; the amount of land that would be taken is of no consequence at all; it is a minimal amount of land, of minimal value to agriculture, and there are no agricultural objectors. So far as amenities and beauty are concerned, this is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it might well add to the scenic beauty. I do not believe it would be despoiling. So far as agricultural interests are concerned, there is no question: I do not suggest that this is a serious case in which the Gorhuish alternative would take vast amounts of land, but there are these 14 farmers who would be seriously affected, there are 115 acres of good land, and as much more of land which is mostly capable of improvement. That is the basic condition.
I do not believe there is any justification for this. On principle, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has argued most eloquently, cogently, and learnedly. I do not seek to challenge those arguments. What I say is that in the interests of progress we cannot allow this question of amenity to get out of perspective. There is the amenity of those who need water; there is the amenity of those
928
who have to earn their living—and a hard living, too, in those areas. The whole of the farmers in the N.F.U. there are agreed that the Meldon Valley scheme is sound. I do not speak for the other interests. I can only say that I firmly believe that this is a case in which the North Devon Water Board have shown the greatest prudence, the greatest good sense and the greatest consideration.
There has been a public local inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, has not really touched very much on the public local inquiry procedure in which all these interests have nut their points of view; and this, I think, may not have been contemplated when the procedures of 1945 to which he referred were being discussed in Parliament. That I do not know, but certainly this procedure has been thoroughly gone through. I believe that if there is delay it will only create additional expense and more work for many people who are already hard worked, and that we should be going again over ground which has been thoroughly explored and about which all the interests have had a very full opportunity to express their views. I would rather have spoken on the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has now withdrawn. That would have been more appropriate. I have tried to observe brevity, and I hope that I have not been too controversial. I thank your Lordships for listening to me.
7.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sure the whole House would wish me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, upon successfully accomplishing the task and surviving the ordeal—it is a great ordeal—of speaking in this House for the first time. I am sure, too, that we shall look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future. There cannot be many noble Lords who have taken the trouble to travel from London to Devon in order to brief themselves thoroughly before making their maiden speech.
As I listened to the noble Lord I thought that he was putting himself in some danger of being called as a witness for the Promoters if in fact this Order—the North Devon Water Order—should be referred to a Joint Select Committee, because he gave very valuable testimony

929
in favour of the Order. For all I know, my Lords, he may be quite right. In all these cases there is a balance of interests which has to be assessed. Sometimes the damage to the amenities is so excessive that other interests have to take second place. Sometimes it is necessary that the amenities should be damaged rather than other interests, such as agriculture. It may well be the noble Lord is right about that. I understand that after this public inquiry the inspector reported one way and the assessor who was sitting with him reported another way; so it would appear that they regarded the arguments as pretty evenly balanced. But, my Lords, the question we now have before us is not the decision about where this reservoir should be. The issue is, who should have the right of appearing to put forward their grounds—be they good grounds or bad—for consideration by Parliament? It is only on that subject that I wish to say a few words.
My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government on taking what I think is a very proper course. The Lord Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means have reached a decision, to which I shall refer in a few moments, the effect of which has been to deprive these Petitioners of any right to be heard and to put forward their grounds for the consideration of Parliament, be they good grounds or be they bad grounds. What now is to be the position? The Order will be re-laid. Presumably the Petitioners will lodge their Petitions again. It may be—one does not know—that the Promoters, the Ministry and the North Devon Water Board, will object to the Petitions on the ground of locus standi. It may be that they will not: they did not the last time. I gather that no objection was raised. And so the question must come again before the two Chairmen to determine whether or not these petitioning bodies have a locus standi.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, expressed his view with that clarity and firmness which we all expect from him. I interrupted the noble Lord because he was misquoting the relevant Standing Order; and the wording of that Order makes a difference. The Order reads as follows:
"Where any society or association—"
930
and these are all associations—
"sufficiently representing any trade, business, or interest in a district to which any Bill relates…"
My Lords, it is for the Chairmen to determine in every case whether an association sufficiently represents a trade, business or interest. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asserted that those words, if taken literally, justified the Chairmen's decision, because these associations could not be regarded as representing a trade, business or interest within the meaning to be given to those words in the Standing Order.
I confess that I completely disagree with the noble Lord. "Interest" is a word of the widest possible content. It is not defined in this Standing Order, and it does not form a class with the words "trade" and "business". As I see it, its interpretation must not be narrowed because it is preceded by the words "trade" and "business". Therefore I would say that, provided that the representation was, in the view of the Lord Chairman, sufficient, it would be wrong to exclude these associations from being heard on the ground that they did not represent a trade, business or interest within the meaning of the Standing Order. The Standing Order does not say that the interest must be one connected with trade or business. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is seeking to read into the Standing Order.
The Order goes on to refer to an:
"interest in a district to which any Bill relates."
The Society may:
"petition against the Bill, alleging that such trade, business, or interest will be injuriously affected by the provisions contained therein…"
I see a real difficulty, not about the words "trade, business or interest", but on the question whether the interest is injuriously affected. Those are words which are terms of art and usually involve the payment of compensation if there is any acquisition, payment under the Lands Clauses Act. I should therefore think it much more likely that the associations would not be able to establish that they had an interest which was injuriously affected than that they would not be able to establish that they had an interest coming within the Standing Order. Therefore there is a case for clarifying this Standing Order.

