Lords Sitting of 26 July 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

LORD SMITH
Sir Edwin Rodney Smith, KBE, having been created Baron Smith, of Marlow in the County of Buckinghamshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Burton of Coventry and the Lord Porritt.

GERMANY: TELEVISION FILM BIAS
2.47 p.m.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what were the reactions of the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority to what was said in this House in connection with the Starred Question on 14th March 1978 on the subject of television films with an edge directed against Germany and the Germans (Official Report; col. 1174).
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the broadcasting authorities have assured me that they take note of what is said in this House and in another place on broadcasting matters, and that they had carefully noted the exchanges, referred to in the noble Lord's Question, which I promised the House I would formally draw to their attention.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which has a special significance in view of the reported intention of the BBC to transmit a series of television programmes, amounting to nine or 10
852
hours in all, on the treatment of the Jews in the Second World War. Does the Minister agree that in order that these programmes should not unnecessarily rekindle old animosities, they need to be handled with great sensitivity and a sense of historical perspective? Does he also agree that in this respect the answer from the television authorities is encouraging?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords; I am quite sure that the television authorities, being aware that the noble Lord has tabled this Question, will study what he has just said.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is no had thing to remind people about the evils of Fascism and Nazism, in view of the National Front and other organisations?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is no doubt another question which the broadcasting authorities will take into account.

PRICE COMMISSION REPORT: INFLATION RATE
2.49 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 have now considered the view expressed by the Price Commission in their Quarterly Report that, on the present basis, the rate of inflation will rise towards the end of the current year; whether they accept this view; and what action they propose to take.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the view expressed by the Price Commission in their latest Quarterly Report was that:
"In the short term therefore, if the official indices continue to follow the pattern of the Commission Index after a lag of a few months, we should expect the current rate of increase to be maintained at about 8 per cent. However, it may be less easy to keep it down to this level in the medium term."
The Government's own view is that inflation will remain at, or about, 8 per

853
cent. in 1978, but that the level in 1979 depends on continued moderation on pay, which is why the Government announced new pay guidelines last week in the White Paper Winning the Battle against Inflation.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does not that guarded and carefully expressed Answer indicate that the undue optimism about the movements of the economy which the Prime Minister has recently been expressing is as unfounded as the optimism which he expressed on similar subjects when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1967?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord belongs to that particular group of people who can see no good in the present situation. I should like to make a small historical point. In this matter it will be for the people of this country to choose, but the present round began when the annual rate of inflation was 17 per cent. With inflation now at 7.4 per cent. and people prospering as a result, I would hope and expect to see a much lower level of wage increases in the next round than at the present. This is a success story, and am sorry that the noble Lord cannot see it.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does that mean that the noble Lord disregards the considered views, not only of the Price Commission—who, after all, are in daily touch with movements of prices—but of other responsible bodies representing economic opinion, which apprehend that unless there is a very substantial alteration in present policies the curse of inflation will be returning?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a most esoteric subject which needs thorough discussion with the aid of a number of professional economists—who, as we know, seldom agree. Nevertheless, the policy of this Government has been successful, and I am not going to apologise for it.
Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the present strength of the pound will have a very good effect on the rate of inflation next year? Further, would he not agree that certain questions coming from the other side of
854
the House are prompted by political propaganda in view of the coming General Election?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: With the latter part, yes, my Lords. Nevertheless, the world confidence in the pound, which is shown by its rate of exchange, in fact strengthens the negotiating position of the British Government in this particular area, because as the pound strengthens so the cost of our raw material imports falls.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that, when we have the present unemployment, when we have the present borrowing level and when our standing and position in the world seems to be drifting, to describe that as a success story is a misuse of the English language?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I reckon that my use of the English language is as accurate as that of the noble Lord opposite. May I say, however, that the standing of this country seems to improve. There is no such thing as a perfect world. The noble Lord may think he is dwelling in it, but it does not exist.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not obvious that if the Government's incomes policy is rejected and, as a result, we have a free-for-all, which I understand is the policy of the Party opposite, then we are bound to have higher inflation? There is no escape from it. In those circumstances, ought we not to receive the support of all those who seek to avoid inflation by their acceptance of the Government's policy?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords. I am grateful once again for the wise remarks of my noble friend.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that only a few days ago the Press told us that trade unionists in this country were far better off than, or were as well off as, trade unionists on the Continent? Have the nobles Lords opposite realised that?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question, but an interesting one.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is it not important for the future of this country that, irrespective of Party, the public should be made aware of what the intentions of the political Parties are in regard—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am so glad that noble Lords opposite approve of what I am saying. Should the public not be made aware of the intentions of the political Parties with regard to the rate of inflation? Would the noble Lord not agree that a 7½ per cent. rate of inflation ought not to be allowed to continue for any time at all that can be avoided—that is, that it is far too high a rate of inflation?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, whose views we all respect, used the word "Parties", in the plural. This is of great importance. I agree with him that 7½ per cent. is too high. It is about the level in the OECD at the moment, but it is still too high. It is Her Majesty's Government's intention to go on trying to decrease the rate of inflation, with the enormous advantages that that will bring to the people of this country.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, if all the political Parties agreed on the need to limit dividends, that would also assist in keeping down inflation?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, dividends are an element, but perhaps not the most important one.
Lord CLITHEROE: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the word "inflation" as it is now used means debasement of the currency, and that any debasement of the currency is wrong?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I said, we all deplore sin, but we tend to practise it. I think, basically, we all really rather like inflation, but we have to keep it within reasonable levels.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the success of the nationalised industries, as seen only this week in the case of the
856
Post Office and of the coal mining industry, is playing a great part in reducing inflation?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a very weighty subject on which I really cannot comment.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, while acknowledging that the noble Lord is right in saying that the world is not perfect, that this side is always moved by political motives and the other side is entirely blameless in the matter, may I ask whether we have not had enough of this?

TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN CITIES
2.57 p.m.
Lord THOMAS: 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 steps are being taken to alleviate the growing congestion of road traffic in British cities.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the solution to traffic problems must be found locally, and it is for the local authorities to adopt the appropriate measures. A very wide range of powers is available to them, which in most places should be adequate.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that courteous and ingeniously non-committal reply, may I ask her whether it is not nationally quite unsatisfactory for there to be such a high unemployment rate while coincidentally there are so many opportunities available for gainful work to improve traffic facilities, local, urban and even suburban?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept that we all deplore a high rate of unemployment, but traffic management policies would not make a very great impact on the number of unemployed. What might perhaps make some impact on the number of unemployed would be if we were to continue with an extensive

857
urban road development programme. But our policy White Paper, which was issued last year from the Department of Transport, made it quite clear that we have no intention of returning to the very high level of road building which this country had in the late 'sixties. Some urban road building will continue to be required to complement comprehensive traffic management schemes in certain areas, but each of these proposals will have to be assessed on its merits. We shall have to bear in mind what are the financial costs of carrying out any new urban road building, and what are the environmental costs. Some urban road building schemes will be going on, but not to the extent that we had in the 'sixties and the early 'seventies.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is absolutely obvious that no relief of congestion on the roads can come about unless we de-Beechingise the policy of the railways and get more goods back on to the railways? It could be done—the United States has started doing it. Finally, is my noble friend aware that Aristides was stoned to death for sitting on the fence? At least I am delighted to see that the Opposition are now showing their political colours.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, so far as the first part of my noble friend's question is concerned, of course it is the policy of the Department of Transport to get as much goods traffic moved by rail as is possible in order to relieve congestion on the roads. So far as the rest of the question is concerned, that is for Members opposite to answer, and not for me.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that it is still the policy of her Department to build roads to by-pass historic towns, particularly, to take the traffic away from the centres?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; that is still the policy of the Department. It seems to have met with general approval that, instead of having very wide wedges of motorways cutting across our country, we should do what we can to alleviate the suffering in the smaller towns by building roads to by-pass them. That
858
is the policy of the Department, and will continue to be so.
Lord BALOCH: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that a reduction of the Rolls-Royces of the Benches opposite would ease the congestion?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I had not noticed any degree of increase in the number of Rolls-Royce cars outside in our car park.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that one of the major factors of traffic in cities is the movement of pedestrians, especially in the bigger cities like London? Would she ask the Department of Transport to give closer attention to the need for underpasses for pedestrians because this would have an even more dramatic effect than building new roads?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I will ask the Department to bear in mind the comments of the noble Lord. We encourage pedestrianisation within city centres where we can. I know that that is not the only place where pedestrians are at risk. We do what we can so far as road safety is concerned and we include in our toad safety policy pedestrians as well as motorists.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend reject utterly and with contempt—and I say this without any offence to the noble Lord—the suggestion in the supplementary question that pedestrians should he shoved underground whereas the owners of motor cars can have their own way?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, I would not reject absolutely the suggestion of putting pedestrians underground if that is the safest way of getting them moving from one point to another. We certainly do not intend to make pedestrians second-class citizens.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, as the little Question of my noble friend Lord Thomas asked, "what steps are being taken to alleviate the growing congestion of road traffic in British cities?" —and I have in mind London—and as the noble Baroness is not able to tell us what steps are being taken, will she not agree

859
that at the moment there is indiscriminate parking in London and that grave congestion is caused, particularly in the summer months, by coaches from all parts abroad? Will she ask the authorities concerned to look to see what the city of Paris is doing in regard to underground, below-street, parking which would alleviate this problem of traffic flow in London in particular?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the question of parking and traffic control is a matter for the local authorities. I accept that in our great cities, in London and other conurbations, there are problems of congestion. Various studies are going on. So far as London is concerned, the Greater London Council does its own monitoring of what is happening. There are apparently some deteriorations in traffic in London. There are a number of reasons for this. Perhaps the appalling weather of this summer has not helped. We have had extra traffic from tourists generated by the Jubilee and since, and there have been a number of road alterations and road openings by statutory undertakers. The 1977 figures have recently been reported to the Greater London Council, who have only just got preliminary results. We have not had time to study them in depth. They will be studied and we do encourage the local authorities to have proper traffic management schemes.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether, in an attempt to solve the transport problem, the Government themselves would make a serious attempt to improve our railway system, which remains the worst in Europe?
Several noble Lords: Nonsense!
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I would not accept the last comment for a moment. We give what encouragement we can to the British Railways Board, and their achievements over the last 18 or 24 months have been quite surprising.
Earl HOWE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness assist the local authorities by suggesting—
Several noble Lords: Lord Barnby!
Earl HOWE:—the removal of bus lanes which are interfering with traffic flow and which are not generally observed by the mass of the motoring public?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, again that is a matter for the local authorities.
Earl HOWE: My Lords—
Several noble Lords:Lord Barnby!
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, with the indulgence of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, may I make this fifth attempt to ask the Minister whether, with regard to alleviation of this problem, it is to be understood that there is in contemplation by the Government any intention to slant guidance towards mitigating some categories of heavy lorries that are circulating everywhere, often to the detriment of roads and buildings?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, it is the Government's policy to get those heavy loads, where possible, back on to the railways.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think we have gone into this very thoroughly. I hope the House will agree with me.

EDINBURGH: OUTER BY-PASS
3.6 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: 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 urge the Lothian Region to expedite their plans for the completion of the Edinburgh City outer by-pass road in the light of the increasing traffic and of the Statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in repy to the Member for Edinburgh West on 6th February last in the House of Commons (Official Report (Commons); cols. 1206–7).
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, the Scottish Development Department continues to maintain close liaison with the regional authority to facilitate progress

861
on the by-pass and the associated trunk road programmes. It is for the Lothian Regional Council, as highway authority, to determine their own priorities. It does not seem likely that the Council's cash limit for 1978/79 and financial guidelines for the following three years issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will restrict the Council unduly.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, and recognising the heavy conjuction between this Question and the last one, including the replies from the noble Baroness opposite, would the noble Lord agree that, while accepting that the Lothian Region are proceeding with the Sighthill section of the by-pass, the fact remains that half a by-pass is not a by-pass at all, but is like half a tunnel through a hill? Furthermore, until a whole by-pass is operated, would he not agree that the actual effect on the internal traffic of a city must be a matter of conjecture?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government and Lothian Regional Council have always considered the outer city by-pass to be the responsibility of the local highway authority, as its primary function is to serve as a local distributor road. The Lothian Regional Council discussion document, The Development of Transportation Policy Edinburgh Area, says of the road that,
"its primary function is as a distributor for Edinburgh traffic to switch to other radials as well as serving inter-suburban movements particularly between outer suburbs."
That is the formal position and, at this time, the Government and the Lothian Regional Council work in very close co-operation.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, would it not be correct to say that the by-pass is not mainly a contribution to the distribution of Edinburgh traffic, judging by Mr. McElhone's reply in the Commons? Would he not agree this is really part of the trunk system of the country now that the oil traffic is streaming past?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, primarily it is the responsibility of the Lothian Regional Council. It is not at
862
the moment the Secretary of State's responsibility, apart from the fact that its several links with major trunk roads relate it to the Secretary of State's trunk road responsibilities.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that this by-pass is half devolved?
Lord KIRKHILL: No, my Lords, I am saying it is half beginning.
A noble Lord: Do the Government not think there is rather a long time—
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think that, in the fight for devolution, the only road there is in Scotland is the road out? And does he not think it would be better to go over the Cheviot hills—the Scots will climb over them in a fortnight—and that the Question of the noble Lord does not matter?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I never subscribe to Dr. Johnson's dictum.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that this road has been under consideration for some 40 years? Can he assure us that the Lothian Region has both authority and resources to complete this work now?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl on both points.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, do the Government not think that it is rather a long time since the Forth Road Bridge was completed? Plans at that time were drawn up for this particular ring road which would avoid heavy traffic going through the City of Edinburgh. Surely, it should be given a greater degree of priority than it is getting at the moment.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I agree with the sentiments which the noble Lord expresses; I also confirm that the matter is being given a great deal of priority at this time, both by the Lothian Regional Council and by Government.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that infrastructural investment of this kind is

