Lords Sitting of 15 December 1977

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

COAL RESEARCH FUNDS
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: 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 is the total of funds currently put to research either by the National Coal Board or the Department of Energy into better extraction and utilisation of energy from coal.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the total funds deployed by the National Coal Board on research into the better extraction and utilisation of energy from coal for the current financial year is expected to approach £30 million. This year, the Department of Energy and the National Coal Board expect to contribute £2·5 million towards participation in the Fluidised Bed Combustion and Coal Research Information Projects based in this country, and operated under the auspices of the International Energy Agency.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very informative and, may I say, encouraging reply. May I ask him whether he has compared the volume of investment in this kind of research in this country, with that put into the same work by the American Energy Research Development Association?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, certainly. Apart from the figures that I gave for general projects, we are also contributing £15 million a year to mining research and development, and £5 million a year to coal utilisation. As the noble Earl knows, the tripartite working party envisaged expenditure over 10 years of
2228
£60 million, and we are looking favourably on this. Indeed, as the House is probably aware, the Prime Minister, at a lunch yesterday, said that in the longer term we expect coal to be our source of substitutes for oil and natural gas, and the raw material for our petrochemical industry.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that further information, which is very helpful to those of us who did not have time to read our papers this morning, because of doing our "prep" for this supplementary. May I ask him whether we are hoping to get some substantial help towards these sums from the European Community?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, discussions are going on in Brussels about extending the Community's energy R and D programme to include major projects in coal gasification and liquefaction. We are exploring the possibility of Community funding for National Coal Board work in these fields.

AERODROME SURFACE MOVEMENT INDICATORS
11.9 a.m.
Lord BRAYE: 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 progress has been made with the installation of surface movement control indicators (ground radar) at Gatwick and other airports.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as stated in my reply to the noble Lord's previous Question on 4th May, the time-scale for provision of this equipment at Gatwick is dependent upon other developments there. In particular, it is likely that there will be a new elevated control room in the terminal area complex upon which the equipment would be mounted. It is expected that such a facility would be completed by 1981–82, and this date would accord with the foreseeable operational requirement. As for other airports, the position remains as stated in my previous reply; that is to say, expenditure on ground radar could be

2229
justified only where traffic levels and the complexities of the taxiway system are such that real dividends would accrue in terms of safety and expedition. The Civil Aviation Authority are keeping the situation under review, and I feel that we can rely upon them to initiate early action if and when the need arises.
Lord BRAYE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does it not seem to him that it is a very long time to wait, and that we might easily have a very bad accident before then at Gatwick?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I do not in any way wish to appear complacent about this, but I am assured that the existing facilities at Gatwick are suitable in terms of the present usage of the airport, and that the CAA have studied the foreseeable usage of the airport in reaching a conclusion about this matter. I think they can be fully relied upon to reach the right kind of estimate.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, can the Minister say what would be the cost of the installation of this equipment at Gatwick today?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords. The estimate that I had at the time when the noble Lord asked his earlier Question—and I have no indication that there has been any great change—was £400,000.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord clarify whether or not the decision has actually been taken to install this equipment on the control room, to be available in 1981–82?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, after their study the Civil Aviation Authority concluded that the installation would probably be necessary. I do not think that they have taken any firmer step than that, but in the meantime they are instituting a detailed study.
Lord TREFGARNE: Then, my Lords, can the noble Lord say when the decision will be reached, bearing in mind that, according to the noble Lord's earlier. Answer, two years or more will be required to install the equipment?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords. I have no information as to when the study that I indicated will be concluded. But I will see whether I can find that information.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not think it would be better to accelerate the installation of this equipment, even if it means delaying some of the loans to Mozambique?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think that we can rely upon the Civil Aviation Authority to have their priorities right in this matter. I would re-emphasise the point that I made in the earlier exchange, that this is monitoring equipment. It is not in itself a control facility. It is an important auxiliary piece of equipment, rather than a centrally required facility.

MR. LIDDLE TOWERS
11.13 a.m.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will institute an inquiry into the events of the night of 15th to 16th January 1976 involving Mr. Liddle Towers and certain officers of the Northumbrian constabulary, in the course of which Mr. Towers is reported to have received injuries from which he died.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, no. The matters of concern relate to the cause of Mr. Towers' death and to allegations that police officers dealing with him committed offences of violence. The normal processes of law provide for the investigation of these matters. My right honourable friend the Attorney-General stated in his Written Answer to a Question in another place on 3rd May that there was no medical evidence to support a contention that Mr. Towers' death was in any way attributable to wilful violence or rough handling by the police. The outcome of police investigations has been carefully considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions and by my right honourable friend the Attorney-General whose conclusion is that this is not a case