931
That, my Lords, brings one on to the next, and I think the most important, question. My noble friend Lord Molson quoted a long list of precedents where amenity interests had been allowed to object to Bills under this Standing Order. If this Standing Order has the meaning which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thinks should be attached to it, those interests ought never to have been allowed to be heard by Parliament. As I understand it—perhaps I shall be corrected if I am wrong—it has been the regular practice of the Court of Referees never to make any inquiry as to locus standi unless there is an objection by the Promoters to the Petitioners' being heard, with the result that these precedents which my noble friend has quoted will be cases where, rightly or wrongly, for one reason or another the Promoters have not objected to the Petitioners' being heard, and the Petitioners have been heard.
It seems to me very wrong and anomalous that a right of being heard under the Standing Orders of either House—and the Standing Orders of the two Houses are the same in this respect—should depend, not on the decision of the House, or of anyone appointed by the House, but on the question whether or not the point is taken by the Promoters of the Bill. I ought to add that in this House, not having a Court of Referees, we have a Select Committee to decide locus standi, and presumably that Committee acts in the same way as the Court of Referees. It seems to me wrong that there should be this disparity. It is very unsatisfactory.
When we come to Orders under the Statute passed in 1945, I would remind the House of the assurances given during the passage of that Bill by Mr. Herbert Morrison, as he then was, and by Mr. Greenwood. The object of that measure was to save time in getting the proposals through Parliament. It was deliberately not intended to restrict the rights of Petitioners more narrowly than they were restricted in relation to Bills. If the subject matter of this Order had been contained in a Bill, there being no objection to the locus standi by the North Devon Water Board or by the Ministry, under the long-established practice that has existed the Petitioners would have been entitled to be heard.
What is the position with regard to these Statutory Orders? The Lord Chairman
932
and the Chairman of Ways and Means have to act as servants of either House in accordance with Standing Orders. I have no doubt at all that the noble Lord the Lord Chairman thought it was his duty, under Standing Order 208(2), to take this question of locus standi, even though it had not been taken by the North Devon Water Board or by the Ministry, and I have no doubt the Chairman of Ways and Means thought so, too. I would say straight away that at first sight I thought that the Standing Order was capable of that construction; but on consideration I feel that it is wrong.
I venture to take up the time of your Lordships' House on this matter because this may be an important question, should the North Devon Water Board and the Ministry take the line they have taken so far, of not lodging an objection to these bodies' being heard. Standing Order 207 provides for the lodging of a Memorial by the Ministry or the applicant for the Order:
"…objecting to the Petition being certified as proper to be received, or, if it is presented as a Petition for amendment, objecting that it is a Petition of general objection, and stating specifically in either case the grounds of the objection."
The reason for that is that under the 1945 Act there were two kinds of Petition—a Petition of general objection to an Order and a Petition for amendment. A Petition of general objection could not be referred to a Committee without a Motion from either House, as my noble friend has said. But a Petition for amendment went straight to the Committee. That provided an incentive to people to try to get their Petitions of objection, which went to the principle of the Order, labelled and passed as Petitions for amendment, so by-passing the requirement of a Motion. Obviously it was right that the two Chairmen in either House of Parliament should have power to stop those tactics, if they were adopted. And under Standing Order 207 power is given to the Promoters to draw the attention of the Chairmen to the adoption of the tactic of putting forward a Petition of general objection as a Petition for amendment, or if it were the case that the Petition was not proper to be received.

933
Standing Order 208(2) provides:
"If no such Memorial is deposited, but the Chairmen are not satisfied that a Special Procedure Petition should be certified as proper to he received, or, if it is presented as a Petition for amendment, are not satisfied that it is such a Petition, the Chairman shall give notice in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments of the time and place at which the Chairmen will further consider the Petition."
That gives the two Chairmen power to act, in certain circumstances, on their own initiative, even though no objection has been received from the Promoters. Obviously, that is right, to stop the adoption of the device to which I have referred.
I do not dispute for one moment that when a Memorial is lodged by an objector it may contain an objection as to locus, but Standing Order 208(2) does not deal with locus standi at all. If that Standing Order stood alone, the Chairmen would not be given power to deal with questions of locus. The power to deal with this is given by Standing Order 208(3), which states:
"The Chairmen shall have power to determine questions of locus standi in connection with their examination of Special Procedure Petitions, and to decide as to the rights of the Petitioners to be heard upon such Petitions."
Surely there is a distinction to be drawn between the question whether a Petition is proper to be received, which is dealt with in paragraph (2) of the Order, and the question whether the Petitioners have the right to be heard upon such Petitions, which is in paragraph (3). The question of locus standi deals solely with the question of entitlement to be heard, whereas the question of whether a Petition is proper to be received deals with the form and content of the Petition.
