Lords Sitting of 8 February 1979

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

NATIONAL MUSEUMS' CIRCULATING EXHIBITIONS
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: 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 additional money will be specifically allocated for circulating exhibitions from the National Institutions and the Area Museum Councils.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge): My Lords, the money allocated to the national museums and galleries and to the Area Museum Councils takes account of the plans of those bodies as submitted in their annual estimates, but the Government do not exercise a detailed control over the way the money is spent. I hope that enough money will be available to the national institutions in 1979–80 to allow them to increase the number of travelling exhibitions. But I must point out that money is not the only factor involved: space and manpower are highly relevant.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether the Government are fully aware of the continuing concern and anxiety felt by provincial museums, Area Museum Councils and also the British Museums Association, not only about the closing of the V. and A. department, which co-ordinated these activities so successfully over a hundred years, but also about what they feel are the totally inadequate alternative arrangements and the need for more co-ordination and finance, as recommended by the Drew Report on Museums?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I think the Drew Report is a rather separate issue. It is a very comprehensive report, involving a recommendation that the Government should spend a further £6 million a year on museums, and I do not think that in answering this particular Question I should be asked to deal with that. It is a very difficult and important point which we shall have to deal with later. But a good deal is happening. The British Museum, the Imperial War Museum, the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery and the Science Museum have made available new exhibitions, and more are being planned. I am making the greatest efforts to ensure that their allocations for 1979–80 will be sufficiently generous to permit these plans to go ahead and further increases to be made. I will arrange for a full list of their activities in this field, both actual and planned, to be made available to your Lordships' House as soon as possible.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, can the Minister hold out any hope that the regional services of the Victoria and Albert that were closed down last year—a very severe deprivation in the Provinces—will be restored? It is very important that they should be.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I cannot hold out any hope on this particular suggestion. When a cut is made as part of a national policy, it is not often that you can simply put it back again. What we are hoping to do is to provide other facilities which will, to begin with, equal, and in the end perhaps even surpass, those which the V. and A. so admirably provided. But I do not wish to mislead the House into thinking that there is any suggestion that these will be restored as they were. I wish there were.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what he said earlier will be of great help to those of us who feel strongly that the dissolution of the Victoria and Albert scheme was a disaster from the point of view of the country as a whole and, in particular, from the point of view of people outside London; and that what he said about the efforts not to replace it necessarily with

823
another Victoria and Albert scheme, or to revive it, but to do something which will be better than the Victoria and Albert scheme was before, will be very much welcomed?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I always try to help, so I am glad that the noble Lord thinks that what I said may be helpful. This is a very difficult situation. It was—and I have never denied it—a very difficult pill to swallow when we had to make these alterations, and we are trying hard to produce something as an alternative. There is some progress to be reported. There is not, I think, a monetary hold-up at the moment—there are other hold-ups, but not a monetary hold-up—and I believe that in due course we shall do so. I do not think I can go further than that.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, if it is not possible to have travelling exhibitions unless there is a charge for entrance, would the Minister prefer to have exhibitions with a charge rather than no exhibitions?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, that is an extremely neat question. I must think rather carefully before I answer it. We certainly have a number of special exhibitions in both the national and the local museums which make charges, and I have no objection to that. The Government have no intention of imposing charges on the major national institutions, which is what, if I may say so, the row was about before.
Lord HUTCHINSON of LULLINGTON: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the circulating department of the Victoria and Albert acquired a large quantity of items for the specific purpose of sending them on circulating exhibitions, and that therefore the closure of that department was a gross dereliction of duty to the public in regard to those items?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, my noble friend will not expect me to accept his description, "a gross dereliction of duty". That would be going rather far, even for a
824
supporter from behind. But I have always said that I think it was a pity, and I am sorry it had to be done.

