Lords Sitting of 24 March 1977

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

CONSULTANT ANAESTHETISTS AND RADIOLOGISTS
Lord WINSTANLEY: 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 their estimate of the extent of under-use of NHS facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of cardiothoracic, renal, rheumatic and general surgical conditions brought about by the present shortage of consultant anaesthetists and radiologists; and what steps they intend to take to reduce the rate of emigration to EEC countries of doctors in these two specialties, or to induce those who have emigrated to return to the United Kingdom where they are so urgently needed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is true that there are relative shortages of doctors in these specialties. These are due largely to rapid expansion in recent years, though any emigration of doctors in these specialties naturally aggravates the problem. It is not possible to estimate the extent of any under-use of facilities arising from these shortages, but it is believed to be minimal. It is too early to say what the effect of implementing the EEC Medical Directives on freedom of movement will be, but, so far, there is no indication of any large-scale migration to the Continent. There are arrangements for health authorities to pay certain of the expenses of British trained doctors returning to this country.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I am much relieved to learn that the Government are seized of this problem. May I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell—
Several noble Lords: No! Question!
Lord WINSTANLEY: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, whether he realises that the problem is very urgent in some areas? For example, I understand that three advertisements for anaesthetists in Bolton and Rochdale have produced no applicants; that waiting time for appointments for rheumatic clinics is now in excess of seven months, not because of a shortage of rheumatologists but because of a shortage of radiologists to process and investigate the cases; and that the Regional Manpower Services Committee of the North-West Region has now decided not to establish any new surgical posts because the existing anaesthetic services cannot provide the full cover for the existing establishment. Does the noble Lord realise that these two specialties are unique in that they do not require linguistic ability? In other words, an anaesthetist—
Several noble Lords: No! Too long!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think I have the noble Lord's point. I was not trying to be facetious. He has raised an important matter and it is not one that we can afford to take lightly. On 30th September 1976 there were nine consultant posts in radiology and 19 in anaesthetics in England and Wales which were vacant for lack of a suitable candidate. I am aware, and so is my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, of the particular problems in the North-West Region. May I say that we have recognised these difficulties in the recent allocations both in finance and in the new consultant posts. In fact, I understand that the North-West Region is slightly better off than average as regards consultant posts in radiology and anaesthetics.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will not the noble Lord realise that the real trouble about the emigration of doctors and scientists is the penal taxation policy of the Labour Government?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is not a shred of truth in that. The noble and learned Lord had better look up the reasons why they go abroad. They do not go abroad to any great extent—although I accept that one or two of them do—for more money. Often, there are better facilities there for research,

625
which we accept, and in certain fields they can get experience perhaps more adequately than they can here. But many of them go as a planned purpose to gain a wider experience, and return to this country in something like three years.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of this wise and very valuable Question from the Liberal Benches, can my noble friend tell me what is the average salary earned by these consultants in this country today, both in the National Health Service and in private practice?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot give exact figures and I am not prepared to hazard a guess. There are full-time consultants in the National Health Service and part-time consultants. If my noble friend would put down a Question on this matter I should be delighted to reply, for the simple reason that I think your Lordships would be quite surprised at what the salaries are.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, did not the noble Lord use the wrong word in reply to the original Question when he said "migration" instead of emigration? —because with migration they all return the following spring.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord is speaking in a naturalist sense, it depends on the species.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, could not Her Majesty's Government do a little more than hitherto to persuade the medical schools to urge medical graduates to take up these two specialties?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my noble friend will know that there is a plan to increase the number of doctors in this country in the future. With regard to these two specialties, the real problem at the moment is not that there is a shortage of registrars in these two specialties; the difficulty at the moment is getting enough registrars with the adequate experience to become consultants.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, if there is a shortage of anaesthetists, will Her Majesty's Government import some more acupuncturists from China?

TYNE AND WEAR TRANSPORT PROJECT
3.13 p.m.
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 how the Tyne and Wear metro rail-tram project is to be financed.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Tyne and Wear county council is responsible for the project and for its financing. The Government contribute to the costs through the transport supplementary grant.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask her how much central Government are contributing by way of grant?
Baroness STEDMAN: About 70 per cent., my Lords.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to say, for our information, whether the Government ale satisfied as to the economic viability of this project?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; we think this project is essential to the regeneration of the Tyneside area.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to answer this further question: if it is economically viable, cannot the Government go to the money market and raise money from private enterprise instead of burdening the public sector borrowing requirement? In looking at the finances from now on, will the Government perhaps be consulting Mr. John Pardoe?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the normal practice with projects such as this is that the Government pay a percentage by way of transport supplementary grant. This varies around 70 per cent. a year, but it is a fluctuating figure. In the same way, when the scheme is operating they will pay, if necessary, up to 70 per cent. of the deficit, again in the form of grant.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the inhabitants of Tyneside regard this as a very admirable scheme and look forward to it operating very soon?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, that is why we sponsor it and why we want it to continue. It is extremely important to the regeneration of the Tyneside area. We need more mobility of labour there and we need it in connection with the inner city development of the City of Newcastle.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to accept my view that the scheme is very necessary and that we are glad to have it? Will she bear in mind, and tell many other people, that the North-East does not always get all the money that it either requires or needs by comparison with other parts of the country? May I add that we are delighted with the scheme and feel that the sooner it comes into operation, though it is expensive, the more grateful we shall be?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am delighted as a Minister to accept bouquets from the noble Baroness.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to confirm that the balance of Government grant will fall on the public sector borrowing requirement?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, it will be part of the transport supplementary grant.

ARTS COUNCIL GRANTS
3.15 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to state what contribution to the artistic and cultural life of the nation the Arts Council is securing by granting aid to the Institute of Contemporary Arts' latest presentation by the Joint Stock Company.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, it is for the Arts Council to assess what benefits result from grants made by it. In making this assessment the Council has to take into account the achievements and standards hitherto attained by each client and the importance of protecting artistic activity from censorship.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that emollient Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that he has some responsibility for the distribution of funds by the Arts Council? Is he aware that this show was castigated by the drama critics of the London newspapers for its extreme obscenity? Does he appreciate that most people expect Ministers in Government to protect the public against this sort of pollution? Is he aware that when the taxpayer is required to pay towards producing it, that is adding insult to injury? Will he please ask the Arts Council to use some restraint in its judgment before giving further grants to the ICA?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, this is a difficult side of near censorship which we in this House have discussed before. I do not think many noble Lords would think it suitable that the Minister for the Arts or the Secretary of State for Education and Science should exercise censorship in this way; indeed, I do not think that is what the noble Lord is asking me to do. The Arts Council is my agent. I give it a bulk sum of money which it distributes extremely carefully, and it gives, with my full approval—though it does not need to ask for it—a proportion, and a very small proportion, of that money to experimental and fringe activities. We must face perfectly seriously the fact that all through history there have been artists of extreme merit who have enjoyed nothing so much as shocking the Royal Academy. I do not think these people should be suppressed or chased.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Chased or chaste, my Lords?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: We do the best we can to amuse the House, my Lords. I think the

629
best safeguard we have is the police. That is where the line should be drawn, and that is where the line is in fact drawn, and I do not propose to make any immediate alteration to that.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one eminent critic said that this production was calculated to put everyone off pornography for life?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: I am aware of that, my Lords; but another critic, I think in The Spectator—not a publication I normally read from cover to cover—described it as an absolutely first-class performance. However, I do not wish to be concerned in judging merit. That is not my business, nor should it be.
Lord GIBSON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the vast bulk of the effort of the Arts Council goes to support work which commands fairly universal support and therefore attracts very little publicity? Secondly, would the noble Lord agree that we at the Arts Council are right to devote part of our funds to new work, some part of which is bound to be controversial and some tiny proportion of which is certain to be unacceptable? Lastly, would he agree—and this is the most important part of my question —that the Arts Council would be wrong to censor in advance, but right to take into account afterwards?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, my noble friend—if I may so call him—the chairman of the Arts Council has expressed the position exactly. I believe that we have to take risks but that we must learn from them. In so far as advantage is taken of the freedon given and it is abused, we have our remedy, which is, first, to limit and, secondly, to suppress the subsidy which is given. That is the right of the people who pay the money, but not until the people who are receiving the money have had a chance to justify themselves. I should like to add that the Joint Stock Company is a company that has done very good work indeed and is extremely well thought of wherever it has been. This is the first time that it has—if I may assume the verdict of the public—put a foot wrong.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in the present circumstances, he will watch very carefully the liberal tendencies at work in the ranks behind him? Would he agree that it is one thing in a free society to tolerate a certain amount of deviancy here and there, but it is quite another to support and encourage it with public funds? I think that that is what we are objecting to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, this is certainly a point which I take. Obviously, nobody in this House, short of the line drawn by the police, will complain about what people do if they do not receive public funds. The problem before us is that there is a small element of public funds encouraging experimental work of this kind. I repeat and stand by the statement that experimental work of this kind ought to be supported by the Arts Council at a small level. The Council will occasionally find that the people it supports make mistakes and, when it does, like me, it will have to do the best it can to get through it.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, as he put the suggestion to me that I might be asking for censorship, that I am not? Is he further aware that the comments made by the Daily Telegraph are typical? It reads,
"This show is as likely to give offence as anything I have ever seen in the theatre."
Is the noble Lord aware that this really was a shocking show and that my objection is soundly based? I dislike obscenity on the public stage but I strongly object to being required to pay towards promoting it. Will the noble Lord please use his influence in his grants to the Arts Council to ask it to take note of what has been said here today?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, it is quite unnecessary for me to use any particular influence on the Arts Council. It completely agrees with this point of view and it also thinks that it would be absolutely wrong for it to dictate to its clients what they did. This is a difficult line to ride and I believe that the Arts Council is doing it extremely well. I am very grateful to it for the way it has done it. In the past year we have had about three rather

631
awkward slip-ups. We admit this and we shall try to have no more.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, for many of us, his answer is extremely confusing? Are we to understand that this was a slip-up and, if so, will he express regret for that slip-up?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, my position as Minister for the Arts is not one of critic or censor. I will express no regret except to say that it seems to me that, on some accounts of this play which I have not seen, though not on others, it would, if they are correct, have been better not done.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a Minister for the Arts speaking for the Government —any Government of any complexion—is in a difficult position and is liable to be attacked on questions of this kind, either for prosecuting something he is told he ought to have subsidised, or for subsidising something that ought to have been prosecuted? Does the noble Lord think that this particular performance should have been subsidised, prosecuted or neither, as many people would think or—and one would have to consult a Treasury official about this—both?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I believe that the answers that I have given to various other questions this afternoon answer that.

POSTAL CHARGES
3.27 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the public interest, they will instruct the Price Commission not to accept the Post Office's proposal to increase postal charges this summer as forecast.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I cannot anticipate what findings the Price Commission will make on the proposals. When
632
my right honourable friend receives a report on the proposals from the chairman of the Price Commission, it will be considered.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that, on 14th March, Her Majesty's Government stated in another place that the Price Commission had considered the proposals and that they came within the Price Code, and that the Government did not wish to interfere?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that Statement by my honourable friend Mr. Maclennan. If the noble Earl consults yesterday's Hansard, he will find that Mr. Maclennan has answered a Question for Written Answer, admitting that that was wrong and that the Price Commission have not considered these proposals.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, will my noble friend take such steps as are within his power to try to prevent any further rise in postal charges? Does he realise that a large number of people are being badly affected by the prices being charged at present? Family connections are being very much disturbed; people who want to get into contact with their friends from time to time, particularly at festival times, find it extremely difficult because they cannot get in touch by way of transport because the cost is too heavy, and the only form of contact that they have is by means of the post. Will he please bring that to the notice of the Post Office so that, instead of increasing the charges at this stage, they decrease them?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will have sympathy with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend. However, I am sure that he will also be aware of the need of the Post Office to cover their costs and to break even in their operations.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, in his consideration of this, will the noble Lord also bear in mind not only that it is extremely inconvenient for individuals to have to pay increased postal charges, but that it has a deplorable effect on the finances of charities, and that this,

633
coupled with the ending of the Sunday collections, means that it is a more expensive, but less good, service?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords. These are important considerations which my right honourable friend will no doubt have in mind, but he cannot give consideration to this matter until the Price Commission have decided whether these increases are within the Price Code.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the proposals of the Post Office to increase its charges within weeks of withdrawing the Sunday collection permanently will somewhat tarnish the Post Office in the eyes of the users and reduce their sympathy?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Post Office is, as I have said, making every effort to break even with its postal services and reductions in services and the proposed increases are made with this end in view. I would make the point that the proposed increases in the letter post are only 7 per cent.: the last rise was something like 18 months ago, so that, regrettable though any increases might be, they are modest by comparison with the rise in the retail price index.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, in considering the question of increases in postal charges, can the noble Lord say why a letter from Kensington to me in Chelsea took from the 19th until the 23rd of this month to arrive?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure that that was an accidental affair.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister and the Government could impress on the Post Office that it is not only a question of an increase in postal rates? It is also the steadily deteriorating service in the delivery of mail. Is the Minister aware that living in central London, I find that second-class postage takes on average four to five days to arrive, and that first-class postage by no means arrives the next day? Can the Minister do anything to help the consumer—which is all of us—in bringing home this fact to the Post Office?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, there is little that I personally can do; but there is the users' committee, of which my noble friend Lord Peddie is chairman, and that committee has very much in mind the kind of consideration that my noble friend has just voiced.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that the telephone service makes a huge profit every year, and as the telephone and the letter are alternative methods of communication cannot a subsidy be paid from the telephone service profits to help the writers of letters?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it has been the practice in the Post Office to treat the postal and the telecommunications businesses as entirely separate accounting units, and it is my view that it would be inappropriate to require those who use the telephone to subsidise those who use the post.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I sense that it is the feeling of noble Lords that we should now proceed to the next business. We have had a good innings on this Question.

SHORT DEBATES
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I should like to say that the next ballot concerning short debates will be held on Tuesday next, 29th March, instead of the usual Wednesday. Any noble Lord who wishes to enter for the ballot, and who has not already put down his Motion, should do so before next Tuesday, and preferably today.

PEERS' EXPENSES
3.32 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Motion is designed to give effect to the £3 a day increase in Peers' expenses allowance proposed in my Statement last Tuesday. Peers who have to incur overnight accommodation expenses in London away from their only, or main, residence in order to attend the House would be

635
entitled to claim reimbursement up to a maximum of £16·50 a day instead of the present £13·50.
The current maximum of £13·50 will, however, continue to apply to Peers who live within normal daily travelling distance of Westminster, and who therefore do not have to pay for overnight accommodation in order to attend to Parliamentary business.
My Lords, I realise that this measure is a modest one that will not meet the full needs of the situation established by the Review Body. But as noble Lords opposite recognised last Tuesday, the Government must be bound by the requirements of their own pay policy. For reimbursement allowances, this means that increases must be limited to the extent that costs have actually risen; and for Peers' expenses allowance, this means the increase in costs since June 1975. recognise that the coverage of Peers' expenses allowance has never been clearly defined, and the Review Body sought to remedy this by breaking expenditure down into four elements.
Their recommendations must however be seen as an entity; and, until pay policy permits us to examine them in detail, they cannot be implemented on a piecemeal basis. In the meantime, the Government have proposed the maximum increase permissible under the policy, and I commend this Motion to your Lordships' House for approval. I should perhaps add that the Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses Committee will be meeting later this afternoon, and I understand that they will be considering the implications of this resolution as it affects the administration of the Peers' expenses allowances.
Moved, That this House approves that, where the expenses incurred by a Member of this House for the purpose of attending on any day a sitting of this House or of any Committee of this House include expenses necessarily incurred in staying overnight away from his only or main residence, the limit on the daily allowance payable to him for that day should be raised from £13·50 to £16·50.—(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Schedule 5 [Alteration of penalties on summary conviction of certain offences triable either way]:
Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 76A:
Page 51, line 33, leave out ("3 months or £500, or both") and insert ("in the case of offences relating to cannabis or cannabis resin, £500; in the case of offences relating to other Class B drugs, 3 months or £500, or both.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It is in the same terms as an Amendment that I moved at the Committee stage of the Bill, and its purpose is to remove from magistrates' courts the power to impose sentences of imprisonment on summary conviction of possessing cannabis or cannabis resin, cases of simple possession. When I moved the Amendment in Committee it attracted a considerable volume of support from all quarters of the Committee, and on re-reading the speeches and contributions of noble Lords and noble Baronesses it is clear that the basis of the support for my Amendment was that it was not an Amendment to legalise "pot". The power to impose fines, indeed substantial fines, for this offence remained. The penalties for supplying and importing cannabis were untouched. But the penalties for simple possession, on conviction in magistrates' courts, were to be reduced under the Amendment (to be monetary only fines) so as to correspond with contemporary attitudes and the state of contemporary knowledge about this drug.
Since many noble Lords are here today, perhaps I can put the case for the Amendment a little more fully than I did in Committee. The case is this. As a matter of scientific opinion, the evidence as it stands today, the corpus of research —and there has been much of it—is that the use of cannabis in moderate quantities does little or no harm to the user. That indeed was the conclusion to which the committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger came when it reported many years ago. It is the conclusion which, though in

637
slightly different terms, but to the same effect, nearly every authoritative commission which has been set up around the world to consider cannabis has come to. Secondly, as a matter of social policy it is not healthy to retain as an imprisonable offence an activity which, for better or for worse, many thousands of people commit every day and in committing it think that they are doing no wrong. That does not mean that one legalises the substance; but it does give us pause to consider whether in fact it is wise to imprison people for having it.
Finally, as a matter of public spending, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will have to take on board the argument that any fair and reasonable means of cutting down the prison population today is to be welcomed. As a matter, finally, of humanity, the fact that persons can be sent to prison for the simple possession of cannabis—that is, possession without any intent to supply it to others—is something which leads to human tragedy.
In London, certainly in my experience as a practising lawyer, benches of magistrates and stipendiary magistrates do not, as a whole—in fact, never in my personal experience—impose an immediate custodial sentence for the possession of cannabis; but there are certainly benches around the country which do. I was talking only last weekend to a friend who is a magistrate in a Border country town, and the state of knowledge there is very different. There is blind ignorance on the bench about cannabis. It is equated to heroin, it is considered a heinous crime for any young person to possess it. Undoubtedly people are being sent to prison who never should be there, and even if they succeed in getting out on appeal it does not do that much to relieve the tragedy. The figures that I have show that some 514 people were sent to prison for the possession of cannabis alone. That figure includes some sent by the Crown Courts, who would not be affected by my Amendment, but I do not know what the proportion is.
In Committee the experience in the United States of America, where eight States have passed similar legislation, and in Holland, was cited, and on the day after the last proceedings on Report stage of this Bill we read in the newspaper
638
that Dr. Peter Bourne, the director designate of the White House Office of Drug Abuse Policy, is going to propose a similar change in the federal law of the United States. He is quoted as saying:
"We will continue to discourage marijuana use, but we feel criminal penalties that brand otherwise law-abiding people for life are neither an effective nor an appropriate deterrent."
It is very much in the same spirit that I commend this Amendment to the House.
In reply on Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Harris did not seek very energetically, at any rate, to justify the imprisonment of people for the simple possession of cannabis. What he said was this:
"The Advisory Council"—
that is, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—
"in its observations last year recognised the anxiety felt about the use of custodial sentences for offences of possession of cannabis".— [Official Report, 10/2/77; col. 1350.]
My noble friend did not say, and I hope he will say, what in fact is the advice of the Advisory Council about this matter. Later, he said:
"… I am not persuaded that the time is yet right to go wholly in the direction put forward by my noble friend";
that is to say, me. That was hardly a trenchant rebuttal by my noble friend of the case for this Amendment—indeed, it was virtually a concession of the justice of it—and I therefore hope that a still more acceptable reply will be forthcoming this afternoon.
About the only point that my noble friend made was that it was not a very tidy Amendment because it put cannabis, which is a Class B drug, into a separate class, in effect, for the purposes of this section. If it is not a tidy Amendment, I hope that in due course the Government can tidy it up. However, as I understand it, it achieves the purpose for which I put it forward; that is for this House to be able to say that it does not agree that people should be sent to terms of imprisonment on summary conviction for the simple possession of cannabis. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.42 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, perhaps I could make it clear that I personally much prefer the Amendment which is in

639
the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, to my Amendment which, just before the beginning of this debate, I decided not to move. When I put down my Amendment it was intended to be very much a second best alternative to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and I had not appreciated that it would come earlier on the Marshalled List, so that we could not take his first and mine afterwards. So what we have to do is to consider the proposition, which we have already had one look at in Committee, and then, if it does not commend itself to the House, we can return to the less effective and less satisfactory alternative at a subsequent stage of the Bill.
My Lords, if I can attempt to summarise the attitude of the Government when we debated this matter last time, we have the proposal in the Bill to reduce the penalties which are applicable under the Misuse of Drugs Act for the simple possession of cannabis (as well as, of course, of amphetamines) from six months to three months. The Government's opinion is that the existing penalties are too high and that they should be reduced, but they are not persuaded, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, told the Committee last time, that the occasion is yet right to go the whole way and to abolish all custodial sentences because, as he explained, and as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has reminded us, the cannabis Working Group of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is in the process of conducting a fresh review. It was not absolutely clear to me whether this review is a review of the evidence on the possible harm to health which might be done by cannabis, or a review of the effectiveness of the custodial penalties, which we are discussing on this Amendment, as a deterrent against the use of cannabis. The noble Lord promised some further information at the Report stage, though he could not undertake that the Government were likely to change their attitude, which is generally a circumlocution for a statement that the Government are not going to change their attitude. I hope I shall be proved wrong when we hear the Minister's reply later on.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to experience elsewhere, and this is building up into an impressive body of evidence. The reduction in penalties which is already
640
provided for in the Bill and which we are proposing should go a little further is part of a general process of decriminalisation which is taking place across the world and has been taking place steadily over the last 10 years. In a number of States of the United States, possession is no longer an offence; in Holland and Denmark, the police have not charged anyone with possession since, I believe, about 1973; while in Canada there is a Federal Decriminalisation Bill before Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, also mentioned the latest developments in the United States, which I shall come back to in a minute.
First, could I say something about the attitude of the police and the magistrates' courts in this country? This change in the climate of opinion which has led to a progressive reduction or abolition of penalties has also been reflected in the sentencing policy of the courts, and one may reasonably suspect the assiduity with which the police pursue people who may later on be charged with possession. The number of convictions for offences involving cannabis, of which between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. have been for simple possession, reached a peak in 1973 and has declined in the years since then. It does not seem likely, my Lords, that the actual use of cannabis has been declining, so that was how I deduced that the police must have been making less of an effort than they had been making to catch people who were simply using cannabis and doing nothing else. At the same time, the proportion of those found guilty who received custodial sentences has declined slightly from 12 per cent. in 1973 to 10 per cent. in 1975; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out in Committee, only one first offender was sent to prison in 1974 and three in 1975.
There was reference to the attitude of JPs in a very interesting article in the Sunday Times recently. It mentioned a study which was undertaken within the Home Office and came up with some surprising answers about the opinion of magistrates. It showed that they believed, generally speaking, that simple possession was often no more serious than breaking a window worth less than £100. It was alleged by the author of this article, I am sure quite incorrectly, that the Home Office was alarmed by the liberality of the magistrates and had, therefore, suppressed

