Lords Sitting of 6 May 1976

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

MOZAMBIQUE: GRANTS-IN-AID
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Working Party which has gone to Mozambique has yet reported, and, if so, by what accounting procedures they propose to prevent the diversion of grants-in-aid from approved schemes to other purposes.
Baroness LLEWELLYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the visit by officials from the Ministry of Overseas Development to discuss the way in which British development assistance for Mozambique will be implemented has not yet taken place. The team will look at the whole range of assistance matters, including of course the monitoring of expenditure.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is the Chief Whip aware that since I put down this Question I received a gracious letter from her which helped a great deal with the information I sought and that that has now been reinforced by the Answer she has been good enough to give? Is she aware, however, of the disquieting allegations that come from informed quarters that large sums of money have been, and are being, remitted from Mozambique to a safe haven in Europe; and is this not an additional reason why there should he an unchallengeable examination to ensure that no British funds which go to Mozambique are used for external terrorist purposes?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no information whatever about such allegations and I am indeed surprised at the suggestion that this should
622
be taking place. In any case, where British assistance is concerned, there will be no problem of misappropriation of that kind.

SOUTH AFRICA: INFORMATION FROM U.K. FIRMS
3.8 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 how many of the 500 British companies in South Africa have provided information regarding the wages of their non-White workers as requested in the White Paper (Cmnd. 5845) of December 1974.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the exact number of British firms with South African affiliates is uncertain, but at least 100 of the 500 approached by the Secretary of State for Trade have satisfied the Department either that they no longer operate in South Africa or do not employ Africans. Forty-five firms have provided information to the Department of Trade; 21 of them have published on the lines requested in the White Paper and the remaining 24 appear to have provided information to shareholders or notified them of its availability.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of those very unsatisfactory figures—only 100 companies replying, with 25 and 45 providing certain information—may I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will now do what they foreshadowed in the White Paper and introduce tougher measures to acquire this information? Will they place statutory power behind those measures?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will be aware that a report has recently been published by the organisation called Christian Concern for Southern Africa. That organisation has sent a copy of the report to my right honourable friend, who has agreed to meet them and to discuss the matter with them. My right honourable friend is at present in Nairobi at the UNCTAD Conference, and I would therefore ask my

623
noble friend to believe that the matter will be fully discussed at the proposed meeting and to leave the matter there.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that point, and having regard to the appearance in the Guardian of the Report of Christian Concern, may I ask, whether it is a fact that the Guardian say that that report indicates that there are still 28,000 Africans employed by British companies or subsidiaries who even now do not get a subsistence wage? This more than two years after the Government have taken action on the matter?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords; that is one of the points made in the report to which I referred and it will be that and other matters which my right honourable friend will wish to study when he returns from Africa.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to only 100 replies. May I suggest that if I understood the original Answer aright, there were 100 replies to the effect that the firm had either entirely given up business or did not employ Africans, and the other replies referred to in the latter part of the Answer were in addition to the 100.
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord; that is the position. One hundred have proved to my right honourable friend's satisfaction that they no longer operate in South Africa and we have the replies on the lines requested in the White Paper (Cmnd. 5845). So in that way we have at least 145 replies.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise for the misunderstanding, but even so is it not a fact that the total would be fewer than 200 replying to a Government request when the number approached was nearly 500?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the great amount of extra work imposed upon company secretaries by all these inquiries? Is he also aware of the very active way in which
624
the Confederation of British Industries and the United Kingdom Trade Association took steps to ensure that companies concerned fully realise the need to take action, and that much action has been taken? Is he further aware that, after an interview with the Secretary of State, that presidents of both those bodies had to wait six months for a promised communication? They waited from March to September last year. Does this not suggest on the part of the Ministry concerned reasonable contentment with the action taken by the British firms to make sure that this matter has been dealt with?
Lord ORAM: Not necessarily, my Lords. It might be the case that my right honourable friend was giving firms adequate time to reply. With regard to the work which company secretaries are required to do as a result of these inquiries, where the welfare of hundreds of thousands of workers is concerned, I venture the opinion that it is worth a little of the extra time of company secretaries to provide the public with the information which it needs.
Baroness WOOTTON of AB1NGER: My Lords, is it not really rather shameful that, when Her Majesty's Government ask for certain information, they are quite content that this should be collected by a voluntary organisation, admirable though that body may be? Is it not shameful that a voluntary organisation should be able to do what Her Majesty's Government are apparently unable to do?
Lord ORAM: That is not quite the position, my Lords. The point is that two inquiries are going on. There is the Government inquiry, the figures and the response to which I have given. Noble Lords will make up their own minds as to whether the response is satisfactory or otherwise. The other report is in parallel with the invitation from the Government and produces its own figures. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend is anxious to have time to study all the information as soon as he is able.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the distinction between the requests of a Government Department and the work caused by the largely unsubstantiated publications by the Guardian

625
and by this other body called Christian Endeavour? His reply suggested that I did not understand the distinction.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I appreciate that there is a distinction. I believe that that was the substance of the reply which I made to an earlier speaker.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider asking our trade commissioners in the surrounding black African States to obtain similar information in order to see whether the Africans in those areas are being properly rewarded for their endeavours and to see how the figures compare with the figures for South Africa? Very large numbers of Africans make huge journeys on foot in order to work in South Africa, where the payment is much better than in other parts of Africa.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have no doubt that that kind of consideration will be in the mind of my right honourable friend, but I believe that the situation in South Africa is such that we should examine the result of this inquiry and decide whether the methods we have used so far are adequate.

HERRING FISHING AGREEMENT
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the main points upon which agreement was reached at the recent international conference on the future of the herring fishing industry.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the proposals adopted at the recent meeting of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission included a total allowable catch of 160,000 tonnes (including a United Kingdom quota of 9,700 tonnes) for North Sea herring in 1976, a minimum landing size of 20 cm of herring for human consumption, and a total allowable catch of 10,850 tonnes (including a United Kingdom quota of 350 tonnes) for Celtic Sea herring in the year beginning 1st April 1976.
626
These proposals are open to objection by member countries and we shall consider our position—particularly that on North Sea herring—with the industry and in the light of action by other countries. The proposed catch of North Sea herring is more than the stock can safely stand, though it is nearer the safe limit than previous catch regulation agreements.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that Answer may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that, before the last war, we exported over a million barrels of cured herrings a year to the Continent of Europe and Russia, and that the great fishings—the summer fishing off the North-East coast of Scotland and the autumn fishing off Yarmouth and Lowestoft—from which these fish were supplied, are now both extinct? The stocks of herring are rapidly diminishing and it is becoming a luxury fish, which is an outrage. Is the noble Lord further aware that this agreement will give great encouragement and satisfaction to the herring fishermen of Scotland and England and to those of us who have struggled to get this agreement over the last few years, because the agreement may herald the gradual recovery of what was once a great industry?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he said, and there is much in what he said earlier. We are concerned about the future stocks of the North Sea herring, and that is one of the reasons why the Government pressed for no direct fishing for herring in the North Sea in the second half of this year. Unfortunately, our NEAFC partners do not agree to that.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, will my noble friend give an indication of to what extent the proposals of Her Majesty's Government coincided with the decision of the international conference with regard to the optimum herring catch? I am anxious to know what is the comparison between the decisions of the international conference and what was proposed by Britain.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with regard to the West Coast of Scotland there was agreement on the catch, which is 136,000 tonnes of which the United Kingdom is allowed 70,000 tonnes. With

627
regard to the North Sea, as I said in my Answer, the total allowable catch is 160,000 tonnes, which is still open to objection. The view of the Government is that a safe catch for conservation purposes is about 110,000 tonnes, of which the United Kingdom will be allowed 5,300 tonnes.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, it is welcome news that agreement has been reached, but does the noble Lord consider that a general quota system is proving effective? Is he aware that it is regarded as suspect by British fishermen, because it is difficult both to make allocations which are thought to be fair by the industries of different countries, and to ensure that other countries are observing them? Should not the proposed exclusive economic zones now virtually agreed by the World Conference in New York lead to better arrangements?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; the noble Lord is absolutely right in this. They have not yet been finally agreed, but it is hoped that agreement will be reached at Geneva in the summer, and what we are pressing for of course are 200 mile economic zones and within them we should have an up to 50 miles economic zone with our EEC partners, as put forward on 4th May by my right honourable friend Mr. Hattersley.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, in the context of the West Coast and conservancy of herring there, will the noble Lord look rather carefully at the position of the Firth of Clyde? I believe that this is one of the main breeding areas of herrings in that area, and I suspect that the Scottish Office has, for a number of years, failed to meet what the fishermen there believe to be damage to the future of the herring in that area.
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, I will certainly bring that matter to the attention of my right honourable friend. The West of Scotland stock occurs in the Minch and about 50 miles to the West of Lewis and Harris. We believe that an extention of the limit to 50 miles would give us full control over that.

METHODIST CHURCH BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Supplementary Benefits Acts 1966 to 1975 and related enactments. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la; and to be printed.

BAIL BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 4 [General right to bail of accused person]:
Lord GARDINER Lord GARDINER moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 5, at end insert (", except that no person shall be remanded in custody for the purpose of obtaining a medical or social enquiry report about him unless the Court is satisfied that he should be so remanded for his own protection or for his own welfare.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not suppose that this Amendment is in the right Part of the Bill, and I do not expect that it is properly worded. I raise it in the main for discussion. Of course, if my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will accept it, I shall not complain, but as at present advised I think it unlikely that I shall press it to a Division. I have put down this Amendment because at previous stages of the Bill the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone—quite rightly, if I may respectfully say so—courteously intervened from time to time when someone spoke about a matter which was not on the Order Paper or the Marshalled List. The noble and learned Lord was quite right; we must all keep in order, particularly perhaps very old ex-Lord Chancellors, and so this time I have put this matter down for consideration.
At the Committee stage I supported two Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. One of those Amendments was to provide that nobody should be sent to prison by being refused bail if the offence with which he was charged was not an imprisonable offence, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich was kind enough to say that he would consider that. Secondly, there was a provision virtually of this kind relating to those sent to prison for a medical report. At a time when our prisons are overcrowded this is a substantial question, because if, as I think, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, was correct with his figures, almost 24,000 men and women are sent to prison for a week simply in order to get a medical report, in conditions which my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich described as a disgrace to any civilised country.
I referred to an article which Mrs. Dell had written in the New Law Journal. She had reminded us of a matter which I am not sure even now the Home Office realise, because it has never referred to it; namely, that by Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 provision was made that in certain cases remands must be on bail, and where the remand is for a medical report these provisions do not apply if, but only if, it appears to the court that it would be impracticable to obtain such a report without remanding the defendant in custody. This Bill repeals this section. Therefore this Bill, as far as it goes so far in this field, makes matters worse, not better. Mrs. Dell concluded her article by saying:
"It would be most unfortunate if the new Bail Bill made the problem of the post conviction custodial remand worse by repealing the protection currently afforded by section 18 of the 1967 Act, and taking no further action. But if the Bill were amended so that the presumption in favour of bail covered post conviction remands for reports, then there would be a good chance of bringing to an end the absurdity of the present system whereby thousands of men and women are sent into overcrowded prisons simply in order to see a doctor."
On that Amendment my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said, as reported at column 1535 of the Official Report:
"… my noble and learned friend has pointed out, there has been discussion not only in this House but outside it; he pointed out the article by Mrs. Dell. Certainly without giving any guarantees at all, I would say that we will certainly look into this matter at a later stage of the Bill to see whether this matter should be clarified within the legislation."
Therefore, I anticipated that my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich would put down an Amendment, perhaps at the Report stage of the Bill, or would, at least, let one know what had happened. Nothing at all was said at the Report stage. We are now at Third Reading and still there is no Amendment. I heard nothing about the matter, but the noble Lord, Lord Foot, received a letter from my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, referring to this point. I understand that my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will not mind my referring to what he said, but the House has never been taken into the confidence of the Government at all as to what is their view on this subject. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Foot:
"The view we take as regards persons remanded for inquiries before sentence is that we might embody in the Bill the substance of what the Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts intended, i.e. that such persons should be remanded on bail unless a one of the considerations in Schedule 1 of the Bill applies or (b) the court has in mind to pass a custodial sentence subject to the contents of the report which it has called for or (c) the court is of opinion that the defendant may be mentally disordered and in need of in-patient treatment at a hospital."
The first question I would ask my noble friend is: as there is nothing on the Marshalled List in the name of the Government today, does he propose to do this in another place? Presumably it is too late for here. If so, then I would submit that, as to (a)—that "one of the considerations in Schedule 1 to the Bill applies"—that, of course, is absolutely right. Schedule 1 comprises the criteria which will now be established for granting or refusing bail, and that is quite right. As to (b)—that "the court has in mind to pass a custodial sentence subject to the contents of the report which it has called for"—I should strongly object to that. This would make it possible for any court to remand anybody in custody in any case; their decision would be quite unchallengeable, because it depends entirely on what is in the mind of the court. Obviously, the person himself cannot prove what is in the mind of the court, and this could therefore be used to justify every or any remand in custody for inquiries, which would negate the value of including these remands within the provisions of Clause 4. If the court thinks that the offender, anticipating a jail sentence, may be tempted to abscond, they can take that

631
into account, of course; that is Schedule 1. His state of mind they can take into account, but only on the question whether it is not an unacceptable risk to give him bail on Schedule 1 grounds.
My noble friend has referred to the Working Party's report, and in paragraph 148, on which this is apparently based, there is a sentence I cannot understand at all. They say:
"It need not be unreasonable to remand in custody, even though there is little likelihood of the defendant absconding or committing further offences".
They give no argument to support that at all. It is a bald statement as to what they think is not unreasonable; they produce no argument. Of course research has shown that in a high proportion of these cases they have been out on bail during the case in any event. I should submit that only Schedule 1 ought to apply, and that this (b) will give the magistrates an opportunity to remand all in custody every time without anybody ever being able to question it, because it depends entirely on their state of mind on a point which is irrelevant except for the question whether or not he is likely to abscond, which is Schedule 1.
Then, (c) is that
"the court is of opinion that the defendant may be mentally disordered and in need of in-patient treatment at a hospital".
This seems to be based on a misconception of the court's role in a medical remand. In such cases the court has two functions. The first is to decide whether or not to remand the tried offender for medical reports. As the Butler Committee pointed out, the social inquiry report will probably indicate whether or not there is a need for medical examination. Once it has decided on a remand for medical inquiries, the second decision for the court—quite different—is whether it should be on bail or in custody. This, in my submission, should be determined by the court in the ordinary way according to the criteria laid down in Schedule 1.
I do not wish to take up further time by arguing this point. Of course, the Magistrates Courts Act specifically makes provision for offenders to be remanded on bail to a hospital as in-patients. I therefore hope that the Government will reconsider the contents of the letter, or even that my noble friend Lord Harris may have
632
better news for us today. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.34 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, I wonder whether I could add a few words in support of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Lord, because he has, as it were, taken up the cudgels which I laid down on an earlier occasion. I should like to follow him, if I may, in making one or two comments upon the way in which this Bill has gone through your Lordships' House, because I cannot help thinking that it has been less than satisfactory. I should like to say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that this is in no sense a personal criticism of himself; but I should like to tell the House just what has happened, because I think a matter of some principle is involved here, in that this House has not had the full opportunity it ought to have had to discuss the very important terms of this Bill. I think I am entitled to take that line because from the very beginning I have been a wholehearted supporter of the general principles of this Bill. I spoke in favour of it on Second Reading. It seemed to me that the general approach of the Bill—based, of course, upon the report of the Working Party—was logical, sensible and designed to be effective for the purpose which we all have in mind; that is, to try to prevent people being sent to prison on remand if it is possible to leave them in society without danger to the community. I am wholeheartedly in support of that principle, and I think that, so far as accused persons are concerned—not convicted persons, but so far as accused persons are concerned—as originally drawn the Bill was very well framed.
For the benefit of those Members of the House who may not have been able to follow these rather intricate legal points may I explain in two sentences, perhaps, what this Bill accomplishes? First of all, for the first time in English law it lays down the principle that where a person is brought before a court and the question arises as to what is to be done with him on an adjournment or a remand, there shall be a presumption in favour of bail unless certain criteria are fulfilled; and the criteria that you have to look at, which are the exceptional cases, are contained in Schedule 1 to the

633
Bill. They are, of course, if the court is satisfied, first, that there is an unacceptable risk that the defendant may abscond; secondly, that he might commit other offences in the meanwhile; and, thirdly, that he may interfere with witnesses. Then, the fourth criterion, which appears further down the Schedule, says that the court need not remand him on bail if they are satisfied that to remand him in custody would be for his own protection and his own welfare. That was the second basic principle of the Bill: that there should be a presumption unless it was dislodged by the exceptions contained in Schedule 1. The third major principle of the Bill is that if the magistrates or the Crown Court refused bail, then they must give their reasons for doing so. All those things seem to be logical, sensible and a substantial improvement upon the situation before.
At the Committee stage I moved four Amendments, in substance. They were designed to try to deal with four particular situations. The first Amendment which I moved was one by which I hoped that we should not make the mistake, as I think we are, of making absconding or failing to surrender to bail a criminal offence. That, of course, is introduced by the Bill in place of the personal recognisances, which have now been abandoned. That was the first thing I sought to do. The second thing I sought to do was what the noble and learned Lord is now trying to do again, and that is to make the presumption in favour of bail apply to persons who are remanded after conviction or after a finding of guilt in order that some report or inquiry may be made about them before a decision is made in their case.
The third thing I sought to do was to provide that, if anybody was at risk of being remanded in custody, then before the magistrates or the Crown Court remanded him in custody, and if he came within the financial criteria, he ought to be given the benefit of legal aid to enable him to make his representations on the matter of bail. The fourth thing I was trying to do was to provide that there should not be a remand in custody of anybody on a substantive offence if the substantive offence is non-imprisonable. Those are the four things I tried to do. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, rejected No. 1, the proposal that absconding should
634
not be a criminal offence. That was the end of that argument. But on the other three, the noble Lord was good enough to say that he thought that there was something in what I had argued and he promised to take the matters away and to have a look at them again.
In accordance with that undertaking, he wrote to me during the Easter Recess—and this is the letter to which the noble and learned Lord has just referred—and he told me what the Government had in mind upon these three matters about which he had undertaken to think again. This letter was written on 14th April. At the end of it, he said:
"These are our present intentions"—
and I will refer back to that in a minute.
"However, because of the Easter Recess intervening we shall not be able to have Amendments drafted and circulated until Monday, 26th April."
That was the day before the Report stage on the 27th.
"Moreover, we cannot be sure until Parliamentary Counsel has had time to go into the matter that he will be able to draft all the Amendments in the time available before Report. I therefore thought it right to let you know now what our intentions are so that at least you should not be taken by surprise or puzzled by the apparent delay in publication of the Amendments."
That was courteous of the noble Lord. But then we had the Easter Recess. I received that letter, and what happened? What happened was that when we got to the Report stage, only one Amendment had been put down by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which related in any way to my proposals. This Amendment related to a very narrow issue about legal aid for people who had been convicted and remanded and at Report I am afraid that I expressed views that, however good the intentions of the Government were, the way in which they had tried to do it would prove entirely unworkable. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he thought there was some substance in the criticisms that I then made, but he asked, nevertheless, that the House should pass his Amendment as it stood. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, asked whether it would not be better, if he thought it wrong, to take the Amendment away. Lord Harris replied that he thought it better that the Amendment be passed but that he would look at it again to see whether there was any substance in the

