Lords Sitting of 17 June 1976

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1968
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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 have now received the report on the working of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 from the Director General of Fair Trading and, if so, when this report will be published.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has received the Director General's report and is considering its contents. The report will be published as soon as possible.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is it possible for the Minister to be a little more exact? Does he anticipate that the report will be published before the House rises for the Summer Recess? Secondly, would he be able to disclose to the House whether in the report, in considering Section 14(1) of the Act, reference is made to the practice of overbooking by airlines and any recommendations are made?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I regret that I cannot be more exact about the date, except to assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is as anxious as she is to have the report published. I am sure my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry would not expect me to give her details of a report which is still being considered by the Secretary of State.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while appreciating and, if I may say so, agreeing with what the
1374
Minister has said, may I ask him whether he realises that there is a problem here for those of us on the Back-Benches who are interested in these matters? if suggestions are made in the report concerning the practice of overbooking by airlines, is it possible for us to have an opportunity of discussing those suggestions in this House before the Civil Aviation Authority makes any recommendations regarding the practice?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the first point I think I should make to my noble friend is that the report, like the Act which it reviews, is concerned with misdescriptions of practices rather than with the practices themselves. There will he a full opportunity to make representations on the basis of the report before any legislation arising out of it is made.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, would not Her Majesty's Government arrange for the report to be " leaked " so that the noble Baroness's qualms may he set at rest?

IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
3.9 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: 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, in view of the recommendation of the Devlin Committee that a judge should direct a jury to acquit an accused where the prosecution rests mainly on identification evidence, they will review the case of James Hanratty who was sentenced to death and hanged for the A.6 murder.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, all the important issues raised in this case were thoroughly examined by Mr. Lewis Hawser, Q.C., in a report published last year. Mr. Hawser concluded that the case against Mr. Hanratty remained overwhelming and that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the jury's verdict. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that he accepted this independent assessment and that, so far as he was concerned, that must

1375
be an end of the matter. There is nothing in the Devlin Report to lead my right honourable friend to a different view.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this was a constituency case when I was in another place and that I investigated it very carefully? Is he aware that I am absolutely convinced of the innocence of James Hanratty? Was not the report of Lewis Hawser published a year before the Devlin Committee's recommendation was made? Further, did not that recommendation say that a judge should direct an acquittal when the prosecution case rests mainly on identification, unless there is substantial evidence of another sort? In the Hanratty case, did not the judge direct the jury that the evidence of Miss Storey was the linch-pin of the prosecution case? In those circumstances, would not Hanratty have been acquitted had the Devlin recommendation been in force?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I note the view of my noble friend on the question of Mr. Hanratty's innocence, as he has described it. I also know of the keen interest he has taken in the case. But all I can say is that a distinguished member of the Bar was asked by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to conduct an inquiry into this matter, and reached a contrary conclusion. In our view, there is no reason to suppose that Hanratty would not have been convicted even if the Devlin recommendations had been in force at the time of the trial. It is important to bear in mind that the evidence against Mr. Hanratty was by no means confined to visual identification.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that in the Hawser Report such doubt is thrown upon identification of Hanratty that it strengthens the opinion of Lord Devlin that a man should not he sentenced in those circumstances?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think the fairest thing I can do is to quote the last paragraph of Mr. Hawser's Report, paragraph 389, which reads in these terms:
" My conclusion is that at the end of the day the case against Mr. Hanratty remains over
1376
whelming and that the additional material, set into the framework of the case as a whole, does not cast any real doubt upon the jury's verdict."

FURTHER EDUCATION
Lord LEE of NEWTON: 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 what steps they propose to take to provide increased opportunities for further education and training, including compulsory paid day release, especially for young people who leave school early.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the cost of compulsory paid day release and the need for preliminary curriculum development make it impossible to introduce as soon as we would like, However, the Government intend to give priority within available resources to the vocational preparation of young people who leave school at 16 and receive little or no further education or training. Our proposals involving a programme of pilot schemes of further education and training will be announced within a few weeks.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Is she aware that this problem should have a very high priority, and that we will never achieve economic parity with a great many of our industrial competitors while we allow some 300,000 young people who are leaving school at 16 years of age to go into all kinds of blind alley occupations, without an opportunity of getting any technical training whatever?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords. I accept what my noble friend has said, but in these days of economic crisis and financial restraint we have to adopt certain priorities. At the moment, we are still hoping that the day will come in the not too far distant future when we can encourage compulsory day release. But I would remind my noble friend that despite our poor overall performance, some industries, including mining, engineering, metal manufacturing and the motor industry, have comparatively good

1377
records of day release with over 50 per cent. of employees under 18 attending colleges of further education. In other occupations, particularly those in which a large number of young women are employed, the figures are very low. But the main aim of the pilot schemes which we have in mind is to find ways of attracting young people who receive little or no further education or training, and to persuade their employers that they, too, will benefit.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, may I remind the noble Baroness that the question of compulsory day release was only one part of the noble Lord's Question? Also, may I ask her whether she does not think that the talk of pilot schemes is altogether lacking in the necessary urgency? Do the Government not realise that past experience under Governments of both Parties has shown, time after time, that economic expansion in this country has run into trouble, mainly because of bottle-necks in the supply of skilled manpower?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept entirely what the noble Lord has said, but at the moment there are financial stringencies.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the intense feeling that exists on this matter? We appreciate that it may be some time before the Government can introduce the legislation which they so desire, hut, in view of the large number of students who are entering teaching colleges and finding no work available at the end of their training, can my noble friend encourage a diversion from teaching to the polytechnics or technical colleges, with a view to equipping those people for some service in industry?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is rather wide of the original Question. If my noble friend would like to put down a Question, I will do my best to answer it.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government not feel that it is extremely important that this further education and training should take place, and have Her Majesty's Government considered the economic advantages of doing this? If they are satisfied that there are economic ad-
1378
vantages in it, I fail to understand how they can say that the money is not available.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the only way in which Her Majesty's Government can go part of the way towards training over-16s at the moment is with the kind of programme that we are producing under the pilot schemes. This will be announced within a few weeks, and we hope that the forms of training will be started in the autumn of this year. I am sure that as soon as the finance becomes available the Government will want to adhere to their Manifesto pledge, and will want to introduce compulsory day release, but at the moment it is not financially possible.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, bearing in mind what the noble Baroness said about priorities, is it too late to divert the£15 million which it is proposed to lend to Mozambique, where some of it will doubtless he used for guerrilla training, and instead see that it is used for training our own people here?
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that every week that passes will produce complaints throughout the industries using skilled labour that they cannot obtain the skilled labour they need? Is she further aware that the irony of this position is that the main way of getting back to work the 1¼ million unemployed is by employing skilled labour, which itself then employs semi-skilled and unskilled labour?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it would be possible to consult the Minister of Defence to ascertain whether young people could undergo technical training, mechanical training and the like at some of the establishments under his control—the Army, the Navy and the Air Force? They have plenty of accommodation for training of that kind, and that would not increase expenditure to any degree.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, various conferences have been held, but I am not in a position to say whether the point raised by my noble friend is one of those that have been considered. But I will certainly bring it to the attention of

1379
those concerned, and if they have not considered it I will ask them to look at it.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, arising out of the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, on the need for skilled labour, are not the best providers of skilled labour training British industries themselves? Would not an early relaxation of price controls, along the lines which we are given to believe the Government are also considering, be the best way of letting them get on with the job?
Baroness STEDMAN: That again, my Lords, is another question.
Lord LEATH ERLAND: My Lords, in order to introduce some kind of balance, may I ask my noble friend whether she agrees that nearly all the technical colleges in the country are quite well off for students, many of whom have gone there of their own volition while many others are on day release courses which have been arranged by their employers?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the percentage of young people under the age of 18 in our schools and technical colleges in 1964 was 36·6 per cent. and in 1972—the last year for which we have figures available—was 50 per cent. So my noble friend is right. More and more people are staying on to do technical college work.

SHIPBUILDING AND THE INDUSTRY ACTS
3.21 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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 have considered applying the powers contained in the Industry Acts of 1972 and 1975 to the situations of individual United Kingdom shipbuilding firms which have resulted from the worldwide reduction in orders for new ships.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): Yes, my Lords, the Government are already making full use of these powers in appropriate cases.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. If any company is in difficulties owing to the worldwide situation, are not all the necessary powers for help to be given by the Government available under these Acts, if required, and consequently is it not highly misleading for the impression to be given that such difficulties cannot be tackled unless the whole industry is nationalised?
Lord MELCHETT: No, my Lords, it is not misleading. It is true to say that the particular difficulties of a particular company can be dealt with by giving large amounts of public money under the Industry Acts and, as the noble Lord knows, very large sums of public money have already been made available since 1972. However, it is not possible to deal with the worldwide recession in the shipbuilding industry and the consequences for the industry in this country without looking at the industry as a whole, and it is that job which British shipbuilders will do.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the 10 years to 1975, partly or wholly owned public shipbuilding companies have received £173 million of aid against £26 million for all the private sector companies? If, therefore, powers are in the hands of the Government to give aid of this kind, why are they holding back and why are Ministers pleading that the delay in nationalisation is causing hardship and unemployment when that is totally untrue?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am not sure that I have the same figures as the noble Lord. According to my information, £150 million have been provided since 1972 in terms of special assistance to the shipbuilding industry, and the shipbuilding companies have benefited from the home credit guarantees for ships under Section 10 of the industry Act to the tune of £680 million. As I have already said to noble Lords opposite, it is not possible to take a coherent and

1381
rational view of the shipbuilding industry as a whole without having it in public ownership and it is that job which British shipbuilders must do.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it has confused public opinion, to put it no worse, that the Leader of the House in another place has suggested that the current procedural delays on the nationalisation Bill have caused, or are threatening to cause, unemployment in that industry? Surely that suggestion is misleading, in view of the fact that on his own admission there is any amount of help available which could be called into play if needed?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords. I said that help was available for particular companies with particular difficulties. I said also that it was not possible to take a rational view of the expenditure of very large sums of public money, which everyone admits will be needed by the shipbuilding industry over the next few years, without looking at the industry as a whole and that it is that job which British shipbuilders must do. If the vesting date is delayed, British shipbuilders will be delayed in the necessary action they can take and that is why jobs are threatened by the delay in the passage of the Bill.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, have the Government any figures of the number of jobs which are at risk if shipbuilding is not nationalised? If the Government do not have those figures they ought not to make unsubstantiated allegations.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think that anybody who knew the position that the shipbuilding industry is in worldwide would know that all the jobs in the industry are threatened unless a coherent view can be taken of the industry and that, as I have already said, is a job for British shipbuilders to do.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether shipbuilding for this purpose also includes ship repairing, as there are some firms which specialise in ship repairing only?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper deals with shipbuilding.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord has said that action is being taken under the Industry Acts of 1972 and 1975, at an appropriate time could he give us a full account of whether that action has had any result and whether the shipbuilders want any action to be taken? I do not want just an answer to my question. I want to know all the facts.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I look forward in the very near future to giving all the facts to the noble Baroness during the Second Reading debate on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industry Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the noble Lord has agreed that all the necessary powers are in the hands of the Government, is he saying that the Government cannot take a coherent view of the situation and that it needs the setting up of a new body to do that?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, it is not possible to take a coherent view of the strategy for a whole industry if you are empowered only, as we are under the 1972 Industry Act, to respond to demands from individual companies when they come forward to make them. If we may leave Party politics out of the question for a moment, the noble Lord must know that it is not possible to take a sensible view of the whole industry if the only thing you are enabled to do is to react to the particular problems of a particular yard at a particular time.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, without my wishing to introduce Party politics into the matter, which the noble Lord knows I would never dream of doing, the Minister referred to the industry Act 1972, but there is also the Industry Act 1975 and the regional aid resources. Surely such an enterprising Government as that of the noble Lord the Minister, supported by such enterprising intelligence as his own, could think of all kinds of means of helping companies which are in difficulties in the meantime while the procedural troubles in another place—they are not our troubles—delay the passage of the Bill. That would be in the interests of everybody. That is not a Party point.
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords, and that is what we are doing in the interim, but I am saying that it is not possible to have a long-term and sensible strategy without the Bill. However, I agree with the noble Earl that this enterprising Government, of which I am happy to be a member, are doing everything that they possibly can to help the British shipbuilding industry, and a very great deal has been done.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether he has taken the advice of the Organising Committee, under the chairmanship of Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin, which has been touring shipbuilding yards, and whether we are to have an announcement as to how selective aid can be provided in order to help shipbuilding over this difficult phase? Would not the Minister agree that if the Government could give £162½million to Chryslers in January 1976 on a selective basis without nationalising the whole of the motor-car industry they could perfectly well do the same for this industry, if they wanted to and were determined to help shipbuilding?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, great as the difficulties of the motor-car industry are, I think the noble Lord would agree with me that they do not compare with the difficulties that the shipbuilding industry on a worldwide basis has to face. I do not think that the comparison is fair. Also it is worth reminding the noble Lord that the figure he mentioned of £162 million is a total figure over a period of years and does not compare with the £150 million which has been spent on the shipbuilding industry since 1972. I would say that the Government have benefited considerably from the advice of the Organising Committee. In particular, we have taken steps to try to encourage British shipowners to order more ships from British shipyards. While last year only 10 per cent. of the orders were placed in British yards, I am glad to say that this year 40 per cent. of the orders have been placed in British yards. The Government are doing a great deal in this very important problem.
Lord LEATH ERLAND: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that certain prominent firms of shipbuilders that are at present facing great difficulties are eager
1384
to be nationalised and have publicly expressed their disappointment at the way the Bill is being held up in another place?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, everybody who has the interests of the industry in this country at heart wants the Bill to proceed as quickly as possible.

CABINET PAPERS: DISCLOSURES
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the disclosure of Cabinet documents.

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY (RIVER DERWENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
(Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (The Earl of Listowel.)
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I think that my noble relative has gone slightly astray. He referred to the River Darwent. The part of the river which both he and I know and of which we are very fond is called the Darwent, but it is not affected by this Bill. The other part of the same river, which, for some reason I have never been able to understand, is affected by this Bill is called the Derwent.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble relative if my pronunciation of this important Title is not correct. I am sure he is right.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FATAL ACCIDENTS BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (VOCATIONAL TRAINING) BILL [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Bill which I commend today to your Lordships' House is a simple but significant measure aimed at improving the standards of primary care. Its purpose, which is strongly backed by the academic and professional bodies (including the British Medical Association), is to tighten the entry requirements for becoming a general practitioner principal in the National Health Service by introducing a period of compulsory post-registration " vocational training ". The Bill marks a development not only in the National Health Service but in the recognition of general practice as a speciality in its own right.
There is no need for me to remind the House that this Bill comes before you at a time of severe restraint in public expenditure. However, as the Government's recent Consultative Document on Priorities for Health and Social Services in England pointed out, while it is essential at any time to work out our priorities carefully, at such times of severe restraint it is all the more imperative that we should choose the right priorities. The same document stressed the role of primary care in helping to relieve pressure on hospital and residential services, and described as a " key element " in the strategy,
" to maintain and where necessary increase the level of training and to improve the ways in which skilled manpower is used."
This Bill reflects both these priorities: the importance of primary care and the increased emphasis on training.
Vocational training for general practitioners has existed for some years now on a voluntary basis and its development has been encouraged by successive Governments. Many doctors already embark upon organised schemes, comprising two years in appropriate hospital posts and one year as a trainee in general practice. Others, after a period in hospital, decide that they wish to take up general practice as a career, and also take a trainee year in general practice. In 1970 there were 211 such trainees in England, and in 1975, 660. Wales and Scotland have a similar development. The Government, strongly backed by the medical profession and
1386
other interested bodies, believe that the time has now come to increase the momentum already generated by making vocational training for new general practitioner principals compulsory from a future date to be agreed with the profession. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to return to that matter in a moment.
I should perhaps make clear now those to whom it is proposed that the new compulsory arrangements will not apply. They will not apply to general practitioners already providing a full range of general medical services when the new arrangements start. They will not apply to doctors employed in general practice as locums or assistants. Nor are they expected to apply to doctors who have in the past been general practitioners within the National Health Service, although the Government will be consulting with the medical profession on whether there ought to be some condition attached to this, such as that the previous practice should not have been too far in the past or should have been of a minimum length of time.
Details such as these are a matter for regulations and need not concern a debate on the general principles of the Bill now before your Lordships. There will he other groups as well who for some reason should not come under these arrangements, but these will not be the general run of family doctors providing the normal range of services. The regulations will also need to take account of the wider European scene and the agreement on the free movement of doctors. With this in mind we have already told our colleagues in the EEC, via the Committee of Senior Officials in Public Health, of our plans. We hope to have the opportunity to discuss these in more detail in the very near future.
I turn now to the mechanics of the legislation, and to explain these I should first remind your Lordships of the current procedure by which a doctor—who must already be a fully registered medical practitioner—sets up as a general practitioner principal in the National Health Service. First he must apply to a Family Practitioner Committee, administering these arrangements on behalf of the Area Health Authority, for inclusion in their list of doctors undertaking to provide general medical services in their area. The Family Practitioner Committee refers

1387
the application to the Medical Practices Committee for a decision. The Medical Practices Committee may refuse the application, but only on the grounds that there is already an adequate number of medical practitioners undertaking to provide general medical services in the area or part of the area concerned. Thus the Family Practitioner Committees, which receive the applications and make subsequent arrangements with those doctors whose applications have been accepted, have no power to accept or refuse applications, and the powers of refusal of the Medical Practices Committee are confined by law to the grounds of adequate provision in the area.
What this Bill does is to extend the powers of the Medical Practices Committee to refuse applications so that after the appointed day they can, and indeed they must, refuse applications from doctors who have not been vocationally trained and who are not entitled to exemption. The exemptions will, of course, cover doctors providing general medical services on the appointed day and subsequently moving to another Family Practitioner Committee area. Because the Bill extends to Scotland, I should mention here that arrangements there are similar except that they are operated by the Health Boards, not Family Practitioner Committees, and that there is a separate Scottish Medical Practices Committee; the Bill makes suitable corresponding provision.
My Lords, I come now to the very important question of timing. The Bill provides for the new powers of the Medical Practices Committee to operate after an appointed day, that is, a day appointed in regulations, to which I made reference earlier, and there are a number of factors to he taken into account before a decision is made on what that day shall be. We cannot commence these new arrangements tomorrow. The full period of training will be three years, and clearly in regulations we must give doctors at least three years' warning so that they can plan their careers to comply with the statutory requirements. The medical profession have proposed 1980 as the target date for the full three years' training requirement, and this will be in our minds when consulting on the regulations.
1388
I will describe the clauses very briefly because, as I have indicated, this is a simple measure and requires only a very short Bill. In fact there are only five clauses. Clause 1 is the basic provision of the Bill; it contains the new powers of the Medical Practices Committee and the Scottish Medical Practices Committee to which I have already referred. Clause 2 contains a number of regulation-making powers, including powers to prescribe details of the training to he required. We have already had preliminary discussions with the profession and the details to be prescribed here will of course be subject to full consultation and discussion with the medical profession and educational bodies. There are also powers for medical experience judged to be equivalent to that prescribed to be accepted as meeting the requirement, to prescribe exemptions from the requirement and to make what administrative arrangements may be necessary. The remaining three clauses consist of minor amendments to other legislation arising out of this Bill, definitions of terms, authority for expenditure incurred by the proposals and the usual formal provisions for citation and extent. This Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, but I understand that there is a proposal to introduce a similar requirement there by means of an Order in Council.
I therefore commend this Bill to your Lordships' House as an important step, the result of which will be a significant and on-going improvement in the standards of primary care in this country. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

CABINET PAPERS: DISCLOSURES
3.45 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, with the permission of the House, will repeat a Statement now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I will use his own words.
The Statement says:
" An article appeared in the magazine New Society published today which purports to describe discussions in

1389
Cabinet preceding the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Services on 25th May about the Child Benefit Scheme.
" It is clear that the author of the article had either direct or indirect access to Cabinet Minutes and Cabinet Papers, some extracts from which were accurately quoted in the article.
" This is a very grave matter. For, on the face of it, it could only have been brought about by theft, or by a betrayal of trust involving a breach of an undertaking voluntarily entered into, by someone with access to the documents.
" There are stringent rules governing the circulation of Cabinet Memoranda and Minutes and the persons to whom they may be shown. These rules have been broken.
" In the first place I have directed that an urgent and thorough inquiry should be undertaken. I have asked Sir Douglas Allen, the Head of the Home Civil Service, to do this.
" The House will of course be kept informed ".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My. Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having repeated the Statement made in another place by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister. Clearly, this is a very serious case, requiring immediate investigation. The House will also be concerned as to whether an internal inquiry of the kind announced is enough. I note that in the Statement the announcement of the inquiry is prefaced by the words, " In the first place ". Can the noble Lord tell us how soon the results of this internal inquiry headed by Sir Douglas Allen are expected to become available? This is important because it seems clear that the police may need to be brought in. The noble Lord has mentioned theft, and there could have been some other criminal offence committed. Are the Government considering setting up some further inquiry, perhaps a tribunal, as soon as the initial internal inquiry has been completed?
May I add that I personally deeply deplore this episode, having myself been assigned, over 20 years ago, in another
1390
incarnation, to work as an official for the then Secretary of the Cabinet, the late Lord Normanbrook. Therefore I have experience of the system the noble Lord describes, both as an official and as a Minister. It appears that this episode could cause severe damage to the whole system of Cabinet collective responsibility if complete confidence in the Secretariat of the Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents cannot be sustained.
Lord WADE: My Lords, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues and myself, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It is, indeed, a very serious matter and would seem to create a new situation of a kind which, fortunately, we have not had to face before. I would ask whether a respectable newspaper or journal ought to print material of this kind. However, so far as the inquiry is concerned, may I ask whether Sir Douglas Allen has all the powers necessary to carry out the very thorough inquiry that is referred to? On the subject of time, if only for the sake of a number of innocent people who will be only too anxious to have their names cleared, can the noble Lord give any indication as to how long this inquiry will take?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I share with both noble Lords the sense of the great seriousness of this particular episode. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that there is not only a shadow over those who may have participated in these Cabinet discussions and Cabinet decisions, but also involved are men and women within the Civil Service. I attach the greatest importance to the fact that this matter should be dealt with with the greatest possible expedition. Sir Douglas Allen, as head of the Home Civil Service, has full powers, and has the full support of all Ministers in his initial inquiry.
My Lords, with regard to whether there should be a further examination, it is too early to reach a decision on this matter. The Attorney-General has been consulted. There is no clear evidence at this stage pointing unmistakably to any criminal offence, but Sir Douglas Allen will be in close touch with the Attorney-General at all times to ensure that the police are brought in if the Attorney-General con-

