My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the constitutional position is as follows. It is for the courts and not for Her Majesty's Government to decide what conduct is capable of constituting a criminal offence and in what circumstances. So far as the institution of prosecutions on behalf of the Crown is concerned, it is for the Attorney-General, acting in his independent capacity as legal adviser to the Crown and not as a Member of Her Majesty's Government, to institute any necessary proceedings.

My Lords, while thanking my noble and learned friend for his reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that the so-called "balanced reporting" in the media is totally out of place in the circumstances? Would he not agree that we should give more moral support to our task force in their attempt to relieve the Falkland Islands?

My Lords, I am sure my noble friend is correct in saying that every possible moral support ought to be given to our task force, but I was asked a question of law and I answered it, I hope, in appropriate terms.

My Lords, while agreeing with what the noble and learned Lord has just said, may I ask whether a charge of "treason" is not absurd to the point of hysteria, especially when the BBC, and the ITV for that matter, are demonstrating to the world what a free country is really about? If the balance appears wrong occasionally, is that not due mainly to the sparse and limited information coming from the Ministry of Defence, compared with the flood of misleading and self-righteous propaganda cascading from the controlled and repressed media in Buenos Aires? Is there a prospect of improvement? I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is able to comment on this. Also, could the reports coming from the Ministry of Defence be a little less funereal and a little more inspiring? It seems at the moment that all that is needed is a harp accompaniment.

My Lords, there are many parts of that supplementary question with which I find myself in sympathy, but I think I must confine myself to answering questions of law.

My Lords, can my noble and learned friend inform your Lordships whether, under the law of the United Kingdom and bearing in mind the realities of this sad situation, there is not now a state of war with the Argentine?

My Lords, I think I am right in saying—that is rather a fast ball, if I may so describe it—that whether or not a state of war exists is a question of public international law. Her Majesty's Government, on such matters, are advised by the Foreign Office and, so far as I know, they have not received positive advice in that direction.

My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will bear in mind that we are not fighting a colonial war to capture an island in the South Atlantic? We are fighting for freedom and democracy, and freedom includes freedom of speech. Will the noble and learned Lord also bear in mind that if Parliament were to attempt to make the latter treasonable we should be embarking upon a course of great danger and one which might betray our cause?

My Lords, what Parliament does is for Parliament to say, but I must tell the House that it is treason to kill the Lord Chancellor in the discharge of his duties.

My Lords, am I not right in recollecting that it also carries, in addition to the penalty of death, that of disembowelling?

My Lords, without notice, I am not sure that I could answer that question, but I have some reason to believe that in recent cases such a course has not actually been insisted upon.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I agree with him absolutely on his comments regarding the task force? What I find difficult is that if there is a possibility, as the noble and learned Lord said, of the officials who have this responsibility to examine statements, would he advise that perhaps the next Question on the Order Paper ought not to be asked?

My Lords, without my spectacles, I am afraid I have not read the next Question.

My Lords, is it not undesirable that parliamentary immunity should be used to intimidate broadcasters, with the result that Mr. Robert Kee has felt it necessary to recant in The Times this morning, thereby letting down his colleagues? Is it not the case that we ought to be rather careful that we do not move into the sort of society which we are opposing?

My Lords, I recollect a supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, last week in which he accused the Government of murder. I think he should be very glad of parliamentary immunity and the tolerance which is extended to him.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that this Question, to some of us—particularly since we are sending the Welsh Guards down to this part of the world, with relatives in Patagonia and perhaps even with some of the Falkland Islands and without having declared war—is absolutely absurd? If a Welsh Guardsman drops a love letter to a girlfriend in Patagonia, what kind of position is he going to be in?

Embarrassing, my Lords.

My Lords, I think that is a private matter.

My Lords—

My Lords, with respect, I think that on that happy note it might be appropriate to move on to the next Question.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I am aware of the recent radio and press reports. The facts of the matter are that, while consideration was given over 10 years ago and again some five years ago to fitting Sea Wolf to Type 42 destroyers, it was never incorporated in the design because it was found to be impracticable to fit both the Sea Wolf and the Sea Dart systems on the same Type 42 ship. The Sea Wolf system is deployed with the task force on the Type 22 frigates.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Does the same apply to the new Sea Wolf system with the lightweight tracker radar?