635
charge that it was unworkable. That was the situation on Report.
My Lords, here we are today on Third Reading of the Bill and nothing more has been produced in reply to the criticisms about legal aid that I made at the Report stage, and nothing has been produced by the Government upon the various matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred in his letter to me as to what the Government were of a mind to do. The result is that this Bill is going to leave this House today without the House having had any opportunity of debating what the Government are intending to do by way of its amendment. Not only is it going to another place without any debate about what the Government intentions are but, except for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I think I am the only person who knows what the Government have in mind.
This seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory procedure because I should have thought that for the discussion of Bills of this kind, non-Party Bills with no Party connotation, this House is the ideal forum. We have the time, which the House of Commons so often has not got; we have a wealth of legal talent and experience. Surely this is the very place where these matters ought to be debated fully and openly, as they often cannot be in the House of Commons. Therefore, I hope I am not complaining unreasonably when I say that I am very disappointed that we have not had the opportunity of discussing these matters in the full detail in which they should have been discussed; because the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he took these matters back, was in a sense conceding that there was some virtue in the criticism that I made.
So far as we are concerned the Bill is going to disappear this afternoon, and we are going to have no further say in the matter. Of the Amendments that I proposed, by far the most important was the one which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has now resurrected. I agree with him that he has not got it right. It is not in the right place. I believe that the Amendment I moved at an earlier stage was probably a little better; but that is neither here nor there. This Amendment is the most important criticism of the general purposes of the Bill. The noble
636
and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred just now to some figures I quoted at an earlier stage about the extent and size of the problem. I was quoting not from any partisan publication but from the report of the Working Party itself. They said as he said: that in whatever year it was that they were considering, no fewer than 24,000 people were remanded for reports or inquiries; and, of those, about 12,500 people were remanded for medical reports. This is an extraordinary situation.
I now speak, if I may, to the laymen in the House. Is it not an extraordinary thing that no fewer than 24,000 people, many of them unconvicted but some of them having been convicted, should suffer a taste of imprisonment and be put away, not for a week but very often for three weeks—for the courts have power to remand up to three weeks in custody—when many of them will never be sent to prison afterwards? By sending a person to prison for three weeks on remand in custody, you can, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, pointed out on an earlier occasion, destroy a man's life. It is a dreadful situation that this should be the case, but that is the size and gravity of the problem.
May I turn to what the Government are proposing to do on this particular issue? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has already quoted the paragraph in which Lord Harris told me what the Government intentions are, but I will read it again because I think it requires a little taking in. I should like to think that this is not an argument between lawyers but an argument of great public importance. What the noble Lord said to me in the letter was:
"The view that we take as regards persons remanded for inquiries before sentence is that we might embody in the Bill the substance of what the Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts intended, i.e., that such persons should be remanded on bail unless (a) one of the considerations in Schedule 1 of the Bill applies."
That is to say, the court is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the man may abscond, or he might commit other offences, interfere with witnesses, or he ought to be remanded for his own protection. The Government say they might be prepared to consider creating a presumption in favour of bail in those circumstances. The Government then try to

637
add two further criteria. The second criterion which they want to add is that the court has it in mind to pass a custodial sentence subject to the contents of the report which it has called for. Then (c):
"That the court is of the opinion that the defendant may be mentally disordered and in need of in-patient treatment at a hospital".
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said, if we are to consider the effect of (b)—that is to say, if the court is thinking of passing a custodial sentence—there is no presumption in favour of bail when it remands the man for a report. The insertion of that new criterion is first of all entirely unnecessary because it is impossible not to believe that if, for example, the court has it in mind to impose a severe sentence upon somebody, when the court comes to apply its mind to the criterion in Schedule 1—that is, "Is this man likely to abscond if we let him out on bail? "if he is liable to a fairly heavy penalty and it is a serious offence, obviously, under the terms of Schedule 1, the court is going to keep him in custody. It is absolutely unnecessary to introduce this extra criterion to achieve the object which everybody has in mind.
Also, to put in a clause of this kind is positively inviting the courts to remand people in custody, because what you are saying to the court when you add on this additional criterion to those in Schedule 1 is in effect: "If you are thinking of sending this man to prison after you get your report, do not bother about asking yourself whether he is going to abscond. You need not bother about that, or whether he is going to commit other offences. Forget about that. If you are going to sentence him to a custodial sentence, you can deny him bail perfectly properly without any further ado".
The third criticism was one to which again the noble and learned Lord referred: if the magistrates decided to refuse a man bail and remand him in custody for no better reason than they had it in mind to sentence him to a custodial sentence eventually, then that decision cannot in any way be challenged. There is no way in which the defendant can complain to some other court that he has been improperly denied bail. Of course he can complain if the magistrates turn him down because they say that they think he is going to abscond. Then of course he can go to the High Court or to the Crown
638
Court, and even appeal against that decision. Then the court applies its mind as to what it thinks the possibilities are. If the court of first instance, which has refused him bail, has done so simply on the ground, "We are thinking of sentencing him to a custodial sentence", there is no way of appealing against that decision.
The last criteria, which is (c), is the second additional criterion which the Government have it in mind to add on. It is:
"That the court is of the opinion that the defendant may be mentally disordered and in need of in-patient treatment at a hospital".

Is not the real effect of that to say to the court dealing with the bail application, "Even if you are satisfied that this man is not going to abscond, even if you are satisfied this man is not going to commit any other offences, even if you are satisfied that he is not going to interfere with witnesses, even if you are satisfied that he will turn up in due course and even if you are not thinking of imposing a custodial sentence, nevertheless "—in the words to which I have referred—" if you think he is mentally disordered or if you think he is in need of in-patient treatment, you are perfectly at liberty to send him to prison". Is it necessary to do anything more than to enunciate the proposition to show how indefensible that situation is? It is a positive invitation to the courts to forget about the question as to whether he will answer to his bail: "Forget about other considerations; if you think he is a bit barmy, send him to prison".
That is all the more intolerable because under our present procedures, under Section 26 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, the court can, if they wish, bail a man for in-patient treatment in a hospital. But what the addition of this criterion does is to invite the court to do to the man what might be the worst thing you can do in the psychiatric case: that is, confine him in prison for three weeks. All the other criticisms we made about criteria (b) apply to (c). It is absolutely unnecessary because if the court have somebody before them whom they think is a bit odd, who may be slightly deranged, that is one of the factors which they can take into account when considering whether he is going to abscond or commit other offences. They are perfectly entitled to have regard to that.

639
Under the Amendments which are to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, which are setting out the factors to which the magistrates should have regard when considering an application for bail, and considering the application of Schedule 1, there it is specifically provided that the magistrates shall have regard to the character of the individual. Surely, his character must mean his behaviour, conduct and what the magistrates make of his mental make-up. Therefore it is entirely unnecessary.
The real fault here I suggest in what the Government are purporting or intending to do apparently in another place is that there is a confusion of mind. It is a confusion between the proper understanding of the criteria to which the court ought to have regard when considering an application for bail, and the factors which they ought to bear in mind. Under the Bill as it will read when Lord Harris's Amendment has been carried, as no doubt it will—and that is, of course, merely a rehash of the Amendments which have been previously proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone—there will be a clear distinction so far as accused persons are concerned, not convicted persons, between the criterion which the magistrates have to consider in deciding a bail application, and the factors which they have to take into account in interpreting those criteria. That is the mistake which has been made here.
What has happened is that the mental state of the person is certainly a factor, and the fact that the court might be intending to impose a custodial sentence is certainly a factor which they are entitled to take into consideration when they are considering the application of the criteria which are set out in Schedule 1. I am sorry to have gone on for so long, but it is a great disappointment to me that we have not been able to argue these matters out more fully in this House, and before very long this Bill will disappear from our purview.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I do not wish to say very much at this time, but as I have been a magistrate for many years I should like to support the case which has been put forward this afternoon by two most distinguished legal luminaries. Both as
640
a Member of another place and now as a Member of your Lordships' House, I have always thought that there are far too few magistrates who are Members either of another place or here. For many years, magistrates have felt that it has been very difficult indeed to get various points of view put across to a point where they could be reasonably and wholeheartedly discussed. I was a lay magistrate without any legal training, but I think it is terribly important that on this occasion we should get this Bill on the Statute Book with all the necessary Amendments which most magistrates would wish to see. I very much enjoyed the two speeches that have been made, and I thought that, since I have had experience as a magistrate, I might just say these few words in support of the points of view put forward, which ought to be dealt with by the noble Lord the Minister when he comes to reply.
4.2 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I should like to deal with the substance of this Amendment first and then turn to some of the other matters which have been raised. First, as my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner implied when he moved his Amendment, the Amendment is defective and will not in fact achieve the intention he set out. I would rather not waste the time of the House explaining why that is so, but it is the fact. However, the Amendment enables me to come back to one point of substance. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, moved Amendments in Committee which had the same general objective as this Amendment, and they were withdrawn following an undertaking that the Government would look into the matter at a later stage. emphasise those last words, because I never gave an absolute guarantee that the matter would be dealt with in this House. I would have hoped that might have been the case, but unhappily that has not been found possible. As my noble and learned friend has put down this Amendment, it enables me to say that we do intend to introduce Amendments in another place to amend Clause 4, which at present applies only to remand before conviction, so as to create a presumption in favour of the grant of bail to a person whose case is adjourned after conviction but before sentence, for the purpose of

641
enabling inquiries or a report to be made to assist the court in dealing with that person in connection with the offence. Such a change will involve modification to Schedule 1 which, as at present drafted, deals with cases of accused persons.
My noble and learned friend raised the question of the non-imprisonable offences, and asked what was the view of the Government as to the risk of people being remanded in custody. Indeed, it sometimes happens that a person is remanded in custody for a non-imprisonable offence. I undertook to look into this matter, and I indicated that Government Amendments are to be put down in another place to limit the power to remand a prisoner in custody for a non-imprisonable offence.
My noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, have argued one particular aspect of their case today, and they have said that we must be very careful about this because there is the risk that a situation might arise where magistrates could remand in custody in order to give somebody a taste of prison. Of course, this is clearly a matter of opinion, and there is always a risk that some magistrates will do this. But the Government take the view that when the Bill is amended as we hope it will be, justices will be required to give reasons for their decisions. This is the safeguard. It will be a requirement that the magistrates have to give a reason. If they act unreasonably, steps can be taken by the legal representatives of the person concerned. I hope that will give some satisfaction to my noble and learned friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Foot.
I shall also hold discussions with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the points made by my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, regarding those persons who are apparently mentally disordered. I concede straight away that this is a difficult matter; but one has to look into the practical problem of what a bench of magistrates is supposed to do when confronted with a difficult case of a person who appears to be significantly mentally disordered. The bench has to take a decision, and it is not an easy one. Nor is it easy to draft provisions about this with any degree of precision, which is one
642
of the reasons why we have not been able to come forward today with Amendments, as we would have wished to do. Nevertheless, I will certainly discuss with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary the points which have been made by my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Foot.
Coming back to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, with his customary courtesy, I certainly apologise for the fact that we have not been able to put down these Amendments before the Bill leaves this House. But it is a perfectly normal procedure, when a Bill starts in another place and comes here, for matters which are raised to be put right in your Lordships' House. In this case, the Bill has started in this House and Amendments will be put down dealing with the points which have been raised. Although they will be put down in another place, this House will have the opportunity to discuss them when the Bill is returned to us. There is no risk of the House being debarred from expressing its views on these matters. If the Bill is amended after it has left this House, the Amendments will be put before your Lordships in due course.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not want to prolong this debate, but perhaps I might be allowed just to say that of course what the noble Lord has just said is a matter of some importance. On Second Reading I raised the question of first conviction bail, which is both complicated and important, as this debate has very clearly shown. All I say is that we are now parting with the Bill in a state in which it does not deal with one of the main subjects with which it will deal when the Government's Amendments are put down. Before they are put down and considered, I hope that the noble Lord and his right honourable friend will consult with the Common Law Judiciary and, in particular, with the Lord Chief Justice, who is, I know, very much concerned with the proposals contained in this Bill.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich for what he has said. I share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, but I think that, owing

643
to the course of events, it is unfortunate that we in this House have not been able to use the talents we have to further improve the Bill. Subject to that, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Bail for accused persons: supplementary provisions]:
4.10 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 15, line 33, at end insert—
" . In assessing, in relation to any event mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Schedule, whether the likelihood or the consequences of the event's occurring constitutes or constitute an unacceptable risk, the court shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant, that is to say—

(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence or default (and the probable method of dealing with the accused for it),

(b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the accused,

(c) the accused's record as respects the fulfilment of his obligations under previous grants of bail in criminal proceedings,

(d) the strength of the evidence of his having committed the offence or having defaulted,

as well as to any others which appear to be relevant."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down as a result of an undertaking which I gave to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Halisham of Saint Marylebone, on the basis of which he agreed to withdraw an Amendment with a similar general objective. The Amendment seeks to embody in the Bill some guidance to the courts on the factors that they should take into account when applying the tests set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, as to whether or not bail should be granted. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, recognised, it would not be practical to set out every conceivable factor which might be relevant to the bail question in any case.
The factors listed in the Government's Amendment include in substance those contained in the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord moved, but with one addition; namely, the question of the strength of the evidence against the accused. The desirability of adding this consideration was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wigoder,
644
who was supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, and that is now incorporated in the Amendment which I am now moving.
The Government's Amendment necessarily includes a reference to "unacceptable risk" which was inserted at the Committee stage of the Bill after a Division. I should perhaps say now to the House that the Government reserve their position on whether they will seek a further amendment of these words in another place. However, although I think it only right to mention this possibility now, I do not think it need affect our consideration of the present Amendment. Even if other words are chosen, the wording which is now before us in this Amendment can, in my view, be retained with possibly a minor change in the opening words. With that introduction, my Lords, I beg to move.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I have first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for discharging, as we had all accepted, his undertaking to me on Report stage and I am grateful to him for having given effect, in substance, to the Amendment which I proposed both in Committee and on the Report stage. I think I may say, frankly, that he has improved it. The last guideline, paragraph (d), in his proposed Amendment is one which I unaccountably omitted and should have inserted in my own Amendment. So I am grateful to him for improving the draftsmanship. Whereas I am not wedded to any particular form of words, and I accept that "unacceptable risk" was a child of my own—although it has, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed out to me in a private letter, been used by members of the Judiciary in other cases—I should be sorry to see the noble Lord depart from the spirit of that change which was accepted by the House at my instance.
One has in these cases to weigh two quite different considerations which are very difficult to reconcile in practice. One is the desirability of retaining at liberty anybody who has not been convicted of a crime, and the other is the protection of the public and the administration of justice. I am quite sure, in my own mind, that the Bill as originally drafted went too far in the former direction

645
and did not sufficiently take into account the latter consideration, and in that I was fortified by the various authorities to whose authority I appealed in my Second Reading speech. While, therefore, I am in no way personally committed to the phrase which I am bound to say I introduced myself, I hope that its spirit will be accepted.
Having said that, may I just add that I think we have improved this Bill during its passage through this House. We have attempted to do so without any reference to Party considerations and without any undesirable backstage negotiations. We have simply placed at the disposal of Parliament such talents as we possess, and debated them publicly. I am grateful for the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has listened to the suggestions we made and, in some cases, given effect to them. I do not wish to prolong this debate, and therefore I conclude as I began with a word of thanks to the noble Lord for his courtesy and attention.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I shall be brief. I want to say how very warmly I support the Amendment that has been moved by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. I cannot speak with any of the great legal authority that we have around us, and I speak just as one who for over a quarter of a century has been a mere justice of the peace, and for most of those years chairman of a magistrates' court. I felt, as did many of my magistrate friends, that in its original form this Bill was too restrictive of the powers that magistrates might have to refuse bail in cases where they felt it should be refused.
My mind goes back to a case which came before the court over which I was presiding some years ago. Three men were charged with breaking and entering a sub-Post Office. As any of your Lordships who have kept sub-Post Offices will know, there is often a vast amount of money stored in the safes on those premises. Two of those men were crouched before the safe, they had before them an array of tools—drills, hammers, chisels and jemmies—and outside in a van there were six sticks of dynamite. An impassioned plea was put to us by learned counsel who represented those three men. He was a Conservative MP who now ranks rather eminently in the law. He explained
646
to us that he could provide bail of many thousands of pounds and that two of his sureties would be Members of Parliament.
Now, my Lords, things are not always as they seem. The case looked rather black against those three men as it had been explained to us in court, but I thought, having regard to the influence of learned counsel, that we ought to retire to our own private room to consider whether we should grant bail as he had requested. As I said, things are not always as black as they seem. Those three men might have been sent by the Postmaster General to repair a defective safe at that Post Office, though midnight was hardly the time to do it. They might have been postgraduate students from a university who had come down to prepare themselves for a thesis on criminology. But having regard to all the circumstances of the case, we decided to announce that we would not grant bail.
I feel that magistrates, who may not be learned in the law but are fairly sensible men and women, should have some discretion on the question whether they grant bail or refuse it. I felt that the Bill in its original form was too restrictive. Therefore, I am delighted that my noble friend, by his Amendment, is giving magistrates a little more discretion than they had originally.
4.18 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, if I may raise one small point, it is not unusual when a Bill is passed which has to be administered by justices of the peace for the Home Office to send out a helpful memorandum. If they do so on the wording of this Bill, I do not know whether they will be able to point out that the seriousness of the offence is, of course, relevant, because the more serious the offence, the longer the sentence is likely to be, and therefore the greater the temptation to skip bail. If they do that, will they also point out that the men in question may be guilty or they may be innocent? If you are innocent, then the more serious the offence the more vital it is for you to get bail if it is a proper case. If it is a heavy case, you may have to see accountants and solicitors, have interviews and gather stacks of documents.
It may be a simple case, dependent on identity. If at the time in question you

