Lords Sitting of 27 April 1978

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR 011 the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

SCHOOLS AND THE HEALTH AUTHORITIES
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the present policy for transmission of information between health authorities and schools concerning individual children with defects; or whether they think there has been any deterioration in this respect in the service since the reorganisation of the National Health Service.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are not aware that there has been any deterioration or that further guidance on this matter is required at the present time, but we shall review the situation in the light of any relevant recommendations which may be made by the committee of inquiry into educational provision for handicapped children. Perhaps the noble Baroness would tell me whether she has some particular problem in mind.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that a boy died in a local comprehensive school near to me from a heart defect; that the eye of a child fell out during a P.E. lesson and that none of the teachers knew anything about these children having had defects? Does the Minister not think that a card with useful information for teachers about children with defects in their schools would be advisable?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not aware of either of those instances, and I do not think that my Department
1970
or, for that matter, the Department of Education and Science can be expected to know of every incident, bad though some of them may be, that takes place in schools. However, I take the point which the noble Baroness has made. It is a valid point. It is perfectly true that the attempt on the part of the Department of Education and Science is to integrate a child into normal school life, wherever that is possible. We in the Department of Health and Social Security have a specialist in community medicine in every area. Ninety per cent. of all children attend a health clinic during the first 12 months after birth and the specialist in community medicine calls upon children, on the advice of health visitors, if it is suspected that between birth and five years of age there is reason to help them. Then any information which amounts to a defect is passed on to the education authority.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, what standing machinery exists for the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science to check the work of the Health Service for schools? For instance, by what method will the points which the noble Baroness has raised today be considered by both Departments?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that both Departments will take up this matter in the light of what the noble Baroness has said. We receive information from time to time. In fact, some school inspectors feel that there has been a decline in services of this nature, but when this point was communicated to the Department of Education and Science they immediately undertook a thorough investigation and could not find evidence to support the suggestion that there had been a deterioration. The Area Health Authority notifies the education authority regarding a child's needs if defects are found, so that they can be taken into account by the head teacher and by the teacher who is responsible for the child.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I realise that the primary responsibility is at local level? But will the noble Lord also accept that, as the transfer of the school health service from Education to Health was something which was new in 1974, one

1971
would have assumed that there would be some standing machinery whereby the two Government Departments could keep an eye on how the Health Service for schools developed and worked? Is the noble Lord really telling the 1-louse that there is no such standing machinery?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not telling your Lordships that there is no machinery. The present policy is set out in the Department of Education and Science circular which was sent out early in 1975. I will send a copy to the noble Lord and also to the noble Baroness, if she has not seen it. I think that the circular is as near foolproof as anything can be. However, the noble Lord has asked whether either the Department of Education and Science or my own Department could follow this up by getting a return—I take it, at regular intervals—as to what is the situation, and I must tell him that I should have to take advice on that matter.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, further to those most helpful and informative replies, would the noble Lord beat in mind that, since the inception of the school medical service, the financial barrier between many children and their family doctors has now largely and quite rightly disappeared? Does the noble Lord agree that this means that now there should be a much closer association between the school medical service and the family doctor service, and vice versa?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should not like to commit myself on that, although obviously the general practitioner has an important part to play in this type of situation. But what I should like to ask your Lordships to do is this: the Warnock Committee has produced a report after sitting for three years. It has just reached my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who hopes to publish it fairly soon—and I mean fairly soon. There has appeared quite recently the Court Report which in some measure has also explored this particular area. Once we have been able to look at the Warnock Committee Report and to look again at the Court Report, I think it will mean that some of the recommendations will enable us to tighten up the situation so that these things do not happen.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, is the noble Lord fully satisfied that the schools realise that there are defects in children which emerge after the early examination. For instance, he has referred to eyesight which affects a child's ability to read and which may not he discerned in the early stages. Or there may be some small I defect of the hand which affects the child's ability to write. Is he fully satisfied that these matters are properly examined in the schools and at local level?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I could not really give a proper answer to the noble and learned Lord on this. All I can say, and indeed I have already said it, is that 90 per cent. of the children are seen by the specialist in community medicine during the first 12 months. The health visitors are in regular touch with children under live, and therefore they pick up defects at two, three and four, and then the children are invited to go back to see the specialist community service. After that age there are the school doctors and the school nurses and also the family doctor, any one of whom should be able to observe these things and to refer the matter to the specialist in community medicine.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, at any rate for the reassurance of certain of your Lordships, speaking as the chairman of governors of a London school, I can assure him that the medical records are well up-to-date, and as an ex-teacher I can say that it has always been within the knowledge of the teacher and I am amazed to learn that some have slipped through the net. That is certainly not true in the case of the London authorities.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am glad to hear that, but I do accept that it is probably not 100 per cent. foolproof. If noble Lords have any indication of happenings of this kind, I hope they will let me know.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider one other point? My noble and learned friend raised the question of eyesight, but there is also the question of hearing. In many cases children are thought to be stupid, either because they cannot fully see the

1973
blackboard or because they cannot hear what is being said. This is perhaps a minor matter, but is the noble Lord aware that it happens probably more often than most people realise.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think it is a minor matter because I have had some experience of children who have been thought at the age of 10 or 11 to be a little stupid, but when they have been properly and thoroughly examined they have been found to have an eyesight defect which ought to have been picked up long ago, or sometimes a hearing defect.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, if I may ask one last question and also thank the noble Lord for his information, would he not agree that for young teachers to have a child in the class who falls down in an epileptic fit is very worrying if they do not know that such cases exist in their class?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I take the point: it can he very frightening to some people.

PRIVACY: YOUNGER COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
3.17 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to introduce legislation arising from the recommendations on privacy made by the Younger Committee in its 1972 report.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the Committee's recommendations on credit rating agencies, so far as accepted by Parliament, were implemented in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Certain other matters dealt with in the report were remitted for more detailed and expert study by other bodies. The Data Protection Committee was set up in 1976 to prepare the way for legislation establishing a permanent authority to oversee
1974
the use of computers that handle personal information. The law relating to breach of confidence is, as the Younger Committee suggested, being reviewed by both the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. When these bodies have reported, the Government will give further consideration to the content and timing of legislation.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Younger Committee was originally set up when Mr. Callaghan was Home Secretary in 1970? In 1972 the Committee reported; the report was welcomed by the Conservative Government of the day. Some of the points were actions, as he has said, on consumer credit, but there are still many recommendations which could be implemented without legislation. Could the noble Lord not look at this because today the matter of individual privacy is of supreme importance and it is no good setting up committee after committee to look at different facets while taking no action on the original report.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords, I would not altogether agree with that. I certainly agree with the noble Lord that it is a matter of great importance, but the Data Protection Committee will he publishing its report within a few months; the Law Commission for England and Wales will be publishing their report later this year, and the Scottish Law Commission theirs soon thereafter. I think that is reasonable progress.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is it not true that the failure of the Press to agree on a code of conduct which will protect individuals from harassment is disappointing and it is equally disappointing that the Secretary of State has not felt able to make his own recommendation on this issue? This Committee reported six years ago. How long are we to wait while Governments bring other legislation forward but find no time for the protection of the individual's privacy, which today is of supreme importance to everyone in our land?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord is now referring to a non-Government aspect of the problem; namely, the Press. This particular matter

1975
was gone into by the Royal Commission on the Press, as the noble Lord may know, and as a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission a number of decisions have been made by the Press Council.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, could we have an assurance from the Minister that, as more committees are studying this question and are due to report shortly, once they have reported shortly, we shall also shortly have some action?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Certainly my Lords. insofar as legislation is necessary we will act as speedily as possible.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that those of us who took part in the work of the Younger Committee for two years must be very disappointed at the very slow progress which has been made since 1972?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, what I have said is that the report of the Data Protection Committee will be available quite soon, and so will the report of the Law Commission for England. I think fairly soon, therefore, the House will be in a position to take a view on the amount of progress made.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is not one of the problems that this business of privacy is a very difficult matter and it entails legislation, and that is one of the reasons why nothing has been done about it until now?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, some action has in fact been taken. I have referred in particular to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which made an advance so far as some aspects of the Younger Committee's recommendations were concerned. But my noble friend is quite right; this is an extremely difficult area, and it is, I think, reasonable that matters of this degree of complexity should be reviewed by the Law Commission and by the Data Protection Committee.

THE SPECIAL CONSTABULARY
3.22 p.m.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give the same backing to a nationwide publicity campaign to attract more recruits to the special Constabulary as was recently given to a similar campaign in support of the TAVR.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, recruitment to the Special Constabulary is primarily a matter for individual chief officers of police, whose expenditure on recruiting attracts a Government grant of 50 per cent. Direct Government backing is given by advertisements in national newspapers in support of local campaigns.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, having expressed the minimum of gratitude for that rather disappointing reply, may I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the strength of the Special Constabulary is now about one-third of what it was 20 years ago, that crime has increased and that the police are under establishment? Does he not agree that this should be taken more seriously and that a really nationwide campaign, such as was given backing by the Prime Minister for the territorial forces, should be repeated in this equally urgent case?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there are two aspects to that particular question. There is a difference in comparing the Special Constabulary with the TAVR. The difference is that the local financial basis for police forces and Special Constabulary units makes comparison with a centrally funded body very difficult.
On the second aspect of the noble Lord's question, I would not disagree with him in any way. I think the role of the Special Constabulary is extremely important and is recognised as such both by the Home Office and by chief officers of police. It is right to say that the strength of the Special Constabulary is lower than it has been for some time, but it is only

1977
fair to add that the decline in numbers over recent years is largely due to the policy of weeding out inactive members.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS MACHINES
3.25 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the cost of manufacturing and maintaining a kidney dialysis machine, how many they have provided and how many have been discarded, or are not regularly in use.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the cost of a kidney dialysis machine is between £4,000 and £4,500; a hospital patient on dialysis involves revenue costs of something like £10,000 a year and a patient on home dialysis something like £6,000 a year. A total of 2,976 machines have been purchased by health authorities through the Department's central contracts, but authorities also buy direct from several manufacturers. While information is not available of machines which may have been discarded, I should be surprised if available machines were not in regular use.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that reply. While no one would begrudge a single penny of the cost of these valuable life-saving machines, would my noble friend not agree that these enormous maintenance costs serve only to highlight the importance of the Government's kidney donor campaign? Could my noble friend say what percentage of patients now depending on these machines would qualify for kidney transplants if a sufficient supply were available?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the exact figure of the number of persons who would benefit from kidney transplants, except to say that I told your Lordships only a week or so ago that we needed something like, 1,500 kidneys a year in order to meet the demand. I am trusting
1978
to memory; I think I said that in the last year we were able to undertake only about 700 kidney transplants.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, following the welcome news in the Budget that there is to be increased expenditure on kidney dialysis, can the noble Lord say whether renal dialysis facilities in the home, particularly for children and for those people who are working, will be increased as a result of the Budget, and, if so, to what extent in addition to the figures he has quoted?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend indicated in another place that it was his intention to provide money in order to set up something like six centres for treatment for children. In addition, we are having discussions at the moment as to how best, from a siting point of view, to use the 400 machines when they become available. We have also to recognise that we shall have to train some people to use them. At the present moment there are 2,226 patients on dialysis machines, of whom 700 are being treated in hospital and the rest in their own homes.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the very high cost of maintenance of these machines, would it not he logical to relieve kidney donors of the first £20,000 of duty on their estates? This is the amount of the saving to the taxpayer in a single year by a donor of both kidneys. Would my noble friend consider very seriously bringing this suggestion to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? This would not only ensure an ample supply of kidneys for transplants, but also lift a very heavy burden from the taxpayer.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will do as my noble friend wishes and pass on this suggestion to my right honourable friend, who, no doubt, will pass it on, presumably to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much of the very high maintenance cost is labour cost? If it is a substantial amount of this cost, is it not possible by further development of the machine to make it much more automatic and to reduce the labour cost?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot answer that because I really am not able to break down accurately either the £10,000 or the £6,000, other than to say that in assessing this figure one assesses an amount for overhead expenses, salaries of medical and technical staff, the cost of drugs, the provision of shunts, and all sorts of things that are necessary, both within the hospital and in the patient's home.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility; and to facilitate the citation of Statutes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

TUVALU BILL [H.L.]
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (The Lord Goronwy-Roberts): I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Tuvalu of independence within the Commonwealth. I beg to move that This Bill he now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts).
On Question, Bill react la, and to be printed.

IMPORT OF LIVE FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Thurso, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this is the second time that this Bill has passed through all its stages in this House. I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on his perseverence although he cannot personally be here. We have fully discussed the Bill and we have amended it. We now have a refined model of a Bill to protect salmon in Scotland from possible danger from predators and infection from imported species. Of course, it was the Coho salmon which aroused apprehensions during the past three years. I understand that the Bill in its present form is acceptable to all concerned, including the Government and including the interests affected outside Parliament.
I cannot too strongly underline the importance of salmon as a resource to Scotland. Very briefly, there arc three reasons for this. First, there are about 2,000 persons employed in jobs in or related to the commercial netting of salmon. This is carried out according to conservation rules in Scottish legislation which allow a proportion of the salmon to pass and swim up the rivers for anglers and to spawn.
Secondly, the Scottish tourist industry benefits substantially from the attractions of salmon fishing and would suffer if the stocks were to be decimated. Thirdly, salmon fishings are assessed for local government rates, and rates arc paid. Important beats, therefore, make significant contributions to the finances of local government in their areas. The question that now arises is, What will happen to this Bill in this Session? it does not need a money Resolution, but it is unlikely that time can be made available for its discussion in another place. Its best chance will occur if a Member of another place is successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills in the coming Session which is expected in about November.
I hope that the Government will place the Bill high on their list of possible Bills for Members of another place who are successful in the ballot and who consult Departments for suggestions for subjects.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL
Report of Amendments received.
CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 1 [Protected wild creatures to be known as endangered wild creatures]:
Lord AIRDALE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("principal Act") and insert ("Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, hereinafter referred to as the principal Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps we can discuss Amendment No. 19 with this Amendment, as they both deal with the same topic. When a Bill is drafted with reference to an existing Act of Parliament, it seems better to set out the Act concerned in full at the first place in the Bill where the Act is mentioned rather than keep the reader in suspense until Clause 14 to find out what Act is the principal Act. That is the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, this Amendment will improve the drafting of the Bill, and I recommend your Lordships to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Further restriction on killing etc. endangered wild creatures]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 2.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, under the Act as it was originally drafted and came through, a person who killed an endangered wild creature which was doing damage had to satisfy the court before which he was charged that the killing was necessary for the protection of property, agriculture, fisheries and the like. It was suggested to me that it would be better if, instead of leaving it to the court
1982
safter the action took place, he could obtain a licence from the Ministry griculture before that took place. However, after consulting the Ministry, I find that it does not have the staff to do this. Therefore I think that we must revert to the original position—which this Amendment would do. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Disturbance of mammals]:
3.38 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, after ("disturbs") insert ("or impedes access to or from").
The noble Viscount said: When putting down this Amendment, I did so over the telephone in rather a hurry. Of course what I meant to say was "impedes access to or exit from". However, the meaning is plain.
What I am frightened of is that, as a result of blocking access to a shed or a barn or some similar building, the parent of the dependent vulnerable wild creatures may be denied access, and the vulnerable young wild creatures would therefore presumably he destroyed, for if the parent is denied access, the young cannot be fed or guarded. Similarly, one could also, by blocking access to a barn, recess or shed, destroy the sleeping refuge of a vulnerable wild creature. One could, for instance, destroy the sleeping refuge of bats by impeding access to such a refuge. By the erection of a solid wooden fence or wall, one could deny to a vulnerable wild creature access. One could certainly impede access by a vulnerable wild creature. In some cases, total access could be denied. If the wild creatures could not get to their sleeping refuge, or feed their young, the vulnerable wild creature would be destroyed, or certainly disturbed.
I put down this Amendment because I remember that many years ago there was famous toad walk to a lake. Someone erected a solid wooden fence across the access of the toads to the lake. Of course, the result was that the toads completely disappeared from that area. I think that something could have been inserted in the Bill about the dangers of impeding access to the sleeping refuge and the dependant young, or impeding access to

