Lords Sitting of 7 December 1978

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

FLIGHT TRANSFERS: HEATHROW/GATWICK
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it remains their policy that as from 1st April next all flights to and from the Iberian peninsula based on Heathrow airport shall be transferred to Gatwick; and taking the figures for April to September 1978 how many passengers they estimate will be affected in the six-month period April to September 1979.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in recent discussions with the Spanish and Portuguese Governments, we have indicated a readiness to be flexible on the timing and to engage in further talks about the transfer to Gatwick of scheduled services between London and the Iberian peninsula, with the objective of reaching a settlement acceptable to both sides by Easter 1979. It is estimated that about 900,000 passengers might travel on scheduled services between London and Spain and Portugal, their islands and Gibraltar during the period from April to September 1979.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I understood my noble friend correctly. Is she aware that my information, which I believe to be correct, was that it was not now the Government policy that this transfer should take place on 1st April? Might I ask her whether I am to understand from that Answer that if agreement is not reached between British Airways, Iberia, and TAP that they should move, they will then be allowed to remain at Heathrow?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the position at the moment is that the British Government have invited the Spanish and Portuguese Government representatives to come to see for themselves what are the facilities we are offering at Gatwick, and to assure them that Gatwick is not a second-class station compared with Heathrow. I understand that the Governments have now accepted that invitation and within the next few weeks will be coming over to meet us. We have also indicated that we are prepared to be flexible. If it is not possible for these flights to be transferred by April, as we had hoped when we did our radical reappraisal of the whole question of the flights from Heathrow, then we are willing to be flexible and perhaps even postpone it for six months. But, as I pointed out in my original Answer, if that happens it will mean that there will still be considerable chaos at Heathrow because something like 900,000 passengers use the airlines which at this moment we are trying to change over to Gatwick.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while agreeing with my noble friend on the numbers, might I ask her whether she could answer the point as to what the position of British Airways will be?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it is still a matter for negotiation. The Government representatives are coming over within the next two or three weeks, and we would not want to make any firm suggestions as to what will be the attitude of any of the parties to the agreement until we have had these discussions and seen how flexible we can be about them and how far we can go to meet them.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Spanish Government have already taken retaliatory action in this matter against British Caledonian Airways? What steps; are the Government taking to mitigate the effects of that action on British Caledonian?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my understanding is that there was some action against British Caledonian operating the DC 10 aircraft through Madrid and Buenos Aires, but the permission to operate this service has now been reinstated.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, might I ask the Government whether they can give an assurance that there will be no repeat of the extreme discourtesy with which the Spanish national airlines were given notice to leave Heathrow? Further, do not the Government agree that this directly contravenes the intention they declared in paragraph 17 of the last White Paper on airports policy not to dictate to airlines, and to give the maximum scope for commercial decision?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I hope that the British Government and British Airways will always treat their colleagues from other countries with extreme courtesy. I hope that this will happen in the course of these negotiations.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is it not inevitable that Gatwick will remain a second-class airport until such time as its rail communications with Victoria are substantially improved?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I do not accept that Gatwick is a second-class airport. The facilities at Gatwick are extremely good, and the chaos at Gatwick is nothing compared with the tremendous usage of Heathrow at the moment. It is all part of rationalisation to try to get more traffic through Gatwick. There are also plans afoot for improvements in the railway service. There are plans for improvement at Victoria, and for rebuilding the station at Gatwick with escalators for luggage and what-have-you.
Viscount MERSEY: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that during this last summer on several week-ends the conditions at Gatwick were completely chaotic? If you are going to put a lot more traffic there is not the situation going to be made much worse in the coming summer months?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I have no personal knowledge of any particularly chaotic conditions at Gatwick over the last few week-ends. The position is that Gatwick at the moment can cope with about twice the traffic that it is getting; and therefore it seems to us, bearing in mind the state of Heathrow at the present time, that it is sensible to
268
transfer and do some rationalisation of some of the airlines which can conveniently be allocated to Gatwick.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, do I not detect a flapping of the wings of the Maplin chickens coming home to roost?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am flapping no wings, from Maplin chickens or others.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government are satisfied that the single runway operated at Gatwick is going to be sufficient to cope with this enormously increased volume of traffic?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, until the mid-1980s.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is very difficult to get into Gatwick Airport from the east? There used to be an entrance but for some reason it has been closed and is now reserved only for the staff. Is she aware that this is an enormous inconvenience to all the people who live in East Grinstead, Tunbridge Wells and many other towns in that direction?
Baroness STEDMAN: I was not aware of that particular problem, my Lords, but I shall certainly look into it.

CHARTER 77 SIGNATORIES: ILO DECISION
3.13 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what decision has been reached by the International Labour Office on the complaint submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions that the Czechoslovak Government has deprived signatories of Charter 77 of their occupations; what was the vote; and how did the British delegations vote.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the complaint made by the ICFTU against Czechoslovakia was that the treatment of signatories of Charter 77 was in breach of international obligations which Czechoslovakia had undertaken. The governing body of the ILO decided last month by 38 votes in favour to four against with nine abstentions that the Czechoslovakian Government's reply to the complaint was unsatisfactory and that the complaint and the reply should be published. The United Kingdom voted in favour of the decision.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that decision, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I raised this issue six months ago? Will the publications now be issued in this country and will they be available in our Library? Will the usual procedure of a commission to Czechoslovakia be followed? If so, who will be its members? Further, will this decision encourage the United States to rejoin the ILO?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: That is a comprehensive supplementary, my Lords. Publication will be in the ILO's official bulletin, of which the next issue is due out early in 1979. The material to be published is expected to include the text of Charter 77, a number of case histories of signatories, the Government's reply and the report of the three-man committee which considered the complaint well-founded. There is no other action that can be taken, except that of publication, which is an exposure to the world of the decision taken against the representations of Czechoslovakia.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the persecution of Charter 77 members goes far beyond depriving them of their jobs, as was clearly shown in a letter sent by the Charter 77 movement to the Prime Minister last week? It was a copy of an open letter sent to Dr. Kurt Waldheim in which it was made clear that members of Charter 77 had been deprived of their social benefits, of medical care, had been driven out of their homes and their children denied education. Is this not therefore a far more serious matter than many people understand? Is the mere publication of the complaint and the reply from ILO going nearly far enough?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, all the matters referred to by the noble Lord will be in the publications. The only action that can be taken is to publish and let the world judge for itself. This is felt to be quite an indictment of the situation arising in Czechoslovakia on the point the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord correct in saying no further action can be taken? Would it not be possible to refer the matter to the United Nations' Human Rights Commission under the 1503 procedure as a gross and persistent violation of human rights?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: That is another question, my Lords; I am dealing specifically with the ILO and the decision reached.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to reply to the other point I made? Will Her Majesty's Government encourage the United States to rejoin the ILO in view of this decision? May I ask him to say who voted—it was an extraordinary vote; 38 to four with nine abstentions—and how many of the countries of Eastern Europe voted?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The four who voted against were all from Eastern Europe, my Lords. All the Western Governments voted in favour and of the developing countries about one-third voted in favour and two-thirds abstained. All the employer members of the governing body and all the worker members, except the Russians, voted in favour. As I indicated, the United Kingdom voted in favour of publication. The answer to my noble friend's question about the United States; that is a matter for the United States to decide. It is also a matter by which world opinion, as a result of the publication of the report, can influence the United States, but we cannot decide for the American Government; they must decide for themselves.

EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE
3.18 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 now introduce legislation for the purpose first of enabling the citizens of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to have a vote in the elections to the European Parliament, and secondly to enfranchise United Kingdom nationals resident in other member countries of the EEC.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the answer is, No. These matters were fully discussed in our debates on the European Assembly Elections Bill, when both Houses considered Amendments to extend the franchise for these elections.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, apparently, the time is shortly coming when we shall be the only member of the Community whose nationals are not enfranchised if they are living abroad?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: That may well be so, my Lords, but, in the light of the discussions which took place in both Houses—a very full debate was held on this matter in your Lordships' House on 13th April, which the noble Lord will find at column 860 onwards, when these matters were very carefully considered—it is the Government's view that there should be no departure from the normal elections procedure which applies to our elections in this country.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any wish on the part of the people of Elian Vannin for representation of this kind?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have no knowledge of that at all.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, are the Government quite happy that this very considerable number of British subjects should be permanently disfranchised?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, any British national living and working abroad is disfranchised so far as our own elections are concerned. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are dependencies of the Crown outside the Kingdom. As I understand the position,
272
the decision of the Council of the European Communities made on 20th September 1976, provided for direct elections to the European Assembly, and, it was clearly indicated, applied to the United Kingdom only.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, the Island of Reunion is to be represented in the European Parliament, is it not?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only tell your Lordships the situation as I understand it arising from the decision of the Council of the European Communities, in which it was clearly indicated that the European Assembly applies only to the United Kingdom.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that no representations have been received, or asked for, from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man on this matter?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I said that I myself had no knowledge of any representations having been received. I shall make it my business to find out and let the noble Lord know.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, will the Minister accept it as a slight representation if I were to say that I have to go to Brussels quite regularly to assist in the relations between the Churches of the Nine, and it is extremely embarrassing when one is discussing these matters with people who live and work in Brussels to have to remind them that they themselves are excluded, whatever importance we attach to the elections?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only repeat that we went very fully into this matter in both Houses. The Government have given very careful consideration to it and, as I said, have, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion that there should be no departure from the normal procedure which affects our own elections in this country.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is it not time that the Government realised that we shall once again be out of step with the other countries in Europe, and will they not reconsider the matter?
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, noble Lords can say "hear, hear!", but the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, is the only Member of your Lordships' House who since April seems to have bothered about this matter, and we are now in December.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, in his last answer but one the noble Lord said that the Government had decided "rightly or wrongly". Will he not report to his colleagues in another place that disquiet has been expressed from all quarters of the House, including the Bishops' Bench?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, whenever there seems to be a marked difference of opinion in your Lordships' House and I am involved, I always make it a point to see that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is aware of what has been said—and I shall gladly do that.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, so far as disquiet is concerned, may I be excluded when it comes to telling what has been said in this House? I do not care two hoots about the elections to the European Parliament.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is it not a fact that the residents of the Isle of Man pay a much lower rate of income tax than do the residents of the United Kingdom, and therefore is it not quite reasonable that they should not be lumped together with the United Kingdom in a matter of this kind? I raise this point only because 300 years ago a man named Leatherland was the Governor of the Isle of Man.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that we are responsible for defence and foreign affairs in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and that therefore it would be perfectly logical that people situated in both those islands should be enabled to exercise their vote in the Common Market elections?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think that I can add anything useful to what I have already said.

BELIZE: FUTURE RELATIONS WITH GUATEMALA
3.25 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: 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 state what agreements have been made with the Government of Guatemala concerning their future relations with Belize; and whether the agreements are satisfactory to the Government of Belize.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, no agreements have been made with the Government of Guatemala concerning their future relations with Belize. Our proposals for a settlement were put to the Government of Guatemala in September, and weredescribed in a British statement during a debate in the United Nations on 28th November. The Government and people of Belize will be consulted on the terms of any agreement that may be reached.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Was it not agreed at the United Nations that Guatemala had no power over Belize, and that Belize should be considered to be an independent country? In view of the fact that Belize has been one of the most faithful Commonwealth countries, surely some agreements can be arrived at? This matter has been going on for a great number of years, and Belize has; been the country to suffer. Why should they go under the dictatorship of Guatemala?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have been in a state of dispute with Guatemala concerning Belize for quite some time—indeed, certainly for the last three years and, some would say, since the Treaty of 1859 in some respects. With regard to the position of the United Nations, the noble Baroness is quite right. A United Nations resolution which supports Belize's right to self-determination, independence, and territorial integrity was adopted about this time last year, the voting being 126 for, only four against, with 13 abstentions. The appropriate committee of the United Nations has just

275
been discussing a similar resolution. I do not yet have the result to hand—I think that the committee was at it yesterday and the day before—but I expect a similar result this year, though perhaps it may be even more emphatic in terms of numbers.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord recall the somewhat robust attitude adopted by the late Ernest Bevin towards this dispute, and will he take a leaf out of the late Ernest Bevin's book in this respect?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I should like to take the whole book, my Lords, and indeed previous Governments, and possibly successive Governments, might do the same. It is a question of asserting the rights of the people of Belize; and we shall continue to do so. In doing that we shall of course seek the best possible solution in relation to the Guatemalan claim. However, Guatemala is not the only country interested in the future of Belize. Surrounding countries have a clear interest that adjustments in this area do not have the secondary result of creating uncertainty in their own areas. Therefore, the Government's attitude is perfectly clear and perfectly determined. We stand firmly on the terms of the United Nations resolution which I have just mentioned to the House.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, have the Government of Mexico, who are very concerned in this matter, expressed any attitude on the latest proposals?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, not specifically to the proposals that I mentioned, and which were made available to both Houses by inclusion in the Official Report of the other place of, I think, 29th November. It is for the Guatemalan Government specifically to respond to those proposals which my right honourable friend made to the Guatemalan Foreign Minister in New York in September. We have not received from the Guatemalan Government, let alone any other Government, any specific response to those proposals. I repeat that countries such as Mexico—and there are others in the area—have a clear and distinct interest in there being a peaceful
276
and enduring solution of any disputes in the general area, including Belize.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord about one other point. Bearing in mind the great poverty of the Belize people, is it intended to spend £7 million on building a road from Guatemala to the Port of Belize? There is an adequate road at the moment so far as I am concerned. The mental hospital in Belize has just fallen down due to lack of reconstruction, and surely the money should be spent on the people of Belize, who are loyal to Her Majesty the Queen.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the amount of aid which we make available to Belize is not inconsiderable. We assisted in regard to the recent disaster which afflicted that people. Apart from that, I see that last year, for instance, our aid to Belize ran at about £4.6 million, which is not inconsiderable, having regard to the population involved. However, in regard to the road, I deliberately mentioned the Treaty of 1859 and Article 7, which provided for building a road of that sort. The Guatemalans say that this promise, this undertaking, was not honoured. They themselves built that road, which I call the 1859 road; so today we propose, in order to assist matters generally, to help them to build another road, which will benefit not only the Guatemalans but also the Belizians.

DISPUTES AT TWO LONDON HOSPITALS
3.30 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about the continuing disruption of hospital services by NUPE members at the West London and Charing Cross Hospitals".
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell will, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, answer this Question by means of a Statement.

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, perhaps I may add, for the convenience of the House, that the House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Thursday next, 14th December, and will return on Tuesday, 16th January.

CARAVAN SITES BILL [H.L.]
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the payment of grants to local authorities providing caravan sites for gipsies and other persons of nomadic habit and of grants to voluntary organisations working in the interests of such persons, and to amend the law relating to camps of such persons. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of the first of the four county council Bills that appear on the Order Paper, may I say a brief word about all four of them. They are the Private Bills which started in this House last Session and were carried over so that they could proceed on their way through Parliament this Session, hopefully receiving a Third Reading here this afternoon and then going to another place. They are major county council Bills resulting from the 1972 Local Government Act, and in the course of their passage through this House they have been most carefully sifted by a number of Select Committees. I have no hesitation at all in recommending them to your Lordships for Third Reading and for passing. I should like to thank those Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in the proceedings of the various Select Committees that sat on these Bills. Some of them were pretty exhaustive and exhausting Committees, and I am indeed most grateful to those Members of the House who took part.
278
It is not very usual to have Amendments on Third Reading, but today, in fact, as your Lordships will see, there are Amendments to two of the Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, has some Amendments down to this first Bill, the West Yorkshire Bill, and I myself have some Amendments to the West Midlands County Council Bill, which we shall come to in due course. My Lords, I beg to move that the West Yorkshire Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Lord SAINT OSWALD Lord SAINT OSWALD moved the following Amendments:
After Clause 3, insert the following new Part:

PART IA INDUSTRIAL IMPROVEMENT AREAS
Declaration of industrial improvement area.
—(1) Where a report with respect to a predominantly industrial area within the area of a local authority is submitted to that local authority by a person or persons appearing to them to be suitably qualified and it appears to them, upon consideration of the report and of any other information in their possession, that conditions in the area ought to be improved by the improvement of the amenities of the area or of buildings therein or both and that such an improvement may be effected or assisted by the exercise of their powers under this Part, the local authority may cause the area to be defined on a map and by resolution declare it to be an industrial improvement area.
(2) Not less than twenty-eight days before passing a resolution declaring an area to be an industrial improvement area the local authority shall—

(a)publish in two or more news papers circulating in the locality a notice of their intention to pass a resolution identifying the area and naming a place or places where a copy of the proposed resolution, of the map on which the area is defined and of the report mentioned in subsection (1) above may be inspected at all reasonable times and specifying the name and address of the person to whom any inquiries and representations concerning the local authority's proposed action should be addressed;

(b)take such further steps as may appear to them best designed to secure that the local authority's intention to pass a resolution is

279
brought to the attention of persons occupying or owning property therein and that those persons are informed of the name and address of the person to whom any inquiries and representations concerning any proposed action to be taken in the exercise of the local authority's powers under this Part should be addressed.

Alteration of industrial improvement area.
—(1) A local authority may by resolution—

(a) exclude from an industrial improvement area any land for the time being included therein; or

(b) declare an area to be no longer an industrial improvement area.

(2)Where it appears to a local authority desirable in the interests of the improvement of the amenities of an area which has been declared an industrial improvement area that any land adjoining the area should be included in the improvement area, they may by resolution include the land in the improvement area and cause the improvement area to be re-defined accordingly.
(3)Not less than twenty-eight days before passing a resolution in pursuance of subsection (2) above, the local authority shall publish in two or more newspapers circulating in the locality a notice of the local authority's intention to pass the resolution, identifying the land intended to be included in the area by the proposed resolution and naming a place or places where a copy of the proposed resolution, and of the map on which the improvement area is re-defined, may be inspected at all reasonable times and specifying the name and address of the person to whom any inquiries and representations concerning the local authority's proposed action should be addressed.
Duty in relation to industrial improvement area.
Where a local authority have declared an area to be an industrial improvement area it shall be their duty to bring to the attention of persons occupying or owning the property in the area the action they propose to take in the exercise of their powers under this Part and the assistance available for the improvement of the amenities of the area or of the buildings therein by publishing from time to time, in such manner as appears to them appropriate, such information as is in their opinion best designed to further the objects of this Part.
Power to carry out mprovements.
.(1) Where a local authority have declared an area to be an industrial improvement area they may, for the purpose of effecting or assisting any such improvement as is mentioned in section (Declaration of industrial improvement area) of this Act, with the consent of all persons having an interest in any land or building within the area, carry out or cause to be carried out works thereon or therein or assist (whether by
280
grants or loans or otherwise) any owner or occupier of land situated within the area in the carrying out of such works.
(2)Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, for the purposes of this section, "works" shall include the following:—

(a) the construction of fencing or walls;

(b) the exterior repair or painting of buildings;

(c)landscaping and the planting of trees, shrubs and plants;

(d)the demolition of structures or buildings;

(e)the construction of parking spaces, access roads, turning heads and loading bays; and

(f) the conversion, improvement and modification of factory premises.

(3)Nothing in this section shall authorise a local authority to carry out works for the provision, extension or improvement of services which it is the function of statutory undertakers to provide, extend or improve.
Duration of Part.
.This Part shall cease to have effect at the end of 1984.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move certain very closely linked and interdependent Amendments to this Bill. If your Lordships should find me more than usually dull-witted in my presentation, I hope that out of your Lordships' charity I shall be excused part of it on the grounds that I flew back from Rhodesia today from a visit consequent upon a debate in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago, and I now turn my attention protectively northward to my own home county of West Yorkshire. Certain metropolitan districts in that county of West Yorkshire have found themselves inequitably treated under the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 in comparison with other metropolitan districts in Yorkshire and, I suppose, in other parts of the country. The purpose of these Amendments is to correct that inequality, which was in fact recognised sympathetically by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House sitting on this Bill.
Under provisions contained in Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972, an obligation was placed on local authorities to review local legislation within their areas. This presents a convenient opportunity to obtain powers which at this time are not the subject of public general legislation. At the present time

281
the local authorities within West Yorkshire are promoting this Bill, which has already been considered in detail by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, as has been explained by my noble friend. It is one particular aspect of this Bill that I now wish to raise, concerning industrial improvement areas. In speaking today I seek to redress a position which has occurred under the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. .
However, before: I make particular reference to the matter of industrial improvement areas, I feel it is appropriate to say a few words to your Lordships concerning the Bill itself. The local authorities in West Yorkshire have been considering the form and content of their Bill for almost four years. During that period it was subject to much pruning by the local authorities themselves, so as to consist only of provisions which it was considered could be fully justified. It was the smallest of the three Bills relating to metropolitan counties considered by the Select Committee. The Bill at the present time has some 100 clauses, and, of these, the various industry clauses are regarded as being of the highest priority. Your Lordships' Select Committee allowed those clauses giving local authorities in the county power to assist industry in various ways, including the making of grants and loans to firms, but inserted a requirement that these clauses are to cease to have effect at the end of 1984. That will require the need for the powers to be reviewed at a time when similar powers granted to other authorities cease to have effect. The Select Committee did not, however, allow the clauses permitting local authorities to declare industrial improvement areas.
The Select Committee, consisting of my noble friends Lord Aberdare and Lord Cathcart and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—three men as thoughtful and considerate as any in your Lordships' House—decided to remove from the Bill the provisions concerning industrial improvement areas, and it may be of assistance to your Lordships if I am permitted to read verbatim from the report giving their reasons for that decision:
"The Committee are very sympathetic to the objectives of this part of the Bill, but they reiterate what was said in relation to the industrial assistance clauses in the proceedings on the Common Clauses, namely, that matters of this kind should be
282
enacted by public general legislation. Given that the matters covered by Part II of the Bill are dealt with, albeit more selectively, by the Inner Urban Areas Bill, which has now passed all its stages in another place, and has passed its Second Reading, Committee and Report stages in this House, the Committee do not feel able to allow these clauses".
That was the action and the opinion of the Select Committee expressed in sympathy for what we are trying to do, and were trying to do then.
Under the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, two of the metropolitan districts within West Yorkshire —that is, Leeds and Bradford—have been given various powers, but the remaining three (namely, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield) have received none. Your Lordships will recall that I referred a moment ago to the fact that the Bill has been under consideration for almost four years. I feel it is appropriate to point out to your Lordships that from an early date the industrial provisions were included in the Bill, and as such were under consideration a considerable time before the Government introduced their Inner Urban Areas Bill in December 1977. What has happened, as your Lordships will now see, is that two pieces of legislation dealing with this particular subject were passing through Parliament almost simultaneously, and, unfortunately for the metropolitan districts of Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield, the three noble Lords, noting an apparent duplication of powers, disallowed the clauses comprising Part II of the Bill.
As I have indicated to your Lordships, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield have not been granted powers under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. It is, therefore, proposed to seek the reinstatement of Part II of the Bill as deposited in order to correct an inequality introduced by the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. However, the Amendment now proposed contains a substantial qualification which, had it been submitted to the Committee, would, I feel sure, have commended to them this Part of the Bill; that is, the inclusion of a clause that this Part of the Bill, like the other industrial provisions, will cease to have effect at the end of 1984 so that the need for them will then have to be reviewed. This, as your Lordships will observe, is to accord with Clause 8 of the Bill, as amended in Committee.
I would ask your Lordships to accept that the clauses contained in Part II of the Bill as deposited would not in any way conflict with the relevant provisions in the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. The 1978 Act is concerned with the regeneration of major inner city areas while the industry clauses, and particularly the industrial improvement area clauses, in the Bill are concerned with small-scale encouragement to industry within West Yorkshire. The powers sought under Part II of the Bill were to enable local authorities either to facilitate, by way of grants or loans, works on land or to put in hand such works themselves in co-operation will local industry. I would mention, by way of example, such works as the construction of fencing or walls, exterior repair or painting of buildings, landscaping and the planting of trees, shrubs and plants, construction of car-parking spaces, access roads and loading bays, and the demolition, conversion improvement of structures and buildings.
It may be of assistance to your Lordships if I describe some of the problems prevalent within the metropolitan districts of Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield in order that the position can be seen in its proper context. The basic problems in all three metropolitan districts are those of poor access and loading arrangements, old and obsolete buildings and underused and degraded land giving rise to a general air of environmental decay; and the object of the clauses in Part II of the Bill when deposited was to enable the authorities to overcome these problems on a local basis.
The problem of old and obsolete buildings is particularly prevalent in Calderdale and Kirklees. In Calderdale, for example, 80 per cent. of industrial buildings and 90 per cent. of existing floor-space had been constructed prior to 1914. The Preliminary European Regional Development Programme, published by the Government in 1977, states that in the textile areas of West Yorkshire, largely outside the major centres:
"… obsolete stone-built, multi-storey factory buildings are ill-suited to modern production-line methods, but their removal is expensive and their sites are often too small for modern development, while the fact that the industries are situated in the narrow Pennine valleys precludes development on alternative flat sites. In these areas, net outward
284
migration, often of young people, remains a serious problem, although unemployment percentage levels remain deceptively low. However, between 1965 and 1975, nearly 60,000 jobs in the West Yorkshire wool textile industry were lost".
That is the end of the quotation.
The problem of outward migration is a crucial one and one of great concern for the West Yorkshire local authorities, who see the promotion of the West Yorkshire Bill industrial powers as a potential weapon in reversing this damaging trend.
Although a great deal of both public and private investment has taken place in housing and industry over the last decade, the areas of poor environment have been consistently shunned by private investors and, obviously, the availability of the powers contained in Part II of the Bill as deposited provides an incentive to improve the environmental position, and thereby attract private investment. The regional strategy of the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council emphasised this point and made particular reference to the Castleford area, which is one of the typical mining communities situated within the Wakefield district, and, as it happens, within a mile or two of my own home.
My Lords, my own observation bears witness to the statistics I have been given: that there are 651 hectares of derelict land from all causes in Wakefield District, representing 2 per cent. of the total area of that district. Only two local authorities designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978 have a larger proportion of their area which is derelict in relation to their total population.
While the metropolitan districts of Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield do not present the continuous areas of industrial and environmental decay which characterise the so-called Inner Urban Areas of cities like Bradford and Leeds, which are the two local authorities within West Yorkshire designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, similar economic and social pressures are manifest in the smaller towns and more scattered communities and give rise to obsolete industrial buildings and layouts and to derelict and degraded land. In some communities this decay dominates the total environment.
I would point out that in the metropolitan district of Wakefield, in which I