2231
in which criminal proceedings should be instituted against any police officer. It would not be right to set up a public inquiry, since the allegations made against individual police officers of criminal conduct could not fail to be central to the matters any such inquiry would be asked to examine.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there was a coroner's inquest and that a strange verdict was passed: that it was a case of "justifiable homicide", which means, in effect, that the man died at the hands of the police and that they were justified in killing him? It was a very strange verdict, with very few precedents that I can find. Is not this matter sufficiently grave that we should not rely upon the say-so of a functionary like the Director of Public Prosecutions? And is it not the nearest thing that we in this country have to Steve Biko?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords. On the latter point, may I say that that is, frankly, a gross exaggeration; this matter is not at all parallel to the Biko affair. I am surprised that my noble friend should use such exaggerated language against either the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Northumbrian police. The point I come back to which my noble friend made relates to the verdict of the jury. My noble friend said that the verdict was unusual. He is absolutely right; it was an unusual verdict. In the period between 1971 and 1976 there were only five in similar terms. However, it is only fair to say this, too: that there has been no application by the family to my right honourable friend the Attorney-General for a reopening of the inquest. I understand that that remains the situation. If such a request is received from the family, my right honourable friend will, of course, consider the matter.
So far as the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned, my noble friend referred to him as a "functionary". The position is that when an allegation is made that a police officer has committed a criminal offence, the matter goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions who is wholly independent of the Police Service. That was the procedure employed in this case and it seems to me to be one which is wholly appropriate.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is not the real point that it is the function of Government and Parliament to set up standing arrangements for the investigation of complaints and to trust those arrangements when they have been set up, and that special inquiries to deal with individual events should be regarded as exceptional and should be instituted only when distinctly necessary?
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I come from that district? Is he further aware that the family have been pressing for an inquiry into the death of Mr. Towers, that the Member of Parliament for Chester-le-Street has also been pressing for an inquiry and that the general opinion among the public is that the death of Mr. Towers has been covered up?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am indeed aware of the consideration to which my noble friend Lord Blyton has just referred. It is perfectly true that the family have been pressing for an inquiry. So have a number of Members of another place. The facts of the matter are, however, that the papers have been considered not only by the Director of Public Prosecutions but also by the Attorney-General. They have both come to the conclusion that the matters which have been put to them do not justify criminal proceedings against any of the police officers in this case; and I should like to put this matter to my noble friend and to the others who have raised it, who, I am well aware, are greatly anxious about this situation. If an inquiry were to be set up, it would have to be set up under Section 32 of the Police Act. If the inquiry did not deal with these allegations, which amount to allegations of serious criminal offences by the police officers, obviously it would be pointless. If, on the other hand, it did deal with those allegations, the inquiry itself would be transformed into a criminal court.
Lord GLENAMARA: My Lords, does the noble Lord not understand that many of us believe that the Government are quite wrong in the attitude that they are taking and that there is considerable local disquiet and also a fair amount of national disquiet about this case? Without expressing any view as to whether or not

2233
the homicide was justifiable, does not the noble Lord feel that it would be very much to the advantage of both the family and the police themselves if the matter could be cleared up in an inquiry? This disquiet will not go away. It is going to niggle on until something is done to clear it up.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords, I do not think that it would be right for the Government to change their decision. I have explained at some length the considerations which have led the Government to come to this conclusion. I am well aware that there is a significant degree of concern in the North-East of England—and elsewhere, no doubt—about this case. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out, this matter has been gone into most carefully by people outside the Police Service who have no contact whatever with, and no direct responsibility for, the Northumbrian police. I would say to my noble friend that it would be quite wrong for the Government to change their decision in this matter, and they will not do so.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, I noticed that the noble Lord referred to the fact that he thought my advocacy was a trifle exaggerated, but I think I have had—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have had probably longer experience of this sort of thing than he has had; and is he also aware that it is going to be very rough in this country if, after one night in a cell, a man can die as a result of his treatment? This sort of thing is not to be brushed off by the suggestion that it is merely a local outcry. This is a case that will not lie down and in the end the Government will have to inquire into it. I have read all the papers and I am not satisfied with the way in which it has been handled.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am well aware of the fact that my noble friend is not satisfied with the Answer that I have given; but I must point out to him that the term which he employed in his first supplementary question referred to the Biko case, and what I said then—and repeat now—is that it was
2234
a very serious exaggeration of the situation. I must tell my noble friend that we have gone into this matter extremely carefully. The papers—I repeat—have been examined by people wholly independent of the Northumbrian police; they have come to the conclusion that criminal charges should not be brought against these police officers and, that being so, it seems to me wholly inappropriate to set up a public inquiry.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, did I hear my noble friend incorrectly?—because I thought that, in his first Answer, he said that there had not been pressure from the family but if there were it would be seriously considered, whereas in his later answer I thought he said that there was a question from the family and he was well aware of it.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords, the point to which I referred was the question on the inquest. I said that the family had not asked for a reopening of the inquest, but if they did so, then my right honourable friend the Attorney-General would, of course, consider that request.
Lord PANNELL: But the reason why the family did not ask for a
reopening—
Several noble Lords: Order! Question!
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is very curious that people here seem to obey Paine's dictum, that they think of "the plumage but always forget the dying bird", and that the reason why the family did not want another inquest was because all the police witnesses refused to give evidence before an inquest?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that may indeed be one of the reasons why the family have not asked for a reopening of the inquest. I made a particular comment on the inquest because my noble friend specifically referred to the decision of the jury. The decision of the police officers in this matter was in no way different from any other witness in an inquest where in fact it was possible that, as a result of a decision by an inquest, criminal proceedings could be taken.