1391
siders that it be necessary. I think I have indicated the sense of urgency which I, with everyday responsibility for the Civil Service, know is shared by all members of the Cabinet. This should be dealt with with the greatest possible expedition, and, as the Statement concludes, Parliament will be kept informed.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, can my noble Leader say whether, however this matter got out and whoever may have been responsible for the leak, any separate charge would lie against the editor of the journal who printed it for publishing what obviously must be confidential matter.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, one does not yet know and one would not wish to have any conjecture upon how this material reached those responsible for this particular magazine. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will understand that I would not wish to add to what is in the Statement.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, could I put one point to the Leader of the House. I do so in all humility as one who nearly 35 years ago had the privilege of being sworn to Her Majesty's Privy Council. The Leader has said that this is a criminal offence or a betrayal. Supporting what my noble friend said from our Front Bench, in order to command the complete confidence of the Legislature, and the Executive, of which the head of the Home Civil Service is a distinguished member, would it not be wise to have a judicial committee of senior Privy Counsellors, at any rate following the Home Office chief's inquiry, so as to restore the confidence of all that the inquiry has been conducted independently and from the highest quarter?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will agree that an answer would be very premature. The way in which papers are safeguarded within the Civil Service, the Private Office in particular, is well known. I myself looked at it not so many months ago, and I do not believe it could be greatly improved without reducing the flexibility and the opportunity for discussion and consideration of matters. Sir Douglas Allen is starting this examination today.
1392
He will do so with the greatest of expedition. He will be in consultation with the Attorney-General, who, at the end of the day, in his legal capacity, will have to take a view. So I would hope that the House will take it from me that we will report to the House in regard to this matter. In all the circumstances, since, frankly, I know no more than the House as to what may have occurred, I have a feeling that this is perhaps an occasion when we should leave it as it is and come back to it when the Government are in a position to make a further Statement.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, why should we? The editor of New Society has said that he knows the source of the leak and who gave him the information. It seems to me far better to take a short cut rather than the long-winded investigation that is envisaged.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have been in public life sufficiently long to know that the short cut is not always the quickest. Therefore, I suggest that the decision we have taken in this matter is perhaps the wisest.
Lord LEATHERLAND:: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that it would be a good idea to bring in the police immediately, not in their role as prosecutors but in their role as very expert investigators?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have personal knowledge of Sir Douglas Allen. I have no doubt that he has capability and a precise mind, and that he will undertake this inquiry using all the powers that are available to him. Then it will be a matter for the Attorney-General to decide whether further steps should be taken.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (VOCATIONAL TRAINING) BILL [H.L.]
3.55 p.m.
Debate continued on Second Reading.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for introducing this

1393
Bill this afternoon and for explaining its provisions so clearly. As he has said, it is a very short Bill but it is nevertheless an important one. I believe this is a case where we are all agreed on the principle; it is in no sense a Party politically controversial Bill, and my understanding is that both the medical profession and those in the academic medical profession are agreed on its main provisions. It is not, therefore, my wish to detain the House for more than a very few minutes in making my comments on the Bill.
It seems to me that the core of the Bill will in fact lie in the regulations which follow from it. It is very necessary that we should know that there will be complete consultation with the medical profession, with the universities and others involved in this matter, so that they may be satisfied that the powers under the Bill are workable and are indeed what everybody wants to see. Secondly, as I understand it, the effect of the Bill will be to add another three years to the training of a doctor, a general practitioner; that is to say, a boy or girl going into the medical profession will train at a university or hospital for five or six years. When they have passed the exam they will have then to have a further year of prescribed medical experience before they are fully qualified as general medical practitioners. This means that it will become a very long training indeed, lasting nine years. I wondered whether the Government and others concerned had considered the effect of this very long training on those entering into the profession, and in particular the effect on women doctors. One of the, I thought, most important provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act, as it now is, is that the discrimination which had been widely exercised by medical schools against girls becoming doctors has become illegal. In fact this Bill will make it almost as difficult, because it means that people will have to train for nine years before they are fully qualified, and this is a very long time indeed. I do not know whether this matter has been adequately considered. I think it is a serious point, and I should like to ask the noble Lord what he thinks about it.
Lastly, I was interested to hear what the noble Lord had to say about the European Economic Community and their regulations. I understand that in the medical world British doctors command
1394
very much the top place in the international market. I hope this will not make it more difficult for British doctors to move around the world. I assume that as a result of the Bill they will be better qualified, and other countries will be even more likely to employ them rather than less likely, which seems to be to me a very important point. As I said, I do not believe that this is a contentious Bill, but I believe it to be a very important one. I welcome it, and I hope that it has a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
3.59 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Winstanley was going to welcome the Bill on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches. Unfortunately, he is sick and cannot be present, so I have volunteered to say a word of welcome in his place. This is a Bill to which nobody, I think, can object. It really goes back to the days, quite a long time ago, when to qualify it was not necessary for young doctors to take one year preregistration work in hospitals. In my young days the moment you were qualified you could go and put up your plate and the patients would come. That is a change for the better now, and I think it will be of great advantage to the profession, and general practice in particular, if people going in for general practice have a longer and better training, because it is a very difficult profession. That being so, I welcome this Bill very warmly.
The only thing I am not quite sure about—and I rather share this with what the noble Baroness said—is that it means that it is a very long time from the moment when the boy or girl wishes to be a doctor to the moment they are let loose entirely by themselves. I do not grumble about this, but it means a very long period of training, and I wonder whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill can possibly tell me how that compares with our colleagues in the Common Market countries who want to go into general practice. How long a training do they do before they start their practice? Apart from that one question, all I want to do is to welcome the Bill. I am pleased that under Clause 2 it is possible for the rather firm length of time to be reduced if the Committee thinks that the doctor in question

1395
has had sufficient experience to qualify him to treat patients.
4.2 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, as one who has been concerned with medical education for a long time and as a member of the Royal Commission, I too welcome this Bill in its intentions and am grateful to the noble Lord who so clearly explained it to us. I rise only to ask one or two questions for clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was concerned to tell us of the exceptions, which I think are important. I do not think that this has got to apply to everyone. It is not quite clear to me from the Bill—although this may be my bad reading of it—what happens if a person is already in general practice today and has not undergone this particular training but has been in practice for a long time and he then wants to change from his practice in Brixton to a practice in the Lake District, or something of that kind. I take it that he is exempt from the provisions of this Bill, and he would be acceptable as a principal.
Secondly, I am surely right in thinking, because it comes in the first paragraph of the explanatory notes, that this applies only to principals in general practice and not assistants, and presumably not partners of principals. I think a little clarification is needed here, and this may help to clarify the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I suspect that most of the women with whom she is so rightly concerned, who have been perhaps bringing up a family for a good many years and want to go back into practice, would not seek to go back straight away as principals in general practice; and if they join a group practice I hope they could do so without difficulty. But this is where I want clarification. Having done so and joined it, and had experience in that practice for several years, I take it they would then be eligible for principals in general practice at the end of that time. While looking forward to some further clarification on these points, I continue to welcome the Bill which I think is a very good measure.
4.5 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness,
1396
Lady Young, and to the noble Lords, qualify Lord Amulree and Lord Platt, for the welcome which they have given this Bill. May I try to deal with them in some form of order. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the question of consultation. I could let the noble Baroness and your Lordships know what consultations have taken place so far, but it really is a very long list. Perhaps the House will be good enough to take it from me that detailed consultations have taken place, and in fact will continue to take place so that we can get the regulations set out in a way that is going to be acceptable to everybody concerned.
It is perfectly true that this vocational training is going to add a considerable period to the training of doctors, but there is, I imagine, some compensation. As I understand the situation, a doctor who has been a doctor for 13 years and during the 13 years has had five years as a general practitioner does qualify for a seniority payment. It means that every doctor who completes the compulsory—and I use the word advisedly—vocational training will get an additional allowance of £580 each year from the end of that period. Therefore he will get, I should have thought, an appreciable financial advantage.
The noble Baroness raised the question of women. This of course is a difficult point. I think that this is recognised. I know that there are discussions going on about it. But the regulations will provide, so I am informed, for the part-time training which many women undertake. This will indeed make for a lengthy training, but women are already participating, as the noble Baroness knows, voluntarily in vocational training schemes, and we think that the benefit to general practice warrants this. But special consideration is in fact being given to the position of women.
With regard to the EEC medical Directives, I said to your Lordships not so many weeks ago, when this matter came up in connection with another medical matter, that our lawyers advise that the medical Directives, when read with the Treaty of Rome, may be interpreted as meaning that doctors from other EEC countries cannot be subject to mandatory vocational training. Against

1397
that, the lawyers of the British Medical Association do not share this view, but agree that the issue is not clear. This is where we are at the present moment. We see mandatory vocational training as a necessary consequence of the emergence of general practice as a specialty in its own right, as I said earlier on. We know that there is considerable interest in some other countries in the development of specialist training for general practice. Indeed, this matter is under discussion by the committee of senior officials in public health this very day and we are awaiting the outcome of it. So far as the EEC is concerned, legally the position is not clear, and this is one of the matters we have to clarify in the immediate future. I think that I have already covered some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, raised.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord to clarify one general question to which perhaps the answer is absolutely obvious, but is not clear to me? What will be the effect of the passing of this legislation on the numbers actively engaged in the practice of medicine after a period? Prima facie it would seem that if the period of training is prolonged by a number of years, then, other things being equal, the numbers actively engaged would be fewer than if the prolongation had not taken place. Am I mistaken in that
respect?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know whether I can give the noble Lord a satisfactory answer. My understanding is that more and more people are coming into the medical profession for training; the number has increased appreciably in recent years. The result is that in consequence, there are more coming out of training. I do not know whether that really satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, what I am asking is really the intellectual question, not whether in future the numbers will be absolutely greater than they were in the past, but how they will compare with what they would have been if this prolongation had not taken place.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am in some difficulty, my Lords. I do not think I
1398
can give the noble Lord a satisfactory answer.
Lord ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to clarify one point? What will happen to those medical graduates who have no intention of joining the National Health Service? Will it be obligatory on them to do these three additional years in vocational training or will they have a head start on those who join the national scheme?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The answer is perfectly clear, my Lords, and I thought that I had made it clear those who want to remain in the NHS as principals will have to take the compulsory training. It is as simple as that. I come to the question of doctors changing areas. A doctor who was a principal providing the full range of general medical services on the appointed day and who subsequently changes areas will be exempt from the training requirement. I think that was the point which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, was making. As for doctors returning to general practice, some doctors on returning will be exempt from the requirements while others may more appropriately apply for a certificate of equivalent experience. We will want to consult with the medical profession on how to apply these two possibilities. As I say, these are matters which are already under discussion and matters which will have to be resolved before the regulations can he laid before your Lordships' House.
I think I have dealt with the whole matter, except the question of exemptions. Doctors contracting to provide only maternity medical services will, I understand, be exempt; doctors contracting to provide only family planning services will be exempt; and those who have already been in general practice at some time in the past though they are not actually practising on the appointed day will, subject to any conditions which may be thought to be appropriate as to how recent or for how long the practice should have been, also be exempt.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to say how this will affect doctors in the Defence Services?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, doctors in the Defence Services will be

1399
treated in the same way as those in the NHS.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
4.13 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.— (Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF List-own, in the Chair.]
Clause 21 [Opportunity for landlord to obtain Tribunal's consent to operation of notice to quit]:
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 28, line 15, leave out (" Subject to subsection (3) below ").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this Amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 13, which was accepted by the Government. I therefore move it form-ally.
Lord MELCHETT: I am delighted to be able to start the proceedings off in a good vein. I am happy to accept this consequential Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 28, line 23, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: The same remarks apply to this Amendment as applied to the previous one. I therefore formally beg to move.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Earl FERRERS:Earl FERRERS: moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 30, line 15, at end insert—
(" (9) The tenancy to which such a direction entitles the person or persons concerned shall have effect as if the terms of the tenancy included—
(i) a covenant by the tenant to pay to the landlord an ingoing payment equal to the sum paid or payable by the landlord on the termination of the tenancy of the deceased in respect of:
(a) any of the items listed in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedules of the 1948 Acts; and
(b) the adoption of a system of farming for which compensation is payable under section 56 of the 1948 Act; and
(c) an away-going crop or any terminal compensation payable by the landlord under any custom or agreement save for game damage compensation. and
(ii) a covenant by the landlord to pay to the tenant a sum equal to any compensation recovered by the landlord on the termination of the tenancy of the deceased in respect of any such dilapidation, deterioration or damage to any part of the holding or anything in or on the holding as the tenant is liable under the terms of the tenancy to make good.")
The noble Earl said: We are getting on well and I hope that we will be able to continue today in the same vein. I am hopeful that this Amendment will be approved because it covers a point which I think has been overlooked in the Bill. It seems a formidable Amendment but it is really quite simple. It refers to the ingoing payments which are made on the granting of a new tenancy. At present when a tenant dies it is the practice, and indeed the statutory obligation, for the landlord to pay compensation to the deceased tenant's executors for tenant right matters such as growing crops. unexpired manurial values, improvements and so on. When a new tenancy is drawn up the ingoing tenant will clearly benefit from these tenant right matters, and so it is the practice for him to reimburse the landlord on taking on the tenancy. This is done by negotiation between the landlord and the new tenant; it is agreed between them and forms the basis of the new tenancy agreement.
Under normal circumstances, the new tenancy is drawn up by agreement, but under the Bill the new tenant does not get his tenancy by agreement. He gets it by direction of the Agricultural Land Tribunal and it is therefore specifically without agreement. As the Bill is drafted, the landlord will, under the 1948 Act, have to pay compensation to the deceased tenant's executors for improvements and

1401
tenant rights, and the landlord will be powerless to claim any of this back from the new tenant. The tenant could say, " I have this new tenancy. I have it by direction of the Agricultural Land Tribunal, and I am not going to pay the landlord a sum of money for what he calls residual manurial values. What are they? I have a tenancy to cultivate the soil, in whatever condition the soil happens to be." Having got his new tenancy, the tenant could then use the landlord's assets, for which he has paid the deceased tenant, without reimbursing him. I do not think for one moment that that is what is intended and the Amendment seeks to put the position right. And to be quite fair, the Amendment provides for the landlord to pay over to the new tenant any compensation for dilapidations for buildings for which the new tenant will be responsible and which compensation the landlord will have received from the deceased tenant's executors. I beg to move.
Lord HENLEY: I hope the Minister will accept this or a similar Amendment because it is an extremely simple point, so simple perhaps that it has been overlooked. It would be manifestly unfair, indeed absurd, and not in the interests of the agricultural industry if the landlord paid the outgoing tenant for all those matters, by custom, agreement and Statute, and could not get it back from the ingoing tenant. I daresay that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will say that he accepts the principle of the Amendment but wants to redraft it.
In this connection, perhaps I could mention to him an ingenious suggestion that has been made by the Agricultural Law Association which would deal with the problem in a different way and which, at the same time, would get over other problems involved in the creation of a new tenancy. The Agricultural Law Association has suggested that instead of creating a new tenancy, which is what the Bill does, the old tenancy should be vested by a vesting order in the successor. They suggest that course rather than for it to be terminated and a new tenancy created. They point out that vesting orders are well known to the law. I am not a lawyer and I do not know the force of that argument, but it seems to me to get over other problems, including the
1402
difficulty of an incomer establishing his financial status, because that financial status is not known until such matters as dilapidations, tenant right and so on have been settled.
The Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, which I wholly support and which has been drafted by a lawyer with the help of a very eminent surveyor, looks to me to be all right. As I say, it is a very simple point, but there may be difficulties of which I am unaware. However, the other difficulties raised by the creation of a new tenancy instead of making the change by means of a vesting order may be something which the noble Lord would like to look at.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: This Amendment is different from anything we have so far discussed in Part II of the Bill. It deals with matters that form a specialised field within the agricultural industry and which, although very important, are among the less well known and understood tasks of some land agents. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 clearly entitles the outgoing tenant to compensation for certain improvements at the end of the tenancy, but only at the end of the tenancy. This was entirely just, as the compensation was paid to the person who was obtaining occupation of the land and, thus, the benefit from the improvements—the landlord. The principle that the person who benefits from the improvements should be responsible for paying the compensation must, in all equity, continue. That means, in effect, that the incoming tenant claiming under the provisions of this legislation must reimburse the landlord any monies paid by him to the outgoer for improvements.
The matter before us is not a mere technicality, but is of vital importance to both landlords and tenants. Compensation frequently runs to tens of thousands of pounds on larger units. Before adding my support to the Amendment, however, I should like to make a further point in relation to dilapidations. The proposed new clause is morally just and has the support of the CLA and legislates for the already common practice, in that the landlord pays over dilapidation monies to the incomer. It has been my experience on more than one occasion, however, that dilapidation monies have been paid to the incoming tenant in good

1403
faith by the landlord but the tenant has failed to carry out the remedial works until legal proceedings have been taken. That situation must be legislated against, particularly now that the selection of tenant is to be more remote. I should like to see the second part of the Amendment brought into line with an increasingly common practice whereby the money is only passed over to the incomer once the remedial work has been done, or in agreed instalments. If necessary, application could he made to an arbitrator if there were any dispute on this point.
I should welcome the Government's view of this matter and, should the Amendment be agreed, I reserve my position to table an appropriate qualifying clause bearing in mind two points: first, if the Amendment is agreed as it stands, a tenant who still might not do the work would be able to sue a landlord for breach of covenant if the money was not paid over to him and, secondly, on the implementation of Clause 12 of the Bill, it will be harder for the landlord to secure a notice to quit under Section 24(2)(d) of the 1948 Act.
Lord MELCHETT: May I say straight away, in keeping with what I hope has been the mood on both sides of the Committee while we have been dealing with this Bill, that I am happy to accept the Amendment in principle. it has been made clear on several occasions that the tenancy to which the successful close relative succeeds will be a new tenancy. This is made clear in the Bill by the side-heading to Clause 23. It was never our intention therefore that the family succession provisions should interfere with the normal flow of ingoing and outgoing payments between landlords and tenants.
Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Earl that there is a risk that the successful applicant may seek to evade handing over the ingoing moneys to the landlord. An Amendment is clearly necessary to deal with this and with the payment by landlord of the dilapidation money. My Department is already in touch with the CLA and the NFU and I should like to give an undertaking that the Government will introduce their own Amendment on Report stage. I will ensure that the consultations with the CLA and the
1404
NFU cover the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it would be wise to give us the chance to consult with outside interests before an Amendment is made to the Bill.
Earl FERRERS: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for saying that he agrees in principle with the Amendment. This is clearly something that has been overlooked. It may be only a small point but, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, this could run into a number of problems. I hope that it will be possible in the discussions which the noble Lord is to have to try to put the provision at a place in the Bill such as I have suggested where it will become part of the tenancy agreement and will not necessarily be subject to the Agricultural Land Tribunal or the arbitrators, because I believe that this would bring in a new stage and, again, would cause a degree of uncertainty. What we are really saying is that the principle is fairly simple: if a landlord has paid out or has received from an outgoing tenant a certain sum of money, he should pay that over to the incoming tenant. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having considered this with approbation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to. Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Arbitration on terms of new tenancy]:
4.27 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 31, line 2, leave out (" but not question (b) ").
The noble Earl said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 together. These Amendments are intended to correct what appears to be a drafting error. Under this clause, after direction has been given entitling an applicant to a tenancy either party can refer to arbitration two questions: question (a), which deals with the terms of the tenancy, and question (b), which deals with the rent properly payable.

1405
One or both questions may be referred. However, subsection (4), in guiding the arbitrator as to how to deal with the questions, only takes the case where (a) and not (b) is referred to, and where (b) and not (a) is referred to. It would seem, therefore, that subsection (4) does not apply when both questions are referred to. Surely that is not the intention.
This is a matter which I find fiendishly complicated and difficult to understand, but there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I hope the noble Lord can clear it up. If, when we are studying the Bill, we cannot understand it with great clarity, perhaps he will wish to make sure that we can understand it. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation of his Amendment. However, I think that there is some misunderstanding about the purpose of subsection (4). It simply gives alternative procedures when one or other of the two matters mentioned in subsection (3) is referred to arbitration. The words in subsection (4) which would be deleted by these Amendments are necessary to make it clear beyond doubt that, when the sole question referred to arbitration relates to variations in the terms of the new tenancy, only paragraph (a) of the subsection will apply, and, when the sole question is that of rent, only paragraph (b) will apply. Paragraph (a)(ii) specifically empowers the arbitrator to vary the rent of the holding if it appears to him that it would be equitable to do so because of any variation made by him in the terms of the tenancy under subparagraph (i). If both questions are referred to arbitration under subsection (3)—and I believe it was this that particularly concerned the noble Earl —then subsection (4) does not apply because, in this situation, it is not necessary to prescribe alternative procedures for the guidance of the arbitrator. The award will cover any variations in the terms of the tenancy and the rent properly payable for the holding. I hope that that explanation has made the mind of the noble Earl a little clearer and that he will be able to withdraw the Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I shall certainly look at what the noble Lord said. I hasten to say that this is a terribly complicated and difficult matter to understand.
1406
If after I have looked at what the noble Lord said, I find it is not sufficiently clear I might return to this matter on the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 23 insert the following new clause:
(" Glebe Land
. This Part of this Act shall not apply to glebe land or to tenancies thereof.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with glebe land and I wish to introduce it with an explanation. Today, in 1976, glebe land is thought to amount to approximately 160,000 acres; that is the nearest accurate figure I have been able to obtain. As your Lordships will be well aware, this land is managed sometimes by the incumbent of a benefice himself or sometimes by a diocesan board of finance. It is applied wholly for the benefit of the Church and the incumbents and it can be regarded as charitable land of the very first order. The aim of the Amendment is to disapply Part II of the Bill in relation to all glebe land.
I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to two matters which will be within your recent memory. The first concerns the Community Land Bill (as it then was) last year and the second, its ugly sister, the Development Land Tax Bill which is at present before another place. I turn first to the question of the law of ownership of glebe land when a benefice becomes vacant, and it is here that we find one of the fundamental reasons why we believe that it would be a good thing to disapply glebe land from Part II of the Bill. Let us suppose that a benefice falls vacant and that, as often happens, there is a period of time—it may be a few months or even longer—before the new incumbent is appointed; or, alternatively, there may be a reorganisation within the diocese, uniting the number of benefices. At all events there is a gap in time. Furthermore, let us suppose that during that gap, be it short or long, a tenant died. That would have a very serious consequence, because if glebe land came within the

