Lords Sitting of 27 November 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD WOLFENDEN
Sir John Frederick Wolfenden, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Wolfenden, of Westcott in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Trevelyan and the Lord Halsby.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING REVIEW
2.41 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the review of industrial training promised in the Earl of Gowrie's Statement of July, 1973, has now been conducted; when a Report based on it is likely to be published; and what provision for overseas students it contains.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the review to which the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, referred has not yet been completed but my right honourable friend is considering this matter and hopes to be able to come to conclusions at an early date.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that not very satisfactory reply, may I point out that this——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord agrees that this matter has now been under review for nearly 18 months, which is rather a long time? Will the Government agree that it might be better not to refer this matter to, as I understand, a rather low
1396
level committee or Working Party coming under one Ministry, but to an interdepartmental committee representing all the interests of the students concerned, with a view to getting an urgent recommendation about the technical training of, at any rate, some overseas students during the coming year?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the Working Party concerned is fairly widely representative. It comprises representatives of the Ministry of Overseas Development, the British Council, the Council for Technical Education and Training for Overseas Countries, the Department of Trade, the Department of Employment, the training service agencies and the CBI.
LORD GLADWYN: Then, my Lords, why have they not managed with all that talent to produce some kind of recommendation before now?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, it is not unknown that when there is too much talent there is too much delay.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that when you have so many experts you never get a decision?
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten me? I was not clear from his statement whether this Working Party has as yet met at all, or is not meeting till January 1 next year.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the Working Party has met. On more than one occasion it indicated the material that was required for study, and it took a considerable time to get the mass of information collected.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, when was the last occasion on which the Working Party actually met and what did the noble Lord mean by reporting "at an early date"? Is this before Christmas?
LORD JACQUES: My Lords. I think we should be quite clear that this Administration has been in Office since March, so its responsibility commences from March.
LORD CARRINGTON: It seems much longer!
LORD JACQUES: I am not surprised! My Lords, the Committee since then has met two or three times; I cannot give

1397
the precise number. We have not wasted a great deal of time. In the context of the statement that I have made, I would say that "early" would mean months rather than years.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government are not taking this matter seriously? I would now urge them to do so.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, we take the original Question seriously, but I think the noble Lord will admit that some of the supplementaries were a little less serious.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!

ROAD SAFETY: ADVERTISING ON VEHICLES
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they approve of the displaying of advertising matter or slogans in reverse on the front of vehicles.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, there is no objection to the display of advertising matter in this way, provided that illuminated, reflective or flashing signs comply with Sections 70 and 71 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 and with the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations. I find it difficult to see why slogans written in mirror-writing should be a significantly greater road safety hazard than those written conventionally. There is certainly no evidence that this form of advertising has had any adverse effect on road casualties.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that such mirror-writing—being specifically designed to be read in the driving mirror—can be very distracting to the driver of the vehicle in front and can distract his attention from the road? Is the noble Lord further aware that I have twice seen on the M.4 a car with a sign in mirror-writing fixed to the windscreen which reads "Move over"? Does he consider that this is desirable?
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, on the first point, there is concern about the distraction caused by flashing illuminated and reflective signs. There is no indication that slogans written in reverse constitute a road safety hazard. I am sure that if the noble Lord has any information the Government will be happy to consider it. At the moment there is no evidence that this matter is causing concern or that the practice is widespread. There are regulations which cover anything which could reduce the driver's vision, so if a sign on the windscreen of a car substantially affected the vision of the driver of that car then that would be in breach of the regulations.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that this form of signwriting is completely daft? Is he further aware of the fact that when a motorist is approaching a car with this kind of signwriting, his attention is momentarily distracted from driving by his attempts to translate the reverse printing into ordinary script?
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, the practice is not daft when used by ambulances and other emergency vehicles. It has been found very helpful in that context, and the practice will be continued. I agree with my noble friend that when advertisements are written in this way they have a very much reduced effect because presumably someone coming in the opposite direction cannot read them. I imagine that is why the practice is not widespread.

ROAD SAFETY: DIPPED HEADLIGHTS
2.49 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the effect on the accident rate of the use of dipped headlights after dark in those towns where their use has been encouraged; and whether they will make the use of dipped headlights compulsory after dark on all roads, whether lit or not, which are subject to a speed limit of more than 30 mph.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, the evidence from a campaign in Birmingham some years ago to encourage the use of dipped headlights in all streets suggested that the overall effect in reducing total casualties was slight; but as only half the drivers complied, no firm conclusions could be drawn about the effect of a compulsory requirement. The question is being reviewed in the light of current conditions.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer; but could not Her Majesty's Government do a great deal more than they are doing at present actively to encourage the use of dipped headlights after dark? I am quite sure that it would substantially reduce the accident rate.
LORD MELCHETT: As I have said, my Lords, this is a matter which is being considered at the moment. There are arguments both for and against the use of dipped headlamps. In the context of the noble Lord's question, I should point out that the most important situation in which dipped headlights are used is in poorly lit streets. Streets where the speed limit is above 30 m.p.h. are generally well lit, if they are lit at all. It is particularly in poorly lit streets where the use of dipped headlights should be encouraged. It is a requirement of the Highway Code at the present time that headlamps should be used in poorly lit streets.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, has the noble Lord never seen for himself vehicles travelling along lit motorways, or even the open road in the moonlight, with only their parking lights on?
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, as I say, motorways, where the speed limit is above 30 mph, are generally well lit. It may be that dipped lights are felt not to be necessary. I confess not to have come across anybody driving with side lights in the moonlight.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House any information about the experience of Continental countries? I understand that in some of them dipped headlamps are compulsory.
LORD MELCHETT: That is true, my Lords. The use of headlamps on moving vehicles at night in all conditions has long been required in most European countries, North and South America and elsewhere. There is no evidence that it does any harm, and the general trend seems to be in that direction. It was introduced in Belgium, for example, in 1968. There are arguments about whether that has been successful or not; but the Dutch seem to be considering taking a similar step.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in the light of the last two supplementaries, would the noble Lord consider seeking an opportunity for the authorities to think of altering the words "headlights" and "sidelights", as used by my noble friend, to the more generally accepted "driving lights" and "parking lights"?
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I am not quite clear in what context Her Majesty's Government are expected to alter the use of these words. Is the noble Lord referring to the Highway Code or some other regulation?
LORD FERRIER: The object, my Lords, is to ask the Government whether they will take this fundamental step. As my noble friend said, you can meet on a highway in snow or fog huge trucks driving on what they call "sidelights". If they were called "parking lights", then they would presumably put on their driving lights.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I think the current situation is that parking lights are not required on vehicles parked at night and therefore it would be inaccurate to call sidelights, "parking lights". Noble Lords will be aware that a year or two ago Regulations were introduced so that cars parked at night were not required to show any light at all. So I think it would not be strictly accurate to call sidelights "parking lights".
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in the middle of some of our cities, which are well lit, for people to drive on dipped headlights can cause an over amount of light, so creating excessive light and dazzling, which may be counterproductive to the object of this exercise, which is safety?
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, as I said, there are arguments both for and against the use of dipped headlights. While it is true to say that experience of countries which have introduced this measure has generally led them not to reverse their practice, one of the arguments against the use of dipped headlights in well-lit streets is that the lighting, as I understand it, is designed to throw into relief objects and pedestrians in the street, and if those are then lit from the side by dipped headlights the effect of the overhead lighting can be lessened.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, in answer to the original Question my noble friend said that serious consideration was being given to this matter. Is my noble friend aware that it is to be hoped that as a result of such consideration the Government will not arrive at a hasty decision, because this matter is shown to be more serious when given serious consideration than it appears to be on the surface?
LORD MELCHETT: I can assure noble Lords that Her Majesty's Government will not be coming to any hasty decisions.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government would consider making the use of dipped headlights compulsory in fog and other conditions of bad visibility? Would not he agree that the practice so frequently in use now of driving on very small and dirty sidelights in conditions of fog is totally inadequate?
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, this point goes slightly wide of the original Question, but I can say that the difficulty about making the advice in the Highway Code compulsory is that it is impossible to enforce, because nobody has yet found a way of saying what is fog and what is not fog, or what is a poorly-lit street or a well-lit street. Therefore, the matter is at the moment left as advice in the Highway Code, and that is probably the most satisfactory course to follow.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, could not——
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Melchett has said that Her Majesty's Government will not take any
1402
hasty decision about these extremely important questions. He has revealed that Her Majesty's Government have a very deep knowledge of and a deep concern with all these matters, and perhaps we might now leave it there.

CONTROLS ON EXPLOSIVES
2.56 p.m.
LORD HALE: 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 to state whether the existing limitations in the United Kingdom on the manufacture, transport and distribution of gelignite are adequate to afford the maximum protection against illegal acquirement and criminal misuse.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, a major review of all aspects of the security of explosives in Great Britain was concluded in 1973, and the matter has since been kept under consideration. The existing controls have been tightened up within the powers available under the Explosives Act 1875, and if it were necessary further controls could be imposed by Regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. In Northern Ireland the police control all explosives from the point of importation to the point of their eventual use.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying to the House that two World Wars and Hiroshima and Nagasaki have not created the necessity for amending legislation which was passed following an explosion on the Regent's Canal in 1874? Is he now saying that Her Majesty's Government have as much deep concern and sense of urgency as we are told they have about notices on top of motor cars? Is he aware that since this Question was put down hand grenades have been carried and a murder has been committed on a British plane, and the dreadful explosions in Birmingham have occurred? Does he not consider that the Home Office themselves must set up an information centre to assist the police, from which they can find—that which they cannot find now—a list

1403
of armament manufacturers, armament sellers, in this country, including Mr. Milhench? Will not the Home Office do something and realise that the more they can help the police and save them work the more effective will be the work the police can do in protecting the community?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, if my noble friend or, indeed, anybody else has any specific proposals to make to my right honourable friend we will undoubtedly consider them most carefully. This matter was carefully considered by Ministers in the last Government and by Ministers in the present Government. No one in the present situation after the events of Birmingham will be complacent about this general area which my noble friend has raised. However, our view at the moment is that the existing powers are adequate. The matter is constantly being discussed between officials of the Home Office and chief constables. If there is any need for amending legislation we will of course come before the House.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Home Office are also checking agricultural fertilisers?—because they, too, can be a source of explosives. Is any check made in the agricultural industry and in the craft of gardening about fertilisers from which effective explosives can be made?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords; my noble friend is quite right. If it is necessary to proceed in the direction he has suggested we could, as I indicated in my reply, act through Regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Our present view, however, is that this is not necessary. I hope that all Members of the House will recognise that if we bring in further Regulations of this kind they will have to be enforced by the police. The resources of the police are already under very considerable strain. Therefore, if Ministers bring proposals of this kind to Parliament they must be convinced that there will be an effective result from those proposals. At the moment that is not our view.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, can the noble
1404
Lord give us some indication of the size of this problem? Has he any figures to indicate the quantities of explosives of gelignite base which have been used in explosions as compared with the quantities made from other sources?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I could not give quantities without notice. Most of the explosions which have taken place—most, but by no means all—have, in fact, been caused by commercial explosives of one kind or another. In fact, one of the matters which is constantly before the Home Office and Chief Constables is the general question of the security of places where explosives are kept and, as a result of the tightening up of the procedures which I have indicated has taken place, the number of thefts from explosive stores was down from 27 in 1969 to only 6 in 1973.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that measures have been introduced into Northern Ireland for the control of fertilisers, in an attempt to eliminate those which present facilities for making explosives? Also, as a matter of personal information, will he tell me whether, if I had sufficient money, I could walk across the road now and buy a gallon of nitric acid?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I hesitate to answer my noble friend's question and I ought not to speak off the cuff. Instead, I will let my noble friend know the precise answer to his question, and I hope that any delay in giving it will not delay the purchase of This material. I think my noble friend is quite right in saying that the position in Northern Ireland is different. All I am saying on behalf of the Home Office is that it is not our view at the moment that regulations of this kind are appropriate and necessary here.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the situation regarding detonators is different, because I believe that it is rather harder to obtain detonators than it is to obtain gelignite?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. I will try to find out the answer to that precise point.

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: BUSINESS
3.2 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that a Statement is being made in another place to-day about business to be taken in the EEC Council of Ministers during December. It has been agreed through the usual channels that it would be helpful for the House if the Statement were to be made available in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and with the leave of the House I will arrange for this to be done.
Following is the Statement referred to.
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community during December. The monthly forecast for December was deposited yesterday.
"At present seven meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for December. Foreign Ministers will meet on the 2nd and 3rd of December; Agriculture Ministers on the 9th and 10th; Transport Ministers on the 11th; Energy Ministers on the 17th; Finance Ministers on the 19th; Social Affairs Ministers and Development Ministers on dates yet to be set. There may also be a ministerial meeting on the 19th to consider preparations for the multilateral Trade Negotiations.
"At the Foreign Ministers' Council we expect discussion of the British case on the Budget to be resumed on the basis of the Commission's stocktaking report. Foreign Ministers may also discuss preparations for the Summit meeting which is expected to take place on 9th and 10th December, though much of the preparatory work is taking place outside the Council. They will also consider relations with Greece, the Protocol 22 negotiations and, possibly, relations with Portugal, as well as Commisssion proposals for the use of the first tranche of the Community contribution to the U.N. Emergency Measures. They may also review the progress of negotiations with certain Mediterranean countries.
"Agriculture Ministers will give preliminary consideration to Community Farm Prices for 1975–76, and are also expected to consider the new beef régime. It will also be necessary to complete the detailed arrangements for sugar, following the general agreement reached on this subject at the November Council.
"Finance Ministers, in addition to their usual monthly discussion on the economic situation in the Community and the convergence of national economic policies, will have a preliminary exchange of views on the draft 6th Directive on Value Added Tax and draft Directives on the harmonisation of excise duties, and also a report on the French Presidency's September Proposals for new monetary measures.
"The Energy Council will review progress towards a Community Energy Policy and consider draft Directives on the maintenance of minimum fuel stocks at power stations, limiting the use of natural gas and petroleum products in power stations and a draft Council Decision adopting a Euratom research and training programme on plutonium recycling in light-water reactors.
"Transport Ministers are expected to discuss a draft Council Decision on Government/Railway relations and two draft Regulations to extend respectively the system of bracket tariffs and the Community quota affecting the carriage of goods by road between Member States. Development Ministers will discuss two Commission papers on Food Aid Policy and a new Aid Framework for the Community. Social Ministers are likely to discuss the draft Directives on equal pay and mass dismissals and draft Regulations concerned with the establishment of a European Vocational Training Centre and a European Foundation for the improvement of working and living conditions."

SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENT BILL
Brought from the Commons yesterday and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 48; read 1a

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) rose to move that the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
The following members of the Committee were appointed to the Sub-Committees;
(a) Administration Committee

E. Listowel

E. St. Aldwyn

V. Eccles

V. Hood

L. Amulree

L. Champion

B. Hylton-Foster

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Mais

L. Nugent of Guildford

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(b) Library Sub-Committee

V. Eccles

L. Champion

L. Davies of Leek

B. Emmet of Amberley

L. Wilberforce

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(c) Refreshment Sub-Committee

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Amulree

B. Gaitskell

L. Greenwood of Rossendale

B. Hylton-Foster

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Nugent of Guildford

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(d) Sub-Committee on the Parliament Office

V. Hood

L. Champion

L. Mancroft

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(e) Finance Committee

E. Listowel

E. St. Aldwyn

V. Eccles

V. Hood

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Amulree

L. Nugent of Guildford

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(f) Works of Art Sub-Committee

M. Cholmondeley

V. Eccles

V. Hood

L. Amulree

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
2. LIBRARY
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Library was laid before the Committee and its proposals were agreed in principle.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the the Committee of the appointments of Mr. David Richard Beamish and Mr. Jeremy Frank Maule as Clerks from 30th September 1974.
The Committee were also informed of the re-grading of the posts of the Head of Establishments and Higher Executive Officer, Journals Office, and authorised the consequential revisions in scales of pay for those posts.
4. ACCOMMODATION
The Committee were informed of the difficulties of providing accommodation for the service of the House, especially for the Chairman of Sub-Committees of the European Communities Committee, and agreed to consider the matter further at a meeting to be held before Christmas.
5. DEPARTMENT OF GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
The Committee were informed of the creation of a new post of Assistant Superintendent
1408
(absorbing the post of Senior Attendant), and authorised the scale of salary for the new post.
6. REVISED SCALES OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES
The Committee confirmed the application, authorised by the Chairman of Committees and the Clerk of the Parliaments, of the Following Estacode Circulars:—
EC/278, dated 25th July 1974—Pay of Security Officer Class;
EC/281, dated 23rd July 1974; EC/293, dated 19th August 1974 and EC/328, dated 22nd October 1974—Cost of Living Safeguard;
EC/ 307, dated 10th September 1974—Subsistence Allowances;
EC/313, dated 4th October 1974—Responsibility Allowances;
EC/323, dated 15th October 1974—Fees to Verbatim Shorthand Writers;
GC/67, dated 29th October 1974—Fees to Academic Consultants;
EC/336, dated 8th November 1974—London Weighting;
giving revised scales of pay and allowances to applicable permanent and temporary staff of the House of Lords.
7. ESTIMATES
The Estimates for the House of Lords for 1975–76 was laid before the Committee and approved.
8. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following superannuation awards:—

(a) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. A. A. Gregory, Housemaid, who retired on 4th August 1974;

(b) Pension and lump sum to Mr. J. S. Cloves, Attendant, who retired on 1st November 1974.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DISTRICT COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, the District Courts (Scotland) Bill, is one of the consequences of local government reform. At present Scotland has two lay summary criminal courts with a long and

1409
historic tradition—the burgh court, sometimes called the police court, and the justice of the peace court. Over the years these two courts, one exercising jurisdiction over burghs and the other mainly over landward or county areas, have dealt with many of the less serious criminal cases in Scotland. Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 the burgh and the county as local government units cease to exist on May 16, 1975. This removes the administrative structure on which the two existing courts are based, and fresh arrangements are therefore necessary for the disposal of summary criminal cases. Without going into much detail on the background, I propose to describe briefly the steps leading to the arrangements now before your Lordships.
In March 1973 the then Secretary of State for Scotland presented to Parliament a White Paper called Justices of the Peace and Justices' Courts. It proposed a system of justices' courts based on the area of the island or district authority but to be financed by the Government and to be staffed by officers of the sheriff court service. These proposals, which preserved lay participation in the administration of justice, were strongly criticised because they made no arrangement for the provision of legal advice to the lay bench. The clerk of the court would be provided by the sheriff clerk service, which, like the bench, would have no legal qualifications. A second set of proposals was announced by the then Secretary of State on October 18, 1973. These proposals envisaged the absorption by the sheriff court, with additional professional judges, of all the business of the present lay courts. These arrangements were criticised by those who wished participation by lay men and women in the administration of justice in Scotland to continue.
No legislation was introduced by the previous Government before the Dissolution of Parliament in February of this year. What we had to do on coming into Office, therefore, was to work out a solution while taking into account the reaction to the earlier proposals and the urgency as May 1975 approached. The Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate accepted the argument that there should be a lay element on the bench to
1410
deal with less serious criminal cases. In addition, the local authorities made representations on the importance of the role played by elected members in the burgh courts. We concluded that the best system in the time available was to replace the burgh and justice of the peace courts by new courts to be administered by the islands and district authorities who would be responsible for providing them with clerks from their legally qualified staff. The judges to sit on the bench will come from three sources; first, the burgh magistrates in office on May 15, 1975, who will become justices of the peace; second, nominations by the district and islands councils; and third, existing justices of the peace. The choice of the existing justices of the peace requires little explanation. In the case of the burgh magistrates, the fundamental reason for their appointment is the need to have available experienced manpower for the bench on May 16, 1975. The magistrates are much the most experienced lay judges in Scotland and it would be unrealistic to seek to make new arrangements without bringing them within their scope. The nomination of ex officio justices by district councils will preserve the long and valued association of local authorities with the lay courts in Scotland.
As nearly as may be, these proposals will carry over into the new local government system the democratic features of the existing JP and burgh courts. We also propose some important improvements in the administration of lay summary justice. Training will be provided for those who sit on the bench; legal aid will be available in the new court from the beginning; and power is conferred on the Lord Advocate to assume responsibility for all prosecutions in the district court through the procurator fiscal service.
My Lords, I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. It is in three fairly well defined Parts. Part I, covering Clauses 1 to 8, includes provisions on the district court, its administration, staffing and facilities. Clause 1(1) abolishes all existing inferior courts on May 16, 1975, and establishes on that date a district court for each commission area. "Commission area" is defined in Clause 26 as "a district or islands area within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland)

1411
Act 1973". I should perhaps say that "inferior courts" is a technical expression which does no more than distinguish these courts from the other courts of summary jurisdiction.
Clause 1(2) transfers to a justice of the peace the functions of burgh magistrates when they are acting otherwise than as a court of summary jurisdiction. The remainder of this clause provides for proceedings to be continued smoothly over the transition to the new system and for the transfer of records and of documents. I should, however, say a few words about the power in subsection (1) to direct that no district court should be set up in particular commission areas. There are one or two rural areas where there are virtually no burgh or justice of the peace courts because there are so few criminal cases to be dealt with. Those few are dealt with in the sheriff court. If the potential business seems to make the setting up of a district court unnecessary the Secretary of State can direct accordingly, but he would first wish to have the views of the authorities likely to be concerned and we have not yet reached that stage.
Clause 2(1) provides that the commission area, which as I explained is the area of an islands or district authority, shall be the district of the district court. The local authority determine the places, days and times of sittings. In many districts the district court will normally sit in one town only but have scheduled sittings in other towns. Local authorities will no doubt give some preliminary consideration to this matter in the next few weeks. Clause 2(2) provides that the bench shall be constituted by a stipendiary magistrate or by one or more justices. I shall say more about stipendiary magistrates when I come to Clause 5. But on the question of numbers on the bench, what we have done is to allow the maximum flexibility. Scotland has a tradition of a single burgh magistrate on the bench. In the justice of the peace court the tradition is for two or more judges to sit together.
Clause 3 gives the district court the powers and jurisdiction of the existing courts. When the court is constituted by a stipendiary magistrate it will as at present have the wider summary criminal powers and jurisdiction of a
1412
sheriff. The maximum fine which can be imposed by the lay court on convicting a person of a common law offence is raised from £50 to £100. Clause 4 deals with procedure and practice in the district court. Rules of procedure and practice applying to the existing courts shall apply to the district court and the powers of the High Court under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 to regulate procedure are extended to procedure in the district court.
Clause 5 includes provision for the appointment of stipendiary magistrates. It is open to a local authority to appoint a stipendiary magistrate, but an appointment cannot be made until the Secretary of State approves the establishment of the office, the salary and the person proposed. These approvals are necessary because the creation of a post of stipendiary magistrate is a major step which would justify the involvement of the Secretary of State. The three existing stipendiary magistrates in Glasgow will continue to hold office under subsection (4). Every stipendiary magistrate will be a justice of the peace by virtue of his office.
Clause 6 contains an important provision. At present, there is a public prosecution system in the lay courts as there is in the sheriff and High Court. But the appointments are made separately to each lay court—in each burgh court by the town council, in each justice of the peace court by quarter sessions. Although appointed by those bodies, they are not, of course, answerable to them for their public prosecution decisions in individual cases. Except in the cities they are normally local solicitors acting part-time on a fee-paid basis.
This system has weaknesses. Each prosecutor is an isolated unit and, short of sheer inefficiency or misconduct, answerable to no one for his actions. I know that these public prosecutors, within their experience, carry out their duties conscientiously and carefully. But such a system carries within it the likelihood of inconsistency and idiosyncrasy; and it is desirable in any case that a prosecutor acting in the public interest should be answerable to an appropriate authority for his actions. Accordingly, we have decided that public prosecution in the new courts should become a responsibility of the procurator fiscal service, who are already the prosecutors in the sheriff court

1413
and who are answerable to the Lord Advocate as head of the criminal authorities in Scotland.
This is provided for in Clause 6(1) and 6(2). But on account of the shortage of legally qualified staff this system cannot be brought into operation throughout Scotland by May 16, 1975, though we hope it will be in some areas such as the cities. Accordingly, subsections (3) to (6) provide that the district authority will continue to provide a public prosecutor until the Lord Advocate is in a position to take over. We are providing that, during this period, the Lord Advocate will have a degree of control over the local prosecutor. He will be able to issue directions to him and call for reports from him.
Clause 7 places a duty on each local authority to appoint and employ an officer to act as clerk of the district court who shall also act as legal assessor. This clause is drafted in a way which will enable the local authority to appoint a clerk on a part-time basis if they wish to do so. It would also be possible for a district council to employ by agreement with a regional council an officer placed at the disposal of a district council. The local authorities have confirmed that they will make available legally qualified staff to act as clerks of the district court.
Clause 8 lays a duty on the local authority to provide suitable and sufficient premises and facilities for the purpose of the district court. Subsection (2) of the clause is intended to ease the transition from the present system to the new one by providing for the use of local authority premises for the purposes of the district court which are used to any extent by the existing courts. When the Lord Advocate takes over prosecutions accommodation used by the prosecutor will be made available to the procurator fiscal.
Part II of the Bill is concerned with justices and clerks of the peace. Clause 9 contains new provisions governing the appointment of justices as from May 16, 1975. At present the appointment of justices is effected by the inscription of their names under the Secretary of State's authority in the Commissions of the Peace which have been issued in each county. From May 16, 1975, new commissions will be issued for district and islands areas the inscription of names in the com-
1414
missions will be discontinued. New commissions in which names are not inscribed were issued in England and Wales with effect from April 1 last under authority of the Administration of Justice Act 1973. The clause also re-enacts in relation to the new commission areas the existing law contained in Section 1 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, relating to the residence qualification of justices. Under Clause 10 persons who are serving either as justices of the peace or as burgh magistrates immediately before May 16, 1975, are to become justices of the peace on and after that date for the new commission areas. This clause also contains provisions governing the determination of the commission areas in which these persons are to hold office.
Clause 11 provides that all existing justices of the peace who hold office by virtue of any other office will cease to do so on May 16, 1975. There are two groups of persons in this category. The first is holders of high office and local dignitaries who are named by office in individual Commissions of the Peace; the second consists of chairmen of local authorities and a few other persons who are ex officio justices under Statute. The clause provides for an entirely new class of ex officio justices who are to be nominated to hold office by district and islands authorities from among their own members. The appointment as justices will last only so long as the councillors concerned remain members of the local authority and retain the nomination. Clauses 12 and 13 re-enact in terms appropriate to the new administrative arrangements existing law relating to disqualifications of justices and of solicitors who are justices.
Clause 14 gives a new power to the Secretary of State to make schemes for the instruction of justices of the peace and lays a duty on the justices' committee for each area to implement and administer such schemes. Lack of training requirements and facilities for the judges of the lay courts is one of the great weaknesses at present and these powers will enable us to remedy it. All justices will be expected to accept training appropriate to their past experience, if any, and there will be power under the next clause to disqualify any who fail to accept training from sitting on the bench.

1415
Clause 15 looks rather formidable, but I am advised that it is essentially a re-enactment of existing provisions in a form suitable for the new arrangements. Under Section 4 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 a supplemental list is kept in connection with each Commission of the Peace, and justices whose names are entered in it are disqualified from doing any act as a justice, except for what are commonly referred to as "signing duties". In terms of the section as read with Section 6 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1968 the names of justices are entered in the supplemental list when they attain the age of 70, or at any time if the Secretary of State so directs in circumstances as provided for by the Statute. Clause 9(9)(d), provides for a single supplemental list for Scotland to be kept by the Secretary of State. Clause 15 provides for the entry of names in it and for the effect of such entry. The effect is similar to that already in the supplemental lists now attached to the Commissions of the Peace which will be superseded under the Bill.
Clause 16 includes provisions for the setting up of a justices' committee in each islands or district authority area. The justices' committee, which is to be elected annually by a meeting of all the justices for an area, will have various functions. These will be to
"assist and advise the local authority concerned on any matter relating to the administration of the court; to approve the duty rota of justices",
to see that the local training arrangements are effected, and to take any other appropriate steps to secure effective administration of justice in the district court. A stipendiary magistrate will be a member of the justices' committee ex officio. The clerk of the peace, to whom I shall refer in greater detail later, will be secretary to the committee. Clause 17 is concerned with the payment of allowances to justices. This is essentially a re-enactment of the existing law adjusted to take account of the new arrangements. Justices appointed under the Bill will receive the same allowances as the present justices.
I now come—in Clause 18 and in Clause 22 which I shall discuss with it—to a complicated part of the consequential to the previous proposals. I hope
1416
the House will bear with me. I should like to distinguish three functions which clerks perform—as clerk of the criminal court, as clerk of the liquor licensing court and as clerk to the justices, or the burgh magistrates, as a body. These are three separate functions. At present they are normally carried out in burghs by the town clerk or one of his staff; in counties they are carried out by the clerk of the peace, usually part-time by a local solicitor remunerated on a fee basis.
What of the future? I have already spoken of Clause 7, making it a duty of the district council to provide the clerk of the criminal court. This is the main task. But the existing burgh or county basis on which they are now provided for will disappear. Provision must also be made for the other two functions, those of clerk to the licensing court and court of appeal, and of clerk to the justices as a body. What the Bill proposes on this is the simple and straightforward solution that, as with the function of clerk to the criminal court, these two functions should be given to staff appointed for the purpose by the district council.
Clause 18 provides for the appointment by the local authority of a clerk to the justices as a body. For reasons of tradition we are retaining the title of clerk of the peace for this office. Clause 22 lays a duty on the district council to appoint an officer to act as clerk of the licensing court and court of appeal. These two clauses taken with Clause 7 provide for the assumption by officers of the local authority of the three functions now carried out by clerks of the peace in counties. In some areas all these functions (or two of them) may be given to the same officer—that will be a matter for the local authority. It follows that the existing office of clerks of peace will be discontinued; this is provided for in Clause 18 and there is due provision for compensation in Clause 19.
I should perhaps add, with reference to the Clayson Report on the Scottish Licensing Law, that while the provisions in the Bill coincide with the Committee's recommendation regarding the clerk to the liquor licensing authority, the Government are not committed by including these provisions to the Committee's view on the composition of that authority.

1417
That is for the future. We will give the matter careful and separate consideration in the light of the comments we have received on the Report.
I do not think it necessary to go through Part III of the Bill in detail. But in addition to Clauses 19 and 22, which I have already mentioned, I ought to say a few words about Clauses 21 and 23. Clause 21 makes amendments to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 and the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972. One of the main criticisms of the existing courts is that legal aid is not available there. We intend, as I have said, to introduce legal aid as from May 16, 1975, and the method by which it will be done is by an Order under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967. The amendments in the clause pave the way for the Order. The estimated cost of extending legal aid to the district court is £130,000 annually. Clause 23 provides for expenditure on district court and justice of the peace business to be met by the local authorities. This expenditure will be offset by fines and will be reckonable for rate support grant. It will be possible for the Secretary of State under subsection (5) to adjust the Rate Support Grant Order for 1975–76.
My Lords, I hope that what I have said makes it clear that what we propose offers a workable and reasonable system which can come into operation on May 16, 1975. The general proposals have been welcomed by the local authority associations and will, I trust, find support elsewhere.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question. The last paragraph of the Bill says that seven clauses will not come into force on May 16. Does that mean (hey will come into force before or after?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, just on the offchance that there are no other questions, perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk will allow me to answer that question later on. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hughes.)
3.27 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we are indeed grateful for the
1418
way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has introduced and explained this Bill to us. With the advent of a new local government system only six months away and the extinction then of the various burgh and JP courts, no one can deny there is a certain amount of urgency about this matter. These courts which, in 1946, dealt with proceedings against some 57,000 persons, by 1970 were dealing with some 93,000 persons. Admittedly, by this later date, the sheriff courts had increased their workload appreciably more, for whereas in 1946 they dealt with some 32,000 persons, in 1970 they dealt with 117,000 persons, some 24,000 more cases than all the other inferior courts together.
My Lords, as interested noble Lords will be aware, we on this side of the House in our White Paper of March last year, initially intended establishing a network of lay justices' courts with more power than the existing courts. Clerks of these local courts do not necessarily at the present time have legal training. The Faculty of Advocates produced a memorandum which, among other points, strongly argued that legal training and experience were essential in ail summary criminal courts. This view was supported also by the Scots Law Society. In view of the limited supply of other talent, doubt was expressed as to whether there would be a sufficiency of such people available. Therefore, meeting what seemed the overwhelming wish of the Scots Bar and the Scots Law Society, we had decided to expand the sheriff courts with some new kind of professional judge, and to strengthen generally all the procurator fiscal and sheriff' clerk service.
In view of the overwhelming professional views and the lack of any public demand for the lay magistrates system to continue in Scotland, the only real zeal for the continued existence of this lay magisterial system seems to have come from the lay magistrates themselves. I appreciate that under the Bill before us there is a choice before the district councils. They may, if they wish, appoint stipendiary magistrates. Equally, they can nominate up to one-third of their number to serve as justices of the peace and to administer justice. This number will come into being when the new legal aids will be operating for the first time