SHOOTER REPORT: SMALLPOX RESEARCH PRECAUTIONS
3.15 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what degree of confidentiality was attached to the Shooter Report; whether any further precautions have been taken as a result of the report; and what arrangements are being made concerning the future of the smallpox laboratories in Paddington.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY: (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, legal advice to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was to the effect that the report could not, because of the risk of prejudice, be published until the legal proceedings by the Health and Safety Executive against the University of Birmingham were disposed of. They are in fact pending. As a result of the report, all laboratories listed as holding Category A pathogens dangerous to humans are being rigorously re-inspected and, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place on 24th January, consultations are shortly to take place on proposals for notification of possession of Category A pathogens to be made compulsory, and on the details of a possible system for the licensing of laboratories.
The question of the future arrangements for the research facilities at St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, Paddington, is being urgently considered.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that informative reply, but can he say something more specific about St. Mary's, Paddington; and, further, will he be good enough to look into the question of the Agricultural Laboratory at Weymouth, which deals

825
with rabies and TB, to see whether there are adequate safeguards there?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the second part of the supplementary question, I will certainly do so; and if I am able to communicate with the noble Baroness, I will do so. With regard to being more specific about St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, we are now discussing with Professor Dumbell to see whether his work on smallpox can be re-located. We consider it is most important that the work he is doing and which is being done in his laboratory should continue.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us how long the process of inspection will take in other laboratories where Category A pathogens are held and whether special instructions are given to the same laboratories meanwhile to make sure that a recurrence of this sort of thing does not take place?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the re-inspection is done by the Health and Safety Executive in conjunction with the Dangerous Pathogens Advisory Group. I understand that there are 11 such laboratories holding Category A pathogens at the present moment. Some establishments have been re-inspected—notably at Elstree and at Colindale—and, to be frank, restriction orders have already been placed on two establishments.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, has the noble Lord any news about the possible time-scale of the legal proceedings? When are they likely to begin and when are they likely to be disposed of?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have no information before me about that. I must trust entirely to memory. I think I am right in saying that Birmingham University recently applied to the High Court for an order that the proceedings should not be pursued in the magistrates' court. My recollection is that that order was granted, but I believe that there is some other legal process with which I am not familiar which must be taken within a short space of time in order to make that effective.

SOUTHWARK TOWN HALL PROJECT
3.18 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 approved the expenditure involved in the proposal of the Southwark Borough Council to build a new town hall; what is now the estimated cost of this project; and what proportion of this figure will be paid for by the ratepayers of Southwark and by the taxpayer.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, no. My right honourable friend has carefully considered the matter, but there are no grounds on which he can either allow or disallow this expenditure. Such projects are not subject to individual Government financial approval since they come within the locally-determined sector, within which local authorities are free to determine their own priorities. Southwark Council estimate the cost of the project to be about £28 million at 1978 prices. In addition, there would be some acquisition costs. This would be met from the authority's rate fund, but I cannot say what share would be met by the ratepayer and by the taxpayer. My right honourable friend is still considering the planning issues involved.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether she can confirm that there is no question arising of grant or loan sanction by the Secretary of State; and, if that be so, is it still not open to the Government to express an opinion to the local authority concerned as to the appropriateness or otherwise of a large expenditure of this kind for this purpose in present circumstances?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in so far as finance is concerned, my understanding is that Southwark have been talking about a new town hall since local government re-organisation in 1964. They

827
considered that their priorities initially were to be the housing of their people. They have done a great deal in the housing field and have now got it almost in balance with the needs. This particular project would be financed from locally-determined schemes and I am sure that the noble Lord would not expect the Government to interfere in monies given to local authorities for them to decide what are their own priorities. They have decided, in their wisdom or otherwise, that their priority at this point in time is to go ahead with their town hall; therefore this they are doing and this is something they have to stand by. We have no right to interfere except on planning grounds.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, if the Government have no right to interfere, have they not the right, and perhaps the duty, to express an opinion?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think opinions have come from various individuals but the Government as such have no right to express an individual opinion or try to dictate to local authorities how they should spend the money which is given to them in the locally determined sector.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that the Government grant is given without the Government ever having looked at any projections from the local authorities? Do not the local authorities have to project what they have in mind? Was this included in any projections they gave to the Government?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord opposite knows that when money is given for the locally determined sector it is a matter entirely for the local authorities to sort out their priorities regarding how they should spend that money. This scheme is part of that.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us how the cost of £28 million compares with the cost of a new hospital?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are those of us who feel very strongly that Parties when in Government and when not in Government are very liable to say how important it is that they believe in local government, and that local government should be able to take decisions of their own; and, entirely regardless of the rights and wrongs of Southwark's decision, we very much welcome the determination of this Government not to interfere with what has been accepted by both Parties as something which local authorities ought to decide for themselves?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord has put it much better than I could have done.