863
the most effective means of absorbing unemployment due to the increase it produces in the order books of the heavy engineering industry where structural unemployment is concentrated?
Lord KIRKHILL: Yes, my Lords.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will repeat a Statement being made in another place on broadcasting. May I also say that my right honourable friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is circulating in the Official Report of another place an account of the discussion at yesterday's Foreign Affairs Council. With the leave of the House, I will arrange for the account also to be published in our Official Report.
Following is the account of the discussion:
"The Council took the formal decision fixing the 7th to the 10th of June 1979 as the date for the first direct elections to the European Assembly.
"The Presidency reported to the Council on the way follow-up work to the conclusions reached at the European Council in Bremen had been allocated among the responsible Community organs.
"The Presidency and the Commission reported on the outcome of the Bonn Summit; and satisfaction was expressed with the results.
"The Council agreed procedural arrangements for further discussion of problems affecting the Community steel industry. Progress will be reviewed in October. There will be urgent bilateral discussions between the Commission and Member States on difficulties which have arisen in present arrangements for the control of steel imports.
"The Council reached provisional agreement, subject to a United Kingdom reserve, on the text of a Resolution on the shipbuilding industry.
"The Council took note of a progress report from the Commission on the GATT Multilateral Trade Negotiations and discussed points to be borne in mind in the next stages of the negotiations.
"The Presidency reported briefly on the outcome of the formal opening of the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention which took place in Brussels on 24th July.
"The Council emphasised the importance which they attach to reaching a new agreement with Yugoslavia. It was agreed that further proposals from the Commission would be considered after the summer break.
864
"Having received satisfactory assurances from the Commission that they would take action to ensure that the agreed ceilings on low cost textile imports would be strictly enforced and that new restraints will be imposed promptly when the need arises, the Secretary of State for Trade accepted the arrangements negotiated with Portugal, Greece and Spain.
"Under other business the United Kingdom welcomed the agreement reached in the Agriculture Council, which will allow us to resume importing beef from the southern area of Botswana, and urged that imports should be permitted soon from other areas which are free of foot and mouth disease.
"In the margin of the meeting there was a discussion of a number of matters arising in political co-operation.
"The nine Foreign Ministers issued a declaration on Namibia noting that the way is now open to an early internationally acceptable solution and declaring their readiness to respond to a request to help support the economic well-being of an independent Namibia.
"My right honourable friend raised the Code of Conduct for companies with interests in South Africa. He emphasised the importance of instituting as soon as possible national arrangements to ensure complaince with the Code and full reporting by companies comparable to those set out in the White Paper Cmnd. 7233 and its Annexes."

TAMAR BRIDGE BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, in moving this Motion, may I say some brief words of explanation on the next two Motions. Both are procedural Motions with the same purpose: to enable the four Private Bills to continue their progress through Parliament next Session. It is in no way the fault of the Promoters that the Bills will not have been through both Houses before the end of this Session. The Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Bill is a Commons Bill still in that House. My first Motion seeks your Lordships' agreement to the carry-over Motion passed in the Commons last Thursday. The three other Bills are also Commons Bills recently arrived in this House. My second Motion seeks authority to carry them over into the next Session. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by Commons.—
(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bills, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That such Bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed to each, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.— (Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1978
3.14 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts) rose to move, That the Draft European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1978, laid before the House on 13th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order will be made under the International Organisations Act 1968. The order was first laid before the House on 13th June. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew the special attention of the House to the order as originally drafted on the ground that there were doubts about the vires.
We considered very seriously the report of the Joint Committee, and while we were in no doubt about the vires of the order as it was originally drafted, we decided to withdraw it so that it could be amended to accord with the Committee's views. The redrafted order was laid before the House on 10th July, and it is that order which is now before your Lordships. In saying that, I hope I have shown that the Government attach great importance to the work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and are ready to take the fullest account of their observations.
The purpose of this order is to confer upon the European Space Agency, and persons connected with it, the usual privileges and immunities which are required to be conferred in accordance with Annex I to the Convention for the Establishment of a European Space Agency, which was presented to Parliament in October 1975. Before it can enter into force, the Convention requires to be ratified by all the 10 States which signed it in 1975. It is expected that the four signatories which have not so far ratified will have done so within the next 12 months or so. The United Kingdom ratification was deposited on 28th March this year. The new European Space Agency, whose aim is to integrate the Member countries' national space programmes into a European space programme, has been formed by the merger of the European Space Research Organisation—ESRO as we are accustomed to

867
call it—and the European Laboratory for the Development and Construction of Space Vehicle Launchers. Those two organisations together comprise the new European Space Agency.
The Agency now represents the major European collaborative body in a high technology industry which involves, among other things, application (mainly telecommunication) and research satellites. Your Lordships might have noticed recent Press reports on the launching on 14th July of an Agency scientific satellite. This is the first ever research satellite to be placed in and operate from geo-stationary orbit, and is a notable success for the European Space Agency a success clue in considerable part to the work of the prime contractor, the former British Aircraft Corporation. The United Kingdom is now concentrating most of the expenditure which it devotes to space applications and research in the activities of the Agency; that is, about £37 million a year.
The Agency has its headquarters in Paris and it has no plans at present to have any premises or permanent employees in the United Kingdom. There is no increase in the privileges and immunities which we are already required to confer under the two orders which are being revoked. The net result of the new arrangement is in terms of immunities and privileges practically, if not in fact, nil. These privileges and immunities arc on a scale broadly similar to that accorded to other international organisations of a comparable nature to which we arc a party. Immunity from suit and legal process in the case of traffic offences and damage caused by motor-cars is specifically excluded. The Article is quite specific on that point. Your Lordships will appreciate that, in view of its location outside the United Kingdom, the Agency is most unlikely to require the immunities conferred by the draft order. Nevertheless they need to be put forward in the appropriate form through both Houses. Similarly, the effect on the Exchequer of the privileges it accords is likely to he very limited indeed. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will approve this order and thereby demonstrate the support of this House for the valuable work of the Agency. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1978, laid before the House on 13th June, be approved,—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
3.19 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, I should like to thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of this order. May I reassure him that we on this side of the House also approve the order that he had laid before the House. I should like to pay tribute to the very valuable work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their vigilance over the drafting of this particular order. We all know the many hundreds of orders that come before this Committee during the course of a year, and I should imagine it would be quite easy for matters to slip past them without being analysed carefully. We have an example before us of the very careful way in which they examine all these orders, and I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, in paying tribute to the work of the Committee.
I should like also to thank the Government for the way in which they have handled this, in that when they were notified that there was a possible slight irregularity in the drafting of the order, in another place it was announced that the Government would be looking at the drafting of the order. I see from my own copy of the order that there has been a slight amendment in the wording with regard to the petrol allowance. This relates to the question of whether it as the diplomat himself and members of his household, as opposed to the diplomat himself and any other person who got it on his account. That may be a small matter, but it shows that the Government have taken care over the drafting and have recognised the correct approach to this matter taken by the Joint Committee.
With regard to the European Space Agency itself, we on this side welcome and support its work. We think it will do valuable work. It is certainly a sensible reorganisation of ESRO and ELDO into one organisation, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for having told us a little about the work of the Agency. I shall not, therefore, take up the time of the House any longer on that. I should like only to ask the

869
noble Lord one question; with regard to the signatories of this Convention, could he tell us whether any other European countries will he eligible to join the Space Agency? There are at least three European countries, admittedly small ones—Portugal, Greece and Turkey—who are members of the Council of Europe but who are not signatories, who might be able to contribute, though not perhaps financially, to the work of the Space Agency.
I would particularly draw attention to Article 2 of the Convention, which refers to the purpose as being "co-operation among European States". That does not define which European States would be involved or state whether it is only a Council of Europe Convention. I believe it is not a Council of Europe Convention and could be open to States who are not even members of the Council of Europe. However, I should be grateful for a reply from the noble Lord the Minister in due course. Apart from that, we support the purpose of the order which has been laid before the House.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive me for raising what may seem to be a most trivial point in regard to the draft order. I appreciate what he says when he mentions that it is scarcely likely to involve us practically; but I observe that in paragraph 6(b) there is immunity for the Agency, except in regard to matters mentioned in paragraph 6. In paragraph 6(b) immunity is excepted in regard to a claim by a third party for damage arising from an accident caused by a motor vehicle. If an unfortunate passenger, who is not normally regarded as a third party (there is no definition of 44 "a third party" in the interpretation clause), were in the vehicle concerned, would it mean that the Agency had immunity, and is that intended?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for expressing, on behalf of the Opposition, appreciation of the vigilance of the Joint Statutory Instruments Committee and also for acclaiming the very valuable work already being done by the constituent elements of this new Agency: what we have been accustomed to call
870
ESRO and ELDO—the literally heavenly twins, one might say, since they deal with matters of space.
The third point she raised I shall have to consider: that is, whether there are others, apart from the 10 signatory members who came together to decide in 1972 and who agreed on the details in 1975. I shall have to deal with that separately. My impression is that the phrase "European States" would cover other States outside the 10, four of whom have not ratified but all of whom have agreed. Certainly I take the political point—"political" with a small "p"—she made relative to the expansion of the Community itself. I am inclined to regard it with very warm favour. So, if the noble Baroness will allow me to look into this, I will give her an answer, possibly by way of a Written Answer, or in some other way. The noble Baroness indicated the importance of this question and I agree with her. The answer should be put with the utmost precision and clarity. I know that Ireland will become a member when the Convention enters into force: I do not think that Ireland was one of the original 10. I have the list here.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me to intervene, on page 45 of the Convention, in Cmnd. 6272, Ireland is mentioned as one of the 12 signatory countries at that time.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, yes indeed; it has signed. The original group, as it were, were the 10, and certainly Ireland has since signed and will become a member of the Convention when it enters into force. I think I could say now, and confirm in the form that I suggested a little later, that any European country is in theory eligible to become a member of the ESA; but I should like to confirm that formally for the record.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to say that this is a very important point. It might allow these countries, under the terms of the Convention, to join, and I think we should like to be assured of who will be allowed to do so and under what terms.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, the exact position with regard

871
to those last two points will also be confirmed in the Answer that I send to the noble Baroness. At the moment, her concern and my own that there should be a European open-ended basis for this, can be taken for granted; but the details are very important. My noble friend Lord Mishcon raised a point on paragraph 6(b) of the order. A passenger is regarded as a third party for the purposes of this Article. Once more, in thanking both sides of the House for the welcome they have given to this important and valuable order, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (No. 6) (INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION) ORDER 1978
3.28 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS rose to move, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 6) (International Development Association) Order 1978, laid before the House on 13th July, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 6) (International Development Association) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 13th July 1978, be approved. With the permission of the House, I should like at the same time to speak on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 7) (International Wheat Agreement) Order 1978, also laid before the House on 13th July 1978. In speaking to both orders at the same time I shall, of course, move them separately.
The House is, I think, now quite familiar with Orders in Council made under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act, 1972. Your Lordships will recall that the object of introducing these orders is to define formally or specify certain Community instruments as Community Treaties under Section 1 of the 1972 Act. The Schedule to the (No. 6) Order, specifies the Agreement between the European Economic Community, its Member States and the International Development Association, which was signed on 2nd May 1978 at Brussels.
The Schedule to the (No. 7) Order specifies two Protocols extending the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention. Together, these Conventions constitute the Fourth Extenson to the parent Agreement. The Protocols were opened for signature in Washington on 26th April 1978. The House debated and approved a similar extension of the Agreement last year, when it considered the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 2) Order, 1977.
I should like, first, to provide the House with information on the (No. 6) Order—the first on the Order Paper—relating to the International Development Association. The Agreement between the Community and the International Development Association, which is the subject of the (No. 6) Order, takes the form of a contract between the EEC, its Member States and the IDA under which the Member States undertake to make payments to the IDA's special action account, which is to be operated to benefit the poorer developing countries. It is necessary to specify the Agreement as a Community Treaty, to enable the United Kingdom to contribute its agreed share to that account.
The House will recall that the idea of a special action programme to help the poorer developing countries was conceived by the Community during the discussions which took place in the Paris Conference on International Economic Co-operation throughout 1976 and into the first half of 1977. These discussions centred on all main aspects of economic relations between the Western industrial nations and the developing countries—energy, raw materials, development and finance—and the worldwide problems which had arisen as a result of large increases in the price of oil, inflation, and dramatic fluctuations in commodity prices. It rapidly became clear at the Conference that some of the 29 countries recognised by the United Nations as "least developed", and some other poorer countries, were not able to cope effectively with these problems and maintain the pace of their development without increased aid transfers, preferably in a form they could expend effectively and quickly.
During the British Presidency of the EC Council of Ministers, therefore, the

873
Community took the lead in proposing to other industrial participants in the CIEC—that is, the Paris talks—an initiative for special action to provide additional aid to those poorer countries with special needs for such help. We were finally able to agree such a proposal and to table it in the last hours of the Paris Conference. The result was a "special action programme" of 1,000 million dollars, to which the Community undertook to contribute 385 million dollars, the United States 375 million dollars, Japan 114 million dollars, and Canada, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain together the remaining 126 million dollars. So that the Community is contributing 385 million dollars of the billion dollars, which has been agreed on. Subsequently, further contributions were promised to the programme by Austria and Norway. The Community took the view that to be fully effective this assistance had to be fast-spending, untied and additional to other aid flows.
For that reason, it consistently proposed that special action contributions should he channelled through multilateral bodies, and particularly through the International Development Association, which is the soft-loan arm of the World Bank and for which a new three-year replenishment of 7,600 million dollars had already been negotiated. In the event, most other industrial donors decided to provide bilateral assistance. Despite this, the Community felt its own reasoning to be valid, and decided to enter negotiations with the IDA to provide an additional special action account on top of its ordinary resources. These negotiations were successful and the Agreement between the Community, its Member States and the IDA was signed on 2nd May 1978.
There are strong reasons why We supported the IDA as the hest channel for the Community's contribution. The World Bank and the IDA have a deservedly high reputation for administrative efficiency and for securing really practical and well-conceived developmental programmes and projects. The expenditure of this money, therefore, will be hacked by all the experience and capacity of the World Bank's machinery. It should he possible for at least part of the account to be committed to purposes for which the
874
Bank staff have already done most of the preparatory appraisal.
We and other members of the Community will also be able to monitor progress on loans made both through the operation of consultation between the IDA and the Commission, and through our own representation on the World Bank's Executive Board. Because the money will flow through the IDA, no complicated new machinery will be needed. All the recipient countries will be well aware of how the IDA's machinery operates, and will know how to use it.
Ninety per cent. of the IDA's lending already goes to the poorest countries. This group of countries contains about four-fifths of the population of the developing world. We expect virtually all of the Community's contribution of 385 million dollars to go to them, and a good proportion of this is likely, in particular, to go to the poorer countries of Asia which do not benefit from aid under the Lomé Convention. Account will be taken of the special needs of individual countries, and the way in which they have been affected by adverse developments in the world economy. The loans will be interest free and the principal will be repaid within 50 years; in other words, these will be very soft loans indeed, as I suppose all loans, personal and otherwise, ought to he. Our own share of the 385 million dollars is 115 million dollars, and it is the largest to be made by any Member State, except the Federal Republic of Germany. This arrangement is ad hoc and creates no precedent. But it broadly reflects our position in, and strong support for, the IDA, and its effectiveness in distributing aid.
The Agreement contains one special provision which does not apply to ordinary IDA loans. Because, in the end, the Community was virtually alone in choosing to channel its special action through the IDA, the Council of Ministers decided that only Member States, and those developing countries eligible to benefit from the account, should be able to tender for orders when credits were granted. This condition has been accepted by the IDA. I hope that I have been able to convince the House that by adopting this draft order we shall be fulfilling a significant political commitment, in which we ourselves played a leading part, in