647
were in your local pub, with a lot of people you know very well by sight and often talk to but you do not know their names, you want to find them. How can a solicitor find men whose names he does not know, when he does not know what they look like? If it is a serious offence you are less likely to get bail, and that has always been a two-edged weapon, because if the man is innocent, and he may be, then the more serious the offence the more important it is to get bail.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will certainly take into account what my noble and learned friend has said in terms of dealing with any circular to magistrates. So far as this Bill is concerned, guidance will be given to magistrates on this point. Indeed, it was our intention to deal with the body of this Amendment in that circular until we were persuaded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that it would be better and preferable to incorporate it in the Bill, and that we have done.
So far as my noble friend Lord Leather-land is concerned, certainly anyone who has been a magistrate—I was one for a period of only 12 months when I held that position on an ex officio basis—knows how much devoted work is done by magistrates and of the great body of wisdom that they possess. Nevertheless, it is a fact that in the Government's view too many people are remanded in custody. At the moment we face a situation where our prisons are intolerably overcrowded. The prison population is still rising and this is a most formidable problem which we are now having to face up to.
Having said that, I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in thanking all those who have assisted us in what we have undoubtedly done—that is, to improve this Bill—and I thank him very much for the gracious words he directed to me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 15, line 37, at end insert—
" "default", in relation to the accused, means the default for which he is to be dealt with under
648
section 6 or section 16 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (privilege) made.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
4.22 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, if I am not unduly trespassing on the time of the House, before the Bill is passed may I say that I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that we have improved it to some extent. I think that "unacceptable risk" is much better than either "probable" or "possible". We have better post-conviction legal aid, although we do not know whether it will work. However, there are two other matters to which I should respectfully like to refer.
First, as I explained to the House, I attended the Second Reading of the Bill but had to leave for an appointment as Chancellor of the Open University which I could not avoid. Therefore, I could not join in the debate, nor was I able to put down Amendments at the Committee stage. However, at the Committee stage I raised this point: ought not there to be a limit on the time during which a man can be kept in custody while he is waiting for his trial? In general, this time is about 11·8 weeks. However, as a former chairman of Justice, many times we had brought to us very much longer periods than that—periods of six months, or nine months, or a year. I remember one period of 18 months, with the police going on and on saying, "We have not completed our inquiries"—it is very difficult for magistrates to deal with that—or sometimes, "We are inquiring as to further possible charges". Sometimes I believe the real reason is that they want to pick up somebody else whom they wish to try with this man. Therefore, ought there not to be a time limit? After all, long before six months are up this man has lost his job; he has no money coming in; he is in arrears with his rent and he may lose his home as well.
At the Committee stage of the Bill I pointed out that since 1711 it has been the

649
law in Scotland that a man cannot be kept in custody—that includes his trial when he is also in custody—for more than 110 days. This law of 1711 is now part of Clause 101 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. That clause provides that, unless his trial is completed within 110 days of his first being in custody, he shall be forthwith set at liberty and declared for ever free from all question or process for the crime for which he was committed. Therefore, the question which I raised on that occasion was whether this does not always have a good effect on prosecuting authorities, whoever they are. When one bears in mind that somebody in this country was kept in custody for 18 months, which is 540 days, may I ask the rhetorical question: how has it come about that ever since 1711 the prosecuting authorities in Scotland have always been able to complete a trial within 110 days from the time a man was first in custody while it is quite impossible to do so here? Apparently, it causes no trouble at all in Scotland.
When I raised this point my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said that he would gladly look into the matter. Since then there has been an absolutely deafening silence. No Amendments have been put down. I have been told nothing at all as to whether or not the Government have gone into this matter, whether they agree with it and will introduce an Amendment in the other place, or whether they do not agree with it.
The second point which I raised was much more important. It was that if a man is denied bail and is kept in custody, even if only for three months, almost certainly he will have lost his job and he may have lost his home, but when the date of his trial arrives the police say, "Sorry, we find out now that it was another man who committed this offence and we offer no evidence". I described it as a disgrace to justice that that man has no legal right to compensation of any kind. Of course, the Home Secretary, wearing his scarlet robes as the Royal Prerogative, may, if he thinks fit, grant him ex gratia a payment of such amount as he may think right. However, as my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and others pointed out, in other countries—I believe I am right in saying in Germany and in France, and my noble friend Lady Wootton says also in Japan—there is in
650
such circumstances a legal right to compensation. I reminded my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that in his first speech as Prime Minister the present Prime Minister said:
"Let us set ourselves some aims. Let us root out injustice and put it right, wherever we can".
We could have done that in this Bill. As I said at the time, and clearly it was the case, it would have meant altering the Long Title; but because it suited the Government for another purpose at the Report stage of the Bill they themselves extended the Long Title. Here was an opportunity when we might have put it right. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said:
"I will look into the matter with even greater vigour, given the fact that the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister were called in aid. At a time like this it is appropriate to pay even more attention to the words of Prime Ministers than is normally the case".
My noble friend having said that, we then had another deafening silence. Nothing happened at all. My noble friend put down no Amendment and I received no letter—nothing. Therefore I hope that the House will excuse me if before we pass this Bill I venture to ask for some indication of the Government's mind on these two points.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, my noble friend is on to an exceptionally good point. My noble friend should have had a reply and he will get one by the end of this week. I apologise to him for the fact that he has not had a letter from me.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES BILL [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill has as its general purpose the promotion of the economic and social wellbeing of the people of rural Wales. Its particular purpose is the welfare of that part of rural Wales—Mid-Wales—which has suffered so severely from rural depopulation in past generations. It seeks to strengthen the economic and social fabric of rural communities in Wales.

651
We all hold the welfare of the countryside dear, and nowhere is that truer than in Wales. "Cefn gwlad Cymru", being translated "the backbone of Wales", is the description of this part of Wales—its heartland and the source of much of the heritage and inspiration of Wales.
This House has on many occasions debated the particular questions of the countryside—agricultural policy, environmental planning. But we have rarely considered a measure concerned with the development of a rural community as a whole. What are its problems? Rural Wales remains heavily dependent on the primary industries: a fifth of the population is directly engaged in farming and forestry and many others are indirectly dependent on the fortunes of farming.
The conditions for farming in this part of Wales, however, are not easy. The land always looks beautiful but it has only grudgingly yielded a livelihood, sometimes a precarious one, to the hill farmer. Even those small farmers in the vales and valleys, with their limited resources, have faced great difficulties in contending with rapid advances in farming techniques like dairying, and with the pressures of the market.
Inevitably successive generations of the young and active have moved out of the area, because the outlets for the young there are so limited, even when the economic situation is buoyant. Increasingly it is the elderly who keep the welcome for their children and their families when they come home again to Wales. And it is becoming more difficult to maintain basic services both in the towns and in the countryside. The House will be familiar with the very serious problems of providing public transport in rural areas. This itself is an indication of the way in which rural communities are under attack.
Attempts have of course been made in the past to deal with these problems, but they have been piecemeal. The local authorities have done their best to provide services for populations that are thinly scattered over a wide area, and to meet the rising expectations of the people. Particularly significant has been the will of local councils to encourage industrial development in Mid-Wales through their own association, the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association. And while
652
reorganisation has reduced the number of local authorities, it has not, alas! reduced the problems that they face.
The Development Commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Northfield—and before that of Lady Albemarle—in recent years has devoted its resources increasingly to the problems of areas like Mid-Wales, commissioning over twenty advance factories, developing small factories as an encouragement to small local industries and crafts and encouraging the building of houses in advance to meet the requirements of incoming workers and their families. The many hundreds of persons employed in such factories will remain a lasting tribute to the work of the Commissioners in Wales, and it is in some ways a matter of regret that our proposals will bring to an end the association of the Commission with Wales, which has dated back to the days when Lloyd George was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas (CoSIRA) has, under the aegis of the Development Commission, extended its assistance for the local craftsman and manufacturer, provided technical and managerial assistance and backed its advice with money—to the extent of £1 million currently on loan to small industries, including tourist ventures in Mid-Wales. This is apart from the considerable help given by the Wales Tourist Board.
The Government themselves have given a great deal of assistance to the area. They have not just read the reports on rural Wales—and there has been no lack of these. In 1966, development area status was granted to large areas including the whole of rural Wales, enabling the financing of advance factory building in the area and the provision of grants and selective assistance, where appropriate, to qualifying industrial concerns. A year later the Mid-Wales Development Corporation was established following a consultant's report on the feasibility of a new town in Mid-Wales commissioned by the first Secretary of State for Wales, my old friend—indeed the friend of many of us—the late Jim Griffiths. No one who has been to Newtown can fail to be impressed by the contribution that the corporation has made in changing the face of what was a declining town. The corporation

653
has built over 40 factories. Over 800 new jobs have been created. The population of the town has grown from 5,000 to 7,000. Few realised the significance to Mid-Wales of that act of faith and the wise decision taken by Jim Griffiths' successor, my right honourable friend Cledwyn Hughes, to use the machinery of the New Towns Corporation to combat the weakness of a debilitated rural area.
However successful each of these individual initiatives has been, criticism has repeatedly been made about the absence of a comprehensive approach to the problems of the area, the absence of a body that can give direction and force to all those activities aimed at improving the economic and social wellbeing of the area along the lines of the Highlands and Islands Board, which has brought such advantage to the remoter parts of Scotland.
The basic purpose of the Bill now before the House is to establish the Development Board for Rural Wales in order to promote the economic and social wellbeing of the area for which it is to be responsible. It will do this by assuming direct responsibility for functions undertaken by some of the bodies I have already mentioned. In its area the Board will take over the work of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation and the Development Commission. The work of CoSIRA in Wales will be taken over by the Welsh Development Agency and the Wales Tourist Board. Far from adding to the number of bodies in Wales—and one must bear in mind that Parkinson's law can also operate in regard to the proliferation of public bodies—the proposals which are now before the House will reduce the number of bodies operating in the Principality,
By bringing these functions together the Board will, we think, be more effective in taking action to meet the needs of the area. It will provide a focus for the activities of other bodies that will remain. I can do no better than quote from Clause 1 the general function of the Board, which is
"to prepare, concert, promote, support and undertake measures for the economic and social development of the area for which it is responsible and in particular for the development of any …new town situated within the area for which it is responsible."
The Government's proposals were set out in a Consultative Document which was circulated earlier this year to the
654
bodies with an interest in the area, and we have been encouraged by the response to that document. There have of course been a number of points of difference to which I will shortly refer, but none of those consulted has cast any doubt on the need for a strengthening of the measures to support and to assist rural Wales. Questions have been asked about the relationship of the Board with the Welsh Assembly, when that comes to be established. I may say that the intention of the Government is that the Board at that time will be appointed by, and accountable to, the Welsh Assembly.
My Lords, I now turn to the relations between the Board and the Welsh Development Agency. Some would have preferred the Board to be an arm of the Welsh Development Agency. It is true that the Board will be taking over from the Agency responsibility for advance factory building, but the Board will also have powers not available to the Agency to improve the infrastructure of the area. In the case of Newtown, for example, the Development Corporation found that before expansion could take place a new sewage works was required. Local authorities and statutory undertakers have of course done their best within their resources to deal with these problems. The Board will supplement their efforts in areas of particular difficulty and the powers that are to be given form an integral part of the policy for combating the decline of rural areas. Of course, the Board will co-operate closely with the Agency. To that end, the Government are proposing to add to the membership of the Agency the chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales. The role of the Agency will be enhanced also by the proposals for it to take over CoSIRA responsibility for giving assistance to small industries in rural Wales. The Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Wales has met the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and discussed with him practical ways in which the work of the Agency and of the Board will be co-ordinated.
Some have pressed that the functions of the Board should extend to the agricultural industry, to forestry and to fishing, although none has been very explicit on what powers the Board should

655
have in this field. Responsibility for agricultural support must, we believe, remain a responsibility of central Government. Farmers in other parts of Wales, and for that matter the country as a whole, who face similar difficult conditions, would not thank the Government if the accident of being on the Board side of the boundary gave their neighbours financial advantages which were not also available to them. Decisions on agricultural support have also to be made within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy and the EEC Rules on national aid. This is not to say that the Board would not be deeply concerned with the fortunes of the primary industries of the area. The fortunes of the farming community will have a direct bearing on the problems the Board has to face, but we must look elsewhere than to the primary industries of the area for a solution to the problems of depopulation and for the development of the country towns of the area.

My Lords, in the course of the consultations that have taken place, there have been meetings with many other organisations, including the local authorities and the Land Authority for Wales, of which my noble friend Lady White will be aware. I am glad to say that these exchanges of views proved of great value in explaining to the authorities concerned the intentions of the Government, and in enabling the present proposals to be framed as far as possible to accord with the views that were put forward.
Some would have wished the Board to have extended its boundaries. It is never easy to draw boundaries, but the Government believe it is right to make a start with the area which corresponds with that of the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association. The Secretary of State for Wales, however, will have the power to vary the area in the light of experience. As we say in Wales, "Deuparth gwaith yw ei ddechreu", which, translated, means, "a task begun two-thirds done".
The value of concentrating resources on selected areas is most clearly demonstrated by the success of the mid-Wales Development Corporation at Newtown, whose functions are now to be taken over by the Board. The powers of the Board are drafted in wide terms to encompass
656
the powers of a new town development corporation, and its general function makes it clear that the Board is to have special regard for the development of any new towns designated within its area. Indeed, Schedule 3 to the Bill deals with the application to the Development Board of many of the provisions contained in the New Towns Act 1965.
The Bill opens up new ground in another direction—the power that has been given to the Board to undertake or to give financial assistance to local and other authorities in the undertaking of projects to improve the infrastructure of the area. The availability of resources may limit the use that can be made of this power, but it is thought right to make provision for the Board to be able to do it. There may be key infrastructure projects in need of financing on which further development in a particular area may indeed depend, and in circumstances like these the Board will be able to perform a pump-priming role which will lead to further developments.
The size of the membership of the Board reflects the wide functions which I have described. It will have not less than 11 and not more than 13 members, including the chairman and vice-chairman. In accordance with the provisions of Schedule 1, the members will be appointed by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State, but 5 members will be appointed after consultation with local authority organisations in Wales.
My Lords, if I may now turn to the main provisions of the Bill, it gives the Development Board for Rural Wales the powers, including housing powers, that are already available to the Mid-Wales Development Corporation established under the New Towns Act 1965. In the light of the recommendations of the Renton Committee on the Preparation of Legislation against legislation by reference it has been thought necessary to re-enact in the Bill many of the provisions of the 1965 Act and also the housing subsidy provisions of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975. But the price that has had to be paid for carrying out that recommendation is, I fear, the unhappy length of Schedules 3 and 5. I can only hope it will prove to be a price worth paying. As to the main provisions of the Bill, I have already spoken about the

657
general function of the Board, its composition and its area, matters which are dealt with in Clause 1 and the associated Schedule 1.
Clause 2 describes the duties of the Board and provides for consultation with local planning authorities in the formulation of proposals that it makes and submits to the Secretary of State for approval. The Board must report to the Secretary of State at the end of each accounting year, and this report will be laid before each House. Provision is made for it to discharge the function of new town development within any designated new towns in its area instead of a Development Corporation. Under those provisions, the Secretary of State in due course will be making an order for the dissolution of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation and the transfer of its property, rights, liabilities and obligations to the Board.
Clause 3 describes the general powers of the Board which I have already indicated, and which are widely drawn. They allow the Board to provide finance for the provision of services for any land, to improve the infrastructure of the area to which I have already alluded. The Board can also assist financially any social development in its area. The clause also enables the Board to act for the Welsh Development Agency with regard to the functions of CoSIRA that the Agency will be assuming. Under the devolution proposals of the Government, industrial assistance functions of the Agency will remain reserved to central Government. Policy guidelines, to which the Board and the Agency will work, will clarify the position in more detail.
Clause 4 and Schedule 3 make provisions corresponding with the New Towns Act 1965 for the development of any new town within the Board's area. Clause 5 defines the power of the Board to acquire land as a power to acquire land by agreement or by compulsory purchase. Compulsory purchase of land required for new town development will be in accordance with Part III of the new towns code contained in Schedule 3. This repeats the procedural provisions of Schedule 3 to the New Towns Act 1965. Compulsory purchase of any other land will be in accordance with the standard procedure contained in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946.
658
Part II of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which contains provisions determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of any compulsory acquisition, will apply to the compulsory purchase of any land by the Board, so there is nothing new or sinister in this field.
Clauses 7 to 11 provide for the financial regime of the Board. Clause 10 lays down a limit in respect of public money available to the Board of £25 million, which can be raised to £40 million by order. The paragraph on the financial effects of the Bill indicates that the Board will finance the ongoing programmes transferred from the Mid-Wales Development Corporation and from the Welsh Development Agency, who are at present undertaking work on behalf of the Development Commission. The sums provided under this Bill will not involve additions to public expenditure but will be made available by means of transfers from provision already made.
The housing functions of the Board are covered by Clauses 16 to 20. Provision is made for a housing subsidy and a rent rebate subsidy based on the provisions of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975, and the rent rebate scheme contained in the Housing Finance Act 1972 is extended to the Board. This has the effect of placing the housing finances of the Board on a similar footing to that of development corporations generally. The Government propose that the Board's powers to build houses should extend throughout its area and that small housing developments should be built by the Board in association with the advance factory programme to provide housing for incoming key workers.
Clause 21 makes consequential provisions relating to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. Clause 22 provides for the transfer of industrial property from the Board to the Agency. The intention is to stage the transfer so that there shall be no disruption to the work of the Agency or to the services provided to tenants of the factories. I should like to emphasise here that tenants of any factories transferred will enjoy the same rights and benefits and be subject to the same obligations as is presently the case in their relationship with the Agency.
As to the power given to the Secretary of State by Clause 24 to give financial