OIL: MINISTERIAL TALKS
3.22 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how the interests and possible contributions of private sector oil companies active on the United Kingdom continental shelf will be represented at the projected meeting in London in March between a delegation of OPEC countries and delegations representing Britain, Norway, Mexico and Canada.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the proposed meeting will be between the Energy or Oil Ministers of eight oil producing countries. It will be informal and it is expected that there will be wide-ranging discussions of matters of mutual interest and concern. Private sector oil companies will not be represented.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, which was a little bit less informative than one might have hoped. May I ask him whether he can confirm a report of a statement made by Dr. Dickson Mabon on 17th January that among the items to be discussed was closer co-operation between State oil companies in regard to exploration, production and marketing?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there is not expected to be any formal agenda. I should not like to speculate on what will be discussed.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether Dr. Dickson Mabon was correctly reported in that regard?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, what I said was that at the meeting, which is in the future, there will be no formal agenda, and I should not like to speculate on what will be discussed.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend say why this meeting has been called, and why it has been called at the present time? Can he also say why the particular countries referred to in the Question have been asked to attend?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it was suggested to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy by Dr. Hernandez, the Venezuelan Minister of Energy and Mines, that such a meeting would be useful. My right honourable friend very much welcomed the suggestion, and, although he has left the lead in Dr. Hernandez' hands as to the form and attendance, he offered—as a gesture of goodwill—to host the conference at a location near London as a convenient centre for all concerned.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I ask why the Secretary of State welcomed the suggestion of Dr. Hernandez if he did not know what was going to be discussed? Will the noble Lord please reply to the question that has been asked twice so far by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale—that is to say, not what is on the agenda but whether Dr. Dickson Mabon was correctly reported?
Lord STRABOLGI: That is quite a different question; I am not prepared to answer it.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, since the noble Lord is feeling a little bit harassed, I do not want to press him, but I wonder whether he could tell us this: he has said that the delegations will consist of Ministers. Since he mentioned yesterday, in reply to questions, that of course the private sector has a great part to play in the oil industry,
830
could he assure us that the Ministers will represent the interests of the private sector as well as of the nationalised sector?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. This is a private meeting between Ministers and it would not be proper to include the companies. In any case, as I am sure the noble Earl would agree, oil companies throughout the world are in close touch with their Governments and with the Governments of the countries in which they operate. The Ministers present will therefore be quite familiar with their views—as indeed we are familiar with their views here.

LOCAL AUTHORITY WAGE NEGOTIATIONS
3.26 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the position in the local authority wage negotiations."
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady Stedman, after 3.30 p.m., will answer this Question in the form of a Statement.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to the Exchange Equalisation Account. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to the

831
International Monetary Fund and to repeal, as obsolete, the European Monetary Agreement Act 1959 and the entries relating to it in Schedule 2 to the National Loans Act 1968. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
VAN DIEMEN'S LAND COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended so far as is necessary to take the Price Commission (Amendment) Bill through its remaining stages this day.—(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I fear that it will be necessary for me, in accordance with the rules of the House, to repeat this procedure in the case of each of the Bills that follow.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES (GENERAL RELIEFS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MATCHES AND MECHANICAL LIGHTERS DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TOBACCO PRODUCTS DUTY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EXCISE DUTIES (SURCHARGES OR REBATES) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PRICE COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.32 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 1 [Amendment of Price Commission Act 1977]:
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved manuscript Amendment No. 1A:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I circulated a manuscript Amendment this morning dealing with an issue which was raised in the earlier stages of this Bill; that is, the passing on of the cost of