875
collaboration with our Community partners, and that the money we shall provide, which will be the equivalent of 115 million dollars, or about £67 million, will be used effectively to benefit the people and countries most in need.
I should like to turn now to the (No. 7) Order and the two Protocols specified therein. As I have already mentioned, the Wheat Trade Convention, together with the Food Aid Convention, comprises the International Wheat Agreement. The agreement came into operation on 1st July 1971 for a period of three years to 30th June 1974. It has been extended three times since then by Protocols, on the first two occasions by a period of one year and last time for two years expiring on 30th June 1978. Protocols extending the convention for a fourth time, for a further year, came into operation on 1st July 1978. That will take us to July 1979.
The objectives of the present Wheat Trade Convention are to further international co-operation on wheat problems, to expand international trade and to contribute to the stability of the international market. The objective of the Food Aid Convention is to guarantee a minimum annual supply of food aid in cereals to the developing countries.
It has been necessary to keep the 1971 agreement in operation until such time as a new international agreement on grains, with economic provisions, and a new Food Aid Convention can be worked out. As the noble Baroness knows, this is in counterpart to what we hope to work out under those two separate headings. The two arrangements are basically complementary; that is the word I wanted. They fit in. In one way or another, both should contribute to improved world food security, not least for the developing countries.
It is a remarkable fact that while so many of the developing countries, including the poorest among them, are dependent upon commodities—and frequently upon single commodities—nevertheless, in many cases it is those countries which suffer from the lack of food. It is a matter of variety and, indeed, of distribution. Aid in the form of food is not, for us, additional to other kinds of aid, and in some ways it is not so useful a tool for development. But it has a
876
special role to play, both in sudden emergencies and as a means of directly improving nutrition among the poorer and more vulnerable sections of the population. On top of this, if we help to subsidise part of the food import bill of the poorer countries, we can help indirectly to generate wider development.
Following several years of preliminary work in the International Wheat Council, a negotiating conference was held in Geneva, under UNCTAD auspices, in February-March of this year to negotiate a new international agreement to replace the International Wheat Agreement. Work is continuing, and negotiations seem likely to be resumed in a second conference in Geneva in the autumn of this year. If successful, a new agreement should take effect from 1st July 1979.
I have already referred to the fact that we are taken up to 1979. The situation beyond that depends—and depends confidently, I think—on the present and the autumn negotiations. In the meantime, it is most desirable that international cooperation on wheat and food aid matters should be continued. For this reason, we propose that the International Wheat Agreement should be extended for another year up to 30th June 1979. I am confident that the House, which on three earlier occasions has agreed to Orders in Council specifying Protocols extending for another year the life of the International Wheat Agreement, will do so again on this occasion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 6) (International Development Association) Order 1978, laid before the House on 13th July, be approved.—(Lord Goronwv-Roberts.)
3.45 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am aware that the House is waiting for a Statement from the Government Benches. Very briefly, therefore, I shall make five points. First, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for explaining as fully as he has, and with the care that he always takes in putting matters before your Lordships, the purpose of these orders. May I also say from these Benches that we welcome them. Secondly, we are pleased to see that the North-South

877
dialogue has, in fact, come out with something concrete in the way of aid to those countries which need it most.
Thirdly, we read with the greatest of pleasure in the Explanatory Note on page 2 of the order relating to the International Wheat Agreement that the United Kingdom has supported this move in favour of Community action. We on this side of the House welcome the fact that these contributions to Third World countries should be made through the Community rather than on a bilateral basis. Fourthly, so often we hear condemnation of surpluses. It would be beneficial if those who condemn them were to know that when there are surplus sales they can be used effectively and distributed to those areas of the world which need them and that surpluses are not necessarily in themselves a defect in our agricultural policy.
Finally, although I shall not expect the noble Lord to answer now, may I request that the food, aid and financial benefits which have been given to these countries should be monitored not only by the donor countries but by the receiving countries because, as the noble Lord has rightly said, very often the problem is a matter of distribution. So often we find that there are vast stores in those countries which need both food and finance, yet they do not reach the poorest element in the poorest countries. I know that we do not have time to debate this problem now, but may I ask the noble Lord to take on board the fact that when European Community countries are giving assistance to Third World countries they should ensure that the poorest people in the poorest countries benefit from the efforts of the Community. I support the orders.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the first point—the welcome given by the noble Baroness to these two orders, in particular to No. 7—I was delighted to hear the terms in which she expressed both her views and those of the Opposition. Regarding her second point —the North-South dialogue—it is perfectly true that this is an example of practical results flowing from the endless talk about how the developed can help the developing countries. It is a very good and a very substantial example of
878
how practical results can flow from meaningful discussions.
To turn to the third point made by the noble Baroness regarding the example given by Community action, certainly we hope that on future occasions the Community will emulate its own outstandingly good performance. I am sure that the noble Baroness will not mind if I add to her third point that the United Kingdom took a leading role in achieving this joint action by the Community through the Paris talks and as a result of those talks. On her fourth point regarding surpluses, one is tempted to discuss it not in any adversary sense. The noble Baroness will agree with me that the basic purpose is developmental and, therefore, that the criterion must be developmental—and the needs for development. I am bound to say that I agree entirely with her that the more intelligent the organisation of the disposal of surpluses is, the better it is for all concerned—for the developed as well as for the developing world.
If I may turn to the noble Baroness's fifth point about distribution, of course we are all aware of the hiccups, hitches, frustrations, and worse, in the distribution of substantial aid to various countries. This is why it was decided that the IDA, as the appropriate arm of the World Bank, should be chosen as the vehicle for this special action programme. As I have said, its machinery is well understood in the developing countries as well as in the donor countries. Nevertheless, it is right and helpful that the noble Baroness and I should, from our respective positions on behalf of the whole House, emphasise the need that these very substantial sums of money and these very useful goods and services should find their way to the individuals as well as to the countries whose need has been proven.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (No. 7) (INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT) ORDER 1978
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I beg to move,
Moved, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 7) (International Wheat Agreement) Order

879
1978, laid before the House on 13th July, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BROADCASTING: FUTURE POLICY
3.50 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"The White Paper on Broadcasting published today sets out the Government's proposals for the future constitution, structure and organisation of broadcasting in the United Kingdom. It has been prepared in the light of the report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting, under the Chairmanship of Lord Annan, and of the many comments received on the Committee's recommendations.
"I would first pay tribute to the performance of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the independent television and radio companies. The Government's proposals are designed to ensure that the quality and range of broadcasting services are maintained and, wherever possible, improved. We also want to ensure that our broadcasting system will be able to respond to the technological developments which will take place over the next decade or so.
"Our principal conclusion is that our broadcasting services should continue to be provided as public services and the responsibility of public authorities. But our proposals are also designed to encourage diversity in the range and variety of material available to the public and to enhance the accountability of the broadcasting authorities.
"The BBC will continue to be responsible for all the broadcasting services it now provides, but changes will be made in its internal structure to enable the Board of Governors to concentrate on their supervisory role as trustees of the public interest. In particular, three new Services Management
880
Boards, responsible to the Board of Governors, will be set up to take responsibility for supervising the programme strategy and management of each of the BBC's main services—Television, Radio and the External Services. Half of the members of each Board will be independent persons appointed by the Home Secertary from outside the BBC's staff—persons who are qualified to make a positive and distinctive contribution to the work of the Boards. The changes will also encourage diversity among the BBC's various services as regards programme-making and the approach to news and current affairs.
"Independent television and radio will continue to be provided by companies under contract to the IBA. The IBA will also supervise other local broadcasting services, such as cable and pilot schemes of pay-televison.
"A unique opportunity will be missed if the capacity to provide a new television service on the fourth television channel is not used to widen the choice available to viewers. An Open Broadcasting Authority (OBA) will be established to supervise the new service on this channel. The OBA will not itself make programmes but will act as a publisher, free to commission programmes from any source. The independent television companies will be regular suppliers of programmes and, particularly in the early years, the source of a significant part of the output of the fourth channel. The OBA will also be able to commission or buy programmes from the BBC and independent producers. The fourth television channel will be engineered by the IBA, which will also be responsible for transmitting the fourth channel service. The OBA will, therefore, need only a relatively small organisation to carry out its functions.
"The OBA will have a special obligation to seek a variety of material including programmes for tastes and interests which cannot be covered on the present services. It will include educational programmes and also be able to develop its own news service in due course. As regards programme standards, the OBA will be bound by the same obligations as the BBC and

881
the IBA, with one exception. Although it must ensure due impartiality (that is, treat controversial matters fairly), it will be relieved of the duty to preserve a proper balance of programmes and wide range of subject matter on the service as a whole because to do so would he inconsistent with its primary duty of promoting diversity.
"The Government accept that a service of this kind is bound to need a measure of Government assistance, particularly in the early years. But the Government will expect the new authority to look to advertising of various kinds—spot-advertising, block advertising and sponsorship—to provide an important and increasing source of finance for its operations.
"Local radio will be further developed. The existing services of the BBC and the IBA have proved deservedly popular and both authorities will be permitted to expand them. The Government are not persuaded that there is need for a new authority to supervise local radio such as the Annan Committee recommended. The ultimate intention will be for as many areas of the country as possible to have two local radio services. A working party is to he set up at once to plan the immediate and long-term development of local radio.
"The Government have been mindful of their acceptance of the commitment in principle to the provision of more television programmes in the Welsh language. The Government propose, therefore, that in Wales the fourth television channel should accommodate an expanded Welsh Language programme service which it is hoped to start in the autumn of 1982. The detailed arrangements are discussed in the Home Office Working Party Report which I am also publishing today. The supervision of the service will be shared by the three broadcasting authorities (OBA, BBC and IBA) through their representation on a new Welsh Language Television Council.
"In future, it is proposed that the responsibility for our broadcasting services will therefore rest with three authorities: the BBC, the IBA and the
882
OBA. Their independence must be preserved. But they must also be fully accountable to the public. To this end, they will be required to hold public hearings from time to time in different parts of the country to ascertain the views of the public on their respective services. Public hearings will also be an integral part of the IBA's future procedures for awarding franchises.
"In addition, an independent Broadcasting Complaints Commission will be set up to consider complaints of misrepresentation, or of unjust or unfair treatment, or of invasion of privacy in programmes broadcast by any of the authorities. The Commission will also be able to comment on other complaints about any failure by the broadcasting authorities to observe acceptable standards, for example, in relation to the portrayal of violence or as regards due impartiality.
"There is considerable public concern about the portrayal of violence on television. The Government believe that the only safe course at present is for the broadcasting authorities to assume undesirable effects from the portrayal of violence. The authorities should review their present codes and guidance, and monitor the amount of violence in their programmes.
"The White Paper deals with a great many other detailed points, but these are the main proposals. Discussions with the broadcasting organisations about the proposals will take place in the near future. The Government will also wish to consider the views of any other individuals and organisations who may wish to comment on the proposals. Legislation will be introduced as soon as possible to give effect to these proposals, and a new Royal Charter will be sought for the BBC. Above all, the Government believe that these proposals will provide a structure for the next decade which, in the public interest, will accommodate technological change and encourage all that is best in our present system." My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.59 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord for

883
relaying the Statement which has been made in another place. Overall, it is a very large box of chocolates, of which I am afraid, in some cases, we do not like all the flavours, although we are in agreement with what has been said in many cases. Specifically, some of the points which I think concern us most are those regarding the BBC and also the allocation of the fourth channel. However, coming back to the points with which we are in agreement, obviously, I shall not list them all but I am glad to see the proposals on local radio and shall look forward to seeing what happens when the working party gets under way. The complaints procedure is also something which I think is an excellent proposal.
However, so far as the BBC is concerned, I think from this side of the House we are somewhat concerned at the proliferation of "quangos" being set up. I do not see how you can fight bureaucracy—and I know the BBC has been criticised for being monolithic—by introducing more bureaucracy. The point that is most worrying about it is that, in the case of these service management boards, half of the members are going to be appointed from outside by the Home Secretary. This is a new system. I do not think it is one that is of advantage. In fact it could be extremely dangerous, as certain views could quite easily take over. We shall need considerable undertakings and reassurances as to how these organisations will be set up.
As to the fourth channel, this is the point that comes across. It is an attempt to produce a diversity of interests, but the problem will be the financing. Although I have not been able to go through the White Paper fully, it did not seem to be exact in saying how the system was to be financed, for instance in terms of producing a certain amount of income from advertising. Unless it is made far more attractive to the advertiser, I cannot see much income coming from that side.
This is a good proposal so far as the Welsh are concerned, although the worry is—and I am sure that the noble Lord will give us some reassurance on this—that many of the Welsh are not too keen on having entirely Welsh language programmes. There are certain dangers if they did take over on that side. Overall, we are grateful to the noble Lord for
884
relaying the Statement and for some of its aspects. It will require considerable study. There are some aspects about which we are concerned.
4.2 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we too are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, which was a summary of the White Paper and which in very large part, although not entirely, adopts the recommendations of the wholly admirable, comprehensive and perceptive report of the Annan Committee.
I would only raise one matter at this stage; that is, the proposal that the BBC should have three service management boards, one of which is to be responsible for the external services. I urge upon the noble Lord the crucial importance that those very highly praised external services of the BBC should continue to he accepted by their large listening public in overseas countries as being entirely free of any Government interference or intervention. I entirely accept that the Home Secretary would be not only able but anxious to appoint wholly impartial people to the membership of those boards. But there is a very real danger that, however independent those members may be, their presence will be widely regarded abroad as indicating a wholly undesirable degree of Government control over the programmes.
4.4 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am obliged for much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Dealing with one or two points, I am grateful for what Lord Redesdale said about his agreement with our proposals for the complaints procedure, which think will be widely welcomed—they were in the debate which we had in this House—and indeed on the Welsh channel, although he entered a caveat. There is widespread dissatisfaction in Wales about the existing situation. What we have announced today will go a long way to reassure Welsh public opinion, which is profoundly dissatisfied with the present situation.
There were a number of items on which there was inevitably an element of disagreement. I understand the argument