659
assistance to bodies contributing to the social development of Wales, that power will be used to continue the support presently being given to certain bodies in Wales such as the Council of Social Service for Wales and the Rural Community Councils at present assisted by the Development Commission.
Before I sit down I should like to refer to the impact of the Bill on the staffs of the affected bodies. So far as it is possible to give statutory protecton to staffs directly affected, that protection is contained in the Bill—I refer to the protection given to members of the staff of dissolved development corporations contained in Schedule 2 and provisions in Schedule 6 relating to staff of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas employed wholly or mainly on the discharge of the Council's functions in Wales. We are in close consultation with the organisations representing these staffs and also the staffs of other bodies, including the Welsh Development Agency and the Cwmbran Development Corporation, which are indirectly affected. I can give an assurance to all staffs that full consideration is being given to the protection of their interests in the transitional period during which functions on which they are engaged are affected by the provisions of the Bill.
It is also right that I should pay tribute to the work of the members of the bodies who over the years have unstintingly served the best interests of rural Wales and which will, once the Board takes over their functions, no longer be active there. I would particularly refer to the Development Commissioners and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. We hope that their interest in Wales will continue. We look forward to a partnership between their activities in England and that of the bodies in Wales. I would also refer to the Mid-Wales Development Corporation which is to be dissolved. Its work will form a secure foundation for the future work of the Board.
As I have said, the Board's purpose is to promote the economic and social wellbeing of the people of rural Wales and in particular those parts of rural Wales which have been badly affected by the scourge of depopulation. The Board is being given wide powers which the
660
Government know it will use in the most practical way to further the wellbeing of the inhabitants of Cefn gwlad Cymru. Among these areas are some of the most Welsh-speaking areas of the Principality.
As Lloyd George said on one occasion, we must avoid taking a season ticket on the line of least resistance. The Board will be concentrating mainly on physical measures to improve the wellbeing of the area but this is only part of its task. Of equal if not greater importance is the opportunity that it is given to rejuvenate a large area of Wales which has made and can make a very considerable contribution to the culture of Wales, and indeed of the United Kingdom. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.55 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, at the outset of my comments on this Bill I must apologise in advance for a discourtesy which your Lordships' assiduous attention to the provisions of the Bail Bill, proper as they were, has forced me to commit. In order to catch the last possible aeroplane to attend a conference in Oslo, I shall be forced to leave this Chamber almost the moment I sit down. I regard this as most regrettable. I assure your Lordships that I shall read with the greatest attention the report in Hansard of the debate which follows. I hope your Lordships will accept that this is inevitable.
The object of the Bill before us is to preserve the cultural and environmental heritage of rural Wales by underpinning it with a sound economic infrastructure, and that is an object which we on this side of the House—indeed I would have thought all Members of this Chamber—find unexceptionable. The symptoms of the decline which this Bill is intended to meet—and how far it meets it is a matter for another consideration—are aptly summarised in paragraph 1(11) of the Welsh Council's Mid-Wales Report of 1973: depopulation associated with a marginal agricultural industry requiring fewer men: remoteness from the main industrial and population centres of the country, which inhibits the development of manufacturing industry: a thinly scattered population, which makes it expensive to provide

661
community services; limited career opportunities for young people, especially the better educated, and a relatively low level of earned income. One effect of these circumstances is, of course, a gradually ageing population, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack alluded to this. While there are signs that that process has to some extent been halted by the new town and growth town policies, it is still true to say that the employment pattern in the area of the proposed Board is bound to include a high service component because of geographic as well as demographic circumstances.
Let us look at the Bill, therefore, to see how it proposes to attack the ills which we all want to see cured and whether or not its proposals are sound. It sets up the Development Board for Rural Wales. This is not the first body entrusted with all or part of these tasks which have hitherto, in the noble and learned Lord's words, been administered piecemeal. Your Lordships recently assisted at the birth of the Welsh Development Agency, and may indeed be wondering, as am I, why a few judicious Amendments to the powers of that body were not chosen as the means of salvation rather than an Act of 32 clauses and 7 Schedules comprising a document more than double the length of the Welsh Development Agency Act. While I accept entirely the praiseworthy Government commitment to put into effect the recommendations of the Renton Committee, I feel that even these do not entirely account for the volume of this document before us.
There are areas in which the Board will duplicate the functions of the Agency and others where it will act as an agency of the Agency. One wonders at the outset whether this Bill is not a product of the predilection of the Party opposite for government as opposed to governing, or, as one might say, their gambler's instinct that if you shuffle a pack of civil servants you will somehow be able to deal yourself a better hand.
Let us look first at the area. The noble and learned Lord has given a reason for its curtailment into a chunk in the centre of the country which does not comprise the whole of rural Wales. They thought it better, he said, to have an area coinciding with that administered by the Mid-Wales Industrial Development
662
Agency. It does not seem to me that this is necessarily a logical step. If one has faith in the organisation it could cover the whole area; if one has not it would be better not to start at all. However, I will not cavil at this, but I see that the Secretary of State has power to extend by order the area to be administered by the Board, and we shall find it imperative that prior to doing so he should be required to consult the local authorities, particularly in the area which it is intended to take under his wing.
The functions of the Board are, indeed, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, widely drawn. Indeed, taken together they are drawn so very wide that one is left for some time rather in the dark as to what exactly the WDA is going to finish up doing. We are all aware of—and on this side of the House sympathetic with—the objection clearly expressed in 1968 of the agricultural communities in the area to direct intervention, or competition, in their field from the new statutory body; and the noble and learned Lord advanced other and cogent arguments why they should be excluded. None the less, agriculture is by far the largest industry in the area, and the philosophy of the Bill must therefore be to strengthen the economic infrastructure in order to maintain a healthy community, which is, of necessity, principally an agricultural one.
In spite of the indications in the Consultative Document we are disturbed to note that the width, or indeed the looseness, of the terms in which some of the clauses to which I have referred, and to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, are drawn leaves it open to Her Majesty's Government, at a later date, to change their tune and to undertake either the purchase or management of agricultural concerns. If the Government have no such intention they will not resist the Amendments which we shall be tabling to remove this option from them.
It is also disturbing that they might be used to institute undertakings in competition with private businesses, and we should like clear undertakings from Her Majesty's Government as to their intention in this respect. A great deal of the legislation contained in the Bill relates to its assumption of the functions of the Newtown Development Corporation. We

663
shall want to hear convincing reasons for adopting this method of co-ordinating the different aspirations of the rural and urban areas. The effect is not to reduce the number of statutory bodies in this instance at all. Though I accept that the Bill reduces the total of the statutory bodies, it merely shuffles them in this case. Indeed, I have the clear impression that Her Majesty's Government intend that it should be largely the same personnel, sitting at the same desks, in the same offices, who will be running the new organisation, if, as I believe, it is intended to have the headquarters in Newtown, where the Corporation has its corporate existence. I am not sure that Newtown, sitting on the edge of the area well within the magnetic field of the West Midlands, is indeed the proper place for such an institution. We ought in Committee at least to consider alternatives.
The DBRW will also handle, it is suggested in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, largely the same funds as the old Corporation. This has been repeated by the noble and learned Lord, but it is nowhere apparent in the Bill, and we should like to be told, first of all, from which votes these funds will be drawn, since it will not only be from the two funds to which the noble and learned Lord alluded, and where they figured in the public expenditure White Paper. We should like to know whether they take into account funds available from FEOGA, or other EEC sources.
The noble and learned Lord said something about the way in which applications for European resources would be made and handled vis-à-vis the DBRW, the WDA, and the Welsh Office. I was not able to follow him closely. I shall read the Report with interest. I think this may need a certain expansion at a later stage. Where there is competition for funds, as I fear there must be eventually between the WDA and the DBRW, to which body will the Minister, one would like to know, give preference? Does the budget figure of £25 million to £40 million include the old Mid-Wales Development Corporation Budget, and, if so, to how great a sum? What are the other available funds referred to in the Consultative Document in paragraph 21? Finally on this head, it would be interesting to know what the staff costs of the Board would be, and how
664
they will compare with the combined staff costs of the bodies whose functions this Board is to take over. One would expect no variation.
Under the heading of housing we note the provisions for housing subsidies and would like a little more clarification of the finance of these. The normal procedure, I understand, is a 75 per cent. Exchequer grant and 25 per cent. from the rates. There does not appear to be provision for the latter element to be provided for under the Bill. I am sure that the general public in the area affected will have any uneasiness allayed if it is made clear that there is no intention to surcharge the rates. There is provision, which we note, to house key workers. While we have already applauded the exclusion of agriculture from the Bill, we should remember that it is a predominantly agricultural community we are seeking to preserve, and we should like to consider the case for treating agricultural workers as key workers in this context.
The provision of the clauses dealing with new towns and housing will require closer study than yet given. I should like at this stage to express my thanks for the co-operation from the Welsh Office in elucidating what could otherwise be a very difficult exercise of comparison, which will reduce the length of time that this will take. But there is provision—and the noble and learned Lord referred to it—for the creation of further new towns as opposed to growth towns. Your Lordships will recall that the Welsh Council 1973 Report said in paragraph 112:
"A more urban form of settlement in mid-Wales would necessarily mean some change in the way of life in the area, and the distinctively Welsh culture, which has its roots in the rural countryside, would almost certainly be further eroded."
This is precisely what we wish to avoid. Therefore the Government must think very carefully before they commit themselves even in principle to further new towns as opposed to an extension of the principle which has worked with some effect to date of growth towns.
We would expect Her Majesty's Government to be explicit on this point at Committee stage, particularly since the second most important industry is likely to be, and to remain, tourism. To change the distinctively Welsh culture would very

665
likely be to ruin the trade. Tourists do not come to visit thriving manufacturing towns, however ideally they may be planned—and I am sure they would be; they come to visit the hamlets and the mountains. In this context we are encouraged to see the effects of the hotel development scheme in terms of extra accommodation, but disturbed that the uptake of places available in the August peak of 1974 was only 75 per cent. I was also disturbed to note that only 23 per cent. of hotel bedrooms have private bathrooms which, in this day and age, is beginning to make it look anachronistic to a point beyond the uncomfortable. We should aim at providing for the tourist not too well. We do not want a stampede of tourists, whether British or foreign, choking every alley and layby so that you get cries of distress, as from the Lake District. But, at the same time, those who come should be comfortably accommodated in conditions sufficiently attractive to recommend them to their friends in following seasons.
This Bill provides a thread through a plethora of bodies swarming already over this small and infinitely beautiful area of mountains and valleys. Some of them will be subsumed into the Board, and we welcome the undertakings about the servants of the subsumed bodies and also the continuation of the security of tenure of the tenants of factories, but how will the various bodies which survive relate to each other? We must return to this at the Committee stage, particularly to the interesting relationship with the Welsh Development Agency, and, secondly, with the local planning bodies from which, beyond the ability to consult with the Board, it would appear that there is a danger that the responsibility for the strategic plan will be snatched. Is this the case? We should like to know. Is it intentional, in that case, and is it sensible? And what is to constitute the close working relationship with the Land Authority for Wales referred to in paragraph 18 of the Consultative Document? This phrase is not sufficiently precise to act as a guideline to the people involved in the relationship when it has to be built.
Industry in rural Wales is the underpinning structure; it keeps the population there. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government realise the enormous preponderance of small and indeed of
666
privately-owned enterprises in the area; in Cardigan, 30 per cent. are self-employed, and in Montgomery, 20 per cent. Is not the real danger, the real damage, the real cause of depopulation due to the Government's savage attack on private enterprise, on the self-employed? Could not a much greater benefit come from a reversal of this policy in its very many manifestations —from taxation to insurance stamps—than from any re-elaboration of administrative procedures and bodies such as is here proposed?
The Government, in their present hands, have never liked small businesses, but Wales is populated with small businesses. Of the 170 principal private employers in the Mid-Wales area, none has over 1,000 employees, only two have over 500, two more have above 250 and 151 of them, the vast majority, have under 100 employees, and they are not all farmers. This is part of the basic character of the area which the Bill seeks to preserve and I am suggesting that there are areas outside that of the Bill itself in which this could be done with a greater and more speedy effect. Indeed, in Powys I note that 69 per cent. of all factories employ ten or fewer people—of all factories, so this is not agriculture. Talking of factories, and of advance factories to which the noble and learned Lord adverted, we would welcome some confirmatory figures on advance factories. I should like to know whether I am right in thinking that there are six of them now empty out of a total of 38; the noble and learned Lord referred to a larger total, which makes me think that my figures may be wrong. One would like to know what was the cost respectively of those that are tenanted and those that are not.
Attempting to reach a rapid conclusion, I turn briefly to the constitution of the Board, a subject on which the noble and learned Lord dilated. We feel that although the Board will not in principle be responsible for agricultural functions, none the less it will have the fundamental aim of supporting an agricultural community and it would be sensible to have one member representative of the farmers' organisation of Wales. As we live in an age when people are increasingly aware of, and indeed frustrated by, the impact of Government upon them, we feel that the principles set out by the Government in their enthusiasm for participation

667
should be reflected in the inclusion of a member of the Trade Union Council in its Welsh manifestation and that, as a corollary to that, it would be sensible to look at a member of the employers' body as well.
Regarding the five local authority recommendations—I do not have the wording of the Bill in this respect at my fingertips—as I recall, the Secretary of State is not specifically required to consult the local authorities themselves; I think there is an allusion to bodies which he considers represent them and we wonder whether this is not too loosely drafted.
Let this be a Welsh body, not a Westminster body. Let it be truly representative of the interests which it is intended to serve. Let its composition—if the Government persist in the folly of devolution in Wales; and we were glad to hear that this is the Government's intention—be handed to the Welsh Assembly when it comes into being. Let it be Welsh but let it be representative, let it have powers and resources clearlyallocated, properly circumscribed and properly protected. Let its aim be the protection of this unspoilt and justly famous Eden of the British Isles; let it try to forget that its aims could as well have been achieved by the formation of a sub-committee of the Welsh Development Agency, and let it take practical steps to preserve and improve the opportunities already open for the hardy, thrifty, ingenious and independent inhabitants of what I have learned from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to call Wlad y Gan or, as I would say, the Land of Song, of which it is the backbone. If we do not make this possible for them—and to do so will need, I regret, a good deal of revision of parts of the Bill—they, the inhabitants, will have nothing by which to remember it but another nameplate rusting on another door.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, unfortunately for me and your Lordships, my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran is only just back from a visit abroad and feels himself unable to participate in this debate. I do not have anything like his knowledge of the area concerned and of its problems, although I am not
668
unacquainted with it and I know something about it. I am glad to say that in later stages of the Bill your Lordships will be able to have the help of my noble friend's special knowledge of the area.
It is true that the sparsely populated area of Mid-Wales, which initially is to be the area to which the Bill applies, has been recognised for many years as one of the least prosperous parts of the United Kingdom. It stands, or it should stand, as a constant reminder to us all of the need for devolution so as to bring effective government nearer to the people. But meantime, as things are, it is right that central Government should make special provision to help the weaker regions and areas of the country, and the Party for which I speak today has for long advocated the establishment of a Rural Development Board for Wales to bring much-needed industry into the small towns of Mid-Wales, and in a general way we must, therefore, welcome the proposal which is now before us. We may have some criticisms to make, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned.
It seems to me that one of the greatest problems of this area is the lack of adequate communications, and although no doubt the new Board will be able to make recommendations in this sense, I would suggest to the Government that this is so clearly to be recognised that it is really not necessary to wait until the Board has been set up to put in hand works which we know take a very long time—road construction, for example—to improve the road communications in Central Wales, both from the East, from England, and joining the North and South together. I hope that we may also have an assurance that the two remaining rail links in Mid-Wales will be left where they are. Unless this is done, all the efforts of the new Board to attract industry into the area will, I am afraid, prove disappointing.
Coming to the Bill, I wonder whether it is wise to have this body, which in many of its activities will require the approval or consent of the Secretary of State, to be wholly nominated by him, as is proposed in Schedule 1. We have heard many criticisms, not least I fancy from the Party opposite, for example of the unrepresentative character of the new water

669
authorities. Are we not in danger of making the same mistake again? I recognise, as has been said, that five of the 11 or 13 members are to be appointed after consultation with organisations representative of local authorities in Wales.
Is this really good enough? I readily agree that the Secretary of State should be allowed to nominate some members who might be able to bring to the Board experience and knowledge which might otherwise be missed. I should have thought it more in accordance with the political philosophy of progressive Parties if a majority of members were directly elected by the voters in the area under some system of proportional representation, or at least nominated by the local authorities concerned. It seems to be essential that the Board should work closely and amicably with the local authorities and I feel that this would be helped by making the structure of the Board more democratic. Nor must we forget the possibility that at any time the political outlook of the local authorities might be different from that of the Secretary of State.
As regards the functions of the Board, I have not had much opportunity to study the Bill in depth or to consult people outside. This may explain why I was very puzzled by the apparently heavy emphasis of the Bill on the new town procedure. I am aware of the new town at Newtown to which the noble and learned Lord referred, but I take it that there will be no further development of new towns until the Board has been established and has recommended for or against such a project. My personal feeling is rather the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Elton; it is that the new town concept is not really in place in Mid-Wales. The new towns in England were conceived as a method of dealing with the dispersal of industry and population from overcrowded urban areas. This is certainly not the position in Mid-Wales. I should have thought it much better to bring industry to existing small towns, making those towns a little larger, rather than depopulating them still further by establishing industrial centres elsewhere.
Another point perhaps worth considering is that industrial development may—in fact, it is thought that it inevitably
670
will—involve bringing in people from outside the area at the outset because of lack of industrial experience in the local population. A dozen or so persons in each of several small towns will create no problem at all, but if a concentration of industrial development takes place and it is necessary to bring in hundreds of "immigrants"—if I may so describe them—it is conceivable that that might lead to some tension between the natives and the immigrants.
I had intended to say a few words about compulsory purchase, but I do not know that that is really necessary and I do not want to detain your Lordships. It seems to me that compulsory purchase powers are quite necessary for use as a last resort because the Board could easily be frustrated in carrying out its functions if it had not this power in the background. To me, having very little knowledge of the subject, the safeguards seem adequate, particularly if the word "enabling" in Clause 5(1) means what I think it does. As I read it, "enabling", rather than, say, "facilitating", means that, before applying for the compulsory powers, the Board would have to show that it could not discharge its functions without acquiring the land in question. However, if I am right, it seems unnecessary to apply the same criterion to the acquisition of land by agreement. We can no doubt consider this point in Committee, but I thought that I should put it to the noble and learned Lord now so that he can consider it before the Committee stage.
I had also intended to ask a question about Clause 24, which seems to have slipped into the Bill, for it extends beyond rural and Mid-Wales. I am sure that there were good reasons for tucking it into the Bill, but I was not at all clear what was in mind or what was meant in this context by the words "social development". The noble and learned Lord has explained that now, though I am still mystified by the reference in the Financial Memorandum which seems to imply that the Secretary of State's expenditure under Clause 24 will not be an additional burden on public funds because it will be transferred from provisions already made. I believe that we are not supposed to poke our lordly noses into financial provisions, but I find this very difficult to understand. Surely no provision is already made for the future.