1407
provisions of Part II of the Bill, hardship would undoubtedly be caused to the family concerned and it might give rise to litigation and all the consequences that flow from that situation.
A second, and equally compelling, reason to disapply glebe land is the question of the situation in which the Church finds itself today. It is in desperate need of financial support—I do not think that any noble Lord in any part of the Chamber would disagree with that statement—and what it needs is fertiliser, not poison. We on this side of the Committee believe—and perhaps we may receive some support from other parts of the Chamber—that the result of glebe land being incorporated within the provisions of Part II would be unsatisfactory, to say the least.
I should like to refer to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, said in a series of very notable speeches last year. Your Lordships will recollect that on 4th November we were discussing Amendment No. 31 on Recommitment, in order to attempt to persuade the Government that it would be a very good idea to exclude Churches and charities from the provisions of the Community Land Bill, as it then was. On that occasion the Government were wholly obdurate, and despite a very wide measure of support from your Lordships, they were unwilling to listen to the special pleas made by the right reverend Prelate, and in particular they were unwilling to listen to the force of his argument. As that argument is undoubtedly applicable to this Amendment, I should like to refresh the memory of your Lordships regarding what was then said. At column 996 of the Official Report of 4th November 1975 the right reverend Prelate quoted an expert on the administration of charities as saying this:
"What the Bill does actually is to confiscate part of the value of land and apply it to public purposes chosen not by the donors but by central or local government. This is an entirely different proposition, and cuts at the constitutional position of charity whereby the State guarantees, as it has since the Tudor Parliaments, to enforce the purposes of charitable trusts against all comers.' "
The right reverend Prelate went on to cite that the Nathan Committee in 1950 followed the practice of Tudor Parliaments, that the Charities Act 1960 enshrined it and, further, that the Land Commission in 1964 and in 1965 gave an agreeable nod
1408
towards these precedents. I whole-heartedly agree with what the right reverend Prelate said on that and other occasions, and I should now like to quote one more sentence from what he said. lower down column 996:
" In our view, the Bill " —
the Community Land Bill—
" as it stands confounds that traditional policy and sets up in its place a system under which the assets of charitable land could be used in a way in which it was never envisaged they should be used."
We feel that this a matter of great importance because charitable land has been made as an endowment, as a gift, in wills for many centuries, even prior to the Tudor Parliaments; indeed one can say that this has been so for well over a thousand years. The Church Commissioners and the diocesan boards of finance are charged with a very great responsibility to carry out the intentions of the original donors, and so this situation should be protected in law as it has been up to date.
So far as the effects of the present Bill are concerned, we believe them to be wholly unsatisfactory because they are slipped in, as if almost by inadvertence. This is a phrase which was also used by the right reverend Prelate when he gave the Government the benefit of the doubt in a very charitable manner. Yesterday the Chamber was filled with supporters of the Motion of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Ecclesiastical Benches were thronged with those who supported his Motion. It is hardly surprising that there is no one occupying those Benches at the moment, because in relation to this Amendment it will be very clear that the Church cannot have felt that the Government were going to extend a friendly hand to them after they had received such a severe rebuff last year. I hope that the Government will examine the case which I have endeavoured to lay before them. I beg to move.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment. Speaking about the glebes which apply to the churches in Scotland I know this is considered to be one of the great assets of a church and one of the great assistances to the minister of the day, and it will be viewed with grave despair, I think, if an alteration is to be made

1409
in the way in which glebe land is handled. It goes back an incredibly long time in history, that churches have had glebe land, and if we now try to change it we shall he changing something which has been going on for hundreds of years. I think it will be a great mistake, and I hope very much that the Government will support this Amendment, which is a simple one, which is highly practicable and which will be of considerable assistance to the churches.
Lord HYLTON: I should like to support this Amendment moved by my noble friend. He mentioned the Community Land Act. I think we should be quite clear that there is no parallel between that Act and this Bill. The Community Land Act was concerned with the recovery of betterment, and betterment created by the provision of services and by planning decisions made by local authorities. The second half of this Bill, as I understand it, is to do with the avoidance of hardship to tenants, and on that I think it should be borne clearly in mind that the great majority of glebe land exists in small parcels, in scattered fields, in tiny little bits of parishes all over England. Because of its nature, in these scattered parcels, I do not see how any noticeable hardship could be inflicted on any farming family, tenant family, if it were excluded, as is proposed under this Amendment.
Lord STRABOLGI: This is an interesting Amendment, and I think we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for putting it down. It has provided an opportunity to debate this important matter of glebe land. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, have explained in detail why they believe the tenanted glebe lands should be excluded from the scope of Part II of the Bill, and I am sure we are grateful to them for putting their views with such clarity. Of course, no one would doubt that the clergy can be relied upon to act compassionately towards the family when one of their tenants dies, but this is also true, surely, of many other landlords, as has been said continually throughout the stages of this Bill. It is true of many other landlords, including the Crown, which is also, I may say, bound by Part II. It is also true of the Church Commissioners themselves, who have a statutory link with Parliament for
1410
exercising their trusteeship of many hundreds of acres of agricultural land.
The provisions of the family succession clauses embody in the Statute Book what is to all intents and purposes the procedure adopted by most enlightened landlords today. Many good landlords have tenants whose families have been in occupation of their land for a considerable time. I think the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, as was mentioned at an earlier stage, has tenants who have been tenants of his family for, I think, 500 or 600 years. I do not see how the scheme need interfere with these arrangements in any way. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, of course drew our attention once again to the provisions of the Community Land Act and the status of charitable land: but as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, this is really not applicable, I think, to this particular Bill, because the provisions of the scheme do not alter the ownership of the land or its status as tenanted land. What they deal with is simply the succession to the tenancy of the vacant holding. I understand that as the ecclesiastical law now stands the question of ownership during a vacant benefice can take a long time to resolve, but, if I may say so, I cannot see that this is a valid reason for excluding glebe lands from the Bill. Therefore, although I think it has been a useful point to have debated, I am afraid I am unable to accept the Amendment, for those reasons.
Lord HYLTON: I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Straholgi, to examine the facts of the situation. He has quoted the examples of the Crown Commissioners and the Church Commissioners. If one looks at their land holdings it will be found that they own quite large estates and that these estates are composed of consolidated farms which are not scattered fields. They are farming units which provide a livelihood for, in some cases, very substantial farm tenants. This is not the case with a great majority of glebe land. Therefore, there is a clear distinction, through size of holding and viability of holding, in the possibility of hardship arising to a tenant family. I would very strongly ask the Government to look again at this matter.
The Earl of ONSLOW: On a previous day of this Committee stage, the noble

1411
Lord, Lord Melchett, was eloquent enough to persuade us that we should not put into the Bill local county council smallholdings. Judging by what my noble friend Lord Hylton has said about the size of the glebe lands—and from what little I know about these lands I am sure he is right—surely the arguments for keeping the local authority smallholdings out of the Bill apply equally forcefully to keeping glebe lands out of the Bill. With the greatest respect to Her Majesty's Government, there seems to he an element of having it both ways.
Lord MELCHETT: I must correct an impression which the noble Earl has erroneously got from the debate on a previous Amendment. I said that county council land was out, but not for the reason that some of the land they owned might he in small parcels. In fact, we had a debate on an Amendment where we made the point that very small hits of land might well comprise a larger holding and a viable holding, and I think that on that occasion I was lucky enough to persuade noble Lords opposite to leave the Bill as it was for that very reason. I would have said that that was a more exact parallel because, of course, as I also said in the debate on the Amendment on county councils, the Association of County Councils have agreed that the provisions of the family succession scheme should apply to their holdings.
The Earl of ONSLOW: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has made my point for me much better than I could make it. I admittedly got the exact Amendment and point of discussion wrong, but he has now presumably given a very good reason why glebe lands should be excluded from the Bill.
Lord SANDYS: There is still. I think, a wide measure of agreement between both Front Benches that this is an important matter, and at the present moment I feel that it should he further investigated before we reach any decision upon it. So far as the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Hylton are concerned. I entirely agree with him that the Community Land Act, and its purview, differs, but one must remember that the freeholder, be it the incumbent of the benefice or the Diocesan Board of
1412
Finance, is being subjected to a series of Acts of Parliament which pile Pelion upon Ossa. The effect is total upon the management of this land. It makes the freeholder a person who finds that his situation is being broadly diminished.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what my noble friend Lord Middleton said at an earlier stage—I think it was on Second Reading—when he quoted the figures at present officially published by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food so far as the value of tenanted land in England and Wales was concerned. If my memory serves me aright, there is an average value of tenanted land of £291 per acre. What are the effects of this Bill going to be? Clearly as it diminishes the situation so far as the freeholder is concerned, the value of that land will be diminished still further. I feel that we should consider this further and I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, if he would he prepared to reconsider this.
Lord STRABOLGI: The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has done his best to be persuasive, but I am sorry to have to disappoint him because I do not think that we can accept this Amendment. After all, if there are difficulties, if the owners of the ecclesiastical lands, the glebe lands, have difficulties over a succession they can go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal in the same way as any other landlord can do so. But we do not think that tenants of glebe lands should be at risk any more than any other tenant. We think they should be afforded the same amount of protection and that the landlord of the glebe land, the Church, should also have the other protections afforded to the landlords in the Bill. I cannot see there is any case for excluding glebe land and for making it operate on a different kind of system. I am sorry but I cannot accept it.
Earl FERRERS: There is one problem which comes up again and again on this Bill. It is that Government take the view that all the problems can he resolved by going to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. With respect, I think this is thoroughly unsatisfactory. Anyone who has had a landlord-tenant relationship knows that you do not go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal at every opportunity. It is the

1413
end of the road. Here we are producing a Bill which ought to make fairly clear-cut lines as to what is right and what is not right. The whole time through previous debates on the Committee stage—and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has mentioned it again now—the answer was always given that if a muddle arose or if anything was unclear, then go to the Agricultural Land Tribunal.
I quite accept that the noble Lord might find a difficulty in accepting my noble friend's Amendment, but I put this word of caution. To produce a Bill, a new law, a new Act of Parliament, which is going to alter the landlord-tenant relationship in a way in which it has not been altered for hundreds of years and without any consultation—to do that and to use the fallback position that everything can be' resolved by going to the Agricultural Land Tribunal is something that is most unsatisfactory and something that will work unsatisfactorily in the future.
On Question. Amendment negatived.
4.57 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 23, insert the follow ire new clause:
Notice to quit over twenty-five years
(1) Save for section 16, this Part of this Act shall not apply where

(a) on or before the commencement of the tenancy, the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might he recovered under this section; and

(b) the tenancy commenced on or after 29th September 1970.

(2) Section 24(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (which provides for the challenging of notices to quit by counter-notices) shall not apply where notice to quit is served in respect of a tenancy to which this Part of this Act (save for section 16) does not apply by reason of subsection (1) above and at the date of the giving of the notice to quit at least twenty-five years had expired since the commencement of the tenancy, and it is stated in the notice to quit that it is given by reason of the matter aforesaid.
The noble Lord said: In moving an earlier Amendment, I referred to the
misgivings voiced here on Second Reading by several noble Lords lest the inheritance measures in this Bill could tip the balance so far away from the landlord as to endanger the whole of the landlord-tenant system up to the point of collapse. At the same time I referred also to the discussion
1414
document of the Young Farmers' Clubs which is entitled, A Farming Future for Young Farmers? The printed title of that document frames the question with a very large question-mark after the word " Farmers ". Clearly they are far from confident about the future. If I may quote briefly from that document, they say:
" We oppose current Government proposals and go much further in saying that young farmers' interests would he best served by existing legislation being changed to make it possible for fixed-term tenancies to he agreed between landlord and tenant. Repossession after the agreed period of tenancy would be legally enforced. Fixed-termed tenancies would encourage mobility and thus prevent stagnation. The tenant would he free to move to another holding before the conclusion of the existing tenancy, thus providing more opportunities at the bottom of the ladder. We believe that such provisions would encourage landowners to make available far more land for tenancies and thus benefit all concerned."
What this Amendment does is to put in a new clause the purpose of which is to encourage future lettings of holdings by introducing a form of tenancy which could certainly he ended after 25 years. The family inheritance provisions would not apply and after 25 years the tenant could not serve a counter notice under Section 24(1) of the 1948 Act to a notice to quit and the landlord therefore could not he required to seek the consent of the Tribunal. Such a clause as this is necessary to rescue the landlord/tenant system once family inheritance is introduced. A strong case was argued for this clause in Standing Committee C in another place on 8th April.
It should be acceptable to all sides for two main reasons. First, the kind of hardship the family inheritance provisions are supposed to deal with will not arise because from the start it will be known that the tenancy is due to be ended after 25 years. The clause applies only to new tenancies beginning on or after 29th September 1976. The formula of giving notice on or before the beginning of the tenancy that it would not be a protected tenancy is precedented by the Rent Act 1968. Secondly, it will give aspiring tenants the opportunity to get tenancies, whereas without such a clause the family inheritance provisions will kill off such opportunities, except for " eligible persons ". Landowners, as noble Lords have pointed out in discussing the Bill, will be so discouraged from letting land

1415
that alternative arrangements will inevitably be made. This clause would enable land to be let with a reasonable degree of security. Perhaps I should add that a notice to quit under this clause would take effect after 27 years at the earliest, because the notice could not be served until after 25 years had elapsed, and the 26th term date would then be fewer than 12 months ahead. I beg to move.
5.2 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support this Amendment because it lets a little fresh air in on the Bill. I approach this subject from the point of view of the law of contract. Under the laws regarding agricultural holdings and the very long series of Rent Acts since 1915, the law of contract, as it applies to both properties and agricultural holdings, is very difficult indeed so far as the recovery or the reversion of the property to the owner is concerned. Properties which are let over a long period—and in the vast majority of cases farms which are let at the present time —are let on the basis of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, and in some cases prior to that Act are holdings which are let on a year to year basis. To all intents and purposes they are permanent tenancies.
The burden of my noble friend's argument has been to set a term to these tenancies. It does not mean that at the end of this period the tenancy will not be renewed, but it offers the opportunity for the landlord to review the situation. This is not a question of rent review but contract, because in our view the contract, as it will stand between the landlord and the tenant when this measure receives the assent of Parliament, will be a very one-sided affair. It will not be a closed-ended contract at all; it will be an open-ended one extending so far as infinity. Therefore, we believe that it will benefit the industry as a whole. We believe that it will have very beneficial effects so far as pension arrangements are concerned.
Should the Government be pleased to accept this Amendment, we believe that built upon it will be some beneficial arrangements within the Life Offices Association whereby retirement would be made possible for the existing tenant and,
1416
in a large number of cases, it would be most acceptable to the sitting tenants concerned. I feel that my noble friend Lord Middleton has explained the purposes of this Amendment very well and I hope that it will have the support of your Lordships.
5.5 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My noble friend Lord Middleton moved his Amendment kindlily, and indeed, seductively. But quite honestly I cannot support it. As I understand it—and I know I shall be corrected if I am wrong—the effect of this Amendment would first of all be to create first- and second-class tenants, which I know would he a retrograde step. Apart from this, may give your Lordships an example of what might occur. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I quote my own case if I started farming this September as opposed to September 1954. I was fortunate in being given a tenancy when I was 26 years of age, so if this Amendment is carried I would have only three years before being evicted. I do not even have a child old enough to succeed the tenancy, even if my landlord was prepared to offer it to him, something which this Amendment makes voluntary. In passing, I should say that my eldest child, due to a University education, has found the folly of going into farming and does not want to succeed to the tenancy. I will not go on with the argument which we had the other day.
It may be that I look old—indeed, sometimes I feel positively ancient—but I cannot afford to he put on the scrap heap at 51 years of age; but that is what could happen. I am sure none of my noble friends would grant me a tenancy after this speech: though on second thoughts maybe the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, might, with his background, persuade ICI to offer me the tenancy of my former estate. On a further personal note, should I be evicted at 51 years of age, I should have more time to attend the House of Lords which fact must surely finally persuade my noble friends not to press this Amendment.
To be serious, I agree that there is a strong case for looking at the question of getting farmers to retire at 65, but surely this should be done, as we all hope, when the Agricultural Holdings Act is

1417
thoroughly overhauled. Perhaps this could he coupled with the right of his heir to apply for the tenancy to the ALT, and various forms of terminal tax relief to improve holdings rather than dilapidate them, as I fear so often happens nowadays. That may he a possible solution. Certainly, this is not the time, place or right Amendment to do it now. I hope that I have not irritated my noble friends to the extent that they feel inclined to press this Amendment; it is ever so lonely in the "Not-Contents" Lobby, and I do not want to find myself there. I hope that they will delay moving such a drastic Amendment until they have had time for further thought, which I am sure the Government at some time will give them.
5.8 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I should like to support the Amendment. Without it one cannot stress too strongly that there will he no tenancies to let whether they be for a person of 25 years, for a 50-yearold, or whatever. Obviously, if somebody who is aged 25 wants a tenancy he will think twice about a 25 year term, whereas the 40-year-old would find that suitable. This is important because the county council smallholding of from about 15 to 40 acres is a stepping stone up the ladder, and if we are going to use those for the purpose for which they were started, we have to provide larger farms for farmers when they are aged about 40. This obviously works very well. A man takes a smallholding at an age from between 25 and 40; at 40 he gets a limited term 25 year tenancy, and at 65 he retires. This fits in very well. In addition, there is the case of the landlord with a farm which, for some reason, he does not wish to farm. He is not prepared to let go, he is not prepared to lose it, so he farms it for many years, even at a loss. He might well be prepared to let it for 25 years knowing that in 25 years' time his son would probably be of an age when it could be let to him. That farm has been on the market available to a tenant for those years; this will have been very valuable. In addition to that, there will he the inclination to maintain the farm because it is coming back into hand or is able to be brought back into hand and he improved. I think it will help with tenant relations, which could deteriorate under the proposals of this Bill.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: There is a growing feeling among professional advisers and much of the farming community of this country that a tenancy of this type would be an asset to agriculture. Under the new legislation before us, I believe it would help to fill what has become an obvious and ever-increasing void. I refer to the inevitable absence of new lettings, if no such provision is made. We have heard time and time again that if this Bill becomes law there will be a very great reduction in land to let on the market. Young aspiring tenants will have the door closed on a future which has hitherto been available to them. If this Amendment is agreed, it will encourage some landlords to let land, knowing that it is for a fixed term and that vacant possession can be obtained at the end of the tenancy if required. This can only be of benefit to all involved in agriculture.
Furthermore, there is nothing to prohibit the landlord from letting to the tenant for a further period at the end of the first term, should lie so wish. This is the flaw in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I agree that the landlord could take it in hand in three years' time in his case, but if it has been a good relationship—and this is what the landlord-tenant system is about—then I have every reason to expect the land lord to let it to him again for a further term.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way, but does he honestly think that any self-respecting private landlord today would ever let a farm again, with the present CCT? I think we are deluding ourselves. It is not just the hereditary tenancy: it is the fact that he is so badly penalised by taxation that he will not let any land again. I am saying nothing about the institutions.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I have every confidence that the landlord would let land again if it was for a fixed term and he knew that lie could get vacant possession. If the landlord is aged 25, his life expectancy must be longer than 25 years. He has every right to let that land if he knows he can get vacant possession at the end of that term. I disagree entirely with

1419
the noble Lord on that point. I support this Amendment, and look forward to hearing that the Government will also give favourable consideration to it in the interests of agricultural tenant throughout the country.
Lord HYLTON: On Second Reading I ventured to say that I thought the Bill, as then drafted, would lead to very great uncertainty. Everything I have heard since then confirms me in that view. This Amendment, if approved, would at least bring the possibility of some certainty on some holdings for some people: and I support it for that reason.
The Earl of ONSLOW: When the Agriculture Act 1948 was passed several people said that land would no longer be tenanted. In my area—and I speak now from personal experience—the proportion of tenanted land and owner-occupied land has fallen very drastically indeed. I am sure that with the hereditary element or this Bill, those of us who say that tenanted land would further dry up and a young man would be less able to get into land without capital. will be proved right. Perhaps this is not exactly the right moment to introduce a fixed term provision and perhaps it has not been properly drafted or completely thought through, but I would beg Her Majesty's Government to think seriously about the possibility of allowing some form of fixed tenancy which would enable the retirement of a hard-working tenant farmer, and I speak With a certain amount of experience on this.
I know a tenant farmer who went on farming until he was well over 80, far longer than he should have done. The net result was that the man Who bought the farm from the executors had to spend a vast fortune because that man was not honestly capable of running the farm in the way it should have been run— not in the interests of any special person hut in the interests of agriculture itself. Therefore. it is essential that relatively young men should be enabled to come into farming and it is essential that the older people in farming should be able to retire at a reasonable time in comfort and peace. I hope the Government will seriously think along the lines of introducing some form of fixed tenancy when they do their review,
1420
as they have said they will, of the agricultural holdings system.
Lord HENLEY: I can see that the Government are in difficulties here, because if they were to accept this Amendment it would take all new lettings straight out of the Bill. This is quite clearly not what the Government want. Nevertheless, I think that everything that has been said on this Amendment, including indeed certain aspects of what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said (though I did not agree with all his points), is extremely sensible. I believe that the Government themselves are aware of that and or the fact that there are too many old men holding on to farms for far too long.
I think the Government are aware that the views put forward by the Young Farmers'
Clubs have great force. I said on Second Reading that I thought they probably had more sense than their fathers, and this is partly true because the pressure on the National Farmers' Union to accept this—and the Union's acceptance of this was by no means unanimous—was because the financial gain from doing this is too great to be resisted. But the young farmers see themselves being squeezed out of the profession altogether. So there is obviously something wrong with those aspects of the Bill which create this closed society or privileged class, which the Government must get round somehow. It may well be that, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has said, that cannot he done by this Amendment, but nevertheless it is something which the Government must think about, because if they do not they will have done the damage which many people on their own side, including the Minister of Agriculture, have feared: namely, that it will damage and finally destroy the landlord and tenant system, which has operated to the benefit of agriculture in this country for many years.
Lord MELCHETT: I hope that the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, made it clear, as I have said before in discussing the Bill, that these particular clauses of the Bill do not represent a Party political matter. It is something which I hope we can discuss on its merits. indeed, I find myself in the somewhat odd position of feeling obliged to stick up for the National