885
about the fourth channel. Noble Lords opposite would prefer this to have gone to the independent companies. They made their position on this quite clear when we discussed the report of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Of course we must debate this matter in the future. However, we have come to the conclusion that the right way of proceeding when we set up this new fourth channel is to have a new statutory authority, although it will be of a different character from the existing broadcasting organisations. I think that will be welcomed by many people outside this House.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that it is important, especially in relation to our external services, that people abroad should not get the impression that these are in some way being manipulated by the Government. I agree with the noble Lord. There is no intention on our part so to do.
It would be inappropriate, given the fact of such widespread agreement with some aspects of our proposals today, to introduce a partisan point. However, I am bound to say that I was mildly surprised to hear such vociferous cheers from the Opposition at what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, because the only recent example where there has been an attempt to manipulate the external services of the BBC was during the Suez adventure in 1956, when a Foreign Office official was sent to Bush House. The response to that incident had a substantial effect on the Corporation. Certainly, we would in no way wish to create the impression, which an incident of this kind did create at the time, that there was any desire on our part to manipulate the external services of the BBC for self-interested Government purposes.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, the White Paper states, quite properly, that the Government intend to have discussions with the broadcasting organisations before the legislation is introduced. That seems to me wholly appropriate. They intend to introduce legislation at an early opportunity. However, do I take it that this House and another place are not to be consulted before the legislation is introduced? I should have thought it would be extremely welcome and entirely
886
proper that this document, which was presented to Parliament today. should be debated. I should have thought that, in their own interests, the Government would wish to consult public opinion as expressed in another place and in this House, particularly as the discussion may well follow a General Election, and therefore a new Parliament, which will have had the opportunity of bringing itself up to date on the state of public opinion.
It would be reassuring to know that the Government will not just have private consultations—if that is not over-stating it—with the broadcasting authorities, but that another place, particularly, and this House, as representative of and as a sounding board for public opinion, will be consulted.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that is quite fair. I agree with it. It would be wrong for us not to have debates in both Houses on these proposals. I am sure that we shall do so before introducing legislation.
4.8 p.m.
Lord HILL of LUTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that following a brief and inevitably inadequate reading of the White Paper in the time available, one's first reaction is to give it a warm general welcome? A further scrutiny of the proposals in detail may change one's view, including the issue raised both by the noble Lord speaking for the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—the point of the three service boards. I confess it arouses in me a fear that it will damage the service in two ways: first, by diminishing the responsibility of the managing director in charge of the service and, even more important, by impairing the responsibility of the Board of Governors for the service as a whole. Nevertheless, doubts about detailed issues should not lead one to withhold a warm general welcome for these proposals.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Speaking on behalf of the Government, it is reassuring that the noble Lord said what he did, given his substantial past experience with both the IBA and the BBC. I accept that Parliament will wish to discuss these proposals so far as the

887
service management boards are concerned. This is a new proposal. It was not a proposal of the Annan Committee.
The noble Lord will recall that some anxiety was expressed by the Annan Committee about whether the BBC had not on some occasions been rather too impervious to criticism. We considered those proposals. We considered the minority report, where six members of the Committee recommended the splitting of the BBC. We came to the conclusion that that would be wrong. We considered, in the light of all the circumstances, that what we have proposed today was the right way of proceeding. I accept at once that there must be detailed discussion of this matter in order to reassure Parliament. I would add—I think perfectly reasonably—that this is the right way in which to proceed.
Earl DE LA WARR: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to tell us whether at any time during the Government's consideration of the future of broadcasting they have asked themselves whether there is any need to have a fourth programme at all? Have they said to themselves, "There happens to be a gap in the ether", just as there will be two more gaps when we re-engineer bands 1 and 3? Have they by any chance said, "We shall not think about this: we shall just assume that when the gaps appear they will be filled"? Have they taken into account the superb quality—by standards anywhere in the world—of what we have at present? Have they taken into account that within a maximum of two years the video disc campaign will have taken off and people will be able to watch what they like on their sets and not only what comes over the air? In short—because I must not fall into the trap of making a speech—have they said to themselves, "Is this really necessary?"
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, before my noble friend replies—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I shall deal first with the noble Earl's question and then with pleasure with my noble friend's. Of course we asked ourselves the precise question which the noble Earl implied that we should have asked ourselves. We came to the conclusion
888
that there should be a fourth channel as was recommended by the Annan Committee. I have indicated today the framework which we think appropriate as regards the new fourth channel. On the second point raised by the noble Earl, Yes, I agree with him. I entirely share the view of the Annan Committee—as do the Government in their White Paper—that the existing Statutory organisations have done an absolutely first-class job. We almost certainly have the best television and radio services in the world and we should be very proud of that fact.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, I was about to say before my noble friend replied to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that he might take into account that whatever happened to English ether, Welsh ether would very much welcome the opportunity of using a fourth channel.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, would my noble friend accept that the proposals for local radio are to be very warmly welcomed, since it would have been quite wrong for local radio to have been taken away from the BBC and the IBA? What is particularly acceptable about the local radio proposals is the keen sensitivity the Government have shown towards the needs of deprived areas. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he can somewhat amplify paragraph 34 of the White Paper and say how many local radio stations it is proposed should be authorised in the immediate future and what proportion—if it is possible at present to say—of the population is likely to be covered when that immediate-term programme is completed. What is the ultimate aim so far as the coverage of the total population is concerned?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there are two issues involved in my noble friend's question. First, the Annan proposal that there should be established a local broadcasting authority. We went over that ground in some detail during the debate which we had on the Annan Report. In the light of that debate, the debate that took place in another place and the discussions which we have had, we have come to the conclusion that it is right to leave local radio with the BBC and with the Independent

889
Broadcasting Authority. I think that there was overwhelming public support for continuing our present arrangements and we certainly recognise that.
My noble friend then went on to ask how many stations there will be. I cannot answer that question today. All that I can say to him is that we want to make some significant progress now in this direction. We recognise that the development of local radio has had to be held up while the Annan Committee was doing its work in the later months and during the period in which the Government have been considering this matter. We shall be inviting representatives of the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority to meet us to discuss these very issues in the immediate future.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement and say how very much I appreciate what he said about the monitoring of violence in programmes. The noble Lord no doubt may know that the Composers' Guild, of which I am a member—and I must declare an interest in that regard—recently sent an official protest to the BBC about the very small amount of time given in music programmes to living British composers. Is there any hope that the new authorities will have their attention drawn to this matter? Is there any hope that perhaps the situation may become a little better?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, certainly the creation of a new channel could conceivably have just that effect. I am certainly aware that there has been some concern in this direction, but the noble Lord has very usefully drawn our attention to this matter today.
Lord BOYLE of HANDSWORTH: My Lords, I should like to ask a specific question about Paragraph 12 in the White Paper in the chapter on the fourth channel which says:
"The Government share the Annan Comittee's view that the service should include educational programmes, including some additional programmes for the Open University and also programmes which cater for minority tastes and interests".
Will the Minister make it plain that those educational programmes could include vocational programmes as well as
890
non-vocational programmes? Are the Government aware that in the view of some people the proposed fourth channel, which certainly I support, could play an important part for mature students in professional life who cannot conveniently attend a university or a polytechnic because of the location where they live? Is he also aware that not only many Extra Mural Departments in universities but also the National Union of Students would like to see added emphasis these days laid on opportunities for vocational courses in all kinds of ways that can be made available?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord has identified an important matter and I certainly agree with him that this is exactly the area into which the new channel could move.
Lord EVANS of HUNGERSHALL: My Lords, do the Government still feel that there should be a separate news service attached to the fourth channel? If so, how much will it cost?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that we have made it clear that we want to move in that direction as soon as possible. We recognise that there will be costs involved as regards the development of a new service, but nevertheless it would also create a great deal of opportunity as well. However, we recognise, in the language which we have used, that it will take a little time to establish this.

COMMUNITY ROAD TRANSPORT RULES (EXEMPTIONS) REGULATIONS 1978
4.19 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN rose to move, That the draft Community Road Transport Rules (Exemptions) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 3rd July, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the approval of the House I should like to speak to both the Community Road Transport Rules (Exemptions) Regulations 1978 and The Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1978. As your Lordships will be aware from the regulations themselves, the issues which we are about

891
to debate are highly complex in detail. Nevertheless, I shall endeavour to explain, as briefly as possible, both the background to the making of these regulations, and their objectives.
Both sets of regulations derive directly from the coming into force of EEC rules on drivers' hours, for internal traffic in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the year. The concept of controls on drivers' hours is not new. They have been regulated in this country since before the war—the most recent domestic Code being set out in the Transport Act 1968. The controls under the 1968 Act regulate daily driving time, as well as putting limits on a driver's duty time, that is to say the time he spends on all work, including driving and on "spreadover" which is the total period from the time he first signs on for duty on any day, to the time when he finally finishes work. I should add, my Lords, that for passenger operations, the original restrictions in the 1968 Act were in practice found to he too onerous, and had to be relaxed considerably by order, in 1971. Thus, there are effectively two quite different régimes under the 1968 Act, covering goods and passenger vehicle drivers respectively.
The EEC Regulation on drivers' hours—the so-called Social Regulation EEC 543/69—came into effect in the original Member States in 1969. The Regulation was accepted by the United Kingdom during the Treaty negotiations, subject to some delay in implementation. Under the terms of the Treaty of Accession, it has applied to British vehicles on international journeys since April 1973. However, for purely internal traffic, the Treaty provided that it should not become effective until 1st January 1976. Moreover, power was given to the European Commission to defer this date still further, but not beyond 1st January 1978, if it could be proved that implementation would have serious adverse effects. The Government managed to persuade the Commission to use this power on three occasions, the final deferment stretching to the ultimate date. During this time, after very long and difficult negotiations culminating in the Transport Council last October, the Government secured agreement to a new provision which would enable the more restrictive provision of the Regulation to he phased-in in this country over a three-year transitional period.
During the negotiations last October, agreement was also reached on a number of powers of exemption—or derogation—from the Regulation. Some authorise Member States to apply a limited number of exemptions, after consultation with the Commission. Others authorise the Commission to allow exemptions, on application from Member States. We have now completed our consultations and discussions with the Commission about these derogations, and the exemption regulations are now required to implement the agreements reached.
From the point of view of the road transport industry as a whole, it would be wrong to exaggerate the significance of these exemptions. The powers of derogation in the EEC Regulation are still fairly confined. Nevertheless, they do offer considerable help to specific sectors of the industry.
These exemptions cover three main areas. First, there is an exemption from the need to keep full EEC-type records for local goods traffic so long as the use of tachographs is not mandatory. The fact that it would be inappropriate for drivers in this area to be required to keep records was already recognised under the 1968 Transport Act. This exemption therefore effectively restores an important concession which was previously enjoyed under British law. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is currently consulting the industry about a simplified record sheet to be used by such drivers. This is to fulfill a requirement in the EEC regulation that Member States must take steps to check on compliance with the rules so as to ensure that standards of employee protection and road safety rare not impaired. The aim of the simplified record is, therefore, to ensure that the derogation is not abused.
The other two main areas cover complete exemption from the EEC rules, putting the traffic affected outside the scope of the regulation completely, and back under the controls of the Transport Act. The important exemptions here are for passenger vehicles not equipped to carry more than 15 people overall, and for a specific list of freight operations. This final category includes the transport of live animals between farms and markets, and the general transport of milk. So far as the transport of milk is concerned,

893
there are certain provisos, and the exemption ceases on 31st December 1980. But the Government will be returing to the Commission in an attempt to negotiate a permanent exemption in due course.
The derogation regulations also cover associated exemptions from EEC tachograph requirements. These are purely technical exemptions at present since, as the House will know, the Government are currently in dispute with the Commission about tachographs. I need only add that these regulations are to be made under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1974. They are laid subject to Affirmative Resolution in order to take account of the views of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, bearing in mind that, on this occasion—unlike the order which was made about the phasing of implementation—the Government had a real measure of discretion about what to include in the regulations.
I now turn to the much more detailed subject of the harmonisation regulations. I have said that there has been a domestic code on drivers' hours, and working time, for very many years, and that this was up-dated in 1968. The key point is that, whereas the EEC code, like the 1968 Act, limits driving time—though the limit is different—and makes more extensive provision for daily and weekly breaks, it imposes no specific control on duty time and spreadover. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State believes that such controls provide an important protection for drivers and that to give up such protection would be socially regressive. He has therefore decided to make it clear that these provisions still apply.
There are then the added complications, first, that the EEC regulation is to be implemented by stages in this country and, secondly, that it has applied in full since 1973 to all our international traffic. Finally, there is an amount of traffic outside the scope of the EEC rules, which remains subject to the Transport Act.
The regulations are needed, therefore, to make the necessary amendments to the detailed provisions of Section 96—which deals with drivers' hours—when they apply to drivers subject to the EEC rules and drivers engaged on mixed EEC and non-EEC driving, in order to make them
894
compatible with the EEC code, where the two interact.
What my right honourable friend has tried to do is to keep the status quo so far as possible, to clarify the law, and to ensure that we keep the present controls on duty time and spreadover. This latter point is one to which the unions attach maximum importance in view of the protection it offers to drivers, though I admit that the employers are against it because they believe that it means extra rigidity. On the other hand, the Secretary of State has sought to introduce into our own domestic code the somewhat greater flexibility of the EEC code as regards the length and the timing of breaks for rest and refreshment.
We all recognise that the total result is extremely complicated. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the individual driver or operator, the effect of the regulations will be relatively straightforward and, as in the past, the Department of Transport will be issuing comprehensive guidance—I am assured in layman's language—when the regulations are made. In the meantime, the details have been explained, in words which I cannot better, in the supplementary guidance notes which were made available to your Lordships.
Before I complete my remarks, I should like to say that. in the relatively short time since the beginning of the year, the industry has been asked to give its views on the contents of both sets of regulations against very tight deadlines. I should like to take this opportunity to place on record the Government's appreciation of the speed and consideration with which the industry has reacted under circumstances which have been very difficult for it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Community Road Transport Rules (Exemptions) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 3rd July, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)
4.29 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has given us a very comprehensive and clear explanation of the two Statutory Instruments that are on today's Order Paper. The fact that she was able to do so when the subject matter is so intricate and complex