641
this report. It would be interesting to know from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whether such a report exists in the Home Office and whether there is any reason why we should not be informed about the attitude of the magistrates.
On the other hand, there is tremendous diversity of sentencing practice, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is aware. The report of the organisation "Release", entitled Diving off the Deep End, shows that some magistrates are still extremely old-fashioned in their attitudes, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said. We see that, as a result of maintaining these custodial penalties, the whole career and life of a young person may be ruined if he happens to live in one part of the country; whereas he will, fortunately, suffer only a fine if he lives in another part of the country where the attitude of the magistrates is more sensible.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, also mentioned the economic aspects of this matter. I would seriously suggest, with the seriously overcrowded state of our prisons and the burdens they impose on public spending, that the onus should always rest on those who advocate the retention of short prison sentences for any offence whatsoever to prove that they are effective, rather than on those who are asking for a reduction or abolition to prove that that will maintain as effective a deterrent as exists at the moment.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, the onus is surely on those who seek to change the law to prove the need to change.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, that is precisely what I am saying is not the case. If the prisons are overcrowded and large numbers of persons are being sent to prison for short periods—and the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, gave the figure: over 500 in 1975—it is up to noble Lords who advocate retention of custodial penalties to prove that sending those 500 young persons to prison for periods of up to six months was effective as a deterrent, rather than for us who support this Amendment to prove that if the custodial penalties are abolished we shall still have an effective deterrent. That is what I am arguing. Unfortunately, as R. G. Smart has argued in his paper Effects of legal restraint on the use of drugs: review of empirical studies,
642
virtually nothing is known of the effects of variations in legal penalties; so there is no objective scientific evidence that I can lay before your Lordships on this subject.
I can only say that if, as claimed, 3·8 million people in the United Kingdom have tried cannabis at least once—and that figure comes from a survey carried out by the BBC in 1973; while other authorities have put the figure higher, at over 4 million—then, clearly, on the arithmetic, the chance of any individual being caught for possession is less than about 1 in 300. It is possible to argue, and I dare say that it will be argued, that if it was not for the custodial penalties, an even larger number would use cannabis. But if it is of paramount importance to stop the habit from growing and we were convinced that these custodial sentences were effective, then obviously it would be wrong for us to contemplate reducing the maximum length of sentences from six months to three months. Yet no one has argued that we should restore the original penalties provided for under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Still less ought we to draw attention—as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris—to the fact that magistrates are not sending first offenders to prison; because that will encourage people to think that they can get away with it and that they are not likely to be given a custodial sentence for the first offence, if that is the consideration that looms uppermost in the mind of the average person who tries this particular drug.
What we can be certain of, under the present law and with the reduced penalties in this Bill, is that a very substantial number of people are going to be labelled as criminals with the possible additional consequences to them of expulsion from the college or university that they attend, or loss of job opportunities if it happens a little later in their lives. We undermine the credibility of drug education by classifying cannabis with the amphetamines and we encourage disrespect for the law, particularly among young people, the vast majority of whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said, see nothing whatsoever wrong in taking cannabis.
The scarce resources of police are diverted from the formidable task of combating real crime and detecting the uses of hard drugs and the pushers of all

643
kinds of drugs. The courts are choked with many thousands of cases which ought not to be there at all and public expenditure is inflated by jailing over 500 of these people in the course of a year.
On the other hand, there are plenty of spine-chilling stories appearing in newspapers, such as the one by Ronald Butt in The Times recently, which appears to have been a re-hash (if I may use that term in the present context) of another article earlier in the Daily Telegraph; and that, in turn, I believe, was based on some papers delivered at a conference at Savannah, Georgia, as long ago as 1974 and published by the National Institute of Drug Abuse under the title The Pharmacology of Marijuana. In the article in the Daily Telegraph, which analysed the papers, although it did not give the source, it was said that scientists at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse have found that large doses of cannabis weaken the immune response system, damage the lungs to a greater extent than cigarettes, reduce the production of testosterone so that a pregnant girl who smokes marijuana heavily might give birth to a boy with under-developed or even non-existent genitals.
One cannot enter into a detailed discussion of the research work on this occasion, but I must say one word about alarmist reports such as these which have appeared, not entirely coincidentally, I suggest, just at the moment when we are discussing the reduction of penalties, and which are calculated, perhaps, to influence those who have taken hitherto a rather cautious line on the matter. As to immune response, the U.S. Department of Education and Welfare report to Congress in 1975 reviewed the evidence and concluded:
"While a number of investigators have published findings that suggest that marijuana may interfere with cell-mediated immunity, other investigators have not found such evidence … the clinical significance of the positive findings remains in considerable doubt."
The evidence on lung damage is equally inconclusive, showing merely that all forms of smoke inhibited the action of lung cells against bacteria.
The NIDA Report that I mentioned contained one paper on the depression of plasma testosterone with high levels
644
of marijuana administration. That concerned 13 males who were in-patients at the time—and there was no control group. The decrease in testosterone plasma levels was found not to be dose-related and it has been conceded since that the variations experienced in that study could have been within the normal limits found in the general population. There are no grounds whatsoever for the assertion in the Daily Telegraph that if a mother takes heavy doses of cannabis her male child could have underdeveloped or missing genitals. This is an example of irresponsible journalism which I was surprised to find in an otherwise reputable newspaper like the Daily Telegraph. The latest annual report of the NIDA, issued last month, concluded, generally speaking, that while the long-term health factors of marijuana are still unclear, the short-term effects do not appear to be as severe as was once feared. Dr. Peter G. Bourne—whom the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has already mentioned —who is Director-Designate of the White House's Office of Drug Abuse Policy, says:
"While marijuana intoxication seems to carry with it the same hazards as alcohol with respect to the operation of automobiles, it is not physically addicting and in infrequent or moderate use probably does not pose an immediate substantial health hazard to the individual."
In the light of present knowledge, the White House has now decided that the federal law should not provide for imprisonment in cases of simple possession. Fines rather than gaol sentences have proved effective and appropriate approach in many States, says Dr. Bourne. That is equally true on this side of the Atlantic. I hope that your Lordships will follow the example which is being set in the United States and now abolish imprisonment for this offence.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I should like to begin by making one or two observations. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite stands in the names of noble Lords who are members of every principal political Party in this House. I assure your Lordships that this is not due to any secret pact of which you have not yet been informed. Those names were there long before there was any risk of that.
My second general observation is that the British never do anything by wholes,

645
they always do it by halves. We appreciate that my noble friend the Minister has altered the present law on Report stage of this Bill, so as to reduce the maximum sentence that the magistrates' courts may impose for simple possession from six months to three months. He has taken one little tiny step, and we should like him to take one little tiny step more.
This is an extremely moderate Amendment. It proposes to deal only with summary convictions so that the more serious cases can still be dealt with on indictment. It proposes merely to add the next step which would clear the really important aspect—the prison stigma—about which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Gifford have spoken so eloquently. That is a stigma which can be extremely serious whether one goes to prison for one month, six months or a year. It is the fact of imprisonment which is damaging to a person's future, even with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
We are not objecting to the fine; we are not objecting to the fine being increased, and we are quite happy that if people want their indulgences, they should pay for them. For that reason, we are concentrating entirely on sending people—and they are mostly young people—to prison for possessing, not for trafficking, any quantity, be it only an ounce or two, of this particular article.
We are told that the numbers who go to prison are fairly large, but I think I am right in saying that the greater part are not affected by this Amendment; they are people who go to prison on indictment by judgment of the Crown Court. If it is a fact that only a small handful of magistrates are sending to prison a small number of people for this offence, why is it worth keeping the power to imprison at all? It has really become obsolete. As has been shown by my noble friend, it is obsolete nearly over the whole world now. Over the Western World movement has been very strong towards abolishing imprisonment for simple possession.
It is also said to be administratively untidy because if this Amendment is accepted cannabis will be in a class apart. Drugs are classified as follows: Class A, which are the most dangerous, and include heroin; Class B, which include
646
cannabis; and Class C, which include many drugs that we do not talk about because most of us have never heard of them. They do not get into the popular drug mythology. If we were to accept this Amendment, it takes cannabis out of any one of the three classes and treats it as a separate article. If it is a separate article, my Lords, why should it not be so treated? If it is not as dangerous a drug as those listed in Class A, and not as innocuous as those listed in Class C—though Class C carries heavier penalties than those for which we are asking—and certainly quite as innocuous as its "mates" in Class B, why should it not be taken out and treated as an article by itself? In any case, is it right that an argument from administrative convenience should weigh against what may be the career possibilities, even for a small number of young people? Administrative problems can be solved: where there is a will, there is a way. For that reason, I hope we will not put administrative convenience in front of the importance of doing away altogether with the prison stigma for possessing this substance.
4.6 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, very briefly, I should like to tell your Lordships why I have added my name to this Amendment. There are two reasons. First, as an individual I deplore and would never condone the use of drugs. Secondly, as a magistrate I would never, either for the first offence or any other offence, send a user of cannabis to prison. If I felt that the user of cannabis required a greater penalty than I was able to impose, I would send that person to the Crown Court. I would not impose a prison sentence because I do not see what good it would do. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has told us.
Perhaps I may tell one small story which illustrated the situation to me. Last week, I saw a barrister in the street who had appeared before me many times. I asked him for his views on this Amendment. He said, "You remember Tom Brown whom you saw 18 months ago, the 16-year-old smoker of cannabis, do you not?" I pretended to remember. The barrister said, "I saw him in the street and I said 'Tom, are you back on

647
the cannabis?' He said, 'What! After all that that old bag on the bench told me!'" My Lords, if people like me, who are old bags, can frighten the life out of youngsters regarding the use of cannabis or any other drug, I feel that it is better for the defendant and it is also cheaper for the Government. I urge the Government to let us have this Amendment. I do not think it is right to send people—they are usually young—to prison for this offence.
4.8 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to the debates on this subject. I have come to the conclusion that an Amendment of this sort is something which ought to be supported. The general opinion which prevails, not only in this country but throughout other parts of the civilised world, is that the smoking of cannabis by youngsters—and sometimes by older people—is something after the nature of the smoking of a "fag" in the WC by a youngster who is trying to see what it tastes like. I have come to the conclusion that we ought not to have any prison sentences at all regarding this offence; but here is a modification which I hope the Government will accept.
The very idea that imprisonment can be inflicted on a person who has indulged in this practice places him in an extremely serious position. It has been said already that his character is affected, and can be affected, not only by the fact that he has been sent to prison, but by the fact that he has committed an offence for which he is imprisonable. For example, such a person who wishes to travel abroad may very well be prevented from obtaining a visa for one country or another. I do not know whether that would apply to America at the present time. The fact that a prison sentence can be imposed is in itself something which stands against an individual for the whole of his life. I know of a case of a student who, quite recently, although he was not sent to prison, was accused of this offence. His studies were such as would have taken him to the States. I was myself doubtful in that case whether a conviction would not prevent a visa being granted and I made an appeal to the bench, asking for a conditional discharge, because I felt—and I think many people would feel the
648
same—that an offence of this description (where only a small amount of cannabis was involved, incidentally) could stand against a person for the rest of his career.
I believe that a person who smokes very heavily is in a very much worse position—but I shall not pursue that since my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder says that he smokes heavily! I am not at all sure, my Lords, that smoking does not do very much more damage than in cases where cannabis is used to a small extent. I have often said in this House that I think, in the main, that magistrates in this country exercise their duties in a very reasonable and proper way; but the stigma of a conviction exists, although the offence is not in itself serious or as serious as it might be if the prosecution wanted to take it elsewhere. I think the penalty of imprisonment for an offence of that description, as a possibility even though not a probability, is something which ought not to remain on the Statute Book.
There has been a very considerable change of opinion with regard to the effects of cannabis and, if nothing else, I hope the change of opinion, which now results in the fact that most people regard this offence—in its proper light, I think—as not being one which would justify anything in the nature of imprisonment, in the modified form in which the Amendment stands, will induce my noble friend to accept it and perhaps at a later stage persuade him to introduce a measure himself, whereby the whole thing can be resolved.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I hope that the speeches to which the House has listened have not convinced the Minister that there is unanimity of view over this Amendment. I, for one, am extremely unhappy about it, for one basic, simple reason. One of the noble Lords who supported the Amendment said with truth today that many young people did not regard the possession of this drug as a serious matter. That is undoubtedly true; but surely in such a situation this is the wrong moment for Parliament to enact this Amendment and for the State is to treat this as a less serious offence than hitherto. I do not think we can get away from the fact that if an offence which has been punishable by

649
imprisonment has the custodial penalty taken away from it, society is indicating that it regards the offence as less serious than it used to do. I would suggest that is so. The noble Lord says that it does, and no doubt he feels that to be true. I very much doubt, with respect, whether he is any more competent than I or others of your Lordships to determine what society thinks generally. Whether he is right or wrong, the issue before us is whether this House wants to indicate to the public, and above all to the young people about whom we have heard, that this offence is now regarded by society as less serious than it used to be.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Macleod that it is not often necessary to impose imprisonment. Indeed, I might say that if, throughout the country, there were benches equipped with such formidable characters as herself, it might never be—because, as she has told us, her tongue proved a more than sufficient deterrent to a repetition of the offence. Alas, my Lords! not all the benches are so magnificently equipped! But it is surely important, as those who are concerned with the administration of justice, or, as in my own case, who were so concerned many years ago, must be aware, where one is handling the sort of case in regard to which one is not necessarily going to send offenders to prison, to be able to say with truth: "We have found you guilty of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment, but we are not going to send you to prison in this case, for the following reasons" and then deal with the prisoner more leniently. Take away the penalty of imprisonment, and you take away a great deal of the deterrent power behind the bench. I do not know how this House will decide the question but I suggest, with very great respect, that at this moment, with so many young people susceptible to the temptations of this drug and the blandishments of those who push it, if this House were to say, "Very well, this is not now a very serious offence; we will scrub 'the penalty of imprisonment", we should bear a very serious responsibility indeed. If there should be a vote, my vote will be given against the Amendment.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, it seems to me logical that he
650
ought to be against the clause as it stands, because it reduces the custodial sentence from six months to three months; which indicates that this House and the Government regard the offence as less serious than they used to in the past.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me? We are not debating that matter. At the moment we are debating this Amendment.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: Yes, my Lords, I quite agree; but I take it that the noble Lord is prepared to swallow the reduction from six months to three months, despite what he says about the danger of indicating that the House regards this offence as less serious than it was.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Perhaps, my Lords, in the words of Lord Oxford and Asquith, the noble Lord will "wait and see."
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, I am always prepared to do that as regards the speeches of the noble Lord. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Harris one question. If, as seems very probable, the proof of the damage done by smoking tobacco is greater than the proof of the damage done by smoking small amounts of cannabis, should we not in logic make it an imprisonable offence to be found in possession of tobacco? If he says, quite rightly, that you cannot do that because it is quite unenforceable, then I would ask: Is it not equally impossible to enforce the law as it stands? All the figures and all the experience show that masses of young people smoke this material and are never caught. Therefore, this is an unenforceable law against the people it is aimed at.
4.20 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I did not mean to intervene on this matter, but I have been induced to do so by the last intervention but one. I think this is one of those situations in which your Lordships will have either to condone or refuse to condone absolute legal hypocrisy—because this is hypocrisy. As my noble friend Lord Janner said, I am a heavy smoker. I am in possession of a dangerous drug. I drink a dangerous

651
drug called alcohol. Why on earth should we go on pretending? The younger generation realise what cannabis really is. It is quite inoffensive, and I would defend it on chemical and pharmaceutical grounds, in the sense that it is much less offensive than what I indulge in. Why are the younger generation being forced into a situation where you are making illegal something which I maintain, pharmaceutically, is not maintainable as a dangerous drug? What you are doing is creating a false sense in younger people by making them potential criminals. I am very heavily fined as a drug addict. I pay very heavy taxation on my tobacco. We are in fact, using the fines as a taxation on cannabis.
I have more experience of the United States than I have of this country, but there you have a complete exposure of this. By making cannabis and these other drugs go under the counter, the youngsters have been driven into the hands of the drug pushers. Then, when they cannot find any kick in cannabis, they turn to harder drugs. We cannot go on pretending that this is something for which we are not responsible. We have to take a position on this. I think it is far better that we in this House should be frank. I am not trying to modify the present situation, except in supporting the theme of my noble friend Lord Gifford, but I say that we are creating an entirely false, hypocritical situation for "the old bags on the Bench".
Lord HUNT: My Lords—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Let us get on with it.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, tempting though it is to get up at the urging of the noble and learned Lord, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, if he wanted to speak. I was going to sum up my views on this matter, but if the noble Lord wishes to address the House I feel that he should be given the opportunity.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief and I am most grateful to the Minister who has given way to me. Having listened with great interest to the whole of this discussion, and having had no intention at all of intervening, I should
652
like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that if other noble Lords were disposed to follow him into the Lobby against this Amendment, they would be in grave danger of imposing elderly value judgments on what the great majority of young people feel, and on what has not been proven to be a dangerous practice. I shall certainly vote for this Amendment.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as has been made clear by those who have spoken in this debate, the central purpose of this Amendment is to remove the possibility of imprisonment being imposed by a court of summary jurisdiction on conviction of an offence of unlawful possession of cannabis or cannabis resin. The Amendment which my noble friend Lord Gifford has moved would remove that possibility entirely. The Amendment not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ave-bury, would have removed it only for the first two offences.
There was, indeed, as my noble friend Lord Gifford rightly said at the beginning of his speech, a notable unanimity of view on this subject when we discussed it during the Committee stage. I was certainly impressed by the strength of feeling on this matter, and I undertook that we would look at it, without giving any guarantee that we would change our position. I also asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to discuss the position in the light of that debate, and arrangements were made for a special meeting of the Cannabis Working Group of the Advisory Council to be held, but there has not as yet been an opportunity for the Working Group to report to the full Advisory Council. We have approached the matter sympathetically, in view of the opinions expressed in the last debate. But I have, nevertheless, to say to the House that we oppose this Amendment for two unconnected reasons.
The first reason is technical but, none the less, I think it is decisive in itself. If one looks at the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, on which our present system of controls rests, it is evident that the scheme of the Act is to establish three classes of drugs, A, B and C, into which all controlled drugs should fit.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? Is it the case that the Home Office cannot count to more than three?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is an interesting intervention by my noble friend. I would not say that I hope she will be persuaded by the argument which I am about to put to the House, but I think that she will be even better informed after I have finished this passage of my speech. As I have indicated, the Bill sets out, in a Schedule, a carefully devised system of penalties for all the various offences, the penalties being systematically graded from Class A drugs—the most serious—to Class C. If the penalties applying to a particular drug are thought to be too severe, the remedy is to transfer that drug to the next lower class and the Act makes provision for this to be done, as my noble friend is certainly aware, by Order in Council.
I am not saying, of course, that the penalties laid down for the various classes cannot be altered; indeed, the Bill provides, as my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker has pointed out, for various alterations which have given rise to the Amendments which we are discussing today. But if the penalties in the Schedule are altered, the alterations should surely apply to all drugs in a particular class. That is the scheme of the 1971 Act—
Several noble Lords: My Lords—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I urge the House to listen to the arguments. If people would like to intervene I will gladly give way. But it seems far more sensible to listen to the arguments, and then I will gladly give way to anybody who wishes to rise. As I was saying, that is the scheme of the 1971 Act and so the object sought to be achieved by this Amendment, if it is accepted in principle, should be achieved in a different way which would conform to the carefully devised framework of the 1971 Act.
The passage of this Amendment would have a quite remarkable effect. Possession of cannabis, which is a Class B drug, would not be an imprisonable offence in any circumstances whatever on summary conviction. But possession of a Class C drug, which is a less serious matter and is so recognised in the Act which is the central peice of legislation dealing with drug abuse, would continue to be an imprisonable offence on summary conviction. With great respect to those who
654
have spoken in this debate, that seems to he a wholly anomalous and indefensible position. If it is argued that the less serious drugs should be taken away from the area of imprisonment, it seems to me that the least serious drugs are the ones to which there should clearly be amendments. Though this point was touched on in the last debate that we had on this matter, it is interesting that no one has seen fit to put down an Amendment to deal with that point.
The second objection to this Amendment is even more fundamental; that is, the extremely confused situation which has arisen since we last discussed this matter during the Committee stage, as a result of legal proceedings in the case of Regina v. Goodchild. This deals with the point which was put to me by noble friends Lord Gordon-Walker and Lord Ritchie-Calder, about the possession of tobacco. Whatever may be one's view of tobacco, the fact is that this judgment which we have had in the last few weeks deals with the general question of cannabis, and it seems to me, for reasons which I will outline, that this is a powerful argument in itself. I would ask for the indulgence of the House when I try to sketch out what has become an exceptionally complex matter.
As I have pointed out, the 1971 Act established cannabis and cannabis resin as Class B drugs and defined "cannabis" as,
"… the flowering or fruiting tops of any plant of the genus cannabis from which the resin has not been extracted."
The Act nowhere referred to cannabis leaf, and the position with regard to possession of leaf has hitherto been a matter of uncertainty. I must ask your Lordships to bear in mind that a substance known as cannabinol, which the layman might perhaps be allowed to describe as the essential ingredient of cannabis, is classed in the Misuse of Drugs Act as a Class A drug, together with its closely associated derivatives. The cannabis plant of course contains cannabinol and the Act makes it clear that cannabinol is a Class A drug only when it is not contained in the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant or in resin extracted from the plant. Cannabinol is also contained in the cannabis leaf and it follows logically that if the leaf is not