1419
as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has just told us. This will mean that there will be more lawyers then representing defendants. The only non-legal people will probably be the JPs themselves. Experience has shown the lack of uniformity in the administration of these lay courts.
In the past bailies have become bailies not, I suggest, because of any special ability to act as a magistrate but more on the principle of it being Buggins' turn. Feelings of injustice have sometimes been generated due so often to the procedures and views of basic legal rights which have been adopted by presiding lay magistrates. There have been numerous cases recently of the burgh courts' decisions having to be overturned by the appeals courts for these reasons. For instance, we had in Edinburgh last year an example. A bailie who was presiding noticed a witness shaking his head as he, the bailie, was speaking, something which many of us do as Ministers and others speak. But this bailie immediately had that man sent down to the cells, and after the case he was brought out and without any further explanation he was found guilty of contempt of court. That is just one example.
As the Minister has explained to us, Clause 14 provides for courses of instruction for justices of the peace, but—and this is a serious point which worries me—there is no guarantee that come next May any of these nominated justices of the peace will have attended these courses, despite the long-term provisions of Clause 15 to which the noble Lord the Minister has referred. The new district courts will also become the licensing courts. In the past the licensing courts have—regrettably, I think we would all agree—all too often dealt with these items along Party lines, with one Party voting for and one Party against. We had proposed, as the noble Lord will be aware, to have licensing boards with sheriffs having the right of appeal. I think that this will be a matter which we shall need to watch closely in the future.
Before I finish my speech I should like to say that we on these Benches are looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Campsie; with his great experience as chairman of East Kilbride he will have much know-
1420
ledge of matters of this kind. As I shall not have a chance later I should like to welcome him now. As I said at the beginning, we regret that the Government have not taken more heed of the professional advice given. I cannot refrain from thinking that the desire to please local politicians has caused them to produce this Bill, perhaps, who knows, even overriding the advice of their own law officers. But that said, we must have courts working in six months' time, so we shall hope to improve later some of the measures in this Bill while to-day somewhat half-heartedly giving it a Second Reading.
3.34 p.m.
LORD WALLACE OF CAMPSIE: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence, as this is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing the House. However, I am fortunate in that I have been given the opportunity of speaking on a subject with which I have some acquaintance. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland, an honorary sheriff of Lanarkshire and a justice of the peace: and in my many other activities I have close associations with local government and, consequently, I am reasonably aware of the changes necessary in legislation pertaining to the appropriate courts resulting from local government reform in Scotland.
Within a relatively short period of time there have been different approaches by two Governments about the way in which local burgh and justice of the peace courts in Scotland should be replaced. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, the Conservatives, when in power, first proposed the setting up of new justices courts with justices on the bench and members of the sheriffs clerks service as clerks of court. Subsequently they proposed the appointment of additional professional judges to handle all the business of the present lay courts. As I appreciate the position, the objections to the first proposal were mainly on the ground that a bench which was not legally qualified was to be assisted by clerks without legal qualification, and the objections to the second proposal were mainly from those who thought that participation by lay men and women in the administration of justice in Scotland should be continued.
Seeking to analyse the situation, it seems to me that there are two schools

1421
of thought in Scotland. One school of thought, supported by the legal profession, is that we now have the opportunity to dispense with what they call amateur justice. The other school of thought takes the view, which I have already touched upon; namely, that participation by lay men and women in the administration of justice in Scotland should be continued. There is, in my opinion, merit in both schools of thought. While I am bound to say, as the noble Lord opposite said a few moments ago, that reference could be made to reported criticisms of lay benches expressed by the judiciary appeal court in Scotland, these are isolated cases, and I would submit that those who have sat as lay magistrates and justices over the past years in the burgh and justices of the peace courts, speaking generally, have served the community well. They have constituted the broad base of the pyramid of Scottish criminal jurisdiction. They have brought to their task humanity coupled with the good sense that they have acquired throughout their everyday lives and experience in the community, and it cannot be over emphasised that lay magistrates have performed this public service unstintingly through the years with little recognition of their work.
It may please your Lordships to recognise, as the Minister has said, that this Bill provides not only to replace the present burgh and justices of the peace courts with a district court for each local authority but also provides a number of important improvements. It is of the utmost importance to minimise disturbance in the transitional process, and I respectfully submit that adequate provision has been made in this regard. Training schemes are envisaged for justices. This, in my opinion, is very important indeed. Lay men and women who are to sit in judgment on their fellow citizens should take full advantage of such provisions.
The best experience is no doubt acquired by sitting on the bench, but there is a need for more formal training, particularly when a man or woman is starting off on the bench. While it is intended to continue with lay justices, the Government's proposals also provide for stipendiary magistrates. It will be for the local people to consider whether the volume of business in their district court is too great to be dealt with solely by lay
1422
justices and whether the Secretary of State's approval should be sought for the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate or magistrates. For my part, if I may, I strongly recommend that wherever it is justified stipendiary magistrates should be appointed. However, having said that, I realise it may not be practical to make such appointments in remote areas.
As will be seen, each local authority is to appoint an officer to act as clerk of the district court. As the official appointed is also to act as assessor to the lay justices, it is appropriate that he or she should be a person qualified in law; this, I think, is appropriate, and the Minister himself has confirmed it. Finally, the Bill makes provision for legal aid in the district courts, which is excellent, and some I think might say it is overdue. I would only add that I believe the present burgh and justice of the peace courts in Scotland are the only criminal courts in Britain where legal aid is not available, and I beg to commend this Bill to the support of the House.
3.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Campsie, on a most interesting and balanced speech, spoken with very high authority and wide experience. He has been a distinguished chairman at East Kilbride and, I believe, also at the new town of Stonehouse. East Kilbride, for those who do not know it, is indeed a model town, and I strongly commend the Bruce Hotel to anybody who wants refreshment before entering Glasgow. I hope that the noble Lord will speak to us again on these subjects on which he speaks with such wide and full authority. I find myself in very broad agreement with a great deal of what he said.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for introducing this Bill. He went a little fast for me to follow every word that he said, but I do not think he underestimated—I do not—that this is a very important Bill indeed. It is true that it deals only with what we call the inferior courts which do not have very wide powers, but a greater number of people come in contact with them than with any of the other courts. I do not know whether I am right in saying that there is an element of hurry about this

1423
Bill. It certainly seems to have been changed a little at the end, and the draftsman may have written it a little more clearly, if his instructions had been straightforward and simple at the very outset. Leaving that aside, there is one point I am worried about. Who is really in charge of these courts? We find, for instance, that the magistrates are to be appointed by the Secretary of State, the buildings and costs are the concern of the local authority, the stipendiary magistrates arc substantially to be appointed by the Secretary of State, the clerk of the peace by the local authority, the prosecutor by the Lord Advocate and the sittings are to be decided by the local authority. There does not seem to be anyone who will be responsible for seeing that these courts are run efficiently, and that business is conducted quickly and disposed of.
I confess that I have a good deal of sympathy with the idea of integrating these courts with the sheriff courts, and particularly with the Statutory Instrument which we have coming on later to cover the appointment of full-time sheriff principals. They seem to me to be admirably suited to exercise over these courts just that degree of supervisory powers which they exercise over the sheriffs' courts at the present time, and I believe this to be an extremely valuable step forward. I am sorry indeed that the Government have not thought it right to take that course under this Bill. I believe that that would be much more suitable than leaving matters in the hands of the district clerk, whoever it may be.
I was worried about the lack of any reference in the Bill to qualified clerks or qualified assessors. The noble Lord made several references to this aspect in the course of his remarks, assuring us that it is the intention of the Government that most of these posts will be filled by people who are qualified. He said that he had the assurance of the local authorities that they would see to this. I think we must cover this in the Bill. I do not think we can leave it just to an assurance by local authorities that they will do something. We must be quite clear that these courts are not in the hands of people who are unqualified. We are, after all, dealing with the framework of law. People may have common sense, and indeed lawyers
1424
have much common sense, but there is a scaffolding which has been built up by the experience of lawyers over many years, and it would be quite wrong to think that we could break loose of that to too great an extent.
I am glad to see that legal aid is being made available in these courts, because I think it is necessary. I am a little surprised at the figure that the noble Lord has given, and I am also a little surprised to see that there is no reference to that figure in the Financial Memorandum attached to this Bill. That is generally done and I am rather surprised that it has not been done this time. I have great doubts about Clause 11, and it gives me the impression of being rather slapdash. One-third of the members of any local district council can be lay magistrates, and that figure seems to be very high compared with the number of bailies in most of the burghs in Scotland at the present time. It is a very high figure—certainly very much higher than the number of bailies we had in Edinburgh when I was there. I do not know how it compares with other burghs, but it seems a big figure.
I wonder whether it is wise, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to bring election to public office in such close touch with the judiciary, even in these junior courts. I know we have had bailies for a fairly long time, but the system does not go back so very far in history. A long time ago the burgh was charged with the duty to maintain law and order and that duty was fulfilled. To-day this duty has gone. The responsibility here is the Secretary of State's—at least I think that is what is intended—but how can he be responsible when he does not appoint the magistrate and it is run substantially from the local district? I think we ought to think very seriously about whether the number is right, and about whether it would be better if the Secretary of State, or maybe even councillors, made appointments, and if the local authority was not simply free to appoint a very substantial number of people and to demand that they should be made magistrates. I think that this clause will need very careful looking at indeed.
My Lords, I wonder whether we could have confirmation of this point. There are certain powers taken under this Bill

1425
by the Lord Advocate to direct the local prosecutors. Is it the intention that the Lord Advocate will appoint the local prosecutors in due course? The word "until" is a peculiar word which I see at the beginning of this sentence.
"Until the Lord Advocate directs that all prosecutions … shall proceed".
Does that indicate that the Lord Advocate will in due course, when he can find the people, appoint procurators fiscal who will carry out the prosecutions in all these inferior courts? If the noble Lord can show that, I shall be very happy indeed.
I think I am correct in saying that the specially noted clauses come into effect on the Royal Assent, and that the others are postponed until after May 16. That is my understanding. There are a number of questions which we might ask on this. I hope that the noble Lord will not try to bulldoze this Bill through the House. He has a great ability to do so when he wishes, so I hope he will give us ample opportunity to discuss it. It is not a Party Bill and it is one of very great importance to Scotland, on which there are differences of opinion. I think we should look at those differences very closely indeed.
3.49 p.m.
LORD MACKIE OF BENSHIE: My Lords, let me first congratulate the maiden speaker, Lord Wallace of Campsie, on his speech which I greatly enjoyed, and from which it was very obvious that he knew a great deal about the subject. I myself have the unique experience, while having little knowledge of the law, of probably being one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who has appeared before a bench of English JPs as well as before a bailie in Scotland, that bailie later becoming my mother-in-law. I do not want to say very much on this Bill. I would merely reinforce the expression of doubt of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on the political or district council appointment of magistrates. I must say that many people, both lawyers in Scotland and members of district councils, past, present and future, and of county councils in the past, have expressed grave disquiet to me about this clause. I think that the Government should look at it again. To say that the district council
1426
or island council may appoint up to one-third of its members appears to me to lay the way open to grave political misuse.
We in Scotland now have a great number of district councils which are wholly political and others which are becoming more so, and it is quite possible that instead of it simply being Buggin's turn to appoint bailies they might appoint en bloc a number of members of only one Party. This has happened in local authorities in the past. I cannot say that I share the high view of bailies taken by speakers up to now. There have been some excellent and admirable ones in the past. I am not sure whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has been a bailie in his distinguished career but if he has been I am perfectly sure he was a splendid bailie and dispensed justice with that smooth air with which he dispenses law in the Chamber.
The subject of lay magistrates, particularly bailies, has been a matter for humour in Scotland for many generations. I had thought that we should now have a splendid chance of getting rid of that situation. I agree with the notion of lay magistrates. There are many people who can render great service to the law and to the community. I think that the district authorities should have some hand in nominating them. However, the present Bill spoils an essential measure, about which there is some urgency, by including the authority for district authorities to nominate these magistrates without reference to the Secretary of State.
The Bill also cuts across the notion, which I understand is the practice in England and which is doing a great deal of good, of mandatory training for magistrates. I understand that in England no newly appointed magistrate may pronounce until he has been six months on the bench and has attended a number of lectures. This appears to me to be quite excellent. I am a little doubtful about the clause. I assume from the Minister's speech that it will have mandatory effect in Scotland, but that is not said in the Bill. The Bill reads—
"… may make schemes and provide courses".
I trust that this will be mandatory because it is obviously part of the value of a lay magistrate that he should be trained. It is also part of his great value that he should have some experience, and to

1427
appoint councillors as JPs only for the length of their time as councillors seems to make nonsense of this training scheme. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will further consider this point when we come to Committee. Apart from this point, on which we have grave disquiet, we on these Benches consider that the Bill is practical, useful and indeed necessary by May 15.
3.53 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Campsie, on his maiden speech. It was extremely interesting, coming as it does from one who has had practical experience of these lower courts and who is an honorary sheriff substitute. If I do not go the whole way with him I hope he will forgive me, but I discerned at certain points that he was not quite sure which was the better argument. I must declare an interest in this matter both as a JP and as one who has been on the supplemental list for six years. I am also a member of the Central Advisory Committee for Scotland on Justices of the Peace. This is a committee presided over by the Lord Justice Clerk with duty to report to the Secretary of State for Scotland; but I would say quite emphatically that I am to-day expressing my own personal views in this matter.
My Lords, the reorganisation of the burgh courts and of the JP courts in Scotland is greatly overdue. The burgh court is a product of the 19th century and. as some noble Lords have already said, the clerk may or may not be legally qualified yet he has the duty to advise the magistrate, the bailie or the police judge about court procedure. At present the" prosecutor is likewise appointed by the authority but is not answerable to the Lord Advocate, who is responsible for all other prosecutions in Scotland with the exception of these lower courts.
The stories about the Scottish burgh courts and their scandals are perpetually enlivening items in the local Press of Scotland. Recently one Edinburgh bailee was quoted in the Scotsman as saying——
"When I am on the bench I look at the circumstances and the guy in front of me—there is more humanity in the burgh courts."
1428
What is human about keeping a woman in custody for three weeks before trial when the charge was one of breaking a shop window? Common failings in the burgh courts are to refuse bail and also to refuse time to pay a fine. To give another instance, a female accused applied for bail. The prosecutor asked for custody to enable him to make out a warrant of an unspecified nature. The bailee refused to listen to the accused and refused bail, telling her that she could speak at her trial. It was subsequently discovered that the woman was once professionally employed and was living with her husband at a fixed address. The complaint was one of fraud by presenting a cheque for £3 with insufficient funds to cover it. The charge was subsequently deserted by the prosecutor.
In another case last March a youth was found sleeping on a bench at Waverley Station at 7 p.m. He pleaded not guilty to vagrancy and insisted that he had a hostel address. The prosecutor said he was not aware that the man had any fixed address and the bailie, without any further inquiry, agreed that the accused be kept in custody and trial was fixed. The youth, realising that he was going to be kept in prison for five days, changed his plea to guilty. In one month recently in the Edinburgh burgh court, of a total of 288 persons appearing from custody 257 pleaded guilty and were sentenced immediately. Not one case was continued to allow for a report to be prepared before sentence. Bail was a relevant consideration in 27 cases. In 21 of these the bailie, or the magistrate, made his decision without any further information. One of the accused asked for a reduction of the bail as he had financial commitments to meet. The clerk of the court silenced him, saying that bail could not be reduced.
There are several other cases which I could quote but I will spare your Lordships more harrowing stories of the miscarriage of justice in these courts. They and many others are related in the daily newspaper, the Scotsman, of July 18 and 19 last. I will however cite one remark by a bailie to a defender.
"You must hae done it or the polis widna have brought ye here".
These courts are a blight on our society. What then does this Bill do to improve the matter? First, it provides legal aid