285
live myself, much of the decay can be attributed to the activities of the coal mining industry over the past 100 years. The district is characterised by large scale tips, both active and disused, by pit-head machinery and coking plants, and by continuing opencast workings. At least 12 of the collieries within the district contain tips approaching 100 ft. in height, with one reaching nearly 200 ft. in height. Some 21 collieries are active in the district, together with three opencast sites, the latter constituting half the total for West and South Yorkshire.
The dominance of the mining industry in the local economy and the fact that the mining industry has lost 10,000 jobs in 15 years contributes significantly to the unemployment figures of 6·7 per cent. for the Castleford area and 11·3 per cent. for the Hemsworth area—both typical mining communities—taken in November this year. The latter is the second highest level of unemployment in the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside region. More significant appears to be the longer-term trend: over the 12 months to January, 1978, the rate of increase in the number of unemployed in the metropolitan district of Wakefield as a whole was more than double the national average.
The powers now sought do not confer or encourage the right to embark upon grandiose or extravagant projects. They are confined to the modest necessities of carrying out such works as I have already mentioned. There exists a perfectly respectable and cogent precedent in the Tyne and Wear Act 1976; so that we are not asking for anything new or exclusively favourable to West Yorkshire. The granting of the powers contained in Part II of this Bill as deposited cannot, in my humble submission, in any way detrimentally affect the powers contained in the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name the effect of which, if agreed, is the reinstatement of the original Part II of the West Yorkshire Bill subject to the limitation which I have indicated. If it is considered that more than one Amendment is comprised, dealing as it does with five clauses, then I beg to move that these may be considered en bloc.
3.48 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I think I have a reasonable
286
claim on the attention of the House for a few minutes on this Bill because in another place I represented for 25 years the Sowerby Division of Yorkshire, the whole of which is within the district of Calder-dale, one of the authorities which is hoping that this House will support the Amendment. I wish to carry my argument to the report of the Select Committee, and, if it is not a disrespectful thing to do, cross swords with them.
They give two reasons in their report for disallowing that part of the Bill which this Amendment seeks now to reinstate. The first reason—and it has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald— was that matters of this kind should be enacted by public general legislation. If this part of the West Yorkshire Bill was seeking to extend the powers of a local authority far beyond the generality of powers given to local authorities, if this was breaking significantly new ground in the granting of powers to local authorities, the Select Committee would be justified in saying that this is so i mportant, so novel, and may create such a precedent that it is desirable for anything of this kind to be subject to general legislation. But that is not the position in this case.
If you are able to study the second page of the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, has just moved, it will be found that it seeks to grant to the county authority power to use its own resources—not to come for any grant from central funds—in applying to areas not covered by the Inner Urban Areas Act which, were they within that Act, would qualify for the provisions within it. To try to make myself a little clearer, it is intended in the Amendment to be able to use the resources of the county authority to do to land and buildings and derelict areas outside a designated area what the Inner Urban Areas Act allows to be done inside a designated area. The reason for this in this particular district is that the designated areas of Leeds and Bradford do not cover anything like the areas that the West Yorkshire county has to face of the ruins of the Industrial Revolution. They are really depressing to see.
That area requires enormous cleaning up. The debris of collapsed industries, of mills that have been left deserted, is spread over a very wide area. Townships

287
which I know so well, such as Hebden Bridge, Sowerby Bridge, Todmorden and Ripponden, which are subject to this dereliction, are not to be covered, so it seems, under the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Act because they will not fall within the designated area or within the catchment area provided for in the Act.
I suggest that this power is really an extension outside the central inner areas which are provided for in the 1978 Act to outlying areas outwith the designated areas, because they too are in a worse condition than the inner areas themselves and action should be taken to clear and clean them up using the resources of the county itself. That is the proposition. It is scarcely justified to say that a matter of this kind should be covered by general legislation. It is marginal; there is no new principle, it is only a matter of extension of area.
The second reason mentioned in the Select Committee's report has a bearing upon the first because they concede in the Select Committee's report that the Inner Urban Areas Act is more selective. They concede that it does not cover everything that the West Yorkshire county would wish to have. On the grounds already stated they think this Part of the Bill should be disallowed. My submission to your Lordships is that this is a matter of great importance to the elected representatives of the areas concerned. I humbly suggest that by far the best thing we can do is to agree to this Amendment and let another place go into this with, if I may say so, a closer association of the facts and circumstances of this matter than is possible for us in this House to have.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether it is right that this Amendment was actually embodied in the Tyne and Wear Bill, very rightly? When it was put into the Tyne and Wear Bill was there any argument about it or was it just accepted, as the noble Lord so rightly wants this accepted?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not know.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I take the opportunity of supporting the
288
noble Lord's proposition. I support this not because I come from Yorkshire but because when I came to the House in May 1975 my first speech was moving something similar on behalf of Plymouth City Council. I have listened to the noble Lord's speech very carefully and I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, may have second thoughts. As I understand it, it is true that the powers overlap the 1978 Act; but to enjoy those powers a local authority has to pass through two doors, the doorkeeper in each case being the Secretary of State. The first door is to be made a designated district. That is done by order of the Secretary of State. He has designated 43 districts in England of which only two are in West Yorkshire. The second door is to declare by resolution a particular area to be an improvement area. The resolution has to be sent to the Secretary of State and he can notify the local authority that all or part of the area is not to be an improved area.
This gives a very considerable control over the local authorities' powers whereas the Bill does not contain that control. It is the local authorities which are most aware of the needs and consider that they should have the powers and the discretion to exercise them. Having been a member of a local authority for many years, I stress this. In the speech of the noble Lord he suggests that the Committee anticipated that the districts of Wakefield, Kirkless and Calderdale would be designated under the 1978 Act, which was then a Bill. I understand that means the Committee did not come to the conclusion on the wrong facts. I gather it seems likely that it will be said that they did. The House is however being asked to look at the Committee's decision in the light of two further features. First, the designation order has been made, even though it contains basically what was expected. It was made on 5th September.
Secondly—and this is important—the Amendment is limited to end at the end of 1984. That was not a proposal considered by the Committee. That is as I understand it, but perhaps the noble Lord will correct me. This means that the House is being asked to allow an experiment for only five years. It would be very advantageous for other areas to consider a similar problem. If it shows that the powers of the Act are being eroded, then in five years'

289
time it will then cease. If, as is thought likely, it proves a very modest way to be successful—and the way the noble Lord has put it today it should be successful— and indeed to supplement the powers of the 1978 Act, further legislation could be promoted to continue the powers.
Therefore, I would have thought that what the noble Lord has put forward is advantageous to the area concerned. Five years in the history of Parliament is not very long and if it is not advantageous this can be corrected. It can be used for guidance to local authorities and to Parliament for the future.
4 p.m.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, it is not with any pleasure that I rise to speak against any local government. I spent 25 years in local government in which I attempted to halt the decline of their powers in regard to the infrastructure they were responsible for. So it is with some sadness that I find myself up to now being the only speaker against the Amendment. I rather suspect that if in fact the districts mentioned by the noble Lord had been included in the Inner Urban Areas Act perhaps we should not have seen this Amendment and perhaps we should not have seen the clause. The noble Lord, kindly enough, agrees with me.
On the other hand, if it was true, as my noble friend said, that this is only marginal, then of course no one in this House or in the other place would have opposed this Amendment. Is it marginal? Is it of no moment to the economy of this country?—because we are really not talking about the powers of West Yorkshire just to give assistance to industry. We are talking about the powers of local government, because one could not resist the spread of these powers to other local authorities. Every argument that is used in favour of West Yorkshire can also be used in the Greater London Area. Let me say with more force that it could be used by many local authorities in the North-West of England who themselves have been disadvantaged by not being designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act. If that were to happen, then it would not be marginal because it would mean that these two Houses of Parliament would be faced with a demand from the
290
whole of the local government structure to have these powers.
My noble friend said that there is nothing wrong with the transfer of resources to private industry provided the local authority gives the money itself. Is that the real way we look at the transfer of resources? Does it mean that because a local authority raise a rate it has the right to say; "These are our resources and we will determine where they go"? Of course not. If you accept that argument it means you are equating resources with cash, and the real purpose of the Inner Urban Areas Act was not just to give assistance to certain people and certain areas; it was to pick up the major problem of the decline in our productivity and in our system of industry at the places where it is most needed. If it had been possible for any sensible Government to have given this assistance over the length and breadth of the land, of course it would have done so. But it was not possible, and a sensible Government had to be selective as to where they would place their resources.
In this case the resources were raised by the taxpayers but there is still a transfer of resources; and if West Yorkshire pursue their Amendment, and if they are successful here today and successful in another place, they will be followed by other local authorities. The case cannot be resisted and I believe that would mean there would be no selectivity by central Government to apply resources where they are needed most in our industrial organisation. If that situation arose then sooner or later central Government would have to put a limit on the amount of money that would be spent by local authorities.
I sympathise very much with Wakefield and Kirklees. I know the area and I believe they should have been designated under the Inner Urban Area Act. That surely is the way that the West Yorkshire authority should proceed in this matter. It should not begin to establish principles that could be picked up by any district council in the London area. I believe that the transfer of resources—that is what we are talking about—is not just on a local government basis, because local government is notoriously unsuitable to determine priorities in the industrial field. The only body that can really determine those priorities is central Government.

291
I believe that at this very moment central Government have made many mistakes in the designation of areas. They are making a greater mistake still when, in spite of the drift to the South-East of the resources of this country which leaves the rest of the country almost poverty-striken in some cases, they are still ploughing more money into the capital and the South-East of this country, where people have not yet begun to feel the real brunt of the economic problems of this nation.
What is required in the northern part of this country is that we should look at the question of the transfer of resources in terms of real priority measured against the national demand. If we really get priority there, it is not about the amount of money spent by local authorities in improving industrial areas. The priority is that once and for all this nation should set itself to the task of making sure that all the untapped potential for productivity and all the rest of it in the North of England, as opposed to the South-East of England, where congestion prevents it, should be tapped and it should be used for the benefit of this country as a whole.
I believe that West Yorkshire are wrong and that they should join with fellow authorities North of the Midlands and then ensure that central Government determine priorities for industrial investment and that when they do the voice of the North should be heard with such force that there should be a transfer of resources from the South and the South-East to the North of the land.

DISPUTES AT TWO LONDON HOSPITALS
4.6 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now read a Statement being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on the dispute at West London and Charing Cross Hospitals. The Statement is by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and it reads as follows:
"I deplore the outbreak of unofficial industrial action at the West London and Charing Cross Hospitals, which is depriving patients of treatment. I understand that the action is a protest
292
against the dismissal of three employees from the West London Hospital. There are established procedures in the National Health Service which protect staff against unfair dismissal. These have not been used although management has made clear its willingness to set up an Appeals Panel immediately.
The action of NUPE members at the West London Hospital is having little effect on patient services there. Pickets from the AUEW and EEPTU at Charing Cross Hospital are turning away deliveries, and, as a result, shortages of essential supplies are limiting surgery to urgent cases.
I understand that local discussions are going on at present and I hope that these will be successful in resolving the dispute. I renew my appeal to the staff concerned to return to work immediately in order that the service to patients may be resumed in both hospitals as quickly as possible."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement and I very much sympathise with him in having an appalling Statement to make. I think the whole House is deeply shocked by the conditions at these two hospitals because the situation borders now on a national scandal. I find it extraordinary, looking at the Statement, that the Government can say that the unofficial strike at the West London Hospital is depriving patients of treatment, and in the third paragraph they say the action being taken
"is having little effect on patient services".
They go on to say that essential supplies are short and this is limiting surgery to urgent cases. These are inconsistent statements. The fact is that the whole situation is damaging. It must be alarming and frightening in the extreme to patients hoping for treatment at either of these hospitals. As I understand the waiting list at one of these hospitals is now one year, to ask people to wait even longer is even more deplorable.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that the situation is one that is a national disgrace, and one in which, above all, we need something like a patient's charter, for people who are ill,

293
who are least able to help themselves and who cannot in any way be said to be parties to this dispute, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, but who are suffering acutely. Should we not all combine together to see whether we can achieve a much better situation in the hospitals than a continual series of crises of this nature?
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should just like very briefly to say how much I agree with what the noble Baroness has just said. I should like to ask the Minister whether he agrees that unofficial action in the hospital service, from no matter what side it comes and from no matter what source, is something to be very much deplored, because it is bound to have a bad effect on patients? You cannot divide people into urgent and non-urgent.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to say that I think there is some slight misunderstanding on her part. When I said that it was having little effect on patient services there, I referred to the West London Hospital. I say that because the people who are affected are those who are having to wait for non-urgent treatment at that hospital. I then went on to refer to the Charing Cross Hospital, where I said that they were turning away deliveries. As a result of shortages of supply, this was having a limited effect on urgent cases. I do not think that there was any inconsistency in what I said.
It may be beside the point. What is important is that this is happening and, as I said, I think that we all deplore this kind of thing from whichever section of the community it comes. People who are responsible for caring for others, particularly at the time when they need care, ought not to be put in this position, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for saying that he himself feels that it is to be deplored from whichever section it comes, whether it be from the medical profession or from trade union employees.
The only other comment I would make, arising out of what the noble Baroness said, is that I said to your Lordships a good time ago—I think as a result of a Question which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Carr, put to me about procedures—that my right honourable friend was employed in
294
trying to get some kind of procedure. I think I said at that time that he had called together members of the British Medical Association, members of the Royal Colleges, such as the Royal College of Nursing, members of trade unions and so on, to see whether some simplified form of procedure could be found which would stop this kind of thing. A procedure has been come by, and it has now gone to the General Whitley Council which is considering all these proposals. But, unfortunately, like most other things, it will take some time. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service came in on this in the very early stages, but as I said, the people concerned are unfortunately not prepared to use the facilities available at this time.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will permit me to say this, bearing in mind that these are my own local hospitals and I am literally within 100 yards of Charing Cross Hospital. He mentioned deliveries. This morning, the rumour seemed to be that the pickets were trying to prevent supplies of food from entering. This is rather different from affecting only waiting patients, and I wonder whether the Minister has any information, because this would be particularly deplorable.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the latest information—and I received this fairly recently—is that yesterday at Charing Cross Hospital only some surgical instruments and incontinence pads got past the pickets. Everything else was turned away. Oxygen will last until late on Friday or early on Saturday, oil will last for four or five days, rubbish removal has stopped and there is no movement of linen: disposables are at present being used. I have no information with regard to food, and I think that if it did apply to food I should have been given that information.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, as one who has been in a hospital when a withdrawal of labour was threatened, but, mercifully, was not brought into action, may I say that the effect in a hospital, not only on patients but on all other people who are not privy to it, is extremely serious even before it happens, and, of course, worse still when it is actually happening. May I ask whether,

295
in the examination of this extremely difficult problem about which public indignation is growing very fast, the Government, or the authorities who are examining it, will give thought, even if it is ultimately negatived, to the possibility that for employees who are serving sick people and who have a legitimate or an illegitimate grievance, there should be some alternative form of machinery which does not involve the withdrawal of labour, but which gives the employees a chance of getting a grievance through? Could that be considered as one of the ways of combating this growing danger to sick people which seems to be upon us?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that I can reply very shortly and say that that is the whole purpose of the procedure which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has tried to evolve and which has gone before the Whitley Council, about which I spoke to your Lordships some time ago.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, are the Government aware that in many cases like this the people concerned do not seem to obey the agreed procedure, and that their union leaders really do not have any influence upon them to make them keep to it? Are the Government also aware that a very great number of people have regarded the Labour Party with some sympathy, because it was felt that they would tend to put the public interest first? But the people now engaged in this dispute are definitely promoting private interests at the expense of humanitarian interests and the interests of the patients in the hospitals, and it really is an intolerable situation. Is it the case that the Government's ability to take trenchant and effective action in this matter is inhibited by the legislation which they themselves passed earlier in this Parliament?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is very regrettable that a Member of your Lordships' House should concentrate on the sins of omission and commission of the trade union movement. I have tried to be very fair about this. So far as I know, no noble Lord ever complained in 1976 when the consultants went on strike for a considerable period of time, and when the junior hospital doctors did the same,
296
and added tens of thousands to our waiting lists. What I am saying is that we ought to take the view that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, took, and condemn this from whichever source it comes. It is true that in this instance we are concerned with the activities of trade unions, but it is unfortunate when a Member of your Lordships' House gets up and rather implies that they are the only people who cause this kind of disruption.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, may I make it quite clear that I do condemn action from whatever quarter which causes stoppages in hospitals. There is no excuse whatsoever for it, and I hope that the whole House will make that clear. May I ask the Minister two questions? First, he made clear that this is unofficial action; it is not trade union action. Will his right honourable friend the Secretary of State therefore summon the leaders of these unions and ask those leaders to take disciplinary action under their unions' own rules against members who are disregarding the unions' own rules and practices by taking unofficial action? I really do believe that this is the least that the country should expect in a matter like this. Union leadership should seek to impose discipline on its members and make sure that procedural agreements which they have entered into are honoured by its members. While I am glad to hear that progress has been made by the Secretary of State upon getting a new procedure agreement, since the matter is so urgent could not the normal rather stately rhythm of the Whitley Council procedure be speeded up to deal with it?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I may deal first with the noble Lord's last point, we are trying to speed up this procedure. Discussions are taking place, but obviously we want to reach certain firm conclusions which will not have repercussions in themselves when they are put into operation. Therefore, it is worth spending a certain amount of time upon them. With regard to the other matter, as the noble Lord knows, my right honourable friend—and I want to associate myself with him—condemns very strongly behaviour of this kind. It is very irresponsible; when so many people are dependent upon the services and goodwill of others, it is lacking in any sense of responsibility. There can be no excuse at

297
all for this kind of behaviour, and when it is unofficial, I think that it aggravates the situation. The noble Lord, who has had a great deal more experience in Government than I have, will know that I cannot answer for my right honourable friend without first seeking his view upon it, but I feel quite certain that anything he can do to deal with people who behave in an unofficial way with regard to their unions he will do gladly.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm what was stated yesterday in the Press: that 32 patients who were suffering from cancer and who were to have had operations were not operated upon? And can the noble Lord say how many patients would have been operated on today but have not been operated upon?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I could give the noble Earl information, I hope he realises that I would give it to him, but I have no information on either of those matters.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question about picketing? Can he say exactly what is being prevented from getting through by the pickets? Can he confirm or deny that, quite apart from food, oxygen cylinders are not getting through to the Charing Cross Hospital, which is one of our major and most modern teaching and casualty hospitals? This could cause untold damage. Will the noble Lord accept that I, like many noble Lords, have condemned in this House strikes in the hospital movement by all grades, whether they be doctors, consultants, porters or anybody else? May I also ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that most of us feel that those who work in our hospitals in all grades are highly responsible people?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I agree in substance with what the noble Lord has said. The only question that he put to me was one that I tried to answer: oxygen will last until late Friday or early Saturday. Arising out of the question asked me by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, information has been passed to me to the effect that it is not true to say that yesterday 32 cancer patients were deprived of surgery. My information is that all 30 operations planned for yesterday
298
were in fact carried out, and that all operations planned for today were also carried out.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I say that it is a great relief to have that information. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, while fully accepting that all forms of strikes which have an effect upon sick and suffering patients are equally to be condemned, would not my noble friend say that the picketing of hospitals resolves itself into a totally different form from any other type of picketing? Have not the Government some means of preventing this appalling suffering that is inflicted upon unfortunate patients simply in conformity with the laws of picketing? Surely the picketing of hospitals falls into a totally different category from any other form of picketing.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if we can obtain common agreement as to the method of procedure in future disputes and if we can get it to work, that in itself ought to avoid anybody feeling that it is necessary to picket.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord reply to the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Segal about the Government's power to see that the law on picketing is properly enforced? Surely picketing is allowed in the sense of dissuading people from entering a building but not in the sense of stopping them physically?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the law on picketing has been referred to many times. I believe that a case was mentioned in your Lordships' House not so very long ago in which the law has been very clearly defined. I do not know whether the law needs to be looked at again, but I will see that what my noble friend has said about picketing is conveyed to my right honourable friend.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, arising out of the Government's reply on that point, can the noble Lord tell us whether the action of the pickets in turning back goods and supplies to the hospitals concerned is strictly legal?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know whether or not it is illegal.

299
If it had been illegal, I should have thought that it would have been possible to do something about it. All I can say is that such action is to be deplored.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, in view of the great disquiet over this matter that has been expressed from all parts of the House, if this matter is not resolved can the noble Lord say whether he will be prepared to make another Statement early next week, or whether the Government will allow time for a debate?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I consider myself to be a servant of your Lordships' House and I will do what is possible, so far as I am able. However, this is a matter for the Government, and perhaps it could be dealt with through the usual channels. The noble Baroness the Chief Whip is here and will have heard what your Lordships have had to say.

WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
4.28 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, if we may revert to the West Yorkshire Bill, may I start by saying that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald. I know that he has had a very hectic life in the last few days, but he was kind enough to give me notice of his intentions and to explain to me what he had in mind. At this stage of the debate on his Amendment, therefore, I think that it would be appropriate if I tried to explain to your Lordships what was in the mind of the Select Committee when they disallowed these clauses. May I also say that I very much welcome the opportunity that these Amendments give to me. So often proceedings on Private Bills do not attract much attention in this House. Sometimes, as on this occasion, they raise extremely important issues.
These clauses—and, indeed, the clauses concerned with aid to industry generally— gave the Select Committee much their hardest task in coming to a decision. While, on the one hand, we were extremely sympathetic to the desire of local councils to help themselves in coping with their unemployment problems, we also attached
300
great weight to the view of the two Departments who expressed views to us— the Department of the Environment and the Department of Industry—that, to be effective, aid to industry has to be selective and priorities have to be decided on a national basis. They argued that to give every local council powers to aid industry would detract from the ability of the Government to bring help to the worst areas of unemployment.
We considered very carefully the evidence that was given to us by the county councils and we considered the views of the Departments. We did not give an immediate decision; we took several days to consider the matter. When we came to a decision, we made this statement:
"The Committee had great difficulty in coming to a decision on these clauses in the light of reports from Government Departments. They are of the opinion that powers to assist industry at national and local level should more properly be contained in public rather than private legislation".
The conclusion that we came to on the general clauses to do with aid to industry was that, despite the doubts expressed by the Departments, they should be allowed, but we restricted them to giving aid to small firms, which we defined as firms employing not more than one hundred people. We felt very strongly that policy decisions of this nature which established the dividing line between what is done by central Government and what can be done by local government should be taken by Parliament and should be contained in public legislation, but on these clauses of aid to industry no such legislation existed, and so we came to a conclusion and we drew the line at allowing local councils to give aid to small firms. This did not seem to us to be likely to overlap or to dilute national priorities.
I mention this attitude of the committee in connection with aid to industry in the four Bills because I want to make clear to your Lordships the very sympathetic attitude that we had to the points that were put to us in evidence by the county councils. Those were our decisions on the clauses which were common to all four Bills but, as the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, has explained, in the West Yorkshire Bill there was a further group of clauses in Part II to give powers for the designation of industrial improvement areas. In this instance the situation was

301
exactly the opposite. We did have public legislation—it was not actually on the Statute Book, but it had passed through the other place and it had passed its Report stage in this House. At the time this was the Inner Urban Areas Bill, now the Inner Urban Areas Act.
Section 1 of that Act gives the Secretary of State power to specify districts having areas of special need as designated districts for the purposes of that Act. Sections 4 to 6 and the Schedule to the Act give power to those designated district authorities, subject to control by the Secretary of State, to establish improvement areas. The clauses which we disallowed and which the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, seeks to reinstate, give the same powers to districts to establish industrial improvement areas but without the need for the Secretary of State first to specify the district itself. The Amendment therefore, if allowed, would result in Leeds and Bradford being specified by the Secretary of State (who has already expressed his intention of doing so) and hence being able to establish industrial improvement areas under the Public Act, and Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield being able to establish the same type of industrial improvement areas under a Private Act.
This evidently did not give any qualms to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby; but if your Lordships are prepared to take any advice from me on the subject of private legislation, it is that I really would deplore the use of a Private Bill to try to change the effect of a Public Bill. That is in effect what I think the noble Lord was advocating, that because these districts had been excluded by the Secretary of State's decision in a Public Act, therefore it was right for a Private Bill to change that position and put them back into the position that they would have been in. If I may respectfully advise the noble Lord, I would suggest that what he and the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, and others who wish to see help given to these other districts, should be doing is putting pressure on the Secretary of State to designate them under the Public Act and not to try to include them in a Private Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, has very fairly already read out the report of our decision on this matter, and I shall
302
not repeat it. We expressed again our sympathy with the underlying objects of the clauses and again our firm belief that these are matters which are of national implication and should be enacted by public general legislation. In this case this legislation existed in the Inner Urban Areas Act, and it would make nonsense of the underlying purpose of that Act if local authorities in general had similar powers to those of the Secretary of State. There can be no doubt that other districts will follow suit. This is one of the earlier Bills in the whole succession of local authority Bills which is bound to follow under the 1972 Act, and if all the districts of West Yorkshire were to be given this power I can predict with certainty that other local authorities promoting Bills in the future would follow suit. I echo there the words, which I thought were very persuasive and forceful, of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. I thought he put the case extremely well. On this matter Parliament has made its decision. Parliament has given the Secretary of State powers to specify districts having areas of special need; Parliament did not give this power to local authorities, and in my view it would be inappropriate to do so by Private Bill.
I should like to make one further remark about the Tyne and Wear Bill which has been. cited as a precedent. It is perfectly true that a clause of this sort appears in the Tyne and Wear Bill, but of course it was put into the Bill at a time when this public legislation did not exist and therefore it was appropriate to a Private Bill because they were showing a need which was proper to them; but what I do not think is right is that subsequently, when there is a public Bill which has been argued through Parliament, giving certain powers, we should then try to enlarge those powers by means of a Private Bill.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I should have thought, with great respect, that if a local authority wished to include in a Bill something for which no provision had been made at all in general legislation, that is a much stronger argument for saying that it should be general legislation. My argument was that there is general legislation applying the principle of the matter—all experimental—

303
and this will probably do good, to give a special area with special problems special powers.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has not studied the Inner Urban Areas Act and what is proposed by this Amendment because they are identical, except that it would bring in three more districts which have not been designated by the Secretary of State, which is the whole purpose underlying the Inner Urban Areas Act. However, we can agree to differ on that. I only say that what we did in the committee was not done for any lack of sympathy; I think all in the committee would be delighted if the Secretary of State were to designate these districts; all we are saying is, please, not in a Private Act.
4.38 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I thought it might help the House if I were to intervene at this point, to give the Government's view on the relationship between the existing legislation, the Bill before us, and the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, is proposing. I start by saying that I support entirely the line that has been taken by the Lord Chairman.
The Government appreciate the concern of local authorities to play a greater role in the development of their local economies. In practice there is much that they can do within their existing powers, particularly by sympathetic and effective planning procedures. But as the Lord Chairman has pointed out, the dangers of wider powers proliferating among local authorities can be very great if Amendments of this sort are accepted. May I remind the House of the main point of Act II of The Gondoliers in the words of the Duke of Plazo Toro—or was it Don Alhambra? I am not sure—" When everyone is somebody, then no one is anybody ". My noble friend Lord Sefton of Garston put his finger directly on this issue when he pointed out that if West Yorkshire had these powers there is no reason why they should not be given to each and every local authority,
304
and in that way they would cancel out the possibilities of the inner area policy working at all.
This House spent a good deal of time in the summer considering the Inner Urban Areas Act, and for the first time in general legislation this Act gives a structure to the provision of powers for local authorities to intervene in the local economies. The Act allows selected authorities to set up improvement areas and within these to provide loans and grants for the improvement of land and buildings. The Inner City Partnerships have extended powers to grant-aid rents and site preparation works and to offer relief on interest payments for the acquisition of property and building work.
The Amendment now before the House, even with all the good intentions behind it, would in fact mean reversing the policy of the Inner Urban Areas Act. I cannot think that the House, on consideration and after having listened to the Lord Chairman, would want to accept the present Amendment, particularly after it had spent so long in careful and detailed consideration of the provisions to be included in the public legislation in the Inner Urban Areas Act. Noble Lords who are interested in that Act will recall the insistence of the House that designated local authorities should be permitted to help commercial areas as well as manufacturing industry, and this I accepted on behalf of the Government.
My Lords, there are also some serious weaknesses in the clauses the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, would like to see restored to the Bill; this is apart from the general principle that I have been discussing. First, the proposed powers would not be subject to any controls. Secondly, the local authorities concerned would in practice be competing with each other for investment in the country area. Thirdly, there would be a distinct likelihood of inefficient competition and counter-bidding between them and the risk of public money being wasted, which I know is the very last thing that he would want to bring about. The Inner Urban Areas Act in contrast gives powers to central Government to prevent wasteful competition between authorities, including limits on the scale of subsidy to be given to firms and on the number of improvement areas declared.

305
Above all, the Amendments, if carried, would weaken the Government's inner city policies and priorities. Resources are limited and public expenditure needs to be restrained. My noble friend Lord Houghton mentioned different parts of Yorkshire, which I also know, but of course that could be reflected by noble Lords in this House or honourable Members in another place talking about various parts of the country. The trouble is that with limited resources you have to try to direct them where you feel they are most needed. It is quite true that until resources improve there will be areas which will suffer; we are aware of that and we are not at all complacent about it. This means that the extended powers which are being sought by the noble Lord could be not supported by extra resources from central Government.
I therefore fear that the powers he seeks might in practice really have the effect of weakening the existing policies to help Leeds and Bradford, which on any basis I think do have priority needs. If inner city policy is to work, then the public sector's limited resources must be concentrated on the areas of greatest need. In the case of West Yorkshire that must mean the inner areas of Leeds and Bradford, certainly at the present time. I accept, and, as I say, I know personally, the problems facing other West Yorkshire areas, but I do not believe that they would be nearer solution if these Amendments were accepted. Passing Amendments is not going to produce the resources or the results that are wanted; I am sure the noble Lord is well aware of that.
The Inner Urban Areas Act has been on the Statute Book for only five months. I consider it must be given time to prove its worth. I again repeat what the Lord Chairman and my noble friend Lord Sefton have said, going back to the original idea of trying to rationalise legislation in the various private local government Acts, that really this is a matter for public legislation, which we now have. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendments.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, it is my intention to intervene only very briefly in this debate. I have listened very carefully to all that has been said. I have been approached by a number of people over these Amendments to the West
306
Yorkshire Bill, and I should like to begin by saying that I have very great sympathy indeed with the aims of the Amendments and with the point that my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald was making. I have myself moved Amendments from time to time on local Bills where I have thought this to be right. In this case, I have considered the matter very carefully indeed.
Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, would confirm my understanding of what she has just been saying about the financial implications involved. It seems to me that one of the difficulties about these Amendments is the financial implications. I understand that were these Amendments to be carried the effect would be that the money available for the inner urban areas, which we all want, would simply be spread that much more thinly; there would not be extra resources available.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there would not be extra resources available. What has been allocated to Leeds and Bradford would not be spread more thinly; it would remain the same. But what would happen would be that Calderdale and the other areas the noble Lord included would be competing for investors. They would have to raise their own rates to find the money. The whole policy would be weakened, and, as the noble Baroness said, it would be spreading the allocation more thinly. But I want to make it clear that it would not spread the actual allocation of the Government more thinly, because it would not be able to go there. It would mean that they would have to find personnel and investors, and it may well be that Leeds and Bradford would be worse off because of the competition from the other areas. They may have to pay more out of their grant for specific services or help needed to attract investors than would otherwise be the case. It would topple the whole thing.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. My concern is that ultimately it would have the effect of increased expenditure, and it would have the second effect which I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has made very clear. Those of us who took part in the proceedings on the Inner Urban Areas Act were somewhat sceptical about the length of the list of places already

307
being helped by it; it did grow longer as the Bill proceeded through both Houses of Parliament, not surprisinginly because everybody who had a problem wanted some of the help. At the end of it all the jam was being spread fairly thinly. I think, therefore, one has to take a view about this, and although everybody wants to help these three districts, I am not certain that putting this Amendment back into the Bill will meet the case.
I have, however, a second difficulty, which has not been touched on at all, and perhaps my noble friend Lord Saint Oswald would comment on it. I refer to the clause on page 2, Power to carry out improvements. One of the proposals is that the local authority should carry out improvements themselves, which, of course, implies direct labour. It is not my intention to raise this matter in a debate at this time, but it is one on which I and my colleages would be very concerned if the clause were agreed to. Should the noble Lord carry this Amendment, this would be a matter which I would ask my honourable friends in another place to look at. I think we would all be very sympathetic to the reasons behind the Amendment. I think it is one of the tragedies of our economic situation today that we are able to do so little for those places which need so much help.
4.50 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, before the mover of the Amendment replies, I think that, as a member of the Committee, I ought to take the opportunity of supporting my noble friend the Chairman of Committees. I do so under two headings. First, there is the question of aid by local authorities to industry in general. Secondly, there is the particular question which is before the House. I should like first of all to deal with the general question of aid by local authorities to industry. We considered this matter because we had before us clauses common to all four bills. We had to bear in mind various considerations. First, was it wise that local authorities should give aid to industry in competition with each other? Alternatively, should aid to industry be given by national government on the basis of national priorities? That was the first decision that was required to be made. Personally, I felt that it should be a question of national
308
priorities and aid by national government, rather than having local authorities in competition with each other.
The second consideration was that certain technical skills were required in administering this kind of aid, otherwise money would be wasted. For example, it is easy to give money away on the assumption that it will increase employment when in fact, it does nothing of the kind, but merely moves employment from one firm to another firm within the locality. We heard about cases where I am quite sure that was what happened when the local authority made the grant.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, I gave the figures for unemployment, which are unacceptably high. Therefore, it would not be a question of stealing labour from one factory or industry to bring it to another: it would mean employing people who are at present unemployed.
Lord JACQUES: No, my Lords. I shall give your Lordships an example of a case where it does not create new employment. A grant was made on the assumption that it would create new employment, but in fact it merely transferred employment from one firm to another. There were several cases where that occurred and in particular there was the case where money was given to assist the building of a restaurant. All the evidence indicated that all that would happen would be that the trade would be drawn from other restaurants to the one in question—in other words, there would be no new employment; it would merely be a transfer of employment from existing restaurants within the locality to the new restaurant. That, in our opinion, would be money wasted.
There was a third consideration regarding the general issue of aid being granted by local authorities. As a member of the Committee, I took the view that aid to industry should be moved as far as possible away from local authorities and that, if aid were granted locally, near to the people concerned, it might become a question of who one knew rather than whether one had a good case. I felt that the decision ought to be made at a distance from the locality so that that kind of influence could not be brought to bear. Those were the kinds of consideration that came up as regards this matter.

309
As regards the particular clauses which are the subject of the Amendments, we had the following problem: this was not a matter which had been neglected by Parliament and the Government. As a matter of fact, there was at the time a Bill, almost nearing completion, dealing with inner urban areas. Therefore, it was not a situation which called for experiment because it was being ignored.
The Inner Urban Areas Bill did not deal merely with the general principle of authorising public expenditure on aid to inner urban areas. It also laid down how the priorities should be decided. The effect of the clauses submitted to us was to make alterations to a decision which had been made by Parliament in general legislation. We felt that it was quite wrong for that to be included in local legislation and that was why the Committee made the decision which it did.
The Earl of ON SLOW: My Lords, first, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for not being present to hear the start of the debate. It seems to me that one point that arises out of the Bill— not only as regards these Amendments but also as regards the contested clauses which were dealt with by the Committee on which I had the privilege to sit—is the muddle that is being created by local government bodies having different powers.
The sooner it is laid down by general legislation that local government bodies either should or should not have the power to define their own areas of special need, the better. It should be done in a general Government Bill. It seems to me that this cannot be said too often. It has been said frequently by practically everyone, including the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and it appears not to have impinged in any way upon the hierarchy of Her Majesty's present advisers. In my view it is very important that this should be done. Indeed, it is almost worth voting for something which could possibly make a nonsense of the Bill in order to make somebody think again about including the whole gamut of local authority legislation in a general powers Bill which will give everybody the same type of discretionary powers which they will be free to use or not. Otherwise, there will be an even bigger muddle than
310
there was before local government reorganisation.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the noble Lord has picked a very bad example to suit his case, because only this year the question has been dealt with by public general legislation.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has not quite followed what I was saying, with the greatest of respect to him.
Several noble Lords: Order.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Am I out of order, my Lords? In that case, I shall apologise and sit down.
Lord SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, first, I should like to express my gratitude to all those who have shown such interest in the Amendments—indeed, interest which they deserve. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who has spoken on behalf of the Government. I do not believe that the Amendments seek to reverse the intentions of the Inner Urban Areas Act, but merely augment them and give assistance to those outside who have been excluded.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and his committee expressed sympathy for the case made but they did not, in fact, implement that sympathy. Therefore, although everyone was extremely grateful to hear the sympathy expressed and knew it to be well deserved, if it was not implemented it did not help a great deal.
The arguments which have been made against the Amendments seem to me to be made from the position of the bureaucrat in the manger: if some deserving areas are deprived of these powers, then all deserving areas ought to be equally deprived. I simply cannot agree with such an argument. Each case is worth considering on its merits and in my appeal I set out to outline the merits—not in detail—as I see them on the spot. After all, this is my own area of the country and the merits are very considerable.
We are told that God helps those who help themselves. The sponsors of the Bill are not invoking God in any direct sense, but they are being asked to be able to

311
invoke the help of investors. In reply to my noble friend Lady Young, the implications of direct labour had not entered my mind, I had assumed that these very small works would be carried out by contract labour. As I have said, these are very small powers. They are permissive and not mandatory. The decisions would be made by people who know the area best and who will put their limited funds to the best use.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendments disagreed to accordingly.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
5.7 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Having been given the powerful support that I have been given or rather that these Amendments have been given from very powerful speakers and advocates, I am of a mind to press my Amendments and I commend them to the House.
5. p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendments shall be agreed to en bloc?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 60.

CONTENTS

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ilchester, E.

Savile, L. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ingleby, V.

Shinwell, L.

Cockfield, L.

Kintore, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Falkland, V.

Morris, L.

Teynham, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northesk, E.

Vickers, B.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Vivian, L.

Glasgow, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Saint Oswald, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dowding, L.

Peart, L.(L. Privy Seal.)

Abinger, L.

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

Phillips, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Plant, L.

Alport, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Banks, L.

Henderson, L.

Simon, V.

Barrington, V.

Hood, V.

Spens, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.[Teller.]

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brockway, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stone, L.

Byers, L.

Luke, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Caccia, L.

Marley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Cathcart, E.

Melchett, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Collison, L,

Merrivale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Meston, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Deramore, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Oram, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved the following Amendments en bloc:
Clause 60, page 50, line 3, after ("60") insert ("(1)").
Page 50, line 15, at end insert—
("(2) This Part shall not apply to the city of Birmingham.").
Clause 70, page 57, line 5, at end insert—
("(3) This Part shall not apply to the city of Birmingham.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I may deal with these Amendments

313
very briefly, as they were the subject of a full debate in this House on 17th July last. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, moved a motion seeking to make these Amendments to the Bill on Third Reading. Their object is to restore to the Bill Amendments, which were refused by a Select Committee, to exclude the city of Birmingham from certain provisions in the Bill. We had a full debate and the House agreed to the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness without a Division, and I undertook to put down these Amendments on Third Reading. I think that I need do no more than to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill passed, with the Amendments, and sent to the Commons.

COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC RECORDS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Teviot.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]
5.10 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in rising to speak on the Third Reading of this Bill I should like to express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his courtesy in investigating a problem which was raised at Committee stage, and coupled with my name I should like to add that of my noble friend Lord Dulverton, who is not able to be here this evening, to express thanks for his investigations and the advice given by Parliamentary Counsel on an Amendment which was subsequently withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for what he has said. I am also most grateful to him, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, and to the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, for their helpful and constructive attitude towards this small but important enabling Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS, RE-RATING) ORDER 1978
5.12p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I propose to take this fairly briefly. This is an annual event and we go over much the same ground every year except that the figures are rather different. Your Lordships will know that the Secretary of State for Social Services has completed the review of National Insurance contributions which he has to carry out each year under the Social Security Act 1975. He has had regard to changes in the general level of earnings as he is required to do under the Act, and in the draft order now before

315
your Lordships he has proposed certain changes in contribution liability from 6th April, 1979. Your Lordships will recall that when I addressed the House last summer on the subject of the draft Benefits Uprating Order I indicated that levels of contribution liability would be reviewed about now and would take account of the extra expenditure which would fall on the National Insurance Fund in 1979–80 as a result of the benefit increases which had then been proposed and have since been put into payment. I think your Lordships will find it helpful if I say at the outset that only minimum changes in contribution liability are proposed under the draft order.
Before coming to details of the changes I should explain that in specifying the rates and earnings limits for 1979–80 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has aimed to achieve a close balance between income and outgo in the National Insurance Fund for 1979–80. I think it right at this stage to refer to the balance of income over outgo which, as the Government Actuary's report accompanying the draftorder shows, is now expected to be in the region of £247 million. This compares with an estimated deficit of £25 million to which the Government Actuary referred in his report at this time last year. The change from the original estimate of a small deficit to a surplus has been broadly due to a lower level of unemployment and a faster increase in earnings than originally assumed, but it is important to recognise that both the surplus of £247 million now expected in the year 1978–79 and the much smaller one of £34 million expected next year, 1979–80, represent a fall in the value of the Fund in relation to benefit expenditure. To put it in rather more precise terms, the balance in the Fund at the end of 1977–78 represented about 39 per cent. of expenditure in that year whereas, on the basis of the estimates now made by the Government Actuary in his report, the balance in the Fund will fall by the end of 1979–80 to about 34 per cent. of expenditure in that year.
Coming now to details of the changes, I will deal first with Class 1 contributions, that is with those payable by employed earners and their employers. No change is to be made in the rate of Class 1
316
contributions. The upper and lower limits of earnings on which employees and employers pay contributions are being raised for the coming year. They will be £19·50 and £135 a week in place of the present limits of £17·50 and £120 a week. The effect is that a person who earns at least £19·50 a week will pay contributions on all his earnings up to £135 a week. These new earnings limits are not specified in the draft order because, under the Social Security Pensions Act, they are now a matter for regulations. My right honourable friend has already made the regulations, which are subject to the Negative Resolution process, but I mention them for the sake of completing the picture. The new lower and upper limits are consistent with the requirement of the Pensions Act, which is that they should be respectively about equal to, and about seven times the amount of, the basic rate of the retirement pension. As your Lordships will know, this is now £19·50 a week, and seven times that gives us roughly the £135 a week. The effect of the changes to the earnings limits will vary according to whether or not an employee is contracted-out under the new earnings-related pension arrangements.
Employees who earn less than £120 a week—that is, the vast majority of employees—and their employers will either not be affected by these changes or, if they are, and if the employment is contracted-out, they will pay only a few pence a week more. The earnings-related structure of the scheme means that these employees, and their employers, already pay increased contributions immediately an employee gets a pay increase. Employees who are not contracted-out and who earn £120 a week or more, will pay higher contributions, progressing to a maximum increase of 97p a week for those with earnings of £135 a week or more. Their employers will also pay correspondingly more, with a maximum increase of £1·50 a week (excluding the National Insurance surcharge, which is a matter not for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State but for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer). Employees with earnings of £120 a week or more who are contracted-out, and their employers, will similarly pay more, rising to a maximum of 65p a week for the employee and 91p a week for the employer.
Turning to the self-employed—and in the past the House has shown a good deal of concern for the self-employed—your Lordships will recall that this time last year I indicated that we hoped to hold the level of liability of the self-employed steady until 1983, apart from changes to take account of increases in the general level of earnings. The proposals before your Lordships today are consistent with that aim. The draft order provides for a small increase in the flat-rate Class 2 contributions going up from £1.90 to £2.10 a week. No change is proposed in the rate of the Class 4 contribution, which remains at 5 per cent., but the range of profits or gains on which the contribution is levied is being changed.
Under the draft order, the range will be from £2,250 to £7,000 a year instead of the present range of £2,000 to £6,250 a year. The result of this change is that there will be no liability for Class 4 contributions where profits or gains are £2,250 a year or less; there will be a small reduction in liability on any particular level of profits between £2,250 and £6,500 a year, and an increase in liability where profits are above £6,500 a year. The maximum increase in the Class 4 contribution will be £25 a year and will be payable where profits or gains are £7,000 or more a year. The new upper limit of £7,000 a year is the annual equivalent of the new upper earnings limit of £135 a week for the contributions of employed earners and employers.
This appears to be rather complicated and perhaps I can best illustrate it by giving an example. A person with profits or gains of £2,250 a year will pay £12·50 less for 1979–80 than he did for the current year. On profits of £6,500 a year a person will pay the same amount in each year. Only on profits above this level will his liability for Class 4 contributions be increased. He will, for example, pay an extra £10 if his profits are £6,700 and, as I mentioned, an extra £25 if his profits are £7,000 a year or more.
Finally, I come to the remaining two changes which the draft order makes. It increases the level of earnings below which a self-employed person can be exempted from liability for Class 2 contributions, from the existing limit of £950 a year to £1,050 a year. So it has been raised by £100 a year. It also raises the rate of the voluntary Class 3 contribution
318
from £1·80 to £2 a week. I have tried to keep my remarks as brief as possible because, as I indicated earlier, no more than minimum changes in contribution liability are proposed on this occasion. The increases specified in the draft order simply reflect the changes in earnings levels and other factors which will affect our expenditure on National Insurance benefits and will enable the scheme to continue to operate fairly and, we think, on a sound financial basis. I hope my explanation has been adequate and I commend the order to your Lordships for approval.
Moved, That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd November be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
5.26 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his explanation of the draft order. Very substantial sums are mentioned here and I do not think any of us when discussing the Social Security Act 1975 were at that time aware of the speed with which the contributions would multiply. Under this piece of subordinate legislation a sum of no less than £9,000 million will be raised towards defraying the cost of the Health Service. It is not a matter which normally concerns your Lordships' House—it is a question of Supply—but in this particular circumstance we are considering the uprating of contributions and it is therefore a matter of special significance.
I have previously mentioned on the annual review of these upratings the question of the surplus and I feel it is appropriate to refer to it again this year; and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who is part of the same cast for this annual event, will do the same. The Public Accounts Committee's Ninth Report, published in July 1978, refers to some very significant figures, namely that for the year 1976–77 there was a wide discrepancy of no less than an estimated surplus of £389 million and an outturn of £928 million. These are very big figures indeed, though one in no way casts this as the responsibility of the Government Actuary, on whose shoulders so much of the burden of estimating will lie.