655
within the Class B definition of cannabis and cannabis resin then it is not within the exemption attached to the definition of cannabinol as a Class A drug. A Class A drug would be untouched by the Amendment which we are discussing at the moment.
This background is necessary to an understanding of the position which arises from the Goodchild case. On 13th January 1977, the Court of Appeal set aside the Portsmouth Crown Court's convictions of Mr. Kevin Goodchild of possessing cannabis, and possessing cannabis with intent to supply it to another, on the grounds that the cannabis leaf material produced in evidence was not "cannabis" as defined in the Act. On 3rd March, the Portsmouth Crown Court, by leave of the Court of Appeal, dealt with two charges against Mr. Goodchild which had been left on the file at his previous appearance, for being in possession of a cannabinol derivative, and being in possession of a cannabinol derivative with intent to supply it to another. The prosecution case was that the cannabinol derivative was contained in the cannabis leaf material produced in evidence. The Crown Court convicted on both charges. The effect of these judgments is to rule that, although cannabis leaf itself is not a drug controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, persons found with leaf material in their possession are, in fact, liable to prosecution for the more serious offence of possessing a Class A drug which is contained in the leaf.
Your Lordships will recognise that these developments have a substantial effect on the whole law relating to the control of cannabis. It will clearly be some time before the legal proceedings are concluded, since I understand that an appeal may eventually be made to your Lordships' House. I am not sure that we shall need to wait until that stage has passed before we can reach a conclusion on the matters raised in the Amendment which we are discussing, but certainly there has not been time for us to look into the implications of the Goodchild decision if it should be upheld on appeal, and we must necessarily advise against deciding one particular issue without clearly seeing how it relates to
656
the other and larger questions which have now arisen in the courts. Clearly we shall wish to have the advice of the Advisory Council on the whole question of the control of the cannabis group of drugs before we decide how to proceed.
I can give your Lordships a specific assurance that the Government will give the most serious attention to the views that have been expressed, but I cannot give—and I must make this absolutely clear—any explicit commitment today, for the reasons I have indicated, to any particular course of action. I must make it clear that in our view my noble friend's Amendment in any event goes too far in proposing to remove the possibility of imprisonment not only for a first or second offence—that was the issue dealt with in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which has not been moved—but for any number of offences on summary conviction. However, the Government will seriously look into the possibility of meeting the point so far as first offenders are concerned.
Before I sit down, I should like to deal with one particular point which was touched on by a number of those who spoke—that is, the recently proclaimed position of the new Administration in the United States. I cannot claim to have any detailed knowledge of the drug situation in the United States, although on a previous occasion I spent some time discussing these matters with the drug administration and the various enforcement agencies in the United States. All I would say, with very great respect, to those concerned is that, although it is certainly important to take into account the position which has been adopted by the new Administration, it is only right for us to bear in mind that that position relates to a country with a totally different drug situation from the one which exists in this country.
4.35 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I was not anxious to take part in the debate until after the Minister had spoken. One of my reasons was that I was very much concerned with what the noble Lord was going to say about the case of Goodchild. I agree about its important connotation in relation to this Amendment, and I am quite

657
clear in my own mind that, if it is desirable to make a change in the law, the Government must make up their mind now. They cannot delay making up their mind in view of the decision.
What parts of the cannabis plant are going to be liable to prosecution for what? The combined effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal—that leaf does not count—and the decision, I think, of the Crown Court, or perhaps it was the Court of Appeal as well, that the derivative which is in leaves does count and counts more seriously, is something which cannot stand for a moment. That must be plain, I think, to everybody who has taken part in the debate. I am glad to know that the Government are going to do something about the problem, because it does not brook delay. I do not think that we can handle the problem until it is dealt with one way or the other.
The Minister was good enough to say that he would take into account what had been said. I hope, therefore, that what I say will also be taken into account because I take a very different view about the merits of this matter—though not about its technicalities with which I do not propose to deal to any great extent, now that I have dealt with Goodchild— from the view that the majority of the Members of this House have so far taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said—and, as one would expect, it is factually correct—that this is not an Amendment to legalise cannabis. However, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and I must submit to the House, that although it is factually correct it is a wholly misleading statement. Hardly an argument was presented either by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, or the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, or any of the subsequent speakers, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, which was not an argument for legalising cannabis.
It is not tolerable to go tottering along step by step. Sooner or later, the country has got to make up its mind about cannabis. It is no good saying, "We are going to remove the penalty of imprisonment but we are going to allow a £500 fine". The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder says it is hypocrisy to keep the law as it is. Well, it is still greater hypocrisy to do that. The noble Lord, Lord
658
Ritchie-Calder, says "Oh well, a fine is only in the nature of a tax". But it is not in the nature of a tax. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, pays his tax; but so does everybody else who smokes and so does everybody else who drinks. It does not depend upon the police finding the noble Lord in possession of a pipe with dottle inside it and the other disgusting ingredients of his horrible habit. The noble Lord pays the tax like everybody else, so there is no relation between the payment of a tax and the payment of a fine. This is, quite frankly, nonsense. I will give way in a moment to the noble Baroness, but I really must deal with one point at a time. I repeat that there is no relation between a tax and a fine for those who happen to get caught, so let us get that clearly out of our mind and let us call it hypocrisy—because that is what it is.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is arguing that if the penalties for certain actions are reduced, inevitably it is a step on the road to legalising the action. The noble and learned Lord is also arguing, if I understand him rightly, that it is a nonsense if a fine is imposed without a corresponding alternative sentence of imprisonment. Is the noble and learned Lord unaware that there are a great many actions which are punishable only by a fine, and that all we are suggesting is that this should be another of them? Many motoring offences fall into that category.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, of course I am aware of that, but what the noble Baroness has not yet appreciated and what, if she had waited just a little longer, she would have heard me say is that every argument that has been adduced, including her own, for reducing the penalty of imprisonment is equally applicable to the abolition of the offence altogether.
Let us take them now, as I was proposing to do before I was interrupted. As a matter of scientific opinion, the use of cannabis in moderate quantities does little or no harm to the user. That was the first argument adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. Of course, if it does little or no harm to the user, then one does not want to fine people for doing to themselves what does to them

659
no harm. As a matter of social policy—and this is his second argument—it is not desirable to retain as imprisonable an activity which some thousands of people do every day, and think they do no wrong. Of course it is also quite unpardonable, if in fact it does no harm, to punish them by a fine. But the idea that when they think they are doing no harm, and thousands of people do it every day and there is no harm in it, that you ought to go on fining them but not imprisoning them, is ludicrous, hypocritical nonsense. Therefore, when the noble Lord, Lord Avebury —and this is the third argument—refers to the decriminalisation of cannabis across the world, what he is proposing is not to decriminalise cannabis but to alter the penalties; to keep it criminal but to do something else about it. This is really not facing the issue and it is not intellectually honest.
Then the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who interrupted me, said that the noble Lord has taken a little step on the way by reducing the penalty from six months to three months, and she just wants him to totter along the way another little step. But what is the end of the journey? That is the point. There is not an argument which has been presented in this case which has been used for the abolition of imprisonment which could not equally well be used for the abolition of the fine. What this country has to do is to make up its mind about cannabis, and you do not get any further on the way by making it more ridiculous even than it is, or continuing to keep it ridiculous, if it be ridiculous.
There is one thing that I would honestly say to the supporters of this Amendment. They have a certain intellectual arrogance, if they will forgive me for saying so, about their certainty that it does no harm. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Gifford (will he forgive me?) was arrogant enough to speak about the blind ignorance of those who take an opposite point of view. There has not been, on the part of any one of the advocates of this Amendment, any recognition of the fact that cannabis has been known to civilisation for 2,500 years. It appears first in the works of Herodotus. It is true that former methods of inhalation were primitive; they did it in a tent
660
without a pipe. But the results were what they are now. In large quantities it led to certain aberrations of human behaviour and this is what leads people to be interested in it. It may do them no harm, but it was not for nothing that the Assassins of the Middle Ages, the servants of Sheikh Aljebal—the Old Man of the Mountains—gave their name to assassination because they took hashish. That is where the word comes from.
Some of us served during the war in the Middle East. We saw the population of Egypt which used the drug habitually; we know of course that they took it as a pain-killer against the evils of bilharzia. But the idea that the results and the general effects of the drug are not known is about as silly as to say that we do not know the general effects of alcohol. Alcohol has been known for approximately the same time, since Dionysus introduced it into the Near East—whoever Dionysus may have been. People do know broadly what it does.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: In a moment, Yes. My Lords, at the moment we do not know anything like all we would like to know about the effects of alcohol, but certain preliminary conclusions are still possible; and they are also possible with regard to hashish.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and I both said, if the noble and learned Lord had listened a little more closely, was that the short-term effects of smoking marijuana, or ingesting cannabis in some other form, are well-known; Dr. Peter Bourne and the other experts cited have produced a great many statements on the subject. What is not known, and what no one has ever claimed, is whether there are any long-term ill effects on human health as a result of the regular ingestion of cannabis.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the noble Lord has just anticipated my next point. It is, of course, true that the short-term effects are well-known and they are not always altogether agreeable. They lead to various deviant forms of behaviour, of

661
which the least serious is self-neglect. I quite agree with him that all the long-term effects are not known; that seems to me to be an argument against changing the law at this time in the direction of legislation, even if we are not reaching that point. That is where the argument seems to lead; not in the direction in which the noble Lord is seeking to make it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, whose other point I hope I have dealt with to the satisfaction of the House, says, "What about tobacco? What about alcohol?" What he does not seem to realise is that we have in very wide general use in this country two drugs of dependence —I am not allowed to say "addiction", because that word is now said to be inaccurate—namely, tobacco and alcohol. Why are we deliberately going to encourage the use of a third? Is it because alcohol and tobacco have proved such an enormous success in this country? When I was Minister for Science, 15 or 20 years ago, it only gradually began to dawn on smokers that they were running the risk of cancer of the lung. Before that it was not even suspected that this might be the case. We have at last discovered the long-term effects of smoking. Supposing we had lived in the reign of James I when the horrible substance was first brought into this country from America—which is the source of so many evils—do you suppose for an instance that James I would have been the only person to speak out against the disgusting habit of smoking? Of course he would not. It would have been made a hangable offence and the habit would never have spread into the West through England.
So I cannot see that the fact that, because we have two drugs of dependence, both of which are responsible for a great deal of crime or illness, or, in the case of alcohol, both—I must add as a pendant that, although I am not a smoker, I am a fairly consistent drinker, otherwise somebody else will point it out—it is therefore admissible to add a third, the results of which are not yet known, by the admission of those who advocate the change?
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, that is not what the Amendment proposes. It does not propose to add a third drug to those which it is permissible to hold.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, it proposes to "go soft" on it. But, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, at this particular moment I was not dealing with her arguments, from which I have passed, but with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. It was precisely his argument which I was demolishing—at least I hope so!—because that was precisely the argument that he was advancing; that is, that because he was a smoker and chose to pay the tax, other people should be allowed to smoke cannabis and pay what he was pleased to regard as a tax.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I would remind the noble and learned Lord, again historically, that tobacco was first introduced as a cure for syphillis, to which I am not prone.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, that may be so, but I do not think it succeeded in stamping it out. The noble Lord is becoming frivolous. I hope that my own frivolity will be divined as having a serious purpose. I shall vote against this Amendment and I shall invite anyone who has been persuaded by my arguments to do the same.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I would just say that I agree with every word the noble and learned Lord has said. This country must make up its mind about cannabis: whether or not to make its possession legal. I myself have smoked cannabis, and to my great disappointment I found that it had absolutely no effect whatsoever. I have also smoked cigarettes in large quantities and drunk alcohol in large quantities, and I am absolutely convinced that both of these have an extremely deleterious effect on everybody. I think there is a greater argument in favour of prohibiting alcohol and cigarette smoking than there is cannabis, but I shall continue to smoke heavily and to drink heavily.
4.52 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord spent a great deal of time addressing himself to an argument which was not before the House; that is to say, whether cannabis should or should

663
not be legalised. Among those who have spoken in favour of this Amendment, there are no doubt differing views as to exactly how seriously one should treat possession of this drug in the scale of morality or criminality. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said in strong terms that she would not condone use of this drug at all. Lady Wootton's position is rather different, putting it in line with minor motoring offences which need to be curbed but not persecuted or visited with imprisonment.
My Lords, that is not the argument before this House. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, there is every difference in the world, particularly if you are the person in the dock, between being sentenced to prison for the possession of cannabis and being fined. Whatever may be the verdict of this House on the question which it is not being asked to vote upon—that is to say, legalisation—I should have hoped that a great many noble Lords and noble Ladies who might have reservations about legalisation would appreciate that in today's conditions it is not right, at any rate for the ordinary case of possession of small quantities, for somebody to be put into gaol. If that appears to smack of compromise, then so be it. I certainly do not think that my own mind is sufficiently clear or informed to recommend or propose to the House an Amendment to legalise this drug. I certainly do not think so. It is not before the House, and I hope the House will address itself to the Amendment which is before it.
On the Amendment which is actually before the House, I listened with great care to the reply of my noble friend Lord Harris, and so far as I could detect he did not seek to put to this House any argument of principle at all against it. He put forward two arguments and they were not arguments of principle. The first was that the Amendment created an untidy situation, in that it took cannabis, a Class B drug, out of the categories of offences for which one could be sent to prison, and yet retained imprisonment for Class C drugs. How illogical, he said.
My Lords, the principle of this is clear, and I hope that noble Lords will not be swayed in their voting by my noble friend's and the Home Office's need to have tidy categories. If the categories of drugs as a result of this Amendment
664
being carried appear untidy, then the Government have all sorts of opportunities here and in another place to tidy them up. If my noble friend had undertaken in clear terms to remove cannabis into Class C, and to take away the three months' imprisoment which is at present in the Bill for Class C, then I should have been happy to withdraw my Amendment. He specifically said that he gave no explicit commitment to take any amending action to take account of this Amendment except to consider it.
The second argument he used was this: we cannot pass this Amendment because we are all in a terribly tizzy over the case of Goodchild. We do not know where we stand and therefore this House should not pass this Amendment. My Lords, with respect, the issue before this House does not have anything to do with the confusion. It may be that if this House votes to put cannabis and cannabis resin into a class of offences which should not have prison visited upon them, then in due course, when the leaves and stalks and cannibinol arguments have all concluded, it may be necessary to put those objects and substances into the same category. That does not arise now. The issue before the House is clear, and if there is a vote in favour in due course, the Government can take tidying action if they choose.
There is only one other point, which I had not made in proposing this Amendment, but it is an important one and it was touched on by my noble friend Lady Wootton. It is this. There may be noble Lords—I am not one of them—who can conceive of circumstances where someone ought to be sent to prison for possession of this drug. My Lords, if you can conceive of no such circumstances, then it is easy; you support the Amendment. But some noble Lords may conceive of circumstances, if there is a large quantity or persistent offending or something of that kind. In this Bill a very useful procedure will come into being whereby the courts, according to Clause 20, will consider on "triable either way offences", which this is,
"whether the circumstances make the offence one of serious character; whether the punishment which a magistrates' court would have power of inflict for it would be adequate; and any other circumstances which appear to the court to make it more suitable for the offence to be tried in one way rather than the other."

665
For those who wish that for exceptionally serious cases of possession, or repeated or flagrant abuses of the law, there should be imprisonment threatened or imposed, then under this new procedure those cases can be sent by the bench up to the Crown Court. What the proposers of this Amendment are asking for is something quite simple and very modest, and we can see, if it is passed, how it works; that is to say, that benches of magistrates on
summary conviction, where the majority of young people come, should not have power to impose a sentence of imprisonment.
4.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 76A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 83.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Monson, L.

Airedale, L.

Emmett of Amberley, B.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Amherst, E.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Pannell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Foot, L.

Phillips, B.

Amulree, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Platt, L.

Annan, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Garner, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Gifford, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Banks, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Roberthall, L.

Barrington, V.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hale, L.

Seear, B.

Boyd of Handsworth, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brimelow, L.

Hunt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sligo, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ilchester, E.

Spens, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Byers, L.

Kagan, L.

Teviot, L.

Caithness, E.

Leatherland, L.

Thurlow, L.

Castle, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Vivian, L.

Clancarty, E.

Listowel, E.

Wigg, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Wigoder, L.

Collison, L.

Loudoun, C.

Willis, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Craigavon, V.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Greenway, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Amory, V.

Haigh, E.

Porritt, L.

Auckland, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reigate, L.

Aylestone, L.

Rochdale, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, L.

Barnby, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sackville, L.

Belstead, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, B.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Boothby, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Killearn, L.

Segal, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Somers, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Long, V.

Stamp, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Luke, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McCluskey, L.

Swaythling, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne,L.

de Clifford, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Denham, L.

Mar, C.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Ebbisham, L.

Monck, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Faithfull, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, B.

Westbury, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Young, B.

George-Brown, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Oram, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.7 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 77B
Page 52, line 28, leave out ("and dangerous, driving generally)") and insert ("driving)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the acceptance of Amendment No. 39A
Page 53, line 5, at end insert—

("METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT 1839 (c. 47) Offences under section 54 (miscellaneous offences in thoroughfares, including, furious driving, obstructing a thoroughfare and discharging firearms).

Section 54 (as amended by Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967).

£20.

£50.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this Amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B. All three Amendments arise as a result of my work as a magistrate. The offences involved are dealt with only in a magistrates' court and occur only in densely populated areas. They are brought under Section 54, miscellaneous offences in thoroughfares, including furious driving, obstructing a thoroughfare and discharging firearms, of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839.
I want to ask the Government to increase the fines for obstructing a thoroughfare, although such legislation would have to include furious driving and discharging firearms. In densely populated areas, when clubs, cinemas, dance halls, ice rinks and the like close late at night, great numbers of young people spill over on to the roads, perhaps 100 or 150 at a time. When the police ask them to move on some will not, although some do. Those who stand their ground are brought to court under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839. That Act was amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1967, but the maximum penalty for such an offence is still only £20. The majority of those who cause this nuisance, not only to the police but to the surrounding neighbourhoods in populated areas, are young people who, on the whole, have a great deal of money and who go out of court laughing when they have to pay only £20. Indeed, some courts will not charge the maximum, which is £20. Probably that would be charged only on second or third conviction.
I am asking the Government to increase the maximum fine to £50. I can assure
Page 53, line 11, at end insert—

("LICENSING ACT 1872 (c. 94) Offences under the first paragraph of section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 (drunkenness in a highway or other public place).

First paragraph of section 12 (as amended by section 1(2)(a) of the Penalties for Drunkenness Act 1962).

£5.

£20.")

abolishing offences of dangerous driving. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Increase of fines for certain summary offences]:
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE moved Amendment No. 78:
noble Lords that this Act is used a great deal by the police because of the nuisance that these young people cause in their own neighbourhood, and indeed to the police in general. Obstructing the thoroughfare so that other people cannot pass along it is one of the troubles. I think it was on Monday that I had 15 such cases, and not all of the accused were fined the maximum because not all of them had previous convictions. But for those who had two or three previous convictions the fine is still a maximum of £20. I now ask the Government to put it up to £50. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Government would suggest to the House that we accept this Amendment.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me the difference between furious driving and reckless driving?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, it is a question I would not dare to be frivolous about in the presence of the noble and learned Lord. It is a question which certainly would preoccupy the Legislature in 1839, when this matter was discussed. I shall look into that particular point with pleasure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE moved Amendment No. 78A:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a similar Amendment but it deals with people who are drunk. In my area, and I am sure in other heavily populated areas, an increasing number of people seem to he able to afford to get drunk. I am worried at this time by the increasing number of young people who are getting drunk and coming before the benches. Of course we all know of the older person who comes up time after time, and very often the sentence then is a pound, or one day. But, by the amount of the fine, I want to be able to try to deter some of the young people from getting drunk very often indeed. Sometimes they come before the bench once or twice a month.
I hope that the Government will give me this increase in fine from £5 to £20. I do not think that that is really sufficient, but who is to know what will deter young people from doing this? It would certainly help the magistrates a great deal if we could have the maximum fine of £20. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, this Amendment gives rise to a little more discussion about the legislative history. In 1872 Parliament provided for two offences. One was being drunk in a highway, a public place, and in licensed premises, and for that the maximum fine at that time was ten shillings. I do not know what a tot of gin or a pint of beer then cost, but I should think that the penalty was certainly commensurate with a very cheap drink in a pub. There was another offence then created or, for all I know, perpetuated, which was, when drunk, being riotous or disorderly in the highway or a public place, and for that the maximum fine was £2. Then, 90 years later, by an Act passed in 1962, the two penalties were increased respectively to £5 and to £10.
In the Criminal Justice Act 1967, by Section 91, at any rate the second one was proposed for an increase to £50—that is, when drunk, being riotous or disorderly in the highway. The trouble is that it has never been brought into force. The penalty is therefore still £10. The reason for this is the most laudable one that Parliament at the time thought that it also ought to pay attention to the other penalty that was provided, for being, when drunk,
670
riotous or disorderly in the highway; namely, a maximum term of one month's imprisonment.
The view was then taken, and indeed expressed in the Statute, that the provisions in this section should not be brought into force until provision had been made for an alternative form of treatment for those who would otherwise go to prison for one month. With that I have great sympathy because I am doubtful whether imprisonment for one month is likely to do any good at all for people who, when drunk, are riotous or disorderly in the highway.
This had the backing of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker, when he was Lord Chief Justice, because he said when a case of this sort came before him on 20th June 1968:
"The idea underlying these enactments was that there should no longer be imprisonment for drunks, but that suitable accommodation should be provided for their treatment. Needless to say, the provisions have not yet come into force because suitable accommodation has not been found".
It is not supposed to be any criticism of noble Lords opposite, but suitable accommodation has still not been found, and nine years have gone by and the penalty has still not been increased.
This Amendment does nothing, I regret, about the imprisonment or the suitable alternative accommodation, because no doubt that is still not available for reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, hardly need describe to the House in view of some of the recent debates that we have had. However, the fine has not been increased either. As I understand it, the Amendment increases both these fines, notwithstanding that there is power in the Government, by Statutory Instrument if they want to, to increase the fine for the second offence to £50, but they are fettered in doing so until suitable accommodation alternative to prison is found.
I would suggest that nine years later Parliament might now say that both fines ought to be increased, and we will leave the Government to abolish the imprisonment when eventually, if ever, they find suitable alternative accommodation. To that extent, therefore, I would suggest that the powers given them in the 1967 Act should be superseded and we should now act to increase the penalties.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I make the point that possibly my noble friend was speaking to Amendment No. 78B? I was trying to move Amendment No. 78A, which concerns only drunks.
5.18 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was going to try to deal with both matters at the same time. I will deal with them both if I may, but I will gladly deal with the other Amendment separately if the noble Baroness wishes. Frankly, the argument is the same, as I think the noble Baroness will discover after I have produced the argument.
As the noble Viscount has just said, this Amendment and the one after it have to be considered in the light of the fact that we have already on the Statute Book but, as the noble Viscount rightly said, not yet in force, a provision, Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, for increasing the fine for being drunk and disorderly to £50. This section also provided for the repeal of those provisions which allowed a penalty of imprisonment for this offence and similar offences in local legislation. Section 91 has not yet been brought into force because it has proved difficult to provide the alternative accommodation for the care and treatment of those found drunk and disorderly which the 1967 Act requires as a prerequisite. The provision of these facilities is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Although much has been done to provide facilities for alcoholics both within the National Health Service and by providing resources for voluntary organisations and local authorities, we are nevertheless a very long way from being able to say that adequate facilities exist throughout the country for dealing with habitual drunken offenders. For once it is not simply a question of the money although the money not having been available is an important point. There are in fact a number of other difficulties in the way of providing facilities for a group of people, many of whom are disruptive and reluctant to receive any help.
672
As the noble Viscount will be aware, there have been a number of hostels and, as he will also no doubt be aware, the first experimental detoxification centre was opened in Leeds in May of last year and another is soon to be opened in Manchester, and other proposals are being considered. But these are expensive facilities and would be quite ineffective without adequate back-up facilities to ensure that the inebriate offender can be kept out of trouble once his stay in the detoxification centre is over.
I agree entirely with what the noble Viscount has just said. I am quite sure that our long-term aim must be to keep drunks out of prison. That being so, we should have to consider very carefully any measure which might have the reverse effect and I fear that a simple raising of the fine level might be just such a measure. To take the figures for 1975, the number of people in prison for drunkenness offences in that year was quite small, but 2,333 male offenders and 86 female offenders were in prison for non-payment of fines for drunkenness offences, and these periods ranged from a few days up to six months, the most common period being between one and two weeks. As the noble Viscount who speaks with long experience of dealing with the Prison Service, said, littering up our prisons with offenders of this sort in the conditions which we now face in the prison system is in no way an appropriate method of dealing with them.
Any increase in the level of fines imposed would almost inevitably have the effect of increasing the risk that many of these offenders would be unable to pay their fines and, in consequence, there would be a greater use of imprisonment for habitual drunken offenders who defaulted on fines. This is a difficult problem when dealing with the category of socially inadequate alcoholics whom we want to keep out of prison wherever possible.
There is undoubtedly at the other end of the scale—this was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve—the young offender who drinks with his friends and perhaps becomes drunk after a party or after a football match. The greatest incidence of findings of guilt for offences of drunkenness is in the 18 to 21 year old age group, where it is nearly

673
1,400 findings of guilt per 100,000 of the male population against an average figure for all ages, as far as males are concerned, of 523 per 100,000—virtually three times as high. One can appreciate that a fine of £10 for being drunk and disorderly might have little effect on offenders in this age group, who are often not short of money. There is therefore a problem here in that we are discussing two groups; the younger offender who in many cases has resources, and the older offender who in many cases does not have resources—and, unless one is very careful, that is the person who will start going to prison, quite possibly, for significantly longer periods if the level of fines was increased.
One way out of increasing the incidence of imprisonment for default might be to revise the existing scale, which was laid down in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and which limits the term of imprisonment which may be given for default according to the amount of fine imposed. There are a number of complications about proceeding in this way and it is difficult to be sure what effect it would have but it would certainly have a bearing on the extent to which an increase in fine levels might lead to an increase in imprisonment for default.
To sum up, we would wish, before deciding on any change, to look more carefully at the whole question of the penalties for drunkenness, whether simple public drunkenness or being drunk and disorderly, in the light of the policy laid down by the 1967 Act, the possible need to strengthen deterrents against youthful drunkenness—and I agree with Lady Macloed that this is a very important point—while not thwarting the widespread desire to keep alcoholics out of prison and the possible effect of a change in the tariff which links the levels of fine with periods of imprisonment in default. It is by no means easy to work out the right package in view of the various factors I have mentioned. However, if Lady Macleod will agree to withdraw her Amendment, I assure her that the Government will look extremely carefully at this whole problem. We are entirely seized of it.
Page 53, line 11, at end insert—

("Offences under the second paragraph of section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 (drunkenness and disorderly behaviour and drunkenness while in charge of vehicle or in possession of loaded firearm).