When we look at Section 3(3) of the Act of 1945, it becomes to my mind as clear as it could be that that is the right construction of Standing Order 208(2), for there we find these words:
"As soon as is practicable after the expiration of the said period of fourteen days, the Chairmen shall take into consideration all the petitions referred to them under this section, and if the Chairmen are satisfied with respect to any such petition that the provisions of this Act and of Standing Orders have been complied with in respect thereof and that the petition discloses a substantial ground of objection to the order, they shall certify that the petition is proper to be received and is
934
a petition for amendment or a petition of general objection as the case may be."
My Lords, that section shows as clearly as any section can what is the meaning of the words, "Petition proper to be received". It is a Petition which complies with the Act and with Standing Orders, and which shows a substantial ground of objection. So it is only in those respects that the Chairmen of the two Houses can, in my submission, act on their own initiative under Standing Order 208(2) of this House and the corresponding Standing Order of another place.
I hope that I have made myself clear. I am not in the least seeking to criticise the Lord Chairman or his advisers, because I think it is clear beyond doubt that the Standing Orders themselves might have been more clearly expressed. None the less, I feel that, upon their correct construction, it certainly is not open to the two Chairmen themselves to take points about locus standi when they are not taken by the Promoters. If they are taken by the Promoters, as they have to be—and had to be for many years before the 1945 Act was passed—before they are considered by the Court of Referees, then it is right and clear, and the Standing Orders of this House make provision, for the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means to determine and decide whether the Petitioner shall be heard.
I venture to intervene in this debate for the reason that I hope that consideration may be given to what I have said when the task again falls upon the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means to determine whether or not these Petitioners have locus standi, and whether or not, in the absence of objection by the Ministry and by the Promoters, it is right for the Chairmen to take upon themselves the duty of inquiring into their locus. In my submission no such duty was imposed upon them by Parliament; and, indeed, if that duty had been imposed upon them by Parliament, then the assurances given by Mr. Herbert Morrison and by Mr. Greenwood would be robbed of a great deal, if not of all, of their content.
I come back to this. Whether or not the Petitioners are entitled to put in Petitions and to appear, whether they have a locus standi, must depend upon Standing Order 117. And if there be

935
any doubt as to the true meaning to be given to that Standing Order, then I should hope that it would be possible to secure that that Order should be clarified before the matter again comes before the two Chairmen, because if it is not clarified before then there is a risk of delay which might be avoided if steps were taken before then to get those Orders put right, if wrong they be at the moment.
Whether I am right, or whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is right, in the interpretation that we give to that Standing Order—and I still think there is much difficulty about the words "injuriously affected"—at least, it should be made clear so that this kind of situation does not arise again. I hope that that can be done, for this reason. If the Petition is lodged; if it goes again before the two Chairmen; if they then think their duty requires them to say there is no locus standi, then my noble friend Lord Molson will address the House, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will, I shall, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, may (I hope he will), and it may be that we shall then have to consider a revision of the Standing Orders and the whole of this matter will be delayed for months. Therefore I put forward the plea that we in this House should try to get our Standing Orders clearly to express what I believe are the general desires of noble Lords on all sides of the House.
7.25 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, as a member of the National Farmers' Union, it gives me great pleasure to be able on behalf of your Lordships to congratulate my erstwhile Union boss on his maiden speech. I certainly hope that we shall hear him often in the future.
I feel extremely humble to-day, because I have heard such learned discussions that I must confess I have been left standing. My only reason for presuming to intervene in this technical matter is my doubt as to the locus standi of the particular organisation which is behind this debate; namely, the Dartmoor Preservation Society. I come from the edge of Dartmoor. From the age of 11 I have walked over it, ridden over
936
it, fished in its rivers, shot over it, climbed from the River Dart to Buckton Beacon and read the Ten Commandments carved in stone thereon—whether for the good of my soul or my body, I do not know. My family has been connected with it for hundreds of years; it is even mentioned in Arthur Bryant's Charles the Second. I mention this to show that I give way to no one in my love for Dartmoor and my wish to preserve it. But in the way that this particular Society is behaving I do not think it has its priorities right.
I bring this question up from the point of view of asking who is going to decide what is the locus standi on an area which is still referred to by the Duchy of Cornwall and a lot of my old maps as "The Forest". Yet these people oppose anybody planting a tree. There is a continual abuse of Her Majesty's Services. There is a perpetual irritant to the public services and local government officials. Then it is called an amenity society. In regard to this particular case, everybody I have met considers that it would be an amenity to have a reservoir there. It is an area which is marred by some ugly quarries, and a viaduct which I am informed will be falling down before long, and some ugly Victorian railway cottages. It is my submission that it would be an amenity to have a reservoir there. However, that is the position.
So far as we in Devon are concerned, the joke of the year was when we heard that somebody was complaining that this Society had not been heard. We never get a moment's rest from hearing about them. I could go into detail, and probably will when this Order is laid again. They were heard in January, 1962—admittedly the snow around Widecombe kept one of the most vociferous away at that time—and they were heard again from March 9 to 11, 1965. All I can say is that if this type of amenity society is going to have the right to appeal on all these occasions, then there ought to be some other criteria of what is a representative amenity society. In other words, I support the decision that was made by the Lord Chairman. I should like to make one reference to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. He mentioned Okehampton. In this particular case all 35 councillors are in favour of the Meldon reservoir.