FIRE EQUIPMENT: AVAILABILITY
11.25 a.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 firemen have the right to lock up and thus prevent the use of public equipment while they are on strike.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, Fire Service appliances and equipment are the property of the fire authority concerned, who retain the right to decide on their availability for use. We have not proposed that, during the firemen's strike, Servicemen should use the appliances and equipment ordinarily used by regular firemen. As the House will be aware, we have issued, for use by the Services, emergency fire appliances from Home Office stores.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that it makes sense to deny to the Servicemen life-saving and breathing apparatus which is available? Is it not public property? Would it not help to save the lives of those who are trapped by fire, and certainly help the Servicemen in undertaking their exceptional duties, if these pieces of equipment were made available? Would it not be sensible to open discussions with the local authorities and the Fire Brigades' Union to see whether they could not release this equipment and thus help the public?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as the noble Lord will doubtless be aware, there have already been exchanges on this matter in this House on 6th December and the point then made by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom was that a substantial period of training was required before this breathing apparatus could be used by the Servicemen. I may say that since then I have discussed the matter with a number of senior fire officers who confirmed that view, and that is why the equipment is not being issued to the Servicemen.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that by continuing to turn a blind eye to what has been happening over recent weeks
2236
there is a risk of extending the law on picketing to lengths which could be very dangerous indeed? The property and equipment which the unions have refused to allow to be used—because that is what it amounts to—puts the rights of the picketer far beyond what is thought to have been the law in the past. It is a trespass.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the point which I made in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, related to the question of breathing apparatus. There was no question of turning a blind eye to the situation. Following the previous exchanges in the House, I discussed this matter with senior fire officers, who confirmed that in their view it would be most unwise to issue this type of equipment to Servicemen who would be untrained in its use.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, surely this apparatus belongs to the general public: they paid for it, and are they not entitled to have it used for their protection as required? Is the noble Lord saying that somebody else can stop its use?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the point I have made is that the breathing apparatus has not been distributed to Servicemen because it would require a prolonged period of training before it could be used. That is the view of professional chief fire officers with whom I have personally discussed the matter.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to confine his answers to breathing apparatus. I did not understand that the Question related in terms only to breathing apparatus. Are there not other items of equipment which would be useful, for instance in the saving of lives in high-rise flats? I understand that there is certain tower equipment and other equipment which is not included in the green goddess "complex", if I may use the word that appeared in the previous Answer.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there is indeed some equipment in fire stations which is far more satisfactory in dealing with fires in high-rise blocks

2237
than are the green goddesses which are now being used by the Servicemen. That is absolutely true, but the same argument applies there as applies to the breathing apparatus. The position is that the very large ladders which would have to be used in a case of this kind require a prolonged period of training. When I first repeated in this House the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, at the beginning of the dispute, I did not in any way suggest that the emergency arrangements which we were making would provide the same quality of fire cover that would be available if the Regular Fire Service were at work. I said that we would provide an emergency fire service of reasonable quality. I think we have succeeded in doing that, and I would say to the noble and learned Lord that this highly sophisticated equipment requires a prolonged period of training, and I do not think that it is appropriate to issue it to the Armed Services.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, then may I ask the noble Lord a question in terms, because he has placed his answers solely on the grounds of a prolonged period of training being necessary, which one can understand; but is he able to assure the House that the only reason why the Government do not make this requirement is the necessity for training over a long period, and that they are in no way influenced by other factors?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if any equipment was available which in the view of the Government was urgently necessary in order to save lives, it would be made available. There is absolutely no question whatever about that.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that professional people are always inclined to say that they are using such complicated equipment that it would take a very long period to train alternative people? Officers in the Armed Forces have formed the opinion that the training could be done very quickly indeed, and certainly within the period of the present strike that has been going on. Will the Government reconsider this?—because we have the famous case of the Suez Canal pilots: we were
2238
told that it would take months to train them, whereas in fact it took a few hours for other people to take on their jobs. This could be done by the disciplined people of the Armed Forces. Has the noble Lord seen the article in the Sunday Express of 27th November by Gerard Kemp which says,
"How the Marxists are using the firemen to try to topple the Government."
Would the noble Lord bear in mind that there is a very strong Left-Wing leadership in this union, and they may be making it more difficult to release this equipment for the benefit of the public?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Well, my Lords, this very Left-Wing leadership did in fact recommend against having a strike in the first place, so that does seem a rather exaggerated statement. At this approaching seasonal period of the year I would be particularly averse to making a crude Party point, but I was very surprised to hear the number of cheers at the reference to the Suez Canal pilots. I thought at the time it was a rather remarkable statement, and I am particularly glad that so many noble Lords opposite now appear to take the view that we took at that particular period. All I would say to the point which the noble Lord has made is that we have discussed this matter with our professional fire service advisers. That seems to me to be the right thing to do, just in the same way as we would discuss with our professional military advisers any defence questions.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to the seasonal spirit. We have now taken 25 minutes. I think tempers are perhaps running a little high. I am in the hands of the House, but I feel that perhaps we should move on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 be suspended for the purpose of taking the Consolidated Fund Bill through all its stages this day.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 2a: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