Second paragraph of section 12 (as amended by section 1(2)(b) of the Penalties for Drunkenness Act 1962).

£10.

£30.")

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I may be in danger of having muddled the matter by having spoken to Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B together. I was in no way wishing to suggest that the noble Lord should answer both of them at once and, as only No. 78A is before the House, I hope that he will be prepared to look at that one separately, despite the fact that both of us spoke to the two together.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, has official blessing already been given to the expression "detoxification centre"? Cannot we think of a happier phrase? One does not become intoxificated, so why does one have to be detoxificated?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: That is a shrewd question, to which I am wholly incapable of giving an answer, my Lords. I will however look into it. It is, I am happy to say, a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and I shall take great pleasure in drawing his attention to what the noble Lord has said.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 78A and I was anxious to speak to No. 78B separately because it deals with a completely different subject. It would be enormously helpful if the noble Lord would persuade his right honourable friend to examine this matter, because £5 is not sufficient in the estimation of the magistrates. I assure the House that if the fines were increased to £20, that would be the maximum and that maximum would not necessarily be imposed. When I say that it would be £1 or one day for older people unable to pay the fine, I am sure that I say that on behalf of all magistrates. However, with the assurance the noble Lord has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE moved Amendment No. 78B:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has in part replied to this Amendment, I was anxious to speak to it separately from No. 78A. I table it because we have the anomalous situation where the 1967 Act empowered the fine to go up to £50, but that increase was never implemented because it was said at that time that the Secretary of State did not think there were sufficient facilities to deal with those who were drunk and disorderly. I appreciate that Lord Harris has dealt with this point in considerable detail.
Magistrates do not often think of recommending that offenders should be dried out, so to speak, or be sent to Alcoholics Anonymous establishments. What I thought was in the mind of the Secretary of State was that there were not enough police cells to accommodate them overnight. However, since 1967 a great many new police stations have been built and one would presume—this is certainly the case in my area—that there would be many more rooms in which the drunk and disorderly could be accommodated overnight. I hope Lord Harris will still feel that he can refer this matter to the Secretary of State and, if he would say that he sees the 1967 provision being implemented in the foreseeable future, I would willingly withdraw the Amendment. In any event, would he care to give his view on the subject?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said when replying to the last Amendment. Was he indicating to the
Page 53, line 22, at end insert—

("PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT 1934 (1934 c. 21) Offences under section 1(1) (permitting to take place any public performance involving suffering to horses and bulls).

section 2.

£100.

£500.")

Page 54, line 14, at end insert—

("CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (ANIMALS) ACT 1937 (1937 c. 59) Offences under section 1(1) (scenes involving infliction of pain or terror on animals).

section 1(3).

£100.

£500.")

Page 56, line 9, at end insert—

("DOCKING AND NICKING OF HORSES ACT 1949 (1949 c. 70) Offences under section 1(1) (prohibition of docking or nicking of horses).

section 1(3).

£25.

£200.

Offences under section 2(3)(a) (importatBion of docked or nicked horses).

section 2(3).

£25.

£200.

Offences under section 2(4) (making false statement to obtain licence).

section 2(4).

£25.

£200.")

Page 56, line 36, at end insert—

("COCKFIGHTING Act 1952 (1952 c. 59) Offences under section 1(1) (possession of instrument or appliance in connection with fighting of any fowl).

section 1(1).

£25.

£200.")

House that he and his right honourable friend would be able to do something about this matter within the context of this Bill, since there is now some prospect of its coming before another place, or was he simply putting off the matter for indefinite consideration? I think that it would help us to know before we decide what to do about this whether we are likely to have a change in the legislation under this Bill.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, two issues arise. The first was raised by the noble Baroness when she moved the Amendment and I apologise to her for the fact that I telescoped into one speech the arguments regarding both Amendments. As the noble Baroness will recognise, there are a number of interrelated questions here in terms of the two Amendments. What I said was—and I repeat it—that certainly my right honourable friend is anxious to look at the matter carefully in the context of the Bill. That is our desire. But, as I have indicated, there are some quite complicated problems in getting this rather complicated tariff of periods of imprisonment as related to particular levels of monetary fines right. That is the point that we shall be considering during the passage of the Bill.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said—and I thank him for it—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.33 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD Lord DE CLIFFORD moved Amendments Nos. 79A, 79B, 79C, 79D, 79E, 79F and 79G:
Page 56, line 36, at end insert—

("DOGS(PROTECTION OF LIVESTOCK) ACT 1953 (1953 C. 28) Offences under section 1(1) (worrying of livestock on agricultural land).

section 1(6)(a.)

£10.

£50.

Offences under section 1(1) (worrying of livestock on agricultural land).

Section 1(6)(b).

£50.

£100.")

Page 57, line 10, at end insert—

("PESTS ACT 1954 (1954 c. 68) Offences under section 8 (using or permitting use, selling or offering for sale or possessing any unlawful spring trap).

Section 8(2).

£20 for a first offence, and £50 for a second or subsequent offence.

£100. £200.

Offences under section 9 (using a spring trap in an unlawful manner).

section 9(2).

£20 for a first offence, and £50 for a second or subsequent offence).

£100. £200.

Offences under section 12 (using or permitting use of a rabbit infected with myxomatosis).

section 12.

£20 for a first offence, and £50 for a second or subsequent offence.

£100. £200.")

Page 57, line 27, at end insert—

("ANIMALS (CRUEL POISONS) ACT 1962 (1962 c. 26) Offences under section 1 (use of a prohibited poison for destroying any animal).

section 1(b).

£50.

£500.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 79A to 79G en bloc and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 88A. These eight Amendments all relate to animal welfare offences. It seemed to a number of us that it would be desirable to bring them more into the level of the offences in recent Statutes. None of these Statutes is less than six years old. There is one Amendment—Amendment No. 79E—which does not come up to this. This deals with the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which makes it an offence to worry livestock. Under more recent legislation —the Animal Act, 1971—there are further penalties which can be applied for where the owner of the animals which have been worried or destroyed can sue the owner of the dog. In view of this, it was considered undesirable to raise the penalties under the 1953 Act to the level of the others. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as he has pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has put down these Amendments to increase the summary maximum fines for various offences of cruelty to animals. Like him, should I be permitted to do so, I should like to deal with all the Amendments at the same time. I should say, first, that I accept in principle the case for increases in the maximum fines for the various offences which he has identified. In the form in which the Amendments were originally put down, we should have been unable to accept them because they did not describe the nature of the offences that were being treated. However, at the end of last week, the noble Lord tabled a revised set of Amendments which goes some way towards meeting this drafting
678
objection, though I fear that they do not go quite far enough.
Perhaps I should say now, again in relation to all the Amendments which the noble Lord has put before the House, that, in addition to the general reservation about the way in which the Amendments are phrased, I should like some time to consider the extent of the proposed increases. This applies particularly to those where a higher penalty is proposed for second or subsequent conviction. This is a refinement of the penalty structure which we do not consider to be appropriate in most cases. It is generally preferable to provide an adequate maximum fine for any offence and to allow magistrates to use their discretion within that overall maximum to impose a fine of the right amount. When doing this, they will of course take into consideration any previous convictions for similar offences. If the noble Lord will accept my assurance that we are happy with his general approach but that we want to consider his proposals in more detail, perhaps he will agree to withdraw his Amendments for the moment. I shall then consider his proposals with my right honourable friend and arrange for appropriate Amendments to be tabled if at all possible at the next stage of the Bill's progress.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may I, before my noble friend accedes—as I hope he will—to that request, say how glad I was to hear the Minister say that he does not like this business about a maximum for the first offence then other amounts for the second and subsequent offences. It leads to a nonsense. Take the offences in the present category:£20 is specified

679
for the first offence of using or permitting the use of an unlawful spring trap and £100 for the first offence of using a spring trap in an unlawful manner. If I use an unlawful spring trap and then use a spring trap in an unlawful manner, I shall have committed two first offences. If, on the other hand, I use an unlawful trap twice, I have committed a first and a second offence. Years ago, we had this sort of nonsense in driving offences but, happily, I was able to get rid of it about 15 years ago when my noble friend the present Lord Marples was Minister for Transport,
Page 58, line 23, at end insert—

("HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1966 (s. 49)
Offences under section 110(1)(a) and (b) failure to comply with notice requiring execution of works where committed in respect of a notice served under section 107 (provision of means of escape from fire).

section 110(1)(a)and(b).

£100.

£500.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage, the House accepted an Amendment to increase to £500 the maximum fine for offences involving the provision of fire escapes under the Housing Act 1964. This Amendment provides that the same increase shall apply
Page 58, line 23, at end insert—

("ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1967 (c. 76) Offences under section 13(4) (contravention of provisions as to use of special roads).

Section 13(4) (as amended by Part II of Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Act 1974).

£100.

£500.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment fulfils my commitment to consider the Amendment put down at the Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. It increases the maximum fine which may be imposed under Section 13(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 for breaches of motorway regulations from £100 to £500. I beg to move.
Page 60, line 34, at end insert—

("CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS ACT 1975 (c. 48) Any offence under the Act.

Section 11(1).

£100.

£500.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as you can see, this Amendment is designed to raise the maximum penalty for offences under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act from £100 to £500. This is not a very old Act, and even in the present situation inflation has not raised prices quite that high, but there may be a feeling that the original penalty was pitched too low. This is an extremely important Act and the offences under it are very serious. They may not always necessarily be seen so by the less thinking members of the public, but offences under
and I hope now to join forces with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in the same endeavour.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham have said, I am very happy to accept the assurance of the noble Lord and to withdraw the Amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
5.38 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 86A:
to the equivalent offence in Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 87:
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lord, perhaps I should say that I am obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 88B:
the Act can have real danger to the survival of rare species in this country.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has any figures about prosecutions brought under this Act. If he has I should very much like to hear them, but I have not been able to find any, and it is possible that there have not been any prosecutions. This Act is designed to deter as much as possible. The penalties are designed to deter as well as to punish, and these are very serious offences indeed. I am quite clear from

681
what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, that this Amendment is irregularly drafted, and it may be that the proposed new penalty is not appropriate. But I should be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would indicate whether there is a higher level than £100 which he world be prepared to accept as an Amendment, possibly at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the proposal to amend this maximum fine is in fact quite sweeping. It is not a simple increase from £100 to £500, since the fine which may be imposed upon conviction of an offence under the Act may be imposed in respect of each of the creatures or plants involved in the offence. I should like to take just one example here. If the Amendment were accepted a man who uprooted five ghost orchids would be liable to a maximum fine of £2,500. Of course I do not for a moment want to suggest that the offences in the Act are not very serious. The harm that may be done by an anti-social collector who, for his own ends, threatens the survival in this country of wild creatures and protected plants which are listed in
Page 60, line 34, at end insert—

("SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT 1975 (c. 51) Offences against any provision of the Act not specified in the Table in Part I of Schedule 4.

Schedule 4.

£50 for a first offence and £100 for a second or subsequent offence.

£500.

Offences under section 1 (fishing with certain instruments for salmon, trout or freshwater fish and possessing certain instruments for fishing for such fish) if not acting with another.

Schedule 4.

£50 for a first offence and £100 for second or subsequent offence.

£500.

Offences under section 19(2) (fishing for salmon during the annual close season or weekly close time).

Schedule 4.

£100 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence.

£500.

Offences under section 19(4) (fishing for trout during the annual close season or weekly close time).

Schedule 4.

£100 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence.

£500.

Offences under section 19(6) (fishing for freshwater fish during the annual close season for freshwater fish and fishing for eels by means of a rod and line during that season).

Schedule 4.

£100 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence.

£500.

Offences under section 19(7) (fishing for rainbow trout during the annual close season for rainbow trout and fishing for eels by means a rod and line during that season).

Schedule 4.

£100 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence.

£500.

Offences under section 21 (prohibition on use of certain devices at certain times).

Schedule 4.

£100 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence.

£500.

Offences under section 27 (fishing for fish otherwise than under the authority of a licence and possessing an un-licensed instrument with intent to use it for fishing) if not acting with another.

Schedule 4.

£50 for a first offence and £100 for a second or subsequent offence.

£500.')

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has been tabled with three objectives in mind. First, and most importantly, it is intended to remove what will become an anomalous position in the law as a result of this Bill. We have to look at the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. I must say that when I speak over this Box to various Home Office
the Schedules to the Act is certainly not to be taken lightly; that I concede at once.
However, I am anxious that the penalty increases that we are affecting in the Bill should not in general get out of proportion, and because of the effect of the particular penalty structure of this Act I am loathe to advise the House to accept the Amendment. However, I say to the noble Lord that if he will withdraw the Amendment I will gladly consider, in consultation with my colleagues who have responsibility for administering the Act, whether an increase to £200 would be fitting. Of course £200 is the intermediate point on the new structure of maxi mum summary fines which we are introducing in the Bill, and I think that that is probably more appropriate. I hope that this meets the noble Lord's point.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and following that assurance r gladly beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 89:
Ministers and Lords-in-Waiting, I nearly always seem to be talking about field sports, in which I certainly do not indulge and I rather suspect that they do not, either. Nevertheless, we must consider the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, and more particularly Sections 1 and 27 of it. We have the effect that if a person is acting alone when he commits various

683
offences under that Act he is liable to summary trial, but if he acts in concert with others he is liable at present to either summary trial or trial on indictment.
Let us take an example—I was going to say a homely example. If somebody takes from a river no less than 20 salmon with a gaff, at the moment he would be subject to a maximum fine of £50 if it was a first offence, and £100 if it was a subsequent offence; and it does not matter whether he takes one, or 20, or any other number of salmon. If, on the other hand, somebody was acting in concert with another and he took only one salmon, which might be considered a lesser offence, then under Clause 28(2) of this particular Bill he would now be liable to a maximum fine of no less than £1,000 because that is the effect of an offence which is to be triable each way.
So this might be considered to be an anomalous situation, and the Amendment has been drafted to try to rectify this. The second purpose of the Amendment is to bring the maximum fines into line with those for similar offences connected with the protection of animals and birds. An illustration might be the Protection of Animals Act, or the Protection of Birds Act, or indeed the Deer Act. Thirdly, bearing in mind what the Home Office like, the Amendment is aimed at removing a difference of approach in relation to first and subsequent offences. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Earl is so persuasive that I would recommend that the House accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [New section to be substituted for s. 20 of Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 89A and 89B:
Page 63, line 23, leave out ("or dangerous")
Page 63, line 31, leave out ("or dangerous").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential on the acceptance of the Amendment abolishing offences of dangerous driving. I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Amendments of Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 92:
Page 64, line 19, at end insert—
(".—(1) In section 284(b), for "£100" there shall be substituted "£200".
(2) In section 284(c), for "£100" there shall be substituted "£200".
.—(1) In section 289(a), for "£150" there shall be substituted "the prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 289B below)".
(2) In section 289(b) for "£150" there shall be substituted "the prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 289B below)".")
Page 67, line 44, leave out ("or").
line 49, at end insert—
("; or
(c) the maximum amount of caution which an accused may be ordained to find under section 284(c) above.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Government Amendments were discussed with Amendment No. 62. I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 68, line 6, leave out ("proviso (b) to section 46(7) of") and insert ("Schedule 11 to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It relates to Scotland and is consequential upon the transitional provisions relating to the coming into force of the penalty provisions in the Bill, which are set out in Schedule 11.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 68, line 8, leave out ("completed") and insert ("committed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It is a drafting Amendment. It is the Scottish equivalent of the Amendments that I moved to Clauses 42 and 43.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 68, leave out line 11 and insert—
("5. For section 394(b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) to substitute for imprisonment a fine which in the case of an offence triable

685
either summarily or on indictment shall not exceed the prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 289B above), and in the case of an offence triable only summarily shall not exceed £200 (in either case, with or without caution for good behaviour, not exceeding the amount and the period competent under this Part of this Act):".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It is a consequential Amendment for Scotland to the Amendments made at Committee stage for England and Wales in Clause 32(2), relating to fines which can be imposed in substitution for a term of imprisonment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential Amendments]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 71, leave out lines 4 and 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 60. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 96C:
Page 71, line 31, at end insert—
("PRISON ACT 1952 (c. 52)
1. In section 45, as amended by Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice Act 1961 (release of persons sentenced to Borstal training), substitute "one year" for "two years"—

(a) in subsection (3) (where those words give the period of supervision after release);

(b) in the first place where they occur in subsection (4) (where they give the period of liability to recall); and

(c) wherever they occur in the proviso to subsection (4).

2. Paragraph 1 above shall not apply in relation to a person sentenced to Borstal training whose original release from a Borstal institution occurred before the coming into force of this paragraph.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments are those which I foreshadowed in the Committee stage of the Bill, when I explained that while, in our view, we must for the present retain the existing custodial system for young offenders, we would do our best to improve its performance. I said that we had been examining the provisions on supervision of young offenders on release with a view to concentrating the very limited resources
686
we have available. This was something which the Probation and After-Care Service had been advocating, and I promised that if our examination showed it to be desirable we would bring forward Amendments at a later stage of the Bill's progress. Accordingly, we have done so.
The first of these Amendments—I should like to speak to this group, all of which relate to the Prison Act—would reduce the period of supervision on release from borstal from two years to one. A borstal sentence, as your Lordships will know, is an indeterminate sentence of between six months and two years in custody, followed by supervision in the community. This supervision is seen as an integral part of the treatment provided for in the sentence of the court. The statutory period of post-borstal supervision has stood at two years since 1961, although the Secretary of State has power to terminate it in individual cases at any time.
My Lords, there are in our view a number of reasons why a shorter period is now appropriate. They are, first, that probation officers now concentrate their efforts on helping trainees in the first few months after release, which is in fact the period which evidence shows that such supervision is most necessary and also most effective. Then, too, the closer links between the Prison Service and the Probation Service, and the concept of "through care" which has been developed in recent years, mean that relationships with the supervising officer are established while the trainee is still in custody, thus reducing the time he needs to readjust to life under supervision in the community.
There is, of course, another side to this coin. There are certain conditions attached to borstal supervision, and those who fail to comply with them can be recalled to borstal by the Secretary of State and detained for a further period. This order is often made, in fact, in lieu of what might be another custodial sentence. However, the majority of such orders are made in the first 12 months after release, as are almost all recall orders, and the courts have available to them other appropriate sentences for those who have been out of borstal for more than 12 months.
The remaining Amendments in this group relate to those who are sentenced to imprisonment when aged at least 17 and

687
under 21. Instead of being released on remission after serving two-thirds of their sentence, those who are serving eighteen months or more and have not been granted parole are released on licence until the end of their sentence. This licence can be revoked at any time by the Secretary of State, or by a court on conviction for a further offence, and the person concerned is then returned to prison. Those in the same age group who are sentenced to imprisonment for less than 18 months are subject to 12 months' supevision on release.
In the case of these young prisoners, we are seeking not so much to shorten the period of supervision as to confine it to the younger age group for whom it was intended. Your Lordships will appreciate that if someone receives a sentence of some years at the age of 20 they will be very much an adult by the time they are released. Certainly, with the current pressure on accommodation in young prisoner centres, they will have been reclassified as adult prisoners and will have served the majority of their sentences in adult prisons without any of the benefits we seek to provide for younger offenders. There is therefore understandable resentment on their part when, having served their sentence as adults, they are subjected to young prisoners' licences on release. Moreover, I am advised by the Probation Service that compulsory supervision of this category of offender is rarely effective.
We therefore propose, by this Amendment, to release without licence those who are aged 22 on discharge, and to terminate the licences of those released earlier on their 22nd birthday if the licence has not previously expired. Similar arrangements will be made for those serving shorter sentences released to supervision. In choosing this particular age we are influenced by the desirability of providing a reasonable period of supervision for those who are still aged under 21 at the time of release. I have spoken about young prisoners who are released in the normal course without being granted parole. It is clearly right that those who are released on parole under Section 60(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 should be treated no less favourably, and the Amendments provide that their licences
688
shall expire no later than if they had been released in the normal way.
My Lords, these Amendments do not apply to Scotland. Borstal supervision in Scotland is already limited to one year; and, as I have indicated, that is what we are now proposing should apply to England and Wales. The supervision arrangements for other young offenders in Scotland are under review, and it is not proposed to make any legislative changes regarding supervision in Scotland in this Bill. I therefore commend these Amendments to your Lordships. They are desired by the Probation Service, and are also favoured by governors. They should result in more concentrated attention being given to newly-released young offenders at a time when they need most help. My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 96C.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.56 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 75, line 23, at end insert—
("HOUSING ACT 1964 (c. 56)
In section 65, after subsection (1) (penalty for failure to comply with notice requiring execution of works under Part II of Housing Act 1961) insert—
"(1A) In the case of an offence under subsection (1) above committed in respect of a notice served under section 16 of the Act of 1961, that subsection shall have effect with the substitution of the words "£500" for the words "one hundred pounds" in paragraphs (a) and (b).".
HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1966 (c. 49)
In section 110, after subsection (1) (penalty for failure to comply with notice requiring execution of works) insert—
"(1A) In the case of an offence under subsection (1) above committed in respect of a notice served under section 107 of this Act, that subsection shall have effect with the substitution of the words "£500" for the words "one hundred pounds" in paragraphs (a) and (b).".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential on the increase in the maximum fine for failing to comply with a notice requiring execution of works under the Housing Act 1961, which was introduced in Schedule 6 during the Committee stage. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 98:

689
Page 75, line 40, at end insert—
(". In section 78A (exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under certain enactments), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "Act" insert ", except section 13(4);" and

(b) in paragraph (c), after "1960" insert "(except section 13(4) of this Act).".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I explained when moving the Amendment to Schedule 6 to increase the maximum fine for breaches of motorway regulations, this Amendment is moved to clarify the existing position on speeding on motorways. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 77, line 3, at end insert—
("3. After section 44 insert as section 44A—
"Power of Magistrates' Courts to fix day for appearance of offender at means inquiry, etc.
44A.—(1) Where under section 63(1) of the Act 1952 a magistrates' court allows time for payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction of the court ("the adjudged sum"), the court may on that or any subsequent occasion fix a day on which, if any part of that sum remains unpaid on that day, the offender must appear in person before the court for either or both of the following purposes, namely—

(a) to enable an inquiry into his means to be made under section 44 of this Act;

(b) to enable a hearing required by subsection (6) of the said section 44 to be held.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, the power to fix a day under this section shall be exercisable only in the presence of the offender.
(3) Where a day has been fixed under this section, the court may fix a later day in substitution for the day previously fixed, and may do so—

(a) when composed of a single justice; and

(b) whether the offender is present or not.