1421
Farmers' Union. As your Lordships may know, there are some differences between this Government and the NFU over another Bill concerning agriculture; the tied cottages legislation in another place. So I do not think anyone would say that the National Farmers' Union and the Labour Government are usually in very close co-operation over these matters. But perhaps i might say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that to accuse—I think what he said amounted to an accusation—a body with 140,000 members of farmers of all kinds of experience and of different ages in this country of taking a view on this Bill because of short-term financial gain or, as somebody did the other day— I think it may have been a noble Lord opposite—of being incapable of taking a rational view on the long-term interests of farming, seems a little unfair. I would hope that we could look at the representations made by bodies outside this House in a reasonable way. After all, I have not attempted to cast any doubt on the views expressed by the Young Farmers' Clubs ——
Earl FERRERS: May I interrupt the noble Lord, because he, in turn, has sent a fairly good ball across the table. He said that some noble Lord opposite had accused the National Farmers' Union of not being able to take a rational decision. I do not know whether that was aimed at me, but if it was, it was aimed at the wrong person.
Lord MELCHETT: I did not say that, and it was not aimed at the noble Earl. I said that someone had said earlier, when we were discussing the fact that the National Farmers' Union supported some clauses in this Bill, that they were not taking a long-term view; the view that they were adopting was not in the long-term interests of farmers. I thought that was rather harsh criticism of a body which is not here to defend itself. It is for that reason that I felt it incumbent upon me, although I tried to stress at the outset that I had no interest in defending the National Farmers' Union particularly, to say something on their behalf, because I think that some of the things that have been said about their support for these clauses by noble Lords who do not agree with them were unfair.
I am sure that the proposal behind the new clause is well-intentioned. It
1422
apparently springs from a belief held by certain landlords that the family succession scheme will mean the end of the landlord and tenant system based on annual agricultural tenancies, and therefore lead to a drying up of fresh tenancies. This has been said very often in our debates, during the Committee stage and on Second Reading, on this Part of the Bill, but I confess that I am still not clear why it is that noble Lords opposite feel that this is likely to be so.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that he had experience in his own area of something happening. I did not intervene at the time to ask him what the figures were, hut, if I may say so, I think there is a certain amount of dual standards applied to myself, when answering for the Government on these matters, and noble Lords opposite who make assertions about their personal experience in these matters, without any attempt at all to back them up with statistics. The same thing happened the other day when I asked the noble Duke on the Opposition Benches for some figures and lie was not able to supply them. I hope that if the noble Earl can contain himself, he will allow me to go on to give him some figures in a minute.
The Earl of ONSLOW: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has the whole resources of the Ministry of Agriculture behind him. I have my own personal sense of observation. Which of the two is more competent, I would hesitate to pass judgment on.
Earl FERRERS: May I also come back on one other point, because the noble Duke did give some figures about tenancies in Scotland. The funny thing was that, although he was able to give them, when I put down a Question for Written Answer I was told by the Government that the figures were not available. So the noble Duke evidently had some advantage which the Government did not have.
Lord MELCHETT: I am not sure that on the occasion I am thinking of the noble Duke did give the figures. The noble Earl and I may be thinking of different occasions. I take the noble Earl's point that I have some resources to help me provide the figures. At the same time,

1423
I am merely saying that it would be fair of him to say that his assertion based on personal experience may not tally with the figures available nationally; and if that point had been made I should have no quarrel at all with him.
If it were true that the clauses in the Bill will lead to a drying up of tenancies and an end of the landlord and tenant system as it currently exists, the evidence ought surely to show that every tenant today has been succeeded by a close relative, that every tenancy has been held for three generations—or, as noble Lords opposite would now have it, one generation—and that landlords have never succeeded in an application for the consent of the Agricultural Land Tribunal to a notice to quit. That simply is not true, and I do not think anyone on either side of the House would accept it.
If I may, I should like to quote again from the CLA survey, which I mentioned when I was winding-up on the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House. I said then that in only 28 per cent. of the 844 tenancies surveyed did the tenancy end on the death of the tenant. Had the family succession scheme been running, therefore, the landlord would have had in bettin2, terms a 72 to 28 chance of regaining possession of the holding, even with this scheme in existence. That is from the survey conducted by the CLA. So I hope that on the basis of those figures, noble Lords will at least cease to say that the scheme will result in a total drying up of new lettings.
Of the 28 per cent., which represented 234 holdings, 65 were relet to a close relative of the deceased, 67 were amalgamated with other land and 41 were taken in hand by the landlord, either to be farmed by him or sold. So in only 108 out of the 844 cases would the landlord's plans have been looked at critically by the Agricultural Land Tribunal under the family succession scheme. How this can possibly be described as a scheme which will so shake the confidence of landlords in the landlord and tenant system that they will be unwilling to let their land ever again. I simply fail to see. Neither do I see how it can be said that this will mean that young entrants will not be able to find an opening for themselves into
1424
farming. If I may say so, both of those allegations are gross exaggerations.
I mentioned the position in Scotland earlier, but I said I should like to revert to it in speaking to this Amendment, and if I may bore your Lordships with some figures I will do so. According to figures prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, the proportion of full-time farms let to tenants was 46 per cent. in 1967, 44 per cent. in 1971, 43·5 per cent. in 1973 and 43·6 per cent. in 1974 and 1975. As I said in giving these figures to your Lordships earlier, there has been a marginal decline, although not—and I do not claim any great significance for this—over the last three or four years when there was, first, a marginal increase and then stability in the last two years. But even if there had been a marginal decline, I would say to noble Lords that all that could possibly be is an indication of a long-established and continuing trend, which has been going on for a good time longer than the family succession scheme in Scotland.
This new clause tabled by noble Lords opposite introduces an entirely new concept which I suggest, with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, would seriously erode tenants' security of tenure and this at the very time when we are attempting to extend this security through the family succession scheme. If the Amendment were to be accepted then, far from acting as a counterbalance to the family succession provisions, which I believe the noble Lord said was the purpose of the Amendment, it would almost entirely defeat the family succession scheme while seriously limiting the lifelong security of tenure of all tenant farmers.
Apart from any other considerations, this would not be, I suggest, in the interests of good farming. A tenant in this situation, having held the tenancy for over 20 years, would have no incentive to farm to the best of his or her ability, nor could the tenant plan ahead with any confidence. The tenant would be very conscious that the tenancy could be terminated by the landlord at any time after 25 years without reason, and with no right of appeal against the notice to quit. I know that the Young Farmers' Clubs are said to be in favour of fixed-term tenancies. I suggest, with great respect to the members of the Young Farmers' Clubs who take that view—and

1425
I find myself in the slightly embarrassing position of having to knock the younger members of the farming lobby—that some of them might take a different view, when they are approaching 45 with a wife and family and a much reduced chance of getting another tenancy elsewhere when their fixed-term tenancy conies to an end, and know that without any right of appeal they can he forced by the landlord, with no reason needing to he given, to leave the farm.
I know that the landowners' representatives are pressing strongly for the reintroduction of fixed-term tenancies, and I suppose with that in mind that noble Lords opposite might be tempted to press this Amendment to a Division. But if they did that they would he making another radical change in the landlord and tenant system. I suggest that one radical change—and we accept that the family succession scheme is a radical change—is quite enough for the industry to digest at the present time. Moreover, such a change cannot be considered in relation to England and Wales alone as this new clause proposes.
Clearly, fixed-term tenancies must be examined with considerable care before any decision is taken for or against their reintroduction. I consider, with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, that this is something which is much better considered in the context of an overall review of agricultural holdings legislation which, as he said, cannot be long delayed. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has already spoken of the need for such a review. For all these reasons, I cannot accept the Amendment and I hope that noble Lords opposite will agree to withdraw it. I feel sure that when the scheme has been running for a time, landlords will find that it is as fair to them as it is to the close relatives of tenant farmers. It might interest the Committee to know that for several years now there have been no references under the Scottish scheme to the Scottish Land Court. I would suggest that Scottish landlords have accepted their family succession scheme and I see no reason why the same should not apply in England and Wales.
5.31 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: Before we proceed to a decision on this matter, I should like to answer a point
1426
made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. He claims that the Opposition are grossly exaggerating their case and that they have put forward no solid grounds for the assertion that has been made from this side of the Committee that the tenant succession scheme in this Bill would have the effect of drying up farm tenancies. I shall not take very long to answer his point, and I should like the noble Lord to listen.
The existing farm tenancy scheme of landlord and tenant which has been running for a very long time now has depended upon mutual interest and trust between landlord and tenant and has operated to the great advantage of both landlords and tenants and the country. The leadership in farm technology which We have established in the Western World has to a very large extent been based upon that scheme. It suited the practical farmer very well that the landowner should provide the capital for the land and that the farmer should provide the capital for developing the farm, and farm production in this country has benefited greatly from the scheme.
The effect of the noble Lord's Bill is to disturb that balance. It is perfectly true that the effect of various fiscal measures—mostly those of the noble Lord—have already disturbed the balance to some extent, and my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has referred to this. But despite the disturbance of the balance to that effect, many landlords will continue to let their land to farmers because, for one reason or another, it suits them to do so. Although there are difficulties now in getting back their land, there is some prospect of the landlords getting it if they really want it. Therefore, the system continues and there is still a mutual interest in it. The point is that what the noble Lord is proposing will destroy that mutual interest.
There is a condition in commerce—and the noble Lord's antecedents, certainly his grandfather, should have taught him the truth of it—that when you are making a deal of any kind in business you must leave something in it for the other fellow. The noble Lord is leaving nothing in it for the landlord. This is why the noble Lord will cause the drying up of the landlord tenant system. At my age I shall not see much of it, but the noble

1427
Lord certainly will. By the time the noble Lord reaches my age he will see the serious decrease of this system, greatly to the disadvantage of the younger men who would like to come into farming but who have no farming antecedents. I reckon that in the long run it will also work to the disadvantage of farming production in tins country.
The noble Lord's proposals will leave nothing in it for the landlord, and he is being told this by the eloquent representatives of the landlords on this side—the CLA—who are notable for taking a most responsible, long-term view. The noble Lord is being urged not to do this and he is being offered the olive branch of some kind of fixed tenancy for 25 years. It does not mean for a minute that the landlord will take back his farm at the end of 25 years. If it suits him to do so, he will continue to let it, just as he has in the past, but it gives the landlord some prospect of getting back his farm after that period it', for one reason or another, he needs it. I urge the noble Lord to look at this point as a proposition which has much good faith and sense in it.
Lord MELCHETT: May I make three points to the noble Lord. I did listen very carefully to what the noble Lord had to say, just as I listened with great care to what he said on the two previous occasions when he made much the same point about the provisions in the Bill. First of all, the noble Lord did not deal at all with tile statistics that I gave about the 844 cases where tenancies had come to an end and new tenancies were made. I said that in only 108 of those cases would the scheme have come into play at all. In other words, in the vast majority of cases the scheme will not have any effect on the landlord and tenant system and their relationships with each other. That seems to me to he a very important point which noble Lords opposite have not taken on hoard.
May I make two other points to the noble Lord. He quoted my ancestors and said they would tell me that where you are entering into a commercial deal you have to leave something in it for the other fellow. With great respect to the noble Lord, I suspect that my grandfather might also have told me that in a commercial deal which is fair to both sides there has to be
1428
equality between both sides, and I cannot see how a tenant, who can be thrown off his farm with no reason and explanation whatever being given, can be said to be entering into a deal where there is any equality on his side.
The noble Lord placed great emphasis on mutual understanding and confidence between tenants and landlords. That is something to which we on this side attach great importance. May I say to the noble Lord that where that is the case, the scheme will have no effect on the landlord or the tenant and that mutual confidence and trust will continue. All that the scheme will do will he to interfere in situations where that is not the case.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: As we are in Committee, we can continue to exchange views. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, and even more his advisers, who have thought up for him this ingenious argument indicating that there is a seven to two chance so far as the landlord is concerned. In past years I have taken some part in the Ministry of Agriculture, and by producing arguments like this they are obviously well up to standard. Unfortunately, however, the argument does not convince. It is a good, dialectical argument but it does not deal with the substance of the point. The noble Lord is being told by the landlord representatives that this is fact. With a quite ingenious dialectical argument the noble Lord has failed to establish his case.
I will not deal with the other two points. It is a matter of opinion whether there is a fair balance in the present situation. The fact that it has endured so long and worked so well indicates that there is a fair balance and that it would be unwise to upset it.
Earl FERRERS: I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, brushed off my noble friend's argument quite so quickly, because, it' I may be permitted to comment upon it, he spoke with great conviction and in a most reasonable manner and I hope that the noble Lord will consider his argument. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford referred to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has been advised by people who are landlords. I understand that my noble friend Lord Nugent of

1429
Guildford is not a landlord. We on this side of the Committee labour under a great difficulty because it so happens that quite a number of noble Lords are landlords. However, when he first stood up to reply, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that this was a non-Party political point. It is wholly a non-Party political point. In no way is this a wrecking Amendment and it should not be construed as favouring either the landlord or the tenant. This Amendment has been put down for the simple reason that we on this side of the Committee believe that it will be in the long term interests of British agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and my noble friend Lord Middleton have both pointed out, as it has been pointed out by many others throughout the whole course of this Bill, that the real trouble is that it will dry up the supply of tenanted farms. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, shakes his head and he has said that he has produced statistics to prove that this is not so. Those statistics will have to be considered, but I do not believe one can produce statistics to show what will happen in the future as a result of a Bill which we are now discussing. He says that there is a 72 per cent. chalice of a tenancy ending without the death of a tenant. Possibly that has been so, because very likely the father has retired in order to give way to his son. Therefore, as a statistic that counts as a retirement and not as a death: but that is not the same as statistics giving the continuation of tenancies.
But whether or not one believes that this Bill will dry up the supply of land for hire, I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would concede this point; at least it is a real possibility. This Amendment seeks to do something totally different. It is not in favour of the tenant. It is not in favour of the landlord. It is produced in order to provide something totally new; that is, a short-term fixed contract for a tenancy agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that, if you take out any form of tenancy, there must be equality. There is equality here. Nobody need take out a tenancy if he does not know what he is going to enter into. He is entering into an agreement for 25 years, in the same way that a person may take the lease of a house for a period of time; he knows the starting point, he knows the finishing point, and the reason why that is done is —
Lord MELCHETT: And in the same way as people may go to a chemist's shop to buy some arsenic, because they know perfectly well what will happen to them if they swallow it.
Earl FERRERS: I think that is one of the most extraordinary arguments I have heard. The noble Lord referred to businesses; he knows perfectly well that the very fundament of any agreement is the contract. Ali we are saying here is that we are not undermining the Bill by producing this. We are giving something else which might help to continue the landlord and tenant system to which he and his right honourable friend have given their support. So far as I know there is not one person in this Chamber who has disagreed with the principle of the landlord and tenant system or who has said that it has not been of great advantage to British agriculture. Our real tear—not shared, I accept, by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett— is that this Bill will dry it up. Therefore, as a constructive Amendment we are saying why not put this in, so that when a tenancy comes up, in view of the fact that some landlords may not be prepared to let a farm go for 60 or 70 years, and therefore no young farmers will be able to get any land, why not have something totally separate: namely, an open contract between the landlord and the new tenant so that the tenant can take the land for
25 years. I suggest that at least that should be considered.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford put it delicately. He said that this Bill disturbed the balance of the landlord and tenant system. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was stronger in his remarks; he said that it was a radical change. I agree, but if there is to be a radical change incorporated in the middle, then he cannot suggest, with respect, that the statistics which he has provided which refer to the past will therefore continue into the future. He said that one radical change is enough and that this kind of thing would be much better left for an overall review. It has always been our contention that before producing a radical alteration one should have had an overall review of the landlord and tenant system and, having had it, one should then produce the Bill if that is the conclusion that is arrived at. But if you are going to produce a radical alteration

1431
and then, when an Amendment is tabled to try to counteract what we believe to be one of the serious drawbacks of the Bill, say that it is a second radical alteration and therefore should not be incorporated, in my view it is wrong.
I do not say that this is necessarily the kind of thing which would have been done, and it certainly should not have been done, without a full-scale review. But in view of the fact that the Bill has been produced without a full-scale review of the landlord and tenant system, I suggest to the noble Lord that he ought to consider bringing in this Amendment as an alternative to be offered to aspiring tenants in order to ensure that the landlord and tenant system continues.
5.46 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON: In order to help noble Lords to make up their minds about this and with the permission of the Committee perhaps I may deal with some of the points which have been raised. It has been said, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, that the landlords would only grant new tenancies under this clause if it were passed. I think that is very likely and it would be far better for aspiring tenants than no lettings at all. I believe the noble Lord referred to first- and second-class tenants. If by first-class tenants he means tenants under the existing 1948 arrangements, of course they will fade out in course of time, due to these measures alone. Without the creation of fixed-term tenancies there just will not be any tenancies. This Amendment would ensure the continuation of lettings. You may call them second-class lettings if you like, but they will be lettings.
I will now deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. He said he was not clear why landlords would not continue to let. I think that point has been adequately dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I know that the clarity of my diction leaves a great deal to be desired but I certainly referred to it at some length on Second Reading. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to refer to columns 979 and 980 in the House of Lords Official Report of last Monday, when I reiterated my fears in moving an earlier Amendment.
1432
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to the CLA survey. May I first remind him that the survey was done before Part II was put into this Bill. He said that in 72 per cent. of the cases the question of family succession in terms of this Bill would not have arisen anyway. Although the survey showed that only 28 per cent. of the tenancies ended as a result of the death of the tenant it also showed that in an additional 98 cases, that is 11·6 per cent. of the total, the tenancy was relet to a near relative of the previous tenant. This was presumably on retirement and would also come within the scope of the Bill. In an additional 53 cases although a tenancy had not ended, a near relative was brought into the tenancy agreement with an existing tenant. These cases could also be influenced by the Bill and I venture to think that the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, is wrong to conclude that because in the past 72 per cent. of the tenants left the farm before death they would be willing to do so in future.
Lord MELCHETT: Just to make it clear, I would point out that I also gave the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has just read out, and if he refers to Hansard he will see that that was the case.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am grateful for that correction: I will certainly look at Hansard; perhaps I was not completely attending at that moment. I think the main point is that the survey was done before these measures were thought of. The noble Lord referred to Scotland: when earlier clauses were debated on Monday we had some interesting contributions from noble Lords with experience of the present state of the landlord and tenant system in Scotland, notably the information that was given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl.
It is quite clear that the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has quoted again, given by the Scottish Department of Agriculture, are not by themselves sufficient to judge the present trend. I have seen a letter to the Department of Agriculture in Scotland and they admit that there is a long-established decline. I think that the opinions and

1433
forecasts of noble Lords with hard practical experience of the system in Scotland are of more value than figures which merely show what we all know. There is a decline of lettings, but it is slow to take effect. I think that it is to be expected in an industry where, happily, the turnover (if one might call it that) of tenants is at a low rate. I think the advice we have had from Scottish Peers is quite clear, that given this kind of legislation we must expect a decline in lettings in England and Wales in due course.
The other point the noble Lord made was that it would seriously erode security of tenure. That is just what we are saying that Part II of the Bill does in the long term. It may achieve short-term security, but in the long term the effects will be such that the ability of people without capital to farm will be severely limited. When talking about security of tenure, I must refer to the kind of arrangements and devices already being undertaken in Scotland, and which will undoubtedly happen here.
The kind of arrangements I can envisage are partnerships and farming companies where the farmer has a 49 per cent. share interest in the company. In these cases there is no security of tenure whatever (if we may call him a tenant) for the farmer. In the case of a partnership, it could he dissolved at almost a moment's notice, and a farming company could be wound up very quickly. If we envisage these kinds of arrangements and devices succeeding in the present form of tenancies, there the farmers are being faced with a situation of much worse security for the future.
The noble Lord said there would be no strong financial incentive to farm well
1434
under a fixed-term tenancy. I think the financial incentive to farm well will be very strong, as it is now, and I do not see that that would possibly be eroded in any way. The noble Lord said that if we divide on this, we should be making another radical change in the landlord and tenant system. My noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to this. We have a radical change in Part II of the Bill. If you are going to put in one radical change, I see no strength in the argument which suggests that you must not put in another in order to try to redress the balance. With regard to England and Wales, I do not see much value in that argument, because this Bill by itself is an argument that you can legislate for England and Wales, without Scotland. I think I have spoken quite long enough in reply.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My noble friend has not told me why he has chosen 25 years. If he chose, say, retirement, I would feel much happier. Why has he chosen 25 years?
Lord MIDDLETON: I think this was the best kind of arrangement whereby a young man has a good farming future ahead of him. It gives him virtually a generation of farming. I feel very strongly that this Amendment would he good for agriculture and that it would help to sustain the landlord and tenant system. We must ask noble Lords to make their decision.
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 68; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ferrers, E.

Auckland, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gisborough, L.

Balerno, L,

Daventry, V.

Goschen, V.

Banks, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Boothby, L.

Dormer, L.

L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Elles, B.

Hanworth, V.

Burton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Caithness, E.

Elton, L.

Hawke, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Henley, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Exeter, M.

Hylton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Falkland, V.

Hylton-Foster, B

Craigavon, V.

Falmouth, V.

Ironside, L.

1435

Long, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Loudoun, C.

O'Hagan, L.

Spens, L.

Mancroft, L.

Onslow, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Marley, L.

Powls, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Merrivale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathspey, L.

Middleton, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Tenby, V.

Monck, V.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Morris, L.

Sandford, L.

Vivian, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Sandys, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Moyne, L.

Semphill, Ly.

Wigoder, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

Annan, L.

Henderson, L.

Platt, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jacobson, L.

Shepherd, L. (L.Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shinwell, L.

Brimelow, L.

Leatherland.L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.[Teller.]

Cole, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Mais, L,

Strabolgi, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Melchelt, L.

Wigg, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L Chancellor.)

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Pannell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.3 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 23 insert the following new clause:
Covenant against assignment etc. in written agreements.
In the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (which specifies matters for which provision is to be made by arbitrators in written tenancy agreements) there shall be inserted:—
"10 A covenant by the tenant not to assign, sub-let or part with possession of the whole or any part of the holding or of the tenancy."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to correct certain anomalies that could arise. Before the war large numbers of tenancies were verbal and consequently no prohibition on assignment was included. There are still quite a few of these tenancies in existence. Lack of non-assignment clause was in those days almost certainly intentional. The fiscal disadvantages of farming were fairly widespread in the slump, and landlords were on the whole extremely keen to find tenants. It was in the interests of everybody that there should be the maximum number of tenant farmers. Above all, of course, there was no security of tenure until the 1948 Act. Section 24(2)(g) of the 1948 Act is being redrafted in this Bill so that tenancies do not end on the death of the assignor but with the death of the assignee. Thus, if this Amendment is not
1436
included, it is quite possible that the inheritance clauses can be bypassed provided that the assignment is done prior to the sitting tenant's death.
The fairness of this Amendment is recognised by Clause 22(4) of the Bill which in effect writes such a prohibition to assignment into any tenancy arising out of a direction by the Tribunal. This Amendment will enable the landlord in the case of any assignability remaining in leases to go to the Tribunal and ask them to put in a covenant against assignability. They will almost certainly have to. The Agricultural Law Association, which, as your Lordships know, is completely unbiased in this matter, is in favour of an Amendment on these lines. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I entirely agree that where a lease does not contain a non-assignment clause, or where, for example, there is an oral lease, it would he possible for a tenant who is getting on in life, or maybe on his or her deathbed, to assign the tenancy to somebody else. This has always been so, although I have no idea how many cases there have been. Certainly none has been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture, so it is difficult to know whether we are dealing with a real or theoretical problem.
So far as the family succession scheme is concerned, we have recognised that in instances where a lease does not contain a non-assignment clause, it would be possible for a successor to the tenancy to assign his tenancy to someone else.