833
imported raw materials. As your Lord-ships will recall, your Lordships in Committee passed an Amendment against the advice of the Government which required the Secretary of State to make safeguard regulations designed to guarantee a minimum level of profitability to firms whose costs increased as a result of rises in prices of imported raw materials. This Amendment now appears as Clause 1(1)(b) of the Bill.
The Government's objection to the Amendment was, and remains, that it is inconsistent with the Bill and with the parent Act to establish minimum profit levels to take account of one particular kind of increase in costs. Profits, as I explained on Tuesday, must relate to the total of a company's costs and not to individual elements of those costs. Moreover, the Amendment as drafted would have required regulations to cover a wide range of firms and thus would have frustrated much of the purpose of the Bill.
However, the Government are aware of the strength of feeling in the House that increases in the price of imported raw materials should not have to be absorbed by firms during an investigation. While, therefore, such increases are a matter which the Commission must already take into account under the statutory criteria of Section 2 in deciding whether to grant an interim price increase, the Government are prepared to amend the Bill so as to impose a more precise obligation upon the Commission.
The manuscript Amendments which I have tabled today have this purpose. The first two delete the Amendments passed in Committee. The third amends Section 4(5) of the parent Act of 1977 so that where it appears to the Commission that the whole or part of the increase pre-notified ought not to be restricted on account of an increase in the cost of imported raw materials, then they shall be under a duty to allow an interim increase accordingly. This principle is also applied by the Amendment to investigations made under Section 5 of the parent Act into non-pre-notifying firms. The fourth Amendment is consequential.
In tabling these Amendments, the Government have tried to meet the fears expressed by your Lordships without destroying the main purpose of the Bill.
834
The Amendments do not provide a mathematical formula for the passing on of certain cost increases which this Government regard as inconsistent with the philosophy both of the Bill and of the parent Act; but they do require the Commission, in deciding upon an interim price increase, to address their minds specifically to increases in cost of imported raw materials, and require them to allow an interim price increase where it appears to them that the whole or part of the increase sought ought not to be restricted on account of this factor.
I am satisfied that in practice any firm which is efficient and which operates in a competitive environment will be able, if it so desires, to pass on in prices additional costs which it cannot help incurring as a result of increases in the prices of imported raw materials. I hope that the House will welcome the spirit in which these Amendments have been tabled and will accept them. I am authorised by the Government to say that the Government will support these Amendments in the other place if this House accepts them and if the other Amendments dealing with imported raw materials are withdrawn.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, it is my duty to recommend to my noble friends that we withdraw the Amendments which at a former stage were in our name and that of the Liberals and which were passed in Committee. The fact that we are prepared, if my noble friends take my advice, to withdraw them, does not mean that we are any happier about this Bill, which I described earlier as an "invidious little piece of legislation"—a description I certainly stick to. It still seems to us quite illogical to attempt to curb prices in the face of the level of wage settlements which are currently being achieved and which are likely to be achieved. It would be one thing if the Government's target were to be adhered to: it is quite another thing if it patently is not.
However, our immediate concern at this stage must be that if this legislation is to go through in another place it must be in as minimally damaging a form as possible. We feel that the Government have made a significant concession here in that, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques,

