Lords Sitting of 16 February 1976

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

JET PROJECT: SITING
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper—and I should like to declare an industrial interest in this field.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the conclusion reached by the EEC Commission in the communication R/253/76 Organisational structure of the Community nuclear fusion programme and siting of the Joint European Torus (JET) experiment that "the site for JET must be Ispra", in Italy, is in the best interests of this country or consistent with the need to assure successful completion of the JET project.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY: (Lord Lovell-Davis): My Lords, if JET (the Joint European Torus) goes ahead, the Government believe that, to give it the best possible chance of success, it is essential for the site to be determined on scientific and technical considerations. In our view, Culham is very well placed in this regard, while Ispra lacks the necessary background.
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that Answer, and I am sure that the staff at Cul1iam will be greatly reassured by what he has said this afternoon. First, I should like to thank him for the speed with which his Department has reacted to the receipt of these documents, and for putting them into my hands and allowing me to study them before this afternoon's Question. The document makes—
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the document refers to substantial cost savings which can be introduced into the programme if the JET experiment is sited at Ispra? Is he aware that the document makes reference to the fact that electricity charges will be much lower from the Italian grid than from the United Kingdom grid?—it points out that the Italian electricity is cheaper. Is he further aware that this is not so, and that, during the course of this experiment the United Kingdom supplies will be based on indigenous fuel sources?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, first, I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said about the officials, because, from our last debate on EEC energy matters, I felt that the Department of Energy—despite the protestations of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that he was not criticising them—must have felt that their very real efforts to keep the Sub-Commitee informed and to be as helpful as possible were not being recognised.
I have indeed read the document. However, the situation remains that, in the Government's view, Ispra lacks the essential background experience of plasma physics and Tokamak engineering which is necessary, and the case for siting JET there is based essentially on considerations of infrastructure. The proximity of power supplies is one consideration in which Culham is also well favoured. We believe that such factors, although important, are not central to the scientific success of the project. We also believe that in addition to jeopardising the scientific success of the project, siting JET at ISPRA could, in the long run, prove the most expensive option.
The EARL of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are all grateful to him personally and to his Department for their help in this matter? Is he aware that I am on a pacific tack today? Is he aware that this document shows up the difference between the view of the site committee, who consider that the decision should be made on scientific grounds, and the Commission itself who think that the scientific grounds are not the overriding consideration? Is he aware that the Energy Research and

305
Technology Committee of the European Parliament have said that it would be criminal—that is their term—to make this decision on anything but scientific grounds?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I wholly agree with the noble Earl on the last point that he made; that is, that it would be criminal. As I have said, in our view, the success of this project depends very much on the chosen site, and we shall not be irrevocably committed before a satisfactory decision is taken on this point.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, despite the conciseness of his information and the rapidity of his Department and their kindness to people who want to make inquiries, may I ask my noble friend whether, rather than risking the hazards of the unknown, he would develop as fast as possible for the next half-century our indigenous coal supplies while more authoritative information is supplied to the public about the hazards involved in the production of nuclear energy?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I think that the Government are doing everything possible to help and develop the coal industry. This is another question. It will in part be referred to on Thursday when we discuss the National Coal Board Finance Bill.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is it not a fact that, with regard to plasma physics and nuclear fusion, this country has far more experience and far more distinguished scientists than any other Member of the EEC?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, my Lords.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend pay particular attention to the staff engaged in work such as this? As has just been suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the opposite Benches, the staff matter a great deal. Would my noble friend agree that,
306
if the siting of this JET project requires large numbers of staff to be uprooted and moved, this could be disastrous for the whole project?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, my Lords; I am very much aware of the matters my noble friend has raised.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, would my noble friend take steps to ensure that all British Members of the European Parliament are kept adequately informed of details of the Government's views on this whole matter?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, my Lords; I shall do my best to make sure that they are kept well-informed.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in view of the supplementary questions which have been asked from the other side, would my noble friend agree that he ought to bear in mind that we cannot ignore—it would be most dangerous for us to ignore—scientific research and what it means with regard to these basic operations?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, my Lords; it would be dangerous to ignore these considerations. Furthermore, I should state that Culham has an excellent record for the construction of its fusion machines on time and to cost. A subsidiary but important consideration is that, although the United Kingdom joined the Community in 1973, no Community project has yet been sited here.
The Earl of LAUNDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to explain one further point about this document? Inasmuch as the Commission has asked the Council for an opinion and not for a decision, does that mean that, whatever the Council descides, the Commission will go its own way regardless?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, as the noble Earl points out, the Commission has asked the Council to give its opinion on the Commission's choice of Ispra. The situation is that Member-States will be able to withhold their approval of the fusion programme, provided they are dissatisfied with the choice of site.

HERRING STOCKS IN NORTH SEA
2.43 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the North Sea herring fishing industry is now dying primarily because of ruthless overfishing of immature herring for industrial purposes; and whether they will call an international conference of the countries directly concerned—the USSR, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and France—to consider what steps should be taken to preserve stocks of herring and bring about a revival of this once great industry.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the dangers to the North Sea herring stock and have taken several initiatives to secure international agreement on measures of control, including the calling of a special meeting of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission to be held in London on 21st to 24th April next at which all the countries mentioned in the noble Lord's Question will be represented. Agreement has already been reached on a ban on fishing for herring for industrial purposes and on the quantities which may be taken up to 30th June 1976, and it will now be necessary to reach agreement on the quantities which may be taken in the main fishing season during the second half of 1976.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are aware that in my time there were two great fishings, a summer fishing off the Buckle coast out of Fraser-burgh and Peterhead and an autumn fishing out of Yarmouth and Lowestoft, and that we sold over 1 million barrels of herring to Western Europe and Russia in those days? Is the noble Lord aware that for all practical purposes those two fishings are now extinct? Is he further aware that if we do not take some measure to conserve the stocks of herring—and other fish arc also threatened at the moment, including mackerel—in
308
two or three years' time the North Sea will be bereft of herring, to the disaster of us all? Will Her Majesty's Government make every effort to get an international conference on the conservation of fish in the North Sea and the surrounding areas?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government are aware of the very real problems which the noble Lord has described. Certainly the Government are aware that, as against the position 10 or 12 years ago, there is now a stock of approximately one-tenth of that which obtained at the time to which the noble Lord referred. I give the House an assurance that this conference is being called and that a Government initiative to stabilise quota is very much on the agenda.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any experiments are taking place to see if one can kipper or bloater the blue whiting, which apparently is available on the Western Approaches?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, continuing scientific analysis of that difficulty is meantime in progress at the Torry Research Station in Aberdeen.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I remember the days when one could buy half-a-dozen herring for a few pence Now they have become a luxury fish, and surely that is scandalous.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, in part the difficulty has been the industrial trawl and the fact that in catching sprats other nations have taken into the net so much of the herring stock.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's Answer to this very important Question, may I ask whether he is aware that it appears that the Government are taking some action and that they ought to be congratulated? May they go on full speed with the action which they appear to be taking!
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that four of the countries named in the Question are Members of the European Economic Community? May we have an indication of the steps he proposes to take, through

309
the European Economic Commission, to ensure that some remedial steps are taken as an interim on this question of over-fishing?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, each country has its own vested interest in this very real and difficult problem of fish conservation. Each, of course, has certain fishing areas best aligned unto itself. My advice is that the Government are convening the conference in April; beyond that I do not think I can go at this stage.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, coming from the North, I was always led to believe from the fishing industry that the mackerel was looked upon as the scavenger of the sea? Is that still the view?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the main Question refers to the depletion of the herring stock in the North Sea. I would need notice of my noble friend's supplementary question.