1437
This could occur before the landlord can refer the terms of the new tenancy to arbitration under Clause 23. The landlord has three months in which to do so. Subsection (4) of Clause 22 therefore provides that the new tenant cannot assign, sublet, or part with possession of the holding or any part of the holding without the landlord's consent in writing. Where succession takes place, therefore, and the old lease does not contain a restriction on assignment, the landlord's position will be protected and the landlord will be able to correct this omission in the new lease.
The position is less straightforward where a deathbed or earlier assignment takes place. This would have nothing to do with the family succession scheme as such. The Agricultural Law Association have pointed out in a memorandum to my right honourable friend that there will be a side effect to Clause 16, which now makes the notice to quit on death apply on the death of the occupier, who may he an assignee, rather than on the death of the original tenant. This side effect will be that the benefit of the new succession clause will pass, if there is a series of assignments, to the family of the last assignee completely outside of the family succession provisions. That clearly is an unintended effect of the family succession scheme, and I should
like to be able to consult on the narrow point further with the NFU and the CLA. I am certainly very grateful to the noble Earl and the Agricultural Law Association for drawing this point to our attention.
Lord SANDYS:I should like to support this Amendment and at the same time welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said. It of course refers back also to Amendment No. 3, on which I think the noble Lord made a slight error in his reply; we naturally would be very happy to give him an opportunity of correcting anything he said on that occasion at a later stage. I said in regard to Amendment No. 3, which referred to Clause 17—that was the " sole (or sole surviving) tenant "—that we would be returning to it on Report, and I shall be very happy to do so. In regard to the covenant, I am wholly in support of what my noble friend Lord Onslow has said. I believe
1438
this would be a beneficial alteration to the 1948 Act.
The Earl of ONSLOW: All I can say is that I thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, very much, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 23 insert the following new clause:
" Provision Jar fixed term tenancies
—(1) Notwithstanding any previous enactment a landlord and tenant may enter into a fixed term tenancy for not less than 25 years if—
(a) at the commencement of the term the landlord takes out a life endowment assurance policy upon the life of the tenant; and
(b) the premium of the said assurance is 20 per cent. of the annual rent payable by the tenant to the landlord.
(2) Where the tenant dies during the currency of the fixed term, the successors of the tenant as defined by section 17(1) above, may—
(a) claim the benefit or the relative part thereof of the life assurance on the deceased tenant; or
(b) continue to farm until the expiry of the fixed term.
(3) Where the successors of the tenant claim benefit in pursuance of subsection (2)(a) above, the tenancy shall be terminated.
(4) Where the successors of the tenant continue farming in pursuance of subsection (2)(b) above, the tenancy shall continue until the fixed date of expiry, upon which the successors may claim the benefit of the life assurance from the Insurance Company with whom the policy was effected.
(5) Where the tenant survives the fixed term on the expiry of the term he may claim the benefit of the life assurance and the tenancy shall be terminated.
(6) Where the tenant wishes to retire during the currency of the fixed term, he may claim the benefit, or the relative part thereof, of the life assurance, and the tenancy shall he terminated.
(7) In the event of a Receiving Order in Bankruptcy being made against the tenant, the tenancy shall he terminated and the tenant or his Trustee in Bankruptcy may claim the benefit, or the relative part, thereof, of the life assurance.
(8) Notwithstanding any previous enactment relating to the assignability of an agricultural holding the tenancy created by virtue of this section cannot he assigned by the tenant, or on the death of the tenant by his successors, during the currency of the fixed term.
(9) On termination of The tenancy by any of the events specified in subsections (2) to (7) above—
(a) the landlord will pay compensation for improvements (for which compensation is payable) made by the tenant or his successors
during the currency of the term;

1439
(b) the landlord will be entitled to compensation against his outgoing tenant in respect of dilapidations and deterioration and any other damage caused to the holding or anything on it.
(10) The landlord may serve notice to quit in the event of bad husbandry or failure to pay rent.
(11) No premium shall be paid for a tenancy granted pursuant to this section.
(12) The rent shall remain fixed throughout the duration of the term.
(13) There shall be no obligation on the landlord to provide capital improvements."
The noble Earl said: I come back to the subject of fixed tenancies, with no great apology. We heard the advantage of them when we were discussing them just now. I have put down this new clause solely as an idea for discussion and debate and to be looked at. The scheme put forward in this clause seems to me to have some advantages, for in a novel way, it channels outside funds into agriculture, and I shall elucidate on that later. Secondly, it overcomes any hardship element on the death of the tenant, and so obviates the need to activate Clause 17, et cetera, of this Bill. Consequently it, or some such scheme like it, could really go as an item of choice. I realise that it is improperly drafted. I also realise that a completely new system of land tenure should not be dragged into an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, but we have had this argument on and off now since Second Reading and right through to the end of Committee stage.
I move this Amendment just to test people's opinions, and to hear what Her Majesty's Government have to say, to see whether they can improve on it, and whether they think it is totally impractical. It might be useful if I pointed out its disadvantages, albeit an odd thing for the mover of an Amendment to do. First, the landlord has no insurable interest in the life of a tenant. This, I am sure, could be changed by legislation if it were so required. There are some landlords who might be chary of letting at fixed rents even if this system was introduced. A fixed rent at the start of a tenancy would almost certainly be higher in anticipation of inflation than a rent that could go up at three-year periods. The second disadvantage is that it would go against the tradition of the partnership between the landlord and the tenant
1440
which has been such a beneficial factor to British agriculture. This latter point would put the landlord in the rentier class, with all the disadvantages and disapprovals which that entails.
Let us, however, look at the other side, the advantages. The tenant would be financially secure. He could borrow against his life insurance for capital improvements and investment, and so on and so forth. This is where the money from outside sources would come in. He would have a good start with a collateral to borrow on. British agriculture is still as efficient as anyone else's, probably because it has invested so much, and it must go on investing in the new and most up-to-date methods. This is a very expensive amusement. Above all, the system would enable the tenant to have no worries about his relatives in the event of his death or retirement.
The disadvantages of the tenant not wanting to put in capital towards the end of the tenancy are provided for in that the tenant would get the financial benefit of the new investment, safe in the knowledge that he would be reimbursed for the written-down value of that investment when the tenancy came to an end. His wife or children would similarly be protected if he died. The landlord would be safe in the knowledge that his property was being well looked after, and that at the end of the tenancy the property would have had, throughout that tenancy, the requisite investment to keep it up to modern conditions. Also, because the tenant had not been tempted to stop investing towards the latter part of the tenancy, it would still be kept up in good order. This idea has advantages, as I have tried to point out, but to me the overriding one is that a tenant can retire at 65, or thereabouts, with a nice capital sum so that his retirement would be free or should be free, of any financial worries as would his dependants. I beg to move.
6.14 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: Although it is now late in the third day of a Committee stage on a miscellaneous Bill, this Amendment should not be passed over lightly. In my opinion, it puts forward a new concept in agriculture which, as I have said, is gaining favour with professional advisers, and I believe will

1441
find increasing favour. My comments on Amendment No. 28 are equally applicable in this instance, but I hope your Lordships will bear with me while I comment on some of the details in so far as they differ from the previous Amendment, No. 28.
The first point is life assurances. At the moment, as the noble Earl has said, there is no insurable interest between a landlord and tenant, but I feel provisions should be made to allow for this, or for the insurance for the fixed terms, which would be even better and more useful. There will then he no grounds for complaints of hardship as monetary compensation would he payable in accordance with subsections (2), (4), (5), and (6), Over and above this advantage there is the very useful one whereby a tenant could draw monies against the policy to help finance certain operations on the holding. on the clear understanding of the effects on the policy. This could be of immense value to the successor if he took over during the middle of the term.
On the question of premiums. I would support the payment of the first premium in equal proportions. The landlord/tenant system is a partnership, with the owner providing the investment expertise and financial backing and the tenant providing the working capital and professional farming knowledge. This is a proven system and I feel that it would strengthen the relationship if both sides were to make a contribution in equal proportions. If, as time progressed. the tenant wished to add to the fund, then he would be entitled to do so without incurring a landlord's payment.
I now move on to notices to quit. Provision is very properly made for the termination of the lease for bankruptcy, bad husbandry, and, in certain circumstances. death. There is no mention of the other instances covered by Section 24(2) of the 1948 Act. I should like to see the clause enlarged to encompass paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of that section of that Act. On the proposal for rent to be fixed for the entirety of the term, quite apart from being totally impracticable, I doubt very much whether it is in the interests of either of the parties to the tenancy agreement. In my view professional advisers would almost certainly advise potential lessors against entering
1442
into such a commitment, and thus the main objective of realising more land to let would be totally frustrated. We cannot, in these times, even with the ever-increasing battery of Government statisticians, forecast costs and values 12 months ahead. let alone 27 years.
It would again in my view be quite inequitable to fix such a fundamental business cost as rent while the other landlords' and tenants' costs are permitted to fluctuate according to the circumstances at the time. Even in the sphere of commercial building rents review periods are decreasing. The agricultural industry has, since 1948, incorporated its own counter-inflation code in the 3-yearly rent review restriction. This was progressive in 1948, and I submit is still right today. There is nothing magical about the term of 25 years, and 21 might be more appropriate, with the notice to quit being served at least a year before the end of the term. As I said. the agricultural industry was progressive in 1948. and Would be enterprising to accept the new dimension and idea put forward in this Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for tabling it, and giving us the opportunity of discussing it, and although I might disagree on some points of detail I support the Amendment.
6.19 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: This is an interesting variation on the theme that we have been discussing at some length already this evening, and I know that the noble Earl will understand if I do not spend too much of your Lordships' time in replying to the points he has made. To begin with, I should like to make two general points. The noble Earl said that he accepted that this introduced a new system of tenure, but that that argument had already been dealt with. What I said, so far as the family succession scheme in the Bill was concerned, was that it made a radical change to the framework in which landlords and tenants operate. I do not think for a moment that it introduces a new system of tenure. Some may wish that we had introduced a new system of tenure; that we had altered the structure of ownership of land in this country and gone a great deal further in that way than we have, but we have not. All that we have done, as I have said several times, is ensure that all landlords

1443
behave as all good landlords already behave and I do not think that that is making a radical change in the system, to the extent at least that introducing a new system of tenure would be doing.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke of the landlord and tenant system being a partnership. I would have agreed with that—a partnership seems to me to involve something which is fair and equal on both sides—had it not been for the Amendment which noble Lords opposite saw fit to press, an Amendment introducing a fixed-term tenancy where, at the end of what is alleged to be a partnership, one partner can boot the other out without even having to give a reason for doing so, which does not seem to me to be much of a partnership. There is another general point I would make, and this seems to me to be the most important point which the Amendment would introduce; the concept of retirement and provision for retirement of the tenant. As I said when speaking to the previous Amendment which touched on this point, I had some sympathy for it. I confessed that I would have more sympathy for it if there were a little equality between the two partners. Nobody has suggested in the discussion of the Bill, for example, that landlords should retire at 65. There are some who I know would feel that while people should be able to retire at 65 if they wish, it should not necessarily be made compulsory for them to retire.
The innovation in the proposed new clause, as I say, is the provision for the tenant at the expiry of the term, or his successors if he dies during the term's currency, to claim the benefit of the life assurance which the landlord would be required to take out for the tenant. I accept that the noble Earl's intention is to provide an incentive to landlords to let their land and to ensure that the tenant, or his relatives if he dies during the tenancy, have something to live on when the holding reverts to the landlord. I confess that my general objections to the previous Amendment which was pressed apply to this one and I do not think that this is the time to consider the re-introduction of fixed-term tenancies which would completely escape the security of tenure provisions of the agriculture holdings legislation. But, assuming that the principle of fixed-term tenancies were to be accepted, the noble
1444
Earl's proposal for some financial recompense to the tenant on quitting the holding and to his successors is, as I say, attractive at first sight. However, it is always open to the tenant to provide for his own retirement and for his relatives when lie dies by means of an insurance policy to suit his own particular circumstances and it is not clear that the proposed scheme would necessarily work to the tenant's advantage.
I think it is reasonable to suppose that no landlord would be willing to pay the insurance premiums of 20 per cent. of the rent unless the rent were pitched high enough to allow for this. In other words, the tenant would have to pay the cost of the premiums, otherwise the premiums would eat into, and possibly in time overtake, the return which the landlord gets from his investment in the land after he has met the landlord's costs of maintenance and so on. Furthermore, if the tenant is to get a lump sum which is worth while in real terms, the premiums would have to be sufficient to take account of future inflation. I do not believe that it would be practicable at the commencement of the term, when the rent is to be fixed, to look 25 or more years ahead so as to cover all these situations. Furthermore, any future changes in tax law might have serious implications for such an arrangement.
This is not really a landlord and tenant matter, and in my view it would be best to leave the tenant to make his or her own arrangements for the future. As I say, besides that comment on the particular novel feature of the Amendment, I confess that my over-riding objections to a fixed-term tenancy which would avoid the safeguarding provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act still remains firmly where it was when we were discussing the previous Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW:I am slightly disappointed at the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Not that I really expected him to look at the matter with any great sympathy, but I thought that he might just like to take the matter away and think about it. It is only an idea and I should not dream of expecting the chap who drafted the proposed new clause, who is only about 22 and a law student and who has done very well, to write Acts of Parliament. The Amendment was put forward as an idea so that we might look

1445
at the problem to enable us to get round any hardship case
Lord Melchett made two points. He said that the rent would have to be high; but in this case the landlord would not have to put in the landlord's capital, which would involve the landlord becoming a render as opposed to it being a partnership. But I do not think the noble Lord quite understood that. He also said that the premium could not be fixed 25 years ahead, but I would remind him that this is done every day of the week, several times every day by several different life assurance companies all over the country. Secondly, he said that to make it a worthwhile sum it would have to be a very big rent. Let us assume that a man is renting a farm of, say, 250 acres and the rent is £20 an acre, which is about average for farms at this time. Twenty per cent. of that would be £4.
Several noble Lords: Oh?
The Earl of ONSLOW: I always get into trouble when I do mental arithmetic on my feet; £4 times 300 is £1,200 a year, which is an extremely good life insurance premium and one would get quite a good sum in return if that were invested properly on a with-profits basis, so in my view the two objections which the noble Lord put forward are not well founded. However, I would not dream of pressing the Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

ARMED FORCES BILL NEW TOWNS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE (PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1*", to be printed, and referred to the Examiners
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.

POLICE BILL
6.30 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It deals with an issue which has been the subject of considerable discussion over a long period of time. Its central purpose is to introduce an independent element into the present procedures of the handling of complaints by members of the public against police officers.
I believe that it would probably be helpful if I were first of all to discuss the background to the proposals now before the House. The complaints issue was, of course, one of the many important matters before the Royal Commission on the Police in 1959. The Commission concluded that the police dealt with complaints thoroughly and impartially but it proposed certain improvements in the system. The result of those changes was the procedure which is currently followed and which will, to a very large extent, continue to he followed when the new scheme comes into operation. There was, however, still pressure from many quarters for the introduction of an independent element and in 1972 the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration recommended that a lay element should be introduced into enquiries into complaints against the police.
A Private Member's Bill to give effect to that recommendation was introduced in another place. In discussion on that Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, who was then Home Secretary, announced his intention to reconsider the whole question of complaints against the police and the Bill was withdrawn. A Working Group was then set up, including representatives of the Home Office, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police and police authority representative bodies. It considered a number of representations and suggestions. In its report (published in March 1974), the working group did not reach any agreed conclusions, but set out the various proposals it had studied and the considerations relevant to any decision on the procedure for handling complaints.
That report was considered very carefully by the present Government—who had just conic into office—particularly as regards the proposal for an ex post facto

1447
review, which was favoured by some members of the working group. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, when Home Secretary, had himself expressed a preference for some form of ex post facto review. But the present Government came to a different conclusion. It seemed to us that an effective independent element, commanding public confidence, must be brought into operation while a complaint is being dealt with. It is not sufficient merely to have some kind of inquest after the event. Such an inquest would not alter the outcome in any way so far as action taken by the chief constable was concerned. On the other hand, if it is to be argued—and some have argued this—that such a review should alter the outcome, the result would be double jeopardy for the police officer concerned. There are very large numbers of people, not only within the police service, who feel strongly that double jeopardy must be avoided. Indeed, one was the noble Lord, Lord Carr. In other words, after a final decision had been reached on the case by the chief officer, and the police officer concerned had been told that disciplinary proceedings were or were not to be taken against him, the matter could be reopened and the officer would be put in suspense once more. For these reasons, the Government do not consider any of the various ex post facto schemes that have been put forward as at all satisfactory.
If there are any lingering doubts on this issue. I recommend your Lordships to read paragraph 42 of the Working Group's report, which points out some of the consequences even under one of the more moderate ex post facto schemes. As I said, notwithstanding the contents of paragraph 42, many of those on the working group were in favour of an ex post facto review but they pointed out in paragraph 42 that one of the drawbacks of this type of scheme would be that a cloud could hang over the reputation of a police officer who had been complained against and that he would have no redress whatever because all the review would achieve would be a conclusion that there had been some mishandling of the procedure of the investigation. There would be a report to that effect and a rather ugly suggestion could be made that a police officer who had already been cleared was in some way guilty. At that stage, he would have no opportunity to take action to
1448
clear his name. That is one of the reasons why we have come down against all the various forms of ex post facto review. Another is that I do not believe that such a scheme would satisfy public opinion. In my view, it would satisfy neither the interests of the police service nor those of the complainant.
In those circumstances, I think it right to come now to the Government's proposals. The scheme which we have devised and which is contained in this Bill not only comes into play before a final decision is taken on a complaints case, but is carefully designed so as to avoid double jeopardy for the police officer concerned. In devising the scheme, we have also been careful to observe our central principle that the initial investigation of complaints must remain in the hands of the police themselves. The police alone, in our view, have the necessary skill and expertise for the task of investigating complaints.
We have also sought to maintain the position of police authorities who have an existing statutory responsibility to keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints are dealt with in their area. Some have taken the view that police authorities should themselves constitute, or be a large part of the independent element under our scheme. However, in our view, the functions of police authorities are not compatible with the kind of functions which it is suggested the proposed Police Complaints Board should perform. It has indeed been a long accepted principle that police authorities should not be involved in individual discipline cases (except those of the most senior officers) and I am sure we are right to maintain that principle. The new scheme will provide an independent element in the handling of the disciplinary aspects of complaints by members of the public against the police. It does not indicate that the Government believe that the police at present deal with complaints other than thoroughly. It does, however, recognise that there is unease—and this was explicitly recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, when he was Home Secretary—that the disciplinary aspects of the present system are largely in the hands of the police themselves.
I turn now to the details of the scheme. At present, when a complaint is received from a member of the public, it must, under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964, be recorded and an investigating officer

1449
must be appointed. When the investigating officer has completed his inquiries, he makes a report which is usually considered by the deputy chief officer of the force concerned. Unless the deputy chief officer is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed by the officer concerned, he must refer the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his decision whether or not criminal proceedings should be brought against the officer. Subject to this, the deputy chief officer considers whether the investigation has revealed disciplinary offences. Charges for such offences may then be preferred and dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Police Discipline Regulations.
The new procedure which we propose begins after all the requirements of Section 49 regarding the recording and investigation of the complaint have been complied with, and after any reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director's rÔle is thus not affected by the new scheme. Under the scheme. an independent statutory body—the Police Complaints Board—will be established. It has been agreed. after much discussion in another place. that their members. who will be both full and part-time, should be appointed by the Prime Minister. The Board will be concerned only with complaints which have been dealt with under Section 49 of the 1964 Act and have not been withdrawn and only with complaints against officers below the rank of assistant chief officer. The Board have no locus in relation to other matters of internal police discipline, nor in relation to the criminal, as opposed to the disciplinary, aspects of complaints.
When the deputy chief constable receives the report of an investigation into a complaint under Section 49, he will be required, subject to any necessary reference to the Director, to send to the Board a copy of the complaint and of the investigating officer's report. To these he will add his opinion of the merits of the complaint and indicate whether or not he has brought disciplinary charges. If the Board agree with the decision not to prefer disciplinary charges they will tell the complainant so, and the officer concerned will be told by the deputy chief constable. If they disagree, they will recommend to the deputy chief constable the charges which they think should be
1450
brought. If he does not accept the recommendation, they may in the last resort direct that the charges be brought nevertheless. They will, however, be obliged to consult the chief officer before doing so, and I should expect that in the vast majority of cases any difference between the Board and the deputy chief constable will he resolved by discussion.
Where the deputy chief constable has preferred disciplinary charges and the officer does not admit the charges, the Board will decide whether the case is so exceptional that it should he heard by a disciplinary tribunal. This tribunal would consist of the chief officer of the force concerned, sitting with two members of the Board who have not been previously concerned with the case, and in a case where the Board have directed that charges be brought, a tribunal w ill always be held unless the officer admits the charges. But the overwhelming majority of disciplinary cases will in future he heard exactly as they are now, with the chief officer sitting alone and coming to a conclusion on the facts, and where he finds the case proved, determining punishment. When a tribunal sits, the three members will decide on the issue of guilt or innocence, but the chief officer alone will determine the punishment. This procedure will ensure that the chief officer will continue to be seen as the source of discipline for his force.
There are certain exceptions to this scheme. As I have already indicated, complaints against senior officers will continue to be heard by police authorities, and complaints which have been withdrawn will not go to the Board. Nor will the Board have any functions in relation to cases where disciplinary charges have been preferred, and the officer concerned admits them. The sole question then to be determined is that of punishment which, as I have said, is exclusively a matter for the chief officer. But the Board will receive certain information about such cases in due course when they are completed.
I mentioned earlier that there had been a number of Amendments to the Bill in another place. These have resulted in improvements to the detail of the new procedures, but the only substantive addition to the scheme, as I have outlined it, is that the Board will have a power to make a special report to the Home