7.29 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than three or four minutes. I am not going to be drawn by the two speeches which have been made on behalf of the farmers into an argument about the merits of the North Devon Water scheme. However, I should like to say this. It is too often assumed that there is no virtue in preserving a waste or wild stretch of country. That was argued most interestingly in this House in the debate on the Tees Valley Water Scheme. It was said at first that that Scheme would submerge an area of desolate, barren moor, but when the Order reached the Joint Committee, or at any rate the Committee of your Lordships' House, counsel was very quick to abandon that argument and to say that it was a magnificent stretch of wild country. In America they have a much keener sense than we have for enabling urban populations to have access to what they call wilderness. But, apart from that particular argument, there are many arguments for and against this particular scheme, and they seem to me to be precisely those arguments which ought to be weighed in a Committee of your Lordships' House. I hope that, after considering all the points which have been raised in the debate this afternoon, the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means may yet feel that they have grounds for finding that these Petitioners have, after all, a locus.
However, let us assume that they repeat the decision which, perhaps without all the light that has now been thrown upon the subject, they came to before. In that event I would submit that there is an unanswerable case for revising, and revising very quickly, the Standing Orders. Surely, my Lords, it is going to be impossible to maintain a position that anyone who has some trade or business interest, perhaps to the extent of being entitled to pasture a pony or cut a few turves of peat, is to be held to have a locus if it is desired by some Promoter to interfere with substantial areas of Dartmoor, Exmoor or Snowdonia, while the tens of thousands of people, and the associations representing them, who resort to those areas for recreation are to be told they have no interest at all.
I was very much impressed, if I may say so, by what the noble and learned
938
Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said: that the difficulty might not be so much in proving an interest as in proving injurious affection. Again, in the Tees Valley Water Scheme the botanists and scientific interests surely would have been able to show that they were injuriously affected if the whole objects of their study were going to be submerged. Whether ramblers or walkers, or riders over tracks of Dartmoor, could say that they were injuriously affected if they were denied those opportunities, being merely presented with the privilege of rowing themselves across some reservoir in a boat, I do not know. But the fact that there are these uncertainties in the existing Standing Orders seems to me to make an irrefutable case for their very prompt revision. If that were not done, there would be immense disappointment and frustration among millions of people in this country who increasingly want to find means of recreation and study in our countryside; and it would run clean contrary not only to the trend of opinion in your Lordships' House but also to the whole policy of the Government if they are sincere, as we believe them to be, in wanting to preserve and give better access to the countryside.
So, my Lords, I hope that on further consideration it may yet be found that in this particular case these petitioners may be given a locus. But if they are not—or, indeed, even if they are—the uncertainties of the present position should be removed, because a strict interpretation of these Standing Orders is that only someone who has some perfectly tangible financial or commercial interest can raise his voice for the preservation of our great natural scenery, even in a National Park. That position surely would not be tolerated by public opinion for very long, and all those people who look to your Lordships' House as one of the protections for these wider and more civilised outlooks would be bitterly disappointed.
7.36 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I have never been to Meldon, and in the few minutes that I may take up your Lordships' attention I am not going to refer in any way to the merits of the Order, which I understand has now been withdrawn, but I wish to support my noble friend Lord Molson. There is at

939
present great uncertainty and inconsistency in our Standing Orders, and we ought to look at them again, in order to ensure that it is clear how amenity stands as grounds for a Petition; and here I would go rather further than he has done, and say whether the Petition is put forward by any society, an amenity society or an individual with connections with such a society, even if not actually representing them.
Here I would declare a personal interest. I recently attempted to present such a Petition and while I am not in any way questioning the Lord Chairman's powers under Standing Order 208(2), when he disallowed my Petition, I hope that it will not be considered inconsistent with the traditions in your Lordships' House if I say, none the less, that I think we ought to struggle to ensure that we have consistency of procedure between Petitions presented against Private Bills and Petitions against Special Procedure Orders. That, I think, not only is in the interest of the Petitioners themselves but also has a much wider interest. The present state of uncertainty has I think been brought out in the debate this evening, and I will not go into those points further.
It is not a good thing to elaborate a case of personal interest too far, but it is relevant to say that I tried the other day to amend the Manchester, (Ullswater and Windermere) Order 1966, and I thought that I had as close an interest as anyone, and in this interest amenity played a big part. It was a long-standing interest, too. I was a Member of Parliament for the area for 19 years; I am President of the English Lakes Tourist Board, Chairman of the Lakes Defence Co-ordinating Committee, a body formed by the four principal local societies concerned with abstraction of water from particular areas of the Lake District. I am also a local resident, a landowner, and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, that I am also a farmer—and here I would add my congratulations on his excellent speech—in the Lake District; and, of course, what Manchester does in the Lake District to-day, other local authorities try to do tomorrow. However, my Petition was refused.