1429
for the defender. That is good and all are agreed that it is high time that legal aid was provided. As one noble Lord has said to-day, "These are the only courts in which legal aid has not been available". I would ask your Lordships to note that the only party to the proceedings now without legal aid will be the judge. Secondly, the Bill provides that ultimately the Lord Advocate will take over public prosecution. But why on earth have we to wait? When he answers the debate, can the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, give us an assurance that the delay will be only a matter of months to allow time for readjustment? Thirdly, there are to be suitable training schemes for justices, and the Bill lays it on the Justices Committee to implement their training. What is meant by "training"? I have a copy of a Memorandum on this subject prepared for the Advisory Committee. Inter alia, it states:
"It is probably desirable that the basic training should be given not only in, say, weekly lectures, but also in a few more intensive sessions, for instance by devoting occasional whole Saturdays or a weekend residential course to the work."
That is excellent.
My Lords, what in this Bill are the hindrances to the improvement of justice in these courts? First, and most emphatically, is the provision, as so many other noble Lords have already stated, in Clause 11, for the local authority to nominate up to one-third of its members to be ex officio justices in the district court. Elected members of a local authority come and go with considerable frequency. The turnover is high and those holding office have, in addition to their official work, quite a lot of work to do in order to retain their seats. A great many of them, if not all, have to earn their living.
I join with other noble Lords in beseeching the Government to reconsider this provision because it is quite incompatible with the provision for training the lay magistracy as envisaged in the Bill. How on earth can the elected represensatives possibly find time to attend all this training? Accordingly, if this clause is agreed we shall be very little better off than we are now. I feel that the provision has been inserted solely as a sop to the amour propre of the local authorities,
1430
and it panders to the pressures of local politicians.
My Lords, let me give the House one more example from Edinburgh. Two solicitors in a burgh court trial lasting some six hours raised a number of legal points, but the magistrate did not ask one single question. At the end he gave no opinion but found the accused guilty. The accused appealed to the High Court and the conviction was quashed. Town councillors in Scotland depend for their very existence on the Press and on the electorate. Surely this should disqualify them from holding judicial office? My noble friend Lord Selkirk made this point and I strongly support him in it. Another point which has a bearing on this issue came up recently in Edinburgh, where the bus drivers had been very discontented over hooliganism on buses. They sent a deputation, which was received by the magistrates, asking that the magistrates should impose heavier sentences. Can you imagine any other form of justiciary which would receive a deputation asking it to award heavier sentences?
When the Advisory Committee started deliberating this whole reform we leant over backwards in favour of continuing the lay magistracy, but as evidence accumulated it became more and more clear to us that efficient administration of justice demanded the complete incorporation of district courts with the whole legal system of Scotland, based primarily on full-time professional judges, not necessarily completely excluding the lay magistracy. Again, I fully support my noble friend Lord Selkirk on this issue. Thus not only would justice be done, but the administration of justice would be more efficient since there could be interchange of cases between the sheriff and the district according to the relative pressure of cases.
This was the second plan put forward by the late Conservative Government after discussions in Scotland on the White Paper. With a few minor differences, the present Government revert to the plan which the Conservatives discarded. I have a strong suspicion that the doctrine behind this Bill to-day is that lay justices are ordinary working-class people and therefore more democratic. Indeed, I took note that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that a magistrate was more

1431
democratic. The system of professional judges, they say, is a surrender to the interests of the legal profession. I am no lawyer, but I cannot for the life of me see that it is such a surrender.
I am of the opinion that the Government are here missing a great opportunity. At a time of technological revolution, with new situations arising from developments in industry, and especially in Scotland in oil, the matter of law at this lower level of justice must be closely looked into. Also, this is a time when there is an increasing volume of legislation, some of which is enforceable but much of which is very difficult to enforce; and surely this is the time to go ahead with a real reform to weed out of the existing system the bad old habits, however picturesque they may be. There is much else I could say against the Bill, but I will reserve any future remarks for the Committee stage.
4.8 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I intervene for only a short time. First, I must say to your Lordships' House how much I appreciated the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Campsie, and how much I hope we will hear from him in the future. Indeed, I echo every word spoken by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in this connection. The only point I want to make is that raised in relation to lay magistrates. I have to confess that I have been a bailie of the City of Glasgow and confess also that when I sat on the bench for the first two or three times I felt very naked indeed. One can make up one's mind as to whether or not a person is guilty, but when any point of law arises one is completely in the wilderness; I was at any rate. Of course, one is helped in dealing with these difficult circumstances by the assessor sitting by one's side. But I have never been able to understand the advantage of having lay magistrates in the courts. I cannot understand it at all.
When I was a bailie we had great talk about the appointment of stipendiary magistrates in the City of Glasgow. There was only one then and I believe there is only one to-day. But I would stress that it was a move in the right direction to have stipendiary magistrates and to be rid of lay magistrates altogether. I do
1432
not know whether they serve any useful purpose. There is this to say about it: I do not know how they were appointed, but it seemed to me that after one had served for two or three years on a particular council he came up for appointment as a bailie. Many people like being a bailie for the title. "Once a bailie, always a bailie", they say. One is always addressed throughout one's lifetime as Bailie so-and-so, or Bailie-this and Bailie that. Honestly, I cannot see what good purpose they serve by meting out justice in the courts. However, I say strongly to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that I hope he will think again about this matter in light of all that has been said this afternoon in that connection.
4.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the first and pleasant task I have in replying to the debate is to join in the congratulations which have been extended to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Campsie on his admirable maiden speech. He was wise in the subject which he chose, because it is not given to many of us to be able to make our maiden speech on a subject of which we can claim to have close and expert experience. It has been his good fortune to choose a subject in that way, and it has been our good fortune that we have had the opportunity to listen to him. He will accept from me, too, that there is an additional reason for my being sincerely grateful for his speech because, having listened to the serried ranks opposite, he must appreciate how great an advantage it is for me to have such an addition of strength on this side of the House. In fact, if I were to include my noble friend in the percentage of participating Scottish Labour Peers it might send him away in a state in which he would be unable to wear his hat; but I can assure him that I look forward to the support which I shall receive from him on this Bill and in all other Scottish business which may come before the House. Judging by the reception which certain parts of the Bill have received from your Lordships generally, it looks as if I am going to need all the help that my noble friend can give me.
Many of the points which have been raised are obviously completely valid points for consideration by this House when the Bill goes into Committee, but it would be appropriate for me to say

1433
something about them. I was sorry that in his late intervention the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—if I may follow almost the invitation which he extended me, I might address him as Bailie Lord Strathclyde—should have joined Lord Balerno in these sweeping condemnations of bailies. I was a bailie for two years. Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, never appeared before me. Whatever misdemeanours he perpetrated, he did not perpetrate them in the Burgh of Dundee; and I thought he was possibly the only one of those who spoke against the lay magistrates, or the bailies as lay magistrates, who had legitimate personal reason for doing so. Obviously, as he said, he has suffered at the hands of a bailie, but I would invite him, when we come to the Committee stage, to put this perhaps legitimate piece of prejudice behind him.
I cannot say that I was happy about what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, and what I must say, after some 27 years as a member of a local authority (for two of which I was bailie, for six of which I was Lord Provost, although as Lord Provost I exercised my discretion not to sit on the bench; it meant that the others sat one week in eight instead of one week in nine) is that my experience, both in my own burgh and in all the authorities that I know, would lead me to rebut what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has said. I do not think he has done a service either to local government or to lay justice generally in picking out these juicy bits from the Scotsman, most of which—the Glasgow people, at least, will be glad to see—appear to be concentrated in the City of Edinburgh. The Glasgow folk, of course, will say that this is just natural: I mean, "What else could you expect from Edinburgh people, whether legally qualified or otherwise?"
I also regretted the suggestion that the nomination of a third of councils would introduce political aspects into the appointment of magistrates. That I do not think is the case. If it were, then, of course, that might be the explanation for some of the difficulties which have arisen in past years in Edinburgh, because until recently the great majority of Edinburgh magistrates were Tories, and that might provide the sole explanation of these extraordinary events which have apparently taken place there. But the
1434
magistrates' bench generally has not been subject to the same rule of taking Office as have political groups; and remember that the political group system of controlling councils applies largely in the cities only, and in the larger burghs. It is only on a very limited scale that it applies elsewhere.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Wallace that, by and large, the system of bailies has commended itself to the people of Scotland. In all the elections that have taken place—and I first entered local government in 1933—I never remember having heard anywhere in Scotland anybody raising as an election issue that the system of police courts should be done away with and we should no longer have magistrates. The next piece of business that I have to deal with is the reorganisation of sheriff courts, so I shall refrain from the temptation which assails me to relate in reply the kind of criticisms which have been made of sheriffs in the past; and the fact that a man may be a legally qualified judge does not mean that he will necessarily arrive at decisions which will be totally free from criticism, either Press or otherwise. While I enjoy the joke about the magistrate who said, "You must be guilty or the police would not have brought you here", I would remind your Lordships that some considerable time ago there was a very distinguished judge (perhaps I should have said a notorious judge) who informed someone, where there was some doubt about the man's guilt, that he would be
"nane the waur o' a hanging anyway".
In the case of a revolutionary, or someone who was supposed to be a revolutionary, the judge was reminded that, in his day, Jesus Christ had been a radical, and he said,
"Aye, an ye ken what happen'd to him."
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, perhaps I may say that that notorious case—I am a little hesitant in the presence of two distinguished lawyers—is the famous quotation from Lord Braxfield. Lord Braxfield flourished, I think, about 2G0 years ago, and the circumstances of justice are considerably different to-day.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords, and it may be that even in the last two years the standard of magistrates in Edinburgh

1435
has risen. Things do change as time goes by.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me once more, the cases I cited from the Scotsman all related to the previous year at the outside, during which time there was a Labour Administration in the corporation.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords, but not in majority control of the council, and therefore not having control of the appointments to the bench. I think it is a mistake if we should appear to be entering an argument on the political side, because I started off by saying that I regretted this as I did not think it was an element in the appointment of lay magistrates. However, if the noble Lord wishes to pursue it, perhaps the Scotsman's files will provide him with a great deal more material. Unfortunately, neither the Scotsman nor any other newspaper finds it necessary to comment when magistrates do things properly; and the fact that, by and large, there is an absence of reference to what bailies do is perhaps the best indication of the way in which they carry out their job.
To come to some of the points which have been raised and which might well be the basis upon which noble Lords might be wishing to consider their procedure at the next stage of this Bill, I should refer, first of all, to what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said. He referred to the new district courts being the licensing courts. This was a slip on his part, because the licensing courts are provided for in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1959 as amended by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The membership will be made up of justices of the peace and district councillors. The noble Lord and others spoke about the training, with particular reference to ex-bailie justices. It is intended to require the ex-bailies to accept such training as may be appropriate to their experience, and they will, of course, all need to have the system of legal aid explained to them because for all of them, either bailies or justices, this will be a completely new experience.
In this connection the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked whether training will be compulsory. The answer
1436
is, Yes, it will be compulsory for those who wish to sit in court. This is not the only function of a justice, but those who are not willing to accept training will not be put on the court rota and in extreme cases they may be disqualified by the Secretary of State from sitting under Clause 15(2)(d). This, I understand, is similar to the procedure which exists in England and to which reference was made.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to ask this question. Does that mean that come next May it will be possible to have three magistrates sitting without any legal training?
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords, and this bears on the point which was put by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, earlier. The greater part of the Bill comes into operation immediately it gets the Royal Assent, so certain of these provisions will in fact be operative before May 16. Therefore we shall not be in a position that by one section of the Bill we are letting people operate as justices, and by another section saying that they are not qualified to act. I think the noble Lord may take my assurance on that.
As regards the figures, I thought that the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, put his finger on a defect when he referred to the absence of a reference to the £130,000 in the Financial Memorandum. The explanation is quite simple, though perhaps not obvious. It is that legal aid will be brought into effect by an Order made under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967, and since the Order will be made under that Act it is not appropriate to include the cost in the financial effects of the Bill, because technically it is a financial effect of something which is already an Act of Parliament and not a consequence of this Bill. That is why it is not in the Memorandum. The noble Earl shakes his head. I could quite easily do the same, because I am not versed in the mysteries of these legal matters; but I can assure him that this is the legal explanation of why this point is not included in the Bill.
The noble Earl, among other things, raised the question of the proportion of the council who might be nominated as justices, and thought that one-third was probably higher than was the case at the present time with bailies. I think this

1437
is a valid point. I would not be certain that in many of the smaller councils the proportion might not in fact be of that figure. Certainly in the bigger bodies, one-third would be more. In my own authority it was a quarter: if one counted the Lord Provost, it was nine out of a council of 36 who were magistrates. I would suspect that in Edinburgh and Glasgow the proportion might be even smaller. For that reason, the Bill does not lay down that it will be one-third, but states, "up to one-third". I would not say we are necessarily held to a third. We follow the principle which has been accepted for so long by the people of Scotland that a certain number of elected representatives should be judges or magistrates, and it would probably be a matter for the House in Committee to decide whether it should be up to one-third or fixed at some other figure.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question which he may wish to answer later? If there are three magistrates sitting, is the decision by majority or must it be unanimous?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am sure that some of those who sit on English benches will be much better able to answer that off the cuff than I am, because it has been common practice down here to have more than one. magistrate sitting on the bench. Our experience in the bailie courts, of course, has been of a single magistrate.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene again? My experience of justice of the peace courts (where you have numbers of up to a dozen or so sitting, but frequently with five or seven) has been that if there were cases of dispute we ended by getting a majority decision.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have now had the opportunity of receiving advice from my noble friend Lord Jacques, and it is a majority decision which is received on this side of the Border. I am fairly certain that majority decisions will be accepted because one of the points which has been raised and which may' emerge in Committee, is whether or not it is desirable to have a bench of two magistrates, and there is a
1438
very obvious objection to having two magistrates. What happens if they do not agree? Obviously we are not going to make provision for one to have a casting vote as to what is to happen to a man, either as to a finding of guilt or in determination of punishment; so quite clearly on both sides of the Border the answer is that there will be a majority decision.
LORD MACKIE OF BENSHIE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to make one point? I gather from what he said that in Committee the proportion of magistrates appointed from councillors might be negotiable, but the noble Lord sticks firmly by the principle of local authorities appointing magistrates—due, I gather, to some fine conservative reasoning that, "because it has always been done, it should be done now."
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords, on these matters I have very liberal views and I certainly stick to the principle, not because it has always been done but because I have never felt it necessary to change something for the sake of change. I like to make a change when it is proved desirable to do so, and in this case I am convinced that it is desirable that certain things should be carried on. I did not say the proportion was negotiable. I would say it is arguable. It depends entirely on what takes place during the next stage as to whether or not I would feel able to advise the House on changes one might want to carry out.
In that sense, I may have to rely on what I think the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, intended as a compliment when he referred to my "bulldozing things through the Committee". Considering the number of times between 1964 and 1970 when I sat on these Benches as the only Scot taking part in debates on legislation, I think he attributes to me a power which I certainly never felt any time I came into the Chamber! I would rather think it was a reflection of what one of my colleagues on this side said to me: "How do you manage on the Scottish Bills to get such an effective Coalition working on behalf of the Government?" I hope in this case matters will not develop in that way, but obviously noble Lords will act as they feel inclined, both as regards the

1439
principle and the proportions, and the House will decide.
The noble Earl asked who would be in charge of the courts. I think this is a fair point. The justices' committees, appointed under Clause 16 will be responsible for the day-to-day running of the courts. The district and island authorities will be responsible for expenditure and for providing facilities such as buildings. The Lord Advocate will have overall responsibility for prosecutions. Thus there will be a partnership which will be invaluable in the new courts, with each having their own quite distinct responsibilities.
I believe I have already dealt with the question concerning the legal qualifications of clerks. I thought this was a point which, again, might emerge in Committee as to whether or not it is desirable to go further, having just the assurance of the local and district authorities that this is what they will do and whether or not something of the kind should in fact be inserted in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked whether there would not be too many of these ex officio justices in the new system. I think perhaps it is a fear on the Benches opposite that this will be so that has led to a rather distorted view of the desirability of having these magistrates. It must be kept in perspective. Even if the maximum use were made of the provisions, these ex officio justices would number only between 350 and 400, compared to 5,000 justices appointed in the normal course of events. Therefore, they will not distort the pattern of justices even if the maximum use is made of the provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, asked whether it would be a matter of months only before the Lord Advocate had sufficient procurators fiscal and deputes to undertake the work. It is anticipated that qualified lawyers will come forward quickly in sufficient numbers to fill all the vacancies. They will, however, require to have the attributes necessary for good prosecutors, so the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not say whether this will operate in two, three or four months. However, we anticipate that the present arrangement of local prosecutors will be a very temporary matter indeed.
1440
My Lords, I cannot say, as I have sometimes been able to do in the past in introducing Scottish legislation, that I am grateful for the very general welcome which has been given to the majority of the proposals. What I hope is that, when we have finished with the Bill in your Lordships' House, we shall be able to send it to another place without my right honourable friend the Secretary of State saying to me, "You have made a devil of a mess of it in your Lordships' House."
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, may I be permitted to intervene again in this brief debate to try to remove an impression which, seemingly, I have conveyed to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. He spoke of my having sided with the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in a sweeping condemnation of the lay magistrates. I did nothing of the kind. If my words conveyed that impression, I apologise for my unfortunate inability to make clear what I mean when I rise to my feet. I in no way condemned them: what I said was that I had found myself naked when I sat on the bench and also that I did not understand why we preferred the lay magistrate to the professional magistrate in these days. I entered the Corporation of Glasgow in 1933, when the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, entered the Corporation of Dundee, so we are both of fairly ancient vintage, though none the worse for that. I want to say that I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I did not make a sweeping condemnation of lay magistrates; on the contrary, they have served a very good purpose for many years, but I do not understand why they should continue and I should be glad to be informed.
My Lords, there is one other thing I must say. I do not want to exacerbate the good old quarrel which is supposed to exist between the City of Glasgow and the City of Edinburgh, but I want to make it absolutely and abundantly clear that there was no political jiggery-pokery in the creation of lay magistrates when I was a member of the Corporation of the City of Glasgow. The whole thing went by rota and no political element entered into it at all. I hope that the noble Lord and the whole House will accept that from me.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not think that it was anything that the noble