1451
Secretary on any matters coming to their notice which they consider should be brought to his attention because of their gravity or of other exceptional circumstances. The Board will be required to send a copy of any such report to the chief officer and the police authority concerned.
I turn now to describe briefly the detailed provisions of the Bill itself. Clause I sets up the Police Complaints Board with at least nine members, full or part-time, appointed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Clause 2 provides for the reference of cases to the Board. This is subject tothe provisions of Clause5, which make it clear that reference to the Board comes only after any reference to. and decision by. the Director of Public Prosecutions on the question of criminal proceedings. Subsection (1) deals with the submission of cases to the Board by the chief officer. Subsection (2) provides for the three exclusions from the requirement to refer cases to the Board. I have already dealt with these in some detail.
The Board's powers in relation to cases referred to them are set out in Clause 3. In this connection they will he able to request the police to provide them with such additional information as they may reasonably require. As I explained earlier, the Board will he able to recommend. and, in the last resort, direct that disciplinary charges he brought in cases where none have been preferred and they disagree with this decision. The Board must consult the chief officer before giving a direction to bring charges and they must give written reasons for the direction. In determining whether to recommend the bringing of charges. the Board will be required to have regard to guidance, parallel to that given at present to chief officers, in regard to the bringing of charges where a case has both criminal and disciplinary aspects. This is to avoid the officer concerned being put at risk twice for the same offence. The detailed provisions for disciplinary tribunals arc set out in Clause 4.
Clause 5, which is a new clause added in another place, relates to complaints that may involve criminal proceedings. The first part of the clause contains the provision making it clear that such a case will not be referred to the Board until after the Director has reached his decision. At the
1452
same time, we have sought to meet a point which was made to us during discussion of the Board's functions under Clause 3. This was that information might become available to the Board which was relevant to the question whether a criminal offence had been committed but had not been put to the Director. We agreed to include specific provision allowing the Board to request the chief officer to pass on to the Director any information which appeared to be relevant to the question of criminal proceedings, but not to have been seen by the Director.
Clause 6 contains the regulation-making powers of the Bill relating to complaints. These will allow provision to be made for aspects of the scheme which are not covered in the Bill itself. Clause 7 allows for arrangements to be made between the Board and authorities, other than police authorities, which maintain bodies of constables. We had originally envisaged an entirely voluntary provision. However, it became clear that there was strong feeling in another place that more was needed. We have accordingly introduced a default provision—it is in subsection (2) of the clause—under which, if no arrangements have been made in respect of a particular force within 12 months, the Secretary of State may make such arrangements by order. We intend at the Committee stage in this House to table an Amendment to reduce this period to six months. This is in line with an undertaking which we gave to the friends of the noble and learned Lord in another place.
Clause 8 makes provision for reports by the Board. These are of three kinds. First, the Board will be required to report to the Secretary of State on any matters relating to complaints which he asks them about. Secondly as I have indicated, the Board will be able to report to him on any grave matters which they think should be brought to his notice. Thirdly, there will be a regular annual report by the Board. A copy of this will be sent to each police authority, supplemented by any statistical or general information relating to their particular area which the Board think should be brought to their notice. The Board will also be under a duty to keep the working of the new scheme under review and to report on it to the Secretary of State at least once

1453
every three years. Clause 9 makes disclosure of information by members or staff of the Board a criminal offence, with certain specified exceptions.
Part II of the Bill contains amendments to the existing disciplinary provisions. Clause 10 relates to the power of the Secretary of State to make discipline regulations under Section 33 of the Police Act 1964, and in particular, it makes new provision for the hearing of charges in certain circumstances by a chief officer from another force. Clause 11 deals with a particular aspect of the problem of double jeopardy, which I referred to earlier.
The last substantive provision of the Bill is Clause 12 which deals with appeals. It gives effect to a change of policy which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced last July when he put forward the new complaints scheme. He intends in particular to exercise more frequently his power to appoint one or more persons to hold an inquiry into an appeal. The clause modifies the existing appeal provisions to allow for this, generally to give more flexibility, and also to take account of appeals from the disciplinary tribunals to be set up under the Bill. At the same time we have taken the opportunity to remove the power of the Home Secretary to increase punishment on appeal. In practice this power has not been exercised for a very long time.
As noble Lords will no doubt he aware, this Bill has had a protracted examination in another place. During that time various alternative schemes were proposed and were exhaustively examined. There was the proposal, as I indicated a few moments ago, that local authorities should operate as the independent element. I think this was a profoundly unsatisfactory idea. It was greeted with no enthusiasm from the police organisations concerned, and I do not think it would in any way have reassured public opinion. Police authorities have an important and valuable public duty to serve, but it does not lie in this direction. Secondly, there was the Ombudsman idea; that is to say, an ex post facto review brought into play at the initiative of the complainant. I have spoken a little about this in my speech this afternoon, and we shall no doubt go into it in more detail in Committee, but for the reasons I have outlined
1454
the Government are not attracted by this formula. There were also suggestions in another place for involving the Board in police investigations into the complaint.
As I have indicated, in the end none of these alternatives was accepted in preference to the Government's scheme, not least because they did not commend themselves to those, particularly in the Police Service, who will have to make the new scheme work. I would suggest to the House that the time has now come to bring this lengthy public debate to an end, and to bring an end, too, to the current uncertainty. In that spirit I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
6.52 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am sure the House would wish me to begin by thanking the noble Lord for his lucid and compendious exposition of the Bill, for which we are grateful; and if I myself should be perhaps a good deal less lucid, and conceivably a little less compendious, I hope the House will hear with me, having two factors in mind. The first is that police discipline has never been a speciality of my own; and, secondly, that I have been sitting judicially in another capacity in Whitehall almost continuously for the last three or four days. I should also like to apologise if my preliminary reaction to the Bill is rather more harsh and adverse than I could have wished, and I hasten to say that if that is so it is not because I wish to score any Party points over the Government, because I regard this as a field which is singularly inappropriate for Party warfare. Nor is it designed to score any personal points over the Home Secretary or his representative in this House. Both are known to me personally—the Home Secretary for many years—and both are persons for whom I have a very great deal of personal regard and liking. But, having said that, I end with an adverse judgment on this Bill.
Of course, the thing has to he seen against the background of something which I have said before: the enormous increase in legislation which we see year after year passing through the Parliament of this country. I remember the pleasant little

1455
debate that we had quite recently on the Statute Law Revision Bill, in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, took some credit for the fact—and for good reason—that under his régime, as indeed under mine and under the régime of the present Lord Chancellor, there were numerically fewer Statutes on the Statute Book in each case than the number we had inherited from our predecessors, so that it looked at first sight as if we were reducing the volume of legislation with which the unfortunate profession and the unfortunate public has to deal. But I am afraid this is a specious view, excellent as the work of the Statute Law Revision Committee has been, because, side by side with the reduction in the number of Statutes, the pages and pages of additional Statute Law with which we are confronted has continued to increase, flowing through Parliament as if it were a cloaca maxima. One therefore has to start with a slight prejudice against legislation. Is this Bill really necessary
Now certainly, despite the noble Lord's encomium, it has hardly been received with a chorus of approval from any quarter: but, rather characteristically, despite the unpopularity of their measure, the unpopularity has not deterred Ministers, and they have carried through the Bill with minor Amendments, but rejecting all the major Amendments which were proposed in another place, rather as if this was a main Government measure to protect the pound and get us out of our economic difficulties, which the noble Lord has not claimed for it yet. Your Lordships will be aware what the Association of County Councils have said about it. They have said:
" The Association have little confidence in the scheme as it now stands. The proposals are cumbersome, expensive and could damage police morale."
Moreover, in the Association's view,
"… reliance on a centralised Board as proposed does not even serve the objective of setting up a new, independent clement",
which the noble Lord quite rightly referred to as its main object.
" Alternative schemes as suggested by the Association would he far more effective to this end."
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities have been hardly less scathing. They have said:
1456
"The Association consequently urged that the present system for dealing with complaints against the police should, with any necessary modifications, be maintained, rather than the setting up of an entirely new body, and that locally elected representatives of the public interest—i.e., elected members of police authorities—should he appropriately involved: e.g., as a filter of complaints. The Association is disappointed that the Home Office is unable to accept that local authority members form an appropriate independent element for hearing complaints against the police, and thus for Board membership ".
We have also seen disquieting reports that if the Bill finds its way on to the Statute Book there may be serious resignations among the senior officers of police. This would he a very sad event should it take place, and I should like to say to any senior officers who might be disposed to act in this way that I hope they will not do so. whatever they might think of the Bill. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner is of course known to most of us, including myself. and in my opinion he is one of the most talented heads of the metropolitan police that the metropolitan police has seen for many years. He has had to cope with great difficulties. There is the mounting tide of criminal behaviour. violence included.
If I may say so with discretion, we have all read in the Press of the serious cases of criminal behaviour by some members of the metropolitan force which have either come before the courts or been otherwise dealt with in public, and this must. have caused him, as well as the public, grave difficulty and grave anxiety. Although not every noble Lord will agree with me, I must say he has also had to cope, as I believe, with an extremely archaic form of legal procedure which is badly in need of reform. in my judgment, which tends to protect the criminal without assisting the truly innocent. Therefore, he has all our sympathy: but whether he be involved or whether any other senior officer be involved, I hope very much that they will not pursue to the point of resignation any doubts they may have about the value of this Bill. This is not a time when one ought to put one's personal criticism of Government policy in front of the urgent requirements of the public interest in dealing with crime and in supporting the morale of the police force.
Reading the reports of another place, On this measure. in Committee particularly, I am bound to say that what impressed

1457
me most was the absence of any real, coherent philosophy behind the Bill. Of course, it is easy to say in connection with complaints against any professional body that the internal disciplinary organs of that body should not at the same time be prosecutor, judge and jury in their own case. I saw, about this very Bill, comment to that effect in one of the national newspapers over the weekend. Stated like that, one can hardly dispute the proposition. It is like saving that sin is a bad thing—with which. hope. we all agree; except, of course, those which we are tempted ourselves to commit. But it is precisely this kind of approach to disciplinary questions which led both the Bar Council and The Law Society in their very different fields to introduce a lay element in their disciplinary bodies.
If we were simply discussing whether an independent element was desirable in the disciplinary organisation of the police, I suppose we should all be of one mind—like my noble friend Lord Carr, to whom the noble Lord referred—in saying: " Yes, Why not? It will reassure public opinion." But there remains for discussion exactly what form the independent element should take. It certainly will take, if we are coherent in our thinking, a different form in different cases. What we are discussing this evening is what form it ought to take in relation to the police. On that, I would say. let us think a little about the subject matter of complaints against professional men and women in any walk of life and then try to apply it to the police force.
Most of us have appeared before disciplinary tribunals in a professional capacity at one time or another, and when I sat where the noble and learned Lord is now sitting I also saw a good many complaints against members of my own profession and even the Judiciary. So far as I have seen professional complaints, they really must fall into one or more of three categories. Either they allege a crime against the person involved, in which case I think we should all have to say. and the noble Lord has accepted, that although the independent element is indispensible, in disputed cases it must take the form of criminal proceedings before a criminal court and in serious cases before a judge and jury. Secondly, it can result in the claim which would give rise to a demand for compensation payable to the com-
1458
plainant by the body concerned or the individual concerned. But there, again, I venture to point out to those who talk about this matter without thinking it through, that where there is a complaint resulting in a claim for compensation, that is to say, for behaviour which, whether criminal or not, is also tortious or a breach of contract, in the end the independent element must he provided by the ordinary courts of law, the county courts or the High Court. Those are the only bodies which can award reasonable compensation.
Of course, there is an intermediate class of claims. This is the third category. That must be those which do not involve either a crime or a claim for compensation; that is to say, purely breaches of discipline, or, alternatively, those which form the basis of a claim for crime or compensation and which must be the subject of preliminary investigation before the matter can be disposed of by the authorities of the body concerned. It is really in that third category alone that the independent element is up for discussion today.
If there were to be a complaint against a policeman for committing a crime there must be a preliminary investigation: and if there is a prima faice case he must be prosecuted and punished in the ordinary way. If there is a complaint against a policeman which is going to give rise to a claim for compensation based on either tort or contract, there must again he a preliminary investigation because the police authorities must know whether to accept or to dispute the case: but it must be decided, if disputed, by the courts. It is only to " police "—if I may use the word in inverted commas—the validity of the internal investigation that you are concerned with the independent element in the police procedure. It is precisely for that reason that I consider that one looks for two quite separate things. neither of which can he provided by the body which is in question on this Bill.
The two things are, first, an Ombudsman-like factor which would see that the procedure in given cases has not gone wrong, or does not go wrong as a general rule; and for that purpose I must say that concerning the personal future of the officer concerned. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that double jeopardy is not to he allowed. On the other hand, as

1459
regards private compensation, if the authority is to pay and becomes responsible, if a mistake has been made, the authority must acknowledge the mistake and pay it. Broadly speaking, I should not have thought it is every case which needs separate scrutiny, but those cases in which the complainant feels he has not been given a fair deal or where the Ombudsman-like authority, possibly on the instigation of an MP, thinks an independent investigation is necessary.
This would yield a totally different type of independent lay element from that proposed essentially in this Bill. It would also be much cheaper because it would not involve the heavy centralised structure which is to cost us—so the Bill says somewhere, but I cannot lay my finger on it—£300,000 a year and which the County Council's Association, I think, estimate at£l million a year—" peanuts ", was the word the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, used late one night this week: but still, from the point of view of the Conservative Party Which is less liberal than he, something which is well worth saving even though it may in comparison With our total expenditure be somewhat trivial. This, to my mind, casts doubt on the central citadel which the noble Lord was seeking to defend, therefore, on the Second Reading of the Bill.
There are one or two special factors relating to the police to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. The first is that the police is a disciplined body and therefore one must do nothing to undermine the authority of the chief officer of the police. I rather question—although I think it more for Committee than for Second Reading—whether it can be said that this Bill particularly safeguards that principle. The second, which is a point I have not made but which arises out of Clause 10 of the Bill, is that, side by side with the need for an independent investigation on behalf of members of the public, I personally feel that something not of the same kind but still fulfilling part of the same functions of the Courts Martial Appeals Court ought to he there to defend the officer who may himself have been the object of an injustice from his superior officers in the disciplinary chain. This, I think, is part of the subject-matter of Clause 10. I noticed the other day—and I am not going
1460
into detail because I should be breaking confidences if I did so—that the Home Secretary came in for criticism because he had reinstated a certain officer who had been dismissed from the force by a chief constable.
It would not he appropriate for me to discuss the merits of this case, but I happened to discuss it with the Home Secretary. It immediately came to my notice that, when one heard them from his lips, the facts were quite different from what they had been when one read them in the paper. I do not think I am breaking confidences here. I said, " Why did you not say so? " He replied, " Because the custom has always been that we never give our reasons ".
Is that right, my Lords? Would it not have been in the interests of the Home Secretary in such a case to disclose the real facts, or to have an independent body which disclosed them for him, and gave reasons why he had allowed an appeal? This Bill does not impinge on that, except marginally at Clause 10. I do not think that the right body is being put into a position to reassure the public. I think an ombudsman-like function would he better. Secondly. I should like to see a body to which an officer could appeal if he had been the victim of an injustice by the purely internal discipline of the force. much the same as an officer or a private in the Army can demand a court-martial if he finds the commanding officer subjected him to an injustice.
There is one other thought that I ought to put forward before I arrive ponderously at my peroration. It is this: I wonder whether we have ever thought about how ninny wheels there are to the policeman's coach. One is always being told that one should not add a fifth wheel to a coach. Let us count the wheels of the vehicle with which we expect the police to carry us along on the road to law and order. First, there is the Home Office itself. The Home Secretary has direct responsibility for the metropolitan area with its sponsoring responsibility for the rest of England and Wales, although not of course for Scotland or Northern Ireland. That is the first wheel. The second wheel is the police authorities spread up and down the Kingdom, and partly —though not wholly —reflecting the views of the local authorities concerned. The third wheel is the

1461
inspectorate, introduced by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, under the Home Office hut independent of it. Then there is a fourth wheel, the Judiciary, responsible for such things as the Judges' Rules and of course the courts, the ultimate form of resort for complaints. The fifth wheel is the chief officers of the police forces responsible for discipline and morale to their respective authorities.
To this coach, with five wheels already revolving, the Government now propose to add a sixth wheel in the shape of the Police Complaints Board proposed in this Bill. In support of this they have produced no evidence that the present machinery, devised as recently as 1959 and sanctioned in the last resort by right of appeal to the courts, is working badly. I do not believe that it is working badly. In so far as it may be theoretically open to objection, what is wanted, as I have ventured to suggest, is something quite different from what is proposed: namely, an ombudsman-like function and a courts-martial appeal court-like function. This Bill provides neither.
What are we to do with it, my Lords? That puts the House of Lords in something of a dilemma. If this were an effective second Chamber, elected by proportional representation to represent the regions, we could throw it out on Second Reading. If I were a Member of the Commons, I should certainly have voted against it on Second Reading. But what are we to do now'? So far as I can see, nothing will alter the principle of the Bill by amendment on Committee. In particular. I do not think, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that any discussion of the ombudsman-like suggestion that I have made at Second Reading could be acceptable to the Government because it undermines the whole fabric of the Bill. It goes against its whole philosophy. We doubt whether we could have a valuable debate, except perhaps on the question of whether one of the clauses should stand part of the Bill. Those of us on this side of the House will take counsel with our friends in the other place and with various bodies to see whether we can " tinker " with it by improving it in detail. But I am bound to say that were it not for the constitutional amenities which we normally observe, I would vote against the Bill on Second Reading.
7.16 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I desire to make only a few observations in order primarily to indicate the attitude of my noble friends to this measure at this stage. In saying that. may I say at once that I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said, that this is not really a Party measure. In the other place some interesting fleeting alliances of political opposites considerably enlivened the proceedings.
We on these Benches want to support this Bill at this stage; we should like to look carefully at it in Committee to see whether improvements can be made. We come to that conclusion although we are in the rather strange position of realising that the 1964 Police Act operates entirely satisfactorily where it is operated by chief officers of police who have the zeal, determination and enthusiasm, for example, of Sir Robert Mark, to whom tribute has already been paid this evening. I do not believe that any complaint can he made as to the way in which that Act has been operated or of the standard of discipline that is thus imposed in the police force.
The difficulties which arise arc two-fold. One is that, unhappily, though perhaps inevitably, not every chief officer of police can share the same zeal and determination as Sir Robert Mark. The other difficulty arises from a growing feeling that where a complainant has his complaint dismissed. he is liable to feel a grievance when he finds that the complaint has been dismissed by a similar body to the one against which he has complained. In an increasingly participatory democracy the answer has come to be that there must be representation of the consumer or of the public in ways that perhaps a few years ago were not contemplated. Where it will all end, I do not know. I suspect the day may come when I shall go into the Old Bailey and find myself before a tribunal of three judges, one of' whom has been elected by the occupants of Wormwood Scrubs.
My Lords, we accept this present scheme, cumbersome though we think it is, because it is difficult to find a better alternative. We do not accept the contention that was put forward on one side of the other place, that the powers of investigation should be removed from the police into some unknown, untried and untested body. On the other hand, we have found

1463
it difficult to accept the suggestion which has been canvassed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, this evening, of an Ombudsman or Parliamentary Commissioner type of person who would carry out an ex poste facto investigation which inevitably would considerably prolong the proceedings and would, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, give little satisfaction to the public. I suspect that if it were tried out it would give very little satisfaction to the police, either.
When one talks about prolonging the proceedings, one is led to observe that the Government's proposals carry the danger that they may lead to delay of one sort or another in dealing with complaints. It is obvious that if a police officer is suspended pending an investigation he is, for practical purposes, of no use to the force during the length of the investigation. If he is not suspended, perhaps because the matter is regarded as a trivial one, nevertheless it is difficult to see how a man can operate with 100 per cent. efficiency if he knows there is some sort of complaint hanging over his head. It will be necessary to look with very considerable care at the Bill in Committee, primarily to ensure that the procedures which are envisaged enable complaints to be disposed of rapidly and efficiently.
If I sound perhaps a little less than enthusiastic in welcoming this Bill this evening, it is because that is the way I feel. The view we on these Benches have formed is that, given the nature of the problem, the solution the Government are putting forward is perhaps, in outline, the least unsatisfactory that can be devised. To that extent and for those reasons, we shall therefore support the Bill.
7.21 p.m.
Lord NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I ask this House to grant to me the same indulgence that it always gives to maiden speakers. It has not been easy to find a Bill on which to make my maiden speech, because very few Bills recently before your Lordships have not been controversial. I was tempted to address your Lordships upon farriers and their trade, but I found that although horses have always been my greatest source of pleasure, I
1464
knew very little about the subject. Again, I was intending to speak on forestry, but I discovered that three other maiden speakers were ahead of me. and it seemed to me that a fourth maiden in one day might test your Lordships' indulgence a little too far.
This Bill deals with one aspect of police discipline—the method and procedure of dealing with complaints by members of the public against the police. It takes from chief constables and police authorities the power to discipline their own members and gives that power to an entirely independent body, the members of which may not be, and must never have been, policemen. When a complaint is made by a member of the public against one or more policeman the appropriate superior police authorities will not be allowed to put their own house in order, and may therefore have great difficulty in keeping their house in order. An independent hoard will see the papers regarding every complaint made and will have the power to make a chief officer of police initiate disciplinary action, even if he is of the firm conviction that there is no case to answer.
I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that this Bill may have an adverse effect upon police morale. No one who even lightly scans the crime figures in this country today can view them with anything but alarm. Crimes of violence, mugging. vandalism, robbery of all kinds, hijacking, terrorism and kidnapping are on the increase. In combating crime, we are almost entirely in the hands of our police force. Theirs is the responsibility and the means of keeping law and order. We have to trust them to a large extent. Our police force has always been the envy of the world and is greatly appreciated and trusted by a large majority of the British public. It is essential that police morale should be high.
In many ways, police discipline is similar to military discipline. The policeman and the soldier are both governed by a separate Act of Parliament, which applies in the main only to him, and to the civilian public in only very rare and exceptional cases. Two examples come to mind when military law applies to a civilian: one is the court-martial. A court-martial has the power to subpoena a

1465
civilian to appear before it as a witness. Furthermore, the president of a court-martial can commit anybody to prison for a period of 21 days. There is another occasion when military law applies to civilians; that is, to civilians who are part of a soldier's family or dependants, including also his servants, when he is abroad on active service. But this military law applies only when expressly stated in the Manual of Military Law.
The lives of both policeman and soldier are ordered as to their daily procedures down to the smallest detail by a set of regulations which apply solely to themselves. Both are subject to the law of the land to the same extent as any other citizen; both are subject to their particular code of discipline which is executed by a superior officer or a superior authority of their own kind. In other words, their discipline is a self-discipline. Military summary discipline is a private matter. It is not open to the public, and the results are not available to the general public, under normal circumstances. Courts-martial are open to the public and their results are published. But the members of a court-martial are soldiers. There is a judge advocate-general whose duty it is to advise the military authorities on all courts-martial evidence and charges, but the ultimate decision lies with the soldier. Occasionally, and in fact often, a judge advocate will sit on a court-martial but his duties are merely to advise the court as to the law, and the finding is purely a military one for the soldier. I would suggest to your Lordships that a soldier is better able to be impartial and fair to his own kind than anyone else might be. In fact, some lawyers regard courts-martial as the fairest and most just law of the land.
I suggest that the same thing applies to police discipline and procedure as it now stands. I served for many years as a professional soldier in the Household Cavalry, (the Blues) and, recalling the various colonels under whom I have served, I venture to suggest to your Lordships that not one of them would have taken kindly to an outside independent civilian board telling them which of the men under their command they were to discipline and what charges were to be laid against any individual in their regiment. As to a Board demanding in writing the reasons for or against preferring a
1466
charge and what punishment was inflicted, I can tell your Lordships' House that the reports would have made interesting reading, and quite possibly might have contravened the Obscene Publications Act! In fact, I feel certain that the majority of commanding officers I have known would have resigned rather than suffer what they would have termed civilian interference in a strictly military matter. They would have taken the view that they could put their own house in order and keep it that way; and I know that many chief officers of police hold the same opinion.
I should like to quote to your Lordships a passage which appeared in the Daily Express a few days ago in their " Opinion " column. It says:
" Sir Robert Mark is the best police chief London has had in many a year. He is contemplating retirement at the earliest possible moment when he is 60 in March. Sir Robert is in no mood to remain in office once the police complaints Bill becomes law."
It appears that Sir Robert Mark wants nothing to do with this Bill, and my information—which is reliable but, I am afraid, confidential—is that many other senior police officers are of the same opinion. They share that opinion with the Association of County Councils, many other associations of elected representatives, the police authorities, chief assistant and deputy chief constables, chief constables, the Superintendents' Association, the Police Federation and a large section of the popular and responsible Press.
This Bill deals with complaints against the police. At this time the work of the police has never been more difficult: their workload is heavy and they are undermanned. Society itself at this moment is not stable. Certain sections of our society refuse to recognise the authority of the police, or even the fact that they have a job to do. Although these sections of society are in a minority, they tend to live in communities and ghettos which makes the work of the police in those areas difficult, if not hazardous. If a young man or woman joins the police force today in certain districts or areas of this country, he or she must be brave. determined and dedicated. It is not unusual for certain groups in society today to demonstrate, and during the course of such demonstrations the police may have