FINANCE (INCOME TAX RELIEFS) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND (VARIOUS EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (CONTINUANCE) (No. 2) ORDER 1977
11.33 a.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett)The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett) rose to move, That the draft Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1977, laid before the House on 16th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1977 be approved.
My Lords, very considerable progress has been made on security in Northern Ireland over the last six months. This progress has been made within our accepted strategy of the fair and effective enforcement of the law, within the law. A number of developments have contributed to this improvement. The RUC continues to expand and develop. The strength of the force now stands at 5,625—a record increase for the year of 372—and the full time Reserve has grown from 870 to 1,004. The emphasis is on expertise and professionalism and the Government work closely with the chief constable and the police authority to ensure that the force has the best available equipment to carry out its duties.
The improving capability of the RUC can be judged by the fact that not only are arrests being made speedily after
2240
recent incidents, but, increasingly, persons are being charged with offences committed some considerable time ago. Certainty of arrest has always been the most effective deterrent, and it is now clear that people breaking the law in Northern Ireland will have to face the consequences of their actions. At the same time the police are extending their actions against other illegal activity, such as illegal drinking clubs.
The Regular Army and the UDR have continued to provide admirable support for the police. As the nature of the security problems has changed, the Army have been able to concentrate on particular tasks; for example, increased emphasis has been placed on surveillance. The strength of the full-time UDR now stands at around 2,000, against an establishment of 2,500, and the five full-time operational platoons already formed make a significant contribution to the security of Northern Ireland.
The number of bombing incidents this year is down by nearly 60 per cent. compared with last year, and shooting incidents by 40 per cent. The improvement since 1st August this year is even more marked, demonstrating that the trend continues downward. The weight of explosives used in bomb attacks has fallen from 29,000 lbs. last year to less than 5,000 lbs. this year. Although the security forces remain no less at risk than before-41 of them have given their lives so far this year—the number of civilians who have lost their lives has been reduced from 238 last year to 68 in this.
Against this background of a downward trend of violence and the increasing effectiveness of the Security Forces, the Government have concluded, following a careful and comprehensive review of the current level of forces in conjunction with the GOC and the chief constable, that some reduction in the number of Regular troops deployed in Northern Ireland will be made over the next year. Subject to the requirements of the fireman's dispute, it is intended to reduce the number of major operational units from 14 to 13 by the end of the year. The Government also have in mind an increase in the number of resident Army units in Northern Ireland in place of

2241
units on shorter tours of duty. We hope to introduce one additional resident unit in the course of 1978 and a second at a later date.
These adjustments are a reflection of the developments within the RUC and the UDR to which I have referred, and of the different security problems we now face. In particular, the proposed increase in the number of regular Army units, who provide continuity and increased local knowledge, is a further step towards the normal supporting rôle of the Army. There is no change in Government policy; the Armed Forces will remain in support of the police for as long and in such strength as is necessary, and the ability to provide rapid reinforcements, should the need arise, will remain.
Progress has been made in Northern Ireland, but the Government do not wish to talk of corners being turned; we are determined to end the violence, and the Government's view is that the need for these emergency powers remains. In particular, attacks on members of the Security Forces continue at a high level, and your Lordships will have heard with deep regret of the death of a soldier in Belfast last night. Noble Lords will also be aware that incendiary devices are being more frequently used in attacks on commercial property. The improvements I have outlined give everyone who lives, and those of us who work, in Northern Ireland good reason to look foreward hopefully to the day when violence has ended. I am sure the whole House would wish to join once again in paying tribute to everyone who lives in Northern Ireland, and particularly to the Security Forces, for the selfless courage they continue to display. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1977, laid before the House on 16th November, be approved —(Lord Melchett.)
11.39 a.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, it is right that every six months Parliament should take an Affirmative Resolution for the continuation of the emergency provisions in Northern Ireland. The
2242
powers given to the security forces, and the establishment of what are known as the single judge courts to try scheduled offences under the emergency provisions Acts, do not let us forget, are provisions specifically designed to bring terrorism to an end and should never be regarded as permanent provisions of United Kingdom Legislation.
Nevertheless from what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett said when introducing this order, it is clear that the emergency provisions still remain necessary. There is no question in my own mind that, if it were not for the single judge courts, Northern Ireland juries would continue to be intimidated. Although this year has seen a welcome reduction in the level of violence—that is quite clear from what the noble Lord has said—there is an increase, I understand, in the use of incendiaries which are usually easier to conceal than explosives. Therefore, the powers of search and arrest under the Emergency Provisions still remain necessary. Of course, while leading terrorists remain at large the penalties against proscribed organisations cannot be relinquished.
There are three questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord as regards this order. During his remarks, the noble Lord made the point that the number of people being charged with and convicted of offences before the courts has increased. Can the Government tell the House to what extent the increase in the number of people being charged and convicted before the courts relates to offences committed prior to 1977? I heard the noble Lord say that offences for which arrests were being made had been committed some time ago. I ask this question because I am aware from reading the newspapers that, although the level of violence is decreasing, the level of crime generally is still a great deal higher than anyone would wish to see in the United Kingdom.
Of course, many of the offences which are committed as part of general crime in Northern Ireland still fall within the scheduled offences. When we hear statistics being given of an increase in the number of people being brought before the courts we are generally prone to welcome those statistics. Now, however, the Government are saying that the level of violence is decreasing. I hope that