1983
the exit from the point of view of both the parents and the young. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for tidying up the Amendment which he moved in Committee. However, it is not yet tidy enough. Apart from that, it is a common conservation practice when dealing with one or two of our endangered species, and in particular bats, to put a grille at the mouth of the cave where the creature is to be found so that human beings cannot get in and disturb it. The Amendment would prevent that from taking place. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has said I shall certainly withdraw the Amendment. I would point out, however, that the erection of a grille over the mouth of a cave will deny access to certain bats, but it will presumably protect the two species of bat which come under the Bill; namely, the mouse-eared bat and the greater horseshoe bat, the name of which had escaped me for a moment.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, yes, the scientific name for the greater horse-shoe bat is Rhinolophus ferrumequinum!
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I shall not attempt to repeat that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 4, after ("creature") insert ("(a)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This Amendment will bring vulnerable wild creatures into line with certain rare plants, because both can be either disturbed or uprooted by the normal practice of a forester or a farmer. The Amendment would prevent it being offensive when it is done in accordance with the normal rules of good husbandry. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert ("; or
(b) as an incidental result of any operation which was carried out in accordance with good agricultural or forestry practice.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Restriction on killing etc. vulnerable wild creatures]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 19, after ("that") insert ("(i)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 apply to vulnerable wild creatures the same provisions that your Lordships have already agreed should apply to the endangered ones. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert ("; and
(ii) an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only Of any action taken in respect of a vulnerable wild creature, if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WYNNE-JONES Lord WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, leave out lines 31 to 36.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak simultaneously to Amendment No. 26 because it deals with exactly the same wording which occurs in one of the Schedules. The Amendment deals with a passage which occurs in subsection (2) of the new section which is added by Clause 5. It says:
"An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of—
(a) "—
and then at (b), which is the paragraph dealt with by the Amendment, it says:
"the killing or taking or attempted killing or taking, in any calendar year and in any ten kilometre square of the national grid, of not more than two specimens of a vulnerable wild creature specified in Schedule 3 to this Act."

1985
It is fairly clear from reading that paragraph that there would be considerable difficulty in reaching the negative conclusion that someone was not guilty of something when one must decide in which ten kilometre square the animal has been caught; that it was done in any one calendar year and that not more than two specimens were taken. In my view, this is a complicated and not essential feature of the Bill, although one can understand why it was introduced. Therefore, I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I hesitate to accuse the noble Lord of doing a bit of a "cook", but this is really intended to meet the argument which the noble Baroness and I have had on at least two occasions so far, as regards trying to define the area over which we can restrict the killing or taking of vulnerable wild creatures which, I would remind your Lordships, by definition has no serious effect upon their status, because if it did they would be included in Schedule I. As regards Schedule 3, which I shall be moving in the next Amendment, that is a perfectly satisfactory conclusion. They are all wild creatures which are readily recognised in the hand or in the net and the first paragraph of this subsection provides adequate information about them. There are, and there will certainly be identified as such, a fairly considerable number of vulnerable wild creatures which cannot be so identified and must be taken out of the population in the wild in order to be identified by comparison with a study collection and possibly by examination under a microscope and the like.
The Nature Conservancy will then be faced with a problem. It will be difficult for it to put those vulnerable wild creatures, which require more accurate identification than a naturalist is able to make when he sees them in his hand or in his net, on Schedule 3 without some hesitation. That is something which will come in the future. However, I am bound to warn your Lordships that, if we pass the Amendment—and I think that we safely can at present—we shall put the Nature Conservancy into a difficult situation. It will certainly come about that, when the Bill is overtaken, as it will be in due course, by a comprehensive Bill, further thought must be given to the area over which taking can be done—whether it is a site,
1986
parish or a 10-kilometre square and so on. That decision will have to be reached at some time. This is only a stalling procedure. Therefore, with some regrets I recommend your Lordships to agree.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I have made it clear from the beginning that I do not like the particular words that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is asking us to leave out. I was chided by my noble friend during the Committee stage for actually making a statement. I am very impressed by what my noble friend has said, that this might make matters harder for the Nature Conservancy Council in the future. However silly the words may appear at first sight, if a principle is involved here, then perhaps there is something to be said for leaving them in.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I should like to ask the House to accept the Amendment that has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones. As the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said, we have had a couple of goes at this already. The Nature Conservancy Council considers that the 10-kilometre principle would be unworkable. There seems to be some agreement about that, but no one has yet come up with the right kind of answer. As the noble Earl has said, this is something to which we must apply our minds before we have a comprehensive Act.
However, at the moment, on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, we should prefer the collecting of vulnerable species to be controlled under licence, and we do not consider that a great deal of additional work would be involved in it. We think that, at this time, this is perhaps the best way of dealing with it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Schedule of vulnerable wild creatures]:
3.51 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 on page 5 and insert—

(VULNERABLE WILD CREATURES

Scientific name

Common name

INVERTEBRATES

SPIDERS

Dolomedes plantarius

BUTTERFLIES

Carterocephalus palaemon

Chequered Skipper

Melitaea athalia

Heath Fritillary

MOTHS

Idaea lineata

Black-veined

Pareulype berberata

Bat berry Carpet

Thetidia smaragdaria

Essex Emerald

BEETLES

Chrysolina cerealis

DRAGONFLIES

Aeshna isoscles

Norfolk Aeshna

GRASSHOPPERS AND CRICKETS

Decticus verrucivorus

Wart-biter

Gryllus campestris

Field Cricket

GryllotaIpa gryllotalpa

Mole Cricket

MOLLUSCS

Myxas gliainosa

Glutinous snail

Catinella arenaris

Sandbowl snail

Monacha cartusiana

Carthusian snail

The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that 1 moved a comparable Amendment in Committee when the noble Baroness, under a slight misapprehension, criticised the insertion of a couple of fish. She felt that, were they in Schedule 1, it would be impossible to capture and identify them. As they are to be in Schedule 3, that is possible and I think that she will be satisfied with the Schedule as it now is. However, on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, I have removed one of the fish and I hope that the noble Baroness will find some consolation for the postponement.
However, I must give the same warning as I have just given. Most of the animals on this list were given to me by the committee which was preparing the list of insects and invertebrates of that nature for the Red Data Book—which will probably be published within the next couple of years— dividing British fauna into the three categories of "endangered", "vulnerable", and "rare". That has already been done for the 2,000 or so plants; it will now be done for the 20,000 or so wild creatures. It is an unconscionably long list of vulnerable plants in the Red Data Book of British Plants.
1988
It will be an even longer list of vulnerable wild creatures in the two Red Data Books —one on vertebrates and one on invertebrates—which we can expect to be published in the near future.
That raises the same problem, which I mentioned just now, which will face the NCC at that time. The capturers of a larger number of wild creatures will have to be licensed. I hope that the Nature Conservancy Council will remember that to take these creatures does not endanger them. By definition, they are not affected by being taken provided that it is done with discretion. I hope that the Council will be free in granting licences, because it is not right unnecessarily to interfere with research by field naturalists. Some interference is necessary, but not the complete interference which a severely restricted policy on licences would introduce. I hope that the Nature Conservancy Council will bear that in mind when it considers the granting of licences. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this might, perhaps, be an appropriate moment for me to express from the Government Benches our thanks to the work that the noble Earl has put in, with my officials, since this Bill first saw the light of day. I should like to record our very great appreciation of the time which he has given in consultation with my officials and with the Ministry of Agriculture in order to make this the sort of Bill that we hope might have a speedy passage through another place. I am grateful to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.56 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Forfeitures.
(". For section 11(2) of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following new subsections—
"(2) The court before which any person is charged with an offence, if he is convicted, may order the forfeiture of any wild creature or plant to which the charge relates and such forfeiture shall be dealt with in accordance with the directions of the Nature Conservancy Council.
(3) The court before which any person is convicted of an offence under this Act may order the forfeiture and subsequent destruction of any implement which is capable of

1989
being used for committing the offence to which the charge relates, and which is found in the possession of that person.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is rather different from one that your Lordships quite definitely did not approve when I moved it in Committee. I have now changed two important features. In subsection (2) of the new clause I have omitted a particularly contentious point. Your Lordships felt that the words,
"the court before which any person is charged with an offence, if acquitted by reason only of a defence provided under this Act"
were far too wide and would cause precedents in other branches of the law. I must say that I agree. In subsection (3) I have added the words:
"to which the charge relates".
That was in order to put over the point originally brought to light by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who was worried that a man's car might be confiscated and destroyed as it enabled him to get to the place where he was committing the alleged offence. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, although your Lordships may be surprised to hear this, throughout this Bill—with 50 or 60 Amendments in Committee and a large number now—I have tried not to interfere with the basic principles of the Act as it was passed, protecting endangered wild species. Throughout, my objective has been to add the third Schedule—originally it was the fourth and not to alter in any way the provisions which we passed in 1975 purely to deal with endangered species.
I must confess, though, that this is a real improvement of the Act. It does not go against the principle which I have just laid down. It is very much tidier; it is much easier to understand. It answers the criticisms of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, which were made both by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard in Committee. I am inclined to recommend noble Lords to accept this Amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able to do the same.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and
1990
the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, have said, this is really a rewording of the forfeiture provisions in the 1975 Act. I must confess that it is difficult to see exactly how the new wording changes the position on forfeitures. We do not have any very strong views on it, but it seems better to us to retain the wording of the original Act. However, we are in the hands of the House.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Perhaps this is an occasion when I might explain myself slightly more fully. The new wording alters things quite dramatically. Subsection (2) suggests that the authorised person is not necessarily the correct person to deal with his own creature. However, I have tried to insert the idea that the Nature Conservancy Council, who are the experts under the Act, and of course the Bill, should have absolute discretion whether or not to return the creature to its own owner or give it to a zoo, or whatever they should direct. Subsection (3) is, again, rather wider than the original wording in the Act. It says that the court may order the destruction of the instrument which has been used, not necessarily for catching but also for interfering with animals—for example, the ringing of bats which may well not be a desirable practice—and this might well be a deterrent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Removal of creatures from Schedule 1]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 53, after ("forthwith") insert ("by order").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Additional ground for grant of licence]:
The Earl of CRAN BROOK The Earl of CRAN BROOK moved Amendment No. 12:
Leave out Clause 10.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 2, to which your Lordships have agreed. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Duty of Nature Conservancy Council]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Amendment No. 13, I understand, pre-empts Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, if approved.
4.3 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 7 and insert (" to this Act and shall advise the Secretary of State that—

(a)if any wild creature or plant has become so rare that it is in danger of extinction as an offence under this Act, it should be included in Schedule 1 or 2 to this Act either generally or with respect of a particular category and either at all times or at particular times of the year; and

(b)if any British wild creature or plant has become so common that its continued existence as a British wild creature or plant is no longer endangered, it should be removed from Schedule 1 or 2 to this Act; and

(c)if the population of any British wild creature which is being killed or taken as a resource for sport or otherwise is known to be decreasing or has become so seriously depleted or so fragmented that its ultimate security is not assured and it is likely to move into the endangered category, it should be included in Schedule 3 to this Act either generally, or with respect to a particular category, and either at all times or at particular times of the year; and

(d)if the population of any British wild creature which is being killed or taken as a resource for sport or otherwise is known to have so few recovered its former density that it is no longer vulnerable it should be removed from Schedule 3 to this Act; and

(e)if any wild creature included in Schedule 3 to this Act has become so rare that it is in danger of extinction as a British wild creature by any action designated as an offence under this Act, it should be added to Schedule 1 to this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 13, it might be convenient if I also spoke to my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. In Amendment No. 13 I have tried to split up the words in the Bill into a more readily understood form. I hope I have achieved this. As regards Amendment No. 14, I do not really think this is going to make one whit of difference one way or another, and perhaps I can ask my noble friend a little later on whether he will consider not moving that Amendment.
Amendment No. 15 in effect means that the Nature Conservancy Council is being given two different directions in this Bill, one for endangered species and the other for vulnerable species. I am not convinced—and I am sure my noble friend will tell us—that this is what he desires; nor am I convinced about exactly what the Government understand by the wording in the Bill as it was amended in Committee. Perhaps we can discover this from the noble Baroness.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, in reply to what the noble Lord said in moving this Amendment, I think it is essential that we should treat endangered wild species in a different way from that in which we treat vulnerable ones. The new Section 12 in Clause 11 of the Bill makes it quite clear that if an animal is endangered, or if the NCC advises the Minister that an animal is endangered, it must also advise him that it shall receive the full protection of Schedule 1. I think on that we are all agreed. If an animal is endangered it must be given the full protection. The protection which has to be given to a vulnerable creature, as we have already decided, will differ as between those creatures, even within those on the Third Schedule. We have decided that some or all you can take, identify and release, but some under licence you will be able to take home and identify with the microscope or whatever as and when necessary.
As I tried to explain on the two previous Amendments, it is absolutely essential that the Nature Conservancy Council should be given full discretion to decide whether or not a vulnerable wild creature must be put on Schedule 3. They fall relatively easily into two categories. All of them by definition are scattered, sometimes in only one colony, but some of them are already so reduced in numbers because they are at the extreme end of their geographical range, or for some other reason, that they need the partial protection which putting them on Schedule 3 would give them. Others may be in only one colony, and your Lordships perhaps will bear with me if I go back on my own experience of snails.
There is a marshy stretch of woodland fen near me, the only site on which one rather uninteresting-looking and very small snail is found, and it is therefore obviously vulnerable because if that site