1467
to take action to preserve the police and protect members of the public who are about their lawful business.
It sometimes happens that a policeman is injured and arrests are effected, and the result may he a complaint against police brutality. Every such complaint, and any other complaint, is investigated by a police officer who normally holds the rank of superintendent, who will, as a matter of principle, be an officer from a different division or police force from that of the police officer against whom the complaint has been lodged. This is time consuming but necessary. At the moment, the investigating police superintendent is responsible to the chief constable. In future, he may be responsible to the Police Complaints Board.
A policeman has the right, as has any citizen, to protect himself. He may use such force as is reasonably necessary to effect an arrest. But when fists are swinging and bottles flying, no one can expect a policeman to deal gently with a ruffian who has just kicked his teeth in. The primary task of the police force is " the prevention of crime ", but it is also to bring evil doers to justice. If every time the forces of law and order bring a hooligan to justice, or, as my old man used to say, to his senses, they are made the subject of a complaint which is dealt with by other than their own kind, then we may find it difficult to recruit and keep the type of policeman that we need.
I have never had occasion to make a serious and responsible complaint about the police: I have known very few people who have ever made such a complaint. There have been occasions when I have considered that the police have acted with excessive zeal, such as the occasion when I turned up a one-way street in the wrong direction and narrowly escaped a collision with a police car coming the other way. On another occasion I parked my car in St. James's Square and forgot to put the necessary coin in the meter. It cost me £21³50 to retrieve my car from the police pound at Hyde Park Corner. At the time I considered this expensive, especially as I visited my club in St. James's Street for only a few moments in order to refresh myself. But it was I who parked the car and I who failed to put the money in the meter, and there was no cause for
1468
complaint on my behalf. But the police receive many complaints and a great deal of unnecessary rudeness from members of the public who have their cars towed away. Be it to their credit, they shrug them off and pay no attention. There is evidence that a few legislators in both your Lordships' House and another place have had reason to reflect on the advisability of having put on the Statute Book what is commonly called the Breathalyser Act. My information is that the majority of complaints which are made against the police are frivolous and vindictive.
There is another kind of complaint which is entirely different and very serious. I refer to bribery and corruption. In these cases, the police are subject to the criminal law in exactly the same way as any other citizen and the police force has its own department to investigate such complaints. This department is called A.10, and consists of senior police officers of great experience whose honesty and reputation are impeccable. It would be hard to find a body of men better able to investigate police corruption than A.10. If there is the slightest evidence that a police officer has committed a criminal offence then this Bill hardly applies, because the police officer may be the subject of criminal proceedings in a court of law in which case the Complaints Board would probably have no jurisdiction. In the event of a police officer being found guilty of a criminal offence, or of conduct which the Army would describe as unbecoming to an officer and gentleman, it is almost certain that his chief of police would sack him.
I would quote to your Lordships the case the other day of the police officer who was found guilty of sexual perversions with a small boy. He was sacked by his chief of police and later reinstated. There was a great deal of police disquiet, but the matter was resolved in the end by the officer resigning. This Bill also upholds the ancient maxim of Common Law that a man shall not be tried or punished twice for the same offence. I think that that has been dealt with adequately by previous speakers.
It is essential that in all matters concerning complaints against the police justice must not only be done but he seen to he done. and there must he no suspicion

1469
that the police are covering up charges of brutality, bribery, corruption or any other complaint by a member of the public. But I wonder whether it is necessary for the police to he forced to wash all their dirty linen in glaring publicity. The police themselves will deal far more effectively with their own black sheep than any civilian board, which has never had business dealings with or knowledge of police procedure.
If this Bill becomes law, experienced police chiefs who are now responsible for police discipline and have the knowledge to recognise a genuine complaint when they see one, will be answerable to and under the control of a lay board. They feel that this will undermine their authority and have an adverse effect upon police discipline in general. It is estimated that the Complaints Board may have to deal with as many as 15,000 complaints in one year. If the law fails to give to every hardworking policeman the support he deserves from frivolous and unfounded complaints, then we may find that many policemen will he unwilling to perform their duties fully for fear of disciplinary action by the Police Complaints Board. The police force is opposed to this Bill, as are many other sections of society, and I suggest to your Lordships that we must think most carefully before passing it. I am much obliged to your Lordships for the patience and indulgence that you have shown to me this day.
7.37 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, apologising for turning my hack on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, it is my privilege to be the first Member of your Lordships' House to he in a position to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, on his maiden speech. It was brief, and it was no more controversial than a maiden speech may properly he, particularly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hai'sham of Saint Marylehone, has already pointed out, this Bill was not treated below in any way as a Party Bill. The noble Lord spoke with evident knowledge of the subject, and I am sure the whole House will he anxious to hear from him again, soon and often. I think I can promise him the latter, because yesterday, as your Lordships know, the Bill in another place to abolish the House of Lords failed to secure a
1470
Second Reading by a very narrow margin of 15 votes, so presumably we are here for some little time yet.
This Bill has two peculiarities. First, it should be, I am sure, very welcome. As the right honourable gentleman the Member for Penrith and the Border, Mr. Whitelaw, made plain in the other place—though I must not, of count. quote him—it is very necessary now, and I think now more than ever, to maintain and if possible strengthen public confidence in the police. There has for some years been feeling strongly expressed that this confidence would he greater if improvements were made in the way in
which com-plaints made by members of the public against the police were dealt with. As has been said, it was the noble Lord, Lord Carr, who first announced as Home Secretary that his Government would initiate legislation to deal with this, and each Government have since taken the same view. So on the face of it, in all quarters and among all Parties this should he a very popular Bill and I congratulate the Government for having introduced it.
The second peculiarity is that, as was said in another place, it is a Bill which has hardly a friend in the House. This is a curious mixture. It had one friend in the other place—the Chief Whip, as appeared at the Report stage of the Bill. Otherwise, it apparently had hardly a friend. The first reason for this is that if the object of the Bill is to increase public confidence in the police force, in particular in relation to what happens when a citizen makes a complaint against the police, it is odd that the complainant is dropped from the Bill. The first thing that F should have thought one could expect is that instead of having to make his complaint to his enemy at the police station, the complainant could make his complaint to the Police Complaints Board.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that, I should have thought, with great respect, he can do.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, then I missed that the complainant had any legal right to do so, but that may be so. imagine it is a matter of administration.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The point is that anybody can correspond with I he Board. Then the Board would

1471
communicate directly with the police force concerned, which would investigate the complaint. Just as under the new as under the existing procedure a person can make a complaint to a police station, so under the new procedure he can go first to the Board if he so chooses.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I am much obliged. I should have anticipated that the Bill would make that plain and give that right. I appreciate that everybody has the right to write a letter but there is nothing in the Bill to indicate that the appropriate procedure would be for the complainant in the first place to send his complaint to the Board, Secondly, there are no provisions giving any right to the complainant to appear before the Board or their tribunal, or to say what his complaint is, or to call his evidence. I think I am right in saying that about the only reference in the Bill to the complainant is the effect upon a police officer if the complainant withdraws his complaint.
Throughout, Justice has been very concerned about this Bill, for this reason. In a certain number of cases the person who is convicted complains that he has been framed by the police: either they have deliberately lied in their evidence, or they have planted something on him, or they have suborned the witnesses for the defence, and it has subsequently transpired that what the accused said was perfectly right and has been proved to be so. There has been a disquieting number of recent cases where it has had to be admitted that men who have spent years in prison never committed the crimes of which they were convicted. Sometimes a man may discover this before his trial and try to deal with it at his trial. More often he realises it only as the trial proceeds and then he relies upon his appeal.
Justice is concerned with the lacuna which exists between the police investigation and the Court of Appeal. The two seem never to meet. I do not want to exaggerate the number of these cases; nor where innocent men are convicted are they necessarily men of hitherto exemplary character. On the contrary. Some of them are men with several convictions—it may or may not be that this is why they were originally prosecuted —but on this occasion they did not commit the crime with which they were charged.
1472
These cases can arise from many motives. The police may believe initially that a certain man committed the crime; then they find that he did not. But they do not want to lose face, so they go on with the case. Or they may go on believing that this man committed the offence; but they realise that unfortunately the evidence is not strong enough to enable them to get a conviction. so they manufacture some evidence.
Whatever the reasons are, I do not wish to exaggerate the number of these cases. Up to four years ago there were about 16 cases a year in the metropolitan police force, as a result of which police officers were compulsorily retired, it having been shown that they were not fit to be in the force. In London alone in the last four years there have been 400 cases. This is news which is partly unwelcome and partly welcome. It is unwelcome to realise that there are so many members of the force who have had to be compulsorily retired. It is welcome in that it shows that in Sir Robert Mark we have a commissioner who is determined to root out conduct of this kind and such black sheep as every large body of men must necessarily have.
Justice believes that where cases of this kind are made out and an appeal is pending, the police investigation could proceed forthwith and the result should be made available to the Court of Appeal when it hears the appeal. The noble Lord. Lord Nunburnholme, quite rightly spoke highly of A.10. In the metropolitan police force this is largely the case, but in most of the remaining parts of the country unfortunately it is not.
I fear that I must come back to something that I have said before—which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, says, with some justification, that I am in the habit of doing. Difficulty arises from two peculiarities of our country. The first is in relation to the United Kingdom, in that there is no other Western democracy in which the police are not under the control of the central Government, through a Minister who is responsible to Parliament. It is only in the United Kingdom that, apart from the metropolitan police force, we have 42 separate chief constables, each of whom is a law entirely unto himself. From the citizen's point of view. what is going to happen depends upon where he lives, as one can see from this

1473
example. If you live in London, you have the blessing of A.42 and Sir Robert Mark. If you have the misfortune to live outside London, you do not fare so well.
The second peculiarity—here I must leave the United Kingdom—is that it is only in England and Wales that the police prosecute people. This does not happen, and never has happened, in Scotland. In every other West European democracy there is an independent prosecuting authority which stands between the police and the citizen. That is why one would anticipate that in England and Wales, where the police prosecute, complaints against the police would assume a very different character from when one is simply dealing with policemen as policemen and not with policemen who are prosecutors.
The next feature which I think is unsatisfactory is that you never know what the investigating officer has found. One would have anticipated that if the investigation report were completed before the appeal was heard it would be made available to the appellant and to the Court of Appeal. But you never know. In the case of Mr. Docherty, with which I am very familiar—as is also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone—Mr. Docherty complained that he had asked for an identity parade and that it was not given to him. This was a breach of police rules. Mr. Docherty said he was on a coach with mothers, fathers and children going to the seaside for the day. He maintained that any genuine inquiry by the police into his case would have shown that he was miles away at the time. It was, after all, a very simple matter. The other people in the coach had no axe to grind. Most of them had never seen him before; but of course they would have remembered him, because of the 25 adults on the coach all were mums, apart from two dads and Mr. Docherty was one of the only two dads, and, besides, they had a sweep on the way and he won the sweep. Any genuine attempt to investigate where he was at the time must have shown the police that they had the wrong man. Thirdly, when they went to see the one woman who knew everybody because she had organised the whole thing, they told her that if she made a statement to Mr. Docherty's solicitor she need not go to court; so she never turned up.
1474
In that case there was a first-class police investigation by an independent chief constable, who I have every reason to believe performed his task conscientiously and very thoroughly, and this was the result. Meanwhile, Mr. Docherty's appeal had been dismissed. But as chairman of Justice I wrote to the Home Secretary to ask him to refer this case back to the Court of Appeal, and by the time it was referred back to the Court of Appeal the investigating officer's report was to hand. Although it was not disclosed, the police said, " Well, we cannot support the conviction because it is quite obvious now that this man did not commit the offence at all ". At the time it seemed to me to be peculiar that neither Mr. Docherty, nor his solicitor, nor his counsel, nor Justice, nor I were ever allowed to see the report.
Supposing inquiry in a case disclosed that there was a station book, the existence of which had never been disclosed to the defence, which contained entries relevant to the charge made against the accused and quite inconsistent with evidence which the police had given and it was obvious that somebody at some time had altered the book. I do not think t hat discloses any criminal offence or a matter which should go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. But would it not be vital that those facts should be made known to the accused for his appeal and at the Court of Appeal? At the moment they are not. No part of the report or the facts found are ever disclosed.
Justice is convinced that cases like this will go on so long as there is this lacuna between the police investigation and the hearing by the Court of Appeal. This, of course, has been discussed in another place. What is the Government's view? The Government's view is this: " Yes, we realise that this is a very serious problem and people really ought not to be left languishing in prison if somebody knows they are innocent, and we are very anxious to be able to deal with this ". Secondly, they said, " We could not agree to a copy of the report being made available to the accused, or for that matter to the Court of Appeal, for this reason: it is very important when there is a police inquiry that the police should feel perfectly free to express their opinions—what they thought at the time—whether or not they can prove them by evidence. They are entitled to say, Well, my hunch was

1475
this ' and if this report were to be given to the accused he would be able to bring a libel action against the policeman ".
I have told my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that Justice entirely agree with this. I think it is a perfectly fair point. We have said, " Excise by all means any matters of opinion from the Report; excise by all means anything which might reflect on police discipline or national security, but the facts found by the investigating officer ought to he available for the appeal ". I have yet to hear any sound reason why that should not be done.
Thirdly, they have said, " We must not let the policeman be subject both to the proceedings of the Director of Public Prosecutions and to some inquiry in the Court of Appeal because that would mean that the two things would be a double jeopardy'. I think this point was never really answered in the other place. It is a false point and is an argument which has a hole in the middle. The two things are not at all the same. What the appellant is seeking to persuade the Court of Appeal by the facts he produces, whether it is the station book or whatever it is, is that those facts raise sufficient doubt to warrant the Court of Appeal saying that they do not regard the conviction as being safe and satisfactory.
What would happen if the policeman were prosecuted, if it was a criminal
offence, is not that at all. What the Director is considering is this: is it probable that a jury will say that the evidence is so strong that against a policeman of good character they are satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that he committed a criminal offence? Those are two entirely different things.
Lastly—and this is why the matter was never put to a decision in Committee—the Government went on saying: " This is a problem. We recognise it. We concede it. We are most anxious to deal with it. We are consulting the police about it and the Court of Appeal, and so forth ", and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers who replied to the debate at the Report stage on 20th May said:
" Let me say at once that the Government are not unsympathetic to the concept underlying the proposals put forward by my honourable friend the Member for Derby, North. I concede, as I
1476
did in Committee, that there can he a problem when the same or similar issues arise in the context of criminal proceedings, on the one hand, and in the context of a Section 49 complaint against the police, on the other hand. The Government would like to tackle the problem if they possibly could."
Later, he said:
" The problem tends to arise most acutely … in a small number of rather difficult cases."
Then he said:
" There ought to he increased flexibility between trial and appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal."
Then he said:
" The position at present is that discretion on this matter rests with chief officers … there is some variation in practice … There does not seem to be the same flexibility in other parts of the country "—
that is to say apart from London and A.10—
" and sonic of the police organisations at any rate are reluctant to move further in this direction … My right honourable friend proposes, however, to continue his discussions with those concerned, with the intention of exploring whether the practice presently adopted in the Metropolitan district might he more generally adopted "
Finally he said:
" These discussions are continuing. It is a difficult matter. I have great sympathy with what my honourable friend is trying to put forward, as, I am sure, has everyone. It would he quite wrong for someone to be convicted on perjured evidence and languish in jail as a result.… The Government are very serious about their consultations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons: 20/5/76, col. 1786.]
In view of that, there are two questions which I would respectfully put to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. The first is this: I have recently received a document tending to show that in the Labour Party's Manifesto for the next General Election they will commit themselves to the establishment of an independent prosecuting authority like everybody else has, including Scotland and Wales. I am old enough to know that the Labour Party is one thing and a Labour Government is another. So the question I should like to ask is, what is the present intention of this Government—which I trust will he there until 1978—apart from any financial considerations? When financial considerations are met, is it the intention of this Government to create an independent prosecuting authority?
The second question is this: How are the discussions going? Naturally, in

1477
Committee, when you are told by a Minister, " Yes, this is a problem, you have a point here. We should like to help you but it is not an easy one. We are thinking about it. We are consulting people ", you do not press the matter to a Division. But time is going by: twenty-one days in Committee, four days in the Chamber on Report stage, and all the time the Government saying, " We are thinking about it; we are consulting people ". If my noble friend has any news for us, I should appreciate it very much if he would give it to us at this stage, otherwise it may be that some would want to return to this question on Committee stage of the Bill.
8.1 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, in following the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I should like first to say how much we enjoyed listening to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme. He began by telling us about the commanding officers under whom he had served. I am sure everyone of us wished to hear more. We should have liked him to give a full, subjective and uninhibited appraisal of the characters and talents of those distinguished officers. We shall look forward greatly in future to hearing him speak on forestry, the police, or the Services, or any other matter on which he cares to speak.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, sent a cold shiver down our backs by suggesting that we had had a close shave in another place in the last day or two. It would he comforting for our morale to remember that in that close shave, we were not saved from actual abolition by 15 votes, but the 15 votes prevented a Bill being brought forward which might have had the dastardly aim of abolishing us. I was interested in the noble and learned Lord reminding us that in Scotland the police do not prosecute. As a layman, I have always been interested in that idea, and must try to learn more about it before it appears in the next Election Manifesto of the Labour Party.
My Lords, I think this Bill is an unsuccessful Bill. I am going to adopt a rather querulous attitude to it. I am sorry about that, because the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, introduced it to us in an agreeable way. Two or three days ago I told him, very respectfully I hope, what an excellent Minister I thought
1478
he was, if occasionally misguided. But this Bill sets out to introduce an independent element into the complaints procedures, and on a balance of consideration that perhaps is a reasonable aim. But then the Bill proceeds to acquire some of the typical features of so much recent legislation. A legitimate and simple aim has been complicated by methods dear to the heart of modern bureaucrats, whether Ministers or their advisers.
What is wrong with the Bill is not its aim, but the system it establishes. It outlines a cumbersome, expensive and time-consuming process quite unnecessarily centralised, I would have thought. Almost everyone who knows anything about these matters believes that the forecast of a cost of £300,000 a year is a gross underestimate. The Association of County Councils believes in a figure of £l million. It may he said that if £l million is required to ensure justice, then that is that. But I think it brings us hack to the question: is the £l million which may be spent on this matter being spent to the best advantage?
The situation that we have come to nowadays is astonishing. This Government, and to some extent their recent predecessors, have always talked about their wish and intention to delegate more responsibility from the centre for local decision and action. But every time an opportunity comes, so far from displaying any enthusiasm for it, they seize the opportunity to create yet another central body with a staff and organisation. This seems to be almost invariably the escape route when the Secretary of State cannot make up his mind. If only Ministers would understand more often than they do that yet another organisation may not be the best solution. What it undoubtedly will do, as these things always do, is to create more paper work and more delay.
One of the defects of the Bill is the scant appreciation or consideration which it gives to the existing responsibilities of the police authorities, who seem throughout to be tacitly played down. This really is not good enough. There seem to be few signs that the role of the police authorities is fully understood or accepted: understood it must be, but accepted. Section 50 of the Police Act 1964 places the duty on

1479
the police authorities to keep themselves informed of the manner in which complaints are dealt with by chief officers of the police. This Bill does not seem to help them in doing that. It seems no members of the police authorities are to be members of the Board; no consultation is provided with local authorities or other associations in the selection of members of the Board, and police authorities, it seems, have no part to play in the proposed tribunal. Nor is this one of those instances when only one possible solution could be devised. At least two alternative schemes have been put forward, as has already been mentioned, in a constructive spirit, but both have been turned down by the Home Office.
My Lords, the perspective against which we have to consider this matter is, I suggest, as I think my noble friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone indicated, that the evidence really does not suggest, from the number or nature of the complaints, that there is much that is seriously wrong, and no widespread public demand for change in the current procedure. So far as these procedures can be improved, and I expect they can, then surely it should he possible to introduce an independent element of some kind without such a cumbersome, top heavy and centralised organisation.
Nor does one feel that justice has been fully done to the responsibilities which chief constables and their senior police executives must continue to carry if the good morale of their forces is to be maintained. If it is insisted that some institutionalised, new procedures are required, about which one remains dubious, surely something on the lines of the more localised area complaint boards would be preferable, as suggested by the Association of County Councils, the chairman of which would be appointed not by his proposer in this Bill, but by the Lord Chancellor, and one would have thought, well worthy of more consideration than that scheme seems to have obtained. Such a scheme, which would be more decentralised, should mean quicker work up and, consistent with their responsibilities, involve the police authorities more directly in this matter. In matters like this, surely prompt procedures with minimum delays and mini-
1480
mum recourse to a central body is what is most desirable.
A scheme for a police complaints ombudsman, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, was put forward by Mr. Michael Alison in another place. That provides a far simpler answer. Admittedly, ex post facto the ombudsman principle is really working rather well. I was one of those who did not like it when it was first put forward. I thought it was going to introduce a tremendous number of complications and delays, and not produce good results. But the scheme has a good record, and I believe that the public now understand the system and have accepted it. Speaking absolutely personally, it is a solution that attracts me in this case.
I think the noble Lord. Lord Harris, mentioned the Working Party set up in 1973 by the then Home Secretary to consider how an independent element could be introduced. I think he said that no single recommendation came out of it. But that Working Party did enunciate two principles, I understand: first. that the role of the police authority in handling complaints should not be diminished hut should be enhanced: and, secondly, that the responsibility of the chief officer for the discipline of his force should not he undermined. Neither of those principles seem to me to be promoted in this Bill, but rather the reverse.
My Lords, I believe this is a misconceived Bill in practice, though its aims. I am sure, are perfectly genuine. I see the same trouble as my noble friend Lord Hailsham. If the Bill is to receive a Second Reading, as I imagine it will, I think we are going to have a very difficult task in devising and introducing to it Amendments which really are required to meet some of its present defects and disadvantages. I think that task will he very difficult because of the nature of the Bill itself. When the time comes, we must do our best to see what we can do to improve it.
8.11 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I should like to add my personal congratulations to the noble Lord. Lord Nunburnholme, on his maiden speech. He has very clearly demonstrated his