835
has told us, they are prepared to concede that any increase in the price of imported raw materials should not be absorbed by the firms who have to suffer the increases. This was the substantive point of our Amendment, and had we decided to stick with our Amendment, this would have been mandatory upon the Price Commission.
There is a certain amount of argument as to whether the word "ought" in the new Amendment is exhortatory or mandatory. My feeling is that in English and in logic it is exhortatory, but if, nevertheless, the Price Commission were to go against the exhortation they would run into legal difficulties. Therefore the de facto effect is mandatory. That seems to me the best we can do, and I, for one, am prepared to recommend to my noble friends that they accept it.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we on these Benches still consider this a disreputable little Bill. However, we believe that the Amendment put forward by the Goverment gives increasing safeguards to companies in the very important matter of increases in imported raw material prices. We believe that the way in which the Amendment is worded would strengthen the hand of any company which believed that it had been unfairly dealt with, in taking the Commission to the court. To this extent it minimises the arbitrary nature of the Bill and the wide powers of the Commission to which we objected so strongly, and to which we still object.
I do not, however, accept the point of the noble Lord the Minister who has presented it, that it was against the spirit of the original Act to have any mathematical element in the safeguards. There was a figure of 80 per cent.—an arithmetical, if not a mathematical, limitation—imposed in the legislation. That was in the original Act and it is not inconsistent to require something of that kind in the Amendment. However, in view of the fact that the Government have agreed that this shall go through, and that it improves this little Bill, which is so much in need of improvement—indeed, it would have been much better if it had not been brought before us at all—we are prepared to accept.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, may I raise what may appear to be a very technical point with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques? Am I right in thinking that what he is proposing in Amendment 3A is a substantive Amendment to Section 4 of the 1977 Act, as opposed to an amendment of the safeguard provisions? If that is so, it is covered by the Long Title to the Bill; and if it is not covered by the Long Title to the Bill, ought he not now to be moving an Amendment to the Long Title as well? I realise that this is highly technical, but if we are going to do this we must get it right.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I will ask my advisers to consider the point which the noble Lord has made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved manuscript Amendment No. 1B:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("examinations)") to end of line 13.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, to which I have already spoken.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.43 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR Baroness SEEAR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("or
(c) in consequence of any increases in costs incurred by such persons as a result of Government action;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we put this Amendment down because decisions made by Government are also a very heavy potential cost on employers and can increase their costs very considerably in ways over which they have no control. The area with which we are particularly concerned is increases in rates, which are certain to rise if pay increases of the order which appear to be in the offing are given to local authority workers. For companies to be faced with a potential increase of rates of the size that may well arise, without any specific safeguard that this will be taken into account during the interim period of an inquiry, is something that we cannot accept. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I said at the Committee stage that I would give further consideration to the Amendment which is before us as Amendment No. 1 today. I am afraid that I certainly cannot support the Amendment as it stands. Indeed, on further examination it is clear that, in addition to the points which I made on Tuesday, the Amendment is open to the same criticism which I directed at the Amendment on increased raw material costs. Like that Amendment, it seeks to ensure that a certain category of increased costs can be automatically passed on in prices that cannot be achieved in the manner proposed.
As it stands, the Amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the levels of profit which firms are not to be prevented from earning in consequence of increased costs of the kind in question. But profit is the difference between revenue and total costs. You just cannot say that a level of profit is to be determined by the amount of one particular cost. If the Amendment became law, the Secretary of State would have to make the best sense he could of it. He would have to make regulations so wide in their application that the coverage of safeguards would be very little different from those obtaining at present. The effect of the Amendment would therefore be to damage very much the main purposes of the present Bill.
With permission, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 5 which deals with the same subject. Amendment No. 5 proposes a different means of achieving the purpose intended. It is certainly a better approach. It requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to oblige the Commission to allow price increases to the extent necessary to cover increased costs resulting from Government action. Although Amendment No. 5 is preferable to Amendment No. 1, "costs resulting from Government action" is an impossibly vague term.
Some costs, such as increases in Excise duties, can be readily measured. I am advised that already, under an existing order—Order 1978 No. 1083—made under the 1973 Act, price increases due solely to increases in indirect taxation are generally exempt from notification to the Commission and cannot be investigated. But as soon as we move away from the
838
relevant straightforward kind of costs, matters become much more difficult. How could the Commission make a reliable estimate of all the costs resulting from Government action, and how does one decide what is the result of Government action? For example, if in managing the monetary system there was an increase in interest charges generally, would that be the result of Government action and would it be covered by Amendment No. 5? I hardly need say that questions of that kind could be very controversial, even political, and I am sure that none of us would wish that the Commission should be dragged into political issues.
Finally, I must emphasise again, as I did on Tuesday, that the Commission must already take account of all costs which are unavoidably incurred by efficient companies. I believe that, in practice, this offers a quite adequate safeguard for the purposes that we are considering. To do more, to require that costs be passed on automatically without consideration, would weaken the whole purpose of the Bill and the system established by the 1977 Act, which was intended to replace a system of detailed controls based on allowable cost increases. That system had proved increasingly complicated and ineffective. We prefer these matters to be open to the scrutiny of the Price Commission.
I have been asked to make a specific statement with regard to rates. An increase in local government rates, by itself, has nothing to do with the efficiency of a company. It follows that it would be automatically allowed under Section 2 to an efficient company. In considering an overall increase in prices—that is, an increase due to several causes—the Commission would, of course, have regard to efficiency.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I was very glad to hear the Minister's statement at the end. It will comfort a great many people who are deeply anxious as to the effect of current events on the level of rates. While what the noble Lord has said does not have the force of law, we can hope that when this legislation is being interpreted in the courts, where this question may arise, the statement which he has made will be borne in mind. In

839
view of the noble Lord's statement, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved].
3.50 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved manuscript Amendment No. 3A:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
(" ( ) In section 4(5)—

(a) after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—

"(aa) that the whole or part of the increase ought not to be so restricted because of an increase in the costs of imported raw materials,

(b) after paragraph (i) there shall be inserted—

"(ia) it shall be the duty of the Commission, in a case falling within paragraph (aa) of this subsection, to give to the relevant person a variation notice allowing so much of the increase as they consider ought not to be restricted for the reason mentioned in that paragraph.".