(4) Subject to subsection (5) of this section, if on the day fixed under this section—

(a) any part of the adjudged sum remains unpaid; and

(b) the offender fails to appear in person before the court,

the court may issue a warrant to arrest him and bring him before the court; and subsections (4) and (5) of section 70 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (execution of warrant for
690
securing appearance of offender at means inquiry) shall apply in relation to a warrant issued under this section.
(5) Where under subsection (3) above a later day has in the absence of the offender been fixed in substitution for a day previously fixed under this section, the court shall not issue a warrant under this section unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in such other manner as may be prescribed, that notice in writing of the substituted day was served on the offender not less than what appears to the court to be a reasonable time before that day.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment which I should like to move is brought forward in accordance with an undertaking which I gave in Committee to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, when he moved an Amendment with broadly the same aim but in which we saw certain technical difficulties. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable a magistrates' court which has allowed a person time to pay a fine to fix, in advance, a date on which he must appear before the court if, by then, any part of the fine remains unpaid. At present, the procedure in these circumstances is that the court must wait until a default has actually occurred. It then has to issue a summons to bring the defaulter before the court for a means inquiry. This can obviously be time-consuming for the court and the police, and of course it involves extra work. If a summons is issued and the defaulter fails to appear, the court then has to issue a warrant and the police have to go and arrest him.
Under the alternative procedure which this Amendment is introducing, these steps can be cut out where the defendant is present in court when the fine is imposed. It empowers the court to tell the defendant that they are allowing him time to pay but that, if he defaults, he will have to come back to the court on a date which the court will then specify to explain why he has defaulted. If he fails both to pay up and also to attend the court, he will be liable to arrest. The Government believe that this will be a useful addition to the magistrates' existing enforcement powers and that, by cutting out some of the steps which have to be gone through at the moment, it will afford some small measure of relief to the courts. I commend it to your Lordships, and beg to move.
6 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the Government, for tabling this Amendment in this form. I think it will provide no little gratification to the Magistrates' Association and to Benches up and down the country. A great deal of time and effort which could better be spent in other directions has to be spent in trying to get people who are fined to pay up, and a great deal of quite unnecessary expense is incurred in trying to relieve the citizen of what he ought to be prepared to pay without such pressure being exerted upon him.
People fail to take seriously what a magistrates' court says in relation to a fine, particularly if they do not know the form, if I may so put it. This will enable a court, if it is convinced that it is a proper way in which to go about its duty, in effect to say to a defendant: "Pay up or else!"—and this can be done at the time the fine is imposed. I think this is an excellent improvement to the armoury of the magistrates. Perhaps I may say, and not frivolously, that for some reason the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is not in his place this afternoon; and I hope that the noble Lord, Harris, will tell him about this and that the Government eventually, if they see fit, will extend this sort of provision to Scotland.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 99B:
Page 77, line 3, at end insert—
("3.—(1) Section 60 (release on licence of persons serving determinate sentences) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) (which by virtue of paragraph (b) provides for the release on licence of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of eighteen months or more who was under the age of twenty-one when the sentence was passed), at the end add—
"Provided that in England and Wales a person within paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not be released on licence by virtue of this subsection after he has attained the age of twenty-two.".
(3) After subsection (5) insert—
"(5A) A licence granted to any person under this section in England and Wales shall, unless previously revoked under section 62 of this Act, remain in force until a date specified in the licence, being—

(a) in the case of a licence granted to a person in respect of whom an extended sentence certificate was issued when
692
sentence was passed on him, the date of the expiration of the sentence;

(b) in the case of a licence granted under subsection (1) of this section to a person who was under the age of twenty-one when sentence was passed on him and is released on licence before attaining the age of twenty-two—

(i) if the date on which he attains the age of twenty-two is earlier than the remission date, the remission date;

(ii) if the date on which he attains the age of twenty-two is not earlier than the remission date, the date on which he attains the age of twenty-two or the date of the expiration of the sentence, whichever is the earlier;

(c) in the case of a licence granted by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of this section to a person who was under the age of twenty-one when sentence was passed on him, the date on which he attains the age of twenty-two or the date of the expiration of the sentence, whichever is the earlier;

(d) in a case not within any of the preceding paragraphs, the remission date.

In this subsection "the remission date", in relation to a person released on licence under this section, means the date on which he could have been discharged from prison on remission of part of his sentence under the prison rules, if, after the date of his release on licence, he had not forfeited remission of any part of the sentence under the rules.".
(4) In subsection (6) (duration of licence), after "this section" insert "in Scotland" and, in paragraph (a), omit the words from "to a person" where they first occur to "or".
(5) Omit subsection (8)(d).
(6) The preceding provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in relation to a licence granted before the coming into force of this paragraph.
4.—(1) Section 63 (supervision of young, short-term prisoners after release) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for "shall be subject after his release from prison" substitute "shall, if released from prison before he has attained the age of twenty-two, be subject after his release".
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) A person who is under supervision as aforesaid by virtue of subsection (1) above at the time when he attains the age of twenty-two shall cease to be under supervision at that time, and accordingly, in their application to a person by virtue of that subsection, the provisions of the said Schedule 1 shall apply with the further modification that references to the period of twelve months from the date of his release shall be read as references to that period or the period from the date of his release to the date on which he attains the age of twenty-two, whichever is the shorten".
(4) In subsection (2), for "the foregoing subsection" substitute "subsection (1) of this section".
(5) The preceding provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in relation to a person whose

693
period of supervision under Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 1961 began before the coming into force of this paragraph.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 82, line 18, at end insert—
("HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974 (c. 37)
In section 15(6)(d) (power to restrict punishments which can be imposed in respect of certain offences) after "punishments" insert "(other than the maximum fine on conviction on indictment)".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment which I move as a result of Amendment No. 61 having been accepted by the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST moved Amendment No. 100C:
Page 84, line 56, column 3, leave out ("Section") and insert ("Sections 3 and")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the acceptance by the House of the Amendment to repeal Section 3 of the Act of 1961. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 100A:
Page 84, line 56, column 3, at end insert ("Section 11(2).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 100A, which is consequential upon Amendment No. 99B.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 100D:
Page 85, line 41, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 60, in subsection (6)(a), the word from "to a person" where they first occur to "or" and subsection (8)(d).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment which is consequential upon Amendment No. 99B dealing with young prisoners' licences.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 100B:
Page 86, line 42, column 3, leave out from beginning to third ("in") in line 43 and insert—
("In Part I of Schedule 4:—
in the entry relating to section 1, in column 2, the words "or dangerous"
in the entry relating to section 2, in column 2, the words "and dangerous" and "generally";
in the entry relating to section 17, in column 2, the words "and dangerous".
In Part IV of Schedule 4,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 39A dealing with dangerous driving. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 87, line 50, in column 3, at beginning insert—("In Part II of Schedule 5, the entry relating to section 13(4)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment to insert in Schedule 6 an increased penalty for motorway offences. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 101A:
Page 87, line 51, column 3, at end insert ("and, in the entry relating to section 17, in the second column, the words "and dangerous".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the acceptance of an Amendment abolishing offences of dangerous driving. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 87, line 56, at end insert—
("1975 c. 20. District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975. Section 3(3).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 102, which was discussed earlier with Amendment No. 62.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 88, line 5, column 3, at end insert ("and, in paragraph 38, the words "in paragraph (a)".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 103. This Amendment makes a minor drafting correction to the Bail Act 1976. The short point is that the Bail Act altered a reference in paragraph (a) of Section 8(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to correspond with the new terminology. The draftsman overlooked that a similar correction would be required elsewhere in Section 8 of the 1968 Act. This can be cured simply by the removal of the reference to paragraph (a); and that is what the Amendment does.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 104:
After Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule:
Section 46
"SCHEDULE 11
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
1. A provision contained in any of sections 14 to 26, 33 and 34 above or in Schedule 8 to this Act, and any related amendment or repeal provided for in Schedule 9 or 10 to this Act, shall not apply in relation to proceedings commenced before the coming into force of that provision.
2. In its application to an offence committed before the coming into force of section 23 above, section 29 above shall have effect as if, in paragraph (a), for "£500" there were substituted "£400".
3.—(1) This paragraph applies to any provision of this Act which relates to the punishment by way of fine or imprisonment which may be imposed on summary conviction of offences mentioned in Schedule 1 or 2 to this Act or in Schedule 7A to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
(2) A provision to which this paragraph applies shall have effect in relation to an offence for which proceedings are commenced after the material time even if that offence was committed before that time; but in the case of an offence committed before the material time, such a provision shall not render a person liable on summary conviction to any punishment greater than that to which he would have been liable on conviction on indictment if at the time of his conviction that provision had not yet come into force.
(3) In relation to a provision to which this paragraph applies "the material time", means the time when that provision conies into force.
4. Except as provided in paragraph 3 above a provision of this Act (other than section 29) which relates to the punishment by way of fine or imprisonment for any offence shall not affect the punishment for an offence committed before that provision conies into force."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Schedule was described when the Amendment to Clause 46, which introduces this Schedule, was moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE moved Amendment No. 105:
In the Title, line 16, after ("amend") insert "section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. This was rendered necessary by an Amendment which was not accepted earlier but which was accepted in principle (but not yet drafted by the Government) as a result of my case of Whitehouse which I explained to the House.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, it may be to the convenience of the House if I deal with both of these matters at the next stage of the Bill, if that is convenient to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, if it is more convenient to the noble Lord and he will draft a suitable Amendment in the substance of the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 106:
Line 19, after ("about") insert ("road traffic").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment which extends the Long Title to cover the abolition of offences of dangerous driving.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE: TRADE AND AID BILL
6.7 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a fairly, or perhaps very, technical Bill with a number of detailed provisions. The bulk of the changes proposed relate to increases in financial limits—changes which need to be made from time to time, given economic growth, growth in trade and in the size of payments in balances, and high rates of inflation. The institutions

697
concerned are the International Monetary Fund, the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the Commonwealth Development Corporation and international and regional development institutions. But the measures proposed in this Bill are, in detail, technical and the House will wish me to give the Government view of the important problems and principles which can easily be hidden under the technicalities.
The theme which underlies this Bill is the promotion of international trade and international economic growth together with a more stable and balanced international economic order. Noble Lords will be aware, particularly, of the central role which the International Monetary Fund plays in this area. The IMF provisions of the Bill contain the legislative requirements in the United Kingdom of a number of changes which have been proposed to the IMF in order to enable the Fund to maintain its position at the centre of the international monetary system.
There are two main strands: first, the increase in IMF quotas; and, secondly, the amendments to the Articles of Agreement which have been the consequence of the intense discussions of international monetary reform that have taken place in recent years. The increase in our quota is the result of a general review of, and decision to increase, the Fund's resources. This review will increase the total of all member's quotas by one-third, taking the total to the staggering figure of 45 billion dollars. The background to the proposed increase was set out in Cmnd. 6704, which was published in January of this year. At the general level, the increase in quotas will enable the Fund to pursue more effectively its objective of promoting stable growth. Among the objectives of the Fund set out in the Articles is included the following:
"To give confidence to Members by making the general resources of the Fund temporarily available to them under adequate safeguards, thus providing them with opportunity to correct maladjustments in their balance of payments without resorting to measures destructive of national or international prosperity".
The years since the oil crisis have seen a greater risk of resort to just such measures than in any other period since the war. The huge increase in oil
698
revenues, together with the low capacity of many oil producing countries to I increase their imports at a sufficiently rapid rate, has meant that most developed and developing countries have been compelled to run exceptional deficits in their balance of payments. During the past three years, this Government and the Governments of other countries have been concerned to avoid the worst consequences of this new situation; namely, deliberate excessive deflation and restrictions on trade.
The IMF, too, has played an effective part in pursuit of the objective I quoted. It has contributed partly by acting as an effective forum for international discussions and partly also in more tangible ways. In saying that, I refer particularly to the institution of the oil facility, which operated during 1974 and 1975. During this time a total of very nearly 8 billion dollars was borrowed under the facility, of which getting on for 3 billion dollars was drawn by the non-oil developing countries. I would remind the House that the United Kingdom also benefited to the extent of 1,100 million dollars.
But the central facility of the Fund is, and should continue to be, the finance which is offered through drawings in the credit tranches which are related to members' quotas. Use of the credit tranches requires Fund surveillance of a member's policies, and there is no doubt that in present circumstances Fund involvement is generally beneficial. For the problem of oil producers' surpluses is likely to be a continuing one, and the counterpart deficits must be accepted by countries able to bear them. The increase in quotas will make a worthwhile contribution towards the financing of deficits. Noble Lords will need no reminding of the contribution which the IMF has made towards our own adjustment problems in recent years.
The opportunity of this increase in quotas has also been taken to adjust the relative size of quotas to take account of members' ability to contribute to the Fund, as well as to reflect increased needs. For quotas, as noble Lords will understand, also determine potential contribution as well as drawings. While the average increase in quotas is some 34 per cent., the share of the industrial countries has fallen to allow a doubling in the share

699
of the major oil exporters as a group in the enlarged Fund. The collective share of all other developing countries has been maintained at its present level.
Now, my Lords, the other strand of the IMF provisions, and I refer to Clause 2 of the Bill, is the revision to the Fund's Articles of agreement. The importance of the amendments is more difficult to grasp in some ways than the increase in quotas, but it is probably more important for the longer term. Noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go over these in detail—the main changes are discussed in a second White Paper published in January of this year, Cmnd. 6705. Briefly, there are two main changes. The first is the removal of gold from its central position in the Fund Articles, and the adoption of the objective of gradually reducing its role in the international monetary system.
This change is the rational and logical consequence of the break in the link between the U.S. dollar and gold and the move to flexible exchange rates. With a price determined in the free market, gold could not be a stable denominator for exchange rates, and it has little relevance where most currencies are floating against each other. The continued use of gold as a principal reserve asset is, moreover, highly expensive in terms of resources. Noble Lords will be aware that the IMF has begun a programme to reduce its holdings of gold by one-third, in part by restoring gold to members, and in part by auctions in aid of a trust fund which will provide concessional resources to the developing countries. The second major area of reform is on exchange rate arrangements. Members will no longer be required to declare par values under the amended articles, but the Fund is given an enhanced role in overseeing the operation of exchange systems. Having described these arrangements, I should say that the amendments are perhaps not the complete overhaul of the international monetary system which was foreseen by some when the Committee of Twenty was set up in 1972. None the less, they are a worthwhile and significant step forward.
Progress continues to be made. For example, the Basle agreement on sterling balances earlier this year, by reducing the reserve currency role of sterling, will contribute to a more rational system.
700
But other problems remain to be tackled. In particular, there is the question of the unequal and asymmetrical way in which the adjustment process works, and which results in more pressure being put on deficit than on surplus countries. This is a problem which much concerned Maynard Keynes and Harry White, who are properly described as the parents of the IMF, but it is particularly urgent in the present economic situation. We greatly hope that the IMF will tackle this problem and the problem of better co-ordination of floating exchange rates as it developes its new role of surveillance over exchange rate arrangements.
I have emphasised in what I have said the role of the IMF in promoting the growth of international trade. That leads me into a look at another aspect of the Bill. Not all countries are able to compete on equal terms for the advantages of trade, and here of course I refer to the developing countries. The present Bill provides for an increase in the borrowing limits of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, an organisation which makes a significant contribution—and has done for many years—to the needs of the developing countries. There is an increasing recognition of the interdependence between the developed and developing countries, and a general desire to avoid mutually damaging confrontation. Noble Lords are aware of the United Kingdom's general aid policy—in fact, it was debated here in February of last year—for increasing emphasis on the poorest countries and on rural development which improves the lot of the poorest people within those countries.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation follows a policy which accords with this, and increasingly places emphasis on projects in poorer countries and for natural resources development. It contributes in a wide variety of ways, by finance, and by management for economically worthwhile projects. It is able, by drawing on its experience, to put together package schemes for rural development. The Bill shows this, although there were failures in the early years; but the record since then has been good. Just one example of their activities is their recent contribution to the Kenya Tea Development Authority where the project is estimated to achieve a rate of return of 38 per cent. and gives employment to some

701
100,000 smallholders, supporting about 500,000 people.
My Lords, the Bill also provides for changes in the legislation relating to international and regional development institutions, and the range of contribution we might make to them. These are a major source of capital for developing countries. The World Bank group is perhaps the best known, but a very useful part is played in the regional development banks. The United Kingdom is well aware of the vital role which these institutions have had in helping the developing countries over the past few difficult years, and we shall do all we can to see that they can continue to play a full part. I should like to mention some of the steps that have recently been taken to ensure this, and then to look briefly to the future.
First, the World Bank itself, as your Lordships will know, the Bank lends at semi-commercial rates, recycling funds borrowed in the market. The scale of its lending has increased enormously over the past ten years, commitments rising from some 777 million dollars in 1967 to over 5 billion dollars in 1976. Along with this massive increase in scale has gone an increasing concentration on projects in the agricultural sector, reflecting the general recognition that this is indeed the crucial area. In order to back this rapid expansion, the Governments who stand behind the Bank have recently agreed in principle a Selective Capital Increase of 6·9 billion dollars. That has not involved the United Kingdom, because it was based on IMF quotas, and the United Kingdom's IMF quota has not been increased relative to the overall increase in quotas.
Secondly, I would refer to the International Development Association, which can be described as "the soft lending arm" of the World Bank. Your Lordships will have been pleased to see a recent report that negotiations were successfully concluded for the fifth replenishment of IDA, for a total of 7·6 billion dollars. This will more than maintain the real value of IDA's lending over the next three years; and we are pleased that some of the oil-rich countries have been able to contribute, although the vast bulk of the resources will come from the traditional donors. The United Kingdom's share, at 10·7 per cent. of the
702
total, will be some 814 million dollars. We give IDA high priority in our limited aid resources because of its concentration on the poorest countries.
Thirdly, I would mention that an increase has been proposed in the capital of the international Finance Corporation —that is the part of the World Bank group which assists private sector projects in the developing countries—and we are considering the question of a contribution to that. So, looking into the future, we hope that agreement will soon be reached on a capital increase for the Asian Development Bank, more than doubling its capital and allowing a considerable increase in its lending. Apart from those particular matters, there is the question of a general capital increase for the World Bank. Discussions here are at a very early stage, but we shall play a full part in them.
Finally, I turn again within the context of the Bill to the subject of export credit. This Bill increases ECGD's sterling limit and sets up a separate limit against which ECGD's foreign currency liabilities will be counted. On export credit matters generally, it remains Government policy that the United Kingdom should play a full and active part in negotiations to rationalise and restrain competition over terms for export credit. We are continuing our efforts to avoid such competition escalating into any kind of mutually damaging and self-defeating export credit war. However, at the same time, we are determined that the whole package of facilities and support available from the ECGD should stand fair comparison with that available to exporters in our competitor countries. Any attempt by us unilaterally to restrict credit terms in one country or for our exports as a whole could only put our exporters at a competitive disadvantage and it is for this reason that we place so much importance on international discussion and agreement. This bore some fruit last week with the Government's decision to endorse international guidelines on export credit terms.
In the United Kingdom, Government support for export credit is provided through the Export Credit Guarantee Department. The Department will soon celebrate its sixtieth birthday and most exporters would agree that it plays and

703
has played a vital role in our export effort. The figures speak for themselves, since ECGD now insures over 35 per cent. of British exports, and in the last financial year it covered exports valued at almost £8,500 million. Of this, about three-quarters was in the vital area of exports for cash and exports sold on short-credit terms which, of course, bring the greatest benefit to the balance-of-payments. Some of our exports, however, are sold on medium and long-term credit at fixed rates of interest. The Government re-finance a substantial amount of the credit advanced by the clearing banks on these terms.
Noble Lords will be aware that a number of changes to ECGD arrangements have been in preparation for some time. It was announced on 15th December last that it would be necessary to reduce expenditure on refinancing of export credit and that this will be partly achieved by the agreement by the clearing banks to provide more finance from their own resources. The Government would acknowledge that and say that we are most grateful to the clearing banks in this respect.
Savings on refinancing export credit will also be partly achieved by a switch to foreign currency financing for business, and that will be encouraged by a range of measures to be taken by ECGD, including the provision of improved support for contracts in foreign currency. Details of measures have been published both by Press Notice and by a Written Answer to a Parliamentary Question in the other place on 21st February 1977. For this reason, the Bill provides for a separate limit on foreign currency business undertaken by ECGD. Banks and exporters are already joining in active efforts to bring about the switch to foreign currency financing of long-term credit business. The Bill thus provides the Export Credit Guarantee Department with the means of providing a flexible and positive response to the changing needs of our exporters. I believe all noble Lords will welcome that.
In conclusion, may I say that the wide-ranging provisions of this Bill touch on principles and institutions which are important to the stable and equitable growth of the world economy as well as
704
to more parochial interests and I commend it, on that basis to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord McCluskey.)
6.27 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said, this Bill is really divided into three parts—the Export Credit Guarantee Department, the IMF and the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I should like to say at once that I support the provisions in the Bill for increasing the ECGD's limit for fresh facilities for export contracts in foreign currencies.
It is remarkable how rapidly the Department has increased the volume of its business. I remember that two years ago there was a debate in this House on the Export Guarantees Bill 1975, which then increased the Department's limit. I remember that on that occasion the Government forecast that the ceiling which was fixed in that Bill would probably last for a minimum of five years. The Department's limit is to be raised again.
I see from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill that the introduction of foreign currency commitments is expected to lead to an increase of about 40 in the staff of the ECGD. Then the Memorandum goes on to say:
"The expected increase in the volume of other commitments is also likely to lead to some increase in staff."
I cannot help wondering whether the really enormous increase in the volume of ECGD's business alone will not lead to fairly substantial increases in staff. If that is necessary, I make no complaint whatsoever about it, because I think the Department has every reason to be proud of the growth of its operations in recent years.
However, rather more generally, I must confess to some uneasiness about the terms on which we offer credit abroad. The Russian deal offered by the former Prime Minister has been a worrying example, I think, just over two years ago, because on that occasion massive credit was offered to the Soviet Union at an undisclosed rate of interest which the Soviet Union would have been able to use while at the same time consistently arming itself to threaten our own