1993
were drained the snail would disappear, but within that site the creature is abundant. You can pick up a handful or two of litter and sieve it and you will find a dozen, or a score or more. Clearly, the Nature Conservancy Council will wish to put the first lot on Schedule 3, but will not wish to put the second lot on the Schedule at all, because they do not require partial protection against killing or taking which putting them on that Schedule would give them. We must give that discretion to the Nature Conservancy Council. That is why these two paragraphs are quite deliberately phrased in different terms. My second Amendment is intended to make that abundantly clear, and I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord may be ready to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I wonder whether I could make an inquiry from the two noble Lords who have just spoken with regard to the way in which this Amendment would operate? Your Lordships may recollect that some 12 years or so ago there was a Private Bill before the House for setting up a dam and reservoir in Yorkshire. The purpose of this, of course, was to increase the water supply, especially for chemical industry on Tees-side. At the time it was pointed out that in this part of the country there were plants which, I think I am right in saving, were pre-Ice Age, the only plants in this country, I understood, which could be clearly identified in that way.
The decision of your Lordships' House at the time was that the Bill should be allowed to go through. But what I am really inquiring about now is what would be the procedure with regard to any case of that type which might come up now. The particular species would not be endangered or likely to be made extinct unless the Bill was passed. Otherwise I think I am right in saying they would not be on any particular Schedule. How would one deal with an important case like that? Has it been in the minds of the noble Earl and the noble Lord as to how this should be dealt with?
4.10 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I speak again only with the permission of the House. Quite clearly on the question of Cow Green, to which the noble
1994
Lord referred, I think that my noble friend on my left and I would find ourselves on opposite sides. The species which were there endangered were wild plants. He is a botanist and I am a zoologist. I thought that the botanists grossly exaggerated the danger to the species as a British wild species then, and so perhaps we had better avoid a discussion on that particular site in Teesdale.
The real point that the noble Lord is making is, why do we not in this Bill try to protect the environment? That is something that you cannot do in a Private Member's Bill. It must ultimately be a Government Bill. It will inevitably involve compensation for people whose sites you take by compulsory purchase. The Nature Conservancy Council has the power to do it now. It has always been a little pusillanimous—in fact, completely pusillanimous about it, because I do not think that it has ever bought any site by compulsory purchase except one or two in an estuary in Wales where the owners were unknown and the various plots were just lying their waiting for somebody to pick them up, and it picked them up.
The real answer to the noble Lord is that I could not have done that. It could not be done in a Private Member's Bill. All a Private Member's Bill can do is to protect wild creatures against actions by human beings when they are harmful to them. That is what this Bill does. If there is going to be protection of the environment it is a Government job and a Private Member cannot do it, whether in this House or the other.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, far be it from me to intervene in any quarrel between botanists and zoologists. We think that the present wording of the Bill as it stands is preferable to what the noble Lord has put forward to us today. We have got the reference that we are coming to later on in an early Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, where he is inserting his words to make quite plain the difference in the Schedules. I must advise the House that if they decide to accept Lord Skelmersdale's Amendment then we would want to see a similar insertion of the word "if" in line 5 of his paragraph (c). We have not any strong views

1995
about it, and we do not really see why the Bill should be changed.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I too am not going to get involved in perhaps a one-sided discussion with my noble friend on the differences of interpretation over a dale in Yorkshire that happened 12 years ago.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: It was in Durham.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I beg your pardon, my Lords—in Durham. The noble Baroness has rather pre-empted me. I was hoping to be able to tell your Lordships that my Amendment in fact so fragmented the Bill as to make it far easier to understand. I would agree with her that the "if" in my new paragraph (c) would fit in with Lord Cranbrook's thoughts, and I was about to ask your Lordships whether you would consider that this might be put in on Third Reading.
I strongly feel that the existing paragraphs (a) and (b) are so complicated and difficult to read and understand, that if in effect you come to a stop after "times of the year" in line 27 of page 6 of the Bill, and then carry on with another paragraph, it makes it slightly easier to comprehend. In moving all the various Amendments, I have tried to make it possible for a layman, such as myself, to be able to comprehend the Act so far as the law is concerned. I rather hope that your Lordships will agree that my Amendment does this.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 23, leave out ("and") and insert ("that").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put in this Amendment in order to try to placate my noble friend on my left, but from what he said a little earlier he does not seem to be placated, and I beg leave not to move this Amendment.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 37, after ("and") insert ("if").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have already discussed this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Amendment of s. 14 of principal Act]:
4.16 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 17, line 17, at end insert—
("(2A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the statement mentioned in subsection (2) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is quite definitely a probing Amendment in the first instance (shall we say?), although it rather depends on what the noble Baroness has to say. We shall then decide on what action to take. At the Committee stage the noble Baroness offered to find out for us what the procedure was, and indeed whether it was possible at all to get statements of this kind on the Pink Paper, which would mean therefore that the need not be enshrined in what we all hope will become an Act of Parliament. The probing part of the Amendment is to find out whether this is feasible, and whether in fact she has done it. I think that that is all I need say at this stage. I beg to move.
The Lord CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Amendment as printed has a misprint. I think that it should be "Page 7".
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I undertook at the earlier stage of the Bill that we would look at the question as to how we could get information to those Members who were interested. I have been discussing the question of the Pink Papers, that the noble Earl suggested with our Parliamentary Branch and the Printed Paper Office. I am informed that this is limited to Lords' Papers, the Bill Papers and Command Papers, and therefore it would not be appropriate for this kind of statement to be included on the Pink Paper.
If the Amendment concerning the laying of the NCC statement to both Houses is accepted, I understand that a reference to that statement would then be included in

1997
the appropriate Minutes of Proceedings which we receive daily; the big quarto-sized document. But even in this case of course the text would not be printed in full. So although it goes part way towards meeting the noble Lord's wishes it it does not go the whole way.
We are required under the 1976 Act to have consultations with the interested bodies and organisations before we make any order to amend the Schedule. Before the Otters Order, for instance, was made we consulted between 30 and 40 bodies and people, and also published the report of the Joint Otter Group. Therefore, I think that on that occasion anybody who was interested in the Otters Order at least knew that something was coming up and was able to get some information about it.
If something more than this is required, perhaps we could send the statement either to the Lords' Printed Paper Office and the Commons' Vote Office, or to the Lords' and Commons Libraries, or to both. In addition, any order to amend the Schedules will be considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and they are entitled to ask for an explanatory memorandm. I am certain that we can give the undertaking that if the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments ask for such a memorandum we would include in that memorandum all the NCC statement of reasons. Unless we are asked for that, the only assurance I can give is that we could make the statement available in the Lords' Printed Paper Office for those noble Lords who were interested in it. However, I regret that we are not able to include it on the Pink Paper.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I do not know what my noble friend will say to that, but I think the Minister has done extremely well by us. I understand her difficulty over the Pink Paper and I believe that, if what she suggested were carried out, it would meet the reasonable demands of the interested Members concerned.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I was rather disappointed in the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, because I thought, from conversations , with her, that she might be able to do more than she said. I accept that it will
1998
be virtually impossible to give us notice of the fact that this evidence is available before the order is made. When the order is made two things happen; it is sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and, with it, goes an explanation. The Joint Committee grumbled in his First Special Report that the explanations, or a great many of them, which have been sent with Statutory Instruments, have not been satisfactory.
It seems to me that two courses are open to the Minister; she could send, with the intimation that an order has been made, the statement to which we are referring as part of the explanation of that Statutory Instrument. With that, she could ask the chairman of the Joint Committee whether he would look on that as evidence given to the Joint Committee and recommend that it should be printed as a Lords' and Commons' Paper, as already happens when verbal evidence is given before them. If the noble Baroness could give an assurance that she would send the statement and would ask the chairman of the Joint Committee to have it printed as a Lords' and Commons' Paper, it would then appear in the Pink Paper. Your Lordships will have noticed that in the Pink Paper but one we could have the evidence given before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The second alternative is on the Minutes which come round on which it is reported that an order has been laid. I cannot believe it would not be possible on those Minutes to add, as an addition to the bald statement that an order has been made, the fact that the evidence which led the Minister to make that order cannot be seen in the Printed Paper Office and cannot be seen in the Library. I am speaking as a backwoods Peer; there are many of us and we do not go every day into the Printed Paper Office or the Library, and therefore we should be given the information that is available.
If the noble Baroness could assure us that, when the notice is put on the Minutes that an order has been made, at the same time a note will he affixed in the Minutes which we all get saying there is available on demand from the Printed Paper Office the evidence which led the Minister to make that statement—which led them to advise the Minister to make that order—

1999
I think we should be happy. Perhaps my noble friend would now withdraw his Amendment. I hope the noble Baroness will consider the two alternatives I put before her. My noble friend could table the Amendment for Third Reading, and then, if she cannot satisfy us, we would have no alternative but to divide the House on how the information is to be given to us.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the way in which he is dealing with the matter. I could not give such an assurance this afternoon because I think it would involve Parliamentary procedure and I should have to take advice from our Parliamentary Division on how far we are allowed to go in relation to what is put in the Minutes of Proceedings. I suspect we are not allowed to go as far as the noble Earl would want us to go, but I will happily take this matter back, have further consultations about it and write to both noble Lords before the next stage of the Bill.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to go a little further than simply asking the people concerned about this? They will inevitably say it cannot be done because nobody likes something new. However, I am certain that, if she were to put the matter to your Lordships' House, noble Lords would see to it that the information was placed on the Minutes so that we could have it. The House is the ultimate authority as to what goes into our Minutes and Papers. If the noble Baroness gets the usual, No, which one so often gets from one's advisers in the Civil Service, will she consider putting the matter to the House?—whereupon I think she will get the answer, Yes.
Baroness STEDMAN: I will explore the possibilities, my Lords. I can give the assurance now that we will make the statement available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library. So far as the other matters are concerned, I will discuss with and make known to the people concerned the strong feelings expressed in your Lordships' House on the matter, and perhaps we can take it from there at the next stage.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I was impressed by the arguments of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, but I have another possible solution to offer, a somewhat radical one about which I do not expect to get more than a nod at the moment. It is an eccentric question to ask, but would it be possible—as the Nature Conservancy Act and the principal Act in this case both require that the reasons must be published in the annual report of the Nature Conservancy Council —at the same time as laying an order, to print a special supplement to the annual report of the Nature Conservancy? That, I should have thought, would cover all possibilities, because then I understand it would be an Act paper and would appear on the Pink Paper. It is only a suggestion, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Authorisation to he given in writing]:
4.27 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 18:
Leave out Clause 13.
The noble Earl said: This provision would provide that a person should have his authority in writing. I moved the inclusion of this provision with some doubts and, after discussing it with representatives of the various Government Departments, my doubts were increased. After all, it would be possible, if someone were found doing such an act without authority in writing, for it to be given ex post facto. I do not think it is worth having this provision in the Bill, and that is why I move the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Interpretation]:
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 27, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential upon the acceptance by the House of Amendment No. 1.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule [Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 as Amended]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 36:
Page 8, line 14, at end insert—
"Provided that an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of any action taken in respect of an endangered wild creature, if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.".
line 19, leave out ("unweaned") and insert ("dependant")
line 23, after ("creatures") insert ("(a)")
line 23, at end insert ("; or
(b) as an incidental result of any operation which was carried out in accordance with good agricultural or forestry practice.")
Page 9, line 1, after ("that") insert ("(i)")
line 2, at end insert ("and
(ii) an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of any action taken in respect of a vulnerable wild creature, if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to land, crops, poultry or any other form of property.")
leave out lines 10 to 13.
line 45, after ("forthwith") insert ("by order")
Page 10, leave out lines 39 to 42.
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("(bb),")
Page 11, line 6, leave out ("paragraphs (e) or (ee)") and insert ("paragraph (e)")
Page 12, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert ("that")
Page 12, line 35, after ("and") insert ("if")
Page 13, leave out lines 19 to 21.
Page 13, line 33, leave out ("in writing")
Page 15, line 5, at end insert—

Area where restrictions apply

("Common Otter Lutra Iutra England and Wales.")
leave out from beginning of line 34 to end of line 18 on page 16 and insert—
("SCHEDULE 3
Vulnerable Wild Creatures
INVERTEBRATES