940
If I had based my Petition on none of these grounds, but none the less, as I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, if I had been the owner of a holiday cottage where perhaps I had not been for several years, but where there was a risk of water flowing across my back kitchen floor, I should have had incontestable locus standi and my Petition would have been received. I am not questioning the Lord Chairman's powers at all in this, but I think it right for us to take notice that in the case I quote local feeling did not feel that justice was done. Under Standing Order 208 I was properly asked to appear before the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means and, though here again I intend no personal criticism, while I was trying to explain my case the thought—perhaps a wicked thought—came into my mind: I wondered how different the meeting was from the Star Chamber of old, because I knew that at the end a decision would be given without any reasons. We should concern ourselves with the problem of how far the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means should try to be consistent in their rulings with the decisions of the Court of Referees.
I have a second point, and it is a brief one. While I was preparing this Petition it became clear to me that some of the staff of both Houses of Parliament were not so full of encouragement to me, or to a Member of another place who was also presenting a Petition at the same time, doing this personally. I believe that this had not been done personally for a great many years, but I cannot see why it is not proper to do something merely because it has not been done for a great many years. I can see clearly that where major representations are concerned the help of counsel may be not only necessary but even vital, as well as the help of Parliamentary agents. But when some outside interest is concerned only with a small amendment I cannot see that recourse to counsel is necessary. I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will confirm that members of his profession do not appear on these occasions for a handful of small change—and why should they? But if we do discourage Members of both Houses, and then encourage Petitioners to be represented by counsel, we shall create a situation where there is one law

941
for the rich and another for the poor. There must be many individuals and local interests which have no great resources to draw on, and where it is quite unnecessary for them to have recourse to professional representation, since a Member of one or other House of Parliament could do it just as easily.
My Lords, I hope that we shall have a close look at the whole question of amenity grounds of any Petition and ensure that it is clear to all concerned what the procedure is, both as regards the propriety of their Petition, the locus standi of the Petitioner, and the most inexpensive way in which it can be done, especially when the matters concerned are of no great complication.
7.45 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I shall endeavour not to detain your Lordships for many moments tonight, but first of all I should like to join with those other noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, on what I thought was a most helpful and well-informed speech. I was interested to hear the noble Lord say that we must not allow amenity to get out of proportion. I am one of your Lordships who made the journey to Devonshire. I must not tell your Lordships what I saw there, because I should be out of order if I were to do so. There may be a later opportunity to discuss these matters.
The whole question with which we are concerned to-night turns upon the interpretation, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, of Standing Order No. 117. That Standing Order has been read twice tonight, but I will read the first words of it again before I make my comment. The Standing Order provides:
"Where any society or association, sufficiently representing any trade, business, or interest in a district to which any Bill relates, petition against the Bill…"
and then it goes on to say that the Select Committee may allow the Petition or disallow it. For our purposes the important words are contained in the first two lines:
"Where any society or association, sufficiently representing any trade, business, or interest…"
There is a well-established rule of construction which is applied to the construction of Statutes and other documents and which, where general words are preceded by particular words, requires
942
the general words to be limited in their meaning to matters of the same class or character as the particular words. Applying that rule of interpretation to the words "any trade, business or interest", it is quite clear that "interest" is the general word, and that "trade" and "business" are particular words. Therefore the rule requires that the Standing Order shall be interpreted as restricting the interests to matters of the same character or the same genus as "trade" or "business".
I do not think my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne disagreed with that interpretation, and indeed the rule of interpretation is so well established that I do not think it would be possible to disagree with it. It may be right or it may be wrong: but that is the manner in which Statutes and other documents have to be construed, and construed in that way the operation of Standing Order No. 117 is restricted to those interests which have some common factor, some common relationship or some common characteristic with a trade or business.
I think it is quite clear that the intention of Standing Order No. 117 is to restrict in some way the right to petition your Lordships' House. It is not intended to give unlimited and unrestricted rights of petition. If we apply the rule of construction to which I have just referred to these words, the Standing Order is given a restricted meaning which I submit to your Lordships is what the Standing Order is intended to have. This Standing Order has been one of your Lordships' Standing Orders for many years, and it may well be that the restricted interest is out of date and does not fit in with modern wishes or requirements. If that is so, we must take steps to see that it is amended, but until it is amended we must try to adopt the proper legal interpretation which it ought to have.
With the second point that was made by my noble and learned friend I find myself more in agreement. Standing Orders Nos. 207 and 208 deal with the powers of the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of the Court of Referees in another place to allow or disallow in certain circumstances Petitions against Special Procedure Orders. Both those Standing Orders are governed by Standing Order No. 117, and it is not open

943
to the Lord Chairman or the Chairman of the Court of Referees to accept the Petition of a person who is excluded from petitioning altogether by the operation of Standing Order No. 117. That is the difficulty which these two Standing Orders present; the difficulty of placing upon them the interpretation for which my noble and learned friend contended. Both of them are a little complicated in their meaning, but I think it is quite clear that under neither of them can a Petition be admitted which would be wholly out of order under Standing Order No. 117.
I pass from the interpretation of Standing Orders for a moment to a more agreeable topic. There appears to be general unanimity to-night among your Lordships that the Standing Orders have got somewhat out of date and that they call for revision. Whether they will be revised before this Motion is introduced into your Lordships' House again I do not know, but I think that almost every one of your Lordships who has joined in this debate has agreed that the Standing Orders are in need of revision. It is not only in relation to the scope of the Standing Orders that revision is called for; it is called for in respect of other matters as well.