HUNTINGTON'S CHOREA
2.50 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state what action is being taken in regard to research for a cure for Huntington's Chorea, and how many persons suffering from this complaint are having to reside in psychiatric hospitals.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Medical Research Council and the university medical schools are currently promoting a wide range of basic neurological work which could advance the knowledge of the nature of Huntington's Chorea. The Department of Health and Social Security is also supporting from its own funds a research project to establish the true incidence of Huntington's Chorea and the feasibility of setting up suitable registers for preventive purposes. I regret that the number of patients suffering from Huntington's Chorea resident in psychiatric hospitals is not known.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that sympathetic reply, may I say that about 6,000
310
people are suffering from this disease, which is hereditary? Naturally it causes tremendous anxiety to their families. Can the noble Lord promote research into the number of psychiatric hospitals which now have these residents, because I know of at least one such patient who has to be in a locked ward, not because she is violent but merely because she might be attacked by the other patients? I should like some action taken in that regard.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I did not give a figure because at this stage we are not in a position to give an accurate figure. I can say, however, from the inquiries we have made that we are of the opinion that the number of people believed to be suffering from Huntington's Chorea is in the region of 3,000. However, having regard to what the noble Baroness has said, I will see whether there is a discrepancy between this figure and the one she has given.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us some idea what this disease is and whether any hereditary Peers are suffering from this hereditary disease?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question, perhaps the House will excuse me if I do not make any comment. I understand that there are two Chorea diseases. There is Chorea Minor and Chorea Major. The first is, I believe, known as Sydenham's Disease, which we associate with St. Vitus' Dance and which, in the main, stems from rheumatic fever. Chorea Major is a much more serious form. I am told that it is inherited and that, generally speaking, it manifests itself in middle age. I understand that there is no cure at present, and it tends to take on a very violent form. Hence the need to put people into psychiatric units.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, in view of the fact that this is a particularly distressing disease, can the noble Lord say whether units such as Stoke Mandeville could not cope with at least some of these cases in the hope of giving some therapeutic treatment? Also, is the noble Lord aware that, in view of the fact that so many mental hospitals arc understaffed, they face tremendous difficulties in coping with the worst aspects of this distressing illness?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, wherever the patient may be put, there will be no alteration in the distressing effects of the disease. I have no evidence that we are unable to accommodate those patients who need it in medical wards. The real difficulty is that at the moment we know so little about the cause of the disease, and until we know a great deal more it will be very difficult to deal with it. A good deal of research is going on at the moment. The Department itself is supporting research by Dr. Adrian Caro at Dereham Hospital in East Anglia. There is a good deal of neurological research into this particular field at Edinburgh University department of social medicine and the major part of the research programme carried on by the Medical Research Council's Neuron-chemical Pharmacology Unit is looking into the biochemical changes underlying the disease. A good deal is going on, therefore, but what we really need is a good breakthrough.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, would the Minister agree that perhaps the most hopeful line in most hereditary diseases is a preventive one? Is he aware that he hit the nail on the head when he said that Huntington's Chorea usually occurs in middle life, so, whereas many hereditary diseases show themselves early in life and are unlikely to reproduce, Huntington's Chorea unfortunately occurs at a time when a person may already have had three or four children?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are aware of that and are hoping to set up registers of known sufferers so that we can have a reasonably comprehensive list in order to deal with this kind of situation. In other words, we are trying to set up a preventive register.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a pure consolidation Bill. It consolidates the provisions relating to restrictive trade practices in Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 and subsequent legislation, principally the
312
Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1968 and Part X of the Fair Trading Act 1973. The Bill will be considered by the Joint Committee in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a,—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Again, it is a pure consolidation Bill. It consolidates those provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 which relate to the constitution, membership and administration of the Restrictive Practices Court and the procedural provisions of the 1956 Act, common to all aspects of the court's jurisdiction. The Bill will be considered by the Joint Committee in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
2.59 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The House will recall the circumstances in which the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill was passed in November 1974. It was introduced into Parliament within a few days of the public house bombings in Birmingham in which 21 people were killed and 170 injured, and within a week of those explosions the Bill was on the Statute Book. In the brief debate which took place in this House last November when the order was approved renewing the existing Act for a period of four months, I explained that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary

313
did not feel able to allow these temporary powers to lapse; indeed, events in London in the past 72 hours have demonstrated all too clearly the need for a renewal. My right honourable friend considered it right to proceed by way of a new measure, in order to enable Parliament to debate the substance of the Bill in detail for the first time.
I shall deal first with the pattern of terrorist activity in the period since the Act first came into force. The House is all too familiar with the details of the outrages which have been perpetrated in the last 15 months and I shall metion briefly only a few of the more significant events. During this period, the police have discovered large quantities of explosives and bomb-making equipment in Liverpool, Southampton and London. A police officer, PC Tibble, was shot dead in Hammersmith nearly a year ago, and five police officers were attacked and wounded in Southampton at the end of 1974 and in Liverpool and Manchester last July. Then, from August to December, a series of terrorist incidents in London and the South-East caused the deaths of nine people with injuries to over 170. Some of the victims of these outrages were selected targets; others were ordinary members of the public, or simply passers-by. I will mention only one by name, a man of great devotion and courage, Captain Roger Goad, who lost his life defusing a bomb in London last August. We have seen in the last few days just how much we all owe to the explosives officers of the Metropiltan Police.
Our principal defence against these activities is the vigilance, the skill and the courage of the police in their efforts to resist and overcome the evils of terrorism. I am sure your Lordships will join with me in an expression of our gratitude to the police for their work in combating the activities of terrorists. In reviewing the Act of last year and preparing this Bill, we have paid particular attention to the views of the police. We are anxious that the measures we introduce should be of Practical help to them in combating terrorism. This is not the occasion to create an elaborate structure of measures which look splendid in theory, but which do not make a significant practical contribution.
Noble Lords will be well aware of the incident at Balcombe Street last
314
December which led to the apprehension of four people. They will appreciate that I cannot comment on the details of this incident, which is resulting in court proceedings. I should, however, like to pay tribute to the remarkable feat of police planning and organisation which enabled movements of a number of people to be observed and followed through the crowded streets of this city, and in such a way that, although shots were fired, neither bystanders nor policemen were injured. I personally have had a close knowledge of the planning of this operation, and can assure your Lordships of the difficulty and complexity of mounting such an exercise and of the energy, determination and skill with which it was carried out.
I now turn to the Bill before the House. I shall concentrate on giving an account of the way in which the major powers under the current Act, which are broadly reproduced in the present Bill, have been exercised in the past year and in drawing to your Lordships' particular attention the new provisions in the current Bill. Part I of the Bill, which relates to the proscription of organisations concerned in terrorism in the United Kingdom which is connected with Northern Irish affairs, has been introduced virtually unchanged. The drafting of Part II of the Bill, which deals with exclusion orders, has been extensively revised, but there are only three changes of substance. First, Clause 5 of the Bill introduces, for the first time, power for the Secretary of State to exclude a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies from Northern Ireland. There was a good deal of pressure in another place for the inclusion of a power of this kind, on the grounds of logic;on the principle that such a power may be needed in the future, and that its omission could represent a legitimate source of grievance for the people of Northern Ireland. The Government recognised the strength of feeling on this issue and put down Amendments on these points.
The two other changes of substance in Part II of the Bill relate to the procedures for making representations against an exclusion order. The time in which representations may be made has been increased from 48 hours to 96 hours from the time when notice of the making of