671
Coming back to the main theme of the Bill, I feel sure that, once the Bill gets under way—and the sooner the better— it will do a power of good to Mid-Wales. However, something must first be done about the question of communications; otherwise, I fear that the best endeavours to bring industry to the small towns of the area will be doomed to disappointment. I hope that, when the noble and learned Lord replies, he will be able to give us some assurance that the Government will tackle the issue straight away, without waiting for the Board to be set up, and to make a recommendation to this effect, which it is quite certain that it would do at the first opportunity. We on these Benches, while hoping that some Amendments will be accepted, warmly support the Bill, and we hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
5.26 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I rise to give a guarded welcome to the Bill, rather in the same vein as that of my noble friend Lord Elton, but I have some doubts and reservations which I shall express in a moment. I must confess that, despite my name, my own links with the Principality are somewhat tenuous. My late father was born and bred there, as were his parents before him but, as for me, I visit the place of my birth only rarely. However, I have a great many relatives there and I am vice-president of the Montgomeryshire Society in London, so I believe that I can speak with a modicum of authority.
I said that I gave the Bill only a guarded welcome. While I fully acknowledge the need for new vigour to be injected into the development of the rural areas of Wales, it is only to that extent that I welcome the Bill. I must ask whether the functions and duties which are to be placed upon the new Board which is to be created under the Bill could not equally well have been discharged by one or other of the existing bodies in Wales. I would support the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Elton that the Welsh Development Agency which we are just bringing into being might well have been the most appropriate authority. In recent years, Governments of all persuasions have seen fit to create or destroy authorities at the stroke of a pen. I wonder whether this further example of that process is really justified. I believe
672
that all, or at least most, of the Bill's worthy aims could have been achieved without new legislation. What is needed is more action, both locally and nationally, not more bureaucracy.
I have a specific criticism concerning Clause 13, which relates to the powers of entry to be vested in the Board with respect to the land over which it exercises control or which it may wish to control. I believe that, despite the safeguards, these powers have been drawn too widely and I wonder whether some Amendments ought not be moved in Committee to limit or reduce them to a more reasonable level. I have really nothing more to say except to urge that the Bill should be given a Second Reading and to hope that we shall take a long hard look at it in Committee.
5.29 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise for not having appeared in the Chamber before, particularly in view of the fact that it was the development of rural Wales which was being discussed. As somebody who has lived in many parts of Wales, from Cardigan right down to the South, I cannot understand the niggardly acceptance of the Bill. I accept the need for criticism of certain parts of the Bill but this curmudgeonly acceptance of it is a typical old-fashioned Tory attitude which I thought your Lordships' House had thrown over its shoulder years ago. But here is one of the youngest Members talking like Old Father Time about a Bill that is redolent of a dynamic approach to the problems of rural Wales. A time will come when we shall need a Bill for rural Mercia and rural Wessex when the English get their country divided up as some of them want. I am not particularly interested in any terrific partition of Wales. We do too well in England to divide off too quickly, and we should not know who to play against at rugby if Wales were taken out of the United Kingdom.
Let me pay a tribute to the proposers of the Bill. It is fair to say that all Governments, during and since the war, of whatever political Party, have had concern about the rural parts of the United Kingdom. There are growing problems in the rural areas, due in part to difficulties regarding physical transport. I am reminded of that famous book entitled Future Shock. The problems of

673
physical transport in rural areas cannot be met on the old profit motive basis. It is no longer possible in Scotland, or Wales, or the Midlands, or in rural parts of the United Kingdom, to have a transport system which will pay on the old fashioned method of merely profit. It is not like 30 or 40 years ago when an uncle of mine was the first person in Wales to run a bus. Money rolled into his pockets, the lucky boy. But those days are gone. There is so much private enterprise and private transport, but on the other hand, the old people, and the young who cannot afford cars or other transport in the rural areas fail to get the benefits of development.
All these matters should be looked into in time. I look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill. I swing along with the noble Lord who has just spoken, although he spoke in such condescending terms; the Bill will need changes. I have been speaking for only three minutes and I am not boring your Lordships yet. I notice that a noble Earl meandering around picked out seven or eight of us in the House who are bores, and I am one of them. I have been speaking only three minutes, with the lovely sun shining in on me—
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Of course I will, with pleasure.
Lord TREFGARNE: The noble Lord is most kind, my Lords. He did me the honour of referring to my speech specifically. But would he not agree that perhaps the answer for rural Wales is not more bureaucracy, which the Bill provides, but more action? How does the noble Lord think that this Bill will provide more action where others before it have failed?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Of course, my Lords, this point applies not only to Wales but to the whole world. There should be a little less bureaucracy and a little more understanding in the approach to problems, taking in the people. The time is approaching when we ought to look at new concepts of human participation in local decisions—
Lord TREFGARNE: There are no new concepts there.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Of course there are new concepts there. If noble Lords opposite can generate some new concepts during the Committee stage I am sure that we will applaud them. We have a welsh proverb: Tra bo dwr y mor yn hallt. It means as long as the sea is salt. We are always looking for constructive, intelligent noble Lords on the other side of the House to give dynamic suggestions concerning any Bill. I look forward to constructive suggestions at the Committee stage from the able noble Lord who has just interrupted me.
The truth is that I am speaking right off the cuff, as I have just popped into the Chamber. I could not hear to see the Second Reading of this Bill pass without one of my countrymen giving it the support it deserves. I should like the House to pay a tribute to the Labour Government which for the first time in history provided a Secretary of State for Wales. I shall refer to him in friendly Celtic terms, because he was an old miner: old Jim Griffiths. The term "old"—hen—is a term of endearment; it does not mean that someone is decrepit. The right honourable James Griffiths was the first Secretary of State for Wales, and the entire concept of that was developed by the Labour Government.
I should say in fairness to the Conservative and Liberal Parties that once the concept had worked out it was accepted on all sides of the House. It is accepted in the other place, and I am sure here, that we must ensure that in these type of across-the-board Bills we do not build up arrogant, bureaucratic systems of Committees that too often produce masses of paper and too little development. This reminds me of one of the problems encountered in research and development in planning. Research goes on for ever, but the development never seems to come out of it. There can be a vested interest in research, while the interest in development of rural parts of Wales, or anywhere else, could have diminishing returns.
This point also brings to mind one of the sad problems which is experienced all over the world. Despite our economic problems we are still one of the most affluent countries in the world. While

675
we are talking here, in Nairobi a meeting is taking place of UNCTAD. About 3,000 people from 140 or 150 countries attended the last conference. There was a massive attendance, and there were 28 sub-committees. There were masses of documents, mathematical and algebric formulae turned out by professors. In the end so much money is spent on organising the conferences that little is left to do constructive work inside them.
One thing about the Celts is that they have always been good workers and good fighters. They have always been prepared to do hard work. Whatever this House, or both Houses, may produce for rural development in Wales, none of it will be successful unless we get the people to reassess their duty to their country and a duty to the development of Wales itself. I am sick and tired of people appearing on English and Welsh television making prophecies. I am reminded here of Cassandra. Her prophecies came true, but 99 per cent. of the economists never get their prophesies true. These people come to the microphone. There is, for instance, the Billy Graham of the Soviet Union, Solzhenitsyn. He comes here and gets comfort and succour from the English people. He cannot speak English, but he tells the English people how to run their country. Everybody says, "Ichabod, Ichabod, the glory is departed".
The noble Lord who spoke a little while ago about rural development seemed to think that the glory had departed from Wales. No glory has departed from any part of this country. This country depends on its people, whatever their nationalities, and I still have confidence in it. But I take the warning which has come from both sides of the House, that an incubus of bureaucracy must be avoided in any constructive approach to development. Therefore I hope that we use vigilance when considering the Bill at the Committee stage.
5.37 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, only once before have I ever dared put my nose into a Welsh debate. I do so today with greater confidence because there seems to be so few Welshmen to punch me on the end of it. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, having spoken before me, cannot
676
punch me, but in any case I am sure that the noble Lord would never think of punching "old Amory" on the nose. I use the word "old" in the affectionate sense, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, mentioned a little while ago. Of course I agree with the noble Lord that the Welsh are great at—I think he said—talking and working; and I should add rugby, too. They are a great people. I do not intend to comment on whether the Development Board will be the best way of meeting the excellent aims that are set before it. I own that I have considerable sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said just now about the proliferation of new boards and organisations. They are fatally easy to set up, and the proof of the pudding is whether they carry out in the best possible way the tasks entrusted to them.
I want to underline two points, one of which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Elton, and the other by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. When new boards are set up, local authorities are inclined to look at them very carefully to see whether they trespass on, or detract from, some of the existing responsibilities of the elected local authorities. That is being done in Wales at present. I know at least one county council there which is a little anxious about two small points. They are committee points; I shall mention them only briefly, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord will comment on them either now or later.
The first point is that when the Secretary of State—or the Assembly, when the time comes—wishes to extend the area, he should before doing so consult the county council of the area concerned in good time. I am sure we shall get a favourable answer to that, because it is so reasonable.
The second point to which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred is that this follows the modern tendency of leaving it to the Secretary of State to make the appointments to the body, or many of the appointments. In some cases that may be necessary, but the point that the local authorities are concerned about, I think, is that that should be a fall-back position only when it is not, for some reason, appropriate that the nominations or the actual appointments should be made by local authorities in the area concerned.

677
In this case it seems that at any rate some of the appointments, instead of being made by the Secretary of State after consultation with such bodies as appear to him to be appropriate, might well be made directly by the councils concerned. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us—he told us it first in Welsh and then he interpreted it; it sounded magnificent in Welsh, but when it was interpreted I think this is what he said, though I have to paraphrase it again—that, in Wales, a project started is two-thirds finished. I am not sure; but if that is true I have no doubt that, like all the other sagacious sayings in Wales, this stems from actual experience in Wales over many years. But I should like to say that, on the whole, I think I prefer—though I may be biased because he is a Devonian like myself, and a much greater one—a saying by Sir Francis Drake:
"In any great undertaking it is not the beginning thereof but the continuing thereof till it be utterly finished that yieldeth the full glory".
I have raised my two little points and I have had a kindly slap at the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I want to have one more, if I may, before I finish. The noble Lord, pointing at these Benches, I think, used the words "niggardly" and, I think something much worse than that, "curmudgeonly". I only want to say to him that, as an old Treasury man, I rejoice in the adjective "niggardly"; I would not wish to have anything else applied to me ever. But I do hope that he will not regard me as curmudgeonly. There is a dishonourable distinction between the two.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, having known the noble Viscount who has just spoken, and his kindliness, over a generation or more, of course I would not apply the word "curmudgeon" to him; and, even although he was a famous Chancellor of the Exchequer—not that he helped me in those days—I do not think I would even call him "niggardly". So, if the noble Viscount thought I was hurling those epithets across the Floor at him, I would withdraw them.
5.44 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek referred to the glory which has
678
departed. The glory of his eloquence remains to delight us on all occasions. I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Not all of them have been wholly enthusiastic about the Bill and the project, but they have raised questions which we shall examine in detail, of course, in Committee; although I am glad to note that, apart from the criticism that what is proposed could perhaps well have been done by existing authorities, there seems to be common ground that something needs to be done to improve the condition in rural Wales. We think we are on the right lines in setting up a specific statutory authority for the purpose of bringing new life to this somewhat decaying area, and we see the proposals for the new Board really as part of a two-pronged attack on the development problems of Wales.
The Welsh Development Agency will deal primarily with the industrial and urbanised areas and with the larger problems, including the problems in those parts of Wales which have suffered losses of jobs on a very large scale because of the decline in the basic industries. But the Development Board for Rural Wales, which the Bill will set up, will operate on a smaller and more intimate scale altogether, and will have the job of holding together and strengthening the economy and the social fabric of what is agreed to he a declining rural area. We see it as the forefront of the advance towards a richer life for this area than that which it has had in the past. What I said in the Welsh language was that a task begun is two-thirds done. We intend to get on with this task. It will not merely be either the setting up of a new talking shop or, as someone said in earlier days in another place, a case of throwing another planner into the works. It will have a positive job to do, and we look forward to it being started.
I cannot hope, my Lords, and nor would your Lordships wish me to do so, to cover the whole ground of the points that have been raised. I was delighted to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, following a distinguished inheritance and connection with Wales, gave us the benefit of his advice; and also Lord Trefgarne, with his family associations—and I congratulate the Montgomery Society in London on the good fortune of having him as one of its vice-presidents. Harold

679
Davies may have suggested by his accent to some of your Lordships that he may also be a Welshman, and I am delighted and grateful for his contribution, too. I am sorry that Lord Elton had to leave us, but I quite understand. I also noticed during an earlier part of the debate (but I think he has gone now) that, lurking in the lofty escape hatch of the Cross-Benches, was Lord Aberdare. We have missed him today, but it may well be that, even in that neutral place, we may get the benefit of his assistance at the Committee stage. One of the matters that was raised was with regard to the selection of the membership of the Board. In the first instance, until the establishment of the Welsh Assembly the Board members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, but thereafter the Assembly itself will have the responsibility. It will appoint the Board, and will be fully accountable to it. Certainly it will be the intention to discuss the membership with the local authorities, and clearly to have a Board with wide-ranging skills and abilities upon it, covering the kind of regions to which reference has been made.
With regard to the financing of the Board—and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked about this—the intention of Clause 24 is to continue the grants given by the Development Commission to the Council for Social Services and rural community councils, whose work is so appreciated in rural Wales. As to housing finance, about which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked, there will be no surcharge on the rates. The Board is being placed on exactly the same footing as a New Town Development Corporation, which means that the Secretary of State will make up, by way of grant, that part of the housing subsidy equivalent to the rate fund contribution paid by local authorities for local authority housing. I was asked whether there was an intendment that the body should undertake management of agricultural holdings. That is not intended. Powers of purchase will only be used in connection with the strengthening of the towns of the area for factory and housebuilding and for any development related to new towns.
I do not think the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and other speakers need fear that what is contemplated is a sort of new
680
wen of new towns developing in mid-Wales. If there is a designation of new towns and that may well happen; and I personally hope it will—that will be for the Secretary of State to determine after consultation with local authorities, county councils and all others who may be concerned. Of course, it will not be an arbitrary decision. There will be the usual safeguards of draft proposals, draft designation orders, extensive consultations, as I have said, a public inquiry and safeguards of that sort before a final decision is taken.
The Government would expect that the main initiative in this regard would flow from the activities of the Board and their duty to keep under review all matters related to the economic and social development of the area. Certainly, I see no risk that the rural beauty of mid-Wales will be adversely affected by the mushroom appearance of new towns. We certainly hope that there will be a resurgence of industrial activity in the areas The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, rightly emphasised the urgent need of improving the communications and transport facilities of the area. I mentioned that in my speech.
As the House will know, the Government have issued a Paper on the whole of transport policy; and rural transport is being reviewed in the light of observations that are being made on that Paper. I have little doubt that we shall return to that in the near future. It is certainly a subject about which the Government are very concerned. As to a fear of the possible use of powers to undertake businesses, those are comparable to the powers in the New Towns Act 1965 and we anticipate the use of those powers would be along the lines adopted by the development corporations.
There may have been other matters raised which I have not referred to. I was asked about the increase in staff which will result from the setting up of the Board. The explanatory memorandum indicates that the increase in staff will be small. The present staff of 40 involved in the work contemplated will be raised to 55 in the initial period. We do not see the burgeoning of a new and vast army of civil servants as a result of what is proposed. I am grateful for the general welcome which has been given to the Bill

681
and I look forward to the participation of noble Lords in furthering its progress in the later stages of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POOL COMPETITIONS ACT 1971 (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1976
5.55 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH rose to move, That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1976, laid before the House on 31st March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this order, I should like to outline the background to it, and the Act which it is designed to extend. In 1969 a pool promoter, registered under the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, who promoted competitions analogous to football pools partly for the benefit of medical research, was convicted of offences under the lotteries law. These convictions were upheld on appeal to this House which held that the competitions in question were in fact lotteries, and as such were unlawful. It was apparent that this judgment would affect not only the medical research which was supported by this competition, but also charitable and sporting organisations supported by similar competitions. In particular the Spastics Society and some cricket and football clubs who derived substantial income from this source, seemed likely to suffer.
The Pool Competitions Act 1971 was therefore introduced by the Government of the day as a short-term measure to safeguard the interests of the charities and sporting clubs concerned. The Act set up a system of licensing and control, administered by the Gaming Board for Great Britain, of the competitions for prizes depending on sporting events (essentially football matches) which were run for the financial benefit of these charities and clubs. The Act came into force in 1971 and was to run for five years. There was, however, provision in Section 8 of the Act for extension by order for a year at a time. And this is what we seek to achieve with this order.
These "pools" continue to provide substantial help for a number of the charitable and sporting bodies concerned
682
and I think it can be said that the provisions in the Act have worked satisfactorily as an interim arrangement. But it is not yet possible to say what permanent provision ought to be made in this field. As noble Lords will recall, we now have the Royal Commission on Gambling which has been set up to carry out a wide-ranging review into the existing law and practice relating to gambling, including lotteries. We shall clearly have to have regard to whatever the Royal Commission may say about the Pool Competitions Act 1971, and in all the circumstances, it seems to the Government desirable that the Pool Competitions Act 1971 be extended for at least one year. I seek the approval of the House to the order accordingly. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1976, laid before the House on 31st March, be approved.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
5.58 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has pointed out, this Act came about by virtue of a case called Singette Limited and Others against Martin, as a result of which a number of charitable pools were declared illegal and the Government of the day came to the rescue by providing what was then regarded as a temporary legal umbrella. I say "temporary" because, as the noble Lord has said, the Act was due to run out (if that is the word) on 27th July 1976. It was therefore confidently expected that new legislation would be forthcoming and would replace the Pool Competitions Act long before that date and long before now. I do not lay the blame for the fact that it has not come about wholly at the feet of this Government. Certainly, I do not seek to lay more than a just proportion thereof.
The Act is unsatisfactory and I regret, in a way, that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, did not draw attention to this, but I intend to do so. It is unsatisfactory for no other reason than that it is only applicable to organisations which were originally in the field in July 1971; so that there has been no provision for what I might call new entrants, and there never has been any provision. That must be unsatisfactory. This factor, if no other, makes it desirable that it should be replaced.