( ) In section 5(4) (application of section 4(5) in relation to notifications in respect of prices) for the words "and for any other reference to the increase there were substituted a reference to the price" there shall be substituted the words "and as if—

(i) in paragraph (aa), for the words from "the whole" to "restricted" there were substituted the words "a particular increase in the price ought not to be restricted by virtue of section 5(3) of this Act";

(ii) in paragraph (ia), for the words from "so" to "as" there were substituted the words "the increase in the price which"; and

(iii) for any reference to the increase (except those in paragraphs (a), (aa) and (ia)) there were substituted a reference to the price;".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, having considered what was said by my noble friend who is sitting behind me, and subject to anything which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, may have received from his advisers whom he was consulting, I think I can recommend my noble friend to accept that this is within the Long Title of the Bill.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am wholly satisfied with that advice. I need not go further.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords in view of the general satisfaction, perhaps I need not read out the whole of the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Schedule [Repeals]:
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved manuscript Amendment No. 5A:
Page 4, column 3, leave out lines 4 to 10 and insert ("Section 4(5)(b) and (ii).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 not moved]
Then Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended, pursuant to resolution:
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Jacques.)
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I wonder whether the Government could clarify this Bill so far as nationalised industries are concerned. I have heard it said that the Price Commission (Amendment) Bill will be a great advantage because it will hold down prices in the nationalised industries. However, what I do not understand is this. As nationalised industries on the whole make a loss and the price of goods produced by nationalised industries is consequently held down or reduced because of the Bill, surely it will increase the losses made by nationalised industries. The result will be that the taxpayer will have to give more support to nationalised industries and that consequently more money will have to be printed. Surely that will increase inflation. I do not understand the logic. In fact, I do not understand the logic of this Bill. I think it is completely illogical.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount has got something.

841
If, as a result of the Bill, the Commission in their wisdom keep down prices, they may very well have to be borne at a later stage by the taxpayer. However, may I ask the noble Viscount to have regard to the whole of the criteria in Section 2 of the parent Act. If he has regard to the whole of the criteria, he will find that it is extremely unlikely that the Commission would have wisdom of the kind which he has in mind.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I wish to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, may I say that I have noticed one point on which we are all agreed; namely, that it is a little Bill. I should like to thank very much the Front Benchers of both Opposition Parties for the generous co-operation they have given to us in a very restricted period of time. As a result, we have a happy outcome. Probably we have reached the stage where the House is acting at its best. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Jacques.)
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL AUTHORITY WAGE NEGOTIATIONS
3.55 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on local authority wage negotiations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said this:
"The employers made an offer of 8.8 per cent. at the National Joint Council Meeting yesterday. The offer embodied the £3.50 underpinning arrangement for the lower paid proposed by the Government but was rejected by the union side. I regret that a settlement was not reached yesterday. I am in close touch with both sides and I trust that negotiations will be resumed shortly."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for repeating the Statement in this House. Of course, we share with the Government their dissatisfaction that the negotiations did not reach a satisfactory conclusion. We hope that the Government will resume those negotiations shortly, by which we hope that they mean tomorrow. It would be appropriate if some publicity were given to the fact, which it very rarely is, that "the employers" here mean the democratically elected councillors acting for the ratepayers of the appropriate authority concerned. The strike is therefore against the ratepayers.
There are two other questions which I should like to ask the Minister, and they are these. First, are the health and fire hazards caused by the accumulating piles of rubbish being suitably monitored? I draw particular attention to the fires which occurred recently in Cambridge. Secondly, are the Government considering the matter of school closures, a point which was raised in our debate yesterday by my noble friend Lady Young, in regard to their overall responsibility for ensuring that every child has over 200 schooling days per year?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in so far as the hazards referred to by the noble Lord are concerned, Yes, we are are aware that there are problems. We are in close touch with the local authorities and we have promised them such assistance as they need from the Government in order to meet these problems. In so far as the educational position is concerned, I have nothing to add to what was said last night by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell when he repeated part of the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the day before, when she said that they had at least got an arrangement at the moment that there would be two days' notice of closure and that she had urged on all local authorities to keep their schools open; to obtain alternative accommodation, where that was possible, in order that those who were doing preparatory work for examinations would be able to continue to do so; that homework should continue to be set and that the matter was being kept under constant review by her Department. I have nothing further to add to that at this time.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches also would like to thank the noble Baroness for having repeated this Statement. We offer our full support to the Government for the firmer line that they have at last taken in stating that they will not finance pay increases beyond the present offer. We very much trust that local government negotiating bodies will now take the same line so that, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, indicated, no further pay increases will have to be paid for by the ratepayers. We are glad to have the assurance in regard to schooling that the noble Baroness has just offered. If I may reinforce the question already asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in relation to rubbish collection, can the Government give a firm assurance that as soon as any substantial health or fire risk arises they will not hesitate to call for voluntary help, and if necessary use troops to dispose of it?
May I ask one further question: In so far as volunteers are called for in any of these disputes, are the Government prepared to state categorically that those who make and those who respond to such calls will be given the full protection of the State, if necessary, in any case where a closed shop is in operation?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in so far as waste collection and disposal is concerned, the position is that the pickets remain active in that particular field. Strike action by waste collection and disposal operatives is leading to a further gradual deterioration in the level of service that is available. Workers in almost 25 per cent. of some of the 300 collection authorities about which information is available are now on strike. The authorities are continuing to encourage public self-help; in some cases they are reported as having used private contractors to move the waste. There are as yet no reports of public health hazards but the Westminster City Council is already reported as having used contractors because of a fire risk and this is the sort of action which we expect local authorities will take, with Government approval. In the last resort, we would certainly not rule out the use of troops. We have a certain duty to the public at large in regard to fire hazard, health hazard and the other parts of the public
844
service, and we will maintain and be answerable for those responsibilities which we have by such means as are possible, by the encouragement of voluntary help and, where and if necessary—and we hope it will not be necessary—by the use of troops.
With regard to the last question about protection raised by the noble Lord, I should want to take further advice on that. My own personal reaction would be that we would stand by people who helped us in a time of emergency, but at this point that must not be taken as a clear Government statement as I have not taken advice on that particular aspect.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I feel so strongly on this that I must ask a question. Do the Government agree that we have now reached a position where there is a deliberate attempt to wreck industry in this country and to ruin democracy as we understand it, and may I ask whether it is not true that many who have what they consider to be genuine grievances now find themselves caught up in a frenzy of self-destruction, of the whole country as well as of themselves, and that those union leaders who unleashed this torrent now realise that they have no means of controlling it? May I beg the Government, even at this late hour, to realise that the country wants action? Is it not possible for all Parties to come together under the leadership of the Prime Minister and with no conditions at all, and to take steps to prevent this catastrophe before it engulfs us all?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I share my noble friend's sentiments about the situation which we are in at the moment. The interesting thing about this is that where, according to the Press, trade unionists are asked to give answers in opinion polls, they are all for maintaining the norm for wages; they are all for doing all the things that we want to do. Then they become part of the organisation which is involved in asking for wage claims and a slightly different attitude seems to creep in at that point.
The Government are trying to do what they can by peaceful persuasion, and even if we had as many joint committees as might be wanted, of as many organisations or as many political Parties—indeed who-