315
the order is served. In addition, where a person includes in his representations a request for an interview with an adviser and has not at that stage been removed with his consult, that right will be automatically granted if the Secretary of State refers the matter to an adviser, as he is bound to do unless the representations are frivolous. Here, I should take the opportunity to express the Government's gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and to Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, for their work in acting as advisers under the terms of Section 4 of the present Act.
It might be helpful here if I outline for the benefit of the House the use of the powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made 70 exclusion orders. Notice of the making of an exclusion order has been served on 62 people, 57 of whom have been removed, 40 to Northern Ireland and 17 to the Irish Republic. Sixteen of the 62 made representations objecting to the order. The order was revoked in five of these 16 cases. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made one exclusion order, and the person concerned was removed to the Republic of Ireland.; the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey has made three exclusion orders and the people concerned were removed to Northern Ireland.
The Act requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied before an exclusion order is made against a person, that that person is concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or is attempting, or may attempt, to enter this country with a view to being so concerned. We believe that the use of the exclusion order powers has removed the most experienced leaders of both the Provisional and the Official IRA in Great Britain, has disrupted both these organisations, and has protected the people of Great Britain from persons whose actions here might have been very dangerous indeed.
Part III of the Bill begins with two new clauses. Clause 10 creates a new offence in respect of fund raising for terrorist purposes. This offence is wider in scope than the existing offence in Clause 1, which relates only to proscribed organisations. The problem of fund
316
raising for terrorist purposes is not one which can be dealt with absolutely by legislation, and we well recognise some of the difficulties of proof that are bound to arise. But the new clause is an attempt to strengthen the present provisions in response to the considerable degree of concern which has been expressed on this matter over collections, allegedly for terrorism, but not apparently in contravention of the present provision of the Bill.
Clause 11 creates a new offence of failing to disclose information in connection with terrorist offences in relation to Northern Irish affairs. This has been introduced after lengthy discussion in another place. Although it represents a considerable extension of the powers in the Bill, I believe that it is a step which we can usefully take to improve our preventive measures and to ensure that information about terrorist incidents continues to flow to the police;and information must be given to the police as soon as possible if lives are to be saved and terrorists caught. Proceedings in connection with both these new offences will require the consent of the Attorney-General, and the maximum penalty for both offences is, on summary conviction, six months' imprisonment and a fine of £400, or both, or, on conviction on indictment, five years' imprisonment and a fine, or both.
The Government are still examining the precise wording of both these new clauses in the light of comments made in another place and, if we can find any way of improving it, I will invite your Lordships to consider Amendments at the Committee stage. The broad purpose of these provisions, however, is sensible and reasonable, in the context of the present terrorist threat. The powers of arrest and detention in Clauses 12 and 13, which enable the Secretary of State to provide for a travel control at ports, are substantially the same as the equivalent provisions in the 1974 Act.
The power of arrest under Section 7 of the Act extends to persons who are suspected of having committed offences under the Act;or of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; or of being subject to exclusion orders. The persons so arrested may be detained for only 48 hours unless the Secretary of State authorises an extension of detention for

317
a further period of up to five days. An extension of detention has been approved in 190 cases. A further 447 people have been held for less than 48 hours; that is, the police have released them rather than applying for an extension of detention. At ports, examining officers have powers to detain people for up to seven days, or if the Secretary of State directs, for a further five days. Seven hundred and fifty-four people have been detained under this power, but only 122 of these were held for more than 48 hours.
Sixty-seven people who have been detained under the powers in the Act—that is, both at ports and under the provisions of Section 7—have subsequently been charged with criminal offences. These charges include eight of murder, three of attempted murder, 10 of conspiracy to cause an explosion, one of causing an explosion, seven of unlawful possession of explosives, six of conspiracy to possess or procure explosives with intent to endanger life, two for fire-arms offences, and a number of lesser charges.
It is right that the House should be kept informed of the use which is being made of these particular powers; but we should also consider the general effects and results of the use which has been made of the Act. In particular, I would stress the importance of the examining officers' powers at ports, which enable us to maintain better surveillance and higher control over people travelling through ports than was possible before the Act came into force. These powers undoubtedly have a considerable deterrent value; in addition, they provide a valuable opportunity for the police to question persons who are suspected of coming here otherwise than for an innocent purpose. I believe that the powers in the Act are justified, and that they have made a significant contribution to our efforts to safe-guard the lives of people who might otherwise have been the victims of terrorist attacks.
The only changes of substance in the supplemental and transitional provisions which make up the remainder of the Bill are in Clause 17. First the renewal period for the main powers in the Bill has been increased from six months to 12. The Bill gives us a chance to consider the form which temporary provisions regulations of this kind should take, and
318
I hope that the House will agree that it would be safe for these powers to be capable of renewal for up to 12 months at a time in the light of the extensive consideration which the present proceedings allow. Secondly, the power to reactivate parts of the Bill after they have been allowed to lapse has now been included in the list of temporary provisions. This is to avoid a situation, which could arise under the corresponding provisions in the present Act, whereby powers in the Act could be reactivated by order after a long period, during which the Act had been dormant on the Statute Book; and, of course, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary intends to dispense with the powers entirely as soon as he feels that conditions will allow him to do so.
My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House as the right contribution which the Government and Parliament can make to the efforts of the police and the public as a whole to overcome the threat of terrorism. Nevertheless, as the new bomb attacks in London have illustrated, no law can give us total security against terrorism. The powers conferred on the Government and the police have made a significant contribution towards reducing the potential level of terrorist violence. Armed with these powers, the police have had a remarkable series of successes against the IRA. Today I ask the House to approve this Bill, which will continue and, to some extent, extend those powers, and will assist the police in their struggle to protect the lives of our fellow citizens. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
3.13 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, when the original Bill on the prevention of terrorism was introduced into your Lordships' House we dealt with it with the urgency which was demanded at the time, following the Birmingham disaster, and it was passed, quite rightly, with the minimum of delay. The Bill now before your Lordships is being introduced with the experience of a year's working of the provisions of the previous Act, and following full debate both on the Floor and in a Committee of another place. Basically the new Bill repeats in. almost identical terms the former measures, but

319
with one or two notable amendments. I am sure it would be the wish of your Lordships for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his very clear explanation of the purposes of the Bill, of the amendments which have been made to the former Act and of the reasons for them. We on this side of the House express our gratitude and thanks to the Minister and to his right honourable friend for the positive consideration given to the proposals which were made in another place by our Party.
The questions which we have to ask are, first, whether the former Bill in fact achieved its purposes. Did it prevent any acts of terrorism from being perpetrated, and will the new, amended Bill prevent further acts of terrorism and improve the procedures and measures used in such prevention? Then, in taking these measures, to what extent and on what legal basis are the liberties of the subject being curtailed? Above all, we must ask whether these measures will be effective in contributing to a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland—an intrinsic and integral part of the United Kingdom.
Having posed the questions, we have of course already heard some of the answers from the noble Lord, although it is impossible to quantify the exact number of contemplated acts of terrorism which may have been averted. But I think I am bound to say that the number of exclusion orders indicated by the noble Lord definitely proves that some effect must have been achieved. Out of the 70 orders applied for, I think the noble Lord said there were 58 which were served and that, of these, 57 involved orders being made. Here, we on this side of the House join with the noble Lord in expressing our deep gratitude and admiration to the police for their remarkable resourcefulness, courage and ability in dealing with these very many difficult and dangerous problems.
The observance of the principle of reciprocity, introduced into Clause 5 at the request of members of my Party, is certainly a most welcome improvement. Northern Ireland and Great Britain are now given precisely the same treatment in regard to exclusion orders being made against persons in either part of the Kingdom, and we certainly welcome it. It is
320
believed that the holding of suspected persons for questioning up to 48 hours. with the extension of a further five days, giving the police powers of arrest without a warrant in certain circumstances, has also undoubtedly contributed both to the gathering of information and to the stopping of certain acts of terrorism. It is of course understood that the police have to use these additional powers with considerable care and caution. It is also undoubtedly clear that they have done so with great clarity, and that they have been extremely fair in their treatment in I this regard.
We welcome also the introduction of Clause 10, relating to the control of fund-raising in this country. It must admittedly be difficult to legislate in this area, and we appreciate the concern which the Government had in drafting this particular clause. It must of course be difficult to know if there are any grounds for suspecting that money which has been given will be applied to terrorism, and, as the Secretary of State said, it will not be sufficient to say that the tin did not have "IRA" written on it. It may be difficult to implement due to threats and the kind of protection rackets which are being carried on in places where there are groups of people with interests in. Ireland, and I understand that this happens not only inside and outside pubs but also outside churches on a Sunday morning. This obviously involves a certain element of difficulty, in its being put under control. So although this clause may not have a great effect, it does draw this matter to the attention of those people who might otherwise contribute and who, knowingly, will not now do so due to the introduction of this clause.
The new Clause 11, relating to information about acts of terrorism, raises one question which has already been raised in another place, and I would ask for the consideration of the noble Lord in this matter. Whereas in Great Britain it might be considered a comparatively simple matter to phone through information to a constable, as referred to in Clause 11(1), in Northern Ireland I understand that this is not so. Persons who may be perfectly public-spirited and willing to pass on information could be in fear of their lives if they were to telephone through to a constable as such,