683
I wish that the noble Lord had given a hint, if not possible proposals, of the measure which would supersede this Act, bearing in mind its anomalous character, as I have tried to suggest. If I may not so much mix my metaphors as melt them, the Government give the appearance of sitting on their bottom with their head down under the safety or, at least, the shelter provided by the Royal Commission. That is a sad state of affairs for a number of worthy people who produce large sums of money which go to charities.
My Lords, perhaps House will grant me indulgence to refer to a matter which is similar to, but not strictly in line with, the order now before your Lordships. I hope the noble Lord will grant me that indulgence because I told him I was going to raise this matter if I am allowed to do so. It concerns the Lotteries Act which was given a Third Reading here on 14th July last year. Draft regulations under this Act have never been placed before your Lordships' House although, as I understand it, the Government confidently expected that it would be a matter of months before they were. There has not been even a consultative document which would enable those of us who are interested, if not vitally concerned with the subject, to think about the Government's intention under this important measure. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will have a crumb of comfort at least for this part of the debate. As I have said, there are a number of people who give of their time freely and on a voluntary basis to provide much needed funds for charity. I am sure that both as regards charitable lotteries and the long expected local lotteries—lotteries to be promoted by local authorities—it is time the Government, as it were, came off the fence and decided what was to be done under this Act.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Earl has raised two points. First of all, he acquitted us of being over-somnolent on this matter. He pointed out that I might refer again to the Royal Commission and its existence in explaining why we are having to move this order today. It is a fact that the Royal Commission has been established. That being so, it would be premature to produce proposals for dealing with this aspect of the
684
law before we get the proposals from the noble Lord and his colleagues, which will cover the broad territory of this whole field of the law.
The second question concerned the 1975 Lotteries Act. The noble Earl asked about the consultative document. The answer is that shortly the Government hope to send to the local authority associations and other interested bodies, and at the same time to place in the Library of this House, the consultative document, indicating the Government's proposals for inclusion in the regulations. That will be done as speedily as possible. I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me the opportunity of being able to draw attention to that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (PRE PACKED MILK IN VENDING MACHINES) ORDER 1976
6.3 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM rose to move, That the draft Weights and Measures (Pre-packed Milk in Vending Machines) Order 1976, laid before the House on 23rd March, he approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the order standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved. The order concerns the sale of small quantities of milk from vending machines. It is difficult at present for traders to conform with the various regulations involved. This has probably been the reason why the use of these machines has declined considerably over the past two decades. In the late 1950s they were very popular, and there were from between 2,000 and 3,000 machines in use. Today there are as few as 470 machines in use. These are mainly in factories and holiday camps. If Parliament approves this order, the legislative barriers to the use of these machines will be removed. What these barriers are and how they have developed, is rather a complicated story but it should not take me too long. Perhaps I should first indicate three main threads which are interwoven through the history of this matter since the early 1960s.
First, there has been the general question of inflation, including of course rises in the price of milk and the need from

685
time to time to adapt the quantities packed and the prices charged for milk sold through these machines. Secondly, there was the decimalisation of the coinage and the fact that existing regulations related to the sixpence which has now largely gone out of circulation. The third thread is that in the 1960s and 1970s there has been a growing consumer consciousness and consumer organisations have been vigilant to ensure that if changes in the regulations are to be introduced, the consumer should be made clearly aware of the relationship between the quantity and the price.
Perhaps I should begin with the Weights and Measures Act 1963. This Act restricts the sale of pre-packed milk to quantities of one-third of a pint, half a pint, or any multiple of half a pint. In 1963, when the Bill was before Parliament, pre-packed milk was being sold from vending machines at a cost of sixpence (that is, 2½ new pence) for half a pint. It was clear that this price was becoming uneconomic and would soon have to be increased. The trade argued at the time that the cost of converting the coin mechanism on the vending machines from use with the old sixpenny piece to a multi-coin mechanism would be too high for some dairymen and would result in the withdrawal of some machines. Also, they maintained at that time that there were mechanical difficulties about conversion and that consumers were accustomed to buying sixpenny worth of milk from vending machines.
They wanted to be able to make a small reduction in the quantity of milk sold from the machines rather than increase the price when it inevitably rose. For this reason, Parliament decided that the Act should allow sales of pre-packed milk from vending machines in different quantities from those prescribed in the Act, provided that the selling price was sixpence and that the container was marked with a statement that it was not to be sold otherwise than by means of a vending machine, in addition to showing the quantity of sale on both the container and the vending machine.
In 1971 the coinage was decimalised and it was found that the new ½p coin was too light to trigger the coin operating mechanism in the vending machines. They were therefore converted to take the new 1p and 2p coins. Since the price of milk
686
had also increased, pre-packed milk was sold in half-pint containers from vending machines at a price of 4p. It became uneconomic to sell any quantity for 2½p (the old sixpence) and there was a possibility of a further price increase, so the dairymen pressed the Government to increase the prices exemption from 2½"Ep to 4p and thus restore the flexibility that Parliament had allowed earlier. In other words, they would then be able to charge 4p but to sell in quantities other than those prescribed under the Weights and Measures Act.
From some points of view it would be desirable if sales from vending machines could be limited to prescribed quantities; but the difficulty arises from the limitation of the coin mechanism. Were the price of milk to rise, the dairymen would have to increase their prices in steps of 1p. This would leave them with two options: either they would have to sell at an uneconomic price, or they would have to charge the consumer more than was justified and more than they would wish to charge.
In 1972 the previous Government decided, rather than face Parliament with the prospect of constant updating of the price exemption in what is after all a rather limited area of trade, to offer to consider making an order to remove restrictions altogether from sales of small quantities of pre-packed milk from vending machines, provided that the trade was prepared to indicate the unit price on the machine on a voluntary basis. The diarymen were not prepared to do so, and, not suprisingly, consumer organisations made this a condition of their agreement; so there was a dilemma. We have been able to overcome the dilemma, and we have now obtained the agreement of the dairy trade to display prominently on the machine the price per pint of pre-packed milk sold from vending machines in all cases where the quantity of sale is less than half a pint. Under Section 21 of the Weights and Measures Act, it is necessary to carry out consultations before an order can be made under that section, and when we held these consultations consumers agreed to the lifting of the price exemption on the understanding that the Government would use their powers under Section 4 of the Prices Act 1974 so as to make unit pricing compulsory in respect of all sales of less than half a

687
pint. Subject to the order before your Lordships being approved, we intend to lay before the House the necessary price marking order, to ensure that consumers have all the information they need before committing themselves to a purchase. This information will, of course, include the quantity of milk in each container in the machine. I believe that this order will rectify the rather complicated situation I have described and that it will do so to the satisfaction of all concerned. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Moved, that the draft Weights and Measures (Pre-packed Milk in Vending Machines) Order 1976, laid before the House on 23rd March, be approved.—(Lord Oram.)
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I think we should be very grateful to the noble Lord for giving us such a clear and concise explanation of something which, as he said, is very complicated. I know only too well the problems of coin mechanisms, having had to employ them myself, and the problem of trying to use a halfpenny and getting it to work a machine is totally insoluble.
I know this order is welcomed by the trade. It is extremely sensible. I am also delighted that we are to have unit pricing, because this will make it far easier for consumers to see exactly what they are buying. There is, however, one point about this which is rather sad: because of inflation and vandalism problems, the number of machines has dropped from about 2,000 in the 'sixties to about 300 which at present exist. Perhaps in the future more machines may be made although unfortunately, so far as I can tell at the moment, these machines are no longer being manufactured and the machines that do exist are using cannibalised parts from old machines. However, these machines are used quite extensively in factories and I hope that this order will make the matter clearer for those who use such milk, and that more machines will be used in the future. I should like once again to thank the noble Lord for putting this forward and to assure him that we support the order wholeheartedly.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, a
688
little earlier a noble Lord from the Benches opposite referred to "the Party opposite", and as I was the only Member at that time I had to take responsibility for my Party. Some reference has been made to the consumer, so I should like, if I may, to speak on behalf of the consumer. The noble Lord may not be able to answer immediately the question I am going to put to him. He referredx2—rather as in a sort of saga entitled, "The Queen and the Dairymaid", but in this case it was the dairyman—to the fact that the container will now be marked with the quantity sold. This is very desirable; indeed it is essential. I should like to ask my noble friend: will it be marked with the designation of the milk?—because it was the pre-packed milk in vending machines which was the cause of a complaint I received about untreated milk being used in vending machines. This was not in a factory but at a seaside resort.
As I understand the Act, it does not prohibit the use of untreated milk, but merely requires that it shall be designated. When I was told that it was only about 3 per cent. of the total output, this did not seem a lot, but one has to realise the large quantity of milk which flows—if that is the right word—into our homes every day. Therefore I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can let me know later about the designation or, in other words, what is to be put on the package. Of course the quantity is important and so is the price; but equally important is the need to know the kind of milk we buy through vending machines.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his welcome of this order. The only point he raised, which was a new one, concerned the manufacture of the machines. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that they are no longer being manufactured—largely, no doubt, because of the falling off in their use owing to the difficulty of the situation. One can only expect that if this order makes the situation less complicated and if the market opens up, either the firm which originally made the machines, or other firms, may find it possible to enter into manufacture again.
My noble friend Lady Phillips asked whether the marking would include the designation of the milk. I believe I am

689
right in saying that it will not include that. This information may disappoint my noble friend, but what is required is the quantity and also the statement that it will not be for sale except through vending machines. I will look into the point she has raised and, if necessary, I will write to her later.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRAFT FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS (COMPUTATION) REGULATIONS 1976
6.19 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1976, laid before this House on 27th April, be approved. As your Lordships will know, family income supplement is a benefit for the lower-paid working family whose income falls below a level prescribed by Parliament. The supplement paid is half the difference between the family's income and the prescribed amount, subject to a maximum weekly sum.
The purpose of these regulations is to increase the prescribed income levels and the maximum weekly amounts payable. The change is to take effect from 20th July, which is a year since the last uprating. Regulation 2 increases the prescribed amount for a one-child family by £7.50 from £31.50 to £39.00 and the addition for every other child by £1.00 from £3.50 to £4.50. Regulation 3 increases the maximum weekly payment for a one-child family by £1.50, from £7 to £8.50, from 20th July next. For each additional child this amount is increased, as now, by 50p.
Your Lordships will recall that to provide help for one-parent families a new benefit, child interim benefit, was introduced in April this year. In effect, the new benefit extended the payment of family allowance in respect of the first child in one-parent families and, like family allowances, the new benefit will be treated as income for family income supplement. Under the normal family income supplement rules, the new benefit would be taken into account from the date of claim for family income supplement. But provision has been made in the
690
Family Income Supplements (Child Interim Benefit) (Consequential) Regulations 1976 for the adjustment to the family income supplement award to be made when the prescribed amount and the maxima are next increased, which is next July, so that all awards will be adjusted on the same date. In other words, one-parent families get family allowance for the first child from last April, and this is not taken into account when considering family income supplement. But it will be taken into account when any application is made for family income supplement from next July.
On previous upratings of family income supplement, the prescribed amounts have been increased broadly in line with prices. The effect of this has been to reduce the scope of the supplement and only about 60,000 families are now being helped. The proposed large uprating is expected to restore the relativity between gross average earnings and the prescribed amounts which existed when the scheme was introduced in 1971. As a result, family income supplement will be available to some 25,000 more families than last year. The increased income levels will also ensure that families now receiving the supplement who have received up to £6 pay rise during the year will continue to be entitled to the benefit. The increases in prescribed amounts and maximum payments will benefit about 85,000 needy families in the year immediately following the uprating, and the total cost during that year will be in the region of £19 million.
I am sure your Lordships are aware that we on this side of the House wish to see those who are dependent on means-tested benefits receive a larger part of their income from benefits as of right. That has always been our view. As long as family income supplement has a part to play in assisting lower-paid working families, we are determined that it should be effective; and we have never been afraid to disclose our admiration for the fact that it was introduced by the Secretary of State in the previous Government. I am sure that these regulations will be welcomed by noble Lords opposite. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 27th April, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
6.24 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for dealing with these Regulations so carefully. As he so rightly said, these are much welcomed on this side of the House not only because a larger number of needy families will be eligible for the benefit, but also because it is quite apparent that these are quite generous new sums to be added in supplement.
There are two questions which I should like to ask the noble Lord. First, how many families are likely to take up the new benefit? Secondly, have the Government anything to say in regard to the poverty trap? I think I should explain this question a little. It will be apparent that there are substantial difficulties which families—both one-parent families and others—have encountered in regard to obtaining these various benefits. From the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, only a week ago, it was apparent what the nuts and bolts of this problem really are. I shall not prolong my remarks. I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the improved benefits, and I look forward to his reply.
6.26 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his approval and welcome of these regulations. As I understand the situation, it was estimated that after the first July uprating, which I believe was in 1972, there would be 225,000 people entitled to it. A careful estimation shows that at the present time, and certainly after the uprating that we are talking about in July this year, possibly 50 per cent. of that figure will be entitled to family income supplement, which I calculate as 112,500. I have said to your Lordships that, to our certain knowledge, 85,000 people will take it up and 27,500 may be entitled to it. We are doing our best, as we and the previous Government have always done, to make this as widely known as possible. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but we spent last year something like £100,000 on advertisement. This year we are proposing to spend approximately £175,000 on advertisement. We certainly let all people who are claiming free milk, and who are exempted from prescription and other
692
National Health Service charges, know about it. Persons returning to work after receiving supplementary benefit, those receiving family allowance and claimants for maternity benefit are also informed of it. We also have a prominent reminder bound into the order book, so that people are made aware. I could go on, but I think it is unnecessary to do so. If we can we should like to net those 27,500 people, but the onus is on them to apply.
In some respects, I am glad that the noble Lord has raised the question of the poverty trap, because many commentators on social security benefits suggest that following a rise in pay there is an automatic and immediate reduction in means-tested benefits, in addition to income tax payments on the increase and higher National Insurance contributions. But that is not the case. For taxpaying family income supplement families, every £1 of increased earnings will be subject to an immediate reduction of 40·75p in income tax and National Insurance contributions, but family income supplement will remain unaltered until the 12 months' anniversary of the last award. So that the position of the people who are receiving it will not be worsened for another 12 months. A change in family circumstances or in family income does not affect the amount of family income supplement for a period of 12 months, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will know, even though earned income may increase, family income supplement is given for 12 months, and will remain the same.
The large family income supplement upratings in July 1975 and the one proposed for July of this year will ensure that no family loses family income supplement solely because of a pay rise within the current or anticipated limits of next year. Moreover, the uprating now proposed will ensure that families who have received the family income supplement for 1975–76 will receive it at considerably higher rates in the year 1976–77—provided, of course, that they do not have less dependent children and have not moved to a much better paid job.
It is when a person's income approache or even exceeds the prescribed amount that he is in danger—that is, on the expiry of the 12-month award—of facing a higher marginal tax rate. That is why a run on the benefit is allowed, and the

693
taper is 50 per cent. However, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that if a person's income rises above the limit set for title to a particular benefit, the benefit, of necessity, must be revised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COUNTER-INFLATION (PRICE CODE) (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) ORDER 1976
6.31 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM rose to move, That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1976 laid before the House on 23rd April, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this order be approved. When I spoke to the House a few minutes ago my noble friend Lady Phillips said that it sounded a little like a saga. To me also it sounded a little like a saga, although on that occasion it was unavoidable. I need not, however, long detain your Lordships in explaining the purpose and effect of this order.
The order makes a small change to the Price Code. It becomes necessary as a result of the excise duty changes made in the Budget. On 17th February my noble friend Lord Jacques moved the approval of a substantive Price Code provision about the Price Check scheme. As he explained then, a number of representative trade associations, in the national interest, had agreed to recommend to member firms that they should hold price increases on certain goods and services to—at most—5 per cent. in the six-month period between February and July of 1976. The Price Code was to be amended to permit firms, if they wished and could, to make up for restraint on these items by charging rather more on others. But this does not mean that the restraint shown by participants has been easy or painless, since there are many cases where the market will preclude alternative price increases. For many firms, revenue once lost is foregone for ever. Therefore, one can only applaud the fact that in these circumstances products or services covering between 15 to 20 per cent. of consumers' expenditure have been put into the scheme, and a good display of red triangles has appeared in every shopping centre.
While it is the Government's firm purpose to achieve a lower rate of price inflation, there are, unfortunately, circumstances in which all Governments have no alternative but to put up prices by raising taxes. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget Statement:
"Increases in indirect taxes would add to the Retail Price Index and I have been tempted to conclude that I should take no such action in a year when the fight against inflation is so important. But there are important arguments in the opposite direction. Inflation over the past five or six years has substantially shifted the balance of our tax system from indirect to direct taxation, since the yield of income tax rises with rising earnings while the yield of the specific duties is not linked to the inflation rate. In addition, increased revenue in this area will help make room for the socially desirable expenditure I shall be describing."
Dealing with income tax reliefs, the Chancellor went on to say:
"The revenue from the increased duties on alcoholic drink, tobacco and petrol will broadly cover the cost of the unconditional £370 million which is concentrated on the old and children. I believe that the House will feel that this reflects the right social priorities."
Moreover, the increase in prices on drink, tobacco and petrol should also be seen against the background of the decreased prices in other areas as a result of the reduction in VAT. The increased tax on beer and cigarettes affects the Price Check scheme because those commodities are included in the scheme at the retail level. There has also been an increase in the hydrocarbon oil duty. The oil companies are parties to the scheme for their own wholesale prices, but because of the present situation in the retail petrol market it was not possible for garages to come into the scheme.
Without this order, the Budget tax changes would have left the manufacturing firms concerned in an anomalous position. They might still be prepared to restrain their own prices, but despite this the tax changes might, willy-nilly, force up their prices beyond the 5 per cent. envisaged in the scheme. And this, as the Price Code now stands, would have disqualified them from using the cross-subsidy provisions which had been written into the Code to facilitate price restraint of this kind. Yet for consumers, it is as important as ever it was that the brewers, tobacco firms and other manufacturers should continue to exercise restraint. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection very