My Lords, it has so far been judged that it will remain impracticable to fit Sea Wolf with the new lightweight tracker radar to the Type 42s, in addition to Sea Dart. It is also true that, even if the lightweight tracker radar had been ordered the day the Royal Navy decided that it could meet the specification, it would still not have been in service for several years yet.

My Lords, are we not embarking on rather dangerous ground in these questions affecting military security and military secrets? Is this an appropriate course that is being followed by the noble Lord who has asked the Question?

My Lords, there is nothing in the questions or in my answers which in any way impairs the secrecy which the Government regard as paramount in relation to the task force.

I come back to the question of security. Surely the BBC broadcast of the "Today" programme at 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. on 11th May contained a whole lot of facts, many of which were erroneous, and the whole statement was laced with innuendoes which would sow distrust of the Government's policy and mistrust of its missile policy. Is it not desirable that, for the comfort of those who are concerned in the task force and their relations at home, we should make it clear at the earliest possible moment how inaccurate this statement was?

My Lords, what I regret in relation to my noble friend's supplementary question is that no effort was made by the BBC to check with us the several-times-over inaccurate inferences of these BBC peak-time comments. Neither, yet, has the BBC used the MoD statement which, after careful consideration in relation to security, was released to the press and to the BBC on 12th May. I am putting copies of that statement in the Library of the House.

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that his meeting with the all-party Defence Select Committee was, in fact, a previously arranged long investigation into the general policy of procurement, and was not specifically designed, as implied by the BBC in that broadcast, to discuss the Sea Wolf missile?

My Lords, I can confirm that, and the House of Commons Defence Select Committee have confirmed that situation in public, also.

My Lords, in view of the need for accurate reporting at this time, could the noble Viscount say what consultations take place between his department and the BBC and ITV on these matters to which he has referred, so that the reports put over by the BBC and ITV can be as accurate as possible?

My Lords, there was no method by which the Ministry of Defence could have known that the BBC news bulletin on the morning of the 11th was going to have a statement with, as I have tried to explain, inaccuracies some four times over, and with implications which are good neither for the morale of the forces in the task force, nor, let it be said, for the widows of the gallant men who died on HMS "Sheffield". Had we been consulted, had we been told of any intention to run this item, we would have supplied the facts that I have now supplied to the House.

My Lords, with great respect, the noble Viscount has not answered my question in full. I was asking what regular consultations take place. If they do not take place, would it not be useful for such consultations to take place between representatives of the noble Viscount's department and of the media?

My Lords, in normal times, pretty regular contacts take place between the information department of the Ministry and all the relevant people in the media, including the BBC. At the moment, with the emergency on, special arrangements exist and one would have thought that those special arrangements, or the telephone, would have been used before putting out that statement with the inferences concerned.

My Lords, what are the special arrangements?

My Lords, if the noble Lord would walk round to the Ministry of Defence, he would see that that great room downstairs is permanently laid out as a, more or less, permanent press conference. Representatives of the media, the independent channels and the BBC, are almost constantly there and Mr. McDonald, whom the noble Lord mentioned just now, is from time to time and as soon as he can, bearing in mind the priorities which exist for using signal channels for operational reasons, giving to the media full information that is compatible with security. The contact is in both directions hourly at the moment. The point, however, is that on this particular news bulletin at a peak time a programme was put out which had certain obvious inferences that HMS "Sheffield" could have been saved.

My Lords, is the noble Viscount implying that the BBC were deliberately misleading or that they were misleading through ignorance? If the latter is the case, is it not incumbent upon the Ministry of Defence adequately to brief the information services so that they do not make misleading statements?

My Lords, statements had been made regarding the loss of the "Sheffield". There was no way in which the Ministry could have foreseen that inferences—inaccurate four times over—were likely to be made. As to the motives for making them, no, I do not accuse anyone of that motive, but I do take note that that sort of inference appears, in this day and age, in a free country to have more news value than the sometimes boring facts.

My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we appreciate his sincerity in answering some of these questions? On both sides of the House, envertheless, we realise that in this hostility which has not been declared a war brave men and women are losing their lives. We find it queer that, day in and day out, scores of English people in Buenos Aires are talking to the world and that news is going both ways. When all this is over and we have paid tribute to the men who have died for this freedom, I hope that a deep inquiry will be made into the causes of this ramshackle affair which we are now involved in—ending with a preposition!