705
existence. I have seen quoted—I believe it was in the Sunday Telegraph some six weeks ago—a figure of £18 billion of net indebtedness owed by the Soviet Union alone to countries of the West. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could confirm whether that figure is in any way accurate. But for us to be offering credit on very favourable terms to the Soviet Union, and indeed to the Iron Curtain countries as a whole, cannot be desirable. I was very glad to hear the noble and learned Lord state in his speech the Government's determination to lend their weight to preventing a continuation of an international credit war or race. I was also glad to hear his reference to the EEC's international guidelines agreement, which was concluded only last week.
The Bill, as it relates to the IMF, is complicated and I should like to concentrate on the simple issue of our drawing rights from the Fund. We have, in recent months, seen a temporary increase in the percentage of our quota which we can borrow. As I understand it, this stood at 125 per cent., and we have now, in fact, borrowed 145 per cent. of our quota with the IMF. I shall not go into the rights and wrongs of this. From the Government Front Bench, the noble and learned Lord had every right to say that it has been a very important drawing right in keeping the finances of this country going, except that I am bound to observe that, apart from Italy, we are the only developed nation to have been incapable of dealing with the problems presented by the oil crisis of the last three years. I bear in mind that the noble and learned Lord made the point that countries have had to run very large deficits, but we are alone in our scale of borrowing.
What I find difficult to understand, and I should like the assistance of the noble and learned Lord, are two points. First, as I understand it, the new quota for us in 1978 will be raised. I suppose, therefore, that in the interim—and it is a very short interim, of course—as we begin to repay our loans (if indeed that is what we are going to do) we shall have 125 per cent. as our quota borrowing target, until this is adjusted a year from now. But I must confess that I do not understand how this will work. I gave the noble and earned Lord notice of the question
706
which I have asked, and if he could give me a little illustration on this point I should be grateful.
It appears to me that the matter is further complicated by the fact that, although under the Bill the Government may by order increase the limit of our quota to the IMF—in other words, the Government must come to Parliament in order to do this—there is no corresponding duty laid on the Government to obtain Parliamentary approval to further massive borrowings from the International Monetary Fund. I am not making a political point about this, because this has been the case in the past. But it seems to me that these massive borrowings which we are making are a clear example of control of the Legislature by the Executive, and I must say that on that aspect I do not find the Bill as desirable as it otherwise might be.
Also, it is salutary to reflect that, side by side with these misgivings about the country borrowing from the IMF in order to support a way of life which, perhaps, we should not he supporting, there is the wholly admirable intention of Clause 5, which raises the limits for borrowing by, and advances to, the Commonwealth Development Corporation. The policy of the CDC has always seemed to me to be as soundly based as anyone could wish for. It is CDC policy not only that its operations should be economically beneficial to the countries in which it is operating, but also that CDC projects should bring a reasonable financial rate of return.
When Cmnd. 6544, entitled The British Aid Programme in 1975 was published, the Government at that time expressed their support for projects in poorer countries covering renewable natural resources; in other words, agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The noble and learned Lord referred in his speech to the Kenya Tea Development Authority and, indeed, only 18 months ago I had the good fortune to be able to see on the ground a little of the work which is going on under that Authority. These projects can, of course, be hazardous. Not only do they depend upon accurate assessments of geographical and weather conditions, but they also have to be acceptable to people living in countries where, very often, agricultural land is the prime source of wealth and therefore in great demand,

707
and not always easily let out to people who like to start splendid projects which, perhaps, local people do not think are quite as splendid as other people might believe.
I have always taken the view—and I listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said about the World Bank—that CDC supported projects are very much preferable to World Bank supported projects, because I think I am right in saying that the CDC usually acts as a principal in its projects. It has therefore built up over the years, and is continuing to build up, a tremendous measure of expertise and practical administrative ability. I may or may not be right in making that comparison, but, none the less, I think that the way in which the CDC operates is very desirable from that point of view.
I should be very interested to hear from the Government whether the new policy for the aid programme, which I understand is to be reviewed in 1977, is, so far as can be seen at the moment, a success. The noble and learned Lord gave us a wealth of detail, but what I am not quite certain about is whether this new emphasis on agricultural, forestry and fishery projects in the poorer countries is, so far as can be seen at the moment, a social, commercial and financial success. I support the main purpose of this Bill, and agree that it should now be read a second time.
6.36 p.m.
Lord THURLOW: My Lords, I do not propose to get involved in some of the more technical aspects of this Bill, but should like to make two points which I hope will be regarded by the noble and learned Lord as constructive. There seems to me, in the light of my own experience in relation to smaller dependent territories, to be a gap in the mechanisms by which we seek to help the development of the smallest of our dependent territories. As has been said, the CDC has not just a good, but an excellent record. It has built up a sensitive and effective administration to apply prudent and highly beneficial principles, and it has experienced and able staff who work very closely with the many foreign and Commonwealth Governments in different parts of the world. Similarly, the Department
708
of Overseas Development has built up a remarkably effective apparatus to work with other Governments all over the world, on a very much wider spectrum of functions than the CDC.
But in spite of the quality of our agencies, there have for many years been great difficulties about helping to provide capital for some of the small-scale commercial development projects that some very small island territories require for their development. The sums of capital required are often tiny in relation to the general aid picture, but they do not meet the criterion of a reasonable commercial return, which the CDC has very properly drawn up, and as commercial ventures it is difficult to fit them into the framework of direct overseas aid.
Perhaps I may use the Turks and Caicos Islands as an illustration. I believe that the Minister herself has visited these lovely islands, and I strongly recommend your Lordships to take every possible opportunity to do the same. When I went there on one of my earliest visits as Governor, from the neighbouring territory for which I was responsible, I was able to say, to the surprise of the inhabitants, that I was probably the only Governor of those islands who could, according to reports, claim that his grandmother had been born on one of their beaches.
For 10 years and more, these territories have struggled with us to find ways of assisting their very modest development programmes. Together we have been able to make very little progress. They need, for instance, improved communications as a key to tourism and their own various construction industries in the different Islands. These industries cannot be expected, however, to yield an ordinary commercial profit, so the CDC has been unable to take up this kind of project. It is difficult to fit such projects into the normal rules of direct capital aid. As it is, we grant-aid this territory for their ordinary budget; but it is, I suggest, unacceptable to leave matters at that.
Can we not modify the framework to enable some capital aid for commercial ventures in very small territories to be made available on special terms? As I have suggested, the sums involved are too small to affect the general aid picture.

709
The inability of the British people to help is quite incomprehensible to the inhabitants of these territories when they see the actual sums involved. Luckily, the Minister has available, I understand, a ready-made instrument to tackle such problems, in the form of a very effective joint working party of the CDC and the Department of Overseas Development.
May I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to bring the issue to the attention of the Minister and suggest that the joint Working Party should be asked to work out proposals to enable help to be given as a special case to the commercial development projects in these smaller Island territories. For instance, a line could perhaps be drawn between territories on the basis of size of population, so that steps taken in this kind of context would not create embarrassing territory precedents in larger territories. Perhaps the Department of Overseas Development could establish a special fund for smaller territories and make grants from it to the CDC so that the latter could assume responsibility for the administration of the projects without prejudicing their own valid rules for a normal, reasonable, commercial return.
My second point relates to the education of public opinion on aid programmes and strategy. The noble and learned Lord has referred to the very great increase in general international aid. It is a truism that in the next five to 10 years the developed countries must do far more to help the less developed countries to help themselves, or else the scale of human suffering by famine, plague and otherwise is inevitably going to increase far beyond the scope of our present imagining. After all, the amount of food production in the world—as the noble and learned Lord said, this is the most crucial of all the areas—must more than double in the next 15 to 20 years. Apart from finance, this is an appalling challenge to all technical and administrative resources.
It is quite obvious that, as a matter of practical politics, Her Majesty's Government cannot be expected in the immediate future to increase the aid Vote by any spectacular amount, though I hope that some increase may be possible before too long. However, it is possible—indeed, in terms of the current price of North Sea
710
oil and the world price of oil it is quite probable—that in the next three to five years this country will swing over to a very large balance of payments surplus. Some of the optimists have predicted a swing round, first to a balance in three to four years and then to a positive surplus as large, within 10 years, as our negative balance is now. There is going to be, in any case, a complete revolution in terms of our foreign exchange problems. Obviously there are many uncertainties and preconditions, including, as a first step, the need for us to improve our own productivity. However, we are undoubtedly going to have a very large external balance.
At present, all the emphasis in Government education of public opinion must be on the need to cut back. We are in a dark phase, but the sun is beginning to rise over the horizon. We can at least look forward to an era when we not only can but must find new means of dealing with a large external surplus. At this point we can, and should, greatly increase our own overseas aid and give a lead in the EEC, and internationally, to more ambitious aid strategies. However, the Government's hands will be tied unless public opinion has been educated to accept the change, and this will not be easy. It has taken years to get the public to realise that we are poor and must cut back, and in the process overseas aid is looked at rather grudgingly. After all, we have to borrow the money that we give away. How are we to expect the man in the street to respond quickly to proposals to allocate vastly greater sums to overseas aid?
Therefore I ask the noble and learned Lord to suggest to the Minister that as soon as possible she should embark on a long-term, carefully drawn up informaton campaign designed to induce the public to realise that in the not too distant future we shall be able to adopt an entirely new appoach to the scale of our contributions to international aid. I hope that the full resources of the Government's information machinery will be involved so that when the time comes, which will not be all that far off in terms of trends of public opinion, the Government of the day may not find themselves confronted by an inward-looking reluctance to support a possible big increase. I think that we could find ourselves in real difficulty in effecting this kind of change in public understanding. Therefore I hope that the

711
Government will bring their mind to bear on the problem so that when the time comes we are not caught with our pants down.
6.49 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene and I apologise for not having put down my name. However, I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and emphasise the last point which he made. The whole story of the last 25 to 30 years of so-called aid has been completely misunderstood. I am sorry to be arrogant, but I speak with a great deal of authority on this subject. The fact is that we have treated aid as though it were alms-giving. It is not alms-giving. It is not a question of just giving and helping out of charity. The point is that this is a real and a meaningful investment and that what we have failed to do over the last 30 years we must redress now.
We must make people in this country understand that what we are doing is not putting a penny in the blind man's tin, but actually and in definite reality investing in the future of this country. I am not speaking about tied aid, or anything like that, but we have no future as a country unless we realise the meaningfulness of the developing world in which we have to invest. We can call it anything we like—grants in aid, private investment; whatever we call it, it is something which is creating a meaningful and significant development for this country and also something which the world cannot do without.
6.51 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I should like to respond first to the matters which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and supported by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. First, I am sure that the approach which they both supported is right; that we should not be going as alms givers, and indeed I am happy to see in one of the documents which was published in 1975—the report of the Development Assistance Committee—that the official reports are beginning to use language which recognises that one is not handing out alms but in fact engaging in technical co-operation with Governments and bodies in the developing countries.
712
As to educating public opinion, the Department of Overseas Development has quite recently set aside a substantial fund, £150,000, to assist voluntary organisations to engage in development education—that is to say, education of public opinion in this country—and that was done with the very purpose that was so eloquently supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. So that when the time comes—and one prays that it may be soon—that resources are more readily available, then public opinion can indeed the more readily accept a Government move towards making these resources available in larger measure to the developing countries.
I will certainly bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the specific matters mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. Turning to the point with which he began, we are aware of his close concern for the little islands; he was formerly a Governor of the Bahamas, as your Lordships will no doubt know. The Government are wholly in sympathy with his approach. However, the Commonwealth Development Corporation has worked very successfully after a somewhat hesitant beginning some years ago and is expert in identifying projects which are viable, and these are the projects which the Commonwealth Development Corporation seeks out and then supports. Indeed, the Corporation in fact sent teams out to the area of which the noble Lord spoke. The problem there has been that the projects which are viable are extremely difficult to find and, unless there is a change in the framework within which CDC operates, it will not be easy to provide the kind of support of which the noble Lord spoke. However, what he has said will be taken into account in considering the whole matter.
I turn now to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. As to staffing, it is thought that the Department in fact has sufficient staff, with relatively modest increases, to handle the increase in business. There have in fact been some increases, and there are currently increases in staff, but partly because the techniques which will be employed, for example, in relation to foreign currency financing are similar to the techniques which have been developed over the years by the Department, it is thought that not too many extra staff will be required, although

713
this is a new departure. Also it is thought that other measures which are taking place, for example the installation and use of a computer at Cardiff, will tend to reduce the requirement for increases in staff, and that will help to keep down the numbers. So while we welcome the noble Lord's tributes to the efficiency of the Department we hope that the increase in numbers will he kept within quite modest limits.
The noble Lord did not surprise me when he spoke of the particular matter of the credit deal with the Soviet Union. As he said, it is now something over two years old. He asked me specifically about the figure which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, saying that at the present time the net indebtedness of the Soviet Union was some 18 billion dollars. I do not know the exact basis for that figure but in a reply which the Financial Secretary gave to a Question in another place on 10th March, it was then said that it was believed that the total convertible currency indebtedness of the USSR at the end of 1976 was estimated to be in the region of 15 to 16 billion US dollars. So, given the passage of time, it is not too far away from the mark.
On the general matter of his concern about the arrangements with the Soviet Union and with the Eastern countries, further commitments with all Eastern countries are taken on after an assessment has been made of that country's ability to service its debts. In the case of the Eastern countries it is not considered that their present levels of borrowing from Western countries are likely to present insupportable repayment problems, and the Euro-currency market seems to share this view. Indeed, their past repayment record has been impeccable, so on strict commercial and underwriting grounds the extension of further credit is justified. But I should like to reiterate something I said when I made my first speech, that a careful watch has been kept, and will continue to be kept, on the developing situation, and that will include close consultation and co-operation with our Western colleagues in order to avoid any kind of cut-throat credit war. So the Government are well aware of the problem and consultations will proceed. There is also some evidence that the Eastern
714
European countries themselves are taking steps to reduce the level of indebtedness in their plans for the next five years.
I was then asked—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave me notice of—a question in relation to the IMF. I think he did that in the belief that it would help me to answer it. I hope that is correct and I hope the answer I give him will help him to understand the matter because it is indeed difficult. The position as I understand it is this: the first 25 per cent. —the first credit tranche on top of 100 per cent.—is granted without undue difficulty. A letter of application has to be signed. Extra tranches are granted on a letter of intent. We had examples of such letters in 1967, 1969 and December of 1976. In December 1975 we obtained agreement to draw the first 25 per cent. and we drew it in May of 1976. At about the same time we drew 1,000 million special drawing rights under the oil facility. In Jamaica in January 1976 it was agreed that all quotas would be increased by an average of 34 per cent., and ad interim all credit tranches were increased by 45 per cent.
In December we arranged that the three remaining credit tranches could be drawn, plus the allowed additional 45 per cent., plus the temporary 45 per cent. increase in the first credit tranche. That meant that the total which we could draw, leaving aside the oil facility, was 145 per cent. of our quota. Although in 1978 the new arrangements about which we spoke are to come into effect, in practice our rights in relation to that 145 per cent. are determined by the old quotas, by the arrangements I have referred to and by the Jamaica interim agreement. In other words, our rights are not going to be diminished by the implementation of the agreement.
The other point in relation to that which the noble Lord mentioned was that there was no duty to obtain Parliamentary approval. Of course, one agrees that that is so, but I think in substance there is very little in that point, because he would surely acknowledge that no Government could go to the International Monetary Fund or any other body to obtain any substantial loan without that matter falling under the scrutiny of Parliament. As we have seen quite recently, even if the matter does not come before Parliament on a formal

715
Motion, ways and means can be found—for example, by refusing to adjourn the House—to put the matter to a vote.
The noble Lord mentioned that the Commonwealth Development Corporation is soundly based, and referred to it looking for a reasonable return. I think that is not quite accurate. The aim of the body is to break even, taking one year with another. He asked me specifically whether the new emphasis about which I spoke and which had been referred to before was a success. I think I can answer that. It is really too early to say whether new projects will be successful, but the CDC has considerable experience in assessing such projects and it applies the the same criteria to these projects as it has applied to others. The CDC is, therefore, confident of their success.
The noble Lord also mentioned the role of the World Bank and compared and contrasted that with the CDC. I will not follow him in that endeavour, because they are doing different things, and I think it would perhaps be unfortunate if I, on behalf of the Government, sought to draw invidious comparisons between the two. I would say that they are both doing an excellent service within the field that they have undertaken, and I would not want to detract from the success of either. My Lords, I think I have replied to the points, and I can conclude my speech on that note.
On Question, Bill read 2ª; Committee negatived.

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY (FINANCE) BILL
7.2 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, which is an important one, deals with financial questions relating to British Nuclear Fuels Limited, The National Nuclear Corporation Limited, and the Radiochemical Centre Limited. The Bill allows the provision of more public capital for BNFL and TRCL by the Secretary of State and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, to which I shall refer from now on, if I may, as the AEA. It also empowers the Government to guarantee loans raised by either company. For BNFL only, it authorises the
716
Government to guarantee, within financial limits, the company's ability to refund advance payments which customers may have made under contracts for the company's services. Finally, it authorises the Government to incur expenditure in acquiring shares in the NNC, whether from the AEA or from any other willing vendor. I should emphasise that this is not a nationalisation power or a power of compulsory acquisition.
BNFL was set up in 1971, and the Atomic Energy Authority Act of 1971 transferred to it the Atomic Energy Authority's nuclear fuel cycle business—that is, enrichment of uranium, manufacture of fuel and reprocessing of irradiated fuel. The company also procures uranium, but mainly for the generating boards; and it operates two Magnox power stations and sells electricity to the grid. Following the transfer of this fuel cycle business, the company issued some £18 million paid-up shares to the AEA, and assumed the outstanding liability for some £36 million of Exchequer loans related to the latter's nuclear fuel operations. The loans are repayable by instalments, and have now been reduced to £26 million.
Sections 11 and 12 of the 1971 Act allowed the Secretary of State and the AEA to provide further capital within an aggregate further sum of £50 million, which limit could be, and indeed recently has been, increased by order to £75 million. The company's profits before tax in the last financial year were some £9 million, compared with £3·4 million in its first year of operation. Profits have been ploughed back, and the company was substantially self-financing during the first five years of its life.
The company now needs substantial external finance, however, for its capital investment programme. In this connection, the Government have made £25 million available to the company under the 1971 Act. But it is clear that the limit of £75 million on capital payments will not cover capital needs in the next five years or so. Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill, therefore, increases the payment limits to £300 million and provides that this limit may be raised to £500 million by order, the draft of which must be approved by Affirmative Resolution.