895
is real evidence of a full return to health, which we all welcome.
Far be it from me to complain about difficulties and entanglements that follow from our membership of the European Economic Community. This afternoon we are looking at part of the inevitable process that throws up the odd clash and the odd discrepancy as the two systems for looking at drivers' hours and Community road transport rules meet and then mix. As I understand it, in these Instruments we are seeing the outcome of the mingling of the two systems, which are now being incorporated into our domestic law through the medium of these Statutory Instruments.
It is not easy to follow, and these regulations are not the only ones. Certainly I have never seen a Statutory Instrument which required a supplementary note to explain what it meant which went on for several pages. I am not complaining about it because I find it most helpful, but even at the back of that supplementary note there is a list of the extant legislation on drivers' hours and records, and that list contains no fewer than 21 different items of legislation. This is a real barbed-wire entanglement.
The first question I should like to put to the noble Baroness, while recognising all the difficulties following the end of the period during which we were only transitional members of the EEC, is this: Will the Government please start at once, if they have not already started, to work out a more comprehensive system for incorporating all these road transport rules in one document which, let us say, came out annually and was annually revised. People would know that in the period running up to that instrument being issued things might be going to change, but they would at least be aware that there were not as many as 21 bits of paper that they had to look at, and that there was perhaps somewhere a handbook to which they could easily refer. That is a plea for codification and consolidation and not a criticism of a Party political nature, because these complexities flow inevitably from our membership of the Community.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for taking a moment or two, because these Instruments are rather more important than many Statutory Instruments that
896
we discuss. The first one contains on page 2 an interesting statement in which the Government say:
"(c) until the compulsory installation of the recording equipment provided for in Article 1 …"
What does that mean? Does that mean that the Government have changed their view on tachographs, or is it still the situation that they will get away with not obeying the law of the Community for as long as they can? Perhaps this is a welcome sign that they are going to be prepared to acquiesce in what the court in Luxembourg finally tells them to do. Perhaps the noble Baroness could clear up that point.
Then looking through the other provisions of this Statutory Instrument I was particularly concerned by paragraph 5 where the Instrument talks about operations for the transport of milk. I gave the noble Baroness notification of this point. I am not criticising what Her Majesty's Government have negotiated on our behalf, that is not the purpose of my inquiry. I realise that these Instruments put in statutory form the result of negotiations, and so therefore they are something that has been agreed, and it would not do an enormous amount of good to chuck them out or defer them for the consideration of another place, or whatever else we may feel like doing. However, what I am concerned about is that the Commission say that the Milk Marketing Board is not against the Treaty. It did not need the present Minister of Agriculture to convince them of that, but that is the case. They are not against the way we collect our milk, process it. distribute it, and sell it. We know that is a fact. Why is there this temporary permission to have these exemptions for the transport of milk until only 31st December 1980? The only other point I would make is that as you get bulk tank deliveries and bulk milk collections spreading throughout the country, there will be more transport of milk in refrigerated vehicles rather than less, so these exemptions become of increasing importance.
There is one point from the Transport Bill which I still fail to understand. Here, in a Community context, we have detailed systems laid down, detailed rules, and fully elaborated ways for the industry to operate, and Parliament has a look at it. I wish that that example could have

897
been followed in the guidelines we were talking about for the diversion of lorries, because if we can do it in the EEC as a result of a Treaty obligation it is a pity that we cannot do it in our own domestic legislation.
I pass briefly to the second of the Instruments. May I ask the noble Baroness why she and her Department had to withdraw the first draft? I know that this illustrates the difficulties of the whole subject and I am not surprised that she found it necessary to have a second bite, but could we be told what it was that led to the first part affecting Section 96 being struck out of the first draft Instrument? I think that these two Instruments together form an integral part of Community transport policy as it applies in this country. They give us a useful indication of what it is that the rules now boil down to.
Nevertheless, while accepting and welcoming broadly what it is that they try to achieve, I make a point that perhaps is more suitably made in this House than the other place, that there is a new situation since we joined the Community, Some of our old law is superseded; some of it remains in force. Some of it is overtaken by what is negotiated in Brussels; some stays on the Statute Book. When a large number of individuals depend for their safety and livelihood on the implementation, and the understanding, of this intricate new system, it is the duty of the Government to say, "How can we make it clear? How can we make it open for all to apply themselves to, if they want to?" I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to answer that point. I thank her for the way that she has explained these Instruments to us, and I hope that they will soon he made clearer for everyone to understand. Meanwhile, I welcome them.
4.38 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I should like to proffer a purely personal opinion on the Drivers' Hours Order regarding passengers. Alas we have no alternative but to approve this order, and it is unfortunate that we did not ask for exemptions when we entered the Community, which was the time to do it. I must express my regret for these stringent regulations, which will have far-reaching
898
effects and result in massive cuts in many existing bus services—which have been seriously depleted over the years—because they will become impractical to run, as there are very few drivers to run them already.
One of the reasons why we have a depleted stage bus service is that people have cars, but it is also because there are fewer drivers because the work is now considered to be unpopular. The noble Baroness has gone into great detail—for which, like my noble friend, I am most grateful—about these regulations passed in 1968, which were then modelled on the existing draft EEC regulations. The Government later on did indeed have to relax these for precisely the same reasons which I have put forward. The position regarding the availability of drivers and the general situation has not changed, and therefore I am afraid the outlook is very dismal for the future of the public passenger services.
4.40 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord O'Hagan in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for her explanation, though I fear I do not have the same comprehension as my noble friend because I could not follow it as well as he obviously did.
Lord O'HAGAN: I did not claim to have been so clever as to follow it, my Lords; I tried.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: In that case, my Lords, if I try I may also achieve some success. I was encouraged by the Minister's assurance that at some later time an explanation will be given in layman's language. Most of the people affected by these two Instruments are not serviced by large office staffs; we are probably dealing with an owner driver who must make his own interpretation, and in a busy working day he can make mistakes. The Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the officials deserve a measure of congratulation for having achieved the exemptions. I suspect that a good deal of hard work went into the negotiations. Regrettably, however, some of the exemptions are based on the 1968 Act, and Section 96 of that Act gives rise to great difficulty in the

899
industry. I am wondering whether the time has come for the provisions of that Act, as they relate to our domestic transportation problems, to be reviewed and perhaps in due course amended.
As for the harmonisation regulations, I note a certain disharmony in that the Minister has set alongside the domestic law the EEC law and has taken, so far as he is concerned, the best of both worlds. However, he has retained the worst of that which the industry has complained. A number of noble Lords may be tempted to accuse me of looking at only one side, and perhaps I do, but on this occasion I suggest it is not the haulage industry with which one should always be concerned. There is a unique situation in this country, probably because we are an island and 85 per cent. of our goods travel by road rather than by any other mode, and one has difficulty in repect of certain trades. Think, for example, of the farming, horticultural, fruit and vegetable industries which are put to great difficulty in that much of the produce is delivered straight from the point of harvest to market. The regulations which now apply bear heavily on an industry which must service another industry, and unless we are careful I fear that many of these goods, which most people would agree reach the market fresh, in many instances within hours of harvest, will arrive in a deteriorated condition and a considerably greater expense because of that.
Here there are difficulties in interpreting the regulations—whether one should opt for the exemption covered under the 30-day rule or for the 50 kilometre rule—and I wonder whether it would be possible in future, as we look at these regulations (and of course we will be looking at them from time to time) to expand the 50 kilometre rule to take care of our very particular domestic situation. I thank Lady Stedman for the courtesy and helpfulness with which she attended to my inquiries of the Department, I fear, as usual, at very short notice.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the House has received these complicated and difficult regulations. To answer the first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord
900
O'Hagan—we discussed this a little last night and I had some indication of the matters he would take up with me today—so far as all the different Acts are concerned and the difficulty of the layman in finding his way through them, we are proposing to produce a handbook and we will be giving an assurance to keep that handbook as up to date as possible. Our problem is that we will not be able to consolidate our law because part of it is EEC law, which we cannot touch anyway, some of it is in three Acts and some in regulations. However, we shall be establishing the handbook; it is in preparation now and we are trying to put it in readable layman's language so that operators and drivers are able to understand and find their way about it.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I was wondering whether it would be possible, in view of the large number of Statutory Instruments on the same subject, either to group them together or incorporate them in a larger one so that people would know at a particular time of the year that everything would be updated. Is that technically impossible? Is there some good reason for not doing it? A large number of Statutory Instruments about transport come at different times.
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, and I understand that we are hoping to group the different Statutory Instruments to make it as easy as possible for everyone to follow them and to put them in language which the ordinary person can understand far better than the Parliamentary language which we use now.
On the question of tachographs, the text of the regulations must reflect the terms of the EEC regulation. It does not affect the main tachograph issue, which is still before the European Court; and as I have said on previous questions on this point, when we have the result of the hearing by the European Court my Secretary of State will have to make up his mind and consult with both Houses about his action on that
The point was made about the withdrawal of an earlier regulation. I understand that was purely because we in the Department had been very co-operative—doing all those things we are advised to do by the Joint Commtitee on Statutory Instruments, consulting with the officers

901
concerned as to the technicality or otherwise of them and so on—and we were advised that one of the paragraphs was completely unnecessary and should be taken out. Thus, the original Instrument was withdrawn, that paragraph was taken out and we have the one before the House this afternoon. We were simply doing all those things we had been advised to do by the Joint Committee.
On the question of milk, I know there are problems and much concern. My officials and Secretary of State have been working very hard to try to do something about this matter. The point of course is that we did not come into the EEC at the beginning and therefore we must accept these regulations for the period for which they are running. The time we have been given is till 1980, and I understand that discussions are going on continuously about it. The Commission have not ruled against us, but they want an opportunity for us and for them to look again, towards the end of the three-year period, at the question of the phased implementation. We will in due course be asking for an extension and we want to give an assurance to the milk producers and transporters that we are aware of their problems and are negotiating, and will continue to negotiate.
The noble Lord then asked about the EEC regulations and our own laws. As I explained, we have the EEC regulations for international traffic and our own Acts for our domestic traffic which limit the duty time as well as the driving time and the relaxed passenger restrictions from 1971. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, says, that some people have reservations about the Transport Bill, about the drivers' hours for passenger vehicles, and so on. I do not share his views—as he will have gathered from our previous discussions across the Floor of the House—but I note his comments and I will make sure that my Secretary of State is aware that there is some concern and he will no doubt keep this under control and in review.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, expressed appreciation of the exemptions that we have been able to obtain so far. He congratulated the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, on the way he had followed the regulations and said
902
that he could not follow them. I am not sure that he will follow what I am going to tell him in answer to his question about fruit and potato merchants. In the official language, and for the record, it is that Regulation 2 sets out very limited exemptions to the EEC drivers' hours rules which are made possible under Article 14(a)(i) of those rules. In each case the exemptions apply only to traffic operating within a radius of 50 kilometres from base. Regulation 2(a) allows the "continuous driving" limitation (at present 5 hours and eventually 4 hours on 1st January, 1981) to be disregarded, provided the required number of breaks are taken throughout the day. That is of very limited use since very few drivers are likely to drive for 5 hours continuously and yet remain within the 50 kilometres.
Regulation 2(b) allows the daily rest requirement (normally 11 hours) to be reduced to 10 hours for drivers engaged in harvest produce, for a period of 30 days only in any year, and provided the difference is added to the weekly rest period. That, I accept, is of little use to the fruit and potato merchants because of the limit of 50 kilometres and because it covers only 30 days in one year. Regulation 2(c) relaxes the requirement to keep the EEC individual control book for traffic within 50 kilometres of base but only until tachographs become mandatory and moreover the keeping of a simplified daily record sheet will be required. We are consulting the industry about this matter. I understand that put in fairly simple language, it means that they can drive within the limits that are laid down anywhere they like, round and round and up and down within their 50 kilometres and they can do it for 30 days in one year I am quite sure that that does not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, but that is the official answer to the question that he gave notice he would ask.
In a lighter tone I had an indication from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who is not with us, that he was concerned that in this House when we are discussing EEC matters we talk about "harmonisation". He wanted to lodge an objection, had he been here, that we were using musical connotations for EEC legislation. Perhaps I might close by saying that I am advised that the translation of the French word

903
"harmonisation", besides its usual musical connotation, also means the attuning of ideas, which we hope we have achieved this afternoon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRIVER'S HOURS (HARMONISA- TION WITH COMMUNITY RULES) REGULATIONS 1978
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the draft Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 17th July, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (COFFEE EXTRACTS AND CHICORY EXTRACTS) ORDER 1978
4.53 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Coffee Extracts and Chicory Extracts) Order 1978, laid before the House on 28th June 1978 be approved and that the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Various Goods) (Termination of Imperial Quantities) Order 1978. laid before the House on 28th June 1978 be approved.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord proposing to speak to both orders simultaneously?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the noble Lord beat me by a short head because in the next paragraph I was about to say so. I am in fact moving both orders together if it meets the convenience of the House.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not sure it is in order to move both together. The noble Lord can speak to both together but he will have to move them both separately. I shall wish to speak to them separately.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, that is a technical point. In point of fact at the end of my speech the Motion will be put for the first one and later on formally I shall put the second one. Is that clear to the noble Lord?
Lord TREFGARNE: Clear, but not very satisfactory.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, for the convenience of the House as I have just indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, unless any noble Lord objects, I shall speak on the two orders at the same time and later the votes will be taken separately.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not going to prevent the noble Lord from doing that, I am sure it would be to the convenience of the House, but I wish that the noble Lord had told me through the usual channels that that was what he intended.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am sorry. I had no indication of any disapproval of this practice. It is normal practice which we have followed on previous orders. I agree that, so far as my remarks are concerned, I cannot move the two orders at the same time. That is an impossibility anyway. May I say to the noble Lord that I am sorry about this matter, but we can easily cope with the problem, and if he wants me to do so I will take the first one first.
I turn first to the draft Coffee and Chicory Extracts proposals. The main effect of this draft order is permissive, in that it allows coffee and chicory extracts (which include the popular "instant coffee" products) to be sold in a range of prescribed metric quantities from 1st July 1979 in addition to the existing range of imperial prescribed quantities as set out in the 1963 Weights and Measures Act. The new metric range has already been accepted for application throughout EEC countries and is included in the EEC Coffee Extracts and Chicory Extracts Directive adopted in June 1977.
The draft order now before the House therefore has the effect of advancing our metrication programme for prescribed quantity goods while at the same time implementing the main weights and measures obligations of the EEC Directive.