319
The suppositions which are put to the Government Actuary are at fault and we on these Benches say that in the Government Actuary's Report some particularly difficult suggestions are made with which we do not agree. I refer to the estimates of income and outgo to be found in paragraph 7 of the Actuary's Report, and in paragraph 7(ii) he says:
"By the end of 1979, and at the end of the current phase of the pay policy, average earnings will be at a level of 7 per cent. higher than a year before and the increase in the following year will also be 7 per cent.".
It is difficult in present circumstances to see how this estimate can in any way measure up to the prognosis we have received from other sources. Nevertheless, the estimate which the Actuary was asked to make was on this basis. Therefore, I think we can expect a considerable discrepancy between the estimate and the outturn, and I must leave it at that.
I am grateful to Lord Wells-Pestell for the example he gave, which differed from that given by his right honourable friend in that it was a new example on the Class 4 contributions. Examples are always welcome and I am grateful to him for altering his right honourable friend's statement in that he removed certain passages which would have been very lengthy for your Lordships to listen to.
5.30 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I wish to join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his very careful and thorough explanation of the order. I am glad that the percentage contributions in respect of employed persons are not going up for either employers or employees this year, but inflation again makes it necessary, as the noble Lord explained, to raise the limits, both lower and upper, for Class 1 contributions; the former in step with the basic pension, and the latter so that it remains seven times the basic, as required by the new earnings-related scheme which commenced in April. This latter process is accomplished by separate regulations, but as the noble Lord pointed out, it is convenient to take it together with the provisions of the order.
Those earning less than the old upper limit pay no more. Those between the old and the new upper limits have the
320
highest percentage increase, as always, and those over the new top limit have an increase of a decreasing percentage, the larger their income. That is an anomaly which I have previously pointed out, and it must be so where contributions are cut off at a fixed limit.
Presumably the self-employed flat rate has gone up because it covers a larger amount of income with the raising of the lower limit for the 5 per cent. levy from £2,000 per annum to £2,250 per annum. Unfortunately, that means that the self-employed earning below the lower limit for the levy pay more, although employed persons in the same income range do not. Anyone earnings between £1,050, which is the exception limit—the limit below which contributions from the self-employed are not required—and the old lower limit for the levy of £2,000, will pay £10·40 more per annum; that is £2·10p per week, instead of £l·90p per week. However, those earning between the new upper limit of £2,250 and the old upper limit of £6,250 will pay £10·40 per annum more—just the same basic flat rate contribution—but they will pay £12·50 less per annum levy. So they are favoured with a net reduction, while the lowest earners pay extra. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to confirm that I have got the figures right; and if he does, then what I have mentioned is another anomaly.
I note from the Government Actuary's report that the estimated surplus for the year 1978–79 is now £247 million, against £25 million deficit forecast a year ago, and £69 million deficit forecast in May this year. None of the proposals in the order and the related regulations will contribute to that turnaround, that surplus. So that is satisfactory so far as it goes and it suggests that the current percentages are the right ones.
For 1979–80 a surplus of £34 million —with the changes in contribution which the order and the regulations introduce— is forecast, as against a £25 million deficit forecast a year ago for the operations of the previous year. Considering the changes in benefit entitlement listed in the Government Actuary's report, which take effect in April 1979, this is encouraging, although we are warned by the Government Actuary that the forecasts are subject to rather greater un-

321
certainty then is usually the case; and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has referred to some of that uncertainty. It is pointed out that the balance in the fund—and here the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, underlined it—is, as a percentage of the annual expenditure, decreasing. On the whole it is a year of minimum change, as the noble Lord said, and with some reservation of the anomalies which I have mentioned, I am content that the order should be approved by the House.
5.35 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think that either of the noble Lords who have spoken has asked me to produce any facts of which they themselves are not aware. With regard to one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, it is worth repeating that the difference between the Actuary's estimate and outturn in 1976–77 was due mainly to contributions under wholly earnings-related structure which provided more than was estimated. There was also a smaller proportion than expected of those who were qualifying for unemployment benefit. This is the only explanation one can give for the point which the noble Lord made.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked why are the poorest self-employed to pay more than the better off? The different effect of the proposed contribution changes at various earnings levels arises from the mixed flat rate and earnings-related contribution liability of the self-employed. Both the flat rate Class 2 contribution and the profits limits between which earnings-related Class 4 liability arises are being raised to take account of the increases in earnings levels, as are the earnings level limits for employees. The result is that all the self-employed, other than those excepted from liability on the grounds of small earnings—which in the coming year will be £1,050, and in the present year is £950—will pay an increased Class 2 contribution, but those whose earnings are within, or slightly above, the existing profit bands for Class 4 liability will have a small reduction in their Class 4 contribution liability, which. in most cases will slightly exceed the extra cost of the Class 2 contributions.
I should not have thought that there would be a great deal in it, and I did not
322
think the noble Lord, Lord Banks, was drawing attention to any considerable discrepancy. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say anything more, other than to thank both noble Lords for their observations and comments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONTEMPT OF COURT
5.38 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD rose to call attention to the Report of the Committee on Contempt of Court (Cmnd. 5794) and the Government's discussion document (Cmnd. 7145); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I believe that there is at any rate one matter upon which your Lordships will be in agreement; namely, that as this report—the Phillimore Report—appeared in 1974, this debate has not occurred too soon. In fact, the matter has not been previously discussed in your Lordship's House, and except for a brief adjournment debate which took place, I understand, in April of this year, the matter has not been discussed in the other place, either.
However, we have the very useful Green Paper which was issued by the Government in March 1978. I understand that it is a Green Paper, though it is masquerading as a White Paper. When I inquired as to this I was given to understand that these days Green Papers always do appear as White Papers. Whether this is due to a great shortage in the factories of printers' green ink, I do not know. Nevertheless, with your Lordships' permission, I shall refer to this document as a Green Paper.
First, I wish to pay a tribute to the work of this very distinguished committee under the eminent chairmanship of the late Lord Justice Phillimore. It was a small committee, but it had a very distinguished membership, and it is worth noting that it consisted not only of lawyers but also of a number of eminent laymen, including General Sir John Hackett, and Mr. Robin Day, who contributed a valuable dissenting note on one particular point, but who otherwise agreed with all his colleagues.
As your Lordships will have seen from the committee's report, it went into these complicated matters with great care and thoroughness, and it arrived at no less than 35 recommendations by way of suggestions whereby the law could be improved. Many of these suggestions, of course, are relatively minor and uncontroversial; and for the purposes of opening this debate I propose to confine myself to what are described in the Green Paper as "central recommendations", in particular those relating to two crucial points. One is the definition of "contempt", particularly as affecting the Press and the media generally, and the other is the question of the time from which the law of contempt should apply, again especially as affecting the media. I would think that no-one in a democratic society such as ours would deny the importance of the freedom of the Press. On the other hand, no more will he deny (unless, perhaps, he may be a journalist) that the use of the law of contempt to ensure fair trials and avoid what has been called "trial by newspaper" is one of the great institutions which has been created by our common law judges.
Experience in other countries, particularly in the United States, has revealed what seems to us, at any rate, a sorry state of affairs, where, before a man has actually appeared in court for trial, he is subjected to a process of arraignment and, indeed, conviction by newspapers, long before he has had an opportunity to make his defence in court—and this is done in the name of the fundamental freedom of speech. Nor, indeed, is the experience on the Continent very much happier. A very well informed commentator, Dr. Mann, an Anglo-German lawyer of eminence, wrote in a recent number of the Law Quarterly Review in regard to our law of contempt and described it as:
" … one of the most exemplary contributions of English law to civilisation, the maintenance of personal liberty and standards of public life. Anyone familiar with conditions of the continent will be conscious of the great evil which trial by newspaper is doing there".
I could not help but notice the other day, in what is commonly described as one of our quality Sunday newspapers, a comment in regard to a proceeding which was then very shortly to commence. It said:
324
"There have in fact already been television programmes in the United States going over the details of the case and containing long interviews with many of the witnesses".
Then it uses these words:
"The niceties"——
that is the word chosen, "niceties"—
"of the English concern not to prejudice a jury with information which may not eventually be presented at a trial are largely baffling across the Atlantic and the Channel, where trial by newspaper is well enshrined as one of the fundamental freedoms".
Your Lordships may feel that that is not a very happy reflection; and I venture to say—and I propose to say no more than this—that current example may perhaps be giving us some inkling of how the media would approach such matters if they were given carte blanche, and that may perhaps give us some reason to reflect whether very soon we may not have to take a long and anxious look at the operation, as it functions at present, of Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
As your Lordships will have seen from the Report, the Phillimore Committee come down firmly on the crucial need to do nothing to weaken the control over the mass media by the courts in order to preserve the fair administration of justice. What they do point out is that there is a very real difficulty here—the difficulty of striking a balance between two great public interests. On the one hand you have the right to comment on and criticise freely all matters of public concern, while on the other there is the need to preserve the proper administration of justice and ensure that every accused person will have a fair trial which will not be predetermined by some other public body or organisation. In this connection, the Committee recognised two main criticisms of the present state of the law, and it is these two about which I am going to say a few words. The first is that under our existing law it is not clear what criteria apply in deciding whether a contempt has been committed. That is the first point. The second main point is: At what moment does liability for contempt begin?
As to the first point, a great deal of concern has been aroused recently, of course, by the celebrated thalidomide case, which ultimately reached your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity under the name of Attorney-General v.

325
The Times. The case was there decided in July 1973, and was reported in the Law Reports in 1974. I am very gratified to see that in the order of speakers there will shortly be following Lord Rawlinson, who of course played a leading role in that case and is probably better informed as to it than anyone else. We shall await his views on this matter with the greatest possible interest. One thing which emerged from that case was that there was a great deal of judicial disagreement as to the appropriate test to be applied. At the end of the day, in the House of Lords (not, perhaps, the end of the day as the future may portend, but at the end of the day so far as that case in our courts is concerned) their Lordships came up with what was in effect a new criterion—the criterion whether the article in question, the article in the Press, would prejudge issues which occur in the proceedings.
The Phillimore Committee criticised all the different approaches that had so far been developed in our courts, and in particular they criticised that criterion put forward by the House of Lords in the thalidomide case, which they thought had moved too far against the freedom of the Press. They particularly deplored the fact that public discussion may be stifled simply because of the uncertainty of the law and the fact that people do not know really when they can comment or how far they can go. However, Phillimore recognised that there was a very real problem here and that discussion on important public matters ought not to be suspended simply because, quite incidentally, there might be some prejudice to a possible litigant.
What they proposed, therefore, was to reconstruct somewhat what was regarded before the thalidomide case as the normal criterion applied, and they proposed the test in this form. They suggested that the law should be altered to make the crucial test of whether contempt had been committed, whether the publication creates a risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. This test more or less followed the traditional pattern which had been applied in the divisional court in the thalidomide case, with one important difference.
What the committee proposed was that the emphasis should be moved away from the degree of risk to t he degree of harm,
326
so that the question now would be whether serious harm or impediment was likely to occur. Phillimore thought that this test should apply both to criminal trials and civil litigation. A further complication has occurred which is referred to in the Green Paper. The thalidomide case has now been referred to the European Court under the European Convention which your Lordships were discussing only the other day. The judgment has not yet been given but it is awaited. The full court of the European Court is proposing to give judgment—we do not know exactly when; but it appears that it probably will not be until early next year.
I suggest that the implications of this case, as ventilated before the European Court, might be quite serious from the point of view of this country because if the outcome of these proceedings in the European Court were to produce a decision laying down that our whole attempt to preserve safeguards to protect accused persons on trial against undue prejudice from the Press or other media is misconceived, and that something like the Continental system, what one might call the European system, were to prevail, this would undoubtedly be a very serious setback for justice in this country.
At any rate one can certainly understand, if I may say so, the situation of the Government that it is impracticable for the moment to introduce new legislation until we know what the European Court has decided and what affect this may have on the future development of our law. I should not expect the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack to make any direct comment at this moment to your Lordships upon this judgment which is still pending before another court; but perhaps the noble and learned Lord might feel that he could at least disclose to us some of the Government's thinking in relation to this issue and how he feels that the traditional safeguards of our law can be preserved in any event, because I think that this will be one of the anxieties which will be foremost in your Lordships' minds.
There is also a further point, as indicated in the Green Paper, that certain aspects of this matter are now also being considered by the Law Commission. According to the Green Paper, their final report on this was expected during 1978. One

327
would venture to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when this final report can now be anticipated.
If I may venture a general comment on this crucial point which I have so far discussed, I suggest that when it comes to amending this aspect of law by legislation, if amended it is to be, any criterion that we adopt is likely to have some uncertainties. I do not think that it is possible in a matter of this kind to have an absolutely clearly defined criterion. It is rather like trying to define in an Act of Parliament some notion such as negligence. It is a general standard and there is a limit beyond which precision will not go. But, having said that, I would think that one is also left with the position at the end of the day, whatever criterion you have, the balancing must to some extent be left to the judges. It is for the judges to evaluate whatever principle is finally accepted and apply it to particular cases. I think that this is a respect in which we can entertain considerable confidence in the discretion of our judges to apply any such criterion with fairness.
As to Phillimore's own proposal, it seems to me, with all respect, that there is much to be said for the formula that they put forward and that it is probably to be preferred to the formula which was adumbrated by their Lordships in the House of Lords' decision. Prejudging an issue does not seem to be the sort of test which meets all the necessary situations and, indeed, you could very easily have many situations where an issue could be said to be pre-judged without necessarily causing a trial to be unfair. There is also the question of defences to which I shall refer briefly. Phillimore favoured a new defence of fair and accurate reports of proceedings in open court; but they rejected the idea of a defence that publication was for the public benefit. On the other hand, they favoured the introduction of a new defence in the case of contempt to the effect that the subject-matter is under public discussion and could only affect pending proceedings incidentally. I confess that that sounds rather a vaguely-framed defence and one cannot help wondering whether it would not tend to increase the uncertainty of the law without necessarily producing any very powerfully beneficial result.
Lastly I should like to say a few brief words on the second crucial issue, the question of the starting point of liability— a matter which has given rise to very considerable difficulty. At the moment, our courts—that is, the courts in England— apply the test of whether proceedings are imminent. This of course has been criticised as a very vague notion and very difficult for editors and newspapers to decide what constitutes "imminence". Phillimore therefore proposes to cut the Gordian knot by trying to fix a much more exact point of time at which one could say that contempt proceedings would be capable of being brought. They say that for this purpose you should distinguish between criminal and civil proceedings. In cases of criminal proceedings they go for the moment when a suspected person is charged, charged with an offence.
On the civil side, they suggest that the appropriate date would be the date of setting down an action. There certainly would seem to be considerable advantage in having relatively fixed points of time of that kind; although the Green Paper points out that these suggestions give rise to some considerable technical difficulties. On the whole it would seem that those difficulties are not by any means insuperable. What one would like to know from the noble and learned Lord is whether he can shed any further light on the Government's thinking on this crucial issue and, particularly, whether he would care to comment on the recent decision in the Scottish courts where the Scottish High Court of Judiciary in the case of Hall and Associated Newspapers came down firmly in favour of the view that the crucial time for the purposes of Scottish law should be when the accused person is arrested or, perhaps, when the warrant itself has been granted.
The basis of this suggestion is, one would think, a very convincing one. What the High Court of Judiciary said was that that is the moment when the accused first comes within the protection of the court and that is the moment from which the law of contempt ought to operate. It would be very interesting to know whether the Government have reached any further reflections in the light of that Scottish decision. Time does not permit me to comment on any of the other valuable proposals included in the 35 recommen-

329
dations to which I have referred. It would be interesting to know from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether the Government intend in any event to introduce legislation to give effect to those recommendations, apart from those I have already discussed.
In conclusion, I feel very strongly that the Phillimore Committee put us strongly in their debt for the very careful study that they have given to this vitally important area of law, and that it is now for the Government and Parliament to make up their minds what action is needed and to take appropriate action, I hope in the very near future. I further hope that it will be done without calling for any further inquiry. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.2 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House—as I certainly am—will be most grateful to my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead for having raised this important subject this afternoon and for his lucid survey of many of the difficult issues involved. It was in the hope of stimulating public discussion on these issues that the Government published their discussion paper—which is a neutral description of it, in view of its whitened colour—in March this year; and of course the Government will wish to pay particular regard to the views expressed in Parliament and particularly here tonight by the distinguished experts who, I am glad to see, have put their names down to speak before the Government come forward with firm proposals.
I should also like to echo what my noble friend has said by way of thanking the members of the committee which under the alas! late Lord Justice Phillimore carried out such a valuable and thorough survey of this technical and complicated branch of the law. I remember giving evidence to the Commission and having a pretty tough time indeed under the questioning of Mr. Robin Day and other members of the Commission.
I should like at an early stage in what I have to say to correct the impression which I fear is being created in some quarters that the continued maintenance of the law of contempt is simply a Government device to shackle the Press. We
330
have no such unworthy motive. It is significant that the first and unanimous conclusion of the Phillimore Report was that the law of contempt is required as a means of maintaining the rights of the citizen to a fair and unimpeded system of justice and of protecting the orderly administration of the law. An my noble friend has said, the Committee made 35 recommendations, many of which are uncontroversial, although some, like the recommendations that magistrates should have power to punish for contempt in the face of the court—a proposal with which I agree—break new ground.
The recommendations on which interest has largely focused are those concerning the rules prohibiting publication of material which is liable to prejudice the administration of justice because it is here that freedom of speech, which includes of course freedom of the Press and other media of information, can conflict with the due administration of justice or, putting it more directly, with the vital right of the citizen to a fair trial. Both of these are of fundamental importance in our society, as in any free society. Often they are complementary and assist each other, but in the area of the law of contempt, as my noble friend has said, a balance needs to be struck between them. Exactly where the balance is to be struck is a difficult and delicate matter and often a matter of personal judgment. I have doubts about the approach of those who press simply for the full implementation of the Phillimore recommendations. As I hope the discussion paper has indicated, it is not, I fear, as simple as that.
The discussion paper picked out four central issues which were the subject of one or more recommendations in the Phillimore Report about which the Government have reservations and about which we think further discussion and debate is desirable. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking those who have responded to the paper by submitting letters and memoranda to my Department and to the Crown Office in Edinburgh. The fact that the discussion paper picks out these four issues does not mean that the Government necessarily accept in their entirety all the other recommendations in the report; but there is one other about which I should say a word first, of all. Perhaps the most serious criticism which

331
the Phillimore Committee levelled at the present law was its uncertainty, especially as it affects the Press.
One aspect of this uncertainty is that each court which has had to consider a case of alleged contempt by the Press has applied its own formula as to the test of strict liability for contempt—that is to say, liability even though the contempt was unintentional—and each formula has, I fear, tended to be slightly different. The Phillimore Committee recommended not only that a statutory formula should be enacted, but that the emphasis should be shifted so that publications would be caught only where the potential prejudice or impediment to the administration of justice is serious. This would not only enlarge the area of Press freedom but also make its boundaries less uncertain. It is a point which needs to be borne in mind when we are considering the four issues raised in the discussion paper, to which T now turn, because it is relevant to all of them and is an important background consideration if these other matters are also to be dealt with.
The first question is that of a starting point for strict liability for publications which may cause prejudice to civil or criminal proceedings. The present position in England is not wholly clear. For a long time it has been assumed, on the basis of judicial statements in a number of cases, that there may be strict liability when the proceedings are imminent. In Scotland until this year it was assumed, on the basis of the Stirling case in 1959, that the courts would impose strict liability at an even earlier stage, namely, when the prosecuting authorities started to investigate a crime. However, the Phillimore Committee say that they could discover no case either in England or in Scotland in which strict liability had actually been imposed in respect of a publication before proceedings, civil or criminal, had started. They found only one case where that had been done— and that was in Northern Ireland in 1961— where two prejudicial articles about a murder suspect appeared on the day before he was arrested, and the circumstances were such that the reporters in question, as well as the suspect, knew very well that he was likely to be arrested before long. However instructive the facts of that case are, the report of it
332
indicates that the court did not go very deeply into the question of the starting point for strict liability. The committee thought that the uncertainty of the "imminence rule", if it can be so called, had in their words:
" … an inhibiting effect on the freedom of the Press which is out of all proportion to any value there may be in preserving it".
They propose the simple rule that strict liability for contempt in relation to criminal proceedings should not begin until the proceedings have started. For this purpose the moment they selected was the time when the accused was charged with an equivalent rule in Scotland, since it is said that is a readily identifiable moment.
The Committee acknowledged, however, that there are strong arguments the other way. I think it is clear that there is no precise moment at which prejudice may start to arise, and that it may be caused before an arrest is made is borne out by the facts of the Northern Irish case to which I have referred. As was said by a judge in a case some 75 years ago:
" … it is possible very effectually to poison the fountain of justice before it begins to flow".
For this it matters not whether or not the prejudicial conduct is deliberate.
An important point which is sometimes overlooked in discussion of this question is the defence provided by Section 11 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, that if the publisher did not know or had no reason to suspect that the proceedings were pending or imminent he should not be guilty of contempt. That is an existing statutory defence.
Again, it is in the public interest that a guilty person should be convicted, but if his case has been so prejudiced that he cannot get a fair trial by reason of "trial by newspaper" or the kind of illustration my noble friend was giving, his conviction may have to be overturned—that has indeed happened on at least one occasion in the United States—or at least the prosecution might have to be abandoned and a guilty man, for that reason, go free.
It is for consideration, therefore, whether in the pursuit of certainty the Phillimore Committee's recommendation would go too far and create an unacceptable risk that a suspect will be seriously

333
prejudiced before he is charged. A memorandum I received recently indicates that my doubts on this are shared by the Law Reform Committee of the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar, although it is only right that I should say that in relation to civil proceedings they recommend going further than Phillimore and confining strict liability to publication in relation to cases which are to be tried by jury.
As my noble friend mentioned, there has been a new development in Scotland this year on the starting point in criminal cases. In the case of Hall, he was arrested in January and two days later an article about him was published which it was thought might be prejudicial. Hall was subsequently charged with murder and his trial received a good deal of national publicity. In the contempt proceedings against the newspaper which published the article, a court of five judges of the High Court of Justiciary was specially convened to hear the case. In a very full judgment the court laid it down that there is a starting point for contempt of the jurisdiction by the court, and that point is the moment when the accused is arrested or a warrant for his arrest is issued. The court went on expressly to disapprove of the dicta of Lord Clyde in the Stirling case, that the court's jurisdiction in the matter of contempt by prejudicial publication may run from the time at which a crime is suspected and investigation by the criminal authorities has begun. Although the court's ruling in this case was that the starting point should be the arrest or the issue of a warrant for arrest rather than the time of charge, as Phillimore recommended, this conclusion is not really very far from that recommendation. It remains to be seen whether this view will be followed by the courts in the other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, but all I can say at the moment is that we are keeping an open mind on this question and will listen carefully to views which may be expressed in this debate.
The problem of prejudicial publication does not arise so acutely in civil proceedings. Here the Phillimore Committee's recommendation was that the starting point should be when the case is set down or, in Scotland, when proof or jury trial is ordered. The main difficulty here is practical rather than a matter of principle.
334
In many civil proceedings, there is no such stage and although the committee recommended that provision should be made for such other proceedings by rules of court, the result, I fear, could well be a confusion of different starting points.
One aspect of this matter to which the committee drew attention is that of the "gagging writ", by which is meant a writ served simply in order to involve the law of contempt for the purpose of stifling adverse publicity about the writ server. Perhaps the Press has been excessively timid in this area, but it is of course something which has to be borne in mind when we consider this question. Clearly the objective which the Government and, I think we, should have in mind is to have a clear and simple rule.
The second main issue raised in the discussion paper is that of defences, to which again my noble friend referred. The committee made four recommendations regarding defences: two are that a publication which creates a risk of serious prejudice to legal proceedings should be justifiable if it is a fair and accurate report of the proceedings in open court or if it is part of a legitimate discussion on a matter of general public interest. The Government have serious doubts about whether all the problems involved in these defences have been fully appreciated.
The proposal exempting fair and accurate reports of court proceedings was prompted by doubts which had arisen in the Poulson and Kray cases, where there were widespread reports of proceedings against persons who were likely to be tried on other charges in the near future. The proposal broadly corresponded with what the law had previously been thought to be; but it turned out to be by no means entirely straightforward. An accurate report of legal proceedings may include matters discussed in the absence of the jury, which ought not to be reported in newspapers while the trial is in progress. The committee referred to this problem in connection with arguments in the absence of the jury regarding the admissibility of evidence which is so frequent a feature of criminal trials, alas! today. But it may arise in other ways as well. The Border Television case earlier this year gives an example. The accused pleaded guilty to some counts in the