845
ever anyone wanted to call in—I am not sure that we could get any more action than we are getting at the moment. We have tried all along the line to be reasonable, to talk to the trade unions, to get the trade union leaders to accept their responsibilities and to impose such disciplinary action as is necessary within their unions and within their rules. We do not want an outright confrontation with every trade union in this country.
We have tried our best over the last few weeks and shall continue to try to work in co-operation with the trade unions. The Prime Minister and his colleagues are meeting the senior members of the Trades Union Congress now: they are trying to hammer out a policy which the Trades Union Congress will then, we hope, sell to all its members. But at this point I am sure that peaceful persuasion such as we are trying is paying off much better than open confrontation.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, notwithstanding the last words uttered by the noble Baroness, will she make clear, as I think her original Statement indicated, that the Government will give full support to those local authorities who arrange to hire private contractors to shift the rubbish which is disfiguring our streets and is an ever growing menace to health?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have already made it plain to all the local authorities that we will support them in any way they require in order to enable them to meet their responsibilities.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, express views which are held very strongly by, I think, everyone on this side of the House? It is not a question of Party politics but it is the fact that the whole of society and the nation and parliamentary government and democracy are at stake. Will she impress upon her right honourable friend the Prime Minister that we would welcome—as indeed would the leader of the Liberal Party—the opportunity of trying to get together with the Prime Minister to see whether there is not some common ground upon which we can get out of this mess?—because otherwise this situation
846
will engulf everyone. Is the noble Baroness aware that I entirely support the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it is nice to have this degree of co-operation in front and behind me. I shall certainly make the views of the House which have been expressed here today known to my right honourable friends in another place. More than that I cannot promise at this time. As I have said, we do not want an outright confrontation with all the trade unions of this country if we can solve it by peaceful means, by persuasion, and if we can only persuade them that they are doing a lot of damage to their own services and to the country as a whole by pushing up their wage demands and getting us back into a high inflation rate again. We do not want that.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is it not true that the trade unions have been given everything for which they have asked by Her Majesty's present advisers? Is it not true that they have been given the closed shop, the Employment Protection Acts and this, that and the third thing, and that they still have not delivered; and that now Mr. Fisher, the General and Municipal Workers and COHSE are in confrontation with the rest of us—not only with the Government but with the rest of us? That is what is so distressing and it was well underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, such powers as the trade unions have received in the lifetime of this Government have been given to them by Parliament as a whole. Parliament has given the powers which the unions have to use. I must remind the noble Earl that the people who are on strike at the moment—those whom NUPE and the Municipal and General Workers and, to some extent, the Transport and General Workers, represent—are among the lowest paid people within our country. They are the ones who see salaries rocketing at one end and find themselves falling further and further behind. They are the ones who have the case for consideration and what we hope for out of this is that we shall have some sort of comparability report.