My Lords, I think that many of us have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord's sentiments. We have heard it again declared that we are not at war, that we are in hostilities, that we have not got the arrangements which normally accompany war. We are also carrying out hostilities 8,000 miles away where communication is extremely difficult to arrange, whereas the international facilities available to the news media in Buenos Aires are infinitely greater. I should not like to give the noble Lord the impression that we are entirely happy about the way in which this is working, but we do have to put operations first. In this situation, we expect there to be a degree of cross-checking and responsible thought by the media before they come out with stories or allegations.

My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that ignorance of the facts is no defence whatever to being misleading, whether wittingly or unwittingly?

My Lords, I am not prepared to say anything further than I have already said. I have given the House the facts. I have pointed out that facts are sometimes more boring than inferences, suggestions or sensitive questions.

My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I think his criticisms of the BBC are absolutely justified in this particular case? That is on the one hand. On the other hand, is the noble Viscount further aware that the implications of the first question seem to be absolutely offensive and help no one? Does not there seem in this case to be room for getting together with the media in order to see whether or not some new guidelines can be devised?

My Lords, I think that there will be considerable discussions. It is clear that the chairman of the BBC is himself deeply interested in this situation and, I suggest, deeply worried about the criticisms which have been made. I am sure that discussions will take place. I very much hope that, somehow, in a free country we can, without in any way curbing the right of free comment, make sure that unfortunate incidents like this do not occur.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I must apologise for the length of this Answer, the reasons for which will become apparent.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that useful and informative Answer, may I ask him whether he does not consider that recent events have shown the importance to this country of close connection with countries of the Commonwealth? May I further ask him whether or not he is aware that both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade have stressed the importance that they attach to a flow of students from Commonwealth countries to these shores? In conclusion, may I ask him whether or not it might be thought that a more sensible way of limiting any excess supply could be found than the blanket and, on the whole, offensive method of discriminatory fees which the Treasury has forced upon the other departments concerned?

My Lords, I would agree with my noble friend on his first point that, as recent experience has shown, a close connection with the Commonwealth has proved valuable. However, I do not share his criticism of the Treasury. The Treasury is far from being an ogre. They have a difficult job to do in difficult economic circumstances. Recent statistics have shown that we, led by them, are winning the battle against inflation. It has become almost my theme song over the last few weeks that when our economic fortunes have improved sufficiently we shall review with sympathy reductions in budget estimates which we have made since coming into office.

My Lords, would not the Government agree that some very influential Commonwealth Governments whose interests have been adversely affected by the recent huge rises in the fees payable by their students here are particularly keen on the initiative which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff? And, in any case, is it not highly desirable that at a moment when these Governments are giving us such spendid assistance in connection with the Argentine aggression we should lean over backwards in order to give them as much satisfaction as we possibly can?

My Lords, in answering my noble friend's first point, I did say that I agree that close connection with Commonwealth countries is necessary and desirable and has proved its value over the last few months. However, I would stick by the second part of my answer to his supplementary, that all this is dependent upon economic circumstances—as, indeed, is borne out when I tell the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that we have increased the funds available for awards made under the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan to £5 million in 1981–82 compared with £3·8 million in 1980–81. We do have the interests of the student at heart.

My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that if he agrees—as we all agree with the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, then he should at least be prepared to examine the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff? Those of us who have been involved with the British Commonwealth both in this place and for many a decade in the other place know full well that the faceless moguls in the Treasury play an important part. Much of what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said I can substantiate with evidence, running over at least a decade and a half, which could be provided to the noble Lord. It is about time, I believe, that we gave our full support to the proposition, in honour of the way in which the British Commonwealth has stood by us in times of stress.

My Lords, may I tell the noble Lord—and it will be apparent when he reads my Answer in the Official Report—that the Treasury is a very small part of the inter-departmental committee. I do not expect them to have undue influence.

My Lords, would the Minister not agree that it is completely unfair to attack civil servants in this House and that the responsibility for Government decisions always rests on Ministers?

Yes, my Lords, which is why, in replying to the particular line of questioning which is being pursued in your Lordships' House at the moment, I am answering for the Government as a whole.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making statements over the past 14 days emphasising the size of the contingency fund and its ability to meet all demands he can foresee being made upon it? Would it not be better, in the circumstances outlined by his noble friend Lord Beloff, to consider some transfer—perhaps only a minor one—from the contingency fund, for this purpose?