Scientific name

Common name

Spiders

Dolomedes plantarius

Butterflies

Carterocephalus palaemon

Chequered Skipper

Melitaea athalia

Heath Fritillary

Moths

Idaea lineate

Black-veined

Pareulype berberata

Barberry Carpet

Thetidia smaragdaria

Essex Emerald

Beetles

Chrysolina cerealis

2002

Dragonflies

Aeshna isosceles

Norfolk Aeshna

Grasshoppers and Crickets

Decticus verrucivorus

Wart-biter

Gryllus campestris

Field Cricket

Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa

Mole Cricket

Molluscs

Myxas glutinosa

Glutinous snail

Catinella arenaria

Sandbowl snail

Monacha cartusiana

Carthusian snail

VERTEBRATES

Fish

Lota lota

Burbot

Mammal

Muscardinus avellanarius

Dormouse.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a series of Amendments designed to amend the Schedule in line with Amendments made earlier this afternoon and some moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in Committee, but which have not been reflected in the Schedule.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
In the Title.
4.30 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 37:
Line 2, at end insert ("and of plants growing wild".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have a feeling that, Parliamentarily speaking, I am being slightly naughty in putting down this Amendment. The noble Baroness very kindly let me have a few words with her advisers at the end of the Committee stage, and at that time they rather doubted the advice that they had given her in advising me to withdraw my original Amendment in Committee. Therefore, I have put it down again hoping that there will be an agreed result one way or the other. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment again. I apologise to him and to the House. My advisers and myself gave further consideration to the Amendment after the noble Lord had spoken on it at the Committee stage, and we decided on reflection that parts of the Bill—Clause 11—related to plants. Therefore, perhaps in the initial stages we were wrong to advise your Lordships to oppose it, and I am very happy to ask you to accept it this afternoon
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SOLOMON ISLANDS BILL [H.L.]
4.33 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Solomon Islands Bill, has consented to place Her Prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The essential purpose of this Bill, in the words of the Long Title, is to:
"… make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Solomon Islands of independence within the Commonwealth
Before describing the contents of the Bill, I should like, in accordance with usage, to trace briefly the history of the Solomon Islands and the developments leading up to the introduction of the Bill. The Solomon Islands archipelago stretches approximately 900 miles in a southeasterly direction from the island of Bougainville in Papua New Guinea. There are six major islands. Of the total population of 200,000, about 90 per cent. are Melanesians, the remainder including some Polynesians, Micronesians, Europeans, Chinese and others.
The islands were given their name, in the mistaken assumption that they contained great riches, by a Spanish explorer in 1568. In the nineteenth century, with the demand for labour on overseas sugar plantations, Solomon Islanders were recruited in large numbers and taken to Fiji and Australia. In 1893, the British Government established a Protectorate over some of the islands, and in the early part of this century others were transferred by treaty from Germany to Great Britain. Before long, recruiting for the Australian canefields stopped, and copra plantations were established in the islands.
In the Second World War the Japanese invaded the islands and were only driven back after much hard fighting by
2004
American and allied forces. For nearly three years villages were bombed and people in those islands held by the Japanese lived in the hush. Many Solomon Islanders worked to help the allied forces and showed outstanding courage and loyalty.
Post-war recovery was slow. Government, Church, trading and plantation infrastructures had to be rebuilt. As part of a continuous process of constitutional evolution, a ministerial system of government was created in August 1974, and internal self-government was introduced in January 1976. The present Legislative Assembly consists of 38 elected members; a Council of Ministers headed by a Chief Minister is collectively responsible to the Assembly.
In September, 1977 a full constitutional conference took place under my chairmanship, and it was agreed that, subject to the approval of Parliament, the Solomon Islands should become independent, as a constitutional monarchy under Her Majesty, in mid-1978. The report of the conference was published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 6969) and presented to Parliament on 26th October, 1977.
I now come to the provisions of the Bill itself. Clause I provides for the independence of the Solomon Islands, within Her Majesty's Dominions, as from 7th July, 1978. Clauses 2 to 6 deal with nationality. The agreement eventually reached at the conference was that only those who are indigenous to the islands will acquire citizenship automatically on Independence Day. This will take care of the vast majority of the population. The non-indigenous minority, perhaps some 5,000, will be entitled to Solomon Islands citizenship if they apply for it in the period beginning six months before Independence Day and ending two years after Independence Day. This agreement will be given effect in Solomon Islands law in the independence Constitution.
For our part, Clauses 2 to 6 of the Bill before the House deal with what is to become of the British national status of those affected by the settlement. We expect those who do not acquire Solomon Islands citizenship automatically at independence, to take up their entitlement to it by applying within the period allowed. In dealing with the national status of these

2005
people in the period after Independence Day, the Bill does more than simply say (as is usual in independence Acts) that those who become citizens of the new State on Independence Day are thereupon to lose their British national status.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have, within Clause 3, a connection with the Solomon Islands, shall lose that citizenship on becoming citizens of Solomon Islands. If they have not become Solomon Islands citizens by 7th July, 1980—that is, at the end of the two and a half year period of application, from six months before Independence Day to two years after Independence Day—they are to lose United Kingdom citizenship on that day, and if they would otherwise be Stateless, are to become British protected persons. Clause 3 defines those who have a connection with the Solomon Islands for the purposes of Clause 2. It excludes from the definition those who continue to have a close connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency.
Clause 4 provides that British protected persons of the Solomon Islands protectorate shall cease to be such on becoming citizens of Solomon Islands. Those w ho do not become such citizens by 7th July 1980 and would otherwise be Stateless are to remain British protected persons only until they acquire that or any other citizenship. In the same way, those who become British protected persons under Clause 2(4) shall also lose that status on acquiring citizenship of Solomon Islands or any other country.
Clause 5 makes special provision, along usual lines in independence Acts, as to the status of married women. Clause 6 deals with construction of the nationality provisions. Clause 7 and the Schedule deal with consequential modifications of other enactments. Clause 8 deals with any appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that may be pending at independence. Clauses 9 and 10 deal with interpretation and citation.
Perhaps I may now turn, my Lords, to more general matters not covered by the Bill but about which the House may well wish to be informed. We have for many years operated a programme of aid and technical assistance for the Solomon
2006
Islands. This will continue after independence. Apart from our substantial programme of technical co-operation we shall be providing development aid of up to £18 million in the first four years of independence. There will be additional development aid in the form of special project grants totalling £5 million, and budgetary assistance totalling up to £3 million. The whole of this aid programme, amounting to £26 million, will be on grant terms. We have also secured an increase from £4 million to £6 million in the allocation to the Solomon Islands from the European Development Fund over a period of five years.
I am glad to say that prospects for the Solomon Islands after independence are promising, although economic development will depend for some considerable time on outside aid donors. In addition to British and European Development Fund aid, a substantial aid programme from Australia and a very useful though smaller one from New Zealand have already begun. The Japanese Government recently sent an economic mission to the Solomon Islands to discuss their policy about future aid, which is to begin upon independence. The Solomon Islands also expect to benefit from their membership of the Asian Development Bank and their proposed membership of the World Bank, and they intend to accede to the Lomé Convention.
My Lords, may I say that many people have contributed to the successful outcome of the processes which have led to the introduction of this Bill. In particular, I should like to thank my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development for her help with the generous aid provisions. But, above all, this is the occasion to congratulate the Solomon Islands Government, and especially the honourable Peter Kenilorea, the Chief Minister, for the statesmanlike way in which he and his colleagues have worked to ensure a successful and peaceful future for the Solomon Islands. Our long association with their country and the friendship between us will endure, I am certain, for very many years to come.
My Lords, the Solomon Islands have already expressed their intention to join the Commonwealth. They are to become, indeed, a Parliamentary Monarchy,

2007
like us; and I am glad that it is as fellow members of the Commonwealth that we have the prospect of continuing the close ties that exist between us. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Goronwy- Roberts.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, after the bitter squabbles between the botanists and the other different varieties of wild creature lovers on the subject we were previously debating in your Lordships' House, I hope it will be a pleasure which spreads to all those who are assembled here today to look at this Bill and to welcome it. Speaking on behalf of noble Lords sitting on this side of the House, I should very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for what he has said in introducing this Bill and, if I may, to congratulate him personally on the important part that he, with his customary efficiency and charm, has played in conducting the negotiations or discussions that led up to the Solomon Islands becoming a constitutional Monarchy within the Commonwealth.
Without wishing in any way to dissent from the good wishes which he has sent on our behalf to the Solomon Islands on their new status, I hope I may ask him one or two questions about particular aspects of this Bill, because I think the matters on which I wish to touch are those which may interest other Members of your Lordships' House. Perhaps the first subject with which I could deal is the question of citizenship. The noble Lord will remember, as will the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that I have taken an interest in this subject for some years, and all I have learned is that it becomes more difficult to understand the more you know about it. So the first point I should like to put to the noble Lord is this. On the calculations made by Her Majesty's Government to date, on the basis of what they have put in the Bill, what are the implications as to the numbers of people likely to want to come to this country, and what is the change in their rights to do so?
Secondly, so far as British protected persons are concerned, do these people
2008
have a right to a passport? If so, what sort of a passport is it, and to what sort of rights do those passports entitle their possessors? Otherwise, what does the status of "British protected person" for those who do not fall within the other categories laid down in the Bill really mean in the case of those who have no other form of nationality or citizenship to which to turn?
I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord had to say about the various forms of grants and aid that the Solomon islanders were likely to receive, and he gave us some new information beyond that contained in Annexe C of Command Paper 6969, published last October. I was particularly pleased that he was able to tell your Lordships that the European Development Fund has been able to make some assistance available to the Solomon islanders. I wonder whether he could tell us a little more about the nature of this help. I think he mentioned a time within which it had to be repaid. Can the noble Lord give us a little more detail about the precise terms on which this aid is to he Oven and can he also say, with the renegotiation of the Lome Convention now getting under way, whether there is any prospect of the Solomon Islands being considered for membership of the States which have acceded to that Convention? If not, could he say whether Her Majesty's Government are suggesting within the institutions of the EEC that there are any other avenues which the Solomon Islanders could pursue?
When I studied the provisions that have been laid down for the Constitution of the Solomon Islands I thought that they were very lucky indeed, and in many ways seemed to be better protected than we are, certainly so far as concerns the provisions for the amendment of the Constitution and the provisions for the protection of fundamental rights. Having sat as a Member of your Lordships' Select Committee on the Bill of Rights, I am certain that they are going to do very well indeed if these provisions are honoured, as I am sure they will be. In that connection, can the noble Lord say which particular electoral system the Solomon Islands use at the moment and whether that system will be changed by the procedures that will be set in motion by the passage of this Bill?

2009
I wonder whether the noble Lord, perhaps at a later stage of the Bill, can give us some further details of what will be the actual nature of the Constitution itself. I do not think that this is included either in the Bill or in the White Paper. It would be rather interesting to see how Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with the people of the Solomon Islands, have worked out what they think is the best way forward for this new member of the Commonwealth.
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House any further. I hope that we can all add our voices to the chorus of welcome to this new nation and that this Bill will pass speedily through this House so that the independence, which I am sure we all hope will be the success that the noble Lord led us to believe it would be, can become a fact as soon as possible.
4.53 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, I am interested in some of the provisions of this Bill regarding nationality and would be grateful if during his winding-up speech the Minister could give us one or two reassurances; because I think, if one looks at this Bill, it seems to give an indication of what may be expected from a major British Nationality Act (following the Green Paper published a year ago) before there has been any proper discussion about the Green Paper or agreement on the form that such legislation ought to take. I say that because of two main points which appear to arise out of the Bill.
One is the fact that all possibility of retaining any effective form of British nationality is to be cut off from anybody who acquires the new Solomon Islands citizenship or any other nationality; that is to say, no dual nationality is to be allowed. That seems to pre-empt the decision which is set out in paragraph 62 of the Green Paper where three choices are provided. The first of these is a complete ban on dual nationality where it arises, either voluntarily or involuntarily; but, after that, two alternatives are set out for consideration. What it seems to me that we are doing under this Bill is to settle for the first of those three choices in paragraph 62 of the Green Paper
2010
before Parliament has had any chance of considering the other two.
The second feature of this Bill to which I should like to draw attention is that any one now having any form of British nationality in the Solomon Islands and who does not acquire the new Solomon Islands citizenship will be made a British protected person. That means taking away citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from a number of people who now hold it and is making them instead British protected persons. That is a status which will have no meaning or use once the Solomon Islands are independent. As the noble Lord is aware, British protected persons are treated in many respects under our law in the same way as aliens. Their rights of entry are non-existent and their other rights are somewhat doubtful. All they have, if they are outside a Protectorate, is a chance to apply for a British passport, which will not admit them into Great Britain. Thus, a British protected person in the Solomon Islands under this Bill will be in the same situation as is the proposed British overseas citizen in the Government Green Paper published last April. In effect, they will have nationality in name but without substance. I do not have enough background information on the Solomon Islands to know who is likely to be affected by these provisions, although it is clear from the Bill that anyone of British origin or descent would keep his or her United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship.
The noble Lord told us that some 180,000 out of the 200,000 inhabitants of the Solomon Islands are Melanesians. Apart from that, I understand that there are something like 6,000 Polynesians, 2,000 Micronesians, 1,280 Europeans and 577 Chinese; with a few others; and I do not know what they will be. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that these are the minorities living in the Islands. The noble Lord spoke about those indigenous to the Islands acquiring citizenship automatically on Independence Day. I should be grateful if he were to expand on this and to say who count as indigenous and who as non-indigenous. He said that the non-indigenous would he given citizenship if they applied for it within six months before Independence or two years after it. Presumably, those of European or Chinese origin would be

2011
counted as non-indigenous and would have to apply for naturalisation in the manner he described.
If one looks at the immigration orders of the Solomon Islands itself, mention is there made of British subjects and it specifically says that, for the purpose of the immigration orders, that includes British protected persons even though, under our law, the two kinds of status are quite different. I suppose that it has never really mattered whether a person is a British protected person because so few of them would in fact apply for a passport; not many of the inhabitants of the Solomon Islands would travel. I would rather guess that the Chinese inhabitants of the Solomon Islands are United Kingdom and Colonies citizens derived perhaps from Hong Kong, Singapore or Malaysia. They may be those who are most at risk of beimg deprived of their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and forced into becoming British protected persons.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord were to say in his winding-up speech whether those are the people most affected. I would emphasise that this Bill differs from all previous independence legislation in the way I have described, because previous laws have been drafted in such a way that anyone who held the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies retained that status after Independence unless he or she acquired the citizenship of the newly independent State. We are making an extremely important and, perhaps, unsatisfactory departure from precedent in this law as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has implied. This we may have to return to on Committee, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, says in his winding-up.
Notwithstanding these criticisms, I should like to add my voice on behalf of my noble friends, and indeed of the Liberal Party as a whole, to the congratulations which have been expressed to those who are responsible for the negotiations—to the chief Minister and his colleagues in the Solomon Islands and to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts —for the extremely amicable and smooth way in which they have proceeded to reach agreement. I should like to express our
2012
warmest good wishes to the Chief Minister and the people of the Solomon Islands for the happiness and prosperity of their country when independence arrives.
5.1 p.m.
Lord BA LLANTRAE: My Lords, obviously, I would like to endorse what has been said in sending good wishes to the Chief Minister and the people of the Solomon Islands. I have never been there; I once spent five days in 1961 in what was then Dutch New Guinea, trying to get to the Solomon Islands in a schooner, but was frustrated by wind and waves. However, I do know many of the islands of the South Pacific, and I have seen progress towards independence in Tonga, Somoa, Tahiti and elsewhere. It fell to me, in fact, to be the instrument whereby autonomy was conferred on the Cook Islands in 1965; so I do know something of the conditions and I do know that the auspices for such a group of islands as the Solomons are very good indeed.
My only reason for speaking, apart from wishing to extend my best wishes for what is coming, is to voice certain misgivings I have on behalf of the British and Australian settlers in those Islands. Until about 1960 or even after that, people were encouraged to settle there and to invest there. Most are companies, some of them big companies, for whom the loss of their plantations will only be a flea-bite. Some are small companies, for whom the loss will be more serious, and some are individuals—small people who sank their all there in the past with every encouragement from us. Their future now looks a little bit dubious and I am concerned about them. I am all the more concerned because of course they are thousands of miles away and cannot make their voices heard in Whitehall, London, SW1.
Of course it is no good crying over spilt milk, but I have the feeling that, during the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Solomon Islands Administration which led up to the present situation, rather more interest was taken in the future of other categories than in that of the British and Australian settlers. For instance, there are two categories of Gilbertese Islanders. Some are individuals who settled there, and some were settled by the British Government's Colonial Administration. If I have got