1441
Lord said that had been misunderstood because I had no intention of associating him with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in his sweeping condemnation of bailies. It was because, as an ex-bailie, he was joining in the doubting of lay magistrates. If, however, I gave the noble Lord that impression, I am glad that I did so because it gave the opportunity of making it perfectly clear that, although the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, might have had support in his criticism of the system of lay magistrates, he did not, at least, have the strong support of the noble Lord, Lord Strath-clyde, in this sweeping condemnation of bailies as a group—in Edinburgh, or otherwise.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I wonder whether a Sassenach could utter one sentence to suggest to my noble friend that he might take this Bill back and bring forward another one based exactly on the English method? Then all the things which have been said about the Bill on the other side of the House this afternoon would be completely wiped out and the criticism would be nullified.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, one of the things which is agitating the people of Scotland at the present time is the extent of the powers which should be given to an Assembly which in due course will be set up. If I were to accede in the slightest degree to anything which suggested that, even by chance, the English could do things better than we do them in Scotland, that would be a ghastly error at this time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHERIFFDOMS REORGANISATION ORDER
4.36 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Sheriffdoms Reorganisation Order 1974, laid before the House on October 12, be approved. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in the debate which has just ended, referred to the fact that when he first appeared as a bailie in Glasgow he felt naked. Coming to this second legal complication, I can assure him that I also feel very much like the Emperor who appeared without
1442
his clothes and was assured that he was very handsomely attired.
My Lords, the Order divides Scotland into six new sheriffdoms in place of the existing 12 sheriffdoms. It may be recalled that, during the consideration of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill in 1971, there was considerable discussion in another place whether part-time sheriffs principal should be superseded by whole-time sheriffs principal. The then Lord Advocate stated that, if experience showed that the only way in which the powers and responsibilities imposed on sheriffs principal could be properly exercised was to have full-time appointments, the Government would not hesitate to use the powers in the Bill to bring this situation about. Experience since that time is that part-time sheriffs principal, resident in Edinburgh and visiting their sheriffdoms only periodically, cannot undertake the level of local administration required by the more clearly defined duties and responsibilities placed on sheriffs principal by the 1971 Act. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in consultation with my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate, has therefore decided that the time has now come when the efficient and speedy disposal of business in the sheriff courts throughout Scotland requires full-time sheriffs principal resident in their sheriffdoms, and that is really the nub of the changes proposed in this Order.
Your Lordships will also recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, drew attention in his Report on the reform of local government to the position of the sheriff courts in the light of his recommendations which, though not without material changes, were incorporated in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. These changes call for a reappraisal of sheriff court arrangements throughout Scotland in the first instance, and for a continuing high degree of local administration thereafter to cope with industrial changes and developments which affect population distribution, such as oil developments and New Towns, which in turn affect the weight of business falling to be dealt with in sheriff courts. The objective is to give to the people of Scotland whom the court exists to serve the more modern and efficient service in all aspects of its work which the Grant Report said Scotland badly

1443
needed and which it has not been found possible to achieve under the existing organisation.
Article 2 of the Order creates six new sheriffdoms. The decision to have six sheriffdoms and not five as was recommended by the Grant Committee was taken after a careful analysis of the situation, particularly in relation to the creation of the new local government setup and the need to produce manageable sheriffdoms keeping the right balance between administrative and judicial requirements. It has proved possible to create sheriffdoms that are broadly equivalent in certain respects; thus with the exception of Glasgow each sheriff principal will be responsible for an area that will require the appointment of about ten sheriffs; Glasgow will require about 15.
The Grampian, Highland and Islands sheriffdom, the Tayside Central and Fife sheriffdom and the Lothian and Borders sheriffdom each comprise entire local authority regions. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that it was considered impractical to have a single sheriffdom of Strathclyde. Your Lordships will recollect our debates on the reorganisation of local government in Scotland, and will not be surprised that I also think it would be quite impracticable to have one sheriff for that region. This would have meant a sheriffdom with a population of just under 3 million, much too large to be handled by a single individual as it is not possible to divide the Office of sheriff principal. To have isolated Glasgow alone as recommended by the Grant Committee would still have left a population of 1·7 million for the remainder of Strathclyde, and while this would not have been too inconsistent with the recommendations of the Grant Committee for that area, my right honourable friend takes the view that the administration of justice in the area would be much better served by the proposal to create three sheriffdoms. I cannot help adding, really quite wickedly, he gets awfully near the four regions some of us thought would have been good. Perhaps I should not be saying that now!
The combination of Glasgow and Strathkelvin takes account of local considerations; the district of Strathkelvin has no sheriff court within its boundaries and transport links clearly point to the
1444
Strathkelvin business being dealt with in Glasgow rather than at any other court. North Strathclyde comprises the area to the North and West of Glasgow down to and including Kilmarnock and Loudoun. The remainder of Strathclyde to the East and South of Glasgow is combined with the region of Dumfries and Galloway to form a sheriffdom. As I have said, it is believed that these six sheriffdoms represent six satisfactory units for administrative purposes. They have been proposed with a view to avoiding overlapping interests by the other organisations concerned with the work of the sheriff courts—police, social work services et cetera—and in the one instance where it has been necessary to divide a local authority region (that is, Strathclyde) we are advised that what is proposed will not cause administrative difficulty.
It is essential if sheriff courts are to be ready to operate efficiently in relation to new sheriff court districts on May 16, 1975, that the new whole-time sheriffs principal are in post from January 1, 1975, to undertake consultations with interested bodies with regard to the redefinition of sheriff court districts and the consequential detailed arrangements for the disposal of court business within these new districts. To permit this, it is necessary to define the new sheriffdoms first in relation to existing counties and sheriff court districts for the period from January 1, 1975, to May 16, 1975, and this is done in the second column of Schedule 1.
The sheriffdom boundaries for this period will not in all cases be identical with those after May 16, 1975, which are defined in relation to the new local authority regions, islands authorities and districts in column 3 of the Schedule, but the variations are relatively minor The sheriffdoms created at January 1, 1975, are comprised of existing sheriff court districts so that day-to-day business will continue to be discharged as at present. It is important to appreciate that, although for the reasons explained, it is necessary to create new sheriffdoms in this way, there will only be one change in sheriff court districts, and that change will take place on May 16, 1975, coincident with the defininition of new sheriffdoms in terms of the new local authority areas. The Order giving effect to court district alterations will be made

1445
at a later stage so that full account can be taken of the local consultations that will be undertaken by the new sheriffs principal.
Article 3 of the Order provides that existing sheriffs principal shall cease to hold office from January 1, 1975. For those who do not want or who are unsuccessful in obtaining appointments as full-time sheriffs principal, then under the powers contained in Section 2(3) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 the Secretary of State may, with the concurrence of the Minister for the Civil Service, pay such amount by way of compensation as is reasonable in all the circumstances, and this will be done.
The remaining provisions in Article 3 are consequential. Existing sheriffs and honorary sheriffs are automatically appointed to their new sheriffdoms. It is not because of the excellent support that I received from my noble friend Lord Wallace of Campsie to-day that that has been included. He will remain an honorary sheriff, but not because of his speech. Provisions is made for the continuance of commissary business and all references to sheriffs principal or sheriffs of existing sheriffdoms are to be construed as references to the sheriffs principal and sheriffs of the new sheriffdoms. Functions lawfully held by any person immediately before January 1, 1975—and this would include sheriff officers—are continued thereafter in the same areas and on the same terms as previously.
Articles 4 and 5 are transitional provisions and provide for the continuation in the same courts of any cases in progress on January 1, 1975, and for the allocation of cases arising before May 16, 1975, to either the appropriate old or the appropriate new court. If approved, the Order will come into operation on January 1, 1975. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Sheriffdoms Reorganisation Order, laid before the House on October 12, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
4.48 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord again for having introduced and explained this Order. The Secretary of State has
1446
been put in a very powerful position by the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. If it is possible, I should like to know the extent of the appeal duties and also the purpose and extent of the new administrative duties of the new sheriffs principal. I know the Minister mentioned police and social work services, et cetera but that does not leave one with very much information. The Scottish Law Times has been, hinting at various duties which presumably have some foundation. Also, is it intended that the new sheriffs principal shall be judges at first instance, or not? The Minister has already answered the question I was going to ask about why the Grant recommendation of five principal sheriffdoms was not adhered to, and I am thankful. If the noble Lord cannot answer me now, I will be perfectly happy to await a letter from him.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, certainly at present the sheriff principal can be a judge at first instance. This has happened more so in the two cases where there are full-time sheriffs principal at the present time. It is not so much that there is to be a change of administrative duties; it is because of the way things are working out. It is now accepted that it is necessary for the sheriff principal to take a much stronger role in the administration of the sheriffdoms, seeing that things are working smoothly, to an extent which has proved perfectly satisfactory with the existing sheriff principal appointments. But where a part-time sheriff principal might be away for a long time on a planning inquiry, appearing as an advocate, for instance, it has not been possible for him to undertake the administrative duties in such a satisfactory way. It is not so much a question of a change but the opportunity to have the task carried out more effectively.
The other point is that the sheriff principal will of course be in exactly the same position. He will be a court of appeal as at the present time. What I think I did not make clear is that, as at present, he will hear criminal cases as a judge of first instance, but in civil appeals of course he will not; he is the court of appeal in that case. So the position is unchanged from the present.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I want to make only a very brief intervention. Having sat on the University Court of St. Andrew's for three years with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and with all due respect to my noble friend, the last description I would ever give to him is of being a bulldozer, of which he has been accused this afternoon. I think he has proved that in the conduct of the debate this afternoon.
4.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, one point. I appreciate the extreme delicacy, as a member of the English Bar, of trying to tread in Scotland, but, like Agag, I shall tread delicately. Indeed, as an honorary sheriff, I fall due to be reorganised under paragraph 3(2). Still less would I try to say that anything about the English legal system is superior to Scotland's. The fact remains that the 12 sheriffdoms are to be reduced to 6; and as I understand it the sheriffs principal are to be full-time appointments. That apparently has the effect that there will be no opportunities for aspirants to the Scottish High Court bench to gain judicial experience.
The situation in England has been that either as recorders or, until recently, deputy chairmen of quarter sessions and now deputy circuit judges, members of the Bar have been able, as it were, to cut their teeth in criminal and indeed sometimes in civil matters before going on the High Court bench. Have the Government given this matter some consideration, bearing in mind that these are very large sheriffdoms? Could perhaps deputies on a part-time basis be appointed in the future if such a course proved desirable? I know that the Scottish Bar is tiny compared with that of England; indeed I believe that the numbers in Edinburgh are fewer than the Liverpool local Bar. Be that as it may, they have the same needs as their English counterpart, and I suggest that this is something which is worthy at least of consideration.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has made those points. It is of course right that the disadvantages of the proposals which the Government now put
1448
before the House should not be missed out altogether. The point which the noble Earl has made is of course a very real one, that there will be broken the contact between Parliament House and the sheriffs principal because in certain cases they will no longer be able to be in close contact with the evolution of law as it takes place in Parliament House. This is a disadvantage. The second point is that they will not be in the same position of being likely ever to be moved on to the Bench of court of session. That means, unless one is much mistaken, that you are likely to get people of not quite the same quality.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is probably aware that when this matter was gone into by the late Lord Grant the distinguished Committee divided 8 to 6 as to whether the sheriff should be full-time or not, This shows that there is a sharp division of opinion among those who are fully qualified to examine this issue thoroughly. Great emphasis was laid on local administration, but those who administer the full-time sheriffs in the North of Scotland will not be capable of much administration. From Aberdeen to Stornoway is going to be an area which will take a lot of time for local administration. I ask the noble Lord whether this will not cost more, because you have to pay the sheriffs principal, full time, a very reasonable salary if they are men of the calibre expected. They are said to be resigning—in fact they will be kicked out at the end of next month. Have we any information about the terms of their appointment? Have we information on what their salary is going to be at that time?
As to the title Sheriff of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway, can we not get a shorter title? It is a terrible title by which to have to address somebody. My final point is that there really is no hurry about this matter and if ever there was a subject which was wholly suitable for a discussion by a Scottish Assembly it is this one. The present situation can continue perfectly well regardless of the changes in local government. If the noble Lord was shortly going to introduce a Bill for a local Assembly, this would be an admirable subject with which they could start their discussions.
4.56 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I confess I am a little mystified as to why the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, should feel that this change would stop recruitment and the opportunities of going to the bench. It does not mean that because a man accepts an appointment as a sheriff principal he is debarred from becoming a—
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord has my point completely wrong. What I was asking the Government to do was to reconsider the present situation by which sheriffs principal who are part-time gain judicial experience in both the criminal and civil fields so that if they then go on the Scottish High Court bench they have, as it were, this experience tucked under their belt. If this reorganisation Order passes into effect, as I understand the position (and I hesitate to say this, but it has been put to me by a Scottish advocate) there will be no part-time judicial experience open to advocates in the future. This is nothing to do with becoming a judge; it is the opportunity of gaining experience as a judge before an appointment to the High Court bench.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I thought that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, had made two points but that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, had made only the first one. I accepted that what he said about the advantage of contact within the faculty was one that would not be so closely available to those who were sheriffs principal under the new procedure. But there will be still possibilities because many members, particularly of the junior Bar, are appointed as temporary sheriffs and there is also the facility for appointment as temporary sheriff principal in Section 11 of the 1971 Act. So while there is obviously some element of what both noble Earls have said, they are not correct in assuming that there will be in fact a complete cut off of this contact. It is almost impossible in any change of this kind for anyone to say that all the advantages lie in the new system and that everything that is being done away with is a disadvantage. Obviously we lose certain advantages almost in any change that is made, and I must admit there is an element of what has been said in this case.
1450
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked me about the cost of it. The expected cost of these changes is of the order of an extra £20,000 a year on salaries. It is difficult to isolate other costs. Money will have to be spent on accommodation to take account of reorganisation, but this will be a small part of the cost of making very necessary improvement in court facilities generally. I did not find myself in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in his criticisms of the possibilities of administration being carried out by the sheriff in the very wide area. The administrative duties relate to the number of sheriff courts and to the number of sheriffs, and it must not be felt that this is multiplied because of the acreage or square mileage in which the sheriffs operate. There will be ten sheriffs (if I remember the figures which I quoted) there and elsewhere; and it seems to me that the administrative duties will be no greater.
So far as the salaries are concerned, the present salaries will obviously be a guide in the matter of the two full-time sheriffs principal who are in existence. These salaries are £10,400 to £11,200.
My Lords, I think that I have answered each of the points which has been raised and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for the kindly recollections which he has of his old days in St. Andrews.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JURIES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1974
5.2 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE): My Lords, we pass now from the intensely controversial question of Scottish legislation to the comparatively calm waters of Northern Ireland legislation. The Province itself is not particularly calm, but normally your Lordships are helpful in assisting the Government to put through legislation which at the moment has to be done, owing to direct rule, by Order in Council. My Lords, the first Motion which I wish to put before your Lordships is that the Draft Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1974, laid before the House on July 31,