335
indictment and was tried on others of a similar nature. The pleas of guilty were reported. The judge stopped the trial and sent it elsewhere. He thought that essential for a fair trial. The Divisional Court agreed and found a contempt established.
The proceedings in 1975 against the Socialist Worker newspaper for disclosing the names of witnesses in a blackmail case were another example. In commenting on that, Phillimore proposed that the judge should be given a statutory power to prohibit in the public interest the publication of names or other matters arising at a trial. But, my Lords, such a power would have to be framed in the most general terms if it is to ensure that in all cases of genuine need a judge's request for non-disclosure should always be heeded. This, I think, is not an easy problem. The Socialist Worker case came too late to receive more than a passing reference in Phillimore. Its implications clearly deserve serious study. Argument in the Colonel B case, raising some of the same issues, was begun in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House last week but consideration of it is still continuing. It is of course sub judice and I make no comment upon it.
The proposed defence of general public discussion is intended to preserve the public interest in uninterrupted discussion of the issues of the day. I think we would all agree that public discussion of important issues should not be stifled. But, given the new test of serious prejudice, this seems unlikely to occur, unless the discussion focuses closely on particular features of the litigation in question. Even with the present test, public discussion on the safety of drugs continued unabated throughout the thalidomide proceedings.
The third major question concerns the Phillimore proposal that it should not be contempt to bring influence or pressure to bear on a party to legal proceedings, unless that pressure goes as far as intimidation or unlawful threats to his person, property or reputation, and this, of course, was one of the issues which arose in the Sunday Times case.
Unlike the House of Lords in that case, the Phillimore Committee drew no
336
distinction between Press comment and criticism which is fair and temporate, and that which is unfair and intemperate. Their recommendation would permit both. The Government doubt whether that is right. We are all conscious of the great pressure which, as Phillimore acknowledged, the media can bring to bear on a litigant. Even a really virulent campaign of execration by the media against a litigant, designed to induce him to abandon his claim, would not necessarily be a contempt under the rule proposed by Phillimore, unless, presumably, it was liable to prejudice the court or to deter the party's witnesses.
The fourth and last main issue concerns the Phillimore proposal that conduct which is deliberately intended to prejudice legal proceedings should be treated as contempt only if it relates to specific proceedings, as distinct from the administration of justice generally. The Committee took the view that conduct of the latter type should normally be dealt with as a criminal offence. But it may not be possible for the criminal law always to be able to provide effective remedies. Parliament rightly insists that criminal offences should be framed in specific and restrictive terms.
Again, I refer to the Socialist Worker case, where the newspaper published the names of blackmail victims who, by order of the judge, had not been named in court. The publication could not have prejudiced the particular proceedings, because the witnesses had already given their evidence. Publication was objectionable mainly because, if it was permitted, it would tend to deter blackmail victims from giving evidence in future cases. This could, without doubt, prejudice the course of justice as a continuing process.
It is for the reasons I have endeavoured to explain that the Government have so far been unable to arrive at firm conclusions on the implementation of the Phillimore proposals, and we have published the Green Paper so that we may have the benefit of informed views upon them.
As my noble friend said, there are two other factors which have to be taken into account before final decisions can be reached. One is the forthcoming decision, to which my noble friend has referred, of the European Court of Human Rights

337
on the complaint of Times Newspapers Limited in regard to the decision of this House in the Sunday Times thalidomide case. I understand the decision in that case will not now be made until the New Year. In view of the impact which the decision of the European Court could have, it is plainly essential for us to know what it is before we can decide on the way in which the law of contempt should be reformed I do not think that I shall venture to anticipate what our response will be, until we hear the decision of the European Court. Here, again— and I give my favourite quotation from Lloyd George—it is undesirable to traverse a chasm in two leaps. So we had better wait to hear what the decision of the court will be; and we shall know in the New Year.
The second factor is the forthcoming report of the Law Commission on offences against the administration of justice. The Phillimore Committee referred to other branches of the criminal law, which are designed to protect the administration of justice, and observed that it was not possible to consider the law of contempt in isolation from these related areas of the law. I certainly share that view, particularly in view of the Phillimore recommendation that the scope of the law of contempt should be restricted. If all or any of those restrictions on the scope of contempt were to be implemented, it would be more necessary for all concerned to know how far the mischief could be dealt with in related areas of the criminal law. I hope that the Law Commission's report—this is my response to my noble friend's question—may be in my hands during the first half of next year.
I conclude by once again congratulating my noble friend on his initiation of this debate, and by assuring the House that whatever is said tonight will be given the most careful consideration by the Government, before they bring forward legislative proposals in due course. I cannot, for a large number of reasons, promise that it will happen in this Session of Parliament.
6.27 p.m.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, if there was any doubt among the intrepid noble Lords who are not lawyers, and who are still here after an hour of debate, that the law of contempt is not
338
complex and difficult, I think it will have been speedily discharged. It may be some comfort to them to know that I do not exclude those distinguished noble and learned Lords who sit on the Cross-Benches from those who find the subject difficult. The media claim that it is so confused and uncertain that it imposes many difficulties upon them, and there is some justification, if not much, for their claim. However, if it be the duty of Parliament to assist the Press and journalism generally by the enacting of some at least more workable, clearer system, whereunder the Press can know better what may or may not be published without offending, I think the Press in return should move into an area in which they could reciprocate, and stop the risking and muddying of the streams of justice, by ceasing the system of payment, direct or indirect, of monies for services or stories by persons whose notoriety arises from proceedings in court. That is an activity which generally scandalises very many people and may lead to consideration of whether to prohibit such activity, or to make disclosure of any such payments compulsory. I say that by way of introduction, because I want to make it clear that I am in favour of Parliament attempting by enactment to clarify this difficult branch of the law.
The history of the Phillimore Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, referred, pointing out how powerful a committee it was, is that it was appointed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham when the last Administration was in office. That followed the establishment of three committees by the then Leader of the Opposition, before that Administration came into office, on defamation, the Official Secrets Act and contempt of court. Those are three areas on which I do not think there can be any doubt among those who practise in the courts, or those who are engaged in public life, or indeed those who are engaged in publishing or in ordinary activities, that the law is not adequate for the present day and needs serious attention.
Defamation—largely judge-made law, which is not satisfactory—results today in totally unreal awards of damages. The recommendations of the committee which sat under Mr. Justice Faulks surely need urgent Parliamentary attention The

339
proposals of the committee on the Official Secrets Act which sat under Lord Franks also need urgent Parliamentary attention.
Contempt of court is probably the most complex of all subjects. A very powerful committee was brought together by my noble friend. As noble Lords will appreciate, it included three judges— alas! two of them are now dead—and a very experienced editor. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, said, it also included a television journalist of unique distinction and a military academic of the first rank. It was a small committee, but one which was very well equipped to deal with this complex matter. It had this unique combination of law and journalism, plus the academic with the soldier's approach to these problems. It differs in that sense from certain more recently appointed committees which are manned by persons without such obvious authority and experience.
This very powerful committee spent three and a half years on the matter. It was the subject of detailed and thorough study—much greater study than can be given by learned judges who have to face this problem now and then (fortunately not very often) when a case of contempt of court appears before them. I, like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, appeared before the Committee as a witness and I can testify to the care and penetration with which they probed the problem. Their conclusions, therefore, must surely bear the greatest weight. The onus is upon those who reject their conclusions to establish the reasons why their conclusions should be rejected.
I do not accept all of the committee's conclusions. I was in the unenviable position of being both a party and advocate in the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, referred. It is, I suppose, the leading case in contempt. It is always difficult when one has to appear in those two roles. One is always advised, of course, never to be one's own advocate, but on occasion the Attorney-General has to be both. I note with interest that one of the noble Lords before whom I made submissions and who totally rejected them is to speak in the
340
debate. Another noble Lord before whom I made submissions and who agreed with them is also going to speak in the debate. Therefore, I await their contributions with the greatest interest.
It is right to say that we have to await the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, although I am not quite sure why we have to do so. The possibility of their rejecting the conclusions of the highest court in this land on an issue which is wholly domestic and wholly apt only for our processes and proceedings is one which disturbs me, for it concerns very much the authority of our courts. I am minded to say that we have to await what they will say because of the treaty to which we are a party, but I shall not be very much guided by the advice which they may give in their decision. Secondly, there is the Law Commission's report on offences relating to the administration of justice. That is very important.
I believe that the time has come to make up our minds. The committee sat for a long time and was manned by very distinguished people. Their report was published three and a half years ago and we have had all that time in which to consider it. The Green Paper is a very important and useful document and I understand the difficulties which any Administration must be faced with in dealing with this problem.
In our modern age, "contempt" is an awkward title. It does not give the impression of what it sets out to do. It gives the impression that contempt of court is a weapon to maintain the dignity of judges. It is nothing of the kind. It is not intended to maintain their dignity. It is intended to maintain the authority of the courts of law. On the authority of the courts of law, on the acceptance of the authority of the courts of law, and on the enforcement of the authority of the courts of law in no small part rests the concept of freedom under the law. A free society requires the enactment of law after debate in Parliament and the implementation of the historic common law.
It is vital that out liberties should be guarded by the institutions established by law and by nobody else. They are not to be decided by gossip, or rumour, or scandal, or by unelected journalists

341
or other outsiders, or by elected or unelected parliamentarians. Parliamentarians should be the first to understand the importance of the need to maintain the authority of the courts of law. Parliament is very jealous of its privileges. For many years I served in another place on the Committee for Privileges. They are rightly jealous of their rights and of the authority of Parliament, which is designed to enable parliamentarians to execute their duties without improper pressures from outside. That is also true of the courts.
Parliament should be the first to support the instruments which have been set up to execute the law which Parliament has enacted. Therefore the courts must be entitled to protection from outside pressures. They must be entitled to see that their authority is upheld. The parties concerned—accused, prosecution and witnesses—are entitled to protection and relief from influence in proceedings. That is why I say that the Appellate Committee of this House was correct in the case of the Sunday Times. No matter what is the particular position of the parties, where there is a deliberate attempt, in my view, to influence the conduct of litigation, which has ultimately to be decided by the courts, it is wrong and should not be accepted.
The administration of justice, which has got to be impartial, must be un-pressurised. That is of primary public interest. I emphasise the words "public interest". By that I do not mean public curiosity, which is often merely trivial and prurient. Greater judgment, even when there is the right to report, might well be exercised over the form of reporting. But it is of major public interest that the public should be able to see, hear and witness the administration of justice by the courts, because the dispensation of justice is probably the most important function that a civilised State has to exercise and makes all the difference between a totalitarian State—where the will of the State is the will of the Government and the will of the Government is the will of the Party, and that they make the law—and a free society.
Therefore, major importance has always been attached in the United Kingdom, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead,
342
made clear, to fair trial and prevention from outside influence. That involves restrictions upon other rights. If any danger threatens that fundamental principle, then that other right must give way. The noble Lord was right to point to the kind of practice overseas—for instance, the headline "Arrest of the Assassin" or, in another jurisdiction, as he pointed out, the district attorney giving his Press conference. The United Kingdom has resolutely rejected that kind of practice.
Also, we have to accept the modern factor that there has been a greatly increased extension of the influence of the media and its access to a vast audience. Therefore, it is important to ensure that there is no lessening of the principle, and the extent of the increased influence exerted by the media must not be ignored. Ten years ago there was no restriction upon the reporting of committal proceedings. In 1967, however, a limitation was imposed by the Criminal Justice Act. My own view, quite apart from tie quirk of the enacted law which permits one of many accused to have publicity even if the others of his co-accused do not wish it, is now that there should be a change; that the committal proceedings should be treated in a similar way to interlocutory proceedings in a civil process, and that therefore the reporting of the committal proceedings should be no longer permitted.
Even during the trial, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead has pointed out, there has arisen nowadays a new fashion in daily and weekly magazine style of articles, and even in television commentaries during the course of a trial. We must realise that this; could lead to what happens overseas, where juries are kept together without access to Press or television during the trial because it is vital that a jury should not be influenced by any outside pressure, either for or against the prosecution or defence. They decide upon the evidence, and that is why we have established a set procedure and the rules of evidence.
As I have said, it is clear from the Green Paper that the Government have borne in mind all those matters, and they have been impressed by the difficulties. However, I think the time has come when we all have to make up our minds. It is

343
no longer possible for us to be able to say, "These are the difficulties. What shall we do? We will deal with each case as it comes along". The difficulties that we then give to the judges are too great. Therefore I believe that we cannot leave the situation as it is and that codification is required. I believe that Phillimore got it about right.
Therefore, in my view—and I will sketch this through quickly in a debate in which many noble Lords wish to speak—there should be total restriction upon committal proceedings, because I treat that as an interlocutory process unless the charge is dismissed and the accused are discharged, when, as now, publication should be permitted. As now, there should be restriction on certain domestic proceedings and matters relating to children, with power for the judge to lift the restriction. As now, there should be restriction on the identification of rape victims and the accused (only recently introduced), until the accused is convicted when, of course, his identity may be made public. As now, there should be restriction on indecent evidence and evidence in matrimonial proceedings. As now, on application of the Crown under Section 8 of the Official Secrets Act in cases concerning national security, the court should be able to go into camera.
Then there is the case to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred, the publication of evidence prior to verdict of any matter in a jury trial: where the accused has pleaded not guilty there should then be no publication of matter indicating that that accused has pleaded guilty to other offences or that he has any previous convictions; nor should there be publication of any part of the proceedings in open court where the judge has ordered the jury out of court. Finally, I believe that there should be a total restriction—now I think it will have to be in statutory form—of any matter which may lead to the disclosure of the identity of a witness whom any court has directed should be permitted to give evidence anonymously, provided the court has exercised that power on the grounds of national security, personal danger to the witness or where disclosure was likely to impede the prevention or detection of other offences or the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.
344
I would make the publication of those matters in conflict with those proposals an absolute offence, with penalties and with power to the Attorney General to apply for injunction to restrain any breach. Apart from offences in the face of the court, which I do not propose to deal with and which I think Phillimore suggested should be separate absolute offences —disturbances in the court, scandalising the court and judges—I believe there should be no strict liability for contempt by publication which tends to prejudice a fair trial before, in a criminal case, a charge has been preferred or a summons issued (which is the Phillimore recommendation), and in a civil case where the case has been set down for trial or a date has been fixed for hearing.
I personally have much sympathy with the proposal which the Law Reform Committee of the Senate of the Inns of Court have put before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and to which he has just referred. The case of Hall v. Associated Press has shown that the law of England and Scotland has drawn much closer together than it was thought, when the law of Scotland was thought to be that of Lord Clyde in Stirling v. Associated Newspapers. It is obviously desirable that the law in both countries should be the same because clearly, whatever border may come into existence after devolution, the publications will still flow across it.
So I consider that in modern times we should accept the main Phillimore majority recommendations. That would give to the Press the yardstick, that is to say a moment in time when comment would be replaced by strict reporting, and make the test the serious impeding or prejudicing of a fair trial. I consider that on balance there are difficulties and, although there are certain risks and as much detail will have to be considered in drafting the legislation, that the acceptance of such recommendations, while freeing the Press from reasonable anxieties and uncertainties, would still maintain a devotion to the fundamental principle of the paramount importance of a fair trial and the administration of justice.
6.46 p.m.
Lord DENNING: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for speaking out of turn. My noble friend Lord

345
Wigoder has been kind enough to let me say a few words now because I have an engagement later in the evening. Like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, I gave evidence to Lord Justice Phillimore's Committee, and as Lord Justice Phillimore and I sat on the thalidomide case in the Court of Appeal—and I hoped that we had decided rightly, but the House of Lords decided otherwise—perhaps I may say a word or two in support of the committee's recommendations.
The law of contempt of court in England has been evolved by the judges. There is hardly any statute dealing with it at the moment and, on the; whole, the judges have done well. Comparing it, for instance, to the United States of America, if I go there or to other countries they want to know about our law of contempt of court. In the constitution of the United States of America freedom of the Press is guaranteed so highly that it takes precedence over, it seems, even a fair trial and many other fundamental interests. I hope that we shall be able to keep the right balance here. It is between, on the one hand, the importance of a fair trial and the administration of justice and, on the other hand, the importance in the public interest that matters of national importance should be discussed and made public to the world at large, whether in the Houses of Parliament or in the newspapers, so that all may know what is concerned.
I should like to say one word on the thalidomide case. The trouble with the drug was that in the year 1962 all the deformed babies were: born; ten years later cases had not come to trial. It was a grave national concern and there should have been a public inquiry, but there was none. It was all the subject of individual litigation carried on for all that time, so much so that eventually, in 1972, not only in the newspapers but in the other place there was a debate when the whole matter was raised. Was it not right also for the newspapers at that stage, in a matter of public interest, to discuss it, even as the House of Commons had discussed it? The rules of sub judice apply in these Houses equally as well as in the courts of law, and the laws should be parallel in each. Therefore, I would suggest there is a great deal to be said
346
for what is implied in Lord Justice Phillimore's recommendations, that perhaps the law went too far in condemning the newspapers in that case.
As I read Lord Justice Phillimore's committee's report, they would propose the test! is there a substantial and serious prejudice to the course of justice in a pending suit? I would suggest that it may be desirable that there should be legislation upon it. But I would agree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor: let it wait for the European Court, but do not let us be bound by it; do not let us let them give too much rope to the newspapers. Because the other thing which the courts in England have done is to stop trial by newspaper. We have not got that evil as they have in the United States.
And what about gagging writs in the civil cases? We have had them a little while ago. A shareholder circularised the other shareholders; he went to the company meetings saying that there had been wrongdoing among the directors. And what happened? A writ was issued against him for libel and for slander. The next time he wanted to raise the matter it was said, "You cannot comment now. It is all sub judice. It is contempt of court if you comment on these proceedings", because the writ had been issued, a gagging writ, especially issued to try to stop the truth being known or fair comment being known. I hope, certainly from what has been held by the judges, that we shall no longer allow these gagging writs.
I would add only one or two more words in support of what Lord Justice Phillimore's committee said. How much I would agree with what I gather the Court of Session has said in Scotland: let the newspapers be restrained from the moment the charge is made or the accused arrested, or whatever it may be. But it is making it too uncertain a test, as some cases have said, that they must not comment once a charge is imminent. Do not we know how the newspapers will put in a photograph of a man whom the police may wish to interview, or speak of people who are helping the police with their inquiries? What are they but comment before the man is charged? For certainly, I would commend what Lord Justice Phillimore suggested in criminal trials, that the rule comes down once the man is charged. As

347
to civil cases, it should not be as early as just the issue of the writ or even the setting down. I ventured to suggest to Lord Justice Phillimore's committee that comment should not be strictly prohibited until the case is coming near for trial.
All these are really only small points on our present law. On the whole, the law of contempt of court at the moment works well. It stops abuses by the newspapers, and on the whole, certainly in preserving order in the courts, we have followed the advice of Lord Justice Phillimore's committee, and that, too, works well. Our law on contempt of court is, I believe, more effective than that of any other country in the world. Let us maintain it, but let us put on the small amendments suggested by Lord Justice Phillimore's committee. Wait, of course, for the European Court, but I am not quite sure whether the Royal Commission are going to deal with contempt of court. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be able to tell us. I am not sure it is a matter which needs much alteration from what it is at the moment. At all events, I would welcome and hope the Government can do something about Lord Justice Phillimore's report.
6.55 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I have the uneasy fealing that I am taking part in the rather artificial ritual of an elaborate gavotte, a routine devised by our democracy in order to enable us to avoid taking difficult decisions on matters of real importance. The steps that we have taken so far, which are familiar in many other areas apart from contempt of court, have been first of all to set up a Royal Commission in June 1971, to invite representations from everyone who is interested; the Royal Commission then reports after just under three years of diligent sitting. For some extraordinary reason it takes nine months for the report actually to be printed. There must perhaps have been problems with the new technology even in those days. After the report is printed there is a further delay of three and a half years while the Government reflect upon the reflections of Phillimore upon the whole problem, an even longer period than the Phillimore Committee itself took.
348
The Government then issued a Green Paper in March of this year, and I think I must, if I may, join with those of your Lordships who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, on the almost indecent haste with which he has managed to bring the matter before your Lordships' House after a lapse of only another seven or eight months. I would suspect that if the routine is now carried out faithfully there will be, after the debate in your Lordships' House, a further period after which it will be pointed out by the Government that as no consensus was reached in the debate in Parliament it is clearly not practicable to take any further steps for the time being. I used, perhaps, not an appropriate meta-phore when I referred to a gavotte; it is really rather more of a politicians "excuse-me."
Phillimore achieved something of course, at once, or almost at once, because Phillimore made various recommendations as to contempts which were committed in the face of the court, which would have resulted in the proceedings taken there and then by the judge being rather more of a judicial nature and rather less of instant retribution. Those recommendations have been largely acted upon as a result of the indications given by the Court of Appeal in 1975. That much has been achieved.
I do not know if I may weary those of your Lordships who are not legal historians and who are, I believe, very much now in the minority in your Lordships' Chamber, by reminding your Lordships of the famous occasion, in I believe, the Shoreditch County Court. A particularly meek and mild county court judge gave judgment against a woman plaintiff, at the end of which she picked up a large brown paper bag, removed from the bag a dead cat and hurled it at the judge's head. After the judge had removed the dead cat from his lap he, in his mild way, uttered the most dire threat that he could think of; he used the immortal words "Madam, if you do that again …". That situation—and there are recorded contempts of that nature throughout the history of the courts— has, I think, been adequately dealt with now as a result of the Phillimore Committee, and for that we ought to be grateful.

349
But for contempts outside court problems of course arise. They arise, as many of your Lordships have pointed out in this debate, as a result of a genuine conflict between two real and important public interests. It is, therefore, inevitable, I think, that any solution to that problem must lie in a series of compromises, and must not lie in saying that either the principle of the purity of the administration of the law or the principle of freedom of the Press is always to have precedence.
I am very sorry that every noble Lord who has put his name down to speak on this topic this evening is, in fact, a lawyer. I should have thought that this topic was of at least as much concern to those many Members of your Lordships' House who are, in one way or another, concerned in the media and particularly the newspaper industry. However, because everyone who is to speak is, in fact, a lawyer I hope very much that noble Lords will not gain the impression that lawyers are oversensitive about this matter. I should not think it appropriate that we should seek to be so. We should try to hold a proper balance between the integrity of our administration of the law and the freedom of the Press. I therefore suggest that the Phillimore Committee was right when it recommended that, in terms of strict liability for publication, there would have to be serious prejudice shown in order that contempt should be committed. We ought not to be too touchy about the trifling prejudice that may result in one way or another.
When the Phillimore Committee went on to consider the time after which contempt might become possible of commission, I wonder whether perhaps somewhat unnecessary and exaggerated emphasis was not placed on the dangers to the administration of justice by publications in newspapers or programmes on the media. I should have thought that, in the vast majority of cases—both civil and criminal—in which juries do not take part, the chance of prejudice to professional judges in courts of appeal, to judges in courts of first instance or to lay magistrates is, in fact:, negligible and is not a threat that ought to be regarded as very grave.
As to the danger where juries are concerned, I am bound to say again that
350
I regard it as being somewhat exaggerated. I am inclined to believe that juries in the first place forget very quickly what they read in the papers, and certainly something that they have read in the papers two or three weeks ago or two or three months previously goes very easily out of their minds when they settle down to try a case. Secondly, when juries are told by the judge to put out of their minds anything they may have heard or read about a case, I am in very little doubt that they are perfectly capable of doing so with complete success.
I should like to remind your Lordships of a murder case in which the Kray family were involved. It was a particularly unpleasant murder case which was tried in two separate trials. The first murder was publicised on the front page of every newspaper day after day, and there was a conviction. When the trial for the second murder started the following day, it was argued that it was impossible for any jury not to be prejudiced by what they had read. There was evidence in the second case. The case went to its conclusion and the jury in the second case, in fact, acquitted the defendants. That I think indicates that juries are not quite so easily prejudiced, and we ought not perhaps to be too mealymouthed about the possibilities of prejudice in that way.
The London School of Economics has done a certain amount of research on juries with simulated trials and it has monitored juries listening to the same trial. It might be of assistance if it could do some research into this aspect of the matter and have a simulated trial with different juries, in some cases giving the jury utterly prejudicial information, but telling the jury to put it out of their minds. I would strongly suspect that the result would show very little difference whether the juries were given that prejudicial information or not. After all, in the United States of America very frequently extremely prejudicial information is published in the Press—for example, about the defendant's previous convictions—at the moment he is arrested. I doubt whether that leads to any more miscarriages of justice in the United States than we have in this country.
One other matter of possible prejudice to juries that I want to mention— especially as it has been mentioned by the