In recent years the number of amenity societies has increased; it has increased in a quite remarkable fashion. Perhaps I have some personal interest here, because I happen to be the President of one of the oldest of all the amenity societies, a local one and a very old one. In the case of this Order there were eight different Petitioners against the Order. It is quite true that they acted under good Parliamentary advice and combined in a single Petition, but still there were eight parties interested in it: the Dartmoor Preservation Association, the Commons Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Ramblers' Association, the Youth Hostels Association, England and Wales, the Dartmoor Rangers Club, the Dartmoor Rambling Club of Plymouth and the Exeter Rambling Club.
Those eight bodies joined in a single Petition. I make no comment about their numbers, but I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the number of
944
these Societies and their activities is increasing very rapidly, and if we are to amend the Standing Orders we may also have to amend them so as to make it possible to regulate in some practical fashion the number of societies who are admitted to Petition. It may well be that the Lord Chairman of Committees should be given power to consolidate Petitions which appear to him to be in the same interest. We had the same experience a short time ago with the Tees Valley and Cleveland Bill, where there was a very large number of objectors whose objections were all very much of the same sort. I think they were finally reduced to two to appear before the Select Committee.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, in both these cases there was a single Petition, and all the amenity societies co-operated in that. I do not know what my noble friend is complaining about.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, that may be, but that is because they acted under good Parliamentary advice. There is no guarantee that amenity societies of all sorts will continue to act in that way, and if we are to broaden the possibilities to Petition then your Lordships ought to consider whether there ought not to be some power to consolidate—not to exclude, but to consolidate—Petitions which appear to be in the same interest.
There is one other thing I should like to say. Whatever is done I hope will be done quickly. This Water Order has taken over five years to reach your Lordships' House. I think it is more than two years since the first application for powers was made. We have had a number of Bills of this sort where major and important public works are sought to be carried out in which the delay has been really most unreasonable. The Manchester Corporation Bill I think was one; that perhaps was a speciality. The Tees Valley Bill was another. I have been interested in one or two Orders concerning the reorganisation of local authorities where there has been a prolonged delay. I hope that if we are going to amend Standing Orders in any direction we shall try to amend them in some way which will make it possible for these Orders and Bills which seek authority for major public works to be dealt with more expeditiously than is possible under the present procedure.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I shall not take more than 45 seconds. May I remind your Lordships that at the end of his most able and excellent speech the noble Lord, Lord Molson, ventured to hope that when the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees came to consider this matter again he might perhaps don the white garment of penitence. Perhaps it is a happy omen that throughout this debate the Lord Chairman has been occupying a seat where a white garment is habitually worn.
7.55 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I make a brief comment before the noble Lord the Lord Chairman replies, and begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, on his admirable maiden speech. Lord Woolley is a very old and valued friend of mine. I should like to congratulate him on the content of his speech and on the courage with which he launched on to what we regard as somewhat troubled waters for a maiden voyage, and how skilfully he navigated his barque safely to the shore. We all look forward with pleasure to hearing him in the future.
May I congratulate my noble friend Lord Molson—and I feel sure that your Lordships would wish to congratulate him—on bringing this matter before this House. It is obviously a very important matter indeed, and whatever the correct legal position may be—and we have had the benefit of great authority of legal views this evening—I think there is no doubt at all that we all feel that the answer that we received, of these Petitions being disqualified, is not the answer we wanted. I am certainly 100 per cent. with my noble friend Lord Molson in thinking that.
I hope, of course, that the noble Lord the Lord Chairman will be able to take the very weighty advice given to him by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne: that he has made a mistake; that he is not obliged to take the position that he did; that he is not obliged to take the responsibility for ruling on locus standi in the case of Orders under the Special Procedure; and that he may accept the view that Lord Dilhorne expressed with regard to the particular meanings of paragraphs (2) and (3) of Standing Order No. 208.
946
Of course, different views have been expressed by other legal luminaries, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, courageously expressed a different view from that of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne. For myself, I am not a legal luminary, and I do not think I have to express an opinion. I felt that my noble friend Lord Ilford had some very valuable comments to make about what, at any rate, as a layman I feel are the limitations of Standing Order No. 117; and I imagine that when the Lord Chairman comes to reply he will tell us that these are considerations that have weighed very heavily with him. My own understanding of this—I would say this particularly to my noble friend Lord Inglewood—is that it is not only the amenity societies that are at risk by the implications of this decision; it is every sort and kind of national association or local association. Therefore the implications are very far-reaching indeed. What the matter really turns on is the interpretation of this word "interest" and, as I understand it, the restriction that Standing Order 117 places upon it.
I imagine that the noble Earl the Lord Chairman, when he comes to reply, will tell us something about the underlying philosophy: that what are matters of public interest are matters for Parliament, for this House and the other House, for Peers and Members of Parliament, to deal with in their debates, and that what this procedure is providing for is private interest, and where private interest is involved giving Petitioners the opportunity to express their views. But having said that, I feel most strongly that there is no doubt at all that public opinion generally has been under the impression that these societies, and indeed individuals, have a right to petition both on the Private Bill procedure and on the Special Orders procedure, and that it would be quite contrary to the whole trend of public opinion, which is trying to give every opportunity possible for the expression of complaint and grievance (indeed, the Government are putting the Parliamentary Commissioner Act on the Statute Book for just such a similar philosophy) and a most extreme reversal, if we were now to find that a procedure that we thought was available is not so.