1481
deep regard for the police, a regard which I am sure we all share equally with him. I have just one or two points to make on this Bill. I feel that on the Second Reading of a Bill entitled " Police Bill " we perhaps ought to say something in the way of tribute to the police, which has the respect of the House, and it has not yet been said. I was rather horrified to hear that Sir Robert Mark, whom I have the honour of knowing—he was the chief constable of a Midlands city I represented in another place for something like 22 years—would be likely to resign if this Bill became law. I do not think that a man of the calibre of Sir Robert Mark would take such a step over such an action as the passing of a Bill of this type. I hope not, in any case.
My Lords, it cannot be too often said how much we the public appreciate the tact, the ease, the understanding with which the police carry out their difficult, dangerous and very often unpleasant duties. Their duties vary, as we know, from controlling a demonstration, usually rowdy, often unruly, to within a few hours perhaps attending a bad traffic accident, from a domestic " punch-up " in a home to conveying the sad news of the death of a near relative in an accident to the family. In fact their duties are numerous; they are limitless; and it is almost impossible to describe them all in detail. They perform all these duties within the confines of a desciplined force and, in my view, without a disciplined force the tasks that they perform could not be performed at all, and the police force as we know it could not exist. A
disciplined force is essential. An undisciplined force would be an unhappy one. In fact that is true of almost every organisation one can think of; without discipline an organisation is unhappy. We have seen that in so many fields, and, if I may add this without being controversial, it goes for political Parties too. I feel that nothing that Parliament does should undermine the discipline of the police force.
We are indeed fortunate in having these many years since the days of the peelers ", a police force in this country which is so grown up that it is independent of, not motivated by, and has no allegiance to, any political Party whatsoever. This is not true in other countries. It is something we should perhaps remember when
1482
we are discussing our own police force. But there are some people in this country who do not think as we do. I am not quite sure whether the expression " the fuzz " is supposed to be derogatory or whether it is a term of endearment. One thing I am certain about is that it is an Americanism, and that is about all I can say about it.
The Bill which is in front of us now is about discipline within the police force, and only that part of discipline which arises out of a public complaint. It has nothing to do with the day-to-day discipline that a police chief may feel necessary to bring against members of the force for a purely internal act of indiscipline. But let us face the fact that within a force of the size of the police force in this country there are what are described in common parlance as " bent " policemen. Let us accept that it is true in every walk of life, human frailty being what it is. It is with that minority of people within the police force, whether the complaint comes from the public or from within the force, that we have to deal.
The public need assurance that their complaints against the police are fully, fairly and thoroughly investigated and, more than that, a large number of them feel that the public in some way or another should be represented within that investigation. Therefore, an independent element; that is, independent of the police themselves, is called for and is necessary. But its form is the problem which we are discussing this evening. Its form was the problem which was discussed in the other place for many days. I am sure that critics of this Bill will pay lip service to the idea of an independent element dealing with public complaints, but will be somewhat hesitant about setting up the necessary machinery to achieve that end. I am not sure that any ex post facto arrangement would at all meet the position. So we are concerned with public complaints, many of which, if not most of which, will be facetious, many of them downright malicious. There has been now for a very long time a feeling that somehow or other the public should be involved in investigating these complaints.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, used a cliché which I will use again, and one that it is difficult to argue

1483
against, that under the existing procedure the police are both judge and jury in their own cause. Successive Governments have recognised this and have approved the introduction of an independent element where purely public complaints are concerned. For almost two years the present Home Secretary, following upon the work of his predecessor, has been working in this field, investigating, talking, interviewing and so on, and has come up with this Bill. There is no doubt about it that there is a feeling in the public mind that there is some unfairness in dealing with complaints, and as that feeling is there we should do our best in one way or another to allay it. I appreciate what difficulties Home Secretaries have. We have again demonstrated it tonight. But this is an honest endeavour to meet a very complex situation.
The details will he discussed in Committee stage, hut there are one or two points I would wish to make, purely about the composition of the Police Complaints Board. Many of these complaints have been voiced before. In setting up the Board, I hope that the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State —I am not sure which—will not feel that he has to include representatives or delegates representing organisations, whether they he police organisations like the Police Federation, whether they he organisations representing police officers, or any outside organisations, or delegates representing any organisations. For that matter, I hope your Lordships will not feel that he has to appoint representatives of ethnic groups. One hears this point made on a number of occasions. Certainly not a " statutory woman ", nor, for that matter, a " statutory immigrant ", but rather what I see as a selection of people who represent the public as a whole and who have an understanding of the importance of seeing that justice is done and is seen to be done. From my point of view, it is quite immaterial how many of them are women, how many are men, or how many are immigrants, so long as the right people arc appointed to do the job.
I am of the view that the Board must he free of all interference from Government, and of course from politicians in their day-to-day work in considering cases. They must be independent, as our legal system is independent. I hope
1484
that both Houses of Parliament would reject Parliamentary Questions to the Board about individual cases which arc before the Board at that time. By all means a report afterwards; by all means an annual report to the Home Secretary. Should the public or Members of Parliament write to the Board about cases under investigation, I hope that the Board will he absolutely firm and reject the matter that is then under consideration. If a member of the public sends a complaint, as we understand he is entitled to, in the first place direct to the Police Complaints Board, I hope that the Board, without considering it at that stage, will pass it on to the chief officer of police concerned so that the matter can go through the normal police procedures before, as it eventually may, it has to go hack to the Board themselves.
I have said that the Bill is complex, and hope that it will he fully studied in Committee. I hope it will not encourage more complaints about the police to the Board or to anyone else, and I hope that the public will feel that the complaints are being fairly and honestly investigated. We should thereby strengthen the public belief in the knowledge that their complaints are being fully investigated, and hope that the police themselves will feel assured that their own disciplinary procedures are not being undermined. The object of the Bill is to satisfy the public that their complaints are fully investigated. I hope that they will he satisfied, and f hope too that once it becomes law, if it becomes law, the police themselves will feel that it does not undermine their authority.
8.23 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I should first like to join in the congratulations on the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Nunhurnholme. He made some very good points and produced some good common sense. I join in hoping that we shall hear him many times in the future.
One first wonders whether this Bill is necessary at all. At first sight it has a laudable aim. It has the aim of impartiality with police inquiries, and it questions whether one policeman can judge another. I think that that was well dealt with by the noble Lord. But I question whether there is in fact a public

1485
call for the Bill. I do not believe that there is, other than by a very small minority. One looks for evidence of police condonement of corruption or malpractice, or soft treatment of their members, and I think it is very difficult to find such evidence. One looks to see whether this Bill would be an improvement on the present system. From all I have read, I am not convinced that it will, and therefore I do not think it justifies the cost involved.
The proposal is the single Board chairman with nine members, I think all of whom are paid, and every single case put up throughout the country, other than certain small numbers of specific cases, will go to the Board members. It has been estimated that the numbers will be 15,000 annually, and that, to my mind, works out at about 60 cases per working day for the Board. When one realises that each file of each case can be up to 10,000 words long, that amounts to a great many cases, and a great many words. The Board can order that disciplinary charges must he brought, overruling the chief constable, and this could lead to court cases. The strict rules of evidence which would apply in the court could easily allow policemen guilty of malpractices to be cleared, but under the rules of double jeopardy this would prohibit further inquiry by the police and further disciplining.
One compares this with the present police inquiry system by which they are able to inquire not subject to the full and difficult rules of evidence, and use their experience and judgment to assess cases, which seems to work well at the moment. As was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, in the last four years it has resulted in no less than 100 policemen in the metropolis being forced to resign each year. I must say that I was sorry to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, say that things were very different outside the metropolis; in effect, casting doubt on all non-metropolis chief constables. I do not think that that would contribute to public reassurance, and I hope that he did not mean that.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I was not seeking to draw a difference between them in that respect, but in the respect that outside London most chief constables refuse to start the investigation at all
1486
until the appeal is over. I should have thought the better practice was that of London.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. According to many people the " bent policeman will benefit from this Bill, and I should like to read two short quotations from The Sunday Times The first quotation is:
"…if a policeman is acquitted in court he cannot face a disciplinary hearing on the same evidence. Thus a dishonest policeman —knowing that juries are reluctant to convict does not have to fear being ' leant on by his senior officers to resign."
The second quotation is as follows:
" A good example of the proposed new law would he where a constable was accused of assaulting a prisoner: acquittal in court would leave almost no room for a police chief to act under the disciplinary code."
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, may I say one thing to the noble Lord. I recognise that it is a complicated matter and I would not seek to make debating points, but I should tell him that there will he no change in the procedure in dealing with these cases under the new measure. The situation at the moment under the existing disciplinary regulations concerning a policeman is that if he is acquitted of a criminal charge he cannot he proceeded against in front of his chief constable on the same charge using disciplinary regulations. That is the situation at the moment, and it will remain exactly the same in the new measure. There is no difference at all.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I ant grateful to the noble Lord. I also find it extremely complicated, in spite of the fact of taking advice. It is certainly not understood by many of the associations which give advice on this. I believe that the new proposals are over-centralised, and put too much responsibility for the police on the central Government rather than jointly with local authorities as it is at the moment. I think that all these cases coming to the central Board will he very slowly dealt with, and that there will almost inevitably be a big logjam of cases leaving the police who are under question in a state of uncertainty. This could lead to damaging police morale at t particular time when there is so much challenge to law and order.

1487
Inevitably it will he bureacratic and extremely remote from the public. We do not know where the Board will be sited. It will probably be in London but it could be in, say, Newcastle. Imagine what somebody in London would think if he had to deal with such a Board in Newcastle—and, of course, it is just as far from London to Newcastle as it is from Newcastle to London. I also believe that this will undermine the authority of chief constables, who should be responsible for the discipline of their force, remembering that their decisions can be over-ruled by the Board. I believe that in some cases it will be more difficult to discipline the guilty, and it will be an expensive operation.
In any event, I am not aware of the good effects that the Bill will have. This reminds me of " Ferrars Law quoted in this House about five years ago when it was said that every Bill had exactly the opposite effect to that for which it was intended, and I fear that this Bill will comply with that law. it will reduce the effect of the police disciplinary machinery: it w ill affect adjudication by chief constables and it will probably make the expulsion of guilty policemen more difficult. There is also a latent threat where there is no threat at the moment: in the event of a very extreme Right Wing or Left Wing Government—and while one may not think that likely now, there is nothing to stop it happening—when one considers that the appointment of the chairman is by the Prime Minister, one could get the situation where the discipline of the police was entirely political, based on the political appointment of the chairman, which could create a dangerous situation.
In my view, the present situation is adequate, scrupulously fair and should be left alone. The police are probably far more ruthless with their fellow policeman than a Board is likely to be. Perhaps inquiries could be open to examination or inspection and the idea of the Ombudsman would probably be far more satisfactory, simple and cheap. If the system has to be changed, then I like the County Councils Association scheme, or something based on it. where there would be eight boards, each with a paid regional chairman, with local authority elected representatives who would be unpaid and who would not be members or past members of the
1488
police authority. It would be a local board where people would get speed and action; it would be more efficient; it would be no more expensive and it would be local for complainants to contact. It is a complicated plan, but I do not believe that it is any more complicated than the one in the Bill. However, it would suit all interests and certainly the local authorities much prefer it.
My Lords, this Bill has no friends, so far as I know, bar the Secretary of State. The county councils do not like it, the police do not like it and members of both Parties do not like it. So far as the public-are concerned, it will be remote, undemocratic and probably open to abuse in the long run. Indeed. I do not think even the Council for Civil Liberties likes it. It is probably too much to hope that it will be thrown out on Second Reading, but I hope that it will be drastically altered.
8.34 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords. I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme. on his maiden speech. I cannot pretend that it took a form which I found wholly satisfactory, but it was persuasively put. I think I speak on behalf of all noble Lords when I say that we were very gratified to have the pleasure of being here today and hearing him make his speech and that we very much look forward to hearing him address us in future.
We have had an interesting discussion on the Bill. Nearly everybody is agreed that there should be an independent element in the handling of complaints by members of the public. I had doubts for a moment or two during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, as to whether in reality he was as wholly and as enthusiastically in favour of an independent element as was, for instance, his right honourable friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place, who made it quite clear on the Third Reading of the Bill that the Opposition strongly favour of an independent element.

1489
It is easy to say that, but it becomes a little more difficult when one asks exactly what does one mean by an independent element. I will come shortly to discuss the particular proposals of the County Councils Association and some of the other local authority associations, but I must say one thing to noble Lords quite bluntly. If they believe that those proposals will meet with universal acclaim in the Police Service, they will have a very disagreeable surprise in the next few weeks when they are discussing any possible Amendments to the Bill in Committee. One thing I can assure them is absolutely clear—and I have had the opportunity of hearing a great deal of police opinion both of the Government's proposals and of those of the local authority associations—and that is. that a very substantial number of police officers of all ranks are far more strongly opposed to the local authority proposals than they are to those of the Government. Indeed, that was made perfectly clear at the later stages of the debate in another place by the representatives of the Police Federation. Thus, as I say. though we will certainly look with interest at any proposals put down by noble Lords opposite or by those in any other part of the House, I think that they would be deceiving themselves if they think that some of the local authority proposals will meet with widespread approval in the Police Service. They will not.
I come first to the speech—and it is always a pleasure to do so—of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. He spoke, as always, persuasively and, if I may say so to hint with the greatest respect, while he said. that he had had a number of arduous days sitting in a judicial capacity, he managed very satisfactorily indeed to disguise any sense of exhaustion on his part. While I very much appreciated the noble and learned Lord's personal remarks, just as they will be appreciated by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I am sure that he will not take it amiss when I say that it is a pity that we do not have with us the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, because the noble Earl has no doubts at all about the Government's proposals. On 25th November, speaking after me in the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, the noble Earl, speaking from the Front Bench opposite,
1490
after making a number of observations about the quality of the speech to which the House had just had the benefit of listening, which I will not repeat, said:
" We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about the Amendment to Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and about the Complaints Against the Police Bill "—
which had then been published; it was published several months earlier, so the noble Earl knew perfectly well what he was talking about—
" If I have any complaint against that Bill, it is that it does not extend to Scotland, and I should like to know whether the Government have any thoughts in that direction ". [OFFICIAL RFPORT 25'11/75, col. 152.]
If by any mischance the Opposition were to force any of their Amendments to a vote in Committee, I look forward to having the noble Earl coming into the Lobby with us. If I may say so, the noble Earl got it just about right.
I come to the point which was raised with characteristic vigour and restraint—not a conflict of terms in this particular case—by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. The point in question is the position of the local authorities: that is. the proposals of the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It is perfectly true that they do not like the Bill. It is also, as I have indicated, perfectly true that the police organisations do not like the proposals of the Association of County Councils. They have also made that quite clear. It has also recently been made absolutely clear that the most recent proposals which the Association of County Councils have supported are opposed to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I say that not in order to poke fun at any of those concerned but simply to point out to noble Lords that the point which some of them made, that there is in some way an easy plan which we can create and which will carry with it the universal support of local authorities, police organisations and Parliament itself, is a total piece of mythology. I do not believe that there is the slightest chance of achieving an objective of that sort.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Is not the difficulty that nobody can see, within the framework of the Bill, a way of tinkering with it? Ought the Government not to draw the obvious

1491
conclusion that they should take the Bill away and think again?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Curiously enough, my Lords, I do not come to quite that conclusion. The noble and learned Lord will not be altogether surprised to hear that. That is not my conclusion because the Police Federation have made it perfectly clear that, if there is to be an independent element, they would prefer the Government scheme. That point has not been made by anyone in this debate, and I believe that it is right to recognise the special position of the Police Federation. After all, it is manifestly their members who are most involved in the police complaints machinery. It is right that we should take due note of them. They have made their position absolutely clear and I do not believe that, however long we spend trying to devise a scheme, we shall find one like the present scheme which, in my view, gives justice to the individual police officer, does not encroach on the proper rights and responsibilities of the chief constable and, at the same time, gives a proper guarantee to the rights of the private citizen.
I very much welcome the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hail-sham, about Sir Robert Mark. As the noble and learned Lord rightly said, I feel that he has been a most distinguished Commissioner. Anyone who, like me, has had the pleasure of working with him over two years will want to associate himself in every possible way with what the noble and learned Lord has said. I should like here to say two things. First, I repeat to the House what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place on the particular point of resignation. He said:
" The Commissioner would obviously prefer a different Bill but I can assure honourable Members that he has no plans to resign before his normal retirement date." [OFFICIAL RFPORT, 7/6/76: col. 983.]
So that is the position of the Commissioner. It is also right, as my right honourable friend pointed out, that he should have views of his own as to what would be the right way of proceeding. However, the difficulty here is, once again, that there is a substantial area of disagreement within the police service itself. This was brought out
1492
in the report of the Working Party. That report was published in March 1974. The Working Party had studied various proposals, including the various ex pose facto schemes and the proposal made by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. However, the Police Federation said then and subsequently that, in their view, it clearly raised double jeopardy.
I come hack to this with respect to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough; one cannot push on one side this point of double jeopardy quite as easily as I felt he did, if he will forgive me for saying so. A police officer who has a complaint made against him, even if it is devoid of merit, has it hanging over him in many cases for several months. In some cases, the more active a police officer he may be, the more complaints will be made against him. Clearly, that is not always true, but it certainly is in many cases. If one is to introduce a plan—and we are not doing so in the Bill—whereby, in certain circumstances and after a period of months a police officer against whom a possibly very serious complaint has been made is told, " We have investigated the complaint and have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in it. That is an end of the matter ", and then a few weeks later. either through some form of ombudsman or through some other machinery of that sort, a complainant says, " I am not satisfied; I want the matter reopened ",I am bound to say, as a matter of elementary justice, that that would seem deeply objectionable.
I repeat that the present Bill does not have objectionable features of that sort, because we have gone to considerable lengths to avoid them. If, at such a stage the whole matter can be reopened, I believe that individual police officers are right to be apprehensive about double jeopardy. I believe that all those who have spoken in this debate and have paid tribute—as did my noble friend Lord Aylestone and speakers from many other parts of the House—to the reputation of the police service and have spoken about the heavy pressure of work to which the police are subjected, should hesitate long before bringing in a complaints machinery or putting down Amendments to bring in machinery which would involve double jeopardy
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not think I was advocating double jeopardy or saying anything that would involve it. I certainly did not intend to. I appreciate the difficulty.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. At one stage, I thought that he was rather underestimating the problems involved in this. However, as I say, I quite understand the views of the Police Federation on this matter. We have regarded this as one of the central features of our proposals not to have double jeopardy. That has of course brought us into conflict with many organisations which are proposing schemes which involve double jeopardy. I had the opportunity of reading a number of the reports in another place when there were discussions on this question and in particular when there was the idea of some form of ombudsman scheme. The problem for the people who were in favour of the ombudsman idea was that they had to make up their mind on this point: could the inquiry go into the merits of the case or not and if it could do so, could it make a different adjudication? in fact, throughout the many weeks of discussion, it was very difficult to discover exactly what the answer to this question was. There is no particular mystery about it. This issue was, as I indicated in my earlier speech, dealt with in paragraph 42 of the Working Party's report. If some form of ombudsman or whatever it may be can reopen the whole case as a result of a complaint after the deputy chief constable has disposed of it and if he can insist upon the whole issue being retried and, in certain cases, a man being punished who had previously not been proceeded against by the deputy chief constable, that must be double jeopardy. There is no doubt whatever about that. But, for a very long period of time, there was—and again I make no complaint about this because the inevitably complicated character of these police disciplinary arrangements causes a great deal of misunderstanding even in the minds of those who would favour a proposition of this sort—uncertainty about whether they were in favour of reopening the merits of the case or not.?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, raised a number of points which
1494
I should like to deal with. He asked whether the complainant could put his case before the tribunal. If a tribunal sits, or if' a disciplinary hearing takes place, the complainant will almost certainly be one of the witnesses before it. I hope that that deals with that point. My noble and learned friend also raised the question as to whether or not the complainant can go to the Board. Earlier I interrupted him to point out that it had been said by the Government that he could. That point is dealt with—although I agree elliptically—in Clause 6(1)(b)(ii), where the Bill deals with the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers. Here the point is made that there is a provision whereby the Board would he required to transmit a complaint received to the chief officer of police concerned. It is the Government's firm view that the police must continue to investigate complaints made against their members. If one was to have any system other than that one would need to have a second police force and that would be ridiculous.
My noble and learned friend also referred to the proposals made by Justice concerning the investigation of complaints made against the police when an appeal to the Court of Appeal is pending. As my noble and learned friend said, there was a very full discussion of this matter during the proceedings on the Report stage of' the Bill on 20th May. As my noble and learned friend pointed out, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Law Officers Department explained our approach to this matter at sonic length. In brief, he made it clear that we are by no means unsympathetic to the idea that there should be greater flexibility in the timing of investigation of complaints against the police between trial and appeal, although we doubt whether there is a role for the Police Complaints Board in this. As I think my noble and learned friend would recognise, there are a number of very real practical difficulties. He raised the point about the discussions which are still taking place and I regret that I cannot report to him this evening what stage these discussions have reached. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that he will let my noble and learned friend know the outcome as soon as he can, and I assure my noble and learned friend of that.

1495
My noble and learned friend then asked me to commit the Government to introducing an independent prosecuting authority. Ministers of State at the Home Office have certain rights, and I suppose that they could in certain circumstances commit the Government at almost nine o'clock in the evening in the House of Lords, to a policy of that kind which would clearly have very substantial implications, quite apart from the financial ones. So my noble and learned friend will not be surprised when I say to him that the Manifesto for the next Election will he determined rather nearer the time of the next General Election. As my noble and learned friend pointed out. there are substantial financial implications in a decision of that type, but I am afraid I could not this evening make any commitment on behalf of the Government so far as that is concerned.
Finally, I should like briefly to remind noble Lords—and it is necessary to return
1496
to this point—of the central purpose of the Bill. It is an attempt to meet the demand, which I think is agreed on all sides to be justified, for an independent element in the handling of complaints. We believe that it should be of assistance to the police in the medium and long term, and even arguably in the short term, believe that the Bill will strengthen public confidence, and that it will bring to an end a debate which has taken place over a very substantial number of years. We have in this country a Police Service which I believe is the envy of the world, and I believe that this measure will buttress that reputation.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.