321
and would thus be impeded from giving such information. On the other hand, they would willingly do so to some other person in authority. I would therefore ask the Minister whether he might look at this point and consider some alternative wording to the term "constable" in so far as it relates to Northern Ireland; and perhaps this point could be considered at the Committee stage. The incidental value of this section is that it has been partly responsible for the gathering of intelligence material—a key to the effective prevention of terrorism acts—and again, of course, we give great praise to the police for the way in which they have been dealing with this matter.
My Lords, one of the tactical objectives of terrorist activity is, of course, to acquire publicity for their cause, and here I think an appeal should be made to what is always known, I believe, as the mass media, or anyway the means of communication to the public, that minimum publicity should be given to such acts of terrorism. I think this would contribute to terrorist activities being less effective and to a decline in such activities. We observe, regretfully, that the constant flow of reporting reduces the victims to statistics but enhances the fears of the public as to the criminal activities of named individuals. Despite these measures which the Government are taking, and which we on these Benches certainly support, it cannot be expected that terrorism as such will be prevented.
The purpose of terrorism is to weaken the resolve of Government and push them either into taking excessively repressive measures or into withdrawing totally from their responsibilities. The measures proposed do not in any way imply either of these courses and therefore we strongly recommend the success of this Bill. The loss of civil liberties which may be incurred through this measure must be seen within the context of the corresponding duties of the citizen to the community and the right and duty of the State to impose limitations and restrictions for the preservation of public order and the protection of the citizen. It is sometimes forgotten that the purpose of these measures is to provide protection for the most basic of human rights for all individuals,
322
which is the right to live and to live in peace. These must be overriding considerations. We certainly support the recommendation contained in Lord Gardiner's report of the committee to consider civil liberties and human rights relating to measures to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland, when he said in paragraph 15 on page 6:
"While the liberty of the subject is a human right to be preserved under all possible conditions, it is not, and cannot be, an absolute right, because one man may use his liberty to take away the liberty of another and must be restrained from doing so. Where freedoms conflict, the state has a duty to protect those in need of protection."
My Lords, we endorse this recommendation. No solution to the capture of terrorists either within the United Kingdom or within the Irish Republic will be achieved without close co-operation between the police forces of both countries. I think that we had an inspiring example of the excellent work of the Irish police in co-operation with our own during the case of Dr. Herrema and I am sure that all noble Lords would wish us to express our gratitude not only to our own police but to those in the Irish Republic. Just as the activities of the IRA cannot be contained, but are spilling over—indeed, they have already spilled over—into other parts of the United Kingdom from Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic also will be only too well aware of the criminal activities which are taking place within their own capital.
These tragic events will perhaps bring home to the Government of the Irish Republic that, when insufficient measures are taken against criminals, it is their lives, as well as those of United Kingdom citizens, which are at risk. It is there-fore urgently hoped from these Benches that there will be closer co-operation between the Governments to resist the criminality which we all seek to prevent. No civilised country can wish knowingly to be the harbourer of known criminals and take no measures against such persons. The measures which are before the House show the determination to repress with all possible measures the terrorists and acts of terrorism which are confronting our people in this country today. Therefore, I have no hesitation in recommending my noble friends on this side of the House to support the Bill.
3.23 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: MyLords, when the original Bill came before the House my noble friends on these Benches felt it proper to support it, for three reasons. First, because stringent though many of these measures were, they were warranted by the immediate dangerous threat to the safety of the realm; secondly, because the infringement of civil liberties inevitably involved had been kept down to an absolute minimum; and, thirdly, because it was recognised by the Government that this legislation should be temporary and emergency legislation and not become any permanent part of the Statute Book. All these considerations still apply and therefore, in our view, it would be right to support this new Bill. In the circumstances I would desire to draw attention to only two of the new clauses in order to make comment on them to which we would propose to return at the Committee stage.
First, there is Clause 7 which now provides for the first time that a person subject to the making of an exclusion order shall be granted a personal interview, in certain circumstanees, with the adviser. I have had occasion to meet some of those who are subject to exclusion orders. They are people who will find it extremely difficult to comprehend the proceedings before the adviser and will be totally unable to put their own case with any clarity. I am not seeking in any way to make what I recognise must be an Executive procedure into a judicial one, but it would be of real assistance to some of these people if they could have either a legal adviser or a friend with them in order that they may put their case properly. I think that the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary said in another place that he was prepared in many cases to allow that. I should have hoped that it might be possible to allow it in all cases, and that the clause might be amended specifically to ensure that that might be done.
My Lords, Clause 11 is one about which I am bound to express some anxiety. This clause makes it a criminal offence for a person to fail to disclose information about a projected act of terrorism. May I say that I fully recognise the importance of the disclosure of such information. The police are very dependent indeed on receiving such
324
information in order to prevent serious outrages. I would not dispute that there is a moral duty upon a person who obtains information about a possible act of terrorism to disclose it to the authorities. My anxiety arises as to whether it is wise to make it a crime to fail to do so, and whether that is not rather an unrealistic approach to the present situation and a somewhat unjustified extension of the criminal law.
I think it is an extension of the criminal law. There is, I believe, still the offence of misprision of treason, although it is unlikely to he used. There was, until1967, the offence of misprision of felony, but I believe that that was always held to apply only where a person had concealed the fact that a felony had been committed and not the fact that a felony might be committed in the future. There are offences under the Official Secrets Acts of harbouring people who have committed offences under the Acts and also of failing to give information where a police officer has demanded that information should be given; but I know of no other precedent for making a criminal offence out of the failure to give information about the possible commission of an act of terrorism or of another crime.
The difficulty, I feel, is this. There are, unhappily, in Northern Ireland substantial areas where the military and the police are unable to guarantee the security and the well being of those who live there. It seems to me that this offence contemplated in Clause 11 is likely to be committed, for example, by the Irish Catholic building worker who is over here in this country, who goes to a public house in Kilburn, gets into conversation with a friend or friends who tell him that some terrorist activity is about to take place. To make it a criminal offence for that man to fail to go to the police is, I think, perhaps shutting one's eyes to the realities of the situation. That man, inevitably, will have a family in Northern Ireland—his wife, his children, his parents—and he will be terrified that if he gives information it will be discovered and that reprisals are bound to follow. I believe that in those circumstances it is simply not in accord with what I might call the facts of life to make it a crime for such a person to fail to report such matters to the police. Indeed, if that is so in Kilburn, it is so

325
even more in Northern Ireland itself; and, as I understand it, this clause will apply to people who are in Northern Ireland and who fail to disclose to the police information about acts of terrorism.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, may I ask a question? I can understand the purity of the legal reaction to making this a crime, but has the noble Lord any other sanction to replace it, if it is not extended as a crime, which will make it possible to act against people who will otherwise keep such valuable information to themselves?
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I do not believe that any other sanction is possible. I hope there are people who will in fact disclose such information. To make it a crime under Clause 11 will discourage such people to give information. I am bound to suggest that to pass Clause 11 into law as it stands at the moment is to pass into law a clause which everybody knows is going to be entirely ineffective and entirely inoperative. Although I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that it is desirable that such information should be given, it is not practicable to make it a criminal offence to fail to give such information. This is a matter which I invite the Minister to consider again with care—I am sure he has done so already—before we come to a later stage of this Bill.
3.31 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Bill. I intervene on only one clause, one which has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I do so on behalf of my colleagues in the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. This point is a slightly different one. The present position, as I understand it, in relation to revealing facts is that although a worker in a Citizens' Advice Bureau has no special privilege on account of being a CAB worker, and obviously can therefore be subpoenaed and asked to give evidence in court, nevertheless the Criminal Law Act 1967 would imply that no offence is committed if a CAB worker merely fails to pass on the information about a crime or suspected crime, provided this is not done for pecuniary gain. In 1967 the CAB took Counsel's opinion, and there was confirmation that this view was justified.
326
Clause 11, as we have already heard, seems, on the other hand, to suggest that if a client in a bureau informs a worker that he or she is going to commit an act of terrorism, the worker will be committing a criminal offence if he or she fails to pass on the facts to the relevant authority. Obviously, this means the CAB worker will have to make three decisions. First, whether the act described was committed or going to be committed. But can the CAB worker really judge whether the story told by a client is so accurate in every respect that this judgment should fall upon members of the CAB rather than upon the court? Secondly, the CAB worker will have to decide whether the act described is an act of terrorism. While that is presumably defined in the Bill, or elsewhere, it is open to the interpretation of the courts. The third point is whether, after bearing all these flatters in mind, the CAB worker feels able to take the risk entailed in abiding by the organisation's rule on confidentiality.
This clause states, "without reasonable excuse" but there is no guidance from the Government about possible interpretation. If the CAB service—with which many of your Lordships are probably conversant—has to sacrifice its principle of confidentiality in order to meet this Bill, it will be destroying the trust which previously clients have put in the workers. This may have nothing to do with terrorism, but it may affect a service which for many years has been able to assist people and, indeed, the law. I hope that in the later stages of the Bill we may be able to reconcile these two factors.
3.36 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, may I begin by expressing gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and my noble friend Lady Phillips for the welcome they have given to the Bill. I will briefly go through the detailed points they have made. Obviously those concerning Clauses 10 and 11 will need to be gone into at the Committee stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to various improvements in the Bill, as compared with the 1974 Bill, which had taken place as a result of discussions in another place in which a number of her honourable friends were involved. I agree that the Bill is a better one, subject to some of