905
By making the order at this time sufficient notice is given to British packers so that plans can be laid for the production of metric packs by July next year which is when, under the Directive, there will be free circulation of such packs throughout the EEC.
The Directive allows a choice of either 250 grams or 300 grams as part of the metric range and allows 150 grams as a transitional size for four years. In a range where the smaller sizes are 50 grams, 100 grams and 200 grams, the more logical choice for the purposes of price comparison is 300 grams as included in the draft order. Industry and consumer interest share this preference. There is no call for the transitional 150 grams to be included in the United Kingdom range. It is necessary therefore to let packers and importers have early indications of our intentions on these aspects and on other ancillary provisions relating to weight marking on containers and other marking requirements.
I now turn to the Various Goods proposals. This draft order deals with prepacked pasta, flour and flour products, dried fruit and vegetables. At present under the Weights and Measures Act and subsequent orders, these products may be sold in either a range of prescribed imperial quantities, or in a range of prescribed metric quantities. The purpose of this order is to phase out the prescribed imperial range.
The important consumer interest underlying the policy of successive Governments in introducing prescribed quantity legislation, is the avoidance of confusing pack sizes which make "value for money" comparisons difficult. It is therefore very much in the consumer interest that the existence of two different ranges of sizes is not prolonged. The House has recognised the validity and sense of this and has already approved orders setting out terminal dates for the use of imperial quantities for sugar, bread, edible fats, biscuits, salt, tea, cereal breakfast flakes and oat products.
This draft order differs from previous "cut-off" orders in one very important respect. Unlike those orders, this order does not set cut-off dates for the sale of imperial packs by retailers in addition to
906
cut-off dates for packers and importers. This change—the dropping of the legal requirements on retailers—is consistent with the Government's current approach to metrication announced by the Secretary of State on 16th May, and indeed was specifically referred to in that announcement.
This draft order therefore sets "cut-off" dates only for packers and importers. The dates in question are 31st August of this year for packers and importers of imperial packs of pasta, flour and flour products, and 31st December of this year for packers and importers of dried fruit and vegetables. Stocks of imperial packs produced or imported before those dates will he allowed to work naturally through the chain of distribution. This approach of course places some responsibility on the shoulders of the trade and industry for not artificially extending the period of consumer confusion by deliberately stockpiling imperial packs.
I should also make it clear that this order has the full support of the food manufacturers. It fully takes into account their plans, and they need the certainty that this order will bring. In the case of flour in particular, however, the order is very much a rounding-off exercise. Virtually all flour now in the shops is already in the metric sizes.
So far as the consumer is concerned, there are important safeguards both on information and price. Under the existing marking regulations the new sizes have to be clearly marked with the words "Metric Pack" and the equivalent imperial quantity has to be marked for at least a year after the cut-off date. As regards price, it is important to ensure that consumers continue to get at least the same value for money. There is a standing reference to the Price Commission on metrication, whereby price adjustments over the changeover period are carefully monitored.
Experience to date—and this is now substantial, including the metrication of flour, which in practice has already taken place—shows that manufacturers and retailers are not using metrication as a pretext or opportunity for bringing in disguised price increases. It is a tribute to all concerned that it has been unnecessary so far to contemplate the use

907
of any statutory intervention on pricing because of metrication, and there is every reason for confidence that future changeovers will go as smoothly as those of the past. My Lords, both these proposals have been the subject of extensive consultations and have the support of all concerned. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Coffee Extracts and Chicory Extracts) Order 1978, laid before the House on 28th June, be approved.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
5.3 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I should have thought that the two orders are sufficiently different to have been taken separately. However, the noble Lord has chosen to speak to them together. I am not complaining of that; I feel sure that that is for the convenience of your Lordships, but it causes me to pause a moment in order to dwell on both of them separately, though I hope not to weary your Lordships. The first order can he dealt with fairly swiftly. It is in essence a permissive order, and one which we certainly do not wish to oppose, nor for that matter even comment on in detail. However, the second order is a rather different kettle of fish. The second order—which, as the noble Lord reminded us, had its genesis back in May, when a very similar order was before your Lordships, but was not pursued—is a compelling order; it requires certain action to be taken. I must say that it is a considerable improvement upon the one which the Government chose not to press a couple of months ago.
There is one point in particular I wish to ask the noble Lord about. It concerns penalties and sanctions. We are anxious to ensure that when packers or distributors—who are the groups of people covered by the order—are compelled to change to metric packing they should have sufficient time to alter their machinery as necessary, bearing in mind that this is a lengthy and often expensive business, and that they are not exposed to too draconian penalties when, and if, they find themselves unable to do so. We are in no way condoning anyone to break, or seek to break, the law, but we consider that the penalties ought to he appropriate to the
908
nature of the offence, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to explain to me exactly what the penalties are under the order.
I should like to say, in parenthesis, that I passed information on this point to the noble Lord's office before lunch, and I should have thought that in the same breath it would have been understood that I wished to speak to both orders separately, and that is why I was rather surprised when the noble Lord launched his combined speech. However, I have promised not to pursue that point, and I will not. The question of the penalties is the point which I want to put to the noble Lord. We must be satisfied that the penalties are appropriate to the nature of the offences, because there are some very strongly held, if mistaken views, about the phasing out of imperial measure, and here we have an order which seeks to do just that. I hope that the noble Lord can help me.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it will be legal for manufacturers to continue to print the imperial equivalents on the new metric packs after the 12 months' interim period has elapsed?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I should like to deal with that last point right away. There will be a period of 12 months after which that marking will disappear. The period might be extended, but at the moment the plans are to phase out after 12 months.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean to say that it will be illegal to print both the metric and the imperial equivalents on the same pack after the 12 months interim period?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: That is the inference from what I said, my Lords. As to what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, mentioned regarding penalties, I should say that the selling of old imperial packs by the retailer is permissive and may continue for some time to come. It depends on the type of business, the size of trade, and similar factors; and we must be completely reasonable about this matter. The order has been drawn up after consultation, and the manufacturers and the importers all agree about it and

909
want to get the position sorted out. The only penalties which would arise are the usual penalties relating to weights and measures which apply at present on imperial packs and which would apply on metric packs. For instance, if the noble Lord were selling apples from a barrel at a certain price for so many grammes and he was short-weighting his customer, he would be "nicked" (as the common phrase goes) by the police, or he would be reported. That is the kind of situation I have in mind. The penalties laid down by the Act are a £100 fine for a first offence, and a £250 fine and/or three months imprisonment for a second offence. Those are the usual penalties which apply under the Weights and Measures Act, and which would apply under this proposal.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Am I right in thinking that these are penalties under the 1963 Act? I was about to complain that the penalties were to be too draconian, but having heard of them, and bearing in mind the year in which they were set, I now wonder whether they ought not to be revised.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, that is not a matter for consideration now. However, the noble Lord's point is noted, and I have no doubt that it will also be noted elsewhere following the debate. What I have stated is the position at the moment according to my information. There was quite severe criticism over the order, as I readily accept. It ran into considerable Parliamentary opposition, and the Government revised the whole order. This is the revision which apparently meets everybody's point of view, including that of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. So there is no difficulty now.
Lord GRANVILLE of EYE: My Lords, the Minister has dealt with food manufacturers and retailers. What about the large warehouses which carry considerable stocks in imperial measures?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, those stocks will get into circulations through the normal channels. Manufacturers and importers with stocks at the present moment have time to get
910
them into circulation. They have agreed to this; they want this move. Therefore, they will take their own measures to get these stocks into circulation and get them off their hands. No food manufacturer should be keeping large stocks of food preparations for a long period of time, over 12 months, in my opinion.
Lord SPENS: My Lords, the Minister dealt with penalties for perhaps giving short weight, but what about the case of someone who continues to prepack in Imperial weights? To what sort of penalty will he be subject?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the noble Lord has me completely caught for a second on that one. I shall have to obtain the information for the House and see that it is placed on record, but I have not got it at the moment. I shall obtain the information a little later and see that it is made available to the House, possibly by the device of a Written Question, so that the information is readily available.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT (VARIOUS GOODS) (TERMINATION OF IMPERIAL QUANTITIES) ORDER 1978
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Various Goods) (Termination of Imperial Quantities) Order 1978, laid before the House on 28th June, be approved.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LANCASHIRE POLICE: DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY
5.12 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD Lord INGLEWOOD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will explain the breakdown in Lancashire of the system whereby the responsibility for the efficiency of a county police force and of its chief constable are divided between

911
the Home Office, Her Majesty's Inspectors and the Police Authority; and what steps they have taken to ensure that a similar situation will not occur in other areas. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the Question which stands on the Order Paper in my name this evening, about a bad breakdown in Lancashire in the British system of checks and balances designed to ensure the efficiency, the integrity and the reasonable independence of the police, I am making no Party point. Nor am I referring to any further inquiries which may be taking place or are likely to take place. Nor am I in any way "knocking" the police; and the noble Lord knows well the time that I have been giving recently to trying to learn about the problems which the police face today. I am, however, concerned with the responsibility for what has been allowed to happen, and I believe that, ultimately, this responsibility is that of the Home Office.
I will not recite the details of the sombre story leading to the dismissal of the chief constable, except to say that, from the information that is available, things seem to have been going wrong over a long time, during which little or nothing was done until a detective sergeant reaching the end of his time—and, I think one must say without any disrespect to him on this, a relatively junior police officer in the hierarchy—put in some complaint or representation to HMI. More than a few people must have known that things were not right.
First, while no one likes to be seen in the role of what a schoolboy used to call a "sneak", I cannot see why senior police officers in the force could not have exerted some pressure on their chief not to strain their loyalty to the extent that he must have strained it. In business and in other walks of life senior colleagues, however unpleasant it is, have to do this on occasions—to go to see their chief and say to him, "Either you change your ways, or else." Loyalty is a magnificent feature of the police service in this country, but loyalty to the community served should come before a "cover-up" for a senior officer, if that is what happened. But we just do not know, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us more.
I turn now to a body with far greater responsibility, the Police Authority, which,
912
as noble Lords know, is a body which exists everywhere except in London, where the noble Lord himself is the Police Authority. Outside London, the Police Authority consists of two-thirds county councillors and one-third magistrates; and they have specified powers and duties set out in the Act, although the wording is not everywhere as clear as perhaps it might be. What I should like to know is this: Did the Authority know nothing of what was going on during this time? If so, surely it was very lax and out of touch. Or did it know something and do nothing, in which case it must be blameworthy? Or did it know something and make a report? If so, to whom; and what action, if any, was taken; or was it lost in the files of some higher authority? So much for the Police Authority.
Then we must turn to Her Majesty's Inspectors—a vital link between provincial police forces and the Home Office, and again. I think, men fulfilling a very difficult role. Did the responsible HMIs over this time see nothing wrong? We know that the annual inspection of a police force can be a very formal affair, but there arc other times for visits and contacts. Did anything or nothing arise from the reports of the appropriate HMIs over the years? And, if they did draw attention to the irregulatities, which in the end were shown to be very considerable, what action was taken in the Department? Then, lastly, what did the Ministers (because it is not just one Minister) do over all this time? Were they ignorant, or did they know something but do nothing, hoping that things would get better on their own?
This may sound a simplification of what has happened, but I think it is the essence of the case; and it all amounts to a terrible blow to a proud county and to a police force which had the reputation of being second to none and which, I am told, has lived through its troubles in a way which is a great tribute to it. I am submitting that this is not a question that concerns Lancashire alone, but the whole country. We all have the right to know how things were allowed to go on for so long.
My Question deals with the breakdown of the system, but I would submit that the system should be so sensitive that it can detect a deteriorating situation

913
long before a breakdown is reached. There could be situations where neither the chief constable nor the Police Authority—and there I would mean both chairman and members—were capable of giving either to the police force or to the county the sort of leadership that is needed to match the challenge of our time—of rising crime, increased violence and so on. This sort of situation could happen most likely where a chief constable had been in his position for a long time—too long when compared with the terms of service of, say, a senior general or an ambassador. Such situations, where they arise, certainly ought not to be allowed to develop. This second point that I have made, about the discovery of a deteriorating situation in its early stages, is very important, but it is secondary to the particular purpose of my Question this evening, which is to discover from the Government the reasons for the recent breakdown of this system in Lancashire.
I should like to conclude by saying just one more thing, and I am sure that the noble Lord who is to reply will agree with me. To do their work today the police need the help of all men and women of goodwill in the country, and they must be seen to welcome such help—they must not just welcome it; they must be seen to welcome it. The police are not so very different from the rest of us, even though some would represent that they are. Furthermore, the Home Office, too, must ensure that the system under which our police forces are organised works well and, what is more, is seen to work well.
5.20 p.m.
Lord RAWLINSON of EWELL: My Lords, as I understand the questions which have been posed by my noble friend to the Minister, they are in respect of the failure or breakdown in the machinery whereby a situation was allowed to continue, if not develop, over the years without there being some outside intervention. As I have always understood it, it is a very delicate balance that is established in our organisation of our separate police forces with the sharing of responsibility under the Police Act between the Policy Authority and, ultimately, the Home Secretary. A great burden of responsibility, of course, rests on a
914
Police Authority that they should be, and should be seen to be, capable of exercising their statutory duties and ensuring not the operational activities of the force, which is a matter for the chief constable, but that the police force, for which they are the Police Authority, that is, so far as they can see, is acting responsibly and is properly led.
As I understand the situation, it was some two years ago when this junior officer—as my noble friend has said, but, nevertheless, it was an officer who was, as it turned out, very much doing his duty—made a complaint to the Inspector of Constabulary who was engaged in a routine inspection. There followed from that the inspection by Sir Douglas Osmond who made his report to the Lancashire police authority who decided (as they were entitled to) not to publish that report. I have noted that the Home Secretary has confirmed the propriety of the behaviour of the Police Authority throughout and that its conduct has been totally responsible. As I understand it, my noble friend is inquiring about the delay.
That report by that distinguished police officer, the former chief constable of Hampshire, led to the tribunal, and the tribunal led to the dismissal of the chief constable. It was only then, when the appeal which the chief constable statutorily enjoys was withdrawn, that the Home Secretary was, as it were, involved. Meanwhile, there was a separate investigation by the detective chief superintendent of the Nottinghamshire Constabulary who reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions who has called for further investigation into the matters disclosed in that report. Then in April of this year the Home Secretary decided to appoint a wide-ranging police inquiry and appointed the deputy chief constable of Surrey, Mr. Imbert, a very distinguished police officer, to make an inquiry covering the aspect not only of the Osmond Report but also of the Nottinghamshire Constabulary investigation. From that, presumably and properly, if there is evidence—and I stress: "if there is evidence"—of a possible offence having been committed, that must be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and it is for him to take such action thereafter as he may think correct.
I was glad that the Home Secretary rejected the calls which came from certain