695
much welcomes the fact that they are prepared to stay in the scheme, so far as their own prices are concerned. For Price Code purposes, it is therefore essential that the latest duty changes should be left out of account. Otherwise, firms could find themselves debarred from recovering the revenue foregone as the result of price restraint, because the cold statistics would show a price increase of more than 5 per cent; that is, adding such price increases as they themselves might need, together with the tax increases. Unless the Code is amended, as this order proposes, this would bring them outside the scope of the scheme.
Therefore, it is the simple purpose of this order to ensure that the latest duty changes should be left completely out of account in the application of this part of the Price Code. If your Lordships approve it, there is a greater incentive to voluntary price restraint on the part of the brewers and the tobacco firms. On this understanding, I feel sure that your Lordships will give approval to this order. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1976, laid before the House on 23rd April, be approved.—(Lord Oram.)
6.40 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I rather hope that that astute political analyst, Mr. Peter Simple, is in his place in the Press Gallery this afternoon listening to this Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order which has been moved with great clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Oram. If ever there were an example of the shining nonsense with which a prices and incomes policy clothes itself, regardless of which Government are running it, this would seem to me to be it.
As we have heard, the order exempts the various changes in Excise which the Chancellor announced in his Budget, from the Price Check Scheme. In other words, we in Parliament are party to a scheme to limit price increases and, with solemn faces and much talk of crises, we pass laws and support policies to that end. Almost immediately we have to pass further laws—in this case the present order—exempting ourselves from the consequences of our earlier decision. Parliament,
696
following the dictates of the Government—which have an effective majority if not an actual majority of their Members—limits prices increases for the reasons given by the noble Lord. The Chancellor, as I admit is his right, puts up taxes; back comes Parliament and exempts the Government from the policy they formulated in the first place. It does not even do so by debating the issue fully, but more or less "on the nod", as the modern fashion has it, and I do not see those stern enemies of delegated legislation when we were in Government, the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Beswick, in their places today.
I feel that this is all of the same order of distastefulness as the knowledge we have that those who are in charge at present of running effectively a statutory incomes policy, are themselves exempt from the consequences of that policy through the Civil Service system of incremental salary increases. I think the whole business is not only distasteful but decadent and we in Parliament are, within individual limits, of course, responsible. In this case I do not single out the Government for special censure.
It might be said that my objection could apply to the whole principle of price control—and so indeed it does; but I am saying that we do not need a programme of profit restraint to counterbalance the programme of wage and salary restraint at the present time. If one is a chain smoker it may be necessary at some stage to have an operation for the removal of a lung. Nevertheless, it remains the case that it would be far better not to take up chain smoking in the first place. What I am saying is that restraint, like charity, should begin at home. The Government should restrain their spending so as to restrain taxation, so as to keep within the price checks that they have themselves imposed or encouraged. I hope that we shall be debating these issues later in this Session. Certainly, in spite of encouraging noises recently by the Prime Minister, the whole prices policy is in considerable disarray, and certainly it is crucial to the question of investment and therefore of employment. Meanwhile, this nasty little order, a monument to self-abuse if ever there were one, had better go through. I for one, however, hope that its nastiness and sterility will not pass unnoticed.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I rather felt that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, used somewhat extravagant language in his attack on what he called this "nasty little order", although he agrees that the House should pass it. I was glad that in one passage of his speech he took some share of the blame—or at least asked Parliament as a whole to take some share of the blame—for the contradictions to which he claims to draw attention.
I think this order should be seen against a general background of what is being done to check prices and that we should not just pick out those bits—as I suggest the noble Earl did—which happen to suit a selected case. There is no doubt that the six months' Price Check Scheme is advantageous to the consumer, and that in shops all over the country prices are being maintained at a lower level as a result of the introduction of this Scheme. Therefore, in my judgment, it is right that this extra price on just a few of the commodities, which has come about as a result of the Budget, should be dealt with in the way proposed in the order.
The noble Earl spoke of Chancellors coming along and putting up prices. In my opening remarks I quoted from the Chancellor's speech two passages which I believe, if the noble Earl will read them tomorrow, he will agree give a very effective case for what the Chancellor did in his Budget. But as I explained, it had a consequential effect on the Price Check Scheme, not of an enormous amount and not in respect of many commodities in the Scheme. Therefore I think it is sensible and reasonable that the House should pass this order, which will put the matter right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PASSPORTS: JUSTICE REPORT
6.46 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING Lord ORR-EWING rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the recommendations contained in the report published in 1974 by Justice concerning the methods by which British Governments control the passports of individual British citizens. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to give a little background to the Question which stands in my name on the Order
698
Paper. My attention was drawn to the somewhat anomalous position of British passport holders by the actions taken in February by the police at London Airport in connection with mercenaries returning from Angola. At that time Her Majesty's Government recognised no Government for Angola. It is true that the Labour Party had supported the Marxist Popular Liberation Army but the Government did not recognise anybody, and in fact until the massive invasion by the Cubans and the arms provided by Russia, that particular liberation army occupied only a small area of land—a minority of the total country of Angola—round Luanda.
Britain proclaims itself a democracy and there is nothing unpatriotic in those who wish to fight for anti-Marxist forces or anti-Fascist forces. We thought there was nothing in any way wrong when 2,000 people, from various motives, went to fight with the Republicans in Spain against Fascism, and I think there is nothing wrong today.
It is not really the question of mercenaries with which I am concerned. It is that when they returned to this country, 58 passports were taken away. These figures may have varied a little in recent weeks, but they are the latest figures I can get from Parliamentary Answers. Twenty-nine of these passports have now been handed back and 29 are still held. The holders were kept in custody for two or three days without any charge being made, and of course the fact that half of them are still held probably reflects the fact that the holders may not wish to expose themselves to some of the undesirable publicity which they might receive as a result.
This House was somewhat concerned, as was voiced from all quarters, at the somewhat arbitrary manner of the infringement of civil liberties. Leading weekly and daily newspapers wrote on this subject. The Economist came out with an article on the 14th February; The Times on 20th February had a leading article under the title "Ne Exeat Regno Back Again". The Daily Telegraph of 12th March had a leading article on it, and then at Question Time we probed this further and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, drew our attention to the report which Justice had published some two years previously, in 1974—Justice being an all-Party organisation. After what I hoped was a

699
helpful interval, because we received a sympathetic reply from the Minister saying that he would look at this matter, we tabled this Unstarred Question to give us a chance of hearing from the Government whether they had been able to make any progress and what their view is after they have considered the matter.
I would draw attention in this long report—some of which I do not agree with, but some of which I do—to paragraph 45 which summarises the three principles. It
says:

"(a)…in principle, executive actions should be reviewable by judicial processes;

(b) that certain kinds of decision affecting fundamental rights and interests of the citizen should not in principle lie within the domain of the executive at all, but should be determined by the ordinary courts (or, in special circumstances, tribunals) applying the ordinary law of the land;

(c) that there is a basic human right or civil liberty, namely, freedom of movement, with which the passport is intimately associated."

It is in this context that I am speaking tonight.
My Lords, the point really is that at present there are no very clear rules. On 7th April, when the noble Baroness Lady Flies, asked the question, "What were the criteria which allowed you to take a passport away?", she was told in a reply from the Foreign Office, "There is no definition of a criterion for deciding." I have looked up the guidelines which have existed, and it seems to me that they are now making it somewhat easier to seize a passport than it was when they were first framed. The first statement I can find was made in this House by Lord Gosford, who was then Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office. I refreshed my memory by looking at the original text which appeared at column 860 of Hansard on 16th June 1958. It says that persons whose passports may be taken away are,
…persons whose activities are so notoriously undesirable or dangerous that Parliament would be expected to support the action of the Foreign Secretary in refusing them a passport or withdrawing a passport…".
This was reframed in a Question for Written Answer on 15th November 1974, and if we compare the versions carefully, the later one has been made less rigorous. It no longer says, "notoriously undesirable and dangerous", but says persons,
"whose past or proposed activities are so demonstrably undesirable that the grant or continued
700
enjoyment of passport facilities would be contrary to the public interest".—(Official Report; 15/11/74, col. 265.)
Your Lordships will notice two things: a softening of the wording in the first part; and, secondly, there is no reference to Parliament anywhere; that has gone, and that was in the original text.
My Lords, the other point which needs to be made is that there is no appeal procedure. I cannot help feeling that increasingly Parliament has been worried by the size and power of the Executive. In each field we are trying to set up some sort of procedure, preferably independent, which allows people who feel that they have been wronged to go to a tribunal to have their case considered. We have the Ombudsman, who now covers the Health Service, local government and Parliamentary activities, whereas initially he was looking into maladministration. People can take their complaints to him.
For a long time the police have been judge and jury in their own cases, and it was felt that there should be a tribunal with an independent element in it. The Press Council was set up for people who felt they had been wronged. Initially this was also an "in house", as it were, but it became a tribunal with an independent judge presiding—an independent element. I wonder—and this is very much the theme of the Justice report—whether we should not have criteria established and debated in Parliament and not behind closed doors. We all recognise that there will be instances. I wonder whether we should not have a tribunal set up to look into this matter. A tribunal has been set up to look into the specific questions as they concern Rhodesia. Possibly its terms of reference might be enlarged. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, will probably give us his learned views on that.
I would make this point. From 1945 to 1968, apart from Rhodesia, and according to a Foreign Office statement in the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, only eight passports were impounded. In a few days in February, 58 passports were impounded. Therefore, we see here a grave threat to individual liberty, a growing threat by the power of the Executive, and something which I am sure in every part of the House we want to treat extremely seriously. I hope that

701
when he comes to reply, the noble Lord the Minister will tell us something hopeful about the way in which he wants to move, and the sort of progress he is making in this direction.
6.56 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, my interest in supporting this Unstarred Question is rather different, perhaps, from that of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. If the rather lengthy article in the Observer last Sunday was right, Rhodesian interests are paying £200 to £300 a man to soldiers in Northern Ireland to get them to join Mr. Smith's army in Rhodesia at a pay of £250 a week. I cannot say that I have the same sympathy with mercenaries as has the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. Anybody who has nothing to do with Africa who goes there now to take part in a warlike operation, white against black, black against white, is misguided. As that army is Mr. Smith's army, that of an illegal régime, which no country in the world has recognised as being the lawful Government of Rhodesia, I think these soldiers would be well advised to take some legal advice on their position before they went out there.
My Lords, of course I am interested to support a Question asking the Government what action they are going to take, and what view they take, on the report of Justice, which has now been published for some two years. I think they have taken a lot of trouble with this report. They first deal with the varying functions of passports in constitutional history, where the word comes from and so on. They deal with passports and the right to leave the country; they refer to the Colvin case—he was a journalist and a well-known citizen of the United States who was refused leave to leave the country because he had not got his passport, and they say:
"In April 1973, the chairman of the present committee, on embarking at London Airport, was informed by an immigration officer that the latter would place no obstacle in his way should he seek to leave without a passport; but that he 'wouldn't get far'. The potentially critical role of the passport, as an evidentiary aid, to the citizen in his desire to leave the United Kingdom is clear."
They deal with the writ ne exeat regno and with passports and the right of entry. They say:
"Confusion also attaches, with perhaps better reason, to the inter-relationship of passport-holding and the right of the citizen to enter the
702
country. Again, it is to be stressed as a general point that the passport itself is a mere administrative device, providing evidence of status. But the situation has been vastly complicated by our post-imperial heritage reflected in an abstruse and, some feel, somewhat artificial, British nationality law."
They then deal with the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. They say:
"This Act attached entry controls to all Commonwealth citizens, Irish citizens and British protected persons, who were not either born in the United Kingdom, or in possession of United Kingdom passports…Thus, an individual's possession of a United Kingdom passport could critically affect his right of entry to the United Kingdom. Yet the decision, as we shall see, whether the applicant should have such a passport was and remains a matter of unreviewable executive discretion."
They then deal with the position under the EEC, and remind us that William Joyce was hanged because he kept his passport. They go on:
"Despite the gap between appearance and reality explored in the preceding paragraphs, we have no doubt that the grant and withdrawal of passports is a process intimately related to a fundamental civil liberty, and human right:—that of the citizen to travel abroad, relying upon authoritative evidence of his identity and nationality."
Later, they say:
"This administrative document, without which the citizen may find it in practice extremely difficult to leave the country, return to it, or enter or travel in a foreign country, is provided by and within the discretion of the Crown. No Statute governs it at all".
Then they point out that it is no use complaining to the Parliamentary Commissioner, and that there is an advisory committee but that only applies to Rhodesians. Then they deal with the current United Kingdom practice concerning passports, and then with international perspectives, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides that
"Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own".
They examine where the European Communities Act 1972 places the United Kingdom in respect of the issue of passports:
"It seems to us arguable that Her Majesty's Government may now be under an international obligation to enact a statutory régime affording passport rights to beneficiaries of the Rome Treaty's freedom of movement Articles as promulgated by the Commission."
Then they come to recommendations.

703
It is, of course, the rule of law aspect with which I personally am primarily concerned. I have said in the House before that, for reasons which I explained but will not explain again, I am of the opinion that for many years the power of the Executive and the bureaucracy has increased in this country at the expense of the power of Parliament and the people. One reason for that is, I think, that a long time ago we made a mistake. We had, of course, an absolute monarchy under the Stuarts. If a King gave a judgment against the Government, they were simply dismissed. The King in English Law could do no wrong, and the Royal Prerogative was extensive. In order to get rid of that we had a revolution, and one King was beheaded and another removed; we have had a constitutional monarchy, since William and Mary. When it came to the Prerogative, what I think we ought to have done was to pass laws defining the extent and nature of Executive discretion, instead of which we did not.
At an earlier stage this afternoon I drew attention to what I think is a flagrant injustice. A man who is denied bail, kept in prison for months, and then when his trial arrives is told, "Sorry, chum, we find that somebody else did it, and we offer no evidence", has no legal right to any kind of compensation at all. This is because in this case again the Home Secretary is standing there in his purple robe representing the Royal Pregrogative. He may graciously agree to an ex gratia payment, to make some payment the amount of which cannot be questioned; this is because it is a Prerogative. This is another old matter which simply comes from the Royal Prerogative. It should plainly be a matter of law.
The recommendations are, in effect, that in these cases the Executive decides the law which should provide the conditions that should apply, the conditions in which the Executive is or is not entitled to deny you a passport or withdraw your passport, and that decision, on ordinary legal principles, should be reviewable by the courts. I do not want to speak any longer, because all we are here to do is to ask the Government, after two years, what conclusion they have come to.
I do not know whether my noble friend is a regular reader of the New Law Journal—possibly not. If not, he may not have
704
seen yesterday's issue of the New Law Journal. On the page which is written by Mr. Harper, a former editor, called The Week, I see the heading, Passports. He says this:
"Lord Goronwy-Roberts, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—a Department of Government not renowned for precipitate action—was asked in the Lords what action the Government proposed to take in regard to the Justice report on Passports, entitled Going Abroad."—
that was, of course, a reference to the Starred Question—
"He replied that the report was 'being studied', but that the Foreign Secretary 'had not yet had an opportunity to consider the proposals' in it. As he bad taken office only a few days previously, 'no one', Lord Hailsham observed, 'would wish to press him'. However, the Prime Minister ought to know something about the matter, since the report was published in 1974. It contains a number of proposals, but the merits of those relating to a proposed individual right to a passport and provision for judicial review of administrative action in regard to passports could be determined without difficulty and implemented without expenditure of public money. The delay in doing either is therefore indefensible. It has already lasted longer than the Justice committee responsible for it took to produce the entire report."
Therefore, as the present Prime Minister was himself Foreign Secretary for so long and had two years in which to consider it, and I assume arrived at some decision, I look forward with interest to hearing what the answer to the Question is.
7.6 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, the Question that is posed by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, this evening is, of course, not being asked in a vacuum. It is being asked against the background of the impounding of the passports of the Angolan mercenaries and against the background of possible similar action in the near future should violence in South Africa, unhappily, escalate. It is, therefore, necessary that I should indicate, in suggesting, as I shall, that the Prerogative to impound passports in that way should not exist, that I am in no way supporting the activities of any mercenaries, past, present or future. If it is desired to control their activities, there is the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870. If that requires amendment or re-enactment, so be it. That will give the opportunity for proper Parliamentary debate on a problem which is clearly a very difficult one.

705
The present position is, of course, that there is an absolute Prerogative in the Crown as to the grant or withdrawal of a passport. It is a matter for administrative order. It is in substance not subject to any review by any court or any other body. I say "in substance". There are, I think, two minor limitations to that observation. There is the rather obscure Writ to which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has referred, ne exeat regno which I believe only applies to a person who is fleeing the country in order to escape some financial legal obligation. And there is, of course, the advisory committee that deals with passports to Rhodesia. But subject to that there is no tribunal, there is no appeal; there is not for any practical purpose even a right of appeal to the Ombudsman, because, as I understand it, the Parliamentary Commissioner has no power to investigate the merits of any refusal to grant or any withdrawal of a passport; he can only, at the most, investigate any suggestion of maladministration. That means there is in fact an absolute, and I would suggest intolerable, power in the Executive. l say that even though I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting that that is a power that has been abused. Indeed, when it reported in 1974 the Justice committee found that there had only been some 27 cases since the war in which passports had either not been granted or been withdrawn.
What concerns those of us who are deeply involved in issues of fundamental human rights is not whether the power that is available to the Government is being abused but whether it is capable of being abused in the future, and, if so, whether steps ought not to be taken to see that that abuse does not take place. When I talk about fundamental human rights, I mean, in relation to this matter, first, the right to travel freely. It is an odd reflection that when passports were first mooted some 600 years ago it was in order to encourage travel abroad and not in order that restrictions should be placed upon it. One is happy to see that already in a very large part of Western Europe it is very much easier to travel freely. Indeed, the noble Lord the Minister will remember that one of his predecessors, Mr. Ernest Bevin, remarked some years ago how much he looked forward to the day when passports would be a thing of the past.
706
On the right to travel freely, the right to leave the country without hindrance, I find it difficult to understand why, ever since 1920 when the aliens order was passed, there should be control over British subjects who wish to leave their country and, of course, the right to return freely to the country to which one is entitled to return. These human rights are rights which ought to be subject to law and not subject to the arbitrary whim of the Executive.
It is a particularly appropriate moment for the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, to raise this issue, because the whole question of our citizenship laws, which are really in a chaotic state, is being reviewed at this time. It might be appropriate at the same time, therefore, to review the whole question of the grant and withdrawal of passports. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to indicate that he will look at the Justice report with a view to considering whether it might be possible to adopt its main recommendation; simply, that there should be a short Act of Parliament which would establish that the individual citizen has a legal right to a passport, and has an unqualified right to such a passport. The Act might perhaps also clear up various ambiguities and make it clear that a passport is now simply a document of identity, a document of nationality and a document which indicates to which country the bearer should be returned if a foreign country finds it proper to take such action. It is perhaps time to sweep away some of the rather meaningless mumbo-jumbo which occupies the first few pages of our passports.
I hope that the Minister will indicate that it is possible to envisage bringing the whole system of the grant and withdrawal of passports within judicial supervision. I know that it can be said that where there are political considerations involved it is not always a justiciable matter for the courts to intervene; but the noble Lord will be aware that on a similar issue, where people are being deported because it is felt that their presence is politically undesirable, a quasi-judicial system has been set up, and it is possible for appeals to be heard against decisions made on that ground. The issue here on which passports may be withdrawn is, in many ways, similar, and I would venture to support the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, in asking