351
noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson— concerns committal proceedings in cases of notoriety where there are a number of defendants and one defendant elects to remove the restrictions on publicity. Under the present law the restrictions must be lifted for all the defendants As I understood him, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, was suggesting that the restrictions ought not to be removed in those circumstances in relation to any of the defendants.
I wonder whether a third course might not be more acceptable, and whether it ought not to be recognised that there may be valid reasons for removing the restrictions on publicity—for example, it may be that fresh evidence will come to light, witnesses may be found as a result of the publicity and so forth. And, that in such a situation, if one defendant out of a number of defendants seeks to remove I the restrictions on publicity, the reasons should be put to the court, to the magistrate, and the magistrate should decide where the interests of justice lie if there is, in fact, a genuine conflict of interest.
Bearing in mind what I believe to be correct about the fact that our judges will certainly not be prejudiced by printed matter appearing before the trial, and that juries are far less likely to be prejudiced than is commonly supposed, I should very much support the recommendation of the Phillimore Committee that the effective time should be the actual commencement of the proceedings, and not any earlier date at which it is said the proceedings might be imminent. Certainly in the civil sphere that would have a very remarkable effect in reducing the evil consequences of gagging writs, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, spoke. I know that it is possible to construe certain passages in the Sunday Times' thalidomide case as indicating that the Press might take its courage in both hands and ignore gagging writs in future. However, I think that one cannot blame the Press for being a little reluctant to rush into this rather difficult area.
The only other problem that I should like to raise for one moment is one which has not, I think, been considered either by the Phillimore Committee or in the Government Green Paper, and it is not
352
one upon which I can offer any reflections as to a possible solution, or, indeed, want to invite the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to do so this evening. However, what might have been thought at one time to be wholly unrealistic is perhaps now a real possibility; and is, that a flagrant contempt of court might be committed under the cloak of Parliamentary privilege in one or other of the Houses of Parliament. Where that happens it might, of course, not in itself be prejudicial because there are very few potential jurors in the ordinary way sitting in the public galleries. However, where that happens it appears to place in real difficulty the position of, for example, Hansard; the position of newspapers that normally report the proceedings in the Houses of Parliament, and in particular the position of the broadcasting authorities if they happen to be broadcasting the contempt at the time it is uttered in the House of Parliament. I can see that it could very easily be possible to make most damaging remarks about pending or current cases in one or other Chamber of the Houses of Parliament, and recent history rather indicates that that is no longer the remote possibility that it might have been thought to be some years ago.
I hope that the Government will not eventually take the view that the problem is too difficult to deal with; I hope that they will accept the majority of the Phillimore Committee's proposals. I believe that that would create an area of certainty where much is uncertain, and I believe that those proposals would adequately protect the integrity of our administration of justice; but that they would, at the same time, extend and ensure the continued existence of the freedom of the Press. Like all of your Lordships, I know that where there is freedom of the Press it is bound to be exercised from time to time with grotesque irresponsibility. I do not think that that is any reason for seeking to whittle it down. In those circumstances, I hope that the Government will, in due course, find that the recommendations on the lines of the Phillimore proposals and the main issues are acceptable and can be brought into effect.
7.10 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I have a special reason for being grateful to my

353
noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead for enabling us to discuss this report this evening: It is that in my very old age I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that recent Governments have appointed too many Royal Commissions and too many committees, and not paid enough attention to what happens when they report. I am afraid that sometimes—and I draw no distinction between the Parties—Governments appoint commissions or committees because it means that they do not have to worry about the particular matter for quite some considerable time.
I should like to cite one example from something that has happened in the last 48 hours. I remember in the 1960s going to a conference of international Western lawyers in Stockholm on the question whether or not a citizen should have a right of privacy. In January 1970 Justice produced a report on privacy accompanied by a draft Bill which they persuaded a Private Member of the other place to introduce. On Second Reading the then Home Secretary, now my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, said that if only the supporters of the Bill would not press the Second Reading to a Division, the Government would appoint a Government Committee on Privacy. Wisely, or unwisely, the Justice supporters accepted that offer.
Then the Younger Committee on Privacy was appointed, and it reported in July 1972. So the Government had already gained two and a half years. That report of course dealt not only with privacy, quite apart from computers, but also with computerised personal information. Three and a half years having elapsed since then, in December 1975—by which time six years had been gained—the Government published a White Paper containing their views. It did not really deal at all with a large part of the field, but it did deal with computerised information. I thought that it was a first-class White Paper and I strongly supported the conclusions to which the Government then came. They settled what was their policy in relation to computerised information, but they said that from a practical point of view it needed a practical committee which knew about computers to work out how it was actually to be done.
Therefore, in June 1976 the Government appointed a data protection committee.
354
That committee worked very fast, considering the difficulty of the field. It took 18 months to report. It heard everyone who had knowledge on this subject—the manufacturers of computers, the users of computers and civil rights bodies. It received 300 written representations and saw, I think, 60 witnesses. The day before yesterday it produced its report. Here it all is. It contains the views of all those people and their recommendations as to the practical way in which to deal with computerised information, accepting, of course, the policy principles which the Government had laid down.
The day before yesterday, in announcing the publication of the report, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary pointed out that:
"The general framework of the Government's policy … was described in the White Paper".
He then said:
"Before reaching any conclusions; on the committee's recommendations the Government will wish to have the views of computer users and others who would be affected by the recommendations, and will also take full account of views expressed in Parliament and elsewhere. Representative organisations who are known to have a special interest in the subject will be approached direct by the Government Departments concerned".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/78; cols. 556–7.]
So all the people, who have already said what they thought to the committee and whose views are all set out in the report, are to be approached by the Government all over again. They are to repeat to the Government the views which they have already expressed to the committee. Obviously, that will take at least a year, and by that time the Government will not be in office. In June 1971 the then Government appointed this committee, being clearly of the opinion—with which I think we should all agree —that this was an area of the law which needed an overhaul.
In June 1971 the then Government appointed as chairman of this committee on contempt of court a judge who was not only distinguished as a judge but as a Lord Justice. I think that it would have been difficult to find any judge who was as capable, as extremely sensible or a man of as great common sense as that chairman.
We have now has the opportunity of seeing the Green Paper. Of course, I

355
make no complaint at all that it looks as though someone in the office of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has been told, "You think out all the possible objections to the recommendations being made." That is quite natural and quite right because it is to contribute to public discussion. In its report the committee give the reasons for favouring its own recommendations. Therefore, it is quite natural and proper that we should have had put before us all the objections.
I do not know what other speakers will say, but so far this debate has been of an unusual character. I have heard a great many debates on reports of commissions and committees, and what usually happens is that those who object to the recommendations turn up to object and those who agree with the proposals do not bother to come. However, so far tonight broadly speaking, every speaker—and certainly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—has said that the recommendations in the report are correct.
I listened not only with interest but with pleasure and profit to what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had to say. However, there is something which he did not say, and I quite understood why he did not say it. He did not indicate whether or not there was any prospect of the recommendations being implemented. One understands the difficulties. As I understand it, the legislative programme is fully engaged and there is no room for anything else. In any case, the Government want to hear everyone's views. So far as I know, this matter has not yet been debated in the other place and it does not look as though there is any real prospect of anything being done. However, if I am wrong about this, I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will say so when he replies.
I am only surprised that people are still willing to sit on commissions and committees, because more and more of the reports are not heeded. At least this report is being debated, whether or not it will lead to anything. But in many cases reports will not lead to anything and if my information is correct, Governments are finding it increasingly difficult to get
356
people to sit on commissions and committees if their reports are not implemented. Here the debate so far as shown that the general view in this House is that it was right to appoint this committe, that it has done a very good job and that, broadly speaking, the recommendations of the Phillimore Committee are right. Of course, 40 out of the 41 recommendations were unanimous. If that is the case, is it really impossible to hope that some time this Session—even towards its end—the Government could implement these recommendations?
7.20 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, the Green Paper which we are discussing pays tribute to the Phillimore Report as having been of the utmost value. Respectfully, I agree. Respectfully, also, may I commend the course followed by Her Majesty's Government in issuing this Green Paper and in inviting the views of members of the public, and inviting those views on the broadest possible basis. I am firmly of the opinion that public opinion can be, and should be of immense consequence in the development of our law and in ensuring that our law is in accord with, and is kept in accord with, rational and enlightened lines of thought.
We are discussing contempt of court. It is a strange phrase. It is a compendious phrase. The Phillimore Report pointed this matter out but said, and I think rightly, "Well, it is useful perhaps to keep the terminology because, broadly speaking, we know what we have in mind when we speak of contempt of court". But I would so much agree with those of your Lordships who have pointed out that it does not have as its basis any question of protecting the amour propre of members of the Judiciary. It has far deeper and more secure foundations.
I can think of no more helpful survey of contempt of court than is to be found in the speech of the late Lord Reid in the thalidomide case. We have to have in mind that the Phillimore Committee was appointed before the House of Lords gave their views in the thalidomide case, and I think we have to have in mind that the thalidomide case was very special indeed. It related to a great national tragedy. The facts were desperately sad, and the

357
proceedings extended over some years. I am sorry that my noble and learned friend—who is literally my noble and learned friend—Lord Denning, has had to leave for another engagement, but it was clear from his speech that he thought that the decision of the Court of Appeal was right.
May I just remind your Lordships of what happened. The Sunday Times published a number of articles pointing out what a great tragedy had taken place; pointing out the sufferings and deprivations not only of the infants themselves but of their parents; pointing out the need there would be for sustenance for future years. All those articles came to the notice of the then Attorney-General, my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, and he decided to take no action in regard to them. Very respectfully, I think he was right.
There then came a time when the editor of the paper, very fairly, wrote to the Attorney-General and said, "Well, now I am proposing to publish an article on rather different lines. This article is going to set out various facts which can be asserted against the defendants in the case, Distillers, and this article might convey to any reader the idea, 'Oh, well, Distillers must be negligent'". That matter came before the Attorney-General, and he thought, "That is going too far". The matter went to the Divisional Court and the Divisional Court, if my recollection is correct, said that they agreed with the point of view presented by the Attorney-General. It went to the Court of Appeal, presided over by my noble and learned friend, and they took a different view. Then it came to your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, and five Law Lords took the view that the decision of the Divisional Court was to be preferred to that of the Court of Appeal. But I suggest to your Lordships that what is really important is to see whether one does not find principle laid down in that case, and principle which is clearly laid down, and principle which really does today guide us when we have to consider what is contempt of court.
With your Lordships' leave, I should like to quote just two or three sentences from the speech of the late Lord Reid, for whose wisdom I have always had unbounded regard. They are as follows:
358
"The law on this subject is and must be founded entirely on public policy. It is not there to protect the private rights of parties to a litigation or prosecution. It is there to prevent interference with the administration of justice and it should in my judgment be limited to what is reasonably necessary for that purpose. Public policy generally requires a balancing of interests which may conflict. Freedom of speech should not be limited to any greater extent than is necessary but it cannot be allowed where there would be a real prejudice to the administration of justice".
Is there not there the clearest possible guidance for all of us?
I would be very reluctant to quote any words of my own, but I did, I note, say:
"A court will therefore only find ' contempt' where the risk of prejudice is serious, or real, or substantial. If a court is in doubt whether conduct complained of amounts to ' contempt' the complaint will fail".
When dealing with matters of public policy there is so often the process of balancing conflicting interests, as Lord Reid laid down. We believe in the freedom of the Press. We depend upon the Press. We look to our newspapers to inform us in regard to current events. We look to our newspapers to give expression to competing views on matters of public importance. We look to our newspapers to expose all forms of tyranny, corruption, evil practices, or harsh dealings. We must not restrict the ability of the Press to do all of those things unless it is really necessary to do so.
Here comes the divergence of public interests; on the one hand, the public interest that, with proper safeguarding of individual rights, there should be freedom of expression, and, on the other hand, the public interest that the administration of justice should not be prejudiced. We believe also in the rule of law. We believe that our courts will safeguard for us that rule of law. We believe that only by the upholding of impartial courts of justice shall we be saved from anarchy. So there comes this process of balancing public interests, and this balancing has to take place in an infinite variety of special sets of circumstances.
Some have taken the view, and the view has been expressed, that there are uncertainties in the law relating to contempt. What exactly does that mean? I submit that there are no uncertainties in regard to the principles involved, so clearly

359
laid down by Lord Reid. There is nothing wrong, in my submission, with those principles. The only uncertainty is that when a case of alleged contempt comes into court it cannot be known with certainty in advance what the result of the proceedings will be. Nor could anyone rationally expect to be able to turn to some document and find specific directions as to what he could or could not say in various circumstances; the range of their variety could not conceivably be spelled out.
That is so in various branches of the law. A court may have to decide whether a publication was or was not obscene. The writer could not sensibly say there was no book which specifically set out what words in what contexts could be safely published. The motorist knows he must not be negligent, but he could not be heard to say that he found no words in any statute which laid it down with precision what variety of driving at a particular point, on a particular road at a particular time, and in any one of a rich variety of different sets of circumstances, would transform slight ineptitude into negligence.
I submit that the Phillimore Report contains many valuable proposals which should demand further consideration, and they have been referred to: should there be powers given in magistrates' courts; should there be limits in regard to circuit courts; should there be some statutory limit as to a punishment that could be awarded in the High Court; should there or should there not be some separate criminal offence of scandalising the court?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, put before us some interesting suggestions as to limiting the reporting generally of interlocutory proceedings. I fully see the force of all he said, but those proposals really belong to our law generally; they are not specifically related to the law of contempt. If adopted, they might have the result that the opportunities for contempt of court would, in that particular field, be limited.
Reference was made to cases of blackmail. If a learned judge says the name of the victim who gives evidence need not be disclosed—possibly, if the learned judge goes further and says the name of the
360
victim must in no circumstances be reported in a newspaper—what is to happen if some newspaper gives the name? Newspapers in those situations have, I think, invariably in the past acted in the public interest and in a wholly correct way. But supposing one publishes the name? If the judge had given a direction, it would be flouting the court and the complaint might be upheld for that reason. But if there is any doubt as to whether there is full power in the judge to give the direction that a name is not to be published, possibly that might be considered in the future.
There is one recommendation of the report which I respectfully suggest should be approached with considerable caution, and that is No. 4, in these words:
"The law as it stands contains uncertainties which impede and restrict the reasonable freedom of speech. It should be amended and clarified by statute so as to allow as much freedom of speech as is consistent with the basic purposes of the law of contempt".
Do we really need a statute for that purpose? If I am correct in submitting that what was laid down by Lord Reid is the guiding principle, how is that to be improved by seeking to anchor that principle whithin some particular words on the Statute Book? I respectfully suggest that the Government should be cautious in adopting that proposal.
In conclusion, let me summarise my view. If a complaint is made to the court, the investigation must involve considering very many different matters: what are the proceedings; what are the issues in them; what stage has the case reached; when will it be tried; how will it be tried; was the publication complained of made with some particular object; what was the reason for making it; is the complaint trivial or serious? If the publication was made in entire ignorance of the existence of the litigation, then there may be, as there is now, a statutory defence.
I personally have some doubts whether it is helpful to use the phrase "strict liability". Liability depends on examining all the facts and circumstances and then the judge coming to a conclusion as to whether the line has been exceeded. I personally doubt whether some rigid time element could usefully be introduced, for example that the complaint can relate

361
only to the time after setting down. Some publication just before, or even a long time before, setting down may in some circumstances be very damaging. But are these not all matters which come within the balancing process? Every consideration must be weighed by the judge—I emphasise every one—not only as to the time and the nature of the publication but every single circumstance, and then the court must decide whether it has been established that the publication would result in prejudice to the administration of justice and whether the risk of such prejudice is serious, real and substantial. For my part, I think we can safely leave it to our judges to protect our freedoms and the administration of justice.
7.40 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, it is always a privilege to listen to the noble and learned Lord who speaks with such clarity and eloquence, and indeed on this occasion, so far as I can see, with very little disagreement. I have in mind here the kind of problem that faces us from time to time when we hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, intervening, or speaking, as he did, at the end of the debate on human rights, making some very pertinent comments about the state of the law, the conduct of the law, and the mass of legislation. He called it a cloaca maxima, which I should think is almost contempt of some kind on its own.
Personally, I have no quarrel whatever with what was said about the law of contempt and with what the Phillimore Report said about the law of contempt on criminal proceedings. Of course, I agree that it is essential that we should take all steps that are appropriate to maintain the dignity, the authority, and the respect which our judges have a right to expect as men of the highest ability and the highest integrity. The only difficulty about this is that they always disagree. They disagree about everything. Now we have the great advantage of having, I think, five ex-Lord Chancellors and one prospective Lord Chancellor, and a much larger number of Law Lords than usual, even if the number has been diminished in recent times by one or two tragic deaths.
362
The Sunday Times published a very frank and full article in which it tried to explain why the Court of Appeal reached a decision unanimously on on; matter while the House of Lords so constantly reversed it unanimously in the same matter. I think that it was put quite fairly. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has gone because no one enjoys his judgments more than I do. Many have profited from them more than I have because I am not now capable of the mental effort which would enable me to profit fully, but no one has read his judgments with more admiration than I, and no one has realised more than I that here is someone with permanent beliefs.
The Sunday Times says that the main belief is that on the whole the judges know best. That was the note upon which I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, conclude, as I have done previously. There is much to be said for it. The difficulty is that however good are our judges now, we have lived through the years of political judgments, Party political judgments. I recall when I first came into this building. I had to apply for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to the Lords on an appeal under the Workman's Compensation Act 1906. The facts, quite briefly, were that my client, who was not a member of a union—he was not old enough, being only 14 or 15—was doing the work of a pit pony down below. That is literally the fact. He was handling the tubs, pushing the tubs, spragging himself to stop the tubs, breaking the tubs as they went along the line, and trying to control them on slopes. There was a large, heavyish row of tubs in seams only a few feet high. In those days as such applications had to be made by a solicitor, I found myself making my maiden speech here, after having spent a weekend with a wet towel around my head. I addressed Lord Dunedin, who himself was almost qualifying then for a special birthday party of the kind which my noble friend in front enjoys.
I had sent the papers on the case to Norman Birkett, whom I had the privilege of knowing. He had written back stating, "Get leave in forma pauperis, and I will take this myself." He made only one condition: he was committed fully in a

363
murder defence which could clash with my case, and that in fact happened. However, even the absence of one of the great advocates and one of the great men of our time—one with whom I was lucky enough to work in close and intimate contact in a number of matters over the years—did not, I think, alter their Lordships' minds.
My lad, in trying to sprag himself against a pit prop to bring the tubs to a standstill, had suffered injury; it did not appear to be slight, but it certainly did not appear to be serious. However, a couple of days later his doctor found that he was suffering from osteomyelitis— grave infection of the bone—which required his being taken away to the infirmary. He lost his compensation because he had not given notice of the accident. That was the judicial interpretation of the time. There were scores of decisions like that. I do not want to go back on some of these matters. I do not want to rake over old scores, but the Sunday Times says that the real difference is that the Court of Appeal like to say what it thinks the law ought to be, and the House of Lords try to say what it is. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was speaking about the recent decision on the Statute of Limitations. I have not given the noble and learned Lord notice about this, and I apologise to him. He is always so courteous that I know he will not mind my making this single comment. I remember reading very carefully the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glais-dale. He hated to have to decide that the words used in the Act could not bear the meaning which it was sought to put upon them. It is not easy.
I am one of those who are really afraid that, notwithstanding all the gifts of our judges, our law is in danger. I think it is in danger from more than one thing. There is too much law; it is too expensive; and we are churning out committees. This matter is raised today at the instance of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and I congratulate him upon it; but my very valued noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner was today taking a penitential path, almost, when he talked about the appointment of too many committees and of too many areas being
364
opened up for research. What is our position today? I do not think anyone is really likely to disagree with very much in the Phillimore Report. I think the provisions are sound and well reasoned. But I think that time is not on the side of reform.
I think we acted quite sensibly in recent times in the case of some questions which were not raised. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, was Attorney-General at the time of the Sunday Times and thalidomide case. Let us face one thing first: There was never any possibility of a fair trial in the thalidomide case. Public opinion would not have liked to see a fair trial. Public opinion knew that, on the one side, you had a very wealthy and prosperous company with immense resources, and, on the other, you had a spectacle almost too tragic to see. My only complaint about what happened in that connection is this— and I must say that I read all the judgments in that case in the House of Lords. I thought it was a very moderate decision. I thought the law was being put in a less authoritarian way than it might have been some years ago. There is a rather strange thing about this law of contempt. The fact is that it is more often counsel who engage in outspoken criticism of the Judiciary, and in so doing may well be doing their absolute and necessary duty. We used to complain sometimes of the alleged pusillanimity of counsel.
I come now to the point on the Green Paper. We are discussing one or two points about the law of libel, which I think is in a quite dreadful state at the moment. We have been talking about reform for a long time. I took part in the proceedings at the Committee stage of the Defamation Bill in yesteryear, which was introduced by Mr. Harold Lever. I was supposed to be seconding him until I took a distinct dislike to the measure half way through and said, "This is a newspaper proprietor's charter." Indeed, I think I managed to get an Amendment made to the Bill in regard to which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, when he read it, said, "This must go, and must go at once because it would enable group libel on the widest possible scale." But nothing is done about libel. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, who said that in matters of this kind he would

365
have no contempt by comment at all. I would be tempted to agree with that, but I would go further and say something with which no one will agree. I personally would rather like to see libel actions abolished altogether.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the Green Paper have called attention to this practice of gagging, which is a pernicious and vicious practice. The Green Paper says that, on the whole, it now appears to be on the decline. I do not know what figures the noble and learned Lord has, but I have no doubt he has them and I have no doubt this would not be there unless there was something to suggest it; but all my personal information from colleagues in the law is that it is used, particularly by men in eminent positions, to suppress criticism of any kind. Not only that, but these men then issue writs to defend their character. There is a procedure for dismissing an action for want of prosecution. There is a case for saying, "We are just waiting for a witness from Tierra del Fuego or Tristan da Cunha, he has been a long time coming and we ask for an adjournment", and it seems to be always granted. These cases drag on and on. The man is not defending his character at that stage: he is suppressing criticism.
In the end, the costs are enormous. How on earth can a libel action cost £90,000? I have no sympathy for the people who bring them; I almost invariably advise them not to. But in my view the gagging procedure is a contemptuous use of the legal process. In the end, it is settled on terms endorsed on counsel's briefs; and the judge no longer asks, as he invariably did in my early days, what the terms of settlement are, which would at least show whether the time of the courts had been wasted or abused. Subject to that, my Lords, I think this is an excellent report, but I do not think for a minute that anything is going to be done about it for a long time.
7.59 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: My Lords, I wish to refer to only one narrow point in this rather wide field. I want to refer only to the question of contempt of court in relation to criminal proceedings, and, within that part of the field, only to the single question of what
366
should be the starting point in time for the law of contempt to apply. I think it is agreed on all hands, and was approved by the Phillimore Committee, that restrictions should apply throughout the period that criminal proceedings are in progress, and the question is: For this purpose, when do criminal proceedings start?
The recommendation of the Phillimore Committee was, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, pointed out, that, in England, they should be deemed to start when the suspect is charged and, in Scotland, when he is first publicly charged, which is a formal step in the proceedings. The previous law in Scotland had been that protection might go back much earlier, to the time when the crime was known to have been committed and the investigation by the authorities had begun. That was the decision referred to earlier in the case of Stirling, which was always the subject of a lot of criticism in Scotland and, I dare say, in England as well. The recommendation of Phillimore was to put the beginning of protection much later.
Then there was the recent case of Hall, referred to earlier tonight, which put the beginning of the protection at the date when the suspect is arrested on a specific charge or when the warrant is granted for his arrest. It seems to me that arrest is the right time for protection to begin and the decision in Hall is to be preferred to the recommendation of Phillimore. In many cases there will not be much gap in time between the two; but arrest is the time when the suspect's right to protection begins. He is entitled to have his solicitor informed and he is entitled to be brought before a magistrate on the first lawful day after his arrest, and his right not to be interrogated arises at that time. There is every logical reason for saying that his right not to have his case prejudiced by publication of damaging particulars should arise also at that time.
That will be seen from the case of Hall. He was arrested on the 16th January on a charge connected with murder which attracted a great deal of publicity. There had been five or six murders in England and some in Scotland, and there were a lot of police inquiries and Press publicity. On the 19th January, three days later, the article complained of was published

367
in a newspaper. It was an article described by the court as being as clear an example as could be found of what is sometimes called "trial by newspaper". The accused man was named in the article and a lot of particulars about him were given. It was very prejudicial to his chances of a fair trial. He was not formally charged on the murder charge until about a week later. He was charged with murder on 27th January.
It seems to me that there is every reason in principle why the date of his arrest should have been treated (as it was by the court) as being the time when protection was required, when his need for it arose and when the law ought to provide it. It is so in principle, and it was so from a purely practical point of view that he required protection from then on. My Lords, I can see that it might be said to be difficult in some cases. The newspapers might not know when the man was arrested and, if so, on what charge. If that were shown to be so, that might be a good excuse or plea in mitigation. Where, as in this case, publicity was attached to it, the police had been making statements, day-to-day inquiries, and the newspapers were reporting what was going on and the police were digging to find the next body and so on, they well knew when he was arrested and there was no difficulty about fixing knowledge in that case.
I would therefore suggest that we should not be too frightened of drawing back to the time of arrest as the beginning of the proceedings. It is important to remember that in criminal proceedings the time span is usually not very long. It is quite unlike civil proceedings—and the thalidomide case is an exceptional example—for even in ordinary cases, a year or two, or even three years with appeals, is not out of the way. One can quite see that one may have to cut down the time during which contempt of court may be committed; but in criminal proceedings, which do not normally last very long, I would say that Phillimore was a little too late in coming in. I would suggest that the time of arrest in both Scotland and England is the appropriate date at which contempt should begin to be possible.
8.4 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, in dealing with the subject-matter of the Motion so lucidly put to your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, we are looking at principles which have flowed through the stream of our common law over the centuries. It would appear to have been somewhat muddied in the process. This is very understandable, as we are now regarding them in the light of developed and developing concepts of freedom of expression as well as in the far-reaching, and consequently, in some ways dangerous growth of the extent and power of the media. Our objective, as has been said many times in this debate, must be to safeguard, on the one hand, the proper administration of justice and, on the other, the freedom of speech, of reporting and of comment especially upon matters which are of public interest and importance.
It is no easy matter as is shown by the report of the Government discussion paper which—if I may adopt the Lord Chancellor's neutral phrase—is by no means a colourness document. It is no easy matter as those documents clearly show. I should have thought in this context that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, were somewhat unfair in this particular case especially. Indeed, if I may borrow his dancing metaphor I would say that of all subjects this is one upon which we certainly cannot do a quickstep because if we do we may well trip up.
I want to follow my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead in limiting my remarks to that part of the law of contempt which is applicable to the Press and the other media. In this connection there is one basic principle upon which I should have thought no one would disagree—until I heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. It is that, having regard to the serious penal consequences which can befall those who are held to contravene the law of contempt, it should be as certain as is practicable in its terms and its extent. That, in particular, applies to matters of strict liability and that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained, is where the media would be liable even if the contempt is unintentional.