327
the qualifications which were inserted by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The noble Baroness was right in saying that honourable friends of all Parties in another place played an important role in improving this Bill. It is right that this should be so because the problem of terrorist violence affects people of every political persuasion in this country. It is right that in an issue of this sort—on which there is a high degree of public concern—there should be inter-Party collaboration. The Bill, as I indicated, has emerged strengthened as a result of that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred to Clause 11, dealing with a point related to Northern Ireland. We will come to that at the Committee stage. She also raised the point about the problem of the way in which the media handle reports of terrorist incidents. It is extremely difficult to know what is a reasonable position for the media to adopt in matters of this kind. Certainly no one—or very few—in this House would be in favour of any degree of censorship being imposed. We live in a free society which means the "electronic media"(as it is sometimes described) and the ordinary Press have a very difficult balance to strike in how they should approach the reporting of terrorist violence, whether in Northern Ireland or this country. Broadly speaking, they do their job extremely well. Many of the people covering events in Northern Ireland are exposed to great danger and do their job deprived of any protection of the kind which the security forces enjoy. Nevertheless, there is a problem here and I am sure journalists are aware of this. Undoubtedly sometimes mistakes are made; journalists will be the first to recognise that. But it is a difficult problem and, speaking from this Bench, though no doubt from time to time errors of judgment are committed, we would be loath to attempt to impose any form of censorship on the way in which the media carry out their duties.
The noble Baroness talked about the collaboration between the police forces in this country and in the Irish Republic. In the two years or so I have been a Minister at the Home Office, dealing with this problem, there has been a remarkable improvement in our working relationship
328
between Scotland Yard, British provincial police forces and the Garda in the Irish Republic. As the noble Baroness said, this relationship was particularly strengthened as a result of the events which took place over the kidnapping of Dr. Herrema. That operation was conducted with a great deal of skill and a high degree of competence. It was one of those occasions when, as a result of an approach we received from the Garda, we made available on that occasion, a number of specialists from Scotland Yard who assisted the Garda in carrying out their duties.
I now pass on to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. He raised two particular points, one related to the exclusion order process. He referred to comments made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place concerning the question of circumstances where it would be reasonable for a person who was making representations against an exclusion order to one of the advisers nominated by the Home Secretary to be accompanied by either a friend or lawyer. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to this point in some detail and referred to comments made by my right honourable friend, for the sake of avoiding any misunderstanding I will quote from column 527 of the Official Report of another place of 28th January. On that occasion, my right honourable friend said:
"In the first place, there is no question of someone who goes before an adviser being denied the right to have consultations with and advice from his solicitor before he sees the adviser. That has been the practice and I will certainly ensure that it is the practice in future. As far as I know it always has been the practice in the past where the person against whom the order is served has a legal adviser and wishes to consult him.
"I would also be prepared to say that, when the adviser takes the view that it is reasonable in the circumstances, the person should be accompanied by someone, by a legal adviser or a friend or relation if that is thought appropriate. But I must hold the position that in certain cases which could be very difficult and sensitive the question must be whether the adviser, knowing what he has to deal with, thinks that that is a reasonable procedure."
I think that that is the position of the Government in this matter.
I do not think we could give an absolute guarantee, in any circumstances, that

329
there could always be a third party present. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, indicated, this is an Executive act which we are discussing, not a judicial or a quasi-judicial act and, in view of the kind of people with whom we are sometimes dealing, and the kind of problems with which we are sometimes confronted, I do not think it would be right to give an absolute guarantee; infact, it would be impossible to do so. I hope that my right honourable friend went some way to satisfy the noble Lord on this point, but I do not think I can go any further today.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, then went on to discuss the question of Clause 11 making it, as he said, a crime to fail to pass on information about terrorist offences, be they projected or otherwise, and he posed some difficulties which would arise in that situation, as did my noble friend Lady Phillips. I quite accept that there are difficulties here, and I indicated earlier that at the Committee stage we would look again at the precise language of Clause 11, without giving any guarantee that we shall necessarily be recommending any amendment, although we may be in a position to do so. We shall certainly not be able to meet the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his opposition to this clause, because we have come to the conclusion that it is right to have a provision of this kind.
I must say to my noble friend Lady Phillips that there are problems confronting not only people working in citizens' advice bureaux but many other people who are in similar positions. I accept that fact. But what we also have to accept is that if we do not make this an offence we are possibly being prepared to endanger the lives of many scores of our fellow citizens. Let me take one example. Let us say that somebody had knowledge last week that a bomb was to be left in Oxford Circus underground station. If that bomb had gone off, it might have killed scores of our fellow citizens. It seems to me that the House must face this matter directly. If someone has information or knowledge that such an offence is likely to be carried out, it seems to me right that it should be an offence not to disclose that information at the first available opportunity.
I recognise that we are moving into new territory here, but we are confronted with a totally new situation in this country
330
where the lives of our fellow citizens are being threatened, on a day to day basis, by groups of terrorists in this city and outside it. Certainly, when we come to the detailed provisions of this clause, I will look most carefully, with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and my noble friend Lady Phillips, at whether we can deal with the problems which they have raised. But I can give no assurance at this stage that it is possible to give an absolute guarantee of this kind.
As I indicated earlier, these are new and exceptional powers; that goes not only for Clause 11 but for many other provisions of the Bill. That is why this is a temporary provisions Bill, and why the Government have to come back every 12 months to secure the assent of Parliament to extending those powers. Confronted as we are by a group of terrorists who are determined to try to maximise the loss of life to people in this country, I am bound to say that we shall have to move into the position of having the new and exceptional powers that are conferred on the Executive by this Bill. I make no apology for that, but I certainly accept that there is undoubtedly a potential risk to the civil liberties of some of our fellow subjects as a result of this measure; and that is why it is a temporary provisions Bill. Subject to the qualifications I have made, we will certainly look at the detailed provisions to see whether we can satisfy the noble Lord and other Members of the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON COUNCILLORS ORDER
3.46 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN rose to move, That the draft London Councillors Order, laid before the House on 9th December last, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the London Councillors Order is to bring the term of office for councillors in the Greater London area into line with that in force in England and Wales generally. In the past, the term of office for local councillors everywhere was three years, but in the recent reorganisation of local government the term of office was changed to four years. The four-year