2013
this right—and, if I am wrong, I must apologise—I understand that the rights of tenure of the Gilbertese who were settled by direct British encouragement have been safeguarded in direct negotiations. The rights of the remaining Gilbertese and of the other settlers have not been so safeguarded. Those with freeholds are being told that they will or may be given instead leaseholds of up to 75 years. That is a very poor substitute for a freehold. Also, there are rumours that, when compensation is being discussed a freehold and a 75-year leasehold will be treated as being of equal value. That seems to be wrong.
I regret that, during the negotiations, fewer safeguards were secured for the categories of people I have mentioned than might perhaps have been negotiated. Of course, I realise that land tenure in the Solomons has been a Solomon Islands matter for more than two years past, and that that is water over the cataract. However, I should now like to ask whether there are any steps still open to Her Majesty's Government to safeguard the interests of these people. I take some encouragement from a communication, which is not marked "confidential - and which I have had from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, saying that they will watch the situation closely, including the amount of any compensation offered by the Solomon Islands Government, and that they will be willing to take the matter up should there appear to be a miscarriage of justice in the future. I quote that because I want to get it on the record that Her Majesty's Government will look after the interests of those people should the eventual allocation of compensation by the courts in the Solomon Islands appear to be inadequate. I think there is a precedent arising in connection with other countries—notably Kenya—where compensation has been forthcoming for people who seem, by our standards, to have had a raw deal.
I will excuse your Lordships from listening to more extracts from the notes I have in front of me. I know the Solomon Islanders are Melanesians, but I am sure that they will not resent good wishes being sent to them in traditional Polynesian form. This is a traditional Polynesian blessing:
"May the sun sparkle for you on the sea on the new journey on which you are setting out."
2014
I think that that voices the feeling of us all.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, perhaps it may be appropriate if Back-Benchers on this side give some expression of appreciation to my noble friend in respect of the considerable efforts that he and others have made to procure the happy result expressed in this Bill today. I am particularly interested in that part of his speech and in the remarks of the noble Lord opposite regarding the adherence of a newly independent State to the Lomé Convention and also its possible receipts from the European Development Fund.
In this connection I would add only one point. I do hope that the newly independent State, in joining those countries which are members of the Lome Convention, will give adequate support to those other members who believe in the preservation of human rights. Over the past few years, there has been some distress in the European Economic Community over the fact that quite a few countries which are in receipt of aid from Europe and indeed from Member States, have singularly failed to preserve human rights in their own territories. In some cases, I regret to say, acts of abominable brutality have occurred in such countries. Therefore, it is my earnest hope that the new independent State may be a powerful buttress of those forces within the developing countries which still steadfastly believe in the necessity for the preservation of human rights and dignity.
5.8 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am very pleased indeed with the general welcome that has been expressed in all parts of the House in respect of the advent of the Solomon Islands as, I think, the 36th member of the Commonwealth. Moreover, I repeat that, like us, it will be a Parliamentary Monarchy—not a bad description for the highest form of constitutional arrangement.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, raised a number of questions relating to the citizenship provisions of the Bill. For instance, he asked what numbers were likely to want to come to this country as a result of these arrangements. The answer must be that the legislation does not

2015
affect the number of people in the Solomon Islands who are patrial under the Immigration Act and who are therefore able to enter and live in the United Kingdom. I presume that he, like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, had in mind also the related question of what happens to the non-indigenous (as I think it is convenient to define the minority I referred to) if at the end of the day they have not applied for Solomon Islands citizenship. The answer is that, clearly, only a very tiny and almost accidental minority will not have applied for citizenship in the country in which they have lived and worked for a considerable number of years. The procedures for appraising them, wherever they are, of their right to apply are very comprehensive and are already in effect. Indeed, the flow of applications is proceeding very rapidly.
Throughout these discussions, I asked and asked, "Why do you provide for people who have every right of application, and an automatic right of citizenship as a result of that?" and they replied, "Just in case, for some reason that we cannot explain to you, Minister, there are people among them who have not applied. They shall not be stateless; they shall be protected persons." The definition of that, of course, is that they will come under the guidance and protection of the United Kingdom. They will be issued with a passport, which will enable them to travel, and they will cease to have protected status only when they qualify for, or take up, another citizenship.
Let us envisage a person who, with his family, has lived and worked in the Solomon Islands, but for some reason has not applied within the due dates. He then becomes a British protected person. He knows what the position is, and yet he does not apply and he acquires that status. There is nothing, I should imagine, to prevent him from re-applying beyond that date, and it will only be when he achieves citizenship, either of the Solomon Islands—which I think would be natural for him—or of some other country, that the British protected status will cease.
The point is that, whether the population is indigenous or non-indigenous, it has an avenue to Solomon Islands citizenship. If people did not avail themselves of the
2016
opportunity, then it would be possible for a State like ours to ask, "Well, what more can we do?" But we say more than that. We say that we will not allow them to become Stateless. We will give them a status from which they can attain citizenship of some country or other, and I would say that the normal, natural country for them to become citizens of is the Solomon Islands.
There is a good deal that one could say about this subject, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked some detailed questions. I do not want to detain the House on questions of citizenship, because, as we all know, we could go on for a very long time on questions of nationality and citizenship. But I should like to say this much in answer to his questions. Whatever form and content there will be to the Nationality Act, which is, so far, still in a protected status—it has not emerged beyond the chrysalis of paper—I do not think that anything in this Bill will cut across its provisions. Even if it did, everything in this Bill—and here I must speak frankly to the noble Lord—relating to nationality and citizenship is there at the request of the Solomon Islands Ministers and leaders. This is how they wanted it. They wanted the two categories. I do not want to enlarge upon this, but they wanted it in this way; that the indigenous would automatically on Independence Day become Solomon Islands citizens, but that the non-indigenous, including the categories which the noble Lord quoted to me, would have to apply, and I had no recourse but to agree to what the Solomon Islands leaders wanted.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am sure that the Solomon Islands authorities would not have expressed any opinion about whether a tiny minority who failed to acquire citizenship within two years of the Act should be left with British protected person status, or should retain citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If the number is as small as the noble Lord says—even to vanishing point, as would seem from the remarks which he has addressed to the House—why should they not be allowed to retain their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies?
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, may I intervene at this point? It seems to me

2017
too late now to alter what has been negotiated, and the best thing we can ask Her Majesty's Government to do is to watch the interests of those whom the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I have in mind.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, and to be absolutely fair to the United Kingdom, which is sometimes a rather unusual experience, I exerted myself to get the best possible terms for the Solomon Islands, and all the people in those Islands, and to get as clear-cut a provision on citizenship and nationality as I could. What I did get was what the Solomon Islands leadership wanted. Therefore, there is enshrined in this Bill precisely what the internal self-governing authority of the Solomon Islands wanted to get into it. Everything that the noble Lord urges on me was almost everything I urged on them, but this is the net result. If the noble Lord would like it, I will give him a detailed paper upon these questions.
Lord AVEBURY: Yes, please.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I do not, in sum, expect that there will be any difficulties about this. The Chief Minister and others assured me that they would operate the Constitution, including these provisions, in what we all refer to as the Pacific way, and there is a reality in that technique of dealing with individuals and minorities.
I pass on to questions of aid, which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, raised. He asked whether, in addition to the EDF and the Lome Convention, there were other sources of aid for the Solomon Islands, as for others, which we, as a friend of these countries in the Community, would look out for and try to use to advantage. He is aware of various instances where we have already done this. It would be invidious to name various countries and what they have got, but say publicly that we will apply to the Solomon Islands the same friendly technique of, if you like, intercession, in regard to whatever is possible for them from Community sources as we have done for other erstwhile dependencies which have become independent countries.
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who asked about details of the
2018
Constitution. This is in process of being printed, and I see no reason why I should not undertake to make available copies of the Constitution. It will certainly be widely published in the Solomon Islands and I imagine that, at least in some quarters, there will he an equal interest in it in this country. As soon as it is ready, I will make it available to noble Lords who are interested.
The only other point with which I shall deal at this juncture— there is always the Third Reading—is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae. He was courteous enough to set out, in what I would, without presumption, describe as a most able letter to my office, the points in regard to security of land tenure, compensation and the other matters which he raised this afternoon. I know that in the course of his remarks he asked only for one assurance to go on the record. We have replied to the request for information which the noble Lord made to us.
I do not think that we have met all of his requirements. The difficulty is that long before independence, during the period of internal self-government, our control over legislation, over ordinances, was nil. The British Government's responsibility was confined to internal order, external relations and defence. Everything else— home affairs and economic affairs, including land tenure and land transfer—was entirely within the powers of the internal government of the Solomon Islands. How much more so in independence! Once internal self-government had been granted to them, there was no way in which we could interfere with what is common form in regard to the rights of territories. However, once more I go on record to say that if the processes of assessment, of valuation, in connection with arrangements for compensation, seem to the United Kingdom Government to be in any case unfair or inequitable, then most certainly we shall take up the matter directly with the Government of the Solomon Islands.
I make no comment on the relative value of a 75-year lease as compared with freehold. I am advised that in the islands the value in cash terms may well be not very much different—indeed, that leases with 30 or 40 years to run command something like the purchase price for freehold. I do not know about that, but it is reassuring to think that this may be so. If,

2019
however, there is unfairness—a departure from the provisions contained in their Constitution and their law, which, as good friends of theirs, seems to us to be unfair, then most certainly, as with any other country, we shall take up the matter. But I do believe that they intend to act fairly and equitably.
The noble Lord touched on the question of the Gilbertese. I think he would agree with me that the situation of the Gilbertese is somewhat different. They were placed there by the British Crown at a time when this was clearly the best, indeed the only, thing to do with them. We have a certain obligation towards them. We have argued on the basis of that obligation, and the Solomon Islands have made concessions. It has not been quite so feasible for me to argue the case for the other class of landowners. There are not very many of them. as the noble Lord knows, but one inequitable case would he enough certainly for my Department and for the Government to take it up.
With those remarks, may I once more thank the House and ask that the Bill standing in my name he read a second time.
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, before the Minister resumes his seat, I should like to thank him for the most generous and forthcoming sympathy which he has shown for the points which I put to him.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATORY POWERS
5.25 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what instructions have been given to officials of the Inland Revenue and other Departments engaged in investigations which may entail forcible entry into premises for search and removal of documents. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is very brief but it is comprehensive. My interest in this matter goes back to the Finance Bill 1976
2020
which, when it became an Act of Parliament, contained Schedule 6, which introduced widely extended powers of entry, search and seizure. I wrote letters to The Times when the Bill was going through Parliament pointing out the dangers of what was happening.
Noble Lords who wish to study the matter more deeply will find that during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill 1976 there were many hours of debate in another place upon the proposals which ultimately, in modified form, became law. My letters to The Times were widely quoted by the Opposition in another place, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. During the Committee stage of the Bill, the Conservative spokesman was flatly opposed in principle to the new powers, and an attempt to amend the Bill in this respect was negatived only by the casting vote of the Chairman. Such are the Parliamentary conditions in which fundamental rights of the citizen may be taken away.
I shall not pursue that matter now. Nevertheless, I must remind the House that because these new powers were embodied in the Finance Bill 1976, this House was debarred from raising a finger to protect the liberties of the subject. By tacking on to a Money Bill not money but liberty matters, we were prevented from fulfilling anything but a humiliating role on a matter of constitutional importance. Noble Lords will recall that we are all obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who started the ball rolling regarding this tacking procedure on 7th July, at col. 1225 of the Official Report of this House.
On 20th May 1976, again while the Bill was going through another place, I asked a Question for Written Answer in this House about the Acts of Parliament which provided for entry, by force if necessary, of civil servants into private houses or business premises for the purpose of searching for and removing documents. I received a Written Answer to my Question which related completely to Customs and Excise. In his reply my noble friend Lord Jacques stated:
"Officers of the Customs and Excise have carefully delineated powers of entry, using force if necessary, for the purpose of detection and prevention of tax evasion and smuggling, under the provisions of the following Acts of Parliament …".—[Official Report; 20/5/76; col. 1569.]
The noble Lord then set out the Customs and Excise Act 1952, the Finance Act 1967, the Hydrocarbon Oil (Customs and Excise) Act 1971, the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1972 and the Finance Act 1972, the latter relating mostly, of course, to VAT. I think my noble friend omitted from the list the Control of Exchange Act 1947 but, there again, I think it is mostly Customs and Excise officers who are concerned with the enforcement of that Act. However, my noble friend said:
"Customs and Excise officers have found it necessary to use their powers of forcible entry only in isolated cases, most of which concerned the smuggling of prohibited drugs".
We have moved on since then, my Lords, and some of the concern that I expressed at the time has been renewed by the wide publicity given recently to particular cases of so-called "raids" and "swoops" upon household and business premises. The Question I am now asking, following upon the one I asked recently, is confined to a request for information. I shall not refer to any of the recent cases about which we have been reading, more especially as I now have an advisory role in connection with one of them. I shall not attack anybody; I shall not defend anybody. What I want is a clear statement of the instructions given to civil servants carrying out the duties of entry, by force if necessary, into premises where they have statutory power to do so. No more—and certainly no less.
I sent to my noble friend Lady Birk a list of the questions I proposed to ask this afternoon and I sent a copy of that list to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who I understood was to speak from the Front Bench opposite. I am sure that my noble friend will be fully equipped to answer those questions. if not, then I understand that my only remedy is to oppose the Motion for the adjournment of the House a little later in the day.
I do not refer to the police; I refer only to civil servants and I think we are entitled to have a clear set of rules of conduct for the officials involved, upon which the citizen can rely and by reference to which he can judge his own experience. I would go so far as to suggest that these rules of conduct should he clearly set out in print and handed to the occupier
2022
ofany premises concerned, to read and comprehend before any more is done.
What actually happens on such occasions, I do not know. What I am asking is that some formality should be observed in enabling the citizen to know where he stands when confronted with this traumatic situation. We are certainly now seeing search operations on a far bigger scale than was suggested by the reply from my noble friend Lord Jacques or contemplated at the time when these powers were granted. We now seem to have a kind of parapolice force of considerable strength, and when we read that 140 civil servants were involved in a particular operation, that is on a very considerable scale. So the vigilance we rightly use over the conduct of the police must now be cast over this development.
My Question is not confined to the use of powers of entry only by the Inland Revenue. They have only recently had these powers. One might almost call them novices in this particular field, whereas the Customs and Excise service have had similar powers for many years past. I am asking for rules of conduct for all occasions of this kind. I am not referring only to the Inland Revenue: they are all very similar. One procedure led to another and the form of words is much the same in each Act of Parliament. True, it varies a little. For example, the Exchange Control Act refers to "a suspected offence under the Act", whereas the Finance Act 1976 refers, among other things, to "any kind of fraud". The words differ but not, think, the substance of the matter.
There is of course one noticeable difference, and that is in the status of the authorising person. A justice of the peace may authorise a warrant under all Acts except the Finance Act 1976 where. on second thoughts and after Parliamentary resistance, the Government changed from a justice of the peace to a circuit judge. I think members of another place scented the danger of the extension of this form of intrusion into the premises of the citizen and wanted to get it accepted by offering the greater assurance of a circuit judge. So it is a circuit judge for the Inland Revenue and a magistrate for everybody else.
I now come to the questions, which all relate to procedure. There are three