369
With the greatest possible respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, no one can say that there is any certainty at all of definition at present. I must repeat that the greatly varying expressions as to the law and its application which were contained in the judgments in the case many times mentioned in this debate—namely, the Sunday Times thalidomide case—first in the Divisional Court, then in the Court of Appeal, and, finally, in your Lordships' House, are proof of that. The Phillimore Report worthily attempts the basis of a statutory definition in such strict liability cases with the words that were quoted by my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, which I need not repeat. It is a pretty clear and simple definition. In its turn it is based upon and is (and I here respectfully agree with my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead) an improvement upon the formula which was adopted by the Divisional Court in the Sunday Times case and very desirably avoids—and I say this with deference to certain noble and learned Lords who gave judgment in your Lordships' House in that case—it very desirably avoids the view that any mere prejudging of the issues is in principle of itself a contempt. It is difficult to give any definition to prejudging.
As the report points out, in the way in which one learned Law Lord worded his judgment, an opinion in a law journal on a legal issue or in a scientific journal on, for example, deformities which could arise from thalidomide, might well be caught. As the Government Paper pointed out, the requirement in Phillimore's definition of serious prejudice embodies in itself a significant narrowing of the limits of contempt in law and a corresponding increase in freedom of publication. One would have thought that Phillimore had the balance about right, even though the assessment of what is serious must inevitably again be left for the court to decide. It could, however, in most cases be pretty accurately forecast by those advising the Press and other media.
As has been pointed out, the report also deals with another uncertainty in the present law of England and Wales so far as publications are concerned; the point of time at which in regard to criminal and civil proceedings the axe
370
of strict liability falls. Here it would seem that the report and the Green Paper are at some variance. For what it is worth, I find myself on the side of the report. But whatever be the right choice to make, the present position I suggest cannot remain.
At the moment it is impossible for laywers to advise the media with any degree of certainty as to the precise stage when the axe of contempt in criminal and civil proceedings falls. Indeed, it is not an axe; it is much more like- a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of those who would wish to publish and comment, and it is not possible to say when that sword is supposed to fall. From the decided cases the media at present can only be advised that the stage in criminal and civil proceedings is when such proceedings are "imminent", and that advice must then be followed by those celebrated lawyers' words often heard but not much appreciated by the layman, that when proceedings are imminent will depend in each case upon its facts.
How can this be good enough in such a serious situation with such a serious offence, when considerations of public good and interest may also be involved? The report recommends a degree of certainty and fixes a stage in both criminal and civil proceedings; in the former when a charge is preferred, and in the latter a setting down stage. Mr. Robin Day—a not unknown member of the Phillimore Committee—would have it after that stage; that being the dissenting note to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, referred.
I will not weary your Lordships with the material arguments, which include the danger to a fair trial in criminal proceedings, of comment in some cases before a charge is actually preferred; and in civil proceedings the well known "gagging writ" to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred, in which the plaintiff's object in commencing proceedings is not to prosecute an action to trial but literally to try to stop public comment upon issues which may well be of public interest, and the difficulty of dealing with some civil proceedings on this basis when they have no stage in their procedure of setting down for trial.
They are proper points to be discussed and, with great respect to the noble and

371
learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I would have thought that there are solutions to these problems; and, indeed, some worthy suggestions have already been made. All I desire to say is that there must be some degree of certainty in this context; that the present position is quite unsatisfactory, and, for my humble part, the recommendations of the report seem workable and fair in a situation where one has of necessity to strike a reasonable balance.
Out of consideration for your Lordships generally and, in particular, for the noble and learned Lords who are still to speak and to whom your Lordships would much prefer to listen, I shall confine myself to one other subject which I think was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, in his speech. This was a matter which was referred to in strong terms in the Phillimore Report. I refer to the undesirable practice of some organs of the Press in offering substantial sums to witnesses for their story usually, and for obvious reasons, for publication after the trial in which they are to testify. One suspects—again for obvious reasons—it is often made conditional upon the result of the trial.
Having regard to matters which may be present to your Lordships' minds, I propose to say no more this evening about this particular subject, except to express the hope that this practice will be considered for inclusion in any statute dealing with contempt, and to remind your Lordships that it caused public concern as long as 12 years ago in the Moors murder case, as will be seen from Hansard of 11th May, 1966, volume 728 at column 400. The Attorney-General at that time said that the Government of the day would examine this practice. Nothing appears to have happened since. The Phillimore Report says:
"We regard this potential danger as sufficiently grave to warrant further inquiry as to its prevalence, and if found necessary legislation to restrain or wholly prohibit this practice. We recommend that such inquiry should be carried out".
Your Lordships may well feel that this recommendation is well founded. May I conclude by expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for introducing his Motion so that our attention can be given to a part of our law
372
which needs far-sighted, balanced and fairly urgent attention.
8.17 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make one or two responses in regard to matters that have been put to me. In regard to what my noble friend Lord Mishcon has said, may I say that I was the Attorney-General at the time who prosecuted in the Moors murder case. What shocked us there was the payment by newspapers to witnesses who had not yet given evidence. What followed was a public protest by myself, and immediate action by the Press Council who set up a code of practice regarding this matter. That had a valuable effect for a time in checking the worst abuses; but abuses are again creeping in. I must not let it be thought that I was guilty of inactivity in that matter. I did what was open to me to do at the time.
I hope that I may be able to persuade my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner—with whom I so rarely disagree—that the position that the Government have taken regarding this issue is not a product either of laziness, deliberate obstruction or inability to make up their mind. I take the view, contrary to that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest—and it is very rarely that I disagree with him, either—that there is room and need for a Bill to create greater certainty in the field of the law of contempt. While I have every confidence in his judgment and in what the judges have done, it must be conceded that uncertainty exists. What the content of such a Bill should be is not something to which I can at this point of time commit myself. I cannot say exactly what it will contain. It will be a complex Bill covering a sensitive field. It is right now at this moment to await the event which I mentioned; namely, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Sunday Times case. Whatever its impact will be, we cannot ignore it; it will have to be considered.
Secondly, it would also be prudent to await the report of the Law Commission on offences against the administration of justice. That is shortly due to be published. This field is a crucially important one, and I should like to assure my noble and

373
learned friend that I certainly did not give instructions to my Department to draw up a list of objections and then cheer when a lot were produced—on the contrary. For once, he has done me less than justice. I assure him we are in earnest in wanting to see the law put on a proper footing on any points where it can be shown to be defective. But there are difficult issues here and, if I may be forgiven for a slight reproach, those that I mentioned have been somewhat brushed aside in one or two speeches. I say that, well understanding the complexity of the matters that we have to deal with. However, I have to say this: There are differences between the views of Ministers and committees that arise from time to time. However distinguished the membership of those committees may be, it is for Ministers to bear the responsibility for the decisions they take and the legislation they introduce.
In this highly sensitive field of maintaining a balance between the right of a man to a fair trial and the right to maintain a free Press, there are difficult issues and it is imperative that the matter should be approached with deliberation. If we have deliberated too long I am sorry, but I hope that before long at least we shall reach finality, and my own view is that we shall be dealing with some Bill concerning this matter. As to the timing of it, I cannot yet give an undertaking.
8.21 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, before seeking leave to withdraw my Motion, it is incumbent on me to express my thanks to all those who have come forward and participated in what I think has proved to be a most interesting and valuable debate. I think it has contributed a great deal in assisting the Government to form final views on the admittedly difficult problems with which the Phillimore Report has wrestled.
Though one appreciates, of course, that there are these other matters which will inevitably cause some further delay, I think it can rest as our firm hope that the outcome of this debate will be reasonably speedy decisions on the part of the Government, and that possibly we shall even see an appropriate Bill before this Parliament ends its life. In that hopeful
374
spirit, I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LIVE FOOD ANIMALS FOR SLAUGHTER
8.22 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they will introduce further measures to protect animals, particularly live food animals for slaughter, and horses. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I regret that we have to begin so late, and I thank noble Lords who have already indicated their desire to join in the debate. So I must be considerate towards them at this time and be as short as I can.
After the Question had gone down on the Order Paper, there was a double-page feature in the Daily Mirror for two successive days on the activities of dubious dog dealers and dog snatchers for National Health Service hospitals; so I notified the Minister that I would wish to ask a question or two about that. So I have three questions to ask: the first is about horses; the second is about the export of live animals for food; and, thirdly, I wish to ask about dogs supplied for hospital research and laboratory research.
It distresses me to say that I do not think the record of this Government on the protection of animals is anything like as good as it should be. I have said this before and I shall go on saying it until matters improve. I am trying to dismiss the fear that the Government are both dilatory and fainthearted in this field of public morals in relation to man and the animal kingdom. To me it is a very serious matter involving deep considerations of moral philosophy. I have said before also that if the Government are to live up to the policy outlined in the booklet Living Without Cruelty, published by the National Executive of the Labour Party recently, they have a long, long way to go.
Here we are again on the eve of another Recess, with little sign of action where action is overdue, though to be fair—and I must be fair—the Government have

375
recently announced a welcome change in one protective feature of our regulations about the export of horses: namely, the minimum protective values. These have been substantially increased with effect from 27th December; in many cases they have been doubled. Noble Lords may recall that the export of live horses and ponies is permitted only by licence. A licence is refused if the value of the animal is below the relevant minimum protective value, and the minimum protective values stipulated in the statutory orders are designed to ensure that horses going abroad are destined for riding, breeding or work rather than for the butcher's hook. For example, the present minimum protective value of a Shetland pony not over 10½ hands is £60, and it will soon be £145. For a heavy draught horse the present minimum value is £300 and that will be going up to £715.
These substantial increases are welcome because they will give added protection to horses being sent abroad. I know that the Minister probably does not share the pessimism about the size of the loophole of the old values which many of us in the animal welfare movement hold. The figures for exports of live horses this year are not in excess of those for last year: that must be admitted. Nevertheless, it is desired to increase the protective values which, on present values, give no real protection to horses at all because prices are still rising and horses are worth more dead than alive. I think this is a most welcome step. Having regard to my earlier strictures, I think the Government deserve a good mark on that.
I pass now to another aspect of the protection of horses which I have raised several times before. I believe we must do much more to protect horses at sales and auctions and in transit by road, so I am pressing once again for the application to horse sales of the protective conditions already imposed by the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 upon the sales of farm animals such as cattle, sheep and pigs. Your Lordships may remember that horses and ponies are not given the protection that farm animals get at markets and sales. Under the Markets (Protection of Animals) Order 1964 for sheep, cattle and pigs, while farm animals are given some protective conditions at auctions and sales
376
in all sorts of ways, horses are not included. Horses and ponies may be sold anywhere at any time of the day or night with no protection other than the general law relating to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, and conditions at many horse sales and auctions are still far from satisfactory. There are many complaints of overcrowding and rough treatment being made about that.
I raised this matter last on 15th December 1977 and I then supplied the Government with a list of auction sales regularly held in different parts of the country which gave rise to concern among observers who were watching what was going on. On 5th April this year, I asked the Minister how things were going and he replied at columns 163 and 164 of the Official Report. I shall paraphrase it. He said that a survey of conditions was going on in 132 locations where horses were sold. A good deal of the survey had been completed. They had found, in 13 of the cases, some minor shortcomings in the conditions that should be applied to them. Then came a powerful passage at the end of the questions, when in reply to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who asked whether the results of the survey, if not the survey itself, would be published, my noble friend Lord Strabolgi replied:
"Yes, my Lords; we believe in open government. Moreover, we shall consult with all interested bodies, including, of course, the important animal welfare societies".
Open government is apparently to be the guiding principle of the present Government from now on, in more than one direction. But a year has passed and I ask the question: Where are we now?
I shall tell my noble friend one thing. Where we are now is just about 20 miles from Southall Horse Sale, which is held weekly and is one of the oldest and biggest, and was described to me recently by a senior police officer as a cesspit. That is what is on our doorstep. I shall not go into the lurid details, though I have them, but I await with interest the appraisal of Southall Market when open government produces an open report. I am informed that the Ministry of Agriculture, in an effort to remedy some of the shortcomings of these auction sales, already has a draft code of practice formulated by expert and horse welfare opinion, and I am told that it is even

377
acceptable to the auctioneers, which is surely a very good start for any reform of auction sales. So what are we waiting for? May I ask my noble friend where we are now with that?
Another point on horses, which I must mention, is that there are serious weaknesses in the enforcement of the provisions of the Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975. These are complicated matters, and they are complicated still further by the existence, though large parts of it have been revoked, of the Transit of Horses Order 1951. There are widespread breaches of the orders reported from many parts of the country. For example, there appears to be a lamentable failure to observe some of the strict conditions under which animals of different species shall be separated for the purpose of transport, and larger animals kept apart from smaller ones in order to avoid serious damage to them.
There appears, also, to be a lamentable outcrop from the grace given in 1975 to vehicles then in use for animal transport, because an exemption from some of the essential future requirements was granted to vehicles which were being used for animal transport on or before 1st August 1975. These vehicles are exempted from the important Article 3 and Schedule 1 of the order as regards construction and maintenance, and that exemption lasts until 1st August 1980. I believe that five years' grace was too long to begin with, and experience has shown that to be so. But three years have gone and two years are still to go. Some of these vehicles have long passed their best, probably being sold to less reputable dealers, and that may explain why there are so many ramshackle vehicles seen at markets at the present time.
This question of transport is of great importance since, as I have mentioned earlier, there is a limit on the number of slaughterhouses. There are now five—the previous figure was four—slaughterhouses in this country authorised for the slaughter of horses for the carcase trade with Europe. That means that, wherever they come from, horses must go to one of the five at Huddersfield, Crawley, Norwich, Bristol and Nantwich. That is all I have to say about horses, and now I have a few words to say about the export of live animals for slaughter.
There was a debate on this matter on 23rd March 1978, on the eve of the Easter Recess, on the day of publication of the report of the Agriculture Department on the subject of the export of live animals to Europe. Since then, values have gone up, though I am glad to see that the numbers have kept fairly steady, but they are very high indeed. On average, we are exporting to Europe at the present time about 30,000 live animals each month. The figures last year for sheep and calves were running at the rate of about 390,000. We thought that we were going to have a debate on this a long time ago. Indeed, in March this year when the report came out I asked when we would have a debate:, and we have never had one. There has never been a debate in another place, either. Indeed, there are Early Day Motions down signed by large numbers of Members of the other House, asking when. they will get a debate, but still the Minister claims the right of all Ministers to silence on the subject.
Finally, I come to dogs. On 14th and 15th November, the Daily Mirror ran a very big feature on this question of dogs, where they come from aid where they go to, and I think that that newspaper is to be congratulated on its courage and persistence in rooting out and exposing the evil s of the abuse of animals. Immediately after that exposure, a piece appeared in the Balham and Tooting News and Mercury of 17th November, from which I quote briefly:
"Hard-up health chiefs have to ask medical researchers at St. George's Hospital in Tooting to buy animals for experiments ' on tie cheap '. After a shock report in a national newspaper, St. George's Medical School Administrator, Dr. Julian Axe, said that: Due to financial restraints by the Government we are obliged to go to unaccredited sources for some animals. The ex-racing greyhounds which are not purpose-bred are used for research. The Medical School takes great care to ensure that no pets are used for research".
Then there were some admissions later that, for example, the Medical Research Council cannot be oversure that it is getting all its animals from accredited sources. Mr. Michael Funnell, the Press Officer for the RSPCA, is reported to have said:
"There are only 220 RSPCA officers in England. We just don't have the time to catch the snatchers who must make a fortune out of their trade. It's terrible".
Almost at the same time, a letter which has come into my hands was received by, I presume, a research laboratory in North London. I shall not mention the name of the person who wrote that letter or the address that it came from. However, it came from Cambridge and this letter to the research establishment said:
"I am writing to enquire if I can supply you with animals for research? If so, please contact me, either by phone or letter, at your earliest convenience. All animals are in good health and would be delivered to you under humane conditions. If you are interested, I would be obliged if you would state the type of animal required and prices paid per animal, approximately".
The question is: where are these animals coming from? I want to ask my noble friend a simple, plain question: Will the Government ensure that the National Health Service hospitals are instructed to stop buying dogs and cats from these dubious sources? It will be no comfort to people whose pets are missing, and who wait anxiously but in vain for their return, to tell them that their pets have gone in a good cause to the National Health Service. I say to the National Health Service hospitals: Please stop this disreputable trade by refusing to buy from shady dealers.
Also, I think it would help if the Government gave closer and more urgent consideration to the report Dogs in Society. This was the report of a working party which sat for a long time but upon which no action has yet been taken. If applied, however, it would introduce an entirely new era of dog care and dog discipline.
My final question is this: Has my noble friend anything more to say about the consideration which he assures us is being given by the Government to the setting up of a standing commission or committee to inquire into a wide range of matters concerning animal protection and welfare?
8.42 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful, even at this late hour, to consider a subject so important as animal welfare. If it is not presumptuous to say so, we should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for bringing so constantly to your Lordships' attention, in a series of
380
interesting debates, this particular subject. The noble Lord referred to his debate on 14th December of last year in relation to the horse meat trade, to his debate in relation to the export of live animals on 23rd March and, further, to his debate on 25th July last on the export of live animals. In many cases, similar matters have been repeated on three occasions. But what is so important is that there are gaps in the legislation. Abuses arise daily, and I should like first to address myself, in rather the same manner as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to horses.
Horses are sold at auction where there is no requirement to have present a Government inspector. I join the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his plea for a re-examination of the situation, whereby the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 could be invoked and Section 20 of that Act applied to horses and ponies. Furthermore, the situation in regard to the whole body of legislation requires considerable thought. I have been looking at the body of legislation which covers this field. The basic Act is the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, with which this Unstarred Question is not concerned. However, there is a series of subsequent Acts of Parliament: the 1894 Act, the Protection of Animals Acts of 1911 and 1964 and, based upon those Acts, a whole series of transport orders—for instance, the Animal (Sea Transport) Order 1930 and the Transit of Animals Order 1927.
It is very interesting to look at this legislation and to see how, time and again, Parliament has directed attention to the situation with regard to the transit of animals, the subject with which we are dealing today, but has been unable to find a satisfactory solution. I am fully aware of the enormous change which has taken place in the transportation system between the end of the last century and today. Now there are roll-on, roll-off ferries. There is also the air transport of calves to distant places, et cetera. There is a very strong case for a review of the legislation and for the removal from the Statute Book of antique or harmful legislation which imposes an unnecessary burden. New legislation might well be more acceptable to the trade and also more adaptable to present circumstances.

381
I am well aware that recent legislation has taken off the Statute Book a whole range of different provisions. We struggled for years with the recommendations of the Brambell Committee and the recommendations of the Balfour Committee, and their incorporation into a very important piece of legislation—the European Convention on the Protection of Animals during International Transport—has only recently been accepted. That became law only two days after the last debate on this subject initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I think the noble Lord cast some doubt in that debate on whether that recent piece of legislation contained loopholes.
I shall not take up much time on the issue of the protection of horses, because the noble Lord has dealt with it in detail. However, I should like to join him in what he has said. The noble Lord believes that the Government have been dilatory and faint-hearted. I believe that in the past many Governments have been dilatory over bringing legislation up to date. Nevertheless, it is true that it is extremely difficult to match legislation with new procedures because the trade moves very much faster than Westminster. But we must not be faint-hearted. Again this was the noble Lord's charge, and I am quite sure that it is not the Government's aim to let the matter rest. Indeed, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will not permit the Government to let it rest. My noble friends on this side of the House will not permit it to rest, either.
I should like to refer to one page in an important report by the agriculture Department, to which reference has already been made; namely, the report of March 1978 on The Export Trade in Live Animals for Slaughter or Further Fattening. Perhaps I may turn to paragraph 62 on page 16 which relates to widespread dissatisfaction with the minimum weights for calves. This is one criticism of the report, and I hope that the Government will be able to give attention to it and, indeed, to a number of other recommendations contained in this very important document.
If I may refer to the question of dogs, in conjunction with many of your Lordships I have read the very significant
382
features which ran for three days in the Daily Mirror in the middle of last month. I believe that there is an issue here of great and very wide public significance— that is, the theft of pets. The article referred to a shadowy organisation, better known in the business as "The Runners". Although this organisation was apparently known, for some time it was not believed to exist.
The RSPCA are well a ware of the repeated incidence of the disappearance of pets in large numbers from the streets of towns and cities up and down this country. The only reason for this continuous repetition is to lay emphasis upon the undoubted existence of a body of persons which removes or steals licensed, and indeed unlicensed, animals which are private property. I think it is true to say that dogs, if licensed, are animals which it should be a criminal offence to steal, but I do not know whether it is a criminal offence to pick up a stray cat. Here may well be a gap in the law and it is a further matter for investigation. I would suggest that the dogs issue is one of very wide public significance, because of course this is the time of year when a large r umber of puppies are sold and, only too unhappily, shortly after Christmas they end up in the hands of unlicensed persons and ultimately they may well end in the laboratories referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships a moment longer than is necessary, but I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in returning to this subject and I should be particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, if he can supply the answer to one particular question of which I have given notice. It is this. In regard to the code of practice at auction sales, has the Minister taken any action about conditions at sales and markets where horses are handled, so that a code of practice, which was suggested two years ago by the late chief veterinary officer, to improve welfare conditions for horses and ponies may be implemented? I shall be most grateful if the ncble Lord can advise your Lordships whether action has been taken in that regard.
8.52 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, I feel in rather a false position. The only