717
The company's investment programme will involve a total expenditure during the next ten years of about £1,500 million at 1976 prices. This expenditure will cover such items as the refurbishing of the existing Magnox reprocessing plant, the development of the waste vitrification process, the development and extension of the company's uranium enrichment plant at Capenhurst, work to maintain the earning capacity of other facilities on the company's sites, and the construction of a new plant at Windscale for the reprocessing of oxide fuel for home and overseas customers. Part of this will be financed from internal resources, and part of the oxide plant in particular would be financed by advance payments from overseas customers. But taking account of this the additional requirements for external capital to the years 1982/3 will be some £230 million, a sum which far outruns the present statutory limit of £75 million on capital payments to the company. Taking account also of the higher costs which may arise, for example, from constantly improving environmental and safety requirements, leads to the new payments limits of £300 million and £500 million provided under Clause 2(1) that I have already mentioned.
My Lords, I would, if I may, emphasise two points. Construction of the proposd oxide reprocessing plant at Windscale depends on planning permission. As the House will know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced his intention of calling in the application for his own decision following a public inquiry. The fact that the Government are ensuring that the company may have access to funds for its investment programme (including this plant if it is built), does not in any way prejudice that inquiry.
The Government also wish to see the company cover some of its investment by private borrowing so as to diversify its sources of finance. To facilitate this, Clause 1(1) of the Bill will empower them to guarantee such borrowings. Borrowing against Government guarantee is effectively an alternative to direct Government capital so, under Clause 2(2)(c) of the Bill, sums guaranteed would count against the new limits. The company has, in fact, already negotiated a private loan facility of £100 million from a banking consortium
718
and the Government intend to guarantee it subject to the enactment of this legislation.
I have mentioned that the part of the new oxide plant provided for overseas customers will be financed by advance payments, The customer would normally get his money back, so to speak, to set off against charges made for services. But there could be circumstances in which they would be returnable in cash. Large sums are involved and overseas customers may require some external guarantee of the company's ability to repay in such circumstances. Clause 1(2) of the Bill therefore authorises such guarantees, within a separate limit of £400 million, which may be increased to £500 million by order under Clause 2(3). These sums reflect the possible cost of the plant capacity which might be involved.
The Radiochemical Centre Limited, which was also set up in 1971, took over the radio-isotope business then carried on by the Atomic Energy Authority. Section 13 of the 1971 Act envisages the provision of public capital for the company, but limits the amount of payments to it by the Secretary of State and the AEA to £5 million, which sum may be increased by order to £7 million. TRC's business is the manufacture and sale of radio-isotopes for use in medicine, research and industry. It is a vigorous company, which competes successfully in world markets. It made a group net profit—after interest but before taxation—in 1975–76 of £2·6 million and a return of 36 per cent. on assets employed. It has paid dividends to the Exchequer, through the AEA, in every year since its incorporation.
The company will require some £10 million external capital to cover its expansion plans, substantially for financing a new plant at Cardiff, and £5 million of this will be provided by means of the AEA taking up further shares. The remainder is to be raised privately. Although the statutory limits on the provision of capital have thus not ye; been exhausted, it seems prudent to make provision now to ensure that this expanding company will have access to further capital as the need raises. Clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill therefore increases the upper limit on payments to the company to £15 million—an adjustment of the original

719
£7 million for inflation. It also seems prudent to put the company on the same footing as BNFL, and to provide for Government guarantees of loans. Clause 1(1) of the Bill does this. Again, under Clause 2(2)(c) sums guaranteed will count against the main financing limits.
Finally, Clause 3 of the Bill authorises the Secretary of State to incur expenditure on, or in connection with, the acquisition of shares in the National Nuclear Corporation Limited or its subsidiaries. I emphasise that this is not a power to nationalise. It simply puts on a more sensible basis the powers which the Government already have for managing their interests in the nuclear industry. NNC was set up in 1973 when it was decided to reorganise the then existing nuclear construction companies—namely, British Nuclear Design and Construction Limited and the Nuclear Power Group Limited—into a single unit, which comprised NNC and a wholly-owned subsidiary, the Nuclear Power Company Limited. The AEA took a 15 per cent. stake in the NNC; the GEC, 50 per cent. and British Nuclear Associates, a consortium of companies engaged in the nuclear engineering field, 35 per cent. The Secretary of State did not at that time have express financial authority to incur expenditure to take up the shares which were to represent the public stake. They were therefore taken up by the AEA, under the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954. For the same reason, the Authority was the agency which acquired further shares in NNC in 1976 when it was decided, by agreement between all the parties, that the private stake should be reduced and the AEA's holding increased to 35 per cent.
This indirect management of the public holding in NNC is workable at the moment. The position is in many ways similar to that of BNFL and TRCL, in which the public shareholding is also held by the AEA. But in the future it may be found advantageous, and in the interests of the nuclear industry, for these holdings to be held and managed by the Government more directly. Existing legislation allows this for BNFL and TRCL but not for NNC. Clause 3 of the Bill remedies the sitution, but leaves transfer from the AEA on a voluntary basis. It would also allow the Government, subsequent to such a transfer, to maintain their proportional
720
holding in the company if further capital needed to be introduced, and to acquire further shares from the other interests if they agreed that this should be done.
I emphasise that this would not empower the Government to compel anyone to transfer shares in NNC or to fix the transfer price. It would simply allow expenditure on buying shares if the holders are willing to sell; and to pay an agreed price, not a price fixed unilaterally. I would also emphasise that the provision does not mean that expenditure is in prospect. It is not. The Government have no proposals for buying any shares in NNC. I hope your Lordships will agree that this power to incur expenditure in acquiring NNC shares is a sensible one, and that it is sensible to take it now. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Strabolgi.)
7.18 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for a very full and careful explanation of the purposes of the Bill. It is, of course, a Money Bill. Therefore we shall not be considering it in detail in Committee and are thus denied the opportunity of tabling probing Amendments. I shall take the opportunity on this Second Reading to make a few points: first, of a rather general nature relating to our present nuclear programme and, finally, of a rather more detailed nature arising out of the specific provisions of the Bill.
The present Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Benn, has held his present office for two years. We are hoping that soon he will be able to begin making some major decisions. I do not want to sound too critical in that way. I think that some of the decisions might well have been made by now, but one does not want to minimise the difficulties confronting him. The most important decision which is still on his desk is the decision as to which of the principal types of reactor he is to select for the next generation of power stations. This is a decision which, in the view of the industry at least, is now pressing, and which I would hope we can expect in the near future.
The three principal reactors which present themselves as possibilities are,

721
first, the steam generating heavy water reactor; secondly, the pressurised-type reactor, designed in the United States and used there; finally, the advanced gas-cooled reactor. Many of us will have read that the American pressurised-type reactor has been criticised in some quarters because of the alleged shortcomings in safety. But it is, we are told, the cheapest at least of the options available. I do not pretend that the decision is an easy one, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will be able to give us some indication of whether the Minister's mind is moving in that direction.
A second matter to which I hope the Secretary of State will be turning his mind in the near future in conjunction with his European colleagues, is the question of the siting of the research centre for the JET project. The Secretary of State is just now himself the President of the Council of Energy Ministers, and we understand that they are to meet again on the 29th of this month. It is hoped that they will reach a decision then. The front runner, if I can call it that, for the decision as to where to site the research centre for this major product is our own Culham, and, when he replies in a moment, I would hope that the noble Lord can confirm the Government's intention to press for a decision to site the research centre at Culham. May I add, in parenthesis, that the JET project is of course the project to generate electricity by means of nuclear fusion rather than nuclear fission, which is the system we are presently using.
So much for the general points. I should like now to take up one or two detailed matters that occur in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me some guidance on them in a moment. First, we know from our background information, and the noble Lord confirmed this in his speech, that the British Nuclear Fuels Corporation still has a substantial quantity of money borrowed from the Consolidated Fund. The figure I have is of £28 million still outstanding. I want to ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that the rate of interest paid on those monies, which is only 5½, per cent., is appropriate in modern conditions.
722
The next point I was about to raise is one that the noble Lord emphasised and re-emphasised in his speech; that is, the question of the further acquisition of shares in the National Nuclear Corporation. I was glad to hear that there will be no compulsion on the existing shareholders to part with their shares unless they wish to and unless a price can be readily agreed. I must confess that at first sight that was a matter which gave me some concern. There are many other topics we could deal with in a general way in a debate such as this, but I do not propose to do so. We had a long debate not long ago on the Flowers Report in connection with the environment and waste. A little longer ago we dealt at length with the Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constables) Bill. It may well he that such matters will be raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, when he speaks in a moment.
In general, we recognise the need for this measure which, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has explained so clearly, increases the provision of funds for these companies within the nuclear industry. We regret that large additional quantities of public money are necessary, but we recognise the needs for it, and for that reason we shall be glad to see this Bill pass through into law.
7.25 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I shall try to copy the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his admirable brevity. May I begin by endorsing the thanks which he has given to the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench for the lucidity and comprehensiveness with which he has explained the provisions of this Bill. I only wish that we could have had a little longer to study it. I realise that there were background circumstances which required us to look at this Bill only three days after it left another place, but it makes it difficult for those of us who have been concerned with other Bills to turn our minds suddenly to the complex affairs of the nuclear industry and to do them justice at such short notice. To do them justice we should have to pay a considerable amount of attention to the provisions of a Bill which includes a possible increase of £500 million in the capital of BNFL, to say nothing of the provisions regarding Radiochemical

723
Centre Limited, which I think are entirely uncontroversial and to which I shall not refer further.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will realise that not everybody is entirely happy about a large expansion of nuclear reprocessing in this country at a time when some of the technological, environmental and political problems are, to say the least of it, not immediately soluble even if some of them can at some time be solved. I should like briefly to recapitulate some of the problems that were mentioned by my honourable friend Mr. David Penhaligon in another place. First, the Atomic Energy Authority and BNFL have consistently maintained that in the long term they will be able to develop a process for vitrifying the high level radioactive wastes which are at present held in liquid form on the Windscale site. They further claim that, even if it was to be quite a long time before the vitrification processes were perfected, they could manage to store liquid wastes arising from our domestic nuclear programme in the area that is available at Windscale. Speaking from memory, I think we are talking about an area of no more than 8,000 square metres by the year 2000 to accommodate the whole of the liquid wastes that could arise from our own programme.
Nevertheless, they admit that it would be much better if one could store these wastes in a solid form, whereby the management of them, and the control of the heat arising from the continuing decay processes, would be much more readily accomplished. So they say that this is an essential component of the long-term programme which they are confident can be solved technologically. Without in any way doubting their assertions of confidence, I think that the layman would be happier if there could be a demonstration of that capability before these very large sums of money were approved, let alone spent. The Atomic Energy Authority have had very many years of research on the subject—I think that the Fingal project goes back to the late 1950s, and after that we had Harvest, and now no doubt there is a further stage in the development of the vitrification process—but we are still a long way from achieving commercial success in that regard.
724
The second point my honourable friend made—he dealt with this on several occasions during the proceedings on this subject in another place—was the question: What would happen to nuclear wastes not arising from our domestic programme but from the fuel which we are to process for overseas customers such as the Japanese and Swedes? I understand from the Secretary of State on Second Reading that we are not necessarily obliged to store the wastes arising from, for example, the Japanese contracts at Windscale, and that in certain circumstances we should be able to return them to the customers.
There are two questions I would put to the noble Lord about that, although I am not sure he can reply to them at this stage. First, how can we in fact guarantee that the contracts will include such a provision when presumably they are a matter for the day-to-day management of the BNFL rather than for the Secretary of State for Energy? I am not sure whether this matter is covered by the general direction powers of the Secretary of State. It is a difficult question and I accept that the noble Lord may not be able to answer it now. Secondly, I am concerned about the plutonium arising from nuclear wastes. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the point of the exercise is to extract from spent fuel elements which are returned to Windscale the components which it is possible to use as fuel; that is, uranium and plutonium still contained in the fuel elements.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State gave assurances--he repeated them on other occasions in another place—that any plutonium arising under these contracts with overseas customers would be subject to the "most stringent and careful safeguards". We already have stringent and careful safeguards because we are members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, but as the noble Lord will be aware, we and our allies who are members of that Agency are not satisfied with the existing safeguards; we say they should be strengthened and we as a nation are, according to the brief issued by the Department, taking a leading part in informal discussions with our friends to consider means for strengthening the control of plutonium, including the possibility of some form of international régime for its storage.

725
The question which arises, therefore, is this. Supposing it is not feasible for us to arrive at any agreement with our partners in the International Atomic Energy Agency and we still have large masses of plutonium arising from the contracts we have entered into with overseas customers? Will we return that plutonium to them? And supposing they do not abide by the additional safeguards which we evidently think are necessary? Will we divert this plutonium to our own use, which of course would imply using it in commercial fast breeder reactors, a technological development which we have not yet decided on so far as our own energy needs are concerned?
Then there is the question of the ultimate disposal of radioactive wastes. If we have a large programme of nuclear energy, we cannot continue to store them at Windscale for ever, although, as I said, the Atomic Energy Authority and the BNFL are satisfied with the facilities they have there up to the end of the century. We must make provision beyond that and the National Radiological Protection Board has only today issued a report on the feasibility of dumping these solid wastes finally on the ocean bed. I found the accounts of this report in the newspapers this morning rather misleading because they purported to show that this problem was virtually solved by the NRPB's process research, whereas if one reads—I have not been able to obtain the whole report; it was not in the Library—the article by Paul Grimwood and Geoffrey Webb, who work at the NRPB, in today's New Scientist, one reads that the broad conclusion drawn from their study is that a great deal of additional work has to be done to solve some of the uncertainties that have been identified. They say:
"These uncertainties need to be substantially resolved before the disposal of high-level radioactive waste on the ocean floor is acceptable."
Thus, the point made by my honourable friend in another place still remains; we are undertaking this very large expansion of a reprocessing capability without having solved the difficult problem of what to do ultimately with the material that arises from the plant.
A question of which I have given the noble Lord notice is about the circum-
726
stances in which the guarantees that he mentioned would come into operation. The guarantees, we have been told in the brief—Ministers have reaffirmed this in another place—are not guarantees of performance; in other words, that the Government would ensure repayment of advances if the plant is built but does not work. That is not what the guarantees are for, and such operational risks, equally, are not going to fall on the BNFL. Thus, the question that was asked by my honourable friend and by Mr. Nigel Forman in another place was simply on whom those risks would fall. If—customers having made advance payments for the reprocessing of their spent fuel—when the plant is finally constructed it is, for technical reasons, inoperable, on whom does that risk fall? Who must repay the advances which the BNFL are holding from customers?
In connection with the guarantees, the Americans have been extremely concerned about the growth of reprocessing facilities. Indeed, before the presidential election President Ford was expressing great anxiety about the avoidance of proliferation which, he said, must take precedence over economic interests. For that reason he announced in October 1976 a three-year moratorium on nuclear fuel reprocessing in the United States, fie said on that occasion that the United States should no longer regard the re-processing of used nuclear fuel to produce plutonium as a necessary and inevitable step in the nuclear fuel cycle and
"…we should pursue reprocessing and recycling in future only if they are found to be consistent with our international objectives".
I think that that policy is being continued by President Carter, and is probably being reinforced, because President Carter has been, I would say, perhaps more concerned about the possibility of United States reprocessing technology getting into the hands of nations overseas who might use it even less responsibly. The United States decided to withhold American nuclear technology from Brazil and, as noble Lords will be aware, there is some argument going on between the United States and West Germany, who would like to step in and take over this contract.
If the United States have come to the conclusion that expansion of reprocessing

727
should be very limited and they are not going to do any themseleves, they might well seek to impose a ban on the transfer of nuclear material originating in the United States, and having been used as fuel in a country such as Japan, to Windscale for the purpose of these contracts. I am not sure what the international legalities of this matter are, but I understand that it was one of the reasons why there has been considerable delay in coming to a decision on those contracts with the Japanese. Obviously we cannot oppose this Bill here as we did in another place, but I must confess that, in spite of the debates that have taken place there, some considerable anxieties still remain in our minds and we should be most grateful for anything that the Minister can provide to resolve them this evening.
7.41 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords for taking part in this debate, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his constructive speech, and to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the very important matters that he has raised. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked me a number of questions which I shall do my best to answer first. He asked me first which type of reactor we should eventually decide upon. The design and development work were undertaken by the Nuclear Power Company, which completed and submitted the reference design documentation to the generating boards last June. The Atomic Energy Authority then advised the Government that this was an appropriate point at which to take stock of progress with the SGHWR programme. The AEA recommended that, for a variety of reasons, the SGHWR looked less attractive than it had seemed two years before and said that, on balance, it was its view, the SSEB dissenting, that the programme should be replaced by AGRs or by pressurised water reactors. The Government have not yet reached a view on this advice. The Secretary of State has agreed to a proposal that NNC should carry out a six-month assessment of the SGHWR, AGR and PWR systems on the clear understanding that this will not jeopardise the nucelar industry's ability to start work on site on an SGHWR early in 1979. The Government are not committed to accepting the outcome of this
728
assessment, but it should provide a firmer basis on which to reach a decision on the future of the SGHWR programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, also asked me about JET. The Joint European Torus, which is known as JET, is planned to be the centrepiece of the European Community's thermo-nuclear fusion research programme and it is estimated to cost about 135 million units of account to construct over the next four years. The main outstanding decision on JET is the choice of site, and we have had Starred Questions on this from time to time in your Lordships' House. This is on the agenda for the Council of Research Ministers next Tuesday, where we shall continue to press, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked me to confirm, the outstanding merits of the United Kingdom's candidate site at Culham near Oxford.
The noble Lord also asked me to clarify a point about the capital structure and the loans to BNFL. I am glad to have this opportunity to describe it a little further. The loans made to BNFL from the Consolidated Fund shown in the company's accounts as hearing interest rates of 5½ per cent. and 9½ per cent. were transferred to the company from the AEA when the company was set up in 1971. The loans at 5½ per cent.—all of which date back to before 1965—were transferred to BNFL at the interest rate that they bore when they were held by the AEA's trading fund. When the company obtained a further £10 million from the National Loans Fund during 1976, the interest rate on that was the rate prevailing at the time. There is no question of a subsidy to BNFL. These loans merely bear the interest rates fixed when they were issued.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked me for an assurance on NNC share acquisition. As I said in my opening speech, the powers to be given under the Bill are not in any sense powers of compulsory acquisition and there is not a power to nationalise. There is therefore no question of acquiring shares under this power against the wishes of their owners. It goes without saying that if this or any other Government were ever to wish to acquire shares by compulsion in the future, further legislation would he required. I confirm that we have no proposals of this kind.

729
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, dealt more with the environmental side of this matter, which I thought made for a very good balance in the debate. He raised a number of questions, asking me first about Windscale. As I said in my speech, this is of course the subject of an inquiry. I agree that there has been considerable public concern about the effects of Windscale operations on the health of those who work on the site and those who live in the area. It has been suggested that exposure to sources of radioactivity, including plutonium, causes a high incidence of blood cancer and similar diseases. In fact, comparison of mortality rates for Windscale employees and pensioners with the average for the population as a whole does not give any support to that theory. Statistics for West Cumbria as a whole do not indicate an excess of these diseases in the area.
With regard to the recent incidents at Windscale, I have nothing to add to the reports made to the House recently. However, it may be useful if I refer the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to the last Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who said on 15th December that he wished to inform the House that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate had informed him yesterday that,
"over the last year routine monitoring at Wind-scale has revealed detectable levels of tritium on the beach. Investigations by British Nuclear Fuels Limited, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, and NII have not yet established the source of the tritium, but cannot rule out that it may have come from the silo which is the possible source of the recent seepage of radioactive water. I am advised that the tritium level on the beach is well below that permissible in drinking water and constitutes no hazard to employees or the general public."— [Official Report (Commons W.A.), 15/12/76; col. 716.]
The Secretary of State will be reporting again to both Houses when its source is established. Meanwhile, the Government have asked BNFL to ensure that the unions on the site, the local authority and members of the local liaison committee are informed.
With regard to vitrification, early research work on the solidification of high-level liquid waste carried out at Harwell in the late 1950s and early 1960s demonstrated the feasibility of using a
730
one-step vitrification process. The present programme of work which commenced in 1973 is aimed at developing this process to the industrial scale for demonstration by the mid-1980s. This project is now at such a stage that its successful conclusion can be confidently predicted.
Through its membership of United Reprocessors and its contacts within the United Kingdom, the company has access to work on other forms of solidification of waste being undertaken overseas, in particular in France, which has already been taken to the prototype stage. British Nuclear Fuels Limited would not hesitate to adopt an overseas process if it became clear that this had advantages or that it would be available sooner than its own processes.
With regard to ultimate disposal, to which the noble Lord referred, several options are available. After vitrification, it could be disposed of to stable geological structures; into suitable ocean deeps; or by burial under the ocean floor. The noble Lord also referred to the announcement on the radio this morning that the National Radiological Protection Board was asked by BNFL to examine the idea of using the seabed for final disposal of the highly active wastes from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel when they have been vitrified. The report suggests that there are sufficient indications that the ocean floor should not be ruled out as a possible site for the disposal of high-level wastes, but there should be further evaluation of the subject in the coming years. Research work has indeed demonstrated the feasibility of the vitrification process.
Turning to the question of guarantees, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern that the guarantee of refund of advance payments should not involve a loss to public funds if the plant on which they have been spent does not work. However, the Government have already made it clear that the proposed reprocessing contracts will put this technological and operational risk on the customer, not the company. With regard to safeguards, I should say that safeguards means a system designed to ensure by means of accounting control and independent international inspection and verification that nuclear materials are not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

731
In regard to the United States, the noble Lord raised an interesting point. He also asked about the implications for the Japanese contract of US and other international restraints on the shipment of irradiated fuel. It is usual for nuclear fuel to be supplied subject to a requirement that it will not be transferred by the recipient to another country without the supplier's authorisation. This is the only international restraint on the transfer of spent fuel from Japan to the United Kingdom for reprocessing. This requirement is not new, and authorisation has never been refused for transfer to the United Kingdom. The Government of the United States are currently reviewing the conditions under which their authorisation for transfers is granted, against the conclusions of their recent review of nuclear export policy—
Lord AVEBURY: So, my Lords, is it conceivable that the Americans, at the end of this review, might come to the conclusion that fuel originating in the United States and being used in Japan was to be prohibited from being reprocessed in the United Kingdom? I agree that that would cause some diplomatic "agro" between Britain and the United States, but they might conceivably feel strongly enough about it to impose such a restriction.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, much international work is being done to strengthen non-proliferation arrangements. There is no reason to believe that this will not be successful. The noble Lord has raised an important point, and of course we and all other Governments have this very much in mind.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, complained about the urgency and the short notice with which the Bill was set down. It completed its passage in another place only on Monday. This timetable, which I entirely accept was short, was agreed through the usual channels. It was forced upon us by the terms of the Parliament Act. As your Lordships are aware, this is a Money Bill, which we are expected to pass within a calendar month, and for most of that period we shall be in Recess. I therefore apologise to noble Lords for the short notice that there has been to deal with the Bill, but I do not think that it has in any way
732
stopped us from having a first class debate. I am most grateful to the two noble Lords for taking part in it.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.

PAY RESEARCH UNIT
7.55 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they have taken towards obtaining agreement to the publication of the material for the comparability studies of the Pay Research Unit, as promised on 11th December 1975. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 11th December 1975, 15 months ago, the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, proposed a Motion, the purpose of which he stated was to elicit more information and more openness concerning the pay, pensions and perquisites of civil servants, and in order to try to see how these compared with those of similar people in the private sector.
In replying to the debate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when dealing with a suggestion that the studies of the Pay Research Unit should be published, warned us that such information was sensitive and had been obtained on grounds of confidentiality, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, also reinforced that in his speech. But he said that he would consider what could be published and would consult the people who had provided the information on which comparability studies were based, to see whether they would allow this information to become public in some form or another. On 20th May 1976, five months later, I received an Answer to a Written Question in which I asked what progress had been made. I was again reminded of the sensitivity of the matter, but I was told that,
"the intention is to complete the study into the question, and to discuss it with the interested parties before the suspension [of the Pay Research process] is lifted."—[Official Report, 20/5/76; col. 1569.]
By that time, because of the Government's incomes policy, the Pay Research Unit had become dormant, or much of its work was not being done.
So far, so good. I was pleased by that reply. I thought that progress was being

733
made, and I waited for an announcement. Nothing happened. Seven months passed. I returned to the attack. I again asked what progress had been made. I was told by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that the matter was under active consideration. I was reminded that there was an arrangement of confidentiality, which I must say I did know by then, and that people had to be consulted. At that moment, despite all my respect for the noble Lord the Leader of the House, my blood began to boil slightly because it seemed not only that nothing was being done but that we were actually moving backwards. The answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, seemed to be a step backwards from what the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, had said.
Therefore, I have tabled this Question again tonight, this time as an Unstarred Question. It is a Question which I think should really read: "Has anything at all been done? If so, what; and if not, is there any real intention of doing anything? "I believe that the importance of the matter is considerable. It may seem a small point on which to go pegging away, but in the original debate considerable disquiet was expressed that comparability studies were obviously producing some rather odd results. Cases were quoted where it seemed that civil servants were being paid between 20 and 50 per cent. above the rate for the job outside. I am told that there are plenty of explanations for some of these matters. One is that it tends to be because the Civil Service has national agreements: that out in the Provinces, particularly in the further parts of the United Kingdom, it may be that they are being paid much more than the local people who get regional agreements—I mean here the local people in private industry. Another reason, I am informed, is that, in order to have something comparable to the Civil Service, the comparability studies tend to be made of the big companies. Good employers are paying a lot, and are therefore not necessarily matching the mean of pay for that particular job.
But, my Lords, even granting all of this, we had a situation where there was disquiet—and this is the point, my Lords. It is not that we are trying to say that there was anything wrong, but that people were worried and thought that they had a right
734
to ask for an explanation. In fact, there were very knowledgeable people who were saying (not in that first debate in this House, but were saying elsewhere) that comparability studies were in some ways inadequate; and people were worried, again, by the fact that the studies themselves were prepared entirely by civil servants, who then produced the material for both sides of the bargaining.
My Lords, our Civil Service is uncorrupt, and we all know it; and I hope no-one will assume that I am making any kind of an attack. I am merely saying that when you have a situation like this, where to a certain extent people appear to be their own judge, jury and providers of evidence, it is the more important that it should be open as to what that evidence is. It was as a means of allaying this disquiet, I think, that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, undertook to see what could he done about making the results public.
The work of the Pay Research Unit, as I have said, is in abeyance under the present phase of the Government's pay policy; but there are two reasons why work on the confidentiality question should have been pressed on with—and, if I may say so with respect, all the more so if the Pay Research Unit did not have very much to do over the period. First, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his Written Answer to my Question, stated that it ought to be done before the lifting of the suspension of the work of the Unit. That was a considered Written Answer. The suspension presumably will be lifted when free collective bargaining is restored. Both the Government and the Party to which I have the honour to belong, which are in sympathy on this as on a number of other subjects these days, believe we must have a sensible voluntary incomes policy; but the noble Lord the Leader of the House knows much better than I do the danger that this may not happen and that we may be flung into a free-for-all before very long. But by the admission of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, we should have an answer before that.
Secondly—I think this has possibly been missed in replies by the Government to my Questions for Written Answer—I think it is important that we are entitled, if it can be done, to have answers to the questions we were asking in December 1975 about what was happening then.