2243
the court statistics quite definitely relate to offences committed in the past and I hope that some of them were committed well in the past, and that the long arm of the law is, indeed reaching out and bringing to book people who thought that perhaps they had got away with a crime committed when terrorism was absolutely at its height some time previously.
Secondly, are there any statistics relating to prosecutions for membership of proscribed organisations during this year? The organisers of terrorism undoubtedly still remain a threat. This must surely be one of the ways of putting out of the way those who influence other people to do their work.
Thirdly, I should like to ask whether the new cellular accommodation which has been built at the Maze Prison is overcrowded. Now that the granting of special category status has been ended and the number of those prisoners is being reduced, the number of prisoners needing cells is, presumably, on the increase. It would seem highly important that the new cells at the Maze Prison should not be over-crowded if their construction is to mark an advance in the administration of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. I am seeking an assurance that, in this respect, the Northern Ireland prison building programme is, so far as possible, on target.
On the occasion of discussing this order, it is right to recognise the work which the Security Forces are doing in Northern Ireland and that I certainly do. I particularly welcome the news which the noble Lord gave in his remarks that the number of operational units in Northern Ireland can be reduced next year with an increase in the number of resident units that will be in Northern Ireland. That News is welcome and I think that that corollary is absolutely necessary. Indeed, I do not think we could support the order if there were not to be an increase in the resident units and clearly that is right so far as the Government's policy goes.
However, on this occasion I should like to mention one other matter. It seems absolutely clear from the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the work of the RUC has made some
2244
tremendous advances during the past year. That is the result not only of devotion to duty but of very careful planning on behalf of the chief constable and his officers. I think that that is a very hopeful sign for the New Year.
11.45 a.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, once again I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his remarks and his support for this order. He has asked me some specific questions and I shall do my best to give him the answers. As regards the time period relating to the statistics which I have given for the number of charges that have been brought against people suspected of breaking the law, it is true to say that there are a good number of charges being brought against people who committed crimes some considerable time ago. At the same time, it is also true to say that people are being arrested very quickly after recent events. Therefore, the two seem to be happening together.
I have no breakdown of the overall statistics of charges concerning recent offences and more distant ones and I think that it would probably involve a considerable amount of work to try to extract those statistics. However, it may interest the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the House, and illustrate what I have said, if I give figures and examples relating to a two-week period at the beginning of this month. The details of the charges preferred by the RUC during that period were as follows: persons were charged in respect of the murder of a soldier in Londonderry in 1974; the murder of an RUC officer near Dungannon in 1976; a number of murders committed in Belfast between July 1975 and August this year; bombing attacks in Belfast in March this year and a bank robbery in September 1972.
Noble Lords will see from that illustration of the charges preferred in a recent two week period that the spread of time over which the offences were committed was considerable and there have been, if one picks out other two-week or monthly periods, charges going back further. Moreover, some very serious charges have been preferred against people who have committed murder and other offences during the early 1970s. I do not think that there is any doubt that the RUC's detection and effectiveness as regards

2245
crimes committed during the whole period since 1968–69 has very considerably increased during this year and in recent months.
The noble Lord asked about charges relating to membership of proscribed organisation's. Charges concerning membership are preferred whenever possible and, from 1st January to 30th November this year, the Director of Public Prosecutions made 344 directions for prosecution under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, which is the section relating to membership of proscribed organisations. I think that the noble Lord would agree that that is an impressive number of charges.
Finally, the noble Lord asked about the prison building programme in Nothern Ireland. The noble Lord is aware, know, that there are difficulties of an exceptional nature associated with building prisons in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, I think that the progress we have made has been quite outstanding. The building programme at the Maze Prison comprising eight "H" blocks as they are called, is now complete. Six of the blocks are already in use and the remaining two are being fitted out. Ideally, each block should house 100 prisoners, but it has been necessary, because of the pressure on prison accommodation, to double-up to the extent of about 50 per cent. in the blocks in use. That is clearly not something we would wish to see, but, as noble Lords will know, doubling-up in cellular accommodation is not, unfortunately, something that is limited to Northern Ireland: it occurs throughout the United Kingdom.
The future looks good, because there are 300 new places which will become available in the new young offenders' centre at Hydebank which will be available, hopefully, by the autumn of next year. By the end of 1981, a further 450 places for male prisoners, and 53 for females, will be available in the new prison, phase I of which should be completed by then. Therefore, there is a considerable amount of extra accommodation which will be becoming available by, firstly, the end of next year, and then by the end of 1981, which will obviously ease the pressure on the Maze Prison. Nevertheless, when the two further "H" blocks are fitted out and in use, there will be a substantial extra amount of accommodation available.
2246
Once again, I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his support of the order. I hope that we can look forward to the time when these six-monthly renewal debates will no longer be necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RATES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, this order is straightforward consolidation. Indeed, if I may take this opportunity to say so, the rest of the orders before the House today are also simple consolidation, except for one which makes some consequential amendments as a result of the consolidation of supplementary benefits legislation. With your Lordships' permission I shall move the orders formally.
I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 8th November, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Supplementary Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 8th November, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS, ETC., (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Supplementary Benefits, etc., (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 8th November, be approved. —(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 8th November, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [H.L.]
11.51 a.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee. — (Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
Offences
(" . — (1) A person who commits an offence under section 30 (acting as Guardian while not qualified), section 122 (dealing with barrels bearing forged or counterfeit marks etc.) or section 143 (fraud by officers of the Two Companies) of the Act of 1868 shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(2) Section 87 (refusing inspection of books), section 100 (acting contrary to declaration) and section 142 (neglect of duties) of the Act of 1868 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for the rather sudden flush of Amendments that appeared late last night. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships as far as possible today, despite the short notice that your Lordships
2248
I have had. If not, of course, we shall have a Report stage in January when any outstanding points can be dealt with.
With those undertakings, I shall speak on the new clause which it is proposed to insert after Clause 1. This, of course, is an understandable lapse of mind on the part of the drafters of the Bill. The intention is, of course, to increase the size of fines payable on offences under this particular clause and the present maximum fines payable under these sections are as follows: Section 30, concerning Guardians acting while unqualified, has a maximum fine of £50; Section 122, dealing with barrels bearing forged or counterfeit markings, has a maximum fine of £20 in the case of each barrel; Section 143, which deals with fraud by Proof House officers, has a maximum fine of £50. These penalties were fixed more than 100 years ago and the value of money has fallen somewhat since then. The new maximum penalties have been agreed in consultation with the Home Office and are in line with other penalties fixed by the Criminal Law Act 1977 for offences of similar gravity.
Incidentally, in the hurry I have omitted to discover what "offences of similar gravity" are, but in Schedule 3 there is talk of £1,000 and I hope that by the time we reach that Schedule I shall be able to make certain that it is £1,000 instead of the figures given in this brief. Different provisions are included for Scotland and Northern Ireland because the provisions of the Criminal Law Act 1977 do not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. That deals with subsection (1) of the new clause. Subsection (2) of the new clause is a technical Amendment. Sections 87 and 142 cover matters which are no longer appropriately dealt with under the Criminal Law. As they relate to matters of discipline, they would today be governed by the contract between employer and employee.
Section 100 attaches criminal penalties to the breach of the oath by the Proof Master and Assistant Proof Masters of the Birmingham Proof House. In so far as this oath covers fraud and corruption, a breach of these provisions would now be covered by the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889–1916—Acts which I am certain are well within the knowledge of