331
term applied to all the new authorities and to parish councils in England and community councils in Wales, but did not apply automatically in London, which was not being reorganised. It would, however, have been anomalous to have left the GLC and the London boroughs with three-year terms, and Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1972 provided for this to be rectified by an order establishing a four-year term in London, too. The present order does just that. The way this was to be done was set out in Section 8, which was phrased rather differently for the two levels of authority. For the GLC, the section simply provided that the order should secure that ordinary elections of councillors should take place in the same years as ordinary elections of county councillors. The next county council elections are to be held in 1977, and the order simply moves the next GLC elections to that date. Subsequent elections will follow at four-year intervals.
I now come to the provisions for the London boroughs. First, the order provides, as in the case of the GLC, for the next elections to be deferred for a year so that the present term of office runs for four years. This has not been questioned, so perhaps I need say no more about it. The order, however, also provides for the continuance of whole-council elections, and, oddly enough, it is this provision not to make a change whose vires were questioned in another place. It may therefore be for the convenience of your Lordships if I deal with this aspect of the order rather more fully.
First, I shall deal with the intention of the Act. Here we arc lucky, because the provision was introduced into the Bill by way of Government amendment at Report stage in another place, so its intention is well documented. The Minister in charge of the Bill, Mr. Graham Page, said, with particular reference to whole-council elections or elections by thirds, that:
"On the issue of annual or quadrennial elections, we have taken powers to proceed by order, after consultation with all those concerned. The last thing I wanted to do was to rush it into the Bill. That is why we have taken those powers for the Secretary of State…We are taking those powers for the benefit of the Greater London Council and the London boroughs to enable us to do what they want us to do. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the Secretary of
332
State ordering something which is not wanted by those local authorities."—[Official Report. Commons, 17/7/72; cols. 116–117.]
It is clear from this that the Minister concerned was in no doubt that the section provided for London borough elections to be held on either a whole-council basis or by thirds, and that it should be left to the London boroughs themselves to decide which system should be adopted. This interpretation also lay behind his consultation document of 17th January 1973. This document explicitly gives the London boroughs the choice between a Section 8 order for elections by thirds or one retaining whole-council elections.
So much for the intention. Now let us look at the section itself. What the draftsman needed to convey was that elections for the London boroughs could not be in the same years as county and GLC elections but could be either in the three years of every four when metropolitan borough councils had elections—that is, all the years with metropolitan borough elections—or they could be once every four years midway between GLC elections; or they could be, as now proposed, once every four years in the year following the GLC elections; that is, in some of the years with metropolitan borough elections. With characteristic economy of words the draftsman provided for elections to be held
"in years in which ordinary elections of metropolitan district councillors are held "
—that is to say, either in all such years or some such years. It is on these words that doubt has been cast, but with this background in mind even the lay reader like myself can see that the words provide neatly, economically, and unambiguously for the range of possibilities that the then Government rightly wished to cover. My legal advice is that there is no doubt at all about the matter. Moreover, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments rightly paid particular attention to this question and must clearly have been satisfied, as they have not commented on the order.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having dealt with this point at such length, but in view of the confusion which seems to have arisen in another place I thought that it would be as well to put at rest any worries noble Lords may have had about the vires of this order.
Then I come to the main consequential effect of the order which concerns the abolition of aldermen. This again was effected for Wales and the rest of England on the recent reorganisation, and again provision was made to bring London into line. It makes sense for this to be done at the time of an election of councillors, and the Act provided for it to be done at the time of the 1976 elections for the GLC and 1977 elections for the Boroughs, subject to any change in the dates of those elections by order under Section 8. The present order makes that change, so it provides for the office of alderman to be abolished for the GLC at the time of the elections in 1977 and for the boroughs at the time of their elections in 1978.
As the previous Government promised, the laying of this draft order has been preceded by extensive consultations with the representatives of the London local authorities and with the main political Parties, and in view of the pledge—rightly given by the previous Government —that the wishes of the London authorities would be respected, we have therefore provided in this order for the continuation of the present system of whole-council elections. This, then, is an order on which a substantial degree of agreement has been reached. In essence it is the same as the one which the present Opposition, when last in Office, announced their intention of introducing. The order accurately reflects the wishes of the London authorities themselves, which was the paramount consideration when the enabling power was introduced in 1972. Its main provisions were accepted by the previous Conservative Government and have been confirmed by the present Government. I commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the draft London Councillors Order, laid before the House on 9th December last, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)
3.55 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, before my noble friend Lady Young deals with what I might call the policy questions to which the noble Baroness has referred, I think I ought to say something to the House about the question of vires. Although the noble Baroness says that
334
she is quite happy about it, I think I should draw the attention of the House to the serious possibilities which might follow if she happened to be wrong and to the serious possibility that she might be wrong. Of course, what is completely irrelevant for this purpose is either what the Select Committee may have said or what may have been said by a colleague in the House of Commons at the time when the Amendment was introduced. The question is what the courts would say if it were challenged, and unless I am corrected by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack it could be challenged in the courts. It could be challenged in a variety of different ways, either by the individual citizen or by persons who were interested in county council elections. If, for instance, in these boroughs by-laws were effected by a vote and it was held that the borough in question was not properly constituted, being constituted under this order, this order was ultra vires, I can imagine very great inconvenience occurring.
I should like to put to the Government the dangers of proceeding by order when an Act of Parliament could have put the matter wholly beyond doubt. This order seeks to amend paragraph 6(2) of the relevant Schedule to the Local Government Act 1972. As the noble Baroness said, that paragraph did no more than state the law as it was at that time in relation to Greater London Council elections. In 1973, at the end of July, my colleague Mr. Graham Page told a Conservative Member that we proposed to have the Greater London Council elections every fourth year, starting with 1973. To do that we should have had to make an order under the powers conferred by Section 8(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, and that the present Government are now doing. Under that sub-section,
"The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to this Act as appear to him to be appropriate for all or any of "
two classes of purpose.
Paragraph (a) gives no particular difficulty from the point of view of this issue. It says that the purpose under paragraph (a) is,
"to secure that ordinary elections of councillors of the Greater London Council take

335
place in the same years as ordinary elections of county councillors."
Up to this point I think that the noble Baroness is right, that the order is valid. It is, in fact, the course we in Government said we would take, although it may be that since those days events have occurred which lead us to doubt the wisdom of what then we proposed in good faith. That, however, is a pure question of policy and my noble friend will be talking about it. I have nothing more to say because I have no doubt whatever that that order is valid.
Then one comes to the second power under Section 8(2) of the Local Government Act 1972. For this purpose it is important to remember that it is limited to orders for purpose (b):
"to secure that ordinary elections of London borough councillors are held in years in which ordinary elections of metropolitan district councillors are held".
By Section 7(2):
"The ordinary elections of metropolitan district councillors shall take place in 1973, 1975 and every year thereafter other than a year of election of county councillors".
In each of those years one-third of the council retires and one-third is elected, so the order will not bring the London boroughs into line with the metropolitan districts in the other conurbations, as I should have thought that Section 8(2)(b) of the Act prima facie intended.
The noble Baroness points, however, to the difference in the wording between Section 8(2)(a) of the Act and Section 8(2)(b), for the words in Section 8(2)(a) are that the order has to be for elections to take place in the same year as the county council elections, but for the London boroughs the order has to be for elections to be held in the years in which the metropolitan district council elections are held. So the noble Baroness argues that by the order the London borough elections will fall in a year when the metropolitan district elections are held, and that is what she argues Section 8(2)(b) requires. But it does not require them to be held in each year when the metropolitan district election occur, as I should have thought prima facie the section means.
It is difficult to believe that the noble Baroness is right about the intention of the 1972 Act. If it were the intention of the 1972 Act, what would be the
336
point of Section 8(2)(b)—merely to avoid a county council election year? If so, it could have been expressed very much more simply. One could also argue that Section 8(2)(a), even if the same wording was chosen in respect of these elections, would produce the same difficulties. All I am saying is that the Government have elected to do this by order. Until the noble Baroness said explicitly that her advisers had given her unambiguous advice, my information was that the Government had received from different departments conflicting advice. I assume from what she said that this is not the case. I only point out that if the vires of this order can be questioned, very serious inconveniences could occur and I should have thought that a prudent Government would have seen to it that in the circumstances such a procedure would be by Bill and not by order.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will reply to that. I am not a lawyer I have no legal training, but I should like to correct one comment made by the noble and learned Lord. I did not say that I had received unambiguous advice; I said that to my lay view it appeared to be quite unambiguous but that my legal advice was that there was no doubt about this matter. If, when this Bill was first introduced, it had not been the intention of the Conservative Government to have a choice as to whether we had elections of one-third or whole council, why did they enter into consultations with all the authorities at that time?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, with regard to the first point, I do not think I misled the House at all. I said that I understood the noble Baroness to have received from her advisers unambiguous advice, by which I meant that it was contrary to the information which I had received, which was that different Departments had given conflicting advice about it. Do I now understand the noble Baroness to say that different Departments had not given conflicting advice or that they did give conflicting advice?
Baroness STEDMAN: With the leave of the House, my Lords, so far as I am aware we have not had conflicting advice. The only advice I have had is that there is no doubt at all about the matter.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, that reinforces what I originally said;namely, that I assumed from what the noble Baroness said originally, and what she has now repeated, that my information was wrong. If it had not been wrong, I was certainly going on to say that if there had been conflicting advice it would have been an extremely irresponsible attitude for a Government to take not to proceed by Bill. But I take it from the noble Baroness that my information was wholly mistaken and that so far as that is concerned there is only one set of advice which the Government have had.
I must point out to the noble Baroness —and this is why we are each speaking on different aspects of the matter—that this is not a political question at all. It is not a question of what the Conservative Government may or may not have intended. I cannot answer that question because I do not know and I probably would not have remembered even if I had been personally concerned with the matter. What I am now saying is that a serious question of vires has been brought to my attention. When the courts come to determine the matter they will not be allowed to know what my colleague said or did not say in the House of Commons in 1973 and they will not be allowed to be told, even if we remember, what we intended to achieve. They will have to construe the Act and the order and decide whether the order is intra vires the Act.
The noble Baroness is quite right in saying that she is not a lawyer. I am, and all I can say is that I would be the last person to express a concluded opinion about it. So we start on an absolute level as regards that. All I can say with authority is that if the noble Baroness is wrong—and it seems to me that she is arguably wrong; I do not say that she is and I should not like to express an opinion because it is a difficult question—if the Government were to turn out to be wrong the consequences might be very inconvenient indeed. Therefore it seemed to me to be right to draw the attention of the House to the arguable question.
4.6 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness for explaining this order so fully to us,
338
and after the extremely important point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone there is only one other matter arising from the order that I should like to raise. It concerns the way in which the order has been brought to this House. It seems to me to be extraordinary that we should receive this order only eight weeks before the GLC elections are due to take place on 8th April. As I understand it, the order was originally laid in another place on 8th December. It was arranged that it should be debated and twice the arrangements were cancelled. The order was then presented to be debated in this House early in January and for very good reasons it was decided that it ought to be debated in another place first. I myself believed very strongly that it would be quite improper for this House to debate a matter of elections before another place had debated it. It suggests to me that there is something very strange about the proceedings on this order. Whether it is a matter of vires or something else is not for me to say, but from the point of view of the electors of London it does not suggest administrative competency to leave it until eight weeks before 8th April for a decision to be taken. It seems to me that an injustice has been clone, and no answer was given in the debate in another place.
As I understand it, Sir Desmond Plummer, who represents the St. Marylebone constituency, indicated last November his wish to resign from the Greater London Council. He was then told, quite rightly, that a by-election could not be held, because as I under-stand the position a by-election cannot be held within six months of there being a general election for all Greater London councillors. The consequence is that a by-election has not been held. Now we get an order to put off the Greater London Council elections for one year.
Last November, the Government must have known that it was their intention to bring in an order, or whatever it may be, to put off the elections. They must have known since they came into office in February 1974, because I am not going to dispute the past history of this in any way. But it was left until November for this series of events to take place and