I have the impression that the Government themselves are most interested in

947
this. My noble friend Lord Molson congratulated them on their immediate withdrawal of the Order in order to avoid prejudicing the position. But I hope that the Government would feel that this cannot be entirely the responsibility of the Lord Chairman, and that the Government's reputation is at stake in this matter as well. If this was the end of the matter and these Petitioners were to be permanently disqualified, this would be a situation which I feel sure noble Lords on all sides of the House would feel was completely unacceptable. So this leaves a quite hot potato on the noble Earl's plate, but I am sure he will deal with it most ably.
I would say to the noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench on the Government side that I hope he accepts that the Government have a long-stop responsibility here which I am sure they will discharge. We wish to see the noble Earl accept Lord Dilhorne's advice or, if he cannot do that, to give us some indication of how the Standing Orders might he dealt with. But one way or another a solution is required to give us what we believe we had.
8.5 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I hope it will be proper for me, although it is rather unfamiliar, if I start by joining with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, who is such a distinguished figure in the farming world, on his maiden speech. I thought it was refreshing evidence of moral courage for a maiden speaker to speak without any notes, a thing that it is most difficult for seasoned speakers to do—certainly it is something that I have never succeeded in achieving.
Perhaps I might start my reply by trying to answer one or two of the points that have been made in the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon. I have noted the names, in the reverse order, of the noble Lords, Lord Nugent of Guildford, Lord Ilford, Lord Inglewood, Lord Hurcomb and Lord Silkin, all of whom were asking for a review of the relevant Standing Orders of this House, because, among other of what they regarded as lesser defects, they took the view that in their present form the Orders
948
are too restrictive from the standpoint of amenity societies. I should like to assure all these noble Lords that if this is the view of the House—and it certainly appears to be the view of the majority of the speakers in this debate—I will do everything I can to facilitate such a review.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who with great courtesy told me that he could not stay until the end of the debate, and whose interpretation of our Standing Orders we are bound to respect, seemed to me to take a different view of the construction of Standing Orders 117, 207 and 208 from the view taken by the two Chairmen. Without going into the question as to whose construction of these Standing Orders is the right construction, I think we shall all agree that there must be a considerable doubt about the clarity of the wording of the Standing Orders, and the question of whether or not in their present form they are ambiguous is clearly one that will have to be carefully considered.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for initiating this debate, which has been extremely interesting and instructive, and, I think, has showed your Lordships' deep concern for the rights of individuals and societies in coming to Parliament. I should also like to thank him for giving me notice of the points that he proposed to raise in his speech. I will answer them as fully as I can, without of course saying anything that would be inconsistent with my responsibilities in this House. I know that he appreciates that.
He complained, I think, that the Petition which was presented when the Order that has just been withdrawn was heard by the two Chairmen was heard in the absence of the Parliamentary agent. This must have been startling to some of your Lordships, and I think I should explain exactly what happened. The Parliamentary agent representing the Petitioners was given the same notice as is always given on these occasions, of the time and place of the meeting when the two Chairmen would consider the Order and the Petitions against it. The Parliamentary agent did not come to this meeting, although of course he had had notice that it would take place. Therefore we followed the practice of the Court of Referees in the House of Commons, who

949
consider the locus standi of a Petitioner if that Petitioner has not the benefit of an agent's speech on the statement regarding locus standi in the Petition itself. That was the course that we were, I think, obliged to adopt in these circumstances.
The House has just heard (or heard quite a long time ago, because this has been rather a longer debate than most of us expected) an undertaking given by the Government that the North Devon (Meldon Reservoir) Water Order 1966 will be withdrawn and re-laid. In so far as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in asking his Question has referred to the decision of the two Chairmen refusing locus standi to the Petitioners against the Order, any answer I give must be confined to the general question of locus standi, and not deal with the particular reasons underlying the decision I have just referred to. Of course, the reason for that is that if, as is likely, Petitions are deposited against the new Order, the Chairmen will in due course be called upon to consider whether the Petitioners have a locus standi.
Noble Lords will, I am sure, appreciate that in deciding the question of the locus standi of the Petitioners against Special Procedure Orders the two Chairmen are acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, used this precise expression—and I was most grateful to him for emphasising the function that we have to discharge—in his opening speech, thereby showing that he appreciated our position and, of course, so that there could be no misunderstanding later on.
Before I deal with some of the specific points raised by the noble Lord in his Question, I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if I explain, as briefly as I can, what is involved in the passage of a Special Procedure Order through Parliament. This will also enable the House to see why the question of the rules on locus standi of Petitioners against Special Procedure Orders is a matter of joint concern to both Houses. I hope it will become evident that the same rules must be applied by both Houses, and, therefore, that no alteration to the rules should be made by one House without the agreement of the other House to make a corresponding alteration.