2249
the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. The oath also provides for good and faithful behaviour in office, but this is too vague an expression to be subject to criminal penalties. It is accordingly thought desirable to abolish these offences. This is an interesting illustration of the difference in social attitudes between Victorian England 100 years ago and the England of today. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: I am certainly grateful for the kind words expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. Indeed, I was somewhat shattered to find a flush of Amendments. I was even more startled to find that the 1868 Act, which we are discussing and which the noble Lord has so eloquently amended in various sections and subsections, was, indeed, not a public Act but among private Acts applying only to the City of Birmingham. He has cleared up most of the points that I had in mind, particularly the repeal and removal of Sections 87 and 142 from the 1868 Act.
He mentioned Section 100 and said that it applied merely to Birmingham, but I have the Act in front of me and it says, "Any person". There are various other references in the Act to the City of London and the two companies which are charged with a responsibility of proofing gun barrels. I wondered why it was applicable only to the City of Birmingham. I had various questionmarks down about the removal of these three sections, but the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has laid my fears to rest, particularly with regard to the penalties, which are more up to date. That being so, I should like to thank the noble Lord and wish the Amendment a speedy passage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
11.58 a.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Rules and regulations
(" .The Guardians shall have power to make any such rules and regulations as are mentioned in section 106 of the Act of 1868; and sections 101 to 105 of that Act (byelaws made by the Guardians) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: This is another technical Amendment. The last by-laws made under Sections 101 to 105 of the 1968 Act which it has been possible to trace were made in 1870. These provide for the penalties payable by officers, workmen or servants of the Guardians for neglect or breach of duty—for example, By-law 2 provides for a fine of 2s. 6d. for mixing different loads of barrels, that is, gun barrels. Such matters are now more usually provided for in an ordinary contract between employer and employee. The Guardians no longer require the power to make by-laws and rules under Sections 101 to 105 and are content to be given the rule-making power under Section 106 which provides for rules for receiving, proving and re-delivery of the gun barrels. The opportunity has, therefore, been taken to repeal these provisions. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: Once again, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. He pointed out that these sections which are being repealed—Sections 101 to 105 inclusive—had not necessarily been in use since 1970. But I am sure that the noble Lord and, indeed, the Committee will be aware that there are many safe and excellent gun barrels still in current use in all parts of the United Kingdom which probably might have been built, cast or forged about that time. Certainly I know of very valuable gun barrels produced at about the turn of the century.
There is one aspect on which the noble Lord might be able to assist me. In some of the sections that are being repealed—particularly Sections 103 and 104—it seemed to me that the specific rules, which are set out in these sections, were covered in somewhat blanket form, if that is the right term, in Section 106, which is to be repealed by the Bill. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has said about the last amendments and by-laws being made in 1870, but nevertheless in the interest of safeguards to members of the public and possible gun users, so that anybody who has a gun knows whether it is in proof or not, I would not like any malpractice to be condoned on the part of members of the public through lack of notice. Possibly if the noble Lord could reassure me now, or indeed next year, I should be grateful.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: I am grateful for the thorough way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has studied the Act in preparation for today's debate. I thought as I read this that we were repealing Sections 101 to 105 and leaving Section 106 in being. Is that how the noble Lord interprets it? As the clause says:
"The Guardians shall have power to make any such rules and regulations as are mentioned in section 106 of the Act of 1868; and sections 101 to 105 of that Act (byelaws made by the Guardians) shall cease to have effect."
Is that how the noble Lord interprets it or has he a different interpretation?
Lord LYELL: Possibly the lack of clarity is on my part. I just hoped that all the safeguards that I understood were written into, particlarly, Sections 103 and 104 would be continued under the new provisions of Section 106. That was the only point I had in mind. Certainly the noble Lord has gone more than halfway to reassuring my fears. I have no doubt that, in the manner in which this House conducts its affairs, he will be able to settle all my fears.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: I will undertake to give the noble Lord an exact reassurance when we get to the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Citation and Extent]:
12.2 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
(" ( ) This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be so appointed for different purposes.").
The noble Lord said: I know that this blanket power given to the Secretary of State is unpopular in your Lordships' House. We had an interesting discussion about it last week. But I think the reasons for this particular power being given to the Secretary of State are reasonable and will be acceptable to your Lordships. I regret that it has been found necessary to introduce this Amendment at this late stage.
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that instead of the whole Act coming into force when it receives the Royal Assent, it will come into force on the date or days provided for by the Secretary of State by Statutory Instrument. The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid a situation where the Act would come into force before the United Kingdom had acceded to the Convention—there could be an interval of up to one year between our application being lodged and our accession. However, certain provisions of this Bill are independent of our accession to the Convention—for example, Clause 2 which removes the geographical limitation which currently restricts the siting of branch proof houses to within 10 miles of London or Birmingham. These clauses could be introduced before accession. Hence the provision to enable the Act to come into force by order on a piecemeal basis. I should like to express the personal hope that we get it tidied up in one day, but it may be that Scotland, for instance, will wish to start a proof house before implementation of the full Bill, and this gives the Secretary of State power to take such a step. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, once again. I see his reasons for wishing to include this Amendment, and I think it is highly desirable. I am a little disturbed that he thinks that those of us who live North of the Border will wish to institute our own proof house. I understand that the standards that are insisted upon by the two existing proof houses in Birmingham are regarded as the standards which are desirable world-wide. Indeed, the purpose of the Convention is to bring European and world standards up to the standards of what I might call British standards, which are indeed applied from London and Birmingham.
So long as the Secretary of State can keep in touch with those persons or companies who might wish to use these standards, or to whom the Bill, and we hope the Act, will apply, then I am sure we would have no quarrel, and I am sure that the Committee would agree with the noble Lord's sentiments. I hope that there will be no need to have piecemeal implementation of this Bill. I know that that is not the desire of the two proof houses, nor indeed of the gunmakers