My Lords, I will certainly bring the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend. However, I would point out that the contingency fund is for emergencies, generally speaking, and not for long standing problems.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the talks were warm and friendly and covered a wide range of subjects. There was detailed discussion of the Cyrpus Government's claim for aid and a number of ideas were discussed. There is no question of payment for the sovereign base areas, which are sovereign British territory.

My Lords, in view of the urgent necessity for the authority of the United Nations to be upheld at the present time, are the Government aware that there is growing disillusionment and cynicism in Cyprus, having regard to the fact that these talks have been dragging on since 1974 and that resolutions passed by the United Nations since 1974 requesting the withdrawal of foreign troops from the island have been ignored? Will the Government not take an opportunity at the next meeting of the General Assembly to try to get some movement into this very sad, complicated and difficult matter?

My Lords, I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has held this view for some considerable time. I seem to recall that when she and I last discussed this particular subject she asked me whether I was aware that there was never an appropriate moment for the final solution of this problem—so I know exactly her background thinking. However, the problems are very real and we still stick by the facts we have made plain: that when we have a United Nations seeking, with the full authority of all the countries belonging to the United Nations, to do the right thing, it would be counter-productive to take unilateral action cutting across what the United Nations seeks to do.

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the British sovereign bases are of considerable value to the economy of Cyprus? Would he further agree that the sovereign base of Dikhelia is the one part of Cyprus where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can meet on a day-to-day basis and that this must be of great benefit to both communities in the longer term?

My Lords, when talking about this particular problem, I must say that I find the subject of sovereign base areas something of a red herring. Sovereign base areas are sovereign British territory, as I said in my original Answer. We have no intention of giving them up. Nor have the Cyprus Government ever suggested that they wish us to do so. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, over the cultural value of the sovereign base areas.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that although talks have been continuing for years, it is true, there is a special obligation on Her Majesty's Government over this matter of Cyprus? I myself had the opportunity of signing the treaty in which we undertook to preserve the previous constitution of Cyprus, and is it not entirely unsatisfactory that our Government should remain inactive, exercising no influence and taking no initiative in a matter in which we have a primary responsibility?

My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord on the first part of his question, because we are, of course, one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus under the Cyprus Agreement. But I cannot agree that we are taking no action in this matter. Britain has met all the obligations placed upon her and we are—as the noble Lord, with his great experience of the subject, will know—the largest contributors of both men and money to the United Nations' peacekeeping force in Cyprus, at a cost of some £20 million a year.

moved Amendment No. 27:

After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:

My Lords, it is clearly desirable that Northern Ireland should be kept in line on this matter and I approve of the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 28:

After Clause 66, insert the following new clause:

moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 38, line 11, at end insert—

("(fa) section [Interest on debts and damages];")

My Lords, may I make a brief comment that these two amendments add to the argument in favour of the next amendment on the Marshalled List because they add to the complexity of Clause 68?

moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 38, line 14, at end insert—

("(ii) to section 17 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1937;")

moved Amendment No. 31:

Leave out Clause 68 and insert—

My Lords, I should like to express very briefly my support for this amendment. The growing practice of enactment clauses of this complexity which are brought in by statutory instrument does, present a lot of problems to all users of statutes, whether they be lawyers or other persons. It is a practice which is becoming increasingly undesirable, and for that reason and for the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I support his amendment.

My Lords, the interest of my noble friend Lord Renton in the statute law is well known, and I think a subject of universal admiration, because there is no doubt that there are very many things wrong with the statute book. Many of the arguments which he presented in support of this particular amendment were of a general character, and it may be that I shall give him a little comfort about them. But some of them which are of a general character do not really tie in with this particular amendment, and I can give him less comfort in relation to them.