950
Orders subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure as prescribed in the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, are laid before both Houses, and are subject to a Petitioning time of 21 days from the date of laying. If no Petition is deposited, and subsequently no Resolution to annul the Order is carried in either House within a further period of 21 days, the Order then comes into effect. If a Petition for amendment or of general objection to the Order is deposited, and the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means certify that the Petition is proper to be received, the Order and the Petition are referred to a Joint Committee consisting of three Members of each House. This Joint Committee has power to report the Order to both Houses with Amendments, and, if there is a Petition of general objection against it, to report that the Order be not approved. It is at the stage when the two Chairmen, under the provisions of the 1945 Act, are required to consider all Petitions against the Order, that the question of the locus standi of a Petitioner arises. For the Chairmen are required to certify in respect of every Petition, if they are satisfied that the provisions of the Act and of the Standing Orders have been complied with, that it is proper to be received. Before they reach their decision they are bound to examine the locus standi of the Petitioners.
There is here a very important difference in procedure between Special Procedure Orders and Private Bills, which I should like to emphasise. I am not altogether sure that this difference in procedure was quite appreciated by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, but perhaps if I make it absolutely clear we shall know whether or not we are in agreement. In the case of Private Bills the Promoters and their opponents are all private parties, and it has been the practice of the House not to interfere between the parties in matters of locus standi except at the request of the party promoting. It is only when the Promoters of a Bill challenge the locus standi of a Petitioner that, in this House, the matter is referred for decision by the Select Committee set up to consider the Bill. In the House of Commons it is not a Select Committee but the Court of Referees which has to decide such a question. The precedents

951
in the House of Commons are these. Whenever the locus standi of an amenity society has been challenged by the Promoters of a Bill in the House of Commons it has been disallowed by the Court of Referees. It is because their locus standi has not been challenged in this House that amenity societies have been able to petition against such Bills as the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Bill, an important Bill which was before the House this Session. They are able to appear against the Bill because, in effect, the Promoters allow them to do so. That was an important point which was made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne: that whether or not the Petition of an amenity society can be heard depends upon the Promoters' not objecting to the Petitioner.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, it would perhaps allow them to do so, but I must emphasise that it is at immense cost—and we must not forget this point in regard to this procedure—whereas with other procedures, such as the one which I put forward, it could have been done at a mere fraction of that cost.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I appreciate the point of the noble Lord. It is far cheaper to appear in person than to pay for an agent to represent you. The larger and more complex the Bill, the more that has to be paid in legal costs. I am sure the House will appreciate the important difference in procedure here. I will summarise it in this way. In the case of Special Procedure Orders the locus of Petitioners has to be considered by the two Chairmen; in Private Bills, on the other hand, it is only considered if it is challenged by the Promoters. I hope I have made it clear why the Chairman of Ways and Means and I have decided that we must determine whether Petitioners have a locus standi.
The next question is what rules concerning locus standi are applied by the Chairmen. Neither the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Acts 1945 and 1965, nor the Standing Orders of both Houses indicate what does or does not confer a locus standi to Petition against a Special Procedure Order. The only possible answer to this question appears to us to be that locus standi must be decided in the light of the Standing Orders
952
relating to locus standi of Petitioners against Private Bills. The relevant Standing Orders in this House on this subject are Nos. 117 and 118. Standing Order No. 117 has been extensively quoted and well explored, and different interpretations have been put upon it by different noble Lords. These two Standing Orders give discretion to Select Committees to allow locus in certain circumstances to societies, associations, local authorities and inhabitants who are injuriously affected by the provisions of the Bill.
I do not think I need weary your Lordships by summarising the contents of these two Standing Orders because they have been so frequently referred to in the course of this debate, but I would point out that they provide the rules which are applied by the two Chairmen in these cases. They limit locus standi to cases where the Petitioners can show injurious affection, and Petitioners must be a large number of the local inhabitants of the area affected by the Order. Those are the two essential conditions—injurious affection and injurious affection to the inhabitants of an area which is pre-judiciously affected by an Order. The only case in which an amenity society could be granted a locus standi to petition against a Private Bill would be if the society represented the inhabitants of the area, the whole or any part of which was alleged to be injuriously affected by the Bill. That is to say, the Petition would have to be that of the inhabitants speaking through the society, and not the Petition of a society, such as a national society, which happened to include in its membership some of the inhabitants.
I would conclude by saying that it is, of course, for the House to regulate its own Standing Orders. These could be amended to admit national and local amenity societies as Petitioners against Special Procedure Orders, but such a decision would have to be taken by both Houses, and any Amendments proposed to the Standing Orders would have to be in the same terms and agreed to by each House. It will also be apparent that any Amendment, to be acceptable, must conform to the provisions of the 1945 Act. I would only say that in my view the Standing Orders could be changed without necessity for amending

953
the 1945 Act. I have listened with the greatest care to all that has been said in this debate, and to-morrow I shall study Hansard very carefully to note anything which I may have missed. I can assure my noble Lords that I shall ask my right honourable friend the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place to
954
read and study this debate with the utmost care, and I will also ask him to consider the question of the appropriate Parliamentary machinery for the revision of the relevant Standing Orders in both Houses.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.