383
reason why I put my name down to speak tonight was because it was thought, by me and by others, that somebody from these Benches—which I had better mention are the Liberal Benches—ought to support, and would like to support, as I do, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his numerous attempts in this matter. I support all his intentions and I had better make it clear immediately that anything I say is not said on behalf of the Liberal Party but on behalf of myself, because I have nothing technical to add to what has already been said.
I should like slightly to widen the scope of the debate, which is not confined solely to horses and dogs but which includes other animals for what could be called slaughter. I had better say at once that I am not a vegetarian. I do eat meat, and I very much dislike seeing what I sometimes see in reports of slaughterhouses, reference to the well-intentioned methods (which possibly the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, may be able to say something about) of, for instance, stunning animals before they are killed. All these things are done with the best intentions, but sometimes we do not know whether they are doing more harm than good. In that connection I should like particularly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked for; namely, a Standing Committee to look into this matter.
My feeling about animals is that with some it is quite easy to identify oneself and with others it is not so easy. Anyone in the glamorous world of show jumping can identify with horses. I have always failed to do so—at least, the last time I was on a horse I failed to. I had always been told that if one fell off in front of a horse it would not kick one's teeth out. But I found that was wrong, or that the horse had not been so instructed. I think most of us have a repugnance to horses being slaughtered, except where necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned Shetland ponies. I do not know what the conditions are for New Forest ponies, which I believe are bred almost entirely for food. I am not suggesting that the conditions are bad, but I should be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, could tell us something about that.
384
Although I find it difficult to identify myself with horses, I find myself much more in a position to identify with hares, or even with tortoises. There was a case in the papers the other day of a chef in a well-known hotel who had committed unspeakable cruelty on a tortoise in order that it might be eaten. I do not want to be frivolous, but I think that in looking at some of the animals which are not generally regarded as animals, and considering how much pain is inflicted on them—I am not talking about geese, because one of the very few things that I have ever given up is eating pâté de fois gras. I do not think it happens in this country, but I understand that unspeakable pain—or, to put it mildly, discomfort and inconvenience—is caused to the geese.
An interesting case of something which I have enjoyed eating in the past is the lobster. The other day the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said—and I entirely agreed with him—that he very much regretted that on all these questions of animal food the industrial side, and what he called "welfare do-gooders", are split up, whereas they ought to be able to get together and agree on the right way of doing things. I should call them not so much the "welfare do-gooders" and the industrial side as, possibly, the scientists and the poets. Lobsters are not a familiar theme of poetry. Indeed, the only poem I can remember is Lewis Carroll's "Tis the voice of the lobster; I heard him declare" which ends with some rather interesting lines suggesting that even a lobster might be frightened before it is killed.
"When the sands have run dry, in a voice like a lark
He will speak in contemptuous tones of the shark;
But when the sea rises and sharks are around His voice has a timid and tremulous sound".
Perhaps that makes the lobster rather too human.
If we take the scientific approach, sometime ago, before the war, Professor J. B. Haldane had an argument with some friends and colleagues as to the most humane way of putting a lobster into water. It was generally thought that the most humane way was to plunge it straight into boiling water rather than to put it into lukewarm water and then boil it up slowly. Being a scientist of considerable industry and courage he

385
arranged this experiment for himself with the help of two laboratory assistants, a thermometer and a large copper bowl. He got into it and recorded his own experience until he lost consciousness. His view was that that was a fairly comfortable way of doing it. Whether it would be for a lobster, I do not know.
However, we have now so many scientific methods of trying to register what is and what is not right that I feel a Standing Committee could do a great deal of good in possibly abolishing some unnecessary pain that is being inflicted on animals, which, unless one is a vegetarian, will be killed and eaten. I think this could be done without in any way damaging the economy. I have already spoken for longer than I meant to, which was five minutes. I have no other point to add, except to stress the value, as I believe, of appointing a Standing Committee to look into all these questions.
9 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for putting down this Question, and I am only sorry it comes at this late hour when we cannot really let ourselves go on the subject of animal welfare. There are so many sides of this subject which should be covered that it is very difficult to pick out any particular one. I must agree with the noble Lord; I do not think this Government have a particularly good record in animal welfare, but perhaps when the noble Lord replies we shall get a different impression.
What to me is quite extraordinary is that the concentration of enforcement of animal welfare is more and more being put on to the environmental health departments of district councils. I think there are nine Acts covering dogs, none of which appears to be being enforced properly, and when they are enforced they are enforced in a most uneven manner throughout the country. I would ask the Government, on the subject of dogs, whether we could not at some time soon have a consolidation Act which could in fact be policed and enforced, rather than the partial supervision here and there of all these Acts. I am particularly interested in the Pet Animals Act, the Animal Boarding Establishments Act, the Breeding of Dogs Act and also the
386
Guard Dogs Act. We are waiting for the Guard Dogs Act to be completed. When are we likely to see this? These are all welfare Acts and they are not being operated properly.
If I may turn to horses, the subject has been covered by a number of noble Lords, so I shall not go into what they have said. I would refer first of all to the Riding Establishments Act. This appears to be working reasonably well when it only requires an annual inspection, but there are considerable worries about these trekking establishments which only operate for a few months and appear to avoid the inspection under the Riding Establishments Act, due to the short time the}' operate. In any event, the horses which are there are not necessarily there at the time of the inspection; they may be brought in afterwards or taken out before. The subject of ponies and pony trekking establishments needs considerable further investigation by the Government. I trust and I hope that they may be able to give it some consideration, and will be able to say something about it.
The other thing which is worrying particularly the British Veterinary Association is the keeping of animals for experimental purposes. They are not at all happy that overall this is under any control whatsoever, except by those people who are in fact keeping them. The other subject which worries me, and I think worries a number of people, has been mentioned tonight and concerns particularly dogs and cats. The provision of these animals is under virtually no control at all. I hope the Government will be able to tell us that their views are that, within the foreseeable future, animals such as dogs and cats and rodents should be supplied only by people who are recognised to be keeping the animals properly for this purpose.
I have spoken a number of times on the export of live animals, and I think my views are well known. I do not like it, and I shall never like it. It still amazes me that things which do happen can happen. It astonishes me why the Ministry should permit the export of calves to Italy at a time when they are being brought before the European courts for cruelty in the methods of their slaughtering. One of the most hopeful signs that I have seen is the interest which the EEC are now

387
starting to take in animals. My only hope is that, if the Government will not do anything, the EEC will, and that they will be rather ashamed if the decisions of the EEC go further than their own decisions.
9.8 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest. I am a vegetarian and I have been so for 70 years. On the whole, I think, physically I am a pretty good advertisement for that practice. However, my concern tonight is not to state the case for vegetarianism, but to urge support for what my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby and others have said regarding practical measures to prevent cruelty to animals.
I have been in this House for 14 years and I have been very much impressed by the interest of your Lordships in animals: dogs, horses, otters, badgers and eagles. I have sometimes thought, by the emotion expressed, that there has been more interest in animals than in human beings. Therefore, I think that the House should be sympathetic to the plea which my noble friend Lord Houghton has made. His case has been overwhelming and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the others who have followed him have made their pragmatic, practical proposals for action by Her Majesty's Government.
When I speak in the House I usually seek to be constructive and to suggest the action which could be taken. With your Lordships' permission, tonight I shall make a different approach. I want for a moment or two to put the philosophical case for human beings approaching the problem of animals in a more sympathetic way. We human beings owe an immense debt to the animal kingdom. Life from the lowest forms has evolved over billions of years, and finally, in only the last 2 million years, it has reached the human being. The animal kingdom is the nursery of man. Darwin's theory of evolution emphasised the struggle for existence—the fittest surviving. That was corrected very largely by Kropotkin in his book Mutual Aid which showed that co-operation has been responsible for evolution as much as the factor of competition.
388
But admittedly in that process of evolution one species has lived by destroying a large number of the species below it, and that fact is very often used today in favour of the principle that man is justified in exploiting animals. He certainly does so. In the United Kingdom over 5½ million animals are officially known to be used for experimental purposes. About 65 per cent, of those experiments on living animals are for commercial purposes; one-third of them have no medical object whatsoever—they are carried out for such things as household and garden products; synthetic tobacco, as regards which I admit I am guilty myself, and, believe it or not, cosmetics for the decoration of women's faces. It is for those purposes that one-third of the 5£ million experiments on living animals are carried out. There is now factory farming with its infamous cruelty to poultry, pigs and cattle. They are imprisoned for our tables and treated as raw material for our tastes. There is the abominable trade in cattle and horses—continuous living cruelty—for the trade on the Continent, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has drawn so much attention.
We justify all this and we justify indifference towards it because of Darwin's theory that one species evolves by living on another. But surely when the human being evolved a new level of consciousness was reached. It brought compassion, a hatred of cruelty and a sense of the universal life, identifying us with all of the past, the present and reaching out to the future. For the first time living beings were able to plan according to ethics.
One of the many birthday cards I recently received on my 90th birthday contained the text of the speech of Chief Seattle when Washington sought to buy the land of the Indian community. He said:
"The deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers.
The rocky crests, the juices of the meadows, the body heat of the pony and man—
all belong to the same family".
It is in that spirit of identity with all life and with the animal kingdom that we must face these problems.
For those reasons I welcome Labour's charter for animal protection, Living Without Cruelty, which includes impressive sections on the two matters which

389
the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, raised of live animals and live food animals for export. The campaign against cruelty to animals and cruelty to human beings is one; we are all a part of one family.
9.18 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I must declare an interest, in that I farm and, therefore, I shall refer to sheep and cattle for slaughter, and not to horses. As for dogs, I do not consider them to be live food animals. However, I see the point of exploring any cruelty, and I believe that exposure is a better way of prevention than legislation. Therefore, it is on three counts that I would make a plea to Government to consider very carefully before they embark on any new legislation or, indeed, new regulations regarding animal welfare.
First, we understand so very little about our attitude to animals; indeed, what I, as a farmer, might consider cruel might be totally different from what the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Brockway, might consider cruel. I suppose that for someone who does not farm—and I believe I am correct in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, must be one of the very few Members of your Lordships' House who do not—some of our attitudes and indeed our philosophy towards our job, and in particular our animals, must seem illogical.
On the other side of the picture, I believe that the large majority of pets are kept on the border of cruelty. Noble Lords may say that I am being unfair. Maybe I am. For that reason I would never criticise the keeping of pets; I do so myself. However, the point I am making is that the question of what is and what is not cruelty is not possible accurately to define. It is a very imprecise science.
Secondly, farming, in particular livestock farming, dates back to primitive man, as we have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. Things are not done or changed overnight. Hurried decisions and moves in farming are nearly always wrong. Changes should be made gradually, and be allowed to develop. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, admit that progress has been made, certainly so far as horses are concerned. I ask him, with
390
the greatest respect, to continue to bi patient: I am sure more would be achieved.
Thirdly, I am deeply suspicious that control and legislation ever achieves much—if it does achieve anything at all—and certainly in an area which (as I have said before and indeed the noble Lord, Lore Brockway, said it) is so imprecise as what constitutes animal cruelty. Indeed, often regulations and legislations are counterproductive. If I may, I shall give just one example. It is the law contained in the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1954 which was amended by the 1964 Act. In that Act, under Section l(4)(b) the de-horning, except by caustic stick, is forbidden without an anaesthetic.
The picture I wish to paint to your Lordships is that of a single suckler outwintered herd—and there are many of them; and indeed I had one until the green pound made me give it up. On arrival in the morning you are faced with seven or eight newborn calves, which must be castrated and should be dehorned. Surely it is kinder to creep up quietly and castrate and de-horn that calf before either it is aware of your presence and, more important, its mother is aware of your presence, rather than, as the law demands, inject the anaesthetic into each horn, wait five minutes for it to work while the mother is hollering its heart out.
Here is a case of the law being an ass, and as a result the farmer will either break the law or fail to de-horn. If there is a single humane treatment I should like to see done, it is the encouragement— although again not through legislation— of more de-horning of cattle. The damage done in lorries, and indeed in cattle yards, by horned beasts hitting each other in my opinion certainly does cause cruelty. I would support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, if he could think of a practical way to encourage de-horning of commercial cattle. I believe a chance was certainly lost when we had the calf subsidy. So I ask the Government to read again the O'Brien Report; to read again the Ministry of Agriculture's Report of March 1978 on the Export Trade of Live Animals, to which noble Lords have referred.
I must draw noble Lords' attention to Appendix A, in which you will see listed

391
40 organisations to which the Government referred. I do not believe it is fair to say—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said—that the Government have not consulted. They have; 40 people here. For once—and I hate saying this because there is nothing I like doing less than to congratulate the Government, whether it be blue, pink or yellow—I really consider that the Government have worked very hard on animal welfare. As I say, I do not really like saying that.
Having said that, I think that the Government would be better advised to rely, as I think they are doing, on the oldest motive of all—self-interest. The farmer and the slaughterer are the people who are financially involved, and if their lambs and bullocks do not have kindly treatment throughout their lives up to slaughter, they will suffer financially. If for that reason only, they will ensure humane treatment. I happen to believe that farmers are not the cruel creatures that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, sometimes gives us credit for. But even if we are, I am sure that everybody in your Lordships' House will agree that it is rare to find a farmer who enjoys throwing his money away, and that is what cruelty does.
Having said that, I agree with the noble Lord that there is always the rogue farmer just as there is the rogue politician, rogue doctor or the rogue vet, but I am sure he will agree with me that legislation will not get rid of those sort of people anyway. I believe there is an unnecessary divide creeping in between farmers and the opposite side, whoever they may or may not be. As always, the best way to resolve our differences is not on the Floor of the House, or on the floor of any other house, but quietly over the proverbial pint, and not by further Government measures. Our interests are the same, if for ostensibly different reasons and philosophy, and it just must be possible for us to resolve them without further legislation and regulation.
9.26 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is characteristic of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that he is not content with introducing one subject
392
of importance but on this occasion has successfully introduced several, and the debate has ranged over horses, dogs and cattle and was further extended by the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, to include lobsters. It has, nevertheless, been a well balanced debate and I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, took part and struck a realistic note as a working farmer. I hope that during my speech I shall be able to convince your Lordships that the Government, as Lord Stanley rightly said, are much more concerned about these matters than would have been evident from some of the speeches of other noble Lords.
I should like at the outset, in reply to my noble friend, to deal with the important question of the export of live food animals for slaughter or further fattening and try to give some indication of the factors which are causing the Government to think very carefully on this matter, about which so many people feel deeply, and I am sure what my noble friend Lord Brockway said impressed us all.
First of all, one has to recognise that where the welfare of animals is concerned, national boundaries should be of little relevance, provided that the legal protection of animals is reasonably equivalent on both sides of those boundaries. A major factor contributing to such equivalence is of course EEC legislation. That is why the Government must take into account the extent to which current and proposed EEC legislation could protect animals during international transport.
Your Lordships are of course aware that since 1st August of this year EEC Directive 77/489 has been in force. That is the Directive which lays down general requirements for the protection of animals during international transport. Its provisions cover all farm animals and horses, domestic animals such as cats and dogs, other mammals and cold-blooded creatures. Its provisions apply to all intra-Community trade and to animals being exported to or imported from third countries. It lays down general requirements for the construction of their means of transport and containers, for when and how animals should be tied, for ventilation and density, and so on. It prohibits the carriage of animals which are ill or injured or where their stage of pregnancy makes them unfit to travel.

393
Two major requirements apply generally to farm animals and horses. The first is that before they start an international journey, they must have an inspection by an official veterinary surgeon and be certified by him that they are fit to travel. The second is that the times between feeding and watering on the journey should not exceed 24 hours unless the destination where the animals are to be unloaded can be reached within a reasonable period. My Lords, that is where the Commission's new proposals offer considerable advance, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Brockway will take note of this.
These proposals are for a Directive designed to implement Directive 77/489 in a number of ways. The most important of these is the proposal that food animals will not be allowed to undertake an international journey unless they are accompanied by a travel document which will log the time when their journey started, and when they pass through particular checkpoints, so that the intervals between feeding and watering can be monitored, and appropriate action taken. The Commission is hoping to finalise its proposals and to send them to the Council before the end of this year. The Commission's proposals will no doubt need further refinement, but there will be opportunities for this to be done when they pass through the Council's machinery of scrutiny.
Another factor which the Government are considering closely is the suggestion which has come forward from the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, as well as from the body of which my noble friend is so distinguished a chairman and from the Farm Animal Welfare Coordinating Executive—that there should be some permanent, independent, advisory body which could advise the Government on animal welfare matters. This suggestion is a very far-reaching one, and the Government are most carefully considering it. We must also look at its relevance to the issues we are discussing today.
We have to look at the nature of the livestock industry, and the extent to which a limitation on movement—in both domestic and international journeys, since welfare in transit is equally important in both cases—could affect the different activities within the fattening and the slaughtering aspects of that industry.
394
The economic aspects of continuing, or discontinuing, all, or parts, of the export trade must also be carefully assessed.
Many people see the live export trade not only as undesirable morally, but as positively damaging to our economic interests. The point has been made—and I think that it was repeated this evening by my noble friend—that we should export on the hook, instead of the hoof, so that we gain the benefits not only of added value, but of increased employment opportunities, particularly in our slaughterhouses. There are, however, complex reasons for the existing pattern of trade, not the least of which is that it meets a particular demand from our customers, which would not be met by simply substituting meat for animals. There could also be important consequences for our producers. There can be no doubt that live exports have a significant effect on their incomes and production plans, including those in the dairy sector which provides most of the exported calves. A lost market outlet for live animals could lead in due course to lower production with wider ranging consequences. These are complex issues which all have to be taken into account before the Government can reach a decision.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, raised the question of the EEC and Italy. The EEC Directive 74/577 requires animals to be stunned before slaughter, although exemptions are made for emergency slaughter; and of course ritual slaughter is outside the scope of the Directive. Your Lordships will know—as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, said— that Italy failed to take the necessary measures to implement the Directive and was found to be in breach of it by the European Court of Justice. I am glad to say that she has now introduced appropriate domestic legislation.
I come now to the question of the: welfare and protection of horses, a subject which is also close to my noble friend's heart as well as to the feelings of this House. My noble friend has raised a number of important questions about the welfare of horses in the course of this evening's debate, and indeed there are one or two major points on which I hope to be able to offer some reassurance. I should like,

395
though, to speak generally on this question, and particularly with reference to the New Forest ponies referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington. The slaughter of healthy horses and ponies before the end of their natural lives and the export of horsemeat are frequently criticised. There have also been suggestions that the slaughter of these animals should be prohibited by law. These views have recently been stimulated by the New Forest pony sales. The problem is that the supply of horses and ponies at sales greatly exceeds the demand for those for riding, and that the alternative for those animals not bought for recreation is usually to put them down humanely. The compassionate feelings aroused are entirely understandable, but surely it would not be in the best interests of surplus horses and ponies to prevent them from being humanely destroyed. This would be bound to result in over-population, starvation and neglect—a form of cruelty of its own. A ban on the use of horsemeat for human consumption would have no justification on welfare grounds.
There has always been great concern about the possibility of horses being exported for slaughter. One of the methods used to prevent this is by imposing, through a Statutory Instrument, minimum values below which various categories of horses and ponies may not be exported. This was referred to by my noble friend, and I am glad to confirm that within the last few days the Government, after consultation with all the organisations concerned, have made a new Horses and Ponies (Increase in Minimum Values) Order, which will come into effect on 27th December, which has significantly raised these values. The increases not only take account of increases in prices of horsemeat abroad, which of course would be the incentive for exporting them, but also builds in a safety factor against further price increases. Agriculture Ministers will continue to keep these revised prices under review so as to make sure that this valuable safeguard against the export of horses for slaughter is maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has spoken about unsatisfactory conditions at some horse sales. During the debate in your Lordships' House in December last year, my noble friend, as he reminded
396
us today, drew attention to disturbing reports of conditions at auctions and sales of horses and ponies. Last year I said that a code of conduct for horse sales produced by the British Horse Society and sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by the British Veterinary Association would be examined by officials to see whether it could with advantage be included in any new legislation which might be made in relation to welfare at horse and pony auctions and sales. As part of the examination of the situation, officials of the State Veterinary Service carried out a preliminary survey of the places where horses and ponies are sold or auctioned. As I explained to my noble friend last March, that survey indicated that the welfare arrangements on these occasions are generally satisfactory, although in a few cases minor shortcomings were noted. This preliminary survey has been followed by a more detailed survey designed to give fuller and more specific information than was originally collected, so I think I can assure my noble friend that we are not dragging our feet. The material collected about the facilities at premises and the practices which take place has now been analysed, and Ministers will shortly be asked to decide what action would be appropriate and what form it should take.
Some doubt has been expressed about the extent to which the various transit orders made under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 are being effectively applied within Great Britain. As your Lordships are aware, responsibility for enforcing these orders rests with local authorities, who last year took 890 prosecutions under legislation dealing with cruelty to animals. The survey of horse sales which has now been completed will be made available to local authorities and I am sure that they will want to keep a particularly careful eye on conditions in any market where they have been found to be less than fully satisfactory.
My Lords, I should like now to come to the question of horse meat exported to EEC countries and the issues which are in the mind of my noble friend and other noble Lords today. There is legislation which protects the welfare of horses and ponies from the time when they are unloaded at slaughterhouses. The

397
Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and the Slaughter of Animals (Prevention of Cruelty) Regulations 1958 both apply. The Slaughterhouses Act 1974 requires all horse slaughterhouses and slaughtermen to be specially licensed by the local authority. It also provides for animals to be stunned before slaughter (although there is an exemption for religious slaughter methods).
The Slaughter of Animals (Prevention of Cruelty) Regulations 1958, as amended, lay down requirements for the construction of slaughterhouses and the humane treatment of animals in lairages and at slaughter. Any operator of a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard may apply to his local authority for the special licence to slaughter horses but to qualify he must meet more stringent provisions for humane treatment than are laid down for other animals. These include structural requirements designed to make it impossible for any live horse to see another horse being slaughtered or to see the remains of any horse or any other animal. They also lay down special provisions on the lairaging of horses. Ministry veterinary staff, who visit frequently, keep a very close watch on throughput in order to ensure that it does not exceed the maximum number considered to be satisfactory in each case. Most recent reports show no indication of overcrowding.
There have been criticisms that the number of slaughterhouses licensed to produce horse meat for the EEC market is too few. It has also been said that the location of slaughterhouses involves some horses and ponies having to make too long a journey. I do not know whether noble Lords are aware that a further slaughterhouse was licensed at the end of September this year, thus bringing the number licensed to export to EEC countries up from four to five. It is located at Nantwich as my noble friend said—although he did not say, and may not have known, it is a new one—and will contribute to the reduction of long journeys from the North and from Wales. There is as yet no slaughterhouse in Scotland licensed to slaughter for the EEC market. Any application for an operator for a licence would, of course, be carefully considered.
I think it is worth emphasising that although horses and ponies may in some circumstances have to travel long distances
398
to be slaughtered, their welfare is protected throughout the journey by the provisions of the various transit orders made under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said, which apply to horses.
I should like now to say, with all the emphasis at my command, that, bearing in mind some of the lurid details described by my noble friend, if persons attending sales see that horses are being transported, loaded or unloaded under bad conditions, it will clearly assist if they report the circumstances to local authority inspectors or to the police at the time so that the complaint can be followed up without delay. They would have the full backing of the law if they did that. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, spoke about dehorning. I am afraid I have no information on that; it was rather outside the scope of the debate. I shall take note of what he said and write to him, if I may. I must do the same to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, if he does not mind, about the question of the pony trekking establishments.
I should like now to say a few words about the supply of animals for experimental purposes, which was the other main subject of the debate. The Secretary of State for the Home Department is responsible for the administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 which governs experiments on living animals calculated to induce pain. He has no power to direct licensees under the Act to acquire animals for experimentation from a particular source. Nevertheless, nearly all the larger experimental establishments breed their own animals or else acquire them from such bodies as the Medical Research Council's Laboratory Animals Centre or from breeders accredited under the scheme organised by the Medical Research Council as most pets are unsuitable for laboratory work because of temperament or physical condition.
As to the use of cats and dogs in experiments, I draw your Lordships' attention to two relevant considerations. In the first place, they are not widely used. In the second place, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby knows that a licence holder under the Cruelty to Animals Act must hold special certificates. All these certificates, which are E, A, or B certificates depending on the nature of the

399
experiment, must be signed by the president of one of the learned societies and also by a professor in a medical discipline. These signatories certify that the purpose of the experiment requires a cat or a dog and that a conscious animal is essential or that recovery from anaesthesia is essential. The Secretary of State for the Home Department has power to disallow these certificates.
To perform an experiment on a cat or a dog in the circumstances that I have described without the necessary certificate would be illegal. However, no one wants to see a well-loved animal, a well-loved family pet, ending its life in this way, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, have said, and of course I agree with them. The best course for any owner disposing of a pet and concerned about the possibility of the animal finding its way to a laboratory is to seek the advice of the RSPCA or a veterinary surgeon. My noble friend mentioned St. George's, Tooting. The medical school takes great care to ensure that no pets are used in research. All animals are purpose-bred with one exception. Ex-racing greyhounds which have already been culled as unsuitable for further racing are used for important research in developing new treatment for heart disease. They are all animals which are due to be killed. Their hearts are particularly suitable for research.
I too have read the articles in the Press referred to by my noble friend. But we have no evidence to suggest the theft of pets for sale to laboratories is widespread. Suspected thefts should be reported to the police. The existing law, the Theft Act 1968, as amended by the Criminal Law Act 1977, provides penalties for the theft or dishonest handling of stolen pets. Of course, it is also an offence to abandon a dog. It is an offence, if one finds a dog, to return it to anybody but its owner or to the police. The police also are not allowed under legislation to dispose of a dog into vivisection. All these matters have the full backing of the law. It is the view of the Cruelty to Animals Inspectorate, who visit research establishments, that those who purchase animals from dealers as opposed to breeders are fully aware of the law relating to pet stealing and are conscious of their responsibilities to ensure that supplies are legally obtained. Nevertheless, the need for a statutory
400
scheme to control the supply of laboratory animals is under consideration by the Home Office.