339
for it then to be discovered that a by-election could not be held for the St. Marylebone constituency. The consequences of this must no doubt have meant personal inconvenience for the man involved but, equally serious, I believe it to be quite wrong, where a by-election ought to be held, for it not to be held for at least six months, and that in a situation in which the Government could have put the matter right.
I do not know whether one just regards this as administrative incompetence or in fact as maladministration, but I cannot believe that it is good for London government. Although I do not intend to debate the whole of what has happened in London government over the last three years, I think the GLC stands indicted for its arrangements about this order and about that by-election in particular, which I think is a disgrace to democracy.
4.9 p.m.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I must first declare an interest, in that I am a Greater London councillor. I was elected by the electors of Stoke Newington and Hackney North on 12th April 1973 for a four-year term. I am asserting that because all the arguments and discussions that occurred before the election indicated that that was the period for which people were being elected to the Greater London Council. Thus my electors and my opponents all knew that the election was for a councillor until April 1977.
I do not want to bore the House with too much detail, but I must draw attention to the extent to which this matter was discussed in County Hall. At that time there was a Conservative majority in County Hall of almost two to one. Therefore, there was no question of the extent to which the Conservative Party is committed to this term of office. On 22nd June 1971, when we were discussing the White Paper on local government, the Council went on record—and I will read this paragraph because it illustrates the point—as stating:
"The primary reason advanced for a longer term is that most of the Council's functions necessitate long-term programmes which can often barely be got under way in three years, let alone be brought to fruition. On a change of political power it is particularly difficult for an incoming majority to produce results in
340
spheres such as housing, roads and other engineering projects in their first three years in office. The tendency is, of course, to forecast and programme the Council's work further ahead so that whatever the term of office the majority Party, in the period before an election, will be considering a programme well beyond the date of election and indeed entering into commitments, however tentative these may be. We consider that a four-year term should be supported."
That was the report; the report was debated; the Motion was proposed by the chairman of the committee, the report was received, and after debate the Motion was put and agreed to. Therefore, the Council was committed on 22nd June 1971 to supporting a four-year term. In fact, the Council, while accepting the abolition of aldermen, felt that it would create hardship in regard to the manning of the Council's committees. There were to be discussions as to the sort of co-options that should take place. In fact, there was a division on that, but there was no division on the subject of the four-year term, in that the majority Party, at that time the Conservatives, wanted co-options to the whole Council, whereas the minority Party, at that time the Labour Party, wanted co-options only to the committees. There was no question, on the term of office, that Greater London Council was committed to a four-year term.
My Lords, when the Bill was published, the issue was raised again. It was raised on 14th December 1971, and again the Council committed itself to wanting a four-year term of office. In-as much as the Bill did not provide for a four-year term, the Council instructed its officers to try to secure an amendment of the Bill in order that the Greater London Council term of office of councillors should be four years. That attempt to amend the Bill brought the section under which this order is now made, because what the Government did not do was to amend the Bill. They produced that particular section which gave the Secretary of State the power to introduce such an order. Of course, it may well be that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, is right, and it would have been more sensible to have put it in a Bill. Of course his friends must take their share of the blame, because we in County Hall wanted them to put it in a Bill.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, my point was confined to borough elections. The powers under Section 8(2)(a) are, I believe, unambiguous. Section 8(2)(b) gives rise to the difficulty, and that, I think, is in regard to boroughs and not the county council.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his intervention, and I accept that. I should like now to make a small suggestion. I was endeavouring to convince this House that there was no question at all of the Greater London Council not being committed to a four-year term. It is not merely that the Council was not permitted a four-year term. Assurances were given. I am talking now of the period before 12th April 1973; that is, before the election.
My Lords, on 29th January, Sir Desmond Plummer, then the Leader of the Greater London Council, wrote to the Home Secretary indicating that the Council is on record as supporting a four-year term and that the Council was anxious that not only all the candidates,
"…but also the electorate should know for what term of office they arc voting in their candidates ".
I have underlined parts of this letter written by Sir Desmond Plummer to the then Home Secretary. As a consequence of that, I think there was a Question in the House of Commons on 20th March 1973 before the General Election. The Answer of the Home Secretary was to the effect that he would introduce an order under Section 8(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, providing for a four-year term of office for Greater London councillors. He went on to say that this will mean that councillors elected in 1973 will serve until 1977; that is absolutely clear.
Again, the consultative document came out from the Home Office and the Department of the Environment which was in unambiguous terms so far as that is concerned. It is on that assertion that I am saying firmly that when I was elected to the Greater London Council on 12th April 1973, my electors knew they were electing me for four years. The only thing required then was that there should be an order to put that into effect.
My Lords, immediately after the election in July, there was another Question,
342
this time by Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg —incidentally, my Member of Parliament—the same Geoffrey Finsberg who was busily opposing the order in another place. He asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he would make a statement on the future electoral arrangements for Greater London. In reply, Mr. Graham Page said that:
"The Government have concluded that the normal term of office for Greater London and London borough councillors should be four years. The next election of Greater London councillors will thus he held in 1977.
"The Government do not propose any change in the date of the next election of councillors to the London borough councils, which, under the Local Government Act 1972 will be held on 2nd May 1974".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/73;col. 455.]
I would have said that that Answer also confirmed that Greater London Council councillors were being elected for four years, and also indicated that the borough councillors who were being elected in 1974 were being elected for four years. I think this is so.
Therefore, there is no doubt at all that the Conservative Central Government and the Conservative Greater London Council were both agreed that the elections for councillors in London, first in 1973 for the Greater London Council and then in 1974 for the borough councillors, were for four years. Nothing has changed except, of course, that there is now a Labour Central Government and a Labour Greater London Council. I can-not believe that we will carry political opportunism to this length, because that can be the only interpretation of what took place in another place a fortnight ago. I am hoping we shall not get that sort of performance in this House, and that honour, integrity and respect for democracy will prevail.
Lord HAILSHAM SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, sits down, may I say on the point I was putting that the point at issue is not the length of term of the borough councillors, but the incidence of elections. What I understood, although I may be wrong, was that the purpose behind Mr. Graham Page's handling of the Act, was to bring the London borough council elections into term with the metropolitan district council elections, and this is how I read Section 8(2)(b) of the Act. It has not to