915
quarters for a tribunal of inquiry under the 1921 Act. I appreciate that, under the Section 32 procedure, that would have been far too restrictive. It is very important that these calls which are continually made for a public inquiry should he very closely considered. I think the Home Secretary was correct to reject the tribunal of inquiry which should always be used very sparingly. It is only very rarely effective. It is necessarily a very blunt instrument and its procedures, under that Act, often lead to gross unfairness—not so much to the actual wrongdoers but to others who are only marginally affected by the matter under inquiry. Of course, they necessarily afford immunity to people who should not receive immunity, to the wrongdoers themselves. It is a constant practice, particularly, if I may say so, in another place, for public inquiries always to be called for. It is a stock demand. Public inquiries provide good copy for the media, but the correct procedure, it always seemed to me, is that there should be a private investigation and inquiry carried out by properly instituted investigators, followed by a public prosecution if that should arise from the results of the inquiry.
I recall at the time of the Poulson affair that demands were then made by very influential circles for a complete public inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act. I was resolutely against that. I was confident that we had the proper procedures whereby persons who, if they had committed wrong, could be brought to justice and could receive punishment, which they would not have done if there had been a tribunal of inquiry.
There is a phrase constantly in use in the United States: due process of law. Due process of law is much better than public inquiries. The due process of law affords the public the rights; it also affords the person who is involved the protection. The British criminal trial has evolved procedures which make it a fair and balanced process. Public inquiries are too often like a Roman circus or a form of lynch law which affects the reputation of people who are quite outside any of the matters which really are at the heart of the inquiry.
Therefore, I support very much the decision of the Home Secretary in this matter. I do not think that any proper
916
purpose could be served by discussing the facts. It is merely a matter that the inquiry has been established; from that inquiry there will be a report to the person responsible, the Director of Public Prosecutions. I agree with what is inherent in my noble friend's questioning, to the Minister: there are certain matters that cause concern with respect to the procedures dealing with allegations against the chief constable. I do not see how a Police Authority can ever be the appropriate tribunal. It is essential as a characteristic of natural justice that the tribunal, which is deciding a matter and upon a person, should be fair and independent, and should be seen to be fair and independent; secondly, that notice of allegations should be given early; and, thirdly, there should be a full opportunity for the person against whom the allegations are levied to meet and deal with the allegations.
The Home Secretary, as my noble friend has said, is the Police Authority for the Metropolitan Police and he has certain powers and certain control over other police forces, including the power to call for the retirement of a chief constable. A chief constable is a constable, which is an office of trust under the Crown, and not a person who is an employee or a servant of a local authority. A chief constable enjoys the status, as does any other constable, which is derived from common law. Any chief constable who is under investigation must be given every opportunity to meet an allegation, to answer it and to deal with it fairly and justly. There should not be the delays which appear to have arisen in this case.
I agree also with what my noble friend said at the end of his remarks with regard to the position of the police. I think that the police at the present time have good grounds for resentment over the attitude which is displayed to them in certain quarters in this country. I was glad that in their pay, they should be taken as a very special service, because, without them, no one would be able to carry on any of the activities which ought to be carried on and must be carried on in any ordered society. I am glad that my right honourable and honourable friends in another place and my noble friends here have said that they would implement that award immediately.

917
Secondly, I think that the traducing of the police which has gone on through the media is something that they are entitled to resent. They have been caricatured and denigrated, and denigrated in a service, by a public corporation, by a production in a public corporation, by monies paid for by the citizens of this country. I can understand their resentment and reaction at that series, which was there set out at the whim of some producer who thought this was an entertaining way to attack those he thought he would like to attack and for which the public of this country paid. A public service broadcasting corporation, in my view, ought to have a sense of responsibility. It is funded by the public and the public are entitled to feel resentment if their money has been used to enable maverick producers to project individualistic and often anarchistic distortions of institutions.
A unique power is given to the media. Of course, the boot is never put on the other foot: we never see productions about corrupt broadcasting corporations or individual producers who are evil, distorted, corrupt people. If that were put on presumably there would be a withdrawal of labour and that would be the end of that particular production. However, the public are entitled to feel anger at distortion. Fair criticism, certainly; fair investigation, certainly; but not a dramatic representation of a totally distorted view of the police service. The police authorities are perfectly entitled to react towards the BBC over their attitude to the police in the way I have in mind. I hope that noble Lords and Members of another place will support the police, because without their service—and the very dangerous job which they do—to all of us and without the support of everybody in this country it would be a very much more unpleasant place in which to live.
In conclusion, I believe that my noble friend is right to bring to the attention of this House the delays in this particular matter and why the irregularities that have been occurring were not found out earlier. I agree that the right thing to do is to stress that it is a matter of the machinery about which we are asking the Minister to give the appropriate explanation.
5.32 p.m.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, when I saw the list of speakers on this Question, I was a little surprised to find that for once I was the first Back-Bench speaker after the introducer of the Question, and after the noble Lord who has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench. I was even more surprised to find that I was also the last Back-Bench speaker on the list, which puts me in a somewhat unusual position for commending in my peroration the effectiveness of points made earlier on from the Back-Benches.
On a more serious note, I notice that, in this list, the debate is simply described as an Unstarred Question on County Police Forces. I have to confess that in the list of business which I received at the beginning of the week it was described as a debate on Country Police Forces. This somewhat rural connotation did not disguise the real meaning.
The noble Lord who asked this Question was perfectly right when he implied that this description of the debate was perfectly accurate, in that although the Question relates to the particular circumstances of Lancashire, it does in the end raise underlying problems of a more general character. We must be grateful to the noble Lord for giving us this opportunity—even though not many noble Lords have seized it—of discussing for a little some of these problems, which seem to me both difficult and important.
The noble Lord has quite legitimately raised questions about the machinery of these inquiries, of how it came about that the behaviour complained of did not come to the notice of those who could do something about it earlier, and the length of time which the whole proceedings took. On all this, I should like to make a general comment as a member of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life. On that Commission, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will confirm, we were greatly impressed by the difficulties of getting people to come forward to voice their suspicions of corruption and, secondly by the practical difficulties of "ferreting out" the facts and identifying the wrongdoer. It always seemed that inquiries took very much longer than one could possibly understand.

919
We could not do very much about the length of time taken by inquiries. However, the first of the difficulties about people not coming forward led us to recommend new procedures which were intended to ensure that members of the public who had suspicions about corrupt behaviour in public life would not be inhibited from coming forward to the police or to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary. These recommendations have been implemented—a little belatedly perhaps, but I make no point about that. But they did not apply to the police. I know that the procedures for dealing with complaints against the police have been exhaustively reviewed. I recognise, too, that this is tricky territory in a disciplined service and that there is always the risk of frivolous or malicious allegations. Nevertheless, I shall be glad to hear, when the Minister winds up, whether he is satisfied that all that needs to be done has been done to ensure that members of the public—and more especially members of the Police Service—are, so far as possible, relieved of the risk of feeling inhibited in voicing suspicions against senior members of the Police Service.
The noble Lord's Unstarred Question also raises the issue of the division of responsibility in these matters between the Home Secretary, who provides much of the money and has an overall concern with police efficiency, on the one hand, and on the other hand the local Police Authority whose function it is to maintain an efficient force. As perhaps some noble Lords know, I have for good or bad been concerned with the police for rather longer than I care to think. One of the more fascinating aspects of police organisation during my time has been this changing interrelationship between central and local government—an interrelationship which is certainly unique to this country.
It all used to be so much more simple. When I was first involved, there were very nearly 200 separate police forces in England and Wales. Pretty well every county had its own police force. I am only slightly exaggerating when I say that one had to get down to the Soke of Peterborough before one came across a real merger. So too did most of the boroughs, many of them tiny. I have always believed that when the Carlisle
920
force, for example, was due for its annual inspection, the practice was to delay the Scottish train for about 10 minutes and all 14 members of the force lined up on the station platform—
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Lord be careful what he says about the county town of my county? However, he can say what he likes about the Scots!
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, I am not being critical in any way, I was being just factual, as I believe. After the members of the police force had been lined up on the station platform, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary descended from the train, walked up and down the line, spoke a few words of encouragement and completed his inspection to everyone's satisfaction, except possibly the other passengers on the train who were anxious to get to the grouse moors. But over the years, police work steadily became more professional. The resources needed by each force to cope with increasing problems of crime and traffic became more sophisticated, and more expensive. It became increasingly necessary for the separate forces to work together as part of a nationwide service, looking to the Home Secretary. It also became necessary for central Government to take a hand in providing technical facilities, such as training, records, wireless, scientific aids and so forth, which were required on a scale going far beyond the boundaries of any individual force. So by a process of amalgamations and mergers and, in the end, by the recent local government reorganisation—whatever one may think about other aspects of that reorganisation—we have ended up with many fewer forces (rather less than 40, I believe) but each of them big enough to exist in the modern world.
Although in this process the roles of the Home Secretary and the Police Authority have in general come to be rather more closely defined, in particular following the Royal Commission on the Police and as conveniently summarised in the recent report of the Committee of Inquiry under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, all along there has remained this special problem of what happens when the chief officer

921
of police himself strays from the strait and narrow path of rectitude. I am sorry to say this but, looking back over the years, I fear one can think of rather too many such cases for comfort.
It has always seemed to me to be a great pity that there should have to be in existence at all lengthy statutory regulations to cover possible misdeeds by senior police officers, who are now to be very highly paid. But some of the events which in part led to the setting up of the Royal Commission have, I fear, made this inevitable, and I very much take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, that chief constables are themselves constables and are thus entitled to all the protection which any member of the force deserves.
Looking back on these events over the years, I shall, I admit, feel a trifle surprised if the Minister is able tonight to give the assurance for the future for which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is asking; but that will be for him to say. For my part, I shall be grateful if, in winding up, he can give us the answer to five simple questions—at least I believe they are simple, although they do include one or two sub-clauses. I think I can ask them without discussing in any depth matters affecting the Lancashire Police with which I was personally involved.
The first is: is it now a condition of appointing a chief constable that he should have attended a senior course at the Police College? If not, should it be, and, if there had been such a requirement when Mr. Parr was appointed to Lancashire, would it have ruled him out? Secondly, what are the present requirements for an applicant for the post of chief constable to have served elsewhere? If there had been these requirements when Mr. Parr was appointed, again, would he have been ruled out? Thirdly, am I right in thinking that at the relevant time the Lancashire Police did not have a prosecuting solicitor's department? Is the general question of responsibility for prosecutions one which is now being considered by the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure? Fourthly, reverting to a point I made earlier, is the Minister satisfied that the procedure for receiving complaints against the police is such as not to inhibit the voicing of suspicions on
922
which, at that stage, there may be no hard evidence? Fifthly, would it be possible to give some indication of the likely time-scale of the review of procedures for dealing with complaints against chief officers of police, to which the Home Secretary has referred on a couple of occasions? Will this be a domestic review, and is it envisaged that the likely results of the review would call for substantive legislation?
Before I sit down, may I say just this: the Lancashire Police suffered, I think, a greater degree of dismemberment as a consequence of the last local government reorganisation than did any other force and, as a result, found itself quite drastically reduced in size. Then there were these long-drawn-out proceedings involving the chief constable. Now there is this current investigation going on by officers of other forces, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, referred, inquiring, as I understand it, primarily into allegations of corruption in public life in Blackpool. Altogether, these events must have put a great strain on the loyalties and devotion to duty of all the other members of the force. Let us hope that the force which, as the noble Lord said in his opening speech, has such splendid traditions, comes through it all with renewed confidence and with the ability to play its full part as an important constituent of a great service.
5.47 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am certainly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has given us the opportunity of discussing this issue tonight. Almost inevitably, the debate has ranged fairly widely, largely because, I am bound to say, we so rarely have a discussion in this House on the problems of the police service, which I think is a misfortune. We constantly have debates on the problems in our prisons, and perfectly properly so; but I think it is unfortunate that we tend to discuss these matters—I say this in no Party spirit—only in periods towards General Elections and we do not take enough interest in this general range of issues in the years between General Elections. I think that is a criticism which confronts all of us in this House.
Certainly the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has drawn our