707
this Question, and in hoping that we can receive an encouraging reply from the Minister to the effect that the whole system will be brought under some form of judicial review.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has drawn the attention of your Lordships to a matter of considerable constitutional significance under this innocuous looking title of a report called Going Abroad. The report on passports makes certain recommendations, which I shall not go into in detail. Like other noble Lords I shall avoid the questions of immigration, nationality, and citizenship, with which of course passports are also intimately connected. In passing, if the noble Lord the Minister is able to tell us when we might see the Review on Nationality, it would be of interest to noble Lords. Many of us are waiting to know what kind of decisions and thinking the Minister has. Perhaps it is the Minister for the Home Office who is producing this report. However, we should like to know more about it.
It is generally assumed by the innocent citizen, being a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, who is about to go abroad, that he, or she, will need a passport to leave the country, obtain one on demand by paying the appropriate fee, treasure it as his or her own, and that, as it appears to say, this precious document will entitle him, or her, to protection from the Government while abroad. Of course, as we know, none of these assumptions is true. It is not essential for a citizen to show a passport on leaving the country, since its purpose for control of exit, as I understand it, is one of identification, and if identity can be proved satisfactorily to the passport control it is not essential to produce a passport. It does not guarantee protection by the Government, since the diplomatic protection abroad of the citizen lies within the right of the State to afford that protection, and it is not a necessity, or a duty, owed by the State to the citizen, nor does the citizen have a right to demand that protection. Thirdly, as we know, passports may be withdrawn by the prerogative of the State without giving any grounds for such withdrawal. Nor does a citizen, as has been repeated
708
by other noble Lords, have any right of redress or access to a tribunal for the restitution of the passport.
I should like to refer to some of the human rights documents which have been supported by past United Kingdom Governments, and first, of course, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which was adopted in 1948 by the United Kingdom, among other Member States, at the United Nations. The contents of Article 13 (2) have been rightly referred to. This right may be subject to limitations and restrictions. In fact, all the rights and freedoms enumerated in the Universal Declaration are subject to certain limitations and restrictions contained in Article 29(2), the restrictive clause. But it states categorically that these limits must be authorised by law and for certain specific reasons. Referring to the reasons enumerated in Miss Joan Lestor's reply in the House of Commons, to which my noble friend referred, reference is made to public interest. Certainly public interest is not one of the grounds enumerated in Article 29(2); they are specifically matters of public health, public morals, and the general welfare of the community. These, of course, have not at all the same legal significance, or governmental interpretation, as public interest.
Other countries have constitutions which guarantee fundamental freedoms and human rights, and provide methods of enforcement for the individual citizen. In fact, it will be recalled that in the United States there was a case involving a travel ban on Cuba, and it was held that in order to be consistent with the due process, governmental restrictions on freedom of movement must bear a direct relation to the achievement of a compelling Government objective. This must be a basis on which governmental action must be founded. Secondly, since 1948, major human rights instruments have come into force.
Very recently—and I have not heard it mentioned yet in this House, but it is a great event in the field of human rights law—in March of this year, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came into force. There is an article in that Covenant which refers to the right of everyone to leave any country. The United Kingdom signed that Covenant in 1966, but has not yet ratified it. The

709
same right to leave any country is contained in the fourth Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights. Again, the United Kingdom has not seen fit to ratify that particular Protocol. Possibly the Minister might be in a position to tell us whether the Government have any intention of ratifying these instruments. I know that it is not strictly relevant to the passport issue, but I think we should be reminded that the International Covenant has provision for setting up a human rights committee of the 18 members of the first signatories and ratifiers of the Covenant, and it now means that the United Kingdom will not have a chance of nominating a member to that important committee. On the other hand, the Byelo Soviet Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are among those who will be able to nominate members for this committee. This is perhaps a matter the Government might look at very seriously.
Both these instruments contain provision for the limitation by a State of such rights as are granted, but again in both these instruments they must be determined by law, and Article 12(4) in the Covenant states that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. The arbitrary withdrawal of passports may well have on the citizen the effect precisely of not being able to return to his country because he will have been deprived of this necessary document which may be required to re-enter his own country.
Thirdly, there is an obligation under Articles 48 to 66 of the Treaty of Rome in relation to the freedom of movement, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services throughout the Member States of the Community. As we do not have identity cards in this country, may I ask what other documents for identification purposes a United Kingdom citizen can have if he wishes to go into one or other of the Community countries? I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long, but I feel that it is relevant to read just that part of the Council Directive which is absolutely relevant to this matter. It is Directive 64/220/EEC of 25th February 1964, which provides:
"Member States shall, acting in accordance with their laws, issue to their nationals referred to in Article 1"—
710
that means nationals in the EEC—
"and renew, an identity card or passport which shall state in particular its holder's nationality "—
now comes the important part—
"and shall enable him or her to leave and re-enter the country freely."
That is a Council Directive which may, or may not of course, be directly applicable in this country; I am not in a position to say whether it is directly applicable. But if it is, it would of course ensure to a citizen of the United Kingdom that he could not have his passport withdrawn if he wished to travel within the European Community countries. At least, that is how I would read that section. It goes on to say—and this is relevant to the United Kingdom:
"Where a passport is the only document with which the holder may lawfully leave the country, its period of validity shall be no less than five years."
That is an administrative point. Nevertheless, the fact is that within European Community law, which of course recognises fundamental freedoms and human rights, it is stated that any citizen should be able to leave and re-enter his or her own country freely.
I wish to raise a point which was contained in the Justice report. It was not gone into very deeply but it is, again, very relevant to the question of passports. I have given notice to the Minister of my intention to raise this issue. There have been complaints from women who have divorced their husbands or have been deserted but who have fully maintained their children, often at great personal sacrifice yet cannot take their children out of the country for a holiday without the consent of the former husband. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that it is a term of the court order as to whether the parent of the children is able to remove those children without the consent of the other side or former spouse, and that it does not lie within the competence of the Passport Office, at its own discretion, to grant or withhold passports. Many women who have written have complained or have felt that it was the Passport Office which was holding up this possibility of taking their children out of the country, but I understand that it is one of the terms contained within the court order.
If the Minister confirms that this is so perhaps the Law Commission might make

711
some proposals, if it has not already done so, after consulting the Family Division of the Queen's Bench as to how this matter might be more satisfactorily dealt with. Obviously, if this is the way in which court orders are worded, there might be some way of obviating this difficult situation for many deserted or divorced people who have care, responsibility and maintenance of their children but who cannot take them abroad, even for a short time.
What we are really asking the Government, on the basis of this report and the Question raised by my noble friend, is this: first, as there is no statutory obligation to provide a passport nor a statutory right to have a passport, will they say on what basis they consider that there is a prerogative? It seems to go back into history, but the historical origin of the prerogative appears to remain unclear and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, pointed out that it was only by the Aliens Order Act 1920 that the significance of passports was introduced from the point of view of coming back into the country, I think that the Government would have to justify using a prerogative when there seems to be no modern evidence or justification for its use.
Secondly, if the Government would be prepared to spell out by what criteria they withhold or withdraw passports, may I ask why and on what basis there has been a change, and a very sharp distinction, in the grounds which were spelled out in 1958, as was pointed out by Lord Orr-Ewing and the reply given by Miss Joan Lestor on 15th November 1974 in Written Answers. She specifically referred not only to past but to proposed activities that were so demonstrably undesirable. On what grounds can a Government decide what action somebody will take when they leave a country? It must be the first time that any either executive power or judicial body should have taken any executive action on the prospective or even contemplated acts of a citizen of this country.
We are all aware that every Government in a democratic system must be concerned with achieving a fair balance between the recognition of the citizen's rights and imposing certain limitations on those rights which would be for the overwhelming benefit and security of the
712
citizens of our country. However, these questions still remain. It may well be that administrative action is required by Governments to impose a limitation or a restriction on the rights of a citizen or citizens, but what we on this side of the House feel—I am sure that this feeling is shared by other noble Lords—is that what is not admissible in any system of countries and democratic Governments which recognise human rights and fundamental freedoms of the invidual, is that executive power may be exercised arbitrarily; that governmental action may be affecting a basic freedom with no reason stated and with the right of redress by the citizen through a court or tribunal or other recognised judicial body being denied to that citizen.
My Lords, I conclude with the happy thought that the last proposal which was made in this House as to how a discretionary executive power could be cured would be by a change of Government, and that apparently is the only way as it exists today.
7.28 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, once again there has been a clerical error and I must apologise to noble Lords who came into the Chamber to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, rather than to me. I wish to cencentrate on one specific but very important aspect of this whole question of passports, so ably covered by the Justice report and to which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has so commendably drawn our attention. The aspect in question is the essential right of the inhabitants of a free country to leave that country at any time without hindrance and with only a very few tightly circumscribed exceptions. Paragraph 22 of the Justice report, which was quoted by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Gardiner, put it rather better than I could by referring to
"…a fundamental civil liberty and human right, that of the citizen to travel abroad."
Prior to the exceptional circumstances of the current IRA bombing campaign, during which naturally most of us are prepared to accept certain restrictions on our freedom of activity, I, and I suspect many others, very much resented having to show my passport when leaving the country, because the implication was that being allowed to quit these shores was a privilege rather than a right.

713
However, that is an emotional reaction and, on a practical plane, I can apprecate that this practice makes it easier to prevent four categories of person leaving that, in my opinion, even a free democracy is morally entitled to prevent so doing. The categories in question are first, those wanted by the police in connection with a criminal offence; second, persons remanded on bail, except in connection with the most trivial offences; third, persons attempting to remove wards of court from the jurisdiction of the British courts; and, fourth, the wards of court themselves. However, in the last connection, I am bound to say that I wonder whether it is still right in 1976 to try to prevent wards of court from 14 years of age upwards from going abroad of their own free will. I was interested to see that, in a slightly different area, paragraph 58 of the report urges that children aged between 16 and 18 should he able to obtain passports more easily than at present. However, that is something of a side issue and we have not time to go into that tonight.
By the nature of things, the policy of making intending travellers show their passports before leaving can only work successfully as far as the latter three categories are concerned, because people in the first category—those wanted by the police—are clearly likely to have retained their passports and, unless the crime for which they are sought is very serious, it is highly unlikely that the immigration officer will carry the name of the wanted man in his head. Our immigration officers do not have a lengthy blacklist at their elbow, as will have been observed by any traveller. Furthermore, the policy falls down completely so far as travel to the Republic of Ireland is concerned, because again apart from the present, one hopes, exceptional circumstances of the IRA bombing campaign, it is possible to escape British jurisdiction completely simply by heading westward.
However, one must concede that asking people in the first instance to produce their passports to prove their identity is administratively convenient and time-saving and, hence, justifiable. It is when they do not have passports that the trouble arises. In my belief, provided a person can produce some means of identification, such as an international driving licence.
714
a slightly out-of-date passport or something similar, by which it can be checked that he is not on the wanted list, he should be allowed to leave the country without further ado, provided, also, that he is made aware that he risks the possibility of being turned back at Boulogne, Ostend, Rome airport or wherever his destination may be, and provided it is made clear that he will not be entitled to consular protection and assistance, and that he may have a few problems in establishing his identity when he wishes to re-enter this country. In theory, that is what is meant to happen at the moment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, pointed out. However, the experience of Mr. Ian Colvin of the Daily Mail a few years ago which is cited in paragraph 7 of the report gives cause for very considerable alarm.
We do not have a Palmerston in the Foreign Office at the moment, and we have not had one for some time. Furthermore, we read only the other day of the axing of consulates all over Europe as part of an economy drive. None the less, and despite the consequently tenuous nature of the protection afforded today, the Government retain certain obligations towards British passport holders on whose behalf foreigners are requested and even required, in the name of Her Majesty, to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford him or her such assistance and protection as may be necessary.
That being so, I have to concede that there may be—though I do not say that there is—something in the argument that a United Kingdom citizen whose presence abroad is more likely than not to cause difficulties, embarrassment and expense for this country should not be granted the facilities and the implied protection which a passport confers. However, whether or not one agrees with that—and I am not sure that I do, and I am certain that the authors of the report do not—we must surely be united in this House in believing that under no circumstances should this country be ringed by a metaphorical "British Wall". Those who find themselves without a passport, for whatever reason and leaving aside the four categories which I mentioned earlier, should surely be entitled without qualification to leave the United Kingdom at their own risk. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will be able

715
to assure the House that there is absolutely no legislative or administrative barrier to their doing so.
7.35 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have listened with deep interest to this debate and with respect to the noble Lord who opened it. He was the noble Lord who drew our attention to the Justice report which my noble friend Lord Gardiner complained that the Foreign Office had been rather dilatory in considering. My own experience of those members of my own family who share with my noble friend activity in the legal profession, seems to suggest that the profession of which my noble friend is such a distinguished ornament is not that much more precipitate in action and impatient of delay than is the British Foreign Office. However, this is a useful debate. I must say at once that the matters which have been raised are being studied by Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, questions relating to passports are constantly under consideration, but I am able to say that we are looking specifically at the points recently raised and are studying them in relation to the Justice report, which is the emanation of a very distinguished legal group, though it is not an official publication. The Government are also examining that very carefully.
I am not in any way able to indicate today what Her Majesty's Government have decided about these very important questions, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, may agree to wait just a little longer before the Government indicate what they propose to do to change the system which has served us very well and has served the people of this country very fairly, as the Justice report goes out of its way to make clear.
It is because successive Governments have been sensibly aware of the possibility that executive action stemming from the Royal Prerogative in this case could possibly be abused that they have announced in Parliament from time to time the categories of person to whom passport facilities may be refused. The last occasion when such an announcement was made was, as we have heard, on 15th November by the then Parliamentary
716
Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness compared the phrasing of the previous statement of grounds of refusal made by Lord Gosford in this House in 1958 with that made by Miss Lestor in November 1974. I must confess that I do not see any great difference of intensity.
It is a matter of opinion, but I take issue with a suggestion that, in the first statement, Parliament was enabled to intervene more than it could today. The power of Parliament or of any Member of Parliament—and that means any Member of either House—to intervene, change or check executive action in this particular, as in any other, still remains. It is not possible to adduce to the statement made by Lord Gosford then a power of Parliament which has somehow disappeared today. It is for Members of Parliament to take these matters up, as the noble Lord did the other day by putting certain very pointed questions to me about mercenaries, either in relation to a group or an individual. That power we retain as Members of Parliament.
The five categories in the statement made by Miss Lestor have been mentioned in turn by various speakers, but category C has been quoted most often. It reads:
"In very rare cases, a person, other than one in category E"—
that is the category that relates to persons in Rhodesia—
"whose past or proposed activities are so demonstrably undesirable that the granting or continued enjoyment of passport facilities would be contrary to the public interest."
The discretion to refuse passport facilities to persons deemed to be in category C is exercised on the personal decision of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Apart from mercenaries, there have been only nine cases of refusal in this category since the 1939–45 war, and the report itself concedes that the present system is operating efficiently and in an enlightened manner. It says, in paragraph 46:
"It cannot be pretended that its present functioning gives rise to any major difficulties or to any serious abuse of power."
Nevertheless, I recognise the concern of noble Lords—and here I address myself particularly to the balanced, well argued speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder,

717
and of the authors of the Justice report—that the enlightened operation of the present system depends upon the wisdom of the Secretary of State and his officials. As recommended in the report, the alternative could be a Statute conferring upon all citizens the legal right to a passport. Under a statutory system, provisions would presumably have to be made for refusals and withdrawals of passports in certain circumstances, and I imagine that these would likely correspond closely with existing categories for refusal. So we are left with the procedures whereby refusal or withdrawal are effected, and the important question of appeals. I take all these as being very important matters to which it is time we addressed our serious attention to see whether any changes can be made in the interests of our people and our country. All this is related not only to individual freedom, but perhaps in some cases to the larger issue of our own national survival and freedom. The noble Baroness in her speech put together the two points and said that we must relate these two considerations.
Interest in this matter has been aroused recently because of the decision of the Secretary of State to withdraw passports from mercenaries on their return from Angola. I join with other Members of your Lordships' House who spoke in the debate in saying that it would perhaps be inutilitous for us to dwell on this, particularly as the circumstances have solved this particular problem. I am not aware that anybody from that group is without his passport if he wants it back, and the proviso for a signed declaration—the one we copied from the previous example in 1961—has lapsed because the circumstances do not make that necessary.
The question regarding the mercenaries is being expertly studied by a Committee of Privy Councillors with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, as chairman. I was asked whether the report could be published fairly soon. I understand that we can expect it fairly soon and that it will include recommendations on the refusal of passport facilities which may be of general utility to us in our consideration of this question. I will not refer to the other categories mentioned in the statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in November 1974: rather I shall pass on quickly to refer to one or two specific points raised in the debate.
718
The noble Baroness asked when will Her Majesty's Government ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? The answer is that we hope to take a decision soon. Of course we have full sympathy with this and have been something of a peacemaker in regard to it. The second question posed by the noble Baroness was, if I understood it correctly: does not the EEC Directive 64/220 on freedom of movement between Community countries confer an obligation on Her Majesty's Government to issue passports? The answer to that is that Article 6 of the Directive confers an obligation to issue a passport or identity card to nationals wishing to travel within the EEC. But as I think the noble Baroness was on the way to reminding us (though I did not quite see that she got there) Article 8 of the same Directive states:
"Members shall not derogate from the provisions of this Directive, save on grounds of public policy, public security or public health."
Those are very wide grounds indeed. So while in Article 6 the Community has extended this very liberal provision of movement within the Community it has, no doubt rightly, restricted it in quoting the needs of public policy, public security and public health.
The third point which the noble Baroness put to me was: when will the Government ratify the Fourth Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights? I must say, frankly, that I do not see any immediate prospect of our being able to do this, and the reasons are quite clear. We exercise immigration control on several categories of United Kingdom passport holders; for instance, citizens of colonies. Therefore, while we do this, and we do it, I think, with the substantial support of the people and of Parliament, we do not see a way genuinely to ratify the Fourth Protocol. I suppose we could ratify this and then ignore it. There are instances of that being done, though not by this country. So the straight answer to the question of the noble Baroness is, "No", for the reasons I have given.
The noble Baroness raised an interesting and poignant question relating to the position of little children who are caught in family difficulties. Where there is separation or divorce, children are placed

719
in the custody of one parent and the agreement of the other is needed for certain things to be done in regard to them. The noble Baroness is quite right; it depends on the court order and the terms of it. It is not for the passport officer to do more than offer advice as anybody would. There is not here any real difficulty arising from a suspicion of sex discrimination, come to that. Like me, the noble Baroness has heard people raise this point in terms of whether the female parent, but not the male parent, has to go through certain processes. Of course, this is not true. Either parent is subject to the same procedures. As to whether the court order could be set out more clearly so as to obviate these harrowing circumstances—and we are all aware of such instances—I could not say. I am always in favour of faith, hope and clarity, especially in the courts of our country; but it is a point worth making and worth conveying.
My Lords, I conclude by saying this. Although the present system has worked without injustice or oppression, the Government are considering carefully the arguments which have been put forward before today, and certainly those that have been put forward in this useful debate by noble Lords will also be considered
720
carefully, so that we may see whether, in the light of all the considerations I have mentioned, any change in the present law or practice is desirable.

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Reported without amendment.

HARE COURSING BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that the Bill should not proceed, made and to be printed, together with the Minutes of Evidence and the Proceedings of the Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.