1451
be approved and I beg to move that this Order be now affirmed.
My Lords, the objective of this Order is to abolish the property qualification for jury service in Northern Ireland, thereby bringing conditions in Northern Ireland into line with ours over here. Your Lordships will remember that in 1972, following the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee on Jury Service which sat under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, the property qualification for jurors was abolished in England and Wales. The effect of this will be that everybody in Northern Ireland from 18 to 70 years old whose name is in the electoral register will become liable for jury service.
The annual number of potential jurors will be increased from just over 60,000 at the moment to almost 1 million. This fact, coupled with the complete reorganisation last year of the local authority structure upon which the present method of selection of jurors is based, has made necessary the formulation of an entirely new system for the annual selection of jurors in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, the Order seeks not only to abolish the property qualification for jurors in Northern Ireland but also to make new provisions for the selection and summoning of jurors in this wider field.
May I refer now to Article 3 which provides that every person who is aged between 18 and 70 and who is registered as an elector in Northern Ireland shall be qualified and liable for jury service, provided he does not fall within the categories of persons disqualified for or exempt from jury service as set out in Schedules 1 and 2 to the Order. These categories are broadly similar to those which are found in our own Juries Act 1974, with one or two variations to take account of categories of persons who have up to date been exempt in Northern Ireland—such as full-time teachers. We see no reason for changing that exemption. There is, however, one important difference. Over here the age limit is 65, whereas under the present Order it is proposed to extend it to 70 because it is felt that in Northern Ireland there are many people between 65 and 70 who would make good and willing jurors. However, we do not suggest that they
1452
should be compelled to serve upon a jury; it will be optional and not a compulsion to serve between the ages of 65 and 70. Accordingly, jury service will be optional for this age group and the provision is included in Schedule 2 to enable such people to claim exemption if they so wish.
If I may turn to Article 4 and Schedule 3, it is provided that the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland shall arrange annually for the selection by computer of an adequate number of potential jurors, based upon the requirements estimated by the courts. On the basis of the number of names on the electoral register and the number of jurors likely to be required in any one year, it will be possible to work out the percentage of the total number required for jury service in that year and thereby to programme the computer to select, for example, every twenty-fifth name on the electoral register. The names so selected will then be arranged by the computer to form provisional lists for each area served by a Clerk of the Crown and Peace, and copies of these provisional lists will be sent to the appropriate Juries Officers.
Article 4(2) further provides that each potential juror so selected will then be notified that he will be liable to be called for jury service during the ensuing year, unless he legitimately claims, in the form of a statutory declaration, exemption on any of the statutory grounds, including age. Each year the several computer lists, as revised by the Juries Officers in the light of claims for exemption and notices of disqualification, will collectively form the Jurors List for Northern Ireland. Regulations to be made under Article 7 will prescribe the form of notice to be sent to potential jurors and the form of return which they will be required to complete.
By virtue of the provisions of Article 5. jurors for a court will normally be summoned by the appropriate under-sheriff, in numerical order from the Area Jurors list for the area in which that court is situated. Jurors for coroner's inquests will, however, while drawn from the Jurors Lists, continue to be summoned in the manner provided under the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 which is specifically designed to enable a coroner's jury to be summoned at short notice.
Article 6 amends and consolidates the provisions of the existing law in relation

1453
to the excusing of jurors and enables rules of court to provide that the powers of a judge to excuse jurors may be exercised by specified court officers. The remaining provisions of the Order deal with consequential amendments and repeals and subordinate legislation to be made under the Order. My Lords, I commend this Order to you as an important contribution towards the continuing process of law reform. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1974, laid before the House on July 31, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge.)
5.8 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for explaining this Order which contains a good deal of detail. As I understand what the noble Lord has said, it brings the qualifications for jury service in Northern Ireland into line now with the rest of the United Kingdom; and, my Lords, this certainly I support.
I should like to ask two questions of the noble Lord. I have endeavoured to give him notice of the second question, but I regret to say that I have not given him notice of the first. In his remarks the noble Lord has explained the reason why it will be possible for there to be jurors between the ages of 65 and 70. The Second Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew special attention to the article which deals with this, Article 3(1) of which provides that:
"… every person who is aged between eighteen and seventy years and is registered as an elector … shall be … liable for jury service".
As I understand it, the Joint Committee objected to the wording, and they offered a more suitable alternative wording which they said was to be found in the Social Security Act 1973. Clause 99(10)(b) provides that:
"a person shall be deemed to be between two particular ages if he has attained the first-mentioned age but has not attained the second-mentioned age".
It is fair to claim that similar clarity of wording is effected in the corresponding provision of the Juries Act 1974 which provides the law for the rest of the United Kingdom. I apologise for asking the noble Lord a question upon a point
1454
which I have not warned him about and which is a detail, but why was the wording of the Order not changed after the Joint Committee took the view that they did? During the summer the House took quite a serious view of Orders which are not changed when the Joint Committee draws a fact of this kind to the attention of those who read the Report. Therefore I feel that I must ask the question to-day.
The other question is one of which I have given notice to the noble Lord. Am I correct in assuming that the wording of Schedule 1 does not disqualify those who are detained in Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973? The first time that I read the Schedule I thought the effect was that they were disqualified, but now I understand from the noble Lord, to whom I am grateful, that the effect of the wording is that they are not so disqualified. I must confess that I am a little surprised, and I wonder whether this is altogether wise.
My Lords, the arrangements set out in this Order refer to the jury work of Northern Ireland. It must be our hope that the day will soon come when the security situation will also allow scheduled offences under the Emergency Provisions Act to be tried once again by Northern Ireland juries.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of this Order and I will endeavour to deal with his two questions. The second is a very simple one: the word "detained" is used in a number of Acts about criminal procedures in this country and is in no way connected with the word "detained" which is used under the Emergency Provision Orders. The detention of people without going through the courts does not make them legally guilty of a crime, and it would clearly be wrong to put on such people a disability which is put by this Order on people who are convicted of a crime. The expression "convicted of a crime" is a technical expression with a specific meaning.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point could he carry his explanation a little further, as it seems rather strange. Does this in fact mean that if somebody is detained in the Maze Prison, not having

1455
come before a commissioner, and a computer picks out his name he will be allowed to serve as a juror?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, it means exactly that. There would be a very good reason for exemption, but one is visualising rather that somebody who has been subject to detention and is released for some reason will not forfeit his right to serve on a jury. The point of view of the Government in regard to this particular Order in Council is that everybody between 18 and 70 who is registered as an elector in accordance with the Electoral Law Acts (Northern Ireland) 1962 to 1973, shall be qualified and liable for jury service. The wording of the Order in relation to age qualification follows that which has been traditional in Northern Ireland legislation governing juries for over 100 years and it has not previously been called into question. For example, Section 9 of the Juries (Ireland) Act 1871 refers to
"all men between the ages of 21 and 60 years";
and Section 1 of the Jury Laws (Amendment) Act 1926 speaks of
"every person between the ages of 21 and 65 years".
In fact this is the standard description. The phrase "between 18 and 70 years" includes only those who arc over 18 and under 70, and it will be so interpreted. The names of those persons who have attained the age of 70 will, on the basis of information obtained from the return forms, automatically be removed from the provisional lists of jurors. I hope that answers the noble Lord's question.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords must be intrigued by the statement that jurors will be selected through the operation of the computer. One must recognise that even the random selection of a computer must be dictated by some programming, and one can envisage an enormous number of difficulties being thrown up through the use of a computer, quite apart from the one which has just been mentioned. There is also, for example, the geographical aspect. I wonder whether my noble friend could give the House a little more information in practical terms as to how this computer determination will operate?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I see no difficulty. It may be I am purblind, but there is an electoral roll, there is an estimate which, as I stated, will be prepared and given to the electoral officer. In estimating how many jurymen will be required, you divide the electoral roll by that number and you take every 25th, every 30th, every 90th name or whatever number it may be. It is a random selection in a numerical list. I see no problem at all.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, why does one need a computer to do that? I think I could do that without a computer.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Lord's offer will be noted and passed on. There is a computer which is available to do this and we thought it might be rather quicker.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1974
5.15 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE rose to move, That the Pensions (Increase) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974, laid before the House on July 31, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order was passed at the very end of the last Session of Parliament with general approval from everybody, but it did not get through the Assembly in Northern Ireland in time. I am now moving the Order simply to bring conditions over there to parity with this country.
One of the items then considered was the Pensions (Increase) Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in introducing it explained that its purpose was to provide supplements for public service pensioners whose pensions on award had been affected by stages 1 or 2 of the counter-inflation policy. The Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland and the object of this Order in Council is to produce parity legislation. In fact the measure had reached the second stage when the Assembly was prorogued. The Order now before your Lordships will bring the same provisions into effect and it is made under the procedure provided for in Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act

1457
1974. It applies only to those pensions beginning in 1973, 1974 and 1975, calculated on pay and affected by stage 1, stage 2, or both, of the statutory pay controls. It provides for the percentage supplements, set out in the Schedule to the Order, to be added to the pensions on award. It will benefit Northern Ireland public service pensioners, such as teachers, firemen and others.
The Order also makes amendments to the Pensions (Increase) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. One of these raises the age limit for increases of children's pensions under the 1971 Act from the age of 16 to the age of 17, and another removes the age restriction for the payment of increases to widows without dependant children. These changes follow those brought about in Great Britain by the Pensions (Increase) Act 1974. It is estimated that the cost in the first year will be about £100,000, of which about £90,000 will fall on the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and £10,000 on local government revenue. Subsequently, the cost will decrease as the number of pensioners affected is reduced. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Pensions (Increase) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974, laid before the House on July 31, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENCES OF EMERGENCY) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1974
5.18 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE rose to move, That the Social Security (Consequences of Emergency) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974, laid before the House on July 31, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last Order I wish to bring before your Lordships results from the Ulster Workers stoppage last May. Among the services most seriously hit by the stoppage were the Social Security services. By the time the stoppage entered its second week the Northern Ireland Executive considered that it was no longer possible to maintain the normal administrative procedures for unemploy-
1458
ment benefit, sickness benefit and supplementary benefit. In fact while the average weekly number of cases was 3,500 in this fortnight it exceeded 200,000. The circumstances leading to this conclusion were the huge influx of claims to benefit and the inability of many of the staff of the Department of Health and Social Services to get to work because of the withdrawal of public transport, unofficial road blocks and, in some cases, intimidation.
Following on the Executive's conclusion an urgent approach was made by the then head of the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to make regulations under the Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926 empowering the Department of Health and Social Services to suspend at its discretion normal administrative procedures for unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and supplementary benefit and to introduce an emergency benefit scheme. My right honourable friend supported the Executive's assessment that it was quite impracticable to continue to operate the normal provisions for payment of these benefits under the normal rules of eligibility and agreed to make the Emergency Regulations.
The head of the Department of Health and Social Services in a Statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly later the same day, May 21, announced that he had decided to activate the emergency benefit scheme immediately. In this Statement, he explained his reasons for doing so as well as his concern about the difficulties of maintaining payments to those already receiving benefits, such as retirement pensioners, not directly involved in the stoppage. Inevitably, the introduction of this scheme which enabled standard rate payments to be made, meant abandoning the normal safeguards against abuse by unscrupulous individuals of the social security system for the sake of avoiding serious hardship for the vast majority of the victims of events, and not active participants in them.
My Lords, I have explained in some detail the background to the making of the Emergency (Payment of Benefit) Regulations, as this is essential to an

1459
understanding of the need for the Order now under consideration. The Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) of 1926 did not contain powers to extinguish the right to normal benefits in respect of periods for which emergency benefit was paid. With the approval of the Northern Ireland Executive, the head of the Department intended to introduce a measure to deal with this and certain other matters arising as a consequence of the emergency benefit scheme. Unfortunately, the Executive fell before this could be done.
This Order makes a similar provision to what would have been achieved by the proposed measure had the Assembly not been prorogued. Articles 1 and 2 cover citation, commencement and interpretation. Article 3 has a twofold effect: first, to take away the title to normal benefits for any period for which the emergency benefit was paid; secondly, by treating claims for these benefits as claims for emergency benefit, it takes away the need to submit claims for decisions to the statutory adjudicating authority. Article 4 provides for the Northern Ireland Insurance Fund to repay to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland certain expenses incurred in relation to the payment of emergency benefit. Briefly, these are expenses which the National Insurance Fund would have incurred in connection with sickness and unemployment benefit if payment of emergency benefit had not been made. Paragraph (1) enables the Department by subordinate Orders to make such incidental, transitional or supplementary provision as it appears expedient to it in connection with the operation, revocation or expiration of the emergency benefit regulations. Paragraph (2) provides that such an Order may be made to take effect earlier than the date on which the Order itself is made. This power is necessary to allow provisions of the Order to take effect from the date on which the Regulations take effect.
To sum up, the purpose of the Order is to exclude duplicate payments of social securities benefits to persons who have already received the emergency benefit, to ensure that the costs of paying it fall where they properly belonged, and to provide for certain consequential matters. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Social Security (Consequences of Emergency) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974, laid before the House on July 31, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
5.24 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, this is an important Order because, at a time when every item of public expenditure is under the closest scrutiny, the Order refers to a quite considerable sum of public money. Therefore, I wish to put two questions to the Government. First of all, despite the very thorough explanation of the reasons for the Order, for which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I am still not entirely clear under what criteria the emergency benefits were paid out during the period of the emergency. Of course, the noble Lord has explained that, in the extremely dangerous conditions prevailing in Northern Ireland in the third week of May, it needed a stout heart to get to work, and, once there, one often found one could not do any work because of lack of power. I can well believe that many, deprived of work and pay, felt compelled to make claims, but it would be informative if we could be told on what criteria those claims were decided.
My Lords, secondly, the Government, as I understand it, have assessed the probable total of payments made during the Ulster Workers' strike at about £5 million. Can the noble Lord give an approximate figure for the normal claims, for unemployment, sickness and supplementary benefits during a similar period, taken during the summer months? In other words, what has the emergency benefit scheme cost in reality? Of course, the main purpose of the Order, contained in the first part of Article 3, to prevent the duplication of payments of benefits, must certainly be supported. The scheme to which this Order refers was undoubtedly conceived in an emergency. Some of its consequences were perhaps unforeseen; for instance, I understand those normally entitled to earnings related supplements found they were not payable in fact. Undoubtedly the scheme must have placed considerable extra burdens on the Northern Ireland Civil Service, but it is the reason for the introduction of the scheme which we must hope will never occur again.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and join him most strongly in that last sentiment. With reference to his first question, about criteria, normally when someone applies for unemployment benefit routine checks of various kinds are made. This process was abandoned, and the check was limited to the knowledge of the local people. The local exchange knew what was going on in the different firms; they knew the people they were dealing with, and did not make the normal routine checks. That is the answer to the first question. Whether or not that was satisfactory I think can be answered by the following figure which the Department of Health and Social Security in Northern Ireland has produced, without guaranteeing it. We asked the Department for its estimate of the number of possible double payments. The Department reckons there were something between 400 and 500, each one of which is being followed up. I think this shows that the criteria of local knowledge was not as ineffective as one might have expected.
My Lords, as to the difference between what it would have cost had the normal procedure been carried out and what it did cost, once again the Department of Health and Social Security believes that it is impossible to quantify this difference, but it would have been very small. The Department's estimate for both is £5 million. In other words, in spite of the irregularities and the unevenness of what went on, the Department does not believe that more money was paid out than would have been paid under the normal proceedings if there had been 200,000 claims treated with the full defences of the system. It is true that certain sickness benefits—and there were a few—lost the earnings related supplement for a short period. Our estimate is that it was very small, and whenever such a thing has been shown to have produced hardship it has been dealt with.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE HOUSING INDUSTRY
5.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they view the current state of progress of the private housing industry, and what steps if any they intend to take to encourage a reasonable level of new private housing in the housing programme. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in putting down this Question to-day, I must say at the outset that it was not designed to test the political spurs of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I have managed to attend sufficiently in the House to know that the noble Baroness has already won her spurs following her recent appointment, for which I would congratulate her.
My Lords, the purpose of my Question is simply to draw attention—if, indeed, attention needs to be drawn—to the increasingly disturbing level to which the private housing industry has shrunk over the last six months, and to ask the noble Baroness what remedies the Government intend to introduce to restore some of the vigour, health and, indeed, much-needed confidence to one of the essential arms of any succesful housing programme. Perhaps I could say at this stage how grateful I am to those who have indicated that they intend to take part and so make this short debate the more valuable, particularly my noble friend Lady Young who had, of course, the responsibility of grappling with the housing problem not so long ago, and did so, if I may say so, with such distinction. I am sorry that through reasons of technicality my noble friend Lord Bathurst is unable to take part.
My Lords, in order to describe the serious decline of the private housing industry I have not come armed to-night with a vast folder of housing statistics. Even a probationary student of the subject quickly learns just how flexible some of these figures can be, and indeed how valuable in consequence they are to any housing Minister deploying his or her arguments on a sticky wicket. My information is derived from more humble sources. It is derived from talking to builders, talking to building societies, and indeed talking to private landlords. On the building side, I think it is accepted that the current rate of production in the private sector now stands at something