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will allow me to intervene for a moment. I do not expect my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack to give an answer immediately. However, I should like to put to him a point which I have found to be of particular difficulty for practitioners when dealing with commencement orders on a Bill which is, as he himself has said, of a heterogeneous nature. The matter relates to the title of the commencement order. What happens in the Printed Paper Office here is that there is kept a consecutive pile of statutory instruments as they come out in the course of the year—and a very large pile it is—and at the same time there is kept an index and each of the statutory instruments is catalogued according to the initial letter of its title. However, in most legal libraries the only current list of statutory instruments is an individual copy kept in consecutive order as the statutory instrument comes out. So whichever system one uses one is entirely dependent upon the heading at the top of the statutory instrument. My noble and learned friend will appreciate, I think, if he looks at precedents of this nature that, if one is looking for Commencement Order No. 3 or No. 4, whatever it may be, one can be almost certain that the only thing it will not say at the top is, "Administration of Justice". It will be indexed and it will be headed by reference to the county courts, or mental health, or attachment of earnings, or solicitors or whatever it may be. It really does make it absolutely impossible for a practitioner looking through a colossal pile of current statutory instruments which have not been sorted out or indexed at all, because it is very difficult to find out which heading one is looking for. One thumbs through the pile and as often as not one misses it.

My Lords, I can only say—and that only by leave of the House—that I am very much obliged to my noble friend. I will try to take the matter on hoard and see what can be done. I cannot, as he apprehended, give him any kind of an answer, but it is obviously a point of importance and I shall take it on board.

My Lords, this an exceptionally heterogeneous Bill, to use the noble Lord's adjective, and I well understand from a little experience previously on this kind of measure the difficulties that are faced. But we note that the noble and learned Lord will invite the draftsman to have another look at it. I do not readily see how it can be improved, but the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is a determined protagonist for clarity and simplicity in this field. Whether he will succeed on this one, I doubt very much.

. My Lords, before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I wonder whether I may be allowed first to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the explanation of the reasons for the clause as it stands, and thank him even more for the undertaking which he has given to consider the matter further. I would also like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking for their support.

moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 39, line 28, leave out ("and 58") and insert ("58 and [Interest on damages—disregard for income tax purposes]").

moved Amendment No. 33:

Page 41, line 10, after ("simple") insert ("or compound").

My Lords, in the absence of any other participant, perhaps I had better reply to the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches. As he candidly conceded, this matter was carefully considered by the Law Commission when they made their proposals. They in fact came down in favour of simple interest against compound interest. I am bound to tell the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches that that corresponds with my own judgment.

My Lords, I share the doubt, if that is the right way of putting it, of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as to whether we should make this change. I was particularly interested to learn that apparently no other countries in Europe provide for compound interest. I took careful note of that, in the light of the importance of international arbitration, the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in this field, and the fear that if we did not move in this direction the advance we have made in attracting more work into the field of international arbitration might be retarded if we did not make this move. I am not sure what the situation is in the United States; I apprehend that it may be the same as ours. In any event, I thought the note of caution struck by the noble and learned Lord in regard to the nature of consumer interest reaction was a wise note to have struck.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the careful consideration he is giving the matter and for saying that he will give it further consideration following this short debate. While it is my intention to seek to withdraw the amendment, I would state first that I, like anybody who is involved in the assessment of damages, in whatever field loss has been inflicted on the plaintiff, am much aware of all the complexities involved and how, at the end of the day, the trial judge (if it is a trial judge who is assessing the damages) has to take a broad view and give his award of damages on that broad view.

moved Amendment No. 34A:

Page 41, line 44, leave out (" of this Act ").

moved Amendment No. 37:

Page 43, leave out lines 32 to 38.

moved Amendment No. 37A:

Page 50, leave out lines 2 and 3.

moved Amendment No. 37B:

Page 50, leave out lines 35 and 36.

moved Amendment No. 38:

My Lords, I welcomed this on an earlier occasion and I welcome it again now.

moved Amendment No. 39:

Page 54, line 38, at end insert—

("(2A) In paragraph (3), for the words "In assessing damages payable to a widow in respect of the death of her husband in an action under this Order" there shall be substituted the words "In an action under this Order where there fall to be assessed damages payable to a widow in respect of the death of her husband").

(2B) The following paragraph shall be inserted after that paragraph—

"(3A) In an action under this Order where there fall to be assessed damages payable to a person who is a dependant by virtue of Article 2(2)(aa) in respect of the death of the person with whom the dependant was living as husband or wife there shall be taken into account the fact that the dependant had no enforceable right to financial support by the deceased as a result of their living together.".").

moved Amendment No. 40:

Insert the following new schedule—