2253
trade. I use that description in a fairly broad sense; not necessarily the Gun-makers Company but the leading gun-makers of the United Kingdom, who, I know, wish to see this Bill enacted as quickly as possible.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Before we start a discussion of the various Amendments to Schedule 3, may I say that it was put to me by my advisers that we might take all these Amendments together, but I wish to be bound by the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and whether he wishes to take the Amendments to the Schedule step by step. He has expressed a wish to me that we should not hurry this matter in view of the short time that we have had to prepare ourselves. I do not know whether I should take the advice of my advisers and take them en bloc. I myself, in order to avoid confusion, should like to take them step by step, but I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has to say about this.
Lord LYELL: Would it be in order if I notified the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, that I have queries on four of the remaining Amendments? Would that be in order? I see the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, sitting there. My advisers are not necessarily with me, but could I suggest that I have four minor queries on Amendments Nos. 6, 11, 16 and 18, and I doubt whether any of these queries would take more than 30 seconds of the noble Lord's time at this stage. Would it be agreeable if we could take the remaining Amendments en bloc except for these four Amendments?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: With the agreement of your Lordships, we shall take them in the form suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("definition") and insert ("definitions")
Page 7, line 4, after ("Act") insert—
(""statutory maximum", in relation to a fine on summary conviction, means—

(a) in England and Wales, the prescribed sum within the meaning of section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (£1,000 at the passing of the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1977);

(b) in Scotland, the prescribed sum within the meaning of section 289B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (also £1,000 at the passing of the said Act of 1977); and

(c) in Northern Ireland, £1,000.").

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 17, at end insert—
(" . In section 21 of the Act of 1868—

(a) for the words "Justices for the Borough of Birmingham" there shall be substituted the words "justices for the petty sessional division of Birmingham.";

(b) for the words "the Council of the said Borough" (twice) there shall be substituted the words "Birmingham City Council"; and

(c) for the words "Mayor for the Borough" there shall be substituted the words "Lord Mayor".

. In section 28 of the Act of 1868 for the words "deemed guilty of a misdeamour" there shall be substituted the words "guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years".
. In section 30 of the Act of 1868 for the words from "for every such offence" to "as a Guardian", in the second place where those words occur, there shall be substituted the words "be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment to a fine" and for the words "Recovery of such Penalty" there shall be substituted the word conviction".").
The noble Lord said: This again is one of these fascinating pieces of history that we are working upon in this Bill. I hope your Lordships will forgive me, as to find one's way through this is complicated because of the short notice we have had. The reasons for the insertion of the words on page 7, line 17, arise from the fact that Birmingham has ceased to be the Borough of Birmingham and has become one of the new large local government organisations. For instance, "the Council of the said Borough" is to be substituted by the words "Birmingham City Council"; the "Mayor for the Borough" becomes "Lord Mayor". As

2255
for the changes proposed by the Amendment, this is a re-writing of an ancient law and I shall be interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, whether he accepts it or has a question to ask.
Lord LYELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord and the Committee for acceding to my small request. The only query I had about this Amendment concerned Section 28 of the 1868 Act and the repeal. The Amendment refers to that section and to the words "deemed guilty of a misdemeanour": I have been wondering whether the proposed change of words might not have the same effect as the 1868 Act because I understand that it is intended that the provisions of that Act should be continued for false declarations. However, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has resolved my query and has even gone in for what I think, in this context, one could call "over-kill", and I am grateful to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.11 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 en bloc:
Page 7, leave out lines 27 to 30 and insert—
(" . In section 95 of the Act of 1868 for the words "Byelaws" there shall be substituted the word "rules".
. In section 106 of the Act of 1868—

(a) for the words "The Gunmakers Company" there shall be substituted the words "The Two Companies respectively";

(b) after the word "their" there shall be inserted the word "respective"; and

(c) after the words "by them" there shall be inserted the word "respectively".").