2023
stages of an investigatory search of this kind! First, what happens before it is embarked upon; second, how it is actually carried out and, third, what happens subsequently. What, I ask the Minister, are the rules about asking the citizen, before any raid is made, for information on the matters under investigation? When Schedule 6 was being debated during the Committee stage in another place and the debate concentrated on the simple issue of the right of entry, by force if necessary, the Chief Secretary said: "You must look at the Schedule as a whole. You do not get to the breaking in stage until you have gone through other stages. This is the last resort and not the first". So I ask what opportunities are given to those whose premises may be broken into and searched, to provide the information without the necessity for that drastic action?
The next thing I ask is, what information is given to the magistrate, or, in the case of the Inland Revenue, to the circuit judge, to satisfy him that grounds exist which justify the issue of a warrant for search? Is he given any evidence, or merely a declaration on oath at the time, that there are reasonable grounds, but without any supporting evidence as to what they are? At column 803 of the Official Report of Standing Committee E in another place on 15th June, 1976 the Chief Secretary appeared to answer this question because he said, in reply to an intervention concerning what evidence the circuit judge would need to be satisfied before giving his consent to a search warrant:
"The Inspector of Taxes would have to show the circuit judge all his reasons for coming to the conclusion that there was a danger of evidence being destroyed that would lead to an assessment of tax on substantial funds that would otherwise escape tax.".
I repeat: all his reason for coming to the conclusion that evidence might be destroyed if it were not seized before the taxpayer had the opportunity of doing it.
Is this being done? What is the information laid before the magistrate or the circuit judge—what is he told? Is it, so to speak, an abbreviated indictment? If so, why should not the citizen be shown a copy of it. This is tantamount to making charges, reasonable grounds, at any rate, in support of possible charges. Why should the citizen not know what information has been laid which forms the basis
2024
of a warrant to enter his premises, to seize documents and remove them. This particular form of indictment may hang over a citizen for a very long time without any charge being made.
I come now to the second stage, the conduct of the entry into premises. Does a warrant authorise repeated entry, coming and going, going in, coming out, going back? It may be that many of my questions can be answered in relation to the conduct of the police, but I do not know the answers. Nor perhaps does the citizen. But this is a civil operation, not a police exercise; the relationship is between citizen and civil servant and not between citizen and police.
That is why I say that, when this relationship is the statutory one, the citizen is entitled to ask what is being said against him, and is also entitled to know what rights civil servants may have to enter his premises, remain there and undertake their authorised task. Does a warrant authorise civil servants to stay over-night in a private house? If so, under what conditions? Does it authorise civil servants to undertake almost continuous occupation of business premises? What is the role of the police who accompany these civil servants; what are the police there for? Can a citizen be prevented from leaving premises when a search is taking place; can he be forcibly held? What is the role of the police?
The third question under this heading is this: Should a list of documents or articles removed be furnished to the occupant at the time or subsequently? How is he to know what has been taken. What about the furnishing of copies? What rights has the citizen to regain some sight of papers which have been removed? Fourthly, I come to perhaps the most important aspect of the actual entry into premises. That is publicity. What disclosure is made to the Press, radio or television of a raid about to take place or actually in progress? Can the Press get information, be tipped off by the police or by the Department, so that they can be there when those who are to embark on the search have arrived. Why is it that they can get there at the same time? What are the detailed instructions about making statements to the Press and radio? Need I dwell upon all the implications of publicity in a matter like this. It can be

2025
trial by the media and sentence to prolonged anguish by civil servants.
I am still speaking on the process of actual entry and search. Are civil servants engaged in this exercise obliged to give their names and ranks to the occupant, as I understand a police officer must disclose his official identification? Does each officer have or need a warrant—say, 140 of them— or does one commander decide the size of his occupying force. Does his warrant authorise him to take as many as he likes or as many as he thinks he needs, or is there a number specified? What is the size of the army that can enter?
The third main heading is conduct after forcible entry. If statements are sought from any persons do the Judge's Rules apply. Are they being and will they he fully observed, or have civil servants rules of their own? I refer, of course, to matters of writing things down, cautions and the rest. The second point arising here is this: How long can articles or documents be retained by the authorities? I am not a lawyer, but I look at paragraph 3(i) of Schedule 5 to the Exchange Control Act 1947, which rather suggests that there is a limitation of the time documents can be retained without some charge being made. I cannot find similar limitations of time in other Acts of Parliament. Does this mean that the Departments concerned can take as long as they like? if a Department announces, as it has done after searches of this kind, "This will be a long investigation and it will be months before we are ready", who says so? What is the citizen to do while this investigation is in progress.
I am coming to the conclusion of my questions, but it is obvious that we have a new form of civilian police who may be authorised to do what the police may do, short of the power of arrest, though I wonder whether the police are on duty at the time to exercise their powers of arrest, and, if so, upon whose instructions and on what occasions. There are elaborate precautions about the conduct of the police and established means of complaints about wrongful conduct and behaviour. Are civil servants to be exposed to similar disciplinary procedures, and are the avenues of complaint to he similar? Are the civil servants individually accountable, as a police officer is indivi-
2026
dully accountable? Or are they a kind of demolition squad or a gang of workmen who enter the premises behind the cover of a warrant granted, it may be, to only one person? I think these questions need to be answered. What is the relationship between the citizen and the civilian policeman? Can a charge of obstruction be brought against the citizen if he reacts to the shock of the raid, or are the police on duty with the civil servants to stop anything which might be regarded as violence or obstruction?
I have only one word more. This day week in this House another Bill will come before us, and it is called the Child Protection Bill. This is yet another instalment of the powers of forcible entry, and I say, my Lords, 1984 is only six years away. I do not say that we shall beat that target, but we are nudging very near to it.
5.50 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with his customary courtesy, was good enough to give me a full list of the questions that he was proposing to ask of the Minister. He indicated very clearly the line that he intended to pursue in the debate. It is a search for information, but apparently with a few observations to make clear how necessary the information is.
May I say one word about annexing, because it is directly contrary to Standing Order 49 of your Lordships' House, which is made precisely upon that subject, under historic circumstances. I share in the congratulations given to Lord HarmarNicholls on his vigilance in raising this point. The matter was referred to your Lordships' Committee for Privileges and your Lordships have the report. In this case it was certified by Mr. Speaker. It is said specifically in the Act of 1911, of immortal, perhaps diminishing memory, that Mr. Speaker's certificate could not be challenged anywhere or before any tribunal. The reason why I mention it is not to argue the toss but merely to emphasise that, in the result, your Lordships' House is entirely deprived of the right to discuss an issue of vital importance.
I speak frankly as one who came to another place, 30 years ago, passionate about these matters, passionate for the

2027
liberty of the subject, and calling myself, in my early years, a Liberal and going on calling myself a Liberal with Socialist economics all my Parliamentary life. I am prepared to say in full debate that maybe the situation has come in which we must make some concessions to a situation of increasing crime, increasing violence and indeed of widespread tax evasion, which, I if were speaking on another subject, I might say that the Government do rather too little to stop. But this House is entitled to know—and my noble friend Lord Houghton has made it abundantly clear—that it does seem impossible to know.
As my noble friend detailed in his speech, I realise that for the past 24 hours he and I, in our separate ways, have been engaged in almost precisely the same forms of research—in, I might say, not a tandem but a tram. He listed the Acts under which it might appear that a progressive abrogation of liberties has taken place. I venture to say that the Act of 1947 dealt with the sterling area and its problems. However, that was a wholly unprecedented and, it was hoped, a reasonably temporary, or reasonably not-too-longlived situation, following the blockage of sterling and the steps that we had to take, quite frankly, to avoid the immediate payment of our national debts abroad. It was a long and complicated measure.
The Act of 1952 was said to be a consolidation measure, setting out what appeared to be then all the provisions for the enforcement of the collection of duty and the establishment of customs and excise. Some of the others that I have studied contain odd sections about the right to arrest people, communicating with smugglers, taking them before the magistrates, and so on. It is not until the Tax Management Act 1970 that some abrogations were made. It was in the precise Schedule 6 of the 1976 Act that there came these four successive sections in that Schedule, replacing some in the Tax Management Act 1970 and introducing new measures. My noble friend said that there was considerable discussion and protest in the other place. f think that discussion lasted for two Sessions in Committee, in the main. I am sure that there would have been a great deal of protest in this House.
2028
I have read through the invaluable Simond's notes on tax. Naturally we can hardly hope to come any further up to date at the moment than the conclusion of the year 1976. This measure represents a considerable change. Thanks to the Library, I have in my hands the annotated copy of the Finance Act by the Institute of Taxation. I do not think that 1 can do better than quote brief extracts to the House from the general notes on the section:
"The powers of the Revenue to obtain information regarding a person's tax affairs, other than by way of statutory returns, were formerly very limited in scope. This schedule gives the inspector or the Board broader powers to call upon the taxpayer and others to produce documents relevant to the taxpayer's liabilities. In addition, provision is made for entry onto, and search of, premises in cases where there is reasonable ground for suspecting the existence of a tax fraud. These new powers are nevertheless strictly circum? scribed, and their exercise must generally be authorised in each case by the Board …".
The next general note reads:
"Formerly TMA 1970, Section 20, gave the Board power to call for books, accounts or other documents in cases where an individual company has failed to make a return of profits from a trade when required to do so. In practice the power was rarely used, the Revenue relying in the main on the appellant commissioners' powers under TMA 1970, Section 51. The new provisions are much wider in scope. They are not limited to the obtaining of information for the purpose of assessment. Under Schedule D, cases 1 and 2 arc more far-reaching in that they enable the Revenue to call upon the taxpayer's family, and present or former business associates, for documents or information. They cannot, however, be used to obtain information in appeal proceedings… The inspector may require the taxpayer to deliver the documents …".
Next, we come to the section which says that a warrant may be obtained to search any premises of the taxpayer if,
"… the appropriate judicial authority is satisfied on information on oath given by an officer of the Board that there is reasonable ground for suspecting an offence ".
I repeat, "reasonable ground for suspecting an offence". That information, of course, is given in private to the circuit judge by an officer employed by the Board of Inland Revenue, who says, "I have reasonable ground" and who can give some information to show that he has reason to suspect.
These investigations and searches can apparently take place at any hour of the day or night on any premises of the taxpayer by simultaneous arrangement where he operates in several districts,

2029
and not only can a search be made but books and records can be taken away. If what one is told is true—I have no special knowledge and I do not claim to have any special information on this matter at all, but I have heard this suggested—there is no receipt given for the books, which may be books of accounting relating perhaps to the operation of a company. There is no immediate bringing to trial except at the wish of the Inland Revenue. There is none of the steps which used to be regarded as the great basis of protection of the individual before the British courts.
I have read the answer which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, gave to my noble friend Lord Houghton as regards a previous question in which he raised some issues in detail. However discreetly the officers act there are circumstances in which it becomes apparent that an investigation is taking place which must inevitably involve grave suggestions against the honour of the person whose name becomes known. Those things happen and they are not unprecedented. They happen during searches for drugs under warrant. However, in cases where it is suggested that operations are so considerable that a large number of officers, accompaned by police, may be called upon to make these observations, I think that we are entitled to ask the noble Baroness to give us the fullest possible information as to how the operation is managed.
I am told that one recent observation involved what is called "the lump" —a matter I hardly understand at all. Where are the special powers? The powers extend; but how widely do they extend and to how many different forms of alleged tax defalcation or tax avoidance? Do they extend to matters not in themselves criminal, such as mere non-payment? Who decides when a case requires a warrant? Is it sometimes done without any request for the information to be furnished by the taxpayer? I venture to press the noble Baroness to give us as much information as possible. I appreciate that this matter is highly complex and that perhaps some of the information will have to be supplied later in more detail, but at least I hope that she will give us some this evening.
6.6 p.
Lord SPENS: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton
2030
of Sowerby, for asking this Question. Like him, I am an adviser and I have, therefore, to declare a personal interest. I must pick my words carefully so that I do not prejudice the result of an investigation which is taking place at present. However, this is an opportunity which is not likely to occur again in this House for a very long time and the public interest is paramount in this Question.
I am disturbed at the way the officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are exercising their powers with regard to investigations relating to value added tax. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has suggested, they certainly do not seem to be subject to anything like the Judges' Rules. Recently, officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise descended upon a considerable number of individuals most, if not all, of whom have become only quite recently British citizens and are still very fearful of' authority. I believe that they produced warrants, hut they did not accord the individuals concerned the right to communicate with their legal advisers. When it was suggc:;ted by the individuals that they should call their legal advisers, they were told that it was not necessary.
The officers seized not only documents, but considerable sums of money, for which no receipts were given for at least eight weeks. They questioned those individuals throughout the day for a period of 12 hours, without any respite and without any break for refreshment, coming in relays to ask questions. That may sound not too unreasonable until it is realised that the individuals concerned run restaurants and night clubs and had only retired to bed at about 6.30 in the morning. They were pulled out of their beds at 9 o'clock to be hustled away for questioning.
I hesitate to use the word "extort", but the officers obtained statements made without the benefit of legal advice and, as I understand it, made in desperation to get away from the questions. These were statements made by individuals who were completely unaware that they had committed any offence. The officers retained the documents, which included future lists of table reservations for establishments which would expect to be working to capacity over Christmas and the New Year, with the result that there