735
We now come to the difficulties about producing the answers, and I am afraid I do not see why they are very great. In his Answer of 20th December 1976 to my Question for Written Answer, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that there would have to be full consultations with the national staff side. But the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had already said on llth December 1975—over one year before—in col. 1166 of Hansard that there was no difficulty from the point of view of the Civil Service Department and the trade unions. Putting those two statements together, that seems to imply that in fact no progress was made during that whole year in consulting with the staff side.
Nevertheless, if we accept the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that there should be no difficulty—and I do not see why there should—that leaves the employers, the people who provided the information for the comparability studies. I, too, understand that this is extremely sensitive. I am perfectly aware of this; but I am not able to understand why, as my noble friend Lady Seear said in the same original debate, there should not be a generalised answer. I have been informed privately, but I believe it to be true, that in fact when these studies are processed into statistical form they are unrecognisable as to what companies they come from, and a great many civil servants deal with them without being in any way able to discover the sources. If that is so, why cannot we, the public, have the statistical results as well?
My Lords, I understand that it may be that the Government have not been able to crack the nut of confidentiality; and, if so, of course they must honour the promises they gave—and I am not for a moment suggesting otherwise. But I am still, 15 months later, rather dubiously asking: Have they tried? What have they been doing these 15 months since this was first debated, when they gave certain promising encouragement, later repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd? For instance, how many firms which have produced information have been approached and consulted about this possibility? These are specific questions which, although I have not given the noble Lord the Leader of the House specific notice of them, I nevertheless
736
think are so implicit in my Question that I am entitled to ask him. How many firms have been approached and consulted on this? How many replies have been received? And what were the answers? If, as I suspect, the answer may be that in fact very little has been done, I think we are entitled to ask, on the basis of what we were told 15 months ago, "Why not?"—and that, my Lords, is what I am asking tonight.
8.7 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, as I think he has acknowledged, the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has been put on a somewhat narrow basis. Indeed, it was only when I came to examine the Official Report of 11th December 1975 that I found just how narrow the basis is. So, in fact, we are not, as I understand it, going into any of the matters except for this Question which the noble Lord has asked, which occupied the attention of the House when my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing raised the matters which he did in that short debate. I am bound to say that when I examined Hansard I could not find that the Leader of the House, as he was then, had made any promise at all, and I must say that I do not altogether blame him. I will go further than that and say that I think he would have been very foolish if he had made any promise. What he did was to give the same sort of undertaking that Ministers usually give in the situation in which the noble Lord found himself. He said that he would consider matters; and this, as I read his second speech in col. 1166, to which the noble Lord has already referred, is as far as he went.
I must say that in those circumstances I do not think I would have been very moved to take part in this debate, and I should explain my presence, which is, I hope, a two-fold courtesy, both to the noble Lord and to the Leader of the House, who is going to reply. Bearing in mind the reasons which were given by the Government for not doing what they were doing at that particular moment in time, and recalling the fairly trenchant and, I thought, pertinent observations of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in the speech which he made on that date, one asks: What has happened to change matters?

737
My Lords, inflation has continued. So has a pay policy of sorts. The Government are about to embark on a new round, and one assumes, as I think one must, that whatever the findings of the Pay Research Unit may have been (assuming that it has been in a position to make any) it is not going to be within the competence of the Government to put them into effect in the meantime. I see that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is nodding his head. I assume that he agrees with me in some measure. As I say, assuming the unit has been able to keep up its work, the Government are not really in a position to do very much about it.
One thing that has never been plain is whether in these studies the greater job security which goes with the Civil Service, in contrast with other jobs, has ever been taken into consideration. I understand that from time to time a number of noble Lords from these Benches have expressed the view—and I am going into generalities —that it would be desirable if at least one member of the PRU was to be someone from outside the Civil Service. He could be somebody who would be seconded from his firm for two or three years. I believe that such exchanges take place regularly in such other parts of the Civil Service as the Department of Industry. This would be something which, I think, would promote confidence in the eyes of the public; because it would be felt and understood that the Civil Service was being examined by experienced and confidential eyes, so to speak, from a position outside the Civil Service. This was not a matter which was dealt with in a comprehensive form in the 1975 debate, and it could be that the noble Lord the Leader of the House when he replies will give some consideration to it, because it might help alleviate any general unease that there may be.
So far as the main part of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question is concerned, I appreciate that information provided by individual firms, companies or even sectors of industry should be treated as confidential and not published if the companies make that request—as, I presume, they normally do. Indeed, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, appreciated and acknowledged, it would he grossly improper if those companies or sectors ever felt that any confidentiality
738
would be breached. However, I was struck by the very brief remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in the 1975 debate. One assumes that eventually there comes a time when the unit makes up its mind and comes to some form of conclusion. Thereafter, one would think in terms of the publication of some form of generalised information—and one can think of instances of it, such as the average pay of a certain category of person, and such matters as those, which would be very broad in its scope. I do not believe that such publication could possibly cause any harm either to individuals, to companies, to a sector of industry or to the national interest.
My Lords, having, I hope, not criticised the noble Lord for asking the Unstarred Question which he has asked, I sympathise with his motives. I think there is here an opportunity for the Government to allay any public unease there may be. There seems to be, if I may say so, a certain passiveness in the Government approach to the Questions which the noble Lord has asked from time to time. I think that we should all be happy if the noble Lord, Lord Peart, were to put our minds at rest this evening.
8.14 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, perhaps I may recall that I was the chairman of the staff side of the National Whitley Council which negotiated the agreement for the setting up of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit; so that I have a very close interest in its origin and in the work it has done since. It was set up 20 years ago as a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service presided over by Sir Raymond Priestley. Up to that time, the only guide that we had for fixing Civil Service pay was the concept of the good employer—and nobody knew who he was or where we could find him. This had led to serious differences in negotiation and great difficulties in arbitration; and the staff side represented to the Priestley Commission that something more tangible, more ascertainable, should be substituted for the concept of the good employer.
The Priestley Commission recommended the adoption of the principle of fair comparability; that is that the pay

739
within the Civil Service, as a whole and as divided between the various grades and sections, should be determined on the basis of fair comparisons with suitable employment outside. The then Prime Minister, the late Lord Avon—Sir Anthony Eden as he then was—had to give the new Civil Service Pay Research Unit a send off by sending a letter to a very large range of outside employers of all kinds explaining to them that a new Civil Service Pay Research Unit had been set up for the purpose of ascertaining more satisfactorily and more accurately the sort of pay civil servants should get and to ask for their co-operation. At the same time, he gave the firms a pledge about confidentiality. That is how it started.
Ever since, this Civil Service Pay Research Unit has been conducting this exercise in fair comparisons over the whole of the Civil Service. Now, in order to bring this work within the resources of a unit of this kind, it was necessary to conduct investigations over different sections of the Civil Service by instalments; and the PRU has taken the various sections from time to time in a kind of programme. Then, when special claims were made on behalf of certain sections of the Civil Service that they may have fallen substantially behind the pay and conditions of comparable employment outside, there would be a special exercise undertaken by the Civil Service Pay Research Unit.
This involved looking at the pay of professional, technical and scientific classes as well as the broader executive and clerical sections of the Civil Service—a very wide range of employment, as the House will fully understand, in the public services. To obtain this information, it was first necessary, under the agreement, to have accord between the official and staff sides of the Civil Service Whitley Council as to the area to be covered in this particular comparability test. Agreement was reached as to where the PRU should go for its information; this was often accompanied by actual inspections, because the nature of the work done was vital to a proper consideration of fair comparability. And then there were many differences in the conditions of employment which had to be taken into account. Some were tangible, like free holidays; some were intangible. There had to be
740
the best attempt at a scientific appraisal of the value of the differences: whether they had contributory pensions, noncontributory pensions, their hours of work, special subventions given to staffs, sometimes education fees paid by firms on behalf of employees. All these matters had to be taken into account. It was not a simple question of a list of pay scales; it was an examination of the principle of fair comparability. It was a very complicated matter.
There is not only the aspect of confidentiality in this matter, but the nature of the information obtained. I thought that the whole question of publication was so naive that people did not understand what they were talking about. This is not just a list of pay scales; this is an examination of the content, of actual operations undertaken by particular sections of staff in particular firms, with their conditions of service related to that, and then compared and brought into the wider comparison with the particular section of the Civil Service. My Lords, where do you go for fair comparability for inspectors of taxes? Where do you go for fair comparability for professional valuers?—bear in mind that the State is the biggest employer of professional valuers. These are the factors which have to come into this most complicated business.
With that description, I can pass on to the more practical issue of the present. The Civil Service Pay Research Unit is suspended for the present time because of the operation of the pay restraint policies, and so forth, which apply to the Civil Service as well as elsewhere. The Unit has been virtually disbanded and its work suspended. Therefore, it is not collecting current information. Any publication of what the Civil Service Pay Research Unit has in its possession must relate to the past. I do not think that publication of information relating to the past is of particular value at the present time. It would be a waste of public money to publish a lot of out-dated information gathered by the Unit in the past.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, would he not agree that some information related to the past would usefully serve to allay any fears which were expressed, and give greater trust and hope for the future?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, if the purpose of this publication is to allay public fears, then I would put this debate on an entirely different footing. This is not a form of private detective work on the operations of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit, the negotiations upon that information and, in many cases, the decisions of arbitration tribunals upon disputes which have arisen; this is the complex question of negotiating pay scales over a very wide area in the public service. There may be different ways of doing this in the future, but I cannot accept the idea of publishing out-of-date information in order to prove to a suspicious public that the Civil Service were overpaid some years ago and are still overpaid because of that. This is not a sensible approach to this important matter. If I were the chairman of the staff side at the present time, I would not stand for it, either. We in the Civil Service have our rights. It takes two sides of the Whitley Council system to reach agreement on matters of such importance affecting the staff.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree to two things which seem to be relevant to what he has been saying? The first is that the principle of fair comparison, to which he has drawn attention, and on which, as he rightly says, the Priestley Committee based their recommendations, has been questioned as a valid way of deciding Civil Service pay. It has been questioned in connection with the reports of the Boyle Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member, and it has also been questioned before the Diamond Committee. By itself the principle is today too inadequate a way of trying to determine pay. May I also ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that, when he says that the staff side have very important rights in this matter—as they have—the public also have a great interest in it? It is a very great public concern and the public are well aware of the fact that the two sides which enter into negotiations are civil servants, as are the members of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I agree that this system of deciding Civil Service pay has been questioned in some quarters. In my humble submission they are quarters
742
which are not important enough to justify a revision of the system without sending it again to a Royal Commission. This was a recommendation of a Royal Commission which ended a battle between the official and staff sides of the Whitley Council on the principles to settle Civil Service pay which had gone unresolved for 25 years, in my experience, and we at last settled the matter by reference to a recognisable and practical principle.
There has since been another Royal Commission; that is the Fulton Commission. If the issue is that there is suspicion regarding the evidence upon which fair comparability has been based, and that the public must have their misgivings allayed by disclosure or some other form of satisfaction of public anxiety, then this is not the way to settle it. It should be settled not by publication but by asking for the matter to be referred again to an independent body who can look at all aspects of this problem. I am astonished that this comes from the Liberal Benches. I can only say with great respect to noble Lords that they are touching a vital spot in the whole fabric of peace and harmony in the public service which is not to be lightly taken after all the trouble that we had for so many years.
What I am going to say in calmer and more constructive vein is that I am not concerned so much with publication, because I do not think that that matters. What I am concerned about is the use to which this information can or should be put in a wider context of fair comparability, not only as between the public sector and private industry but between private industry and the public sector. This is where my attention is fully justified; this information is collected wholly for the purpose of fixing pay in the public sector. Should that be the sole use of information of this kind? Why should this not be a two-way arrangement? Why should information sought and obtained in this way be confined for application to Civil Service pay? Other people who have supplied the information may have an interest, too, in the fair comparability of their own conditions of service, and the pay of their own employees. This raises a much wider issue, one upon which I have dealt very fully in a fairly recent seminar conducted by the Financial Times.

743
What is now in the minds of many people outside the Civil Service is the feeling that the Civil Service and local government are now better paid—grade for grade, class for class and work for work—than many people in similar positions in private industry. Many articles have been written to give examples which suggest that there may be some substance in this fear, especially as between middle management and people in executive positions in the public service. In the last 20 years we have seen a great deal more nationalisation. During that time, the expansion of the public sector has gone on apace, so it is not only the Civil Service but also the nationalised industries which in many cases are no longer subject to market pressures or market considerations. The railwaymen, for example, are not paid according to the profitability of the railway industry. I see the noble Lord looking at his watch, but when an issue such as this is raised I do not care what the hour is. If this important matter is raised, then I have an historic interest and a present duty, and I am going to discharge it. I am looking at the clock—
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it is fifteen minutes!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I do not know what all this gesticulation is, my Lords, and I am not going to take any notice of it. I am going to finish what I have to say. I believe there is an entirely new dimension to this question of comparability, and I think that before this Pay Research Unit is restored, probably it would be desirable to look at the wider issue of the collection of information which would be of use to all who might seek it in order to have the benefit of investigations already conducted for other purposes being applied to particular issues of their own.
However, I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that he is obviously an impatient man. He has been asking for things to happen during the last 18 months, when it was quite obvious that nothing was happening and nothing was likely to happen because nobody was doing anything. I think that very shortly the time may come when the wider issues should be considered, but I do not offer that in any representative capacity. However, when I see my own
744
handiwork—something in which I played a very important part at the inception of this scheme—coming under criticism, or when I see noble Lords wanting the whole basis of the scheme to be changed unilaterally, then, since I am in your Lordships' House, I am going to come here to to defend it.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, surely the noble Lord cannot be so conservative as to think that because he fixed something 20 years ago it is fixed for ever?
8.33 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, this has been a rather interesting debate. We have had a debate in which the last few minutes have been rather exciting, rather like the other place. I do not regret it. I think it is good that people should speak frankly and honestly, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Houghton on what he has said, because he knows so much of the subject—probably more than any of us—and I pay great tribute to what he has done. Quite rightly, he feels passionately about something which has worked—something which arose out of the Priestley Commission and something which we see before us now. It is also something which has created, if I may use his words, "peace and harmony" in the public service. I do not know whether that will always remain, but nevertheless it has been created.
I also welcome the concise statement which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. He was very realistic: he knows the difficulties of Ministers. I do not complain about the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, having raised this matter. He has questioned me about it. He said that my reply in the House to a Question gave the impression that we were going backwards and that his blood began to boil. I do not really think I have gone backwards at all. I made those statements carefully and I have carefully looked into the matter. Obviously, as a Minister, I cannot reveal certain matters to the House until they are completed. I take the view that inevitably and naturally we have to look at our institutions, but there is always a danger of destroying something which is working well—and I think that the system has worked well—and so we have to be extremely careful. I must

745
apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, if he feels, as I sense, that in past exchanges he has not received a sufficiently full response to his Questions. That is not unusual.
I shall try to do my best to remedy that this evening in my speech, which I hope will not be too long, at this time of night. First, it is right and proper that I should put this debate into context: indeed, my noble friend has also done that. I should like to remind noble Lords of the nature of the information on which the question of publication has arisen. My noble friend referred to that point. Noble Lords will recall from the very full debate on Civil Service pay and pensions a little over a year ago that, since the publication of the report of the Priestley Royal Commission in 1955, Civil Service pay has been based on the principle of fair comparisons. In recommending that this should be so, the Priestley Commission set out in great detail the way in which this principle should be applied.
Their basic view was that, to be fair to both the civil servants and the taxpayers, Civil Service pay should be fixed around the middle level of the remuneration received outside the Civil Service for work of broadly similar quality and responsibility. They recommended that a three part procedure should be adopted. This involved, first, fact-finding to collect the evidence on what was being paid for comparable jobs outside the service. Secondly, processing, to convert the raw data into a common currency, allowing for differences between hours and leave, pensions, perks—such as company cars, and other conditions of service. Mention was made of education facilities. Thirdly, negotiations between the management and the unions—subject, of course, to the scrutiny and final approval of Ministers.
So far as the fact-finding was concerned, the Royal Commission recommended that the facts should be collected for the management and unions by a body independent of the negotiating parties. They indicated in detail what evidence should be collected, and that it should cover the whole shooting match—not just basic pay rates but fringe benefits and other conditions of service as well.
746
So it was that the Pay Research Unit came to be set up, and it had continued its work for nearly 20 years until the suspension of the operation of pay research as part of the Government's pay policy in 1975. I want to pay tribute to all those who created the Unit and to the work done by those concerned. That work is limited to providing reports on the facts to enable the processing and negotiation to be carried out by management and unions. In obtaining and reporting the facts, the Unit operates completely independently under a Director appointed by the Prime Minister. That, then, is the background to the debate, and I think it is just as well for noble Lords to he reminded of it, as my noble friend Lord Houghton has already reminded us. I have emphasised the facts.
If I have interpreted him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has pressed two points on the Government, both in the debate a year ago and since then—quite rightly and I am not complaining, because he is doing the job expected of noble Lords in carrying out their Parliamentary duties. First, he has argued that Parliament should have access to the facts collected in the past by the Pay Research Unit, and he clarified this in the exchanges on 19th January this year. Secondly, he has suggested that in the future more information should automatically be made available than hitherto. On past information, the noble Lord has acknowledged—this has been accepted—that there is the problem of confidentiality. I would stress that over and over again.
When the Pay Research Unit has visited outside employers to collect data, it has always given an assurance that the information gathered would be seen only by the negotiating parties and would not be made generally available. I think that that was right. Otherwise there could not be negotiations. There could not be a development of the process which Priestley recommended.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for one second? I entirely agree with him. I am not pressing for the divulgence of the facts but of the processed facts, which I am sure are in unrecognisable form.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he entirely agrees with me.

747
Let us continue in that mood for the moment. I thought lie argued, first, that Parliament should have access to the facts, which I have mentioned. I thought he clarified that and he now develops it. That is fair enough. I think he has suggested that in the future more information than hitherto should automatically be made available. I think perhaps he is right here, and even my noble friend Lord Houghton said that one should look at this He is not averse to having an examination. On the past information there is, as I have said, the problem of confidentiality, and I think it is right to give an assurance that the information gathered would be seen only by the negotiating parties.
The noble Lord has suggested that this problem could be overcome by preparing summaries of the information, and consulting employers to seek theft permission to publish such information. The noble Lord nod;. But like my predecessor, whose commitment to consult outside organisations related to the future and not to the past, I assure him that I have looked carefully into his suggestion. When I give an answer in this House, I hope noble Lords will think that I am straight in the sense that I believe in what I have done. I have never tried to equivocate, and I hope that I am not doing so tonight. I have looked carefully into this and have concluded that it would be a daunting task to process and summarise the data in any way, which would at one and the same time be enlightening and preserve the confidentiality on which they have been obtained.
Such an exercise would be extraordinarily complex and costly. That is because the reports to which the noble Lord referred are working documents. They contain raw data on pay rates and all conditions of service unconverted to common currency. The reports for the surveys, on which 1st April 1975 settlements were based, alone contain information on 2.000 pay rates and extend over some 1,300 pages. This information, by itself, would be well nigh impenetrable to the lay reader. I dare say the noble Lord will reply that it should not be beyond the wit of my civil servants, over a period of months, to produce some kind of resume of all this information. But I say quite frankly to him that I do not believe the game would be worth the candle.
748
In my view, it would not be right or opportune now to reopen the question of the confidential undertakings which have applied to past data, and go through all the inevitable consultation with the interested parties on the form of publication. Moreover, if I understand the aim of the noble Lord correctly, and if he will excuse an analogy more appropriate to my time in another place as head of a Department, he would be trying to assess the quality of a crop of turnips from an aerial photograph. The kind of summary which could be produced at this late stage would certainly not indicate whether the processing and negotiation of past evidence had been fair. On that, I hope that the House will accept the judgments of successive Ministers of both Parties who have scrutinised Civil Service pay settlements and authorised the offers that have been made.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. This is, in a sense, a technical question and it is one which interests me very much. I am not trying to catch him out. The noble Lord said—and I understand this to he the case—that the comparability negotiations are based on payments made by the good but not the best employer. In order to do this, the findings of the Pay Research Unit must be summarised to some extent, because you could not determine what is the payment in the range of employer that you are looking for. The 1,300 items must be reduced for negotiating purposes to some statistical figures. Surely, you could not otherwise use them.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot accept the argument of the noble Baroness. I know that she follows this subject carefully, but I reassert what I have said. The kind of summary which could be produced at this late stage would certainly not indicate whether the processing and negotiation of past evidence had been fair.
So much for the past. As for the future, I explained to the House in January that the Civil Service pay system is still suspended under the rules of pay policy. Its reactivation will have to be considered in the light of developments in that policy. That is obvious. But, like my predecessor, I fully accept that in the future we will need to work out some way to ensure that the Civil Service pay system is not only fair, which I believe it is, but is also seen to be fair. This is the area where we want to

749
have detailed consultations with those concerned. But these cannot, of course, usefully begin until we are in a position to talk about the future of the Civil Service pay system.
The difficulties of confidentiality, and the nature of the information which can be made available, will remain. But at an appropriate time—and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont—this would need to be explored in consultation with the Civil Service unions with whom, of necessity, all such changes have to be negotiated. We should also need to consult the organisations then participating in the surveys. Whatever might be decided on publication, the Unit would then be aware of the requirements and this would enable it to plan its reports accordingly. I can assure the House that the question of greater openness will continue to be at the forefront of our minds, but it would be premature of me to say more at this time. I think that we have had a useful debate.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.