923
attention is very rarely discussed, as I have said, certainly in your Lordships' House. One reason for that is that, in general, the system works fairly well, though there have been certain problems at times, which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, which gave rise to the setting up of the Royal Commission on the Police in the early 1960s. But by and large the system does not work at all badly.
Before coming to the detailed issues which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I should like to deal with a number of other questions and, first, the "examination paper" which was set by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, at the end of his speech. I hope I can satisfy him on four out of his five questions. I will begin, if I may, by dealing with one particular matter which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson: that is, some of the criticisms which have been directed at the police by the broadcasting media.
Inevitably I have to speak with some degree of caution because I have personal responsibilities, as has my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, both for the police and for broadcasting. By and large, I do not think the system has worked at all badly; but inevitably one has to say at the outset, if one is a Home Office Minister, that it is wrong for politicians to become involved in the content of television or radio programmes. It is quite inappropriate to start becoming involved in partisan debate or in the content of programmes when one has a responsibility for the structure of broadcasting.
However, having said that, I believe there is widespread agreement with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, said. When we had a Question raised by my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker, following the "Law and Order" series on BBC Television, a number of people expressed very serious anxiety about the whole approach in this series of programmes. I undertook then to draw the attention of the Chairman of the Governors of the BBC to the exchanges which we had had, and I did so; and I will make sure that he receives a copy of the speech which the noble and learned Lord has made on this occasion. It was quite clear, when he made the point, that he had widespread support in all
924
parts of the House, and, again, I will ensure that the Chairman of the Governors is made aware of that.
If I may come to some of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, before I return to the narrower questions raised in this debate, he first asked me whether it is a condition of appointment of a chief constable that somebody has passed the Part II Command Course. The answer is: No, it is not. But I am bound to say that I am not absolutely sure that I would impose such a condition. I have had the opportunity, in the four and a half years in which I have had a responsibility for the police in the Home Office, of attending the extended interviews which take place to select candidates for the Part II Command Course. These are people of superintendent and chief superintendent rank. It is a series of interviews carried out over a period of three days and, in my view, it is a very good system indeed.
But it would be creating a rather rigid system if one said, "Unless you get through that course, you cannot become a chief constable." The fact of the matter is that very nearly all people now coming up for appointment as chief constable have passed the Part II Command Course. But, inevitably, there are some people who, from time to time, do not pass the selection machinery and, however sophisticated, however admirable, that system may be, it would perhaps be a mistake to say, "Unless you get through it you cannot become a chief officer."
Secondly, the noble Lord asked an extremely important question about the present arrangements for promotion. We have moved in a very satisfactory direction, so far as this question is concerned. I can remember being made aware, when I first became a Minister, that there were some officers who had progressed through the ranks of superintendent, chief superintendent assistant chief constable, deputy chief constable and chief constable of the same force. I think that that is most unsatisfactory, and a Home Office circular has now been issued, which has indeed been implemented quite rigorously, to ensure that nobody can pass through the ranks from assistant to deputy to chief constable in the same force. That is a most important development for a number of reasons, which will be self-evident to

925
all those who have participated in the debate today. But for wider reasons, too, it is very desirable that senior officers should be able to draw on the experience of work in a number of different forces. There are great advantages in this and, as I have indicated, this is now being done.
The noble Lord also asked me whether there was a prosecuting solicitor's department in Lancashire. The answer is: No, there was not. But I understand that steps are being taken at the moment to take action in this direction in Lancashire. The question of complaints procedure against senior—
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, am I to infer from the point that the noble Lord has just made that, if the rules about service elsewhere had been in force, Mr. Parr would not have been appointed, and that his Blackpool service would not have qualified him?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords. That is indeed the position. There is a problem as regards the complaints procedure against senior officers, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, with his very substantial experience in the Home Office, will be well aware of this. It is a serious matter to make a grave allegation against a chief constable or, for that matter, against any other police officer, whatever his rank may be.
It will be commonly recognised that the detective sergeant who made this complaint rendered a major and most useful public service. That is undoubtedly true. But we have to guard ourselves against malicious complaints, and it would be very dangerous to say, "Whatever your motive may be, you are totally protected if you make an allegation against a fellow officer or a chief constable." That would he creating an extremely dangerous situation, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale will agree with me on that. I shall come to his fifth question, concerning the timetable of our review of the disciplinary arrangements for chief officers, in the substance of my speech.
If I may now come to the rather narrower, but important, questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, it is inevitable that recent events in Lancashire
926
have given rise to some general disquiet, and it is only natural that people should wish to be assured that the likelihood of such a situation being repeated is a very remote one. Of course, I cannot today say that no such thing will ever happen again. It would be quite absurd for me to do so, whatever procedure we may create. But I hope to convince the House that it is unlikely, and that the system that we now have is as watertight as anything can be.
It may be helpful to the House if at this stage I give some general explanation of the different responsibilities of the chief constable, the Police Authority and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. First and most important I should like to come to the role of the chief officer of a force. He has the sole responsibility for all operational matters, and it is a matter of crucial importance that he should discharge that responsibility without being influenced in any way by any sectional or individual interests. He has, in addition, responsibilities for appointment, discipline and promotion.
Then there is the Police Authority. Their essential function, under Section 4 of the Police Act 1964, which followed the work of the Royal Commission, is to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for the area. For this purpose, various specific powers are conferred upon them by the Act. They appoint the chief constable and his deputy and assistants, and they may call upon them to retire in the interests of efficiency. They fix the establishment of the force and, in the exercise of all these powers, they require the approval of the Home Secretary. I repeat, because it is an important point, that nobody can become a chief constable, a deputy chief constable or an assistant chief constable, without first having been appointed by the Police Authority, and, in addition, that choice by the Police Authority has to be confirmed by the Home Secretary.
The Police Authority are also the disciplinary authority for chief officers. The procedure under which they are to deal with allegations that such an officer has committed a disciplinary offence is set out in the regulations which were made as a result of the 1964 Act. The ultimate sanction which is open to the authority, where a chief officer is found to have

927
infringed the discipline code, is, of course, to dismiss him from the force. The Authority receive an annual report from the chief constable, and have power at any time to call for a report from him on matters connected with the policing of the area. In addition, they have a duty, as part of their general responsibility for the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force, to keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints by members of the public are dealt with by the chief officer.
I turn now to the role of the Home Secretary and the Inspectorate of Constabulary. I link these two together, since it is wrong to see the Inspectorate as acting in some way independently of the Home Secretary. The primary function of Inspectors of Constabulary is to inspect forces and to report on their efficiency to the Home Secretary. It is primarily by this means that the Home Secretary fulfils his general responsibility for the efficiency of the Police Service outside London. Inspections arc carried out annually, although, of course, inspectors maintain frequent, and indeed regular, contact with their own forces throughout the year. If matters come to notice which appear to the regional inspector to require attention, they are drawn to the notice of the chief constable or of the Police Authority, as appropriate, and if necessary a formal letter is sent by the Home Office.
The Home Secretary has a number of powers and responsibilities, particularly in respect of providing common police services and making regulations in order to ensure that there are common standards. He can also require the Police Authority to exercise their power to call upon a chief officer to retire in the interests of efficiency. It is a most important power which is available to the Home Secretary and I think it is right that he should possess it. In addition, the Home Secretary can order a local inquiry into any aspect of the policing of the area concerned.
This is necessarily a brief and obviously incomplete description of arrangements, which exist at the moment. As I have said, no system can be infallible. The arrangements which I have described may well not be perfect, but I think it is worth stressing some of their most important features. First, they reflect the division of financial
928
responsibility between central and local government. Secondly, they ensure that while each of the parties has its own responsibilities, each of them is also dependent in some way upon the others. Third, they preserve the independence of the chief officer on operational questions.
I turn now to the situation in Lancashire. I do not think that there is much to be gained by going over in detail exactly what it was that went wrong over the last few years. We can do our best service to that force, and to the people of Lancashire, by giving our full and complete support to the new chief constable, Mr. Laugharne, who has just taken up his post, in the task that awaits him. He is an officer of great ability, and I think that he deserves full public support from everybody concerned, both in Lancashire and in both Houses of Parliament.
However, I should like to say this at once in reply to the Unstarred Question and speech of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I do not accept that the system broke down in Lancashire. If I may remind the noble Lord, I believe that it was Mr. Harold Macmillan, when Prime Minister—or, arguably, when he was no longer Prime Minister—who said that one of the problems about catching spies (this is a very different matter but it bears some relation to the problem about which we have just been speaking) is that, far from everybody saying to those concerned, "Well done! You have caught a dangerous spy", the question is asked, "Why didn't you catch him earlier?" I believe that this is the problem so far as this question is concerned. It is easy to ask why A, B or C did not realise what was going on. The more important question, however, is that I do not believe that there is any evidence that there has been negligence. The two Inspectors of Constabulary—both of whom I know extremely well; the previous Inspector of Constabulary, a most distinguished police officer, was formerly chief constable for Northumbria, while the present Inspector of Constabulary is Mr. Page, the former Commissioner of the City of London Police, who will have been well known to the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, when he was Home Secretary—are men of great ability. I would not accept in any way that any responsibility attaches to either of them, particularly to the former

929
chief constable for Northumbria who was there at the time that many of these problems arose.
The situation was as described by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood: that during one of the regular inspections of the force by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, an individual officer asked to see the Inspector and told him of a number of matters which he considered disquieting in the way the force was being run. These ranged from specific allegations about intervention by the then chief constable in the normal arrangements for dealing with motoring offences and the misuse of police vehicles for non-official journeys to general claims that the chief constable was not properly concerned about the morale and welfare of his men.
I think it is fair to say that to a large extent the exposure of these matters depended on the willingness of someone concerned to come forward and speak out. The noble Lord raised this point—as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. This is always likely to be an important element in dealing with any misconduct of this character. It is, I think, worth mentioning that within a very short time of the allegations becoming known to Her Majesty's Inspector, an outside officer, Sir Douglas Osmond, who at that time was chief constable of Hampshire and a man of remarkable ability in the police service, had taken over what was to him, in the closing months of his service, perhaps one of the most disagreeable duties he ever had to carry out; namely, to investigate the character of a brother chief constable. However, it speaks very well of Sir Douglas Osmond that he discharged this responsibility with that high sense of public duty with which he will always be associated.
The inquiry took place, conducted, as I said, by Sir Douglas Osmond and a team of officers from Hampshire Constabulary. It led to the subsequent disciplinary proceedings against the chief constable, and indeed to his dismissal from the force. Other matters which did not give rise to disciplinary action were, as noble Lords will be aware, dealt with internally and through the district audit system. A number of things clearly went very seriously wrong in Lancashire,
930
but when they came to light they were dealt with, without, I believe, any unreasonable delay.
The inquiry was long and extremely complicated, but it was also thorough. I am afraid one has to accept that if an inquiry is to be detailed and is to inquire into every conceivable allegation that has been made, it will take a formidable amount of time. I think it is very desirable that allegations of this degree of gravity against a chief officer of police should be made subject to very thorough review. That was done in this case, but inevitably it took longer than it would have done if the investigation had been of a superficial character. I do not believe, however, that such an investigation would have reassured public opinion nor, indeed, would have done what was necessary so far as the Lancashire Police Force was concerned.
What I think is necessary is that all those with responsibilities in this area should recognise the need for vigilance and for alertness to signs which suggest that all is not well. It is, moreover, important that the sort of climate should be created in which others who may become aware that something is wrong should feel free to bring their concern to notice in the proper quarter and should be confident that the appropriate action will be taken and that there will be no attempt to cover things up.
Finally, I should remind the House that although we do not propose any changes in the system in general, we intend, as I have previously informed the House, to make certain amendments to the disciplinary arrangements for senior officers. Before coming to these, I should like to deal with one particular point which concerned me very substantially at the time, for it demonstrates problems so far as the Home Office is concerned.
Sir Douglas Osmond's report was made available to the Lancashire police authority because they had commissioned it, and, perfectly properly, it was their document. Although this raised very serious matters indeed, it was quite impossible for either my right honourable friend the Home Secretary or myself to take any steps to look at that document, because the chief constable of Lancashire had a right to appeal to the Secretary of State against

931
the decision by the tribunal which heard the case, and indeed the Lancashire Police Authority. That being so, we had to disqualify ourselves from making any attempt to look at that particular document. It raises a particular difficulty, of which again the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will be aware.
Let me return to this slightly narrower question of the amendments to the disciplinary arrangements for senior officers. I think it is right for me to emphasise that the improvements that we see as necessary here are to deal with inadequacies in the way alleged misconduct is dealt with after it has come to light rather than in bringing to light instances of such misconduct. In reply to the question put to me by the noble Lord, I cannot give a particular date, but we intend to issue a paper shortly setting out our proposals which we are going to discuss with the representatives both of the chief officers and of the police authorities. Copies of this paper will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
There are only two additional things I should like to say this evening. The first is on the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, made about the investigation which is now being carried out by Mr. Imber, the deputy chief constable of Surrey, into certain allegations of misconduct relating to the public life of Blackpool. The noble and learned Lord will, of course, recall that this is really a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. But again, if I may say so, he is absolutely right in drawing attention to the dangers of constantly demanding tribunals of inquiry. It does seem to me very alarming that we tend to forget the disquiet which has so often been expressed about what happens, often to totally innocent people, as a result of a tribunal of inquiry. There was the famous case of J. H. Thomas and the effect it had on one then Member of Parliament. There have been many other such examples where, as a result of the character of the tribunal, grievous damage has been done.
But something else is done as well; nobody, of course, can be prosecuted. This is a point which often seems to he forgotten. If, as a result of a tribunal of inquiry, it is said that Mr. A and Mr. B
932
and Mr. C have behaved with gross impropriety or have committed criminal offences, no action can then be taken against them, because you would need to have given them a waiver in order to secure their attendance at the tribunal. For that reason, if for no other, I hope that people will be a little more reluctant to demand the establishment of tribunals of inquiry on this, that and every other question when it comes before Parliament. It is all too easy to demand, and I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it should be resisted, except, of course, in those cases where the very security of the State may be involved or there is grave and widespread doubt about the behaviour of major public figures.
My Lords, we have had this debate today into what is in fact an extremely sad episode in the history of the British Police Service. It is a serious matter when a chief officer of a very fine force is dismissed. It has caused great distress, I know, in the Lancashire police force and to many people living in that county. I do not believe, in the light of anything that has been said tonight, that it would be right to be complacent. I think, as I have endeavoured to point out, that when, these allegations were made they were investigated with dispatch, and I believe that the right decision has now been arrived at. Certainly there can be no cause at all for any form of complacency. Let us just bear in mind as well that this, I repeat, has been a sad and dismal business. But we do have in this country a high degree of public confidence in the police; we have a police force that is the envy of every other country of the world. I think that, with all the other difficulties and preoccupations from which we suffer, it is right to record that fact and to use this opportunity of expressing our thanks to all members of the British Police Service who have done so much to establish that reputation.