2031
Was a very serious Strain on the reputations of those establishments because of the muddled bookings that ensued. There was no indication that those documents could be looked at, and it was not until February that they were told that they might look at them. Those concerned are now in possession of so-called evidence, much of which would be unlikely to be admitted as evidence in a court of law. But, of course, they do not have to submit this evidence to a court of law.
That incident—applied to people whom I would loosely describe as "foreigners", although they are British citizens in this country—is to my mind a horrible example of the kind of police State that we have apparently reached through allowing almost uncontrolled powers of entry and seizure to be exercised by persons other than the police. Can anyone justify the seizure of money in quantity—at least a four-figure sum is involved in these seizures—without any sign of a receipt being given for more than eight weeks?
I am an accountant and my mind boggles at the thought of how the books were kept in this case. Were these sums put immediately into some fund for confiscation, or what? Can we really justify this descent in force on individuals —especially w hen they are virtually foreigners although they have British citizenship—simply in order to sort out a value added tax claim?
I understand that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise had to take on a large number of additional staff to deal with value added tax. Can we be assured that these staff have been given adequate training to deal with situations of this kind? If it is necessary for such action to be taken, surely it should be carried out by the police and in accordance with the Judges' Rules, which they must observe. I absolutely support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his Question, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some replies to the questions we have asked.
6.13 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I would ask your indulgence on at least two counts. First, I was not present at the beginning of this debate and, secondly, it is my wedding anniversary so
2032
I have to leave shortly. I should like to make two observations. First, I believe that today there must be greater powers to ensure that the law is not being sidestepped—as is very often the case, particularly in revenue matters. Therefore, on that count we must have tougher measures, which might even extend to looking at people's bank accounts. However, it is quite clear that one simply cannot leave this to the small man on the lower rung of the Civil Service ladder who then abuses the powers.
So I sit down or stand up on both counts: that we must have this, but that we must also get it right. The remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, absolutely appal me. It is fairly easy for your Lordships when someone comes along and tries to put this over on us—it may be the police or others—because we know what to do; but the vast majority of people do not know how to respond. When this is done it means that we are living in what is almost a police State.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it is indeed fortunate that the opportunity has been given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to discuss at last a matter on which we were frustrated some two years ago—a matter which, in fact, I think Members of another place had rather anticipated that, on that occasion, we would have been able to deal with or discuss. Certainly it was something that aroused very strong feelings indeed in another place and, it would appear, also here.
It would not be my purpose this evening to say in any definitive way at all what my Party would do about it, particularly as, although we have been strongly defended by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—who said that there was a difference between the context of the powers of search and entry, which the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has referred to in connection with VAT, and the powers that were taken by this Government in 1976 —so far as principle is concerned there are some common matters which one has to bear in mind. Such common matters, indeed, that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has thought fit to talk about the VAT searches on a Question which is down simply on the Inland Revenue powers. I do not complain in any way about that.

2033
Therefore, If I do not say anything definitive, it does not mean to say that I am not extremely interested in the opportunity to take, as it were, inventory of the way in which these powers have, in fact, been used and whether the predicted safeguards have turned out to be safeguards at all. Of course, the first thing to notice is that there are substantial differences in the kinds of protection that have been given. One of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, asked was: Can one get a list of documents that have been taken?
Under the VAT legislation there is no statutory provision for that, but under the Finance Act 1976 the occupier of the premises or the person who had possession of the documents can, as a matter of law, require a list. That must be an improvement. So evidently we have learned that safeguards were not there before and are needed. By the same token, although the clients, or friends, of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, who are in the restaurant business, could not require the inspection of their restaurant books under the VAT legislation, they could have done so if the documents had been seized under the Finance Act 1976 because they would have been required in the course of the business. Therefore, it is quite evident that safeguards which were not originally written in, have, as a matter of practice, been found to be necessary and to have been incorporated in new legislation. That is an advantage, but it means to say that we have room to learn, to experiment and to improve all the time.
I confess to a fairly grave underlying anxiety about this. I do not like the idea of people in civilian clothes—however worthy, zealous, honest and upright they may be—being allowed to come to a citizen's front door and, not being police, to force their way in on a warrant. If it can be avoided, it should be avoided. There are two other difficulties about this. First, there is no way of identifying such people. I suppose that they could show a warrant, but what citizen in those circumstances is sharp-eyed enough to take down the name and the initials of the official from the warrant when it is shown rapidly to him? Such officials have no numbers on their shoulders as policemen do, so if in the course of the investigation something occurs about which the citizen
2034
wishes to complain, how is he to identify the person against whom he wishes to level the complaint? There are all sorts of things of that nature which are inherently unsatisfactory unless we are absolutely forced to have them.
My approach would be this. I do not suppose anybody would ask me, but if I were to be asked whether this system should continue and whether I would give my views upon it, not only would I wish to know how they had actually been operating—and I would expect that that would be the approach of the Government as well because that must be the conscientious approach—but I would also wish to look again at the justification for having these powers in the hands of the Civil Service at all. It is a matter of straight record that the two recent Acts which bring these powers into existence are the Finance Act 1972 and the Finance Act 1976. In the case of the first, the VAT legislation, the only occasion when entry by force can be employed as a weapon of investigation is if a justice of the peace is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence in connection with tax is being, has been or is about to be committed on the premises. That therefore presupposes a situation which is not uncommon in the case of police getting warrants of entry. This is tied specifically to a suspected offence, not a matter of avoidance, not a matter of routine investigation, not a matter of mere suspicion of some sort or another; there has to be something which points to an offence.
That puts me on guard to wonder why the matter cannot be dealt with by the police, because they too, no doubt, can investigate offences. If you look at the equivalent provisions which are put in by the Finance Act 1976, the only circumstances in which entry with warrant to obtain documents can be justified is if there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence involving any form of fraud in connection with or in relation to tax has been committed. There is the same point again. It was indeed used at the time of the passing of the Act. The chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, writing in The Accountant, justified the proposed powers by saying that we are thus talking only about fraud which is a criminal offence.

2035
For myself, I should like to investigate, if I had the opportunity with the full resources of Government, whether it would not be possible that these investigations could be carried out by the police. It may be that they cannot be. I am not asking the noble Baroness this evening to say whether or not this is so, but I should have thought that if in practice these matters were giving rise to complaint—there have been complaints before and the noble Lord, Lord Spens, produced another today—those concerned might carefully like to think afresh whether these powers should not, after all, be given back to the police for them to exercise in a way in which they must exercise their powers of investigation of many other offences all over the country every day.
Having said that, I really want to ask the noble Baroness only two questions about the safeguards. As I said, these are being improved all the time. In the 1976 Act one new safeguard was introduced. Instead of the warrants being issued by a justice of the peace—because there have been some suggestions in another place of criticism of justices of the peace, although I do not think it was intended in any way to be general or derogatory of justices of the peace, notwithstanding the suggestion that they might not be a sufficient filter, as it were, through which to pass these matters—the power to issue the warrants was given to the circuit judge, as the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Hale, said. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us whether in practice this has made any difference. If I were a circuit judge and had been told that 1 was being brought in as a safeguard instead of the justices, I think I should be inclined to ask for a good deal of information before I was prepared to sanction the warrant. I have no doubt that there have been occasions since the coming into force of the Finance Act when circuit judges have had to be asked to endorse these warrants. I would think that the Government have got information, and I should be grateful to know if they have and whether this has meant that in practice more detail has to be provided before a warrant can be obtained.
I can well understand the possible basis of the criticism of the justices that may have occurred in another place. Some of these matters will be highly
2036
technical and no doubt consist of a good deal of paper which can be looked at before any further documents are obtained. It may well be that certain justices might take into account the fact that the information is given on oath, together with the source from which it comes, as being sufficient in itself to allow a warrant to be issued. I would not have expected with the introduction of circuit judges as a safeguard, that they would be prepared to take things with anything like the same degree of trust, if indeed it has been taken on trust before.
Can the noble Baroness tell us whether this has proved to be an effective safeguard and that, in order to be sure to be able to answer all the questions that a circuit judge might wish to put, those who have gone to see him to seek a warrant have prepared their cases more fully and carefully than used to be the case when they went to the justices? Of course, they would not have been the same people —it would probably be the Customs and Excise people who went to the justices—but has it worked as a safeguard?
The second thing is the question of investigating complaints, which again the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, touched upon. I have already pointed out that those who do these searches are probably not the police, although the police may stand by on occasions. In the same year as the present Government passed the Finance Act which we are talking about they also passed the Act that set up the Police Complaints Board. The Police Complaints Board, controversial though it may have been, provided for disciplinary complaints to be investigated by a new tribunal containing a lay element; and your Lordships may remember it being discussed. Supposing in the course of one of these searches and entries and documents being taken the citizen has cause to complain about the way in which officers from the Inland Revenue have treated him, or indeed treated members of his family because they are involved as well; what in fact happens? How does the citizen set about complaining?
I have no doubt that he can write to his Member of Parliament and the matter will then be dealt with. What usually happens in those circumstances is that the Member of Parliament would pass

2037
on the complaint to the Treasury Minister who would investigate it and send an answer back to the Member of Parliament with a copy for him to send to his constituent, and that may or may not be satisfactory. The thing can, of course, be proceeded with by way of Question and Answer, but it is a somewhat indirect method of getting at it, and certainly no lay element is involved at all.
I imagine that if one were to write direct to the Inland Revenue an internal investigation would be carried out and at the end of it some form of answer would be obtained. Again, one is not dealing with any sort of tribunal. I may be wrong, but so far as I know there are no outwardly known rules whereby an investigation of this kind is carried out so that the citizen can be satisfied that certain formal stages have been gone through. Certainly there is no lay element. There is also another difficulty and another reason why, if I had the choice, I would not leave it in the hands of civil servants. However marvellous they may be in every other respect, they are not members of a disciplined force in the same way as are the police.
There may be disciplinary procedures. You may not get your promotion, or you may get transferred to another department, or you may not be allowed to do this sort of thing again. These may be very severe and great punishments, but it is not the same as when you are dealing with a disciplined force. These men and women, admirable though they may be, are not members of a disciplined force. Therefore, any disciplinary tribunal does not bite on them in quite the same way as it would if they were members of the police.
I suppose you can go to the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner. Again, that is a fairly new remedy. I have seen the results of some of the Parliamentary Commissioner's activities, and they are wholly admirable. There may, on occasion, be criticism that he has missed some of the finer nuances, and this is always liable to happen with any investigation; but he produces a full report of the whole of an impartial, and this time a lay, outside investigation. The only trouble is that nobody can make anybody do anything about it. He may produce criticisms of the most violent nature
2038
against what has happened, but he is totally toothless. It is only the Committee of another place that can do anything about it, and so it is all still somewhat indirect.
If the noble Baroness could explain whether that is the whole range of remedies—I expect it is not—I should be grateful. I should like her to make a point of telling people how the ordinary citizen is supposed to go about a complaint, in the unfortunate event that he or she should have one to make, and whether in her opinion the procedures are satisfactory and are as good as the ones that we have set up under the Police Complaints Board.
If we are giving members of the Revenue and members of the Customs and Excise staff, however senior and good in every other respect, the same powers to interfere with the liberty of the citizen as the police of course must have, then I believe that we should also make sure that the check and the balance is equally effective upon them. I add only those questions to a full list that the noble Lord has already asked, and I hope that we may be enlightened. If we are not, of course we can return to the matter on another occasion.
6.33 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, underlying my noble friend's Question this afternoon, as with his earlier Question on this subject, is a general concern—and I think it is not unshared right across the House—that civil servants may have been given unnecessarily wide powers to search individual citizen's homes and places of work. My noble friend was good enough, as he pointed out, to send me a list of the questions that he was raising.
I think that I must start by saying that I share, as he does, with my noble friend Lord Hale, a passion for liberty, and a grave suspicion and doubt about any invasion or intrusion into the liberties and privacy of the subject. I also applaud and agree with any form of pinpointing of anything that may be wrong, and also making it quite clear that when powers of this sort have to be taken—and my noble

2039
friend Lord Hale in fact mentioned in the first words of his speech that nowadays, and in certain fields, it is unfortunately necessary for these powers to be taken—they should be carefully watched, they should be monitored, and that in both Houses of this Parliament and in our democracy we should keep a close and eagle eye on them.
From his questions today and the earlier Question, my noble friend also believes that in some cases these powers may have been abused. I would not for one moment pretend to be able to say here, or on oath, or in any way, that there may not have been in the past, and there may not be in the future, occasions when powers (as all powers are) are abused by certain individuals. This is part of the human pattern of any society. One cannot lay down anything rigid to cope with that situation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said that there is always room for learning and for improvement. I would certainly go along with him on that, and it may be helpful if I first explain in general terms why successive Governments, of both Parties, have felt it necessary to give officials power to search premises in this way. The noble Viscount is of course well aware that the 1972 Finance Act, which he mentioned and which covered the queries he raised on the question of VAT, was passed by a Conservative Government. The Finance Act 1976, which was mainly the subject of my noble friend's questions, was passed by a Labour Government. I think that this shows the reluctant necessity on the part of both Governments to have to employ what, in certain cases (and I hope fairly rare cases) are these draconian measures.
A central point here is that we are dealing with complex cases which may involve very serious offences. We are not here talking about minor offences, or about scattered, petty offences; we are talking about major offences. Among these cases there are bound to be some in which it is simply not possible to obtain sufficient evidence without obtaining documents and books.
While on this matter I think I should point out that I am given to understand that in tax lost, evasion costs the country
2040
some hundreds of millions of pounds through certain people practising in this completely calculated way. This is not a question of somebody making a mistake in their income tax return. It means that the rest of the community, the rest of us who are paying our taxes, are in a way, having to make good the loss to the State of the revenue that is just not being paid.
In the cases we are talking about I think we must distinguish cases which are of such gravity from the rest, and we have to be realistic. I think my noble friend Lord Hale put his finger on this point, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, also mentioned it. It is very unlikely that, in the absence of powers to enter and search premises, documents and books which would incriminate individuals and companies would be volunteered. If in fact a warning was given leaving enough time for the destruction of the records which would be absolutely essential and invaluable in delving into this question, then there does not seem to me to be any alternative.
I will take a hypothetical case. A company, let us say, is engaged in a tax fraud involving millions of pounds. The Inland Revenue, from sources outside the company itself, gets wind of this fraud; but if it is to get sufficient evidence to prosecute it needs to get all the company's records. Is it not possible that if they simply telephone to ask for them, the company will destroy or tamper with the evidence? A great deal has been said, particularly by the noble Viscount, about giving these powers to the police rather than to civil service officials working with the police. It is not very likely that, if the police telephone somebody and ask, "May we come and search your room because we are looking for some stolen goods?", the reply will be, "Certainly, come and search my room "without anything further happening. By the time the police arrive the room will probably have been swept clear—the place will have been "laundered", which is, I think, the phrase to use.
To be able effectively to check frauds of this nature the Inland Revenue need to enter premises without prior notice, so that they can obtain the required evidence before the company has had a chance to tamper with it, and in the case of individuals the same applies. The same