343
do with the length of term, which, admittedly, on both views, is four years; it is bringing them into line, and that the order admittedly does not do.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I thought the noble Baroness dealt with that. When the Bill was considered it was indicated that there were going to be consultations with the boroughs. The consultations have taken place, and it is as a result of the consultations that the order is framed in the way it is. The councils were all asked whether they wanted elections every four years or elections every year, and the vast majority chose elections every four years. It is worth noting that the majority of the outer London boroughs as well as the inner London boroughs chose every four years. That is remarkable, because until 1965 the outer London boroughs had elections every year. It is only since the reorganisation of London government that they have had this whole council election. It seems as though they prefer it to the old system. As I see it, that is all that this order does; it gives statutory effect to the wishes of the boroughs that the elections should be whole council elections every four years.
I was going to make two points about what has happened. The first is that I think the Government are deserving of criticism for having delayed the order so long; the Government ought in fact to have produced this order a long time ago. We should not be in the position we are in now, with the order being discussed at this stage. The noble Baroness is right. On the other hand—this is the point I was making at the beginning—there was no misleading in so far as the electors are concerned. I imagine the town clerk of Westminster would not like me to refer to him as a technician, but as an official he interpreted the Act he had in front of him. The Act indicated that there was to be an election in 1976, and since the Act indicated that, he could not possibly allow a by-election six months beforehand.
On the other hand, I am sure that no elector in Greater London expected an election in 1976, because all electors there voted for candidates who were standing for four years. Therefore, in so far as the electors are concerned, the mere fact that
344
Desmond Plummer tendered his resignation when he did indicated that he thought the elections were in 1977 and not 1976. Had he thought the elections were in 1976 he would not have bothered. Therefore, the whole atmosphere was one of acceptance of elections in1977. It this order is passed today, 14 days from now Desmond Plummer can resign and within 30 days the people of Marylebone can have their by-election. That answers the point the noble Baroness made. The longer the order is delayed the longer the electors of Marylebone will be deprived of having a by-election. Within 30 days of the passing of the order an election can be held and the people of Marylebone can elect whomsoever they wish to the London Council.
If the noble and learned Lord is right, and there is a problem about the borough elections, I should have thought there is still time for the Government to introduce a Bill, if a Bill is required, because so far as the borough elections are concerned there is in effect no need for elections before 1977, whatever interpretation one gives. Therefore, in effect there is plenty of time if there is need to remedy the order in so far as the boroughs are concerned. I am sure the noble Baroness and her advisers have already gone into that. I have heard the same rumours as has the noble and learned Lord. I have mentioned this to the Minister, and I am sure she has consulted her friends in the other Department. The point is, however, that the order should go through now, and I hope your Lordships will see that it does. If there is need for any remedy so far as the boroughs are concerned, as I see it there is plenty of time. There is no need for elections to the boroughs before May 1977.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, there is no controversy about the object which it is intended to attain. The only point of doubt is whether this order in fact achieves the objective in view. I must confess, with all respect to my noble friend Lady Stedman, that I do not feel convinced by the exposition which she gave of the validity of this order. The one point which I should wish to add is this. If it should happen that part of this order is ultra vires, will the rest of it be intra vires, or will the whole order fall to the ground?
4.27 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, may I first of all advise the noble and learned Lord opposite that since he raised his point I have received confirmation that there has never at any time been any conflict of advice from Government Departments on the issue which we were discussing. So far as the consultations are concerned, these of course were instituted by the previous Conservative Government, and they have been continued by the present Government, so in fact the London boroughs have been consulted twice by the two Governments. Both the London authorities and the main political Parties expressed unanimous agreement with the main provisions of the order, and in particular the introduction of the four-year term of office and the postponement of the next elections for one year. There was rather less unanimity about the question of the London borough council elections, whether they should be held on a full council basis or by thirds, but a very clear majority of the London boroughs opted for the system of the whole council elections.
As I said, they have been consulted twice about this, once by the Conservative Government in 1973 and again by the present Government after the April 1974 London borough elections, and on both occasions a clear majority of the boroughs expressed a preference for whole council elections. On the first occasion 25 out of the 32 boroughs elected for whole council elections; on the second occasion only 30 boroughs responded, and of those 21 wanted whole council elections. I would emphasise that the voting of the boroughs was not on Party lines. In the first round of consultations the 10 Conservative controlled boroughs divided equally on the issue, and the second time round the majority of Conservative controlled boroughs, 7 out of 13, favoured whole council elections. On both occasions, a majority of the Labour controlled boroughs favoured whole council elections.
There has been a series of announcements by successive Governments about the dates, and there should not he any doubt in anyone's mind, either that of the London Boroughs or of the GLC. On 20th March 1973 Mr. Robert Carr—whom I am pleased that we shall shortly
346
be welcoming into this House—announced the decision to defer the GLC elections until 1977. I understand that this statement was deliberately made before the closing date for the nomination of candidates. This was at the urgent request of the then Conservative GLC, so that candidates would know that in reality they were in for a four-year term. So the candidates and the voters knew before the 1973 election that the elected councillors would serve a four-year term and would expect to retire in 1977.
Then Mr. Graham Page, the then Minister of Local Government, repeated this statement in July 1973, and at the same time he announced that the normal term of office for London borough councillors would also be four years. On 18th December 1973 he confirmed the decision on the four-year term for London borough councillors, and announced that the next elections would be held in 1978. In answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place on 19th December 1974, my right honourable friend made a similar announcement about this Government's intentions, including, in the light of views expressed by the majority of the London boroughs, the retention of the whole Council elections, the intentions of which are now given effect in this order.
I cannot accept the noble Baroness's charges of maladministration or of incompetence. There has been some delay here. The delay has been due to the necessary consultations—and surely we want the widest possible consultations with local authorities—and also because of the way in which local government reorganisation was dealt with by the previous Government, in that London was reorganised in advance of the rest of the country. My noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch asked whether the order stands or falls as a whole. It does. It stands or falls as a whole. We cannot have any one part of it intra vires.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before the noble Baroness concludes her speech, may I say that the point I was making about maladministration was that the by-election could not be held in St. Marylebone until an order had been carried postponing the elections. The Government did not introduce the order on time, so that the elections, as of now, are to be held on 8th April. This meant that for the preceding six months there could be

347
no by-election held anywhere in the Greater London Council. I believe that to be maladministration, because the Government could have introduced the order earlier, and they should not have disenfranchised the electors of St. Marylebone. I should like an answer on that point.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept that until this time no by-election could be held. But we know only what the Press has said about Sir Desmond Plummer's intention to resign. As my noble friend Lord Pitt said, once this order has gone through both Houses there will be no reason why he should not resign if he wants to do so. I am sure that the previous Conservative Government were right to give the pledge that they would respect the wishes of the London boroughs and that we should have the right consultation procedure, which both Governments have gone through. The wishes of the London authorities have now been clearly expressed, and I think that the draft order faithfully reflects them. It will enable the pledge given by the previous Conservative Government to be honoured. On this occasion at least I am glad to be instrumental in helping the Conservatives to keep the pledge which they made.
The order adopts the only simple and immediate way of giving effect to the widely desired transition to the four-year term of office for London councillors. The advantages of the straightforward approach will be self-evident. I am sure that your Lordships will be conscious, in dealing with the electoral matters covered by the order, that we are dealing with something which has been fully debated and approved in another place. I do not think it necessary to say more, and I hope that the Housewill accept the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND DRAINAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.