1463
like 55 per cent. of what it was last year. This in itself is a disturbing figure, for it takes little imagination to foresee the effects this may have in a year or two's time; a shortage of new housing leading to a sharp increase in prices and with the many first-time purchasers again seeing their plans to acquire a home of their own disappearing from their grasp.
The second figure, which I have been unable to confirm but I believe is roughly correct, is the number of new houses which stand three-quarters finished, which, of course, do not necessarily qualify under the statistics for either starts or completions. Because of the sluggish state of the house market, and indeed the parlous economic state of many of the private builders, this figure has swollen to what I am told is estimated at over 200,000 houses. Many builders have simply shut up shop until conditions improve. If this figure is correct, what a waste of resources, and what can be done to unlock the situation? The assistance that any Government can give to private builders who have uncompleted houses on their books can, I would assume, be channelled in a number of different ways. I should like to suggest four ways, some not original but all, I hope, mostly practical.
First, there is the role of the Housing Corporation. We know that under the vigorous chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, the Housing Corporation is fulfilling a very active role in the rented sector of housing. I believe that the target for this year is some 30,000 houses. But what I would ask is whether the Housing Corporation, through the housing associations, could be persuaded to purchase some of these unfinished houses. Indeed, they already have an allocation of funds sufficient to meet these purposes. This would at least ease the hump and allow some builders to get under way again.
The second suggestion I should like to put to the Minister is, I am afraid, not new. This has, of course, been discussed for a number of years, and particularly by the last Administration. It is a method of helping first-time purchasers. They represent, I believe, a vital 30 per cent. of the sluggish housing market. I know that the present Government have discussed how best they can help the first-time purchasers, but I think it would be
1464
helpful if the noble Baroness could say how soon they intend to announce some policy and, indeed, whether they are consulting the building societies on this matter.
The third suggestion is again an obvious one; to encourage building societies—and here I must declare an interest—to reduce their mortgage rates. One positive way of doing this would be to adjust their composite rates, thus giving them a reasonable margin with which to reduce their mortgage rates. The fourth suggestion would be possibly to set up special building finance on a reduced interest rate basis to house builders. Again, this could be worked through to the benefit of the house purchasers. These arc some of the possible ways in which I believe the Government could act now to assist builders with existing houses under construction.
What of the immediate future? What of the difficulties facing builders planning their future house-building programmes? The cumulative problems and uncertainties are, I believe, unparalleled in their complexity. In addition to the usual—and now more acute—worries that face builders in judging building costs in the house market when the house has been built, the builder to-day is faced with the twin uncertainties of the new development tax and its side effects on land banks, and the planned municipalisation of development land. These cumulative problems lead one to feel that unless the Government are able and willing to take some early remedial steps the creeping paralysis will fast spread over the private building sector, and the decline of the industry will turn rapidly into a collapse.
Turning to the private rented accommodation of both furnished and unfurnished properties, the House will recall the comments of my noble friend Lady Young on the effects of the 1974 Rent Act on the private sector; the gradual unswerving strangulation of the system was basically the burden of my noble friend's advice. We now see yet another nail in the coffin of the private sector in furnished and unfurnished accommodation in the guise of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill. The House will recall that the Bill as drafted would end the automatic conversion of controlled tenancies into regulated tenancies. A minority

1465
of landlords who remain with controlled tenancies would be left with a controlled rent, possibly between 50p and 60p a week, which would be clearly insufficient to cover even the maintenance of the property. It is always a tragic situation as a property declines to the detriment of the tenant. I hope that the noble Baroness will explain to the House this evening what is the purpose behind this measure.
With the gradual strangulation of some 3 million properties in the private sector, the question that comes to one's mind is, who will fill the gap? Do the Ministry monitor the number of private accommodations which are available or which are lost year by year from the private sector? Are they to be filled by the public sector? Do they monitor the actual demand for rented accommodation? Is it increasing? Who will fill the furnished accommodation role? Will it be the local authorities or perhaps the Housing Corporation? I hope the noble Baroness will address her mind to these questions this evening when she replies. Will the Government reconsider, for instance, giving ail tenants of houses and flats— including local authorities and housing societies or housing associations—an equal security of tenure? Why is it, for instance, that local authority tenants and, indeed, housing association tenants, for reasons as simple as an untidy garden or keeping a pet canary, are able to be served with a notice to quit and have to vacate. There are cases that arise; they may be few, but there are cases, and the question is, why should it happen?
On furnished lettings, there is one point which I should like to draw to the noble Baroness's attention, and I have in fact already given her notice of it. It affects building societies in particular, and arises again from the Rent Act 1974. If an owner of a property purchases his property with the aid of a building society mortgage, and, in time, requests to let that property furnished while he or she goes abroad for a period, a building society will normally have no hesitation in agreeing to this. But because of the 1974 Act, if that borrower should then default, perhaps while abroad, the society is left with a security of which it cannot get possession. This could develop into a very real problem with building societies, and in order to protect them-
1466
selves they may well refuse in future to allow any lettings of this nature. This would obviously be unhelpful to all parties, and I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could give us some clarification on this point.
If I were asked to summarise the general fears that lie behind questions about the future of private rented accommodation and its sharp decline, I would suggest that they were based on three simple premises. The first is a strong social need for an adequate supply of rented accommodation. The second is that the public sector cannot, practically or adequately, fill immediately a void that might be left by the private sector. The third is that until the pendulum between the landlord and the tenant finds a more equitable balance, the role of the private landlord is economically finished, leaving a gap—and, indeed, a widening gap over the years—which concerns all those interested in the social requirements of a balanced housing programme.
My purpose to-night, as I have said, is to draw attention to the lack of confidence, the noticeable decline and the fear of collapse of the private housing industry. My purpose will be fulfilled if the noble Baroness can give some encouragement in her reply, and reaffirm that Her Majesty's Government's policy is to retain within the housing programme an active and vigorous private sector. I hope that my purpose will be fulfilled.
5.43 p.m.
BARONESS ROBSON OF KIDDING-TON: My Lords, I rise as the second speaker by agreement with the noble Baroness. Lady Young. It was agreed before the debate started that the order of debate should be somewhat changed. May I first say how much we on these Benches welcome the raising of this Question by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. It is something that worries the whole of society at the moment.
In his introduction the noble Earl said that he would not use a large number of statistics, and neither will I, but I think that I am entitled to use perhaps one or two. First of all, I should like to make a general statement. I do not think anybody disagrees with the fact that, to create a healthy social society, it is necessary and desirable for as many citizens as possible to own their own homes. In the past this country has had a very good

1467
record in comparison with other countries in Europe, and that is why the present trends in the private housing sector are so disturbing. If one looks at the Department of the Environment's figures for the first quarter of 1974, one will see that it is stated that for England and Wales completed private houses were 37,674, and starts for the equivalent period for England and Wales were 26,092, and if one uses those figures to see the disparity between completions and starts, and extends this over a longer period of a year, one gets some idea of the reduction in private house building that will inevitably hit the market and the purchaser within a year, or even six months.
Equally, in The Times of this morning there is an article by Mr. Thomas of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors claiming—and I think he is correct—that the private house market is still a buyers' market at the moment for housing in the low and medium price range. Of course all of us welcome a reduction, if it is possible, in the price of housing to the buyer. However, if the reduction is an artificial one caused by economic circumstances other than desirable ones, then it is not good for society. I have a feeling that this reduction is because the private builder and developer are suffering (like a large section of other industries in this country) from a pressure on cash flow due to the high interest rates paid on any loans. I think that this is the reason for the reduction in prices, and the unloading of houses that has taken place on the part of the building and developing industry. Up to a point this has, without a doubt, benefited certain purchasers at the moment. If one felt that the building and construction industry were in a position to reinvest and take up options on new development land, so that one could see a continuation of the private sector, then one would not be quite so disturbed. But I do not believe that this has taken place.
Obviously, we are all concerned with what is happening to the private building industry, and here I should like to divert a little more towards the cost of the land on which the houses are built, because this has a tremendous bearing on what we shall have to do in order to solve the problems that face us. We have had in this country for a long time past Town and Country Planning
1468
Acts (conceived with the best intentions) which have, to a large extent, prevented the kind of destruction of the environment through ribbon development that took place before the war prior to these Acts. But in some ways these Acts have been counter-productive. The constraints on planning have given rise to high premium values on land for which planning permission is granted, and the main beneficiaries of these planning permissions and increases in the price of land thereby caused have been the owners of land. Until recently it was only the owners of land, but, since the introduction of the capital gains tax, the Treasury as well. This has meant that housing costs have leapt beyond the capability of young married couples to buy a house.
In recent years, planning consent has meant an increase of about 30 times in the value of the land once that consent has been obtained. If you envisage a housing density of about eight houses pet acre, and a house costing £8,000 to build, it means that it has increased the price of that house by up to 50 per cent. when you include the cost of the land. We are all concerned with this problem, and some solution has to be found. Thirty years ago it took a young married couple about two to two and a half times their annual income to buy a house; to-day it takes five and a half times their annual income to buy a house.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will excuse me if at this point I refer to the Government's White Paper on land. We on these Benches are deeply concerned about the price of land and realise that something has to be done in order to give the community the benefit of any development. But we have great reservations and fears about the legislation that seems likely to follow the White Paper. First of all, I am very worried about where the local authorities under the proposed legislation are going to find all the valuers necessary if they are to take development land into communal ownership. This is a profession in which there is an enormous shortage in this country. There are not enough to go round for present purposes, and it will be a long time before enough people are found who can support this duty of the local authority. I believe that this will slow down progress.

1469
Having acquired the land, it is to be let out on licence to developers for private housebuilding purposes; and obviously, for the local authorities' own building purposes it is not difficult to transfer the land. But I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government how those developers are to be chosen. It is not the same as letting out a contract on tender. How do you choose a developer, and how do you make certain that something is not open to certain malpractices? Is there not a danger that the developer, having once taken up the licence, will have to make the whole of his profit from the building of the houses, whereas in the past one could assume that part of the increase in the value of the land on which he was building the house would be taken into account?
I have a tremendous fear that as a result the house prices will automatically increase. The developer having built the houses, a private purchaser comes along and buys one of them. I understand he then has to go to the local authority for the purchase of the freehold of the land on which the house stands. I have been given to understand that the price of that land can be adjusted according to the financial position of the purchaser or the new owner of the house. This, again, will set up an enormous bureacratic structure as well as a large conveyancing department in the local authority. These are problems which are very great and they will not help us to advance quickly towards a greater relief of the house building sector.
In any legislation of this kind there is a great danger of a reduction of land on the market for housebuilding purposes, and compulsory purchase may have to be used very much more often. But there is one overriding problem. In this country, like everywhere else, land is a commodity which is finite and it seems that before we embark on this type of legislation we need to work out proper plans with a view to the development of a natural and viable growth point, to make certain that we avoid urban sprawl which creates enormously expensive social problems. I am well aware that we have not even begun to work this out, and I recommend that this should be done on a regional basis. After that I believe that local authorities can be given free-
1470
dom to work within such a plan, but my fear is that under the present suggestions the local authorities will, on the whole, be too autonomous in regard to the development of their own surroundings.
On the question of how to help the young married couple, I presume that under the proposed legislation this could be done by an adjustment in the price of the freehold land. But I understand that if that is done there is a constraint put on the owner, and should he sell within a certain period he has to compensate the local authority. In my view this does not give him a proper freehold. I should like to recommend for study the low-start mortgage principle. Most young married couples are looking forward to achieving greater affluence as they grow older and establish themselves in society. If a low-start mortgage, to which I understand the building societies are not averse, could be introduced to help the young married couple, it would not be in any way subsidising them because as they advance in society so they will take up the burden of their own commitment to own their own house. Those are some of the points which I think we should consider in the context of what is happening to the private sector of housing in this country.
5.57 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoul] for introducing this short debate this afternoon. I intervene to support most warmly what he had to say about the question of the private housebuilding industry to-day. This, my Lords, is an important matter, for in many ways the housebuilding industry is like agriculture. Both are basic to the well-being of us all, agriculture because ft provides us with food, and our requirement for housing comes next. Both industries need a steady pace of development and it takes about a year to build a house even after all the complexities of land purchase and planning permission have been completed. In a situation such as we have to-day, when I believe that new housing starts in the private sector are down to 7,000 a month (my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has said there are some 200,000 incomplete and unsold houses), the matter is one of great seriousness, not only for the industry but for the country as a whole. Indeed, unless there

1471
is some consistency in policy towards this we shall build up difficulties for the industry to be carried into the future.
At the moment there will be many skilled men leaving the building industry to go into other industries and then, of course, as soon as things become better again there will be a shortage of skilled labour, frequently coupled with a shortage of building materials. All this arises at the moment when the houses are needed and the further delay in building, of course, forces prices up. Then we have the difficulty that people cannot afford to buy the houses. This emphasises the basic necessity for the housebuilding industry to have a steady flow of houses to buy and buyers able to purchase them.
I am sure that when the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, comes to reply, she will tell us what the Government have already done to help people to purchase houses. She will give us the figures for the amount with which the Government have been able to help the building societies over the past months. I am glad that the Government have been able to do this and we are grateful for their help. But clearly it is not enough, particularly in the depressed state that the building industry finds itself in to-day. I will accept that some of the trouble in the past has undoubtedly been due to the volatility of mortgage funds. There were sudden increases and then sudden decreases, and no one who is seriously interested in housing can blink at this fact. But I believe a new uncertainty has now been added to the whole of the private house building industry with the proposed development land tax, the proposed capital transfer tax and, above all, by the proposed nationalisation of development land. I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, had to say about this matter.
I do not myself propose to pursue the issue further because obviously there will be many other opportunities to debate these proposals in detail. None the less, none of these proposals helps the private house building industry; they only weaken its confidence in the future. Nor, so far as I can see, is there any help in the Budget for the first-time house pur-
1472
chaser. There is no doubt that the best way to help the private house building industry is by encouraging and enabling people to own their own homes. There is no doubt at all that the majority of people in this country wish to own their own homes. I accept, of course, that there is a need for council houses and that there will be a continuing need for them, but nevertheless we ought not to forget those who wish to buy their own houses.
It was to meet this need that we on this side of the House very much welcomed the proposals by my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher for the 9½ per cent. mortgage interest rates, proposals which were designed to meet this need and which undoubtedly would have been implemented had we been successful in the Election last October. But this is not the only solution. There are many other variations on mortgage interest proposals which could be considered, and although it will be argued that this would immediately force up the price of houses and make for difficulties, the figures I have already quoted on the numbers of unsold and uncompleted houses should, I think, dispel that argument.
I would suggest to the Government that they would do well to consider more help to people wishing to own their own homes, not only because they would be doing something which people would like but because it would be helpful in the light of our economic difficulties at the present time. I do not believe that anyone who listened to yesterday's debate in this House can be in any doubt about our economic difficulties. It is a much better use of public funds to help someone to own his own home than to subsidise a council tenant.
In their publication Home Ownership for the Lower Income Families the Housing Research Foundation has concluded that the subsidy on a council house built in the last year is about £900 a year in rates and taxes, and it compares this with approximately £230 a year in tax relief on a mortgage. So encouraging home ownership not only provides people with what they want but it makes economic sense as well. But it is not just a question of mortgages. There is the very real difficulty young couples have in finding the deposit, and in this connection I was most

1473
interested to read a report this month from the House Builders Federation giving some interesting statistics about the proportion of a person's income required both for a mortgage and a deposit. The figures are that the average price of a new house has more than doubled from £4,736 in 1969 to £10,872 in 1974. The recorded income of the borrower has increased by only 89 per cent. in the same period, from £1,617 on average for the first-time purchaser to £3,062. The average loan as a percentage of income is much the same; that is, it is just over twice the annual salary. But as a result of these sums the deposit required to-day by the first-time buyer is £4,190 compared with £1,248 in 1969.
The difference is that to-day the sum is 136 per cent. of income compared with 77 per cent. in 1969. So I think that as well as looking at mortgage rates one does need to look carefully at proposals to help first-time buyers with the deposit. Not only do I think this needs to be examined, but I think the house building industry itself might look to see whether it can produce suitable low-cost housing for first-time buyers. I am aware that this is often a controversial proposal, because it is suggested at once that a great deal of substandard housing will be erected and this in itself is undesirable. Neverthless, looking through some of the professional journals—as I have done in preparation for this debate this afternoon—there is no doubt that there are architects who are interested in this matter. I think there arc many possibilities of dividing small semi-detached houses to make them into suitably sized flats, while a great many different methods of building, which may well bring down the cost, ought to be examined. This is something that the industry should take most seriously because it might well be able to find ways in which a young couple can acquire a foothold in the property market to start them off.
The other point that I think that the industry could well study is the type of accommodation which it builds. I have suggested accommodation for the first-time purchaser that could be low cost, but I believe that the Census figures show that the greatest demand in the future will be accommodation for the single-person household. It may well be that there is a much greater demand for some-
1474
thing like this than has yet been considered. Many people who are concerned with the housing of the elderly, for example, give statistics showing the very high proportion of old people that there are already in the population—a proportion which is increasing—and we may well find ourselves with an enormous number of three-bedroomed houses in the country which are already becoming under-occupied and which will become increasingly so in the future.
Clearly what is needed is a kind of general shift of the population so that the couples can go into houses and purpose-built smaller accommodation is designed for the elderly. This needs a great deal of consideration and I put these suggestions only in the most general terms to-day, but I think they are ones which the industry and the Government ought to consider. In this serious situation it seems to me that one needs to have—I was about to say constructive suggestions, but the pun was not intended—a positive policy. I think that the Government would agree that we all want to sec everybody housed as well as is possible in the kind of accommodation that people would like. It is for this reason that we hope the Government will look seriously at the difficult problems of the private house building industry at this moment. I hope that the industry itself will be looking always to what it can do to meet the changing needs of the population. I conclude by thanking again my noble friend for introducing this debate this afternoon.
6.10 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I intervene for a brief moment to reinforce what the noble Baroness has just been saying, and to apologise for the fact that I may not be able to hear the Minister's reply? Before the war you could buy a bungalow on its own plot of land for £500, and a better quality one for £600 or £700. To-day, bungalows of a similar sort, perhaps with more amenities such as central heating, are selling in my part of the world for £12,000 and £13,000; that is, 25 or 26 times as much. The people for whom they were intended were probably the artisans and the clerk types who, before the war, were earning £3 or £4 a week. To-day, those same people would be earning £40 or £45 a week; that is, ten times as much. The houses may have more amenities than are really