Page 7, line 36, leave out ("deemed guilty") and insert ("for every such offence")
Page 7, line 37, after ("words") insert ("be").
Page 8, line 15, leave out from ("words") to ("to") in line 16 and insert (" "for every such offence be subject to a Penalty as follows" there shall be substituted the words "be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment" ").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert—
(" (c) in paragraphs (1) to (3) and (5) to (7) the words from "shall for every" to the end shall be omitted; and
(d) in paragraph (4) the words from "shall for every neglect" to "Twenty Pounds", in the second place where those words occur, shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: This is the first Amendment in a group designed to "modernise" offences or penalties created by the 1868 Act and to remove certain anachronisms. The following Amendments come into this category.
Lord LYELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that there are certain anachronisms. If he has an opportunity of examining Section 122 he will find it long, nearly three pages, and rather complicated. I had thought that the words in Amendment No. 11 were purely grammatical because I had been wondering whether the penalties described in Section 122 were covered elsewhere in the legislation. This is probably a matter into which we can go at a later stage, and these remarks will act as posting a warning notice to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 en bloc.
Page 9, line 13, leave out ("either alone or").
Page 10, line 31, leave out ("deemed guilty") and insert ("for every such offence")
>Page 10, line 33, at beginning insert ("be")
leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—
(" 15. In section 143 of the Act of 1868 for the words "for every such offence forfeit not exceeding Fifty Pounds" there shall be substituted the words "be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment to a fine".").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 11, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section 21, the words "the Borough of", in the second place where those words occur.
In sections 23, 38, 40 and 56, the words "the Borough of", Section 87.").
The noble Lord said: Schedule 4 is the repeals Schedule. The purpose of

2257
this and other Amendments in this group is to give effect to the partial repeals of Sections 21, 23, 38, 40, 56 and 122 of the 1868 Act, and to the repeals in toto of Sections 87, 100 to 105, and 142 of the 1868 Act. They are a logical consequence of the other Amendments.
Lord LYELL: I am afraid this might come close to a mischievous intervention. If the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, cares to consult Section 89 of the 1868 Act he will find that in that section, which covers the power to provide branch proof houses, Birmingham, which is to be repealed, is mentioned, and there is mention of the City of London. I wondered why London had been left in and Birmingham had been taken out, when my understanding is that the purpose of the Bill is to provide power to the Government, I presume to the Secretary of State, to institute branch proof houses anywhere in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord produced a stunning list of sections which are being repealed and, while I did not note them, I will read his remarks in Hansard.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: As I said earlier, I am grateful, as will be the Committee and the Department, to the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, for the thoroughness with which he has studied the legislation. I shall make certain that my legal advisers take note of what he said, and on Report I hope to give him a satisfactory answer. He has preceded me through the jungle of this piece of private legislation and I will see that the thoroughness which he has applied to the earlier Act is copied by my Department.
On Question, Amdndment agreed to.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 7, column 3, at end insert—
("Sections 100 to 105. In section 122, in paragraphs (1) to (3) and (5) to (7) the words from "shall for every" to the end and in paragraph (4) the words from "shall for every neglect" to "Twenty Pounds", in the second place where those words occur.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 14, column 3, leave out ("Section 144") and insert ("Sections 142 and 144")
Lord LYELL: I have one minor query on this last Amendment. As I understand it, the effect of Amendment No. 18 is to repeal Sections 142, 143 and 144. The one aspect that disturbs me concerns Section 144. The noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, has been very kind and has said that I have been thorough. It may interest your Lordships to know that it took the Library of your Lordships' House 15 minutes to find this particular Act, so I am not surprised that the noble Lord is in difficulty; nor, indeed, the Department, despite all their resources. I understand that this particular Bill crosses the borderline between two Departments, both the Department of the noble Lord and, I think he mentioned to me, another Department.
What worries me is to find that Section 144 of the 1868 Act specifically says that the Act is not to extend to Scotland or Ireland. I am particularly worried to know whether sportsmen in Scotland, or indeed in Ireland, North or South of the Border, as we have been hearing earlier from the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Belstead, have been guilty of misdemeanours or offences, or any criminal acts, all these years since 1868, which is, I think, about 110 years. Have we been guilty of various misdemeanours through using unworthy barrels or gun barrels which are in an unsafe condition? I am very interested. Why does this Amendment now wish to take out Section 144, which up till now has specifically excluded Scotland and Ireland from the provisions of the Gun Barrel Proof Act, which I presume has applied only to England and Wales?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: I think the noble Lord has made a very nice point. I have a feeling that I go through life committing offences under earlier legislation about every day of the week; but I will try to put the noble Lord's conscience to rest when we come hack to this matter at Report stage of the Bill by letting him know that he has been behaving perfectly legally for the last hundred years.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

ROYAL ASSENT
12.21 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1977,
Finance (Income Tax Reliefs) Act 1977,
Atholl Investments (Aberdeen Development) Order Confirmation Act.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may we on these Benches wish noble Lords in all parts of the House a peaceful Recess and a very happy Christmas.