2041
is true of other areas where officials have these powers, for example in relation to exchange control and the collection of value added tax. As my noble friend pointed out, much of this ground as it concerns the Revenue was gone over during the passage of the Finance Act 1976.
Bearing in mind that the Revenue have used their powers in this regard on only seven occasions since that Act became law, we see that it is not being used in an extravagant or rash manner. In any event, it is rather early days—I am not criticising or querying the fact that one should now be drawing attention to the possible problems that might arise—and it is rather premature to try to give in any great detail the answers to a number of the crucial questions that arise until we have seen how this has worked out in practice.
Even some of those cases where entry has been made are still underway and have not been completed. The nature of some of the cases is illustrated by the fact that in the first two cases which have been completed—this illustrates the severity of the cases which come into this rather limited group—nine people have been charged and found guilty and prison sentences totalling more than 21 years have been imposed. That does not imply anything about the other cases where the Revenue have used these powers, cases where they have not yet been able to proceed.
We are very much aware—I assure noble Lords that I am personally aware—of the dangers which may arise when powers of this kind are conferred on anybody. I would class the police here with civil servants; the idea that a uniform makes all the difference, I do not think is entirely relevant. In any case, a number of policemen involved in cases—not these cases but cases generally—are in plain clothes. I am rather puzzled to know why so much confidence is placed in the police vis-d-vis civil servants in cases like this. The point to remember about a civil servant going along is that he is an expert in the particular thing they are looking for. After all, it is difficult, with the best will and rectitude, to expect a policeman to be able to make a proper search for documents and books in a highly complicated tax case when really he would not know what he is looking for.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness can get away with that. How does she suppose the Fraud Squad recognise the documents when they go to investigate fraud cases which may take months to try because of the complication of the documents? The police are perfectly capable of doing this and they have specialists who can do it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, while I am not an expert in this matter, so far as I know, in a case of fraud, a lot of evidence has already been built up and they then have a chance, once they go in, to get further advice on the subject. We arc talking of cases where knowledge is given by some means to the Inland Revenue and, that information having been given, the Revenue must act quickly and obtain highly complicated documents. I accept that the noble Viscount is more expert than I am on questions of tax and the laws of finance, but the tax cases with which we are concerned are of a highly complicated and complex nature and they cannot be coupled with all types of fraud cases. Some cases of fraud I can understand perfectly well, though thinking of some of the places which the tax officials have had to visit I believe it would be extremely difficult for anybody except experts to do that job.
In order that we take every safeguard, the necessary warrant can be obtained only when the Department concerned has satisfied a magistrate, or, in the case of Revenue, a circuit judge. I would also add that it is not the case that some minor official can go either to a magistrate or to a circuit judge; the Commissioners of the Board of Revenue themselves must agree that action should be taken on each such case before anybody can go before a circuit judge.
The noble Viscount asked whether I thought a circuit judge would take more care than a JP in deciding that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence had been committed. Speaking as a JP who is at the moment resting, I hope the noble Viscount will not knock JPs too hard. My answer is that it probably depends on the case. From my experience, many JPs question such matters very hard indeed. Certainly I have always done so in the past when I have been asked to issue a search warrant.

2043
And more and more today, because of the whole structure, training and method of selection, JPs are very much more versed in the way of dealing with these matters when such requests come before them. Where a circuit judge is charged with this responsibility, he would certainly take great care to see that the information supplied to him was adequate to justify the issue of a warrant.
In these particularly complicated cases —I think we are here dealing with even more complicated ones than those mentioned in my noble friend's rather more general questions—we have judges who are experienced lawyers and who are exercising very important judicial powers. It was because of this that they were introduced into this scheme. As to the future, the matter is open; whether it may in the future be considered necessary, in the other areas, that warrants should be issued by a circuit judge, I do not know. Certainly the Government would be open to consider the matter, in the same way as we are open to look into the way in which these things are developing, to make sure that every possible precaution is taken, with supervision, in order to catch any difficulty and ensure that these matters are dealt with completely properly.
I stress the word, "satisfied", in relation to an offence being or having been committed, because it is not enough for a civil servant simply to affirm on oath that reasonable grounds exist; the magistrate or circuit judge must he convinced of it. It is pertinent to point out that no warrant has so far been refused by a circuit judge, and I understand that in relation to exchange control the same has applied in the last 15 years, though there the matter goes before a justice of the peace. Here, as elsewhere, the public relies in the last analysis on the Judiciary to protect it, again ensuring that warrants are granted only in the right circumstances. To take the matter a stage further, if a case was brought and then thrown out, the effect of that would itself be very strong. The civil servants, who are involved in exchange control, income tax, value added tax, or any of the other areas where powers to search premises can be obtained, are well aware of this need to satisfy the judicial authority.
2044
As I have pointed out, in no case in which a warrant has been applied for has it been refused.
My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby asked several questions about the procedure involved in these cases. He is concerned particularly with what happens before a search, how the search is conducted, and what happens afterwards. Some of his questions I have already answered during my general remarks; or I have tried to answer them in the light of the amount of experience we have of the recent Inland Revenue change. I am sure that, with his knowledge of the whole subject, he will appreciate that some of the other points are detailed matters. These concern the police as much as anybody else, and I may not be able to answer them fully. He pointed out that he was not going to comment on specific cases; neither, of course, can 1
My noble friend asked what rules there are about asking individuals or companies for information before taking out a search warrant. As I have already said, warrants are sought only in exceptionally serious cases, and generally a warrant is resorted to only where other attempts to obtain information have failed. There are masses of cases where the people involved and the Inland Revenue get together, arrangements are made, and the whole matter is solved without having to resort to warrants. But there are cases where there is a great danger of the evidence being destroyed, and it is here that it is quite impossible to give prior warning to a company or an individual that he or they are being investigated.
My noble friend also asked about the need to satisfy the appropriate judicial authority before a warrant is granted. I believe that I have already covered that point. But, by way of example, I should like to add that I understand that one recent Inland Revenue application for a warrant had attached to it a summary of the evidence running to 15 pages of typescript. My noble friend asked what it contained, but I am afraid that the matter then becomes a vicious circle, because this is confidential information. Again, he must rely on what I said earlier about the qualities and qualification of the circuit judge.

2045
Before I attempt to answer my noble friend's queries on the conduct of the searches, there are two general points I should make. First, the details of the conduct of the searches concerned the police as much as the civil servants involved. Indeed, for the Inland Revenue and exchange control, one:or more policemen are always present during searches. So there is no question of civil servants going along alone, although the Customs and Excise officers do not always take policemen with them, since they have a special law enforcement status of their own. The second point is that the details of what is, and what is not allowed, will depend on the particular case and the particular warrant.
I shall now try to cover my noble friend's specific questions briefly. He asked whether a warrant authorises repeated entry. I have been into this as thoroughly as I can, and it is very difficult to imagine any circumstances in which a renewed search would be useful, and I can find no evidence of that so far happening in practice. We have found no decided case. Although it is thought that in theory, reading the terms of the warrant, a second search might be legally possible if it were carried out within the requisite 14 days, I will personally stick my neck out and say I think it is very doubtful that there would be a second search without going back for another warrant.
My noble friend also asked whether a warrant authorised prolonged occupation of the premises. The answer is that it entitles the searchers to remain on the premises as long as is necessary to complete their search. This is a question of how much material they are looking for, and how many people they have with them. The warrant will generally entitle those executing it to search individuals for documents; but there is no power to stop people leaving the premises, and the officers will not search people unless there is a very strong suspicion that, for instance, someone has put a document in his pocket or tried to conceal it in some other way. All warrants, with the exception of those under Section 20C of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (in regard to the Inland Revenue) allow those executing them to search the individual for documents, although this is very seldom used.
2046
My noble friend also asked whether a list of articles or documents received should be furnished to the occupant at the time or subsequently. Before I leave this question of the time, I should say that the object of the exercise, for both the officers and the police, is to get what they can as quickly as possible, and then get out. They do not want to linger. They want to get the information they seek, and get out as quickly as they can. Whether lists of documents should be furnished at the time or subsequently varies from case to case. Lists will be provided in cases involving the Inland Revenue and Customs, but they may not be in some other cases.
Lord HALE: Would the noble Baroness permit one brief intervention? Is she really saying that, as a matter of course, stacks of account books may be removed with no list given of what they are, what dates they involve? Is no receipt or acknowledgement given? Is there no promise of return?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that, in cases involving the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, lists are provided. Sometimes they are provided on the spot. It depends on the amount of material that has to be taken away. In other cases they are provided later. Here I must apologise to my noble friend, and say that I will write to him concerning "some other cases" because, quite frankly, I am not sure to what they refer; but they do not refer to Inland Revenue and Customs, which are the main matters with which we are concerned at present.
A question was raised as to whether people who were carrying on business would have access to documents and other materials which were taken. The answer is, Yes, they will. They can have access to any books or accounts they want to see, but they cannot take them away with them.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, will the noble Baroness clarify that? It is a very important point. I think that, in the case of Customs and Excise, it would have to be a matter of practice rather than a matter of any statutory right, because I do not believe that it is written into Section 37 of the Finance Act 1972 the way it is written into

2047
the 1976 Act. Is she saying that, as from today, or some date in the past, people who have documents taken for VAT inquiries may have access to them for purposes of their business?
Baroness BIRK: So far as the Inland Revenue is concerned, I am absolutely certain about that.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: So am I.
Baroness BIRK: With regard to VAT, I think I am right in what I say, but I wonder whether the noble Viscount will allow me to check this and write to him on the point.
Lord SPENS: Will the noble Baroness also write to me on that point, please?
Baroness BIRK: I will write to everybody who has taken part in the debate on that point, as I do not seem to know the answer at the moment. My noble friend's final question about warrants was whether civil servants are obliged to give their names and ranks to the occupants of premises, and whether each officer had a warrant. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, also raised that point, though in a rather different way. The answer is that, generally, there is one warrant; but I have seen a copy of this type of warrant, and on the back it lists the names of all the officers. So, although, as my noble friend pointed out, a person may not carry out a check list as to who is Jones and to who is Smith, that person will know immediately how many officials there should be who are covered by the warrant. If there are more officials present than the number on the list, a person would be absolutely right to query this, and naturally would do so.
My noble friend and some other noble Lords are also very concerned about publicity and relations with the Press—I have had a message by pigeon post. It says that Customs and Excise always make a practice of giving access to documents. Perhaps that will save me writing a lot of letters. As I was saying, I recognise that publicity and relations with the Press is a very difficult one. So far as is possible—and, again, I have been into this as thoroughly as I can—I should
2048
like to assure noble Lords, as I did on an earlier occasion, that no information is given to the Press before a search warrant is executed, either by the Inland Revenue or by the Customs and Exercise, or by the police themselves.
But we must remember that the exercise of a search warrant is a public act, and, quite frankly, the Press could be "tipped off" by an employee arriving and seeing the place swarming with people. Then, if the Press arrive and see a lot of movement going on, with vans outside and people milling around, they are going to inquire very quickly what is happening. But it is a public act, and the relevant Department, if asked, cannot deny they are conducting it and cannot do other than quote the authority under which they are doing it. All they are instructed to say is from which Department they come and the authority under which they are there. But information is not given about the nature of the suspected offences, and information is given only about the premises being searched, which is already clearly public knowledge.
Odd things happen. In fact, somebody mentioned to me the other day having seen something reported in the paper about a company in relation to which it appeared that action might be taken. This turned out to be a statement given out by the company itself. It evidently thought that this was the better part of its own valour. So this is one way in which it can happen. It can happen through employees, or it can happen, as I say, because people are around there. There may be—I do not deny it—the odd case where there may be a very unfortunate leak, but so far as is humanly possible this is guarded against. In a recent case, the case which my noble friend raised in his Starred Parliamentary Question, inquiries were carried out both by the Inland Revenue and by the police, who conducted their own inquiries to try to establish whether there had been any leak; and they found that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, there had not been.
A point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, dealt with a specific case. If he would like to write to me and give me the details, I will look into it. I really cannot accept what the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and I think the noble Viscount,

2049
Lord Hanworth, said about this being a horrible police State, with almost uncontrollable powers of entry. I really think that is a horrible statement to make about this country. I think that the people who feel like that ought to see what happens in a real police State before saying such things. They would not be able to get up and say that this is a horrible police State, to start with. So, while we have got to keep, as I say once more, the strongest and wariest eye on this situation, we must keep a sense of proportion and regret very much, as I do, with my noble friend Lord Hale, that there are situations where it is impossible to deal with this sort of crime—and we are talking about crime—in any other way.
Finally, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked me about the system of complaints and accountability. In the first place, civil servants are accountable to Ministers, and I would think that when cases like this occur the relevant Minister would want to be assured, certainly, that the action taken was justified and carried out properly. Complainants can, as the noble Viscount pointed out, and should, write to their Members of Parliament. As to the Ombudsman, recognise the limitations but, on the whole question of the powers of the Ombudsman, they are not rigid for the future; it is possible to extend those powers. The noble Viscount raised the question of something equivalent to the Police Complaints Board, which, let us face it, also took a long time coming. I would not say that any of these are closed options at all. I think that all of us would want to feel that any safeguards that we could build in, where we have to take action of this sort, we would build in; and any suggestions that are put forward I shall certainly gladly pass on to my right honourable colleagues in another place.
One of the points which I think are important as matters of fact is that no complaints have been tabled since the 1976 Act. Since only seven cases have arisen from it, since there have been no complaints, and since warrants have been issued by circuit judges in each case, I think one can safely say that up to now this procedure has been exercised with as much caution, as much propriety and as much discretion as is possible. This does not mean that we should not, as I
2050
have continuously said and believe, keep this subject always under very close supervision and control. My Lords, although I have had a very uncomfortable few days dealing with all this, I think that an Unstarred Question and a debate of the sort which we have had, initiated by my noble friend, is very advantageous and very nourishing to our democracy!
Lord SPENS: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I say that she has invited me to write to her about a particular case, but she has not answered what I thought was a general question about the taking of money and the giving of receipts. How long a period is considered reasonable before Her Majesty's Customs and Excise give a receipt for the taking of money?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, again I will write to the noble Lord about this. This applies also to the listing of other information. It often takes quite a considerable time to do. The money is accompanied by a great many documents and other things as well, but if I can give the noble Viscount any more precise information, I will. I do not think anybody is borrowing this money and using it meanwhile; it is just a case of the time taken to accumulate the evidence before dealing with everything altogether. As I understand it--and if I am wrong I shall certainly correct it and write to the noble Lord—it is simply a case of time and the amount of work that is involved in these cases.

INNER URBAN AREAS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.