1475
necessary; they have central heating, which they did not have before the war. But the net result is that, at any rate in the South-East of England, nobody earning under £3,000 a year can possibly afford the cheapest possible new house; and I cannot help feeling that the building industry, if it really got down to and appreciated these facts, could do something about it, instead of continuing to build houses of a type which are a drug on the market because nobody can afford to buy them.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, before Her Majesty's Government reply, may I ask one question? I apologise for not putting my name down on the list of speakers. My information is that houses up to about £8,000 are selling fairly well—not too well, but fairly well—but any houses above £8,000 or £9,000 are not selling. There are a good number of houses being built at £8,000 or £9,000 in the area in which I live, and it is possible to sell those houses to young people provided they are earning something like £56 a week, because the mortgage repayments amount to something like £20. Could Her Majesty's Government tell me whether my information is right? If it is, I think that it reinforces what my noble friend Lord Hawke has said, that we do not want to build very expensive houses. I should like to know whether these 200,000 houses which are partly completed are the more expensive type which a large number of people just cannot afford to-day in the economic conditions of the country. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government could tell me something about that.
6.13 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I was about to say, and I still will say, how indebted we are to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this topic; and I should like to thank him very much for the very nice remarks he made to me. It was extremely interesting listening to him, and he obviously raised some very important points. When, however, the noble Baronesses came in we then extended the field very widely, particularly in the Liberal direction. But the noble Earl has such a long familiarity with matters connected with owner-occupation and house-building that we
1476
are all aware of his expert knowledge, and I face answering him and the other expert speakers who have spoken with considerable trepidation. But before I turn to the specific question of the present difficulties for private house-building—and, if I may say so, I think we have roamed fairly widely from that—I feel that I should put it in the context, especially in view, again, of the wider scope that has now been covered, of the gravity of the whole housing problem which confronted the Government when they took office last spring; because it seems to me impossible, although we are trying, I hope, to narrow it to this particular aspect, not to see it in the context (and I think in fact all speakers have mentioned housing problems generally) of the housing of people in this country.
During the 1960s there had been a justifiable air of cautious optimism about the provision of new housing. Over 400,000 houses were completed in the private and public sectors in 1967 and 1968. But during 1973, and into the spring of 1974, there was a disastrous slump in the level of house-building. Improvement grants at this time were all too often going to speculative landlords who were concerned (let us face it) with evicting their tenants and selling the improved houses at a vast profit, or letting at exorbitant rents. Private accommodation was becoming desperately hard to find, and homelessness was increasing. People on the borderline of buying their own homes were being priced out by rising house prices and mortgage rates, and council re-let rates were falling and council waiting lists lengthening. The situation at this time cried out for a rise in the rate of public sector building in response to this deteriorating situation: and I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, appreciates the two sides, and the needs of people who are homeless or want a different type of housing provision. But the astonishing fact is that there was at this time no movement, and it is only fair to say that this Government inherited the worst public sector housing figures since the war, and that when they took office last February house-building was at what I can only call a grim low ebb.
The state of affairs on owner-occupation was also deplorable. The Conservative Administration had dangled the hope

1477
and expectation of home-ownership in front of young couples. But what in fact happened? Rising market rates of interest forced building societies to raise their investment rates to attract funds. This, in turn, compelled them to raise the general level of mortgage rates from 8·5 per cent. to the unprecedented level of 11 per cent. Yet, despite this, an acute mortgage famine had developed. Some building societies thought that a further mortgage rate increase above 11 per cent., perhaps significantly above 11 per cent., was unavoidable. The facts are that we inherited an appalling situation. The country needed more homes, and it needed them quickly. Here, I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that while I agree that so many people, and quite rightly, want to own their own home, I think the first priority of any Government in the housing situation we have to-day is to try to do their best to see that people are housed, which means the whole range of housing—rented housing, housing for ownership, housing associations; in fact, I think the whole spectrum which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The country needed more homes, and it needed them quickly. Therefore, the Government took immediate action to halt the slump in house-building in both the public and private sectors. Local authorities were strongly urged to expand their housebuilding programmes and to buy any suitable unsold houses from private builders. The Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill provides generous subsidies for public sector building for rent.
Perhaps I may refer here to a point raised by the noble Earl, although it goes rather wide of the Question. I think I should point out that the Government have made it clear since the Election in February that they intend to take the privately-rented sector into social ownership either by local authorities or by housing associations, and the details of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill are designed to restrict rent increases for the protection of tenants. In due course we shall of course be debating that Bill, so I do not think it right to linger on it any further now. We also anticipate a much enlarged contribution from the voluntary housing unit. This is being expanded and strengthened through the Housing Corporation, and the extra powers and
1478
financial assistance provided by the Housing Act 1974. The noble Earl raised the question of the function of the Housing Corporation in relation to owner-occupation. It has indeed been given new powers to lend for owner-occupation but, as I hope he will appreciate, with the limitations on public resources the Corporation's first priority must be to concentrate on those in the greatest housing need, and it is therefore at this time concentrating on rented accommodation.
Nor did the Government in fact neglect the private sector. It is, I find, a habit of many members and supporters of the Opposition to accuse the Government of indifference, or even hostility, to the interests of potential owner-occupiers in the private house-building industry. This is demonstrable nonsense. During their period of office, the last Conservative Administration—which I would have imagined to be the custodian of private building interests—did nothing effective to alleviate the disastrous effects of rising prices and mortgage rates. Confronted with these inherited and deeply grave difficulties, at least the Labour Government took action.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the mortgage help, and it is true that we arranged for a short-term loan of £500 million to the building societies as a means of ending the mortgage famine and avoiding a further rise in the general level of mortgage rates. The building societies co-operated, and all the £500 million loan was taken up. Then despite pressures on public expenditure, we continued the arrangements under which local authorities are, in general, free to lend without overall money limits to a wide range of priority categories of borrower; and we also extended the priority categories to include all first-time purchasers of new houses in 1974. In a moment, I shall say something further about first-time purchasers, as this is a point which has been raised by many speakers to-day. The £500 million loan scheme gave the building societies the confidence to begin increasing the level of their lending at once, even though their net new receipts at that time were so low.
Since the spring, the level of new receipts has risen greatly and building societies are now entering into new mortgage commitments at a monthly rate well over twice the level of that of last spring.

1479
The seasonally adjusted figure for October was £383 million, which is the highest on record. The number of their monthly net new commitments on new dwellings on an unadjusted basis reached over 10,000, as compared with 6,000 last spring. The total commitments on new houses financed from all sources are now estimated to be running at around 15,000 a month. This means a higher level of sales of new houses, a reduction in the stock of unsold houses and improved liquidity for many house builders.
A continuously improving level of sales should give builders the cash and the confidence to increase the rate of new house starts, but even though the rapid fall in new house starts seems to have been hailed, the average figure of only 8,009 a month in the last quarter is, I entirely agree, extremely worrying. Therefore, the question is: what further action is needed in the short-term? My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is seeking the opinion of representatives of house builders and building societies on the nature of the current difficulties in the private housing market and remedies in the shorter term. Before I turn to that, however, may I take up some of the points made in the debate which bear on this and other points made by speakers which I feel deserve a reply.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred to the Joint Advisory Committee on Building Society Mortgage Finance. This Committee was set up under a memorandum of agreement entered into by the Government of the day—the Conservative Government in 1973—and the Council of the Building Societies' Association. The basic function of the Committee is to provide technical information to assist the Council of the BSA in formulating its recommendations to its member societies. Since these recommendations are essentially a matter for the Council and its members, it would not seem appropriate for the discussions of the Joint Advisory Committee to be made public. I am afraid that in giving that answer I find myself replying on exactly the same lines as the spokesman of the previous Government gave the noble Earl on a similar occasion about a year ago. The noble Earl also inquired about the Government's comprehensive review of
1480
housing finance. This is intended to be completed in approximately a year, and I think that the noble Earl will understand that at this moment there is nothing very much more that I can say about the matter.
My Lords, I turn now to the question of first-time purchasers, to whom the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, all referred. The Government are of course concerned about the difficulties posed by high house prices and the interest rates faced by those on the threshold of buying their first home. We shall be considering this question as a critical part of our wider examination of housing finance. Some speakers made suggestions as to means of helping young couples to acquire their first home. Again, in order not to keep your Lordships here too long, I will not go into specific detail, but all these things—index rating, deferred payments and so on—are under consideration and will be part of the review. The noble Earl touched on the question of the problem of mortgagees' consent to letting by owner-occupiers in view of certain provisions in the 1974 Rent Act. I hope that he will be mollified with the knowledge that the Government are aware of the views of the building societies on this matter and are in consultation with the BSA about it.
On the question of credit for house builders, a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, I understand from the monetary authorities that there is no intention of restricting the financing of house building for the owner-occupier. Lending for house building in the private sector remains a priority category in the provision of credit. Contingent to that point, the noble Baroness raised the question of the comparison between assistance to the public and to the private sectors. It is very difficult to make valid comparisons between the subsidies for owner-occupied housing and public rented housing, and there have been, as I am certain she is aware, a number of tendentious comparisons by selective use of first year cost comparisons, particularly from a report—Inflation and Housing— published by the Housing Research Foundation, but these comparisons can be very misleading. In order to achieve a reasonable comparison, one must look

1481
at the costs over the whole life of a new house, which requires a complex series of inter-related assumptions about such matters as the level of interest rates, rents and house prices. I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for not going further, but this is an extremely complex matter which we could spend a great deal of time discussing to the exclusion of everything else.
My Lords, so far as the operating margins of building societies and tax liability are concerned—this was raised by the noble Earl—again I have to say that the Government are well aware, through the formal consultative machinery and otherwise, of the views of the Council of the BSA on the problem of margins and we believe that the Council will behave as responsibly as it always has on questions which touch on mortgage rates.
It would be quite wrong to deny that the problems of private house building are complex or to suggest that the answers are obvious. They are not. These are complex matters and the answers are far from obvious. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in a speech last Friday at the annual luncheon of the National House-builders Council, it is true that there are as many different diagnoses as there are doctors. In a quest for a solution, the question as to what the Government can do to help must be balanced by the question, what can the private house building industry do for itself? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, drew attention to this point. First, I believe that the house building industry is inclined to over-react to boom and slump. In the second half of 1972 and the first half of 1973, the industry started about 235,000 private houses. In the second and third quarters of this year, the industry was starting houses at the rate of only about 100,000 a year. I think it is fair to argue that an annual rate of 100,000 is a serious underestimate of potential demand: it is certainly a very grave underestimate of need.
Of course one understands—and we need not go into it in very great detail at this moment—why builders should feel uncertainty at the present time. But I would suggest that what is needed is a cooler and, perhaps I might even dare to say, a more level-headed approach to
1482
assessment of market demand by builders. This could even produce the embryo of a revival of confidence—a point which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton—though I do not by any means underestimate the present selling difficulties faced by some builders.
Another way forward for the industry could be a much more tightly-knit relationship between builders and building societies. There is some evidence, as was pointed out just now, that the industry has been over-investing in large and expensive houses for which there is not a strong and continuing demand, as might have been expected. There is surely a case for saying that builders should work much more closely with building societies in monitoring changes in market demand, especially changes in demand for different types of houses.
I have been all through the field and I have the feeling that perhaps there is one point on which all those who have taken part in this debate would agree; that is, that a far greater degree of flexibility of thought and action is required throughout the industry. At the same time, I believe that builders could develop closer financial relationships with the building societies. It is true that some societies already provide short-term finance to house builders and guarantee a supply of mortgage finance for the houses when completed. If it were possible to extend this, it could provide builders with an important incentive to provide houses for first-time purchasers, which is a matter of concern to all of us here.
This brings me to the important question of lower-priced houses. This, again, is something which is a matter of great concern to all those who are interested in the subject of house building or who are participating in it, particularly the building industry itself. It is something to which we should give the most serious attention. None of us must close our minds to any reasonable solution, whether conventional or unconventional. I was so pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, stress this approach—I felt that we had both been reading the same journals this afternoon.
For goodness sake! my Lords, do not let us equate the unconventional or unorthodox with the old "prefab" concept of the early postwar period. What is

1483
urgently needed is the focusing of public debate on the use of unorthodox methods; for instance, conventional homes with small floor areas which would be suitable for young couples with no children, and who are both out at work. Then there are extendable homes and basic or "shell" homes that can be finished by the home owner—indeed, any method which could give people a home of their own cheaply and quickly would be useful.
I believe that I have the agreement of noble Lords when I say that where people need houses we should not only encourage people, but should give them more scope to become involved in the provision of houses. This would bring down the cost both for the house-owner and for the builder who built the house originally, and it would make the whole enterprise more economically viable. My personal view is that we should overlook nothing. No ingenious, novel, or even eccentric idea should be ignored if it will help to provide more housing, for the sheer weight of human misery caused by overcrowding and homelessness means that our minds must be flexible and our imaginations lively.
I am very conscious that I have taken a considerable time in trying to deal with the points that have been raised, and also with the question of the short-term. The long term is also extremely important, but we are now getting rather too late into the evening to go into very great detail about that. However, since this has been raised in some detail, particularly those aspects concerning land and the land development tax, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, I feel I must say something about it. However, I should say right away that this is not a debate on the proposed Land Development Bill, nor indeed is it concerned with the land development tax. These are such enormous subjects in their own right that it would be quite impossible to do them justice. It would not be fair to the Government, to the people who have raised points and to myself to gloss over them, but there are one or two comments I must make.
First of all, we do not yet have the publication of the Bill. We have had the White Paper, and consultations in my
1484
Department are going on all the time and they will continue up to the time the Bill sees the light of day. Many of the points raised by the noble Baroness are those of which the Government are acutely aware and are looking into at the moment. The scheme generally is aimed at strengthening the power to shape development in accordance with social priorities. It is also intended that the community should be enabled to enjoy the benefits of the realisation of development values. Initially, an authority will be encouraged to acquire as much development land as the staff position permits, up to a maximum of ten years' need. I hope the noble Baroness will realise that the point she raised about plans going ahead of staff has already been taken into account. Ultimately, all development land will pass through the hands of the staff.
So far as the new land development tax is concerned, Treasury Ministers announced recently that the Inland Revenue will be publishing details of this as soon as possible. But unlike the previous Government's development gains tax, the new charge will not be applied retrospectively to gains made before the Royal Assent. So far as the effects of the operative scheme on house building are concerned, the Government believe that the whole of the land proposals—and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I skim over them in a superficial manner—will be of considerable benefit to builders. One of the problems builders have found is that it has not been very easy in the past for them to maintain an extensive "land bank", and when local authorities have the power and the duty to bring land into development, the builders themselves will be relieved of that burden.
The scheme is not intended to produce more land or to reduce house prices—these are dependent on other facets as well—but it is intended to enable better planning to be done. Home ownership is bound to benefit from the curtailment of speculative activities, and we hope that the scheme will ultimately transform the whole development land market. I would ask noble Lords to be patient about this scheme and not to dismiss something out of hand before we even have the legislation before us.

1485
I really must draw to a conclusion now, because otherwise it is possible that I shall be going on until we bring in the Bill and I will not even have time to read it myself. But I should like to say, finally, that I am aware I have not answered all the points that have been raised. I shall certainly go through Hansard later and make sure that I write to all those of your Lordships whose points have, I am afraid, been overlooked—because so many were raised and they were of such interest.
The Government do not seek to conceal their deep concern over the inadequate level of private house building, and although one noble Lord did not feel that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been of any help, it was made clear in the Budget Statement of November 12 that the Government have committed themselves to a mixed economy in which the private sector is vigorous, alert and profitable. This must include the private house building industry. Without a thriving and profitable house building industry, we cannot possibly produce all the new houses needed, nor will so many people be able to realise their dreams and legitimate aspirations of home ownership. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he is very ready to consider suggestions for initiatives designed to restore confidence, but the problems cannot be solved by Government alone. The challenge before us must be taken up by the industry as well as the Government. In this highly difficult situation, conflict can never be the answer. The problems—and they are very grave ones—cannot be miraculously removed. Continuous dialogue can at least keep the important lines of communication constructively open.