847
I understand that the unions have agreed to a comparability study and that the employers have told my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that they would co-operate if such a study were put in train. We are now waiting for the formal application from the two sides to get that study started, but a comparability study, comparing the jobs within local government with jobs in other sectors of industry is not something which can be completed within 24 hours. I think when I was last at the Dispatch Box I said that it would not be in a day or a month or perhaps even a year. If we are going to do the job, we must do it properly; it must be the sort of job which stands the test of time and which lays down the right sort of rates for the job so that these people are satisfied in their employment.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords—
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is simply not true that the workpeople of this country have taken everything and given nothing in return? The fact that inflation has been reduced from the catastrophic heights left behind by the last Administration has been brought about simply and solely by the working people of this country. They have borne the burden and my sympathies are on the side—and have always been—of the lower paid worker.
I would say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton: when she lost her seat—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord WIGG: When she lost her seat—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord WIGG: Is the noble Baroness aware that when the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, lost her seat many in the Labour movement marked it down as—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies to a terminological inexactitude, will she recall that when the Conservative Party left office the rate of inflation was 10 per cent. and the catastrophic height—if that is not a contradiction in terms—took place within six weeks afterwards?
Baroness STEDMAN: And, my Lords, if the Government give way now we shall again be back at 10 per cent., and we are not at 10 per cent. at present.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I put a question from another angle? I do not want to be accused of strike breaking. Is my noble friend aware that the general body of ratepayers, although they dislike the possibility of rates being increased, would be—I will not say delighted or happy, but willing to accept an increase in rates if only we could put an end to this piling up of rubbish? This is one element of the dispute which in my opinion is horrifying. I wonder what visitors to London will be thinking of us when they look upon these horrible piles of rubbish in Oxford Street. We are now informed by the Press that rats are scampering all over the place. On the question of asking for assistance from the Forces or from volunteers, is my noble friend aware that the Attlee Government, when faced with a dockers' strike which was very troublesome—and Mr. Ernest Bevin, a trade union leader of distinction was a member of that Government, and I happened to be a member of it at the time—agreed to send troops down to the docks in order to ensure that goods could be removed? If that could be done under an Attlee Government, is it not possible that the Prime Minister might consider a little more resilience and agree to something in addition to what has been offered, even if the ratepayers have got to meet part of the burden, in order, not to deal with the whole of the dispute, schooling and the rest, but to stop this terrible, horrible spectacle that we are now asked to endure?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that one side of these negotiations, as the noble Lord opposite said, is the democratically elected people representing the local authorities. The negotiations are between that side, of the people, and the trade unions. What the Government have said, and said quite clearly, is that they are not prepared to go into double figures and to underpin that in the rate support grant. It is for the elected representatives themselves to decide if they want to go above that level. Anything above that has to be borne on the local rates. That is something which the elected representatives representing

849
the employers have to make up their own minds about. What the Government have told them is that in an extreme emergency and to allow flexibility they would underpin an amount up to 9·9 per cent. Beyond that the ratepayers must bear the whole cost.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness agrees that the bargaining power of the representatives of the local ratepayers depends on what kind of action the Government themselves are going to take? If the Government refuse to take emergency action the bargaining power of the ratepayers is greatly reduced.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are not refusing to take emergency action. We have told the local authorities, who are responsible within their own areas for these services, that we will give them what support they deem to be necessary. We are willing to do that. The ball is now in the court of the National Industrial Council, and it is for the ratepayers' representatives to decide, in the light of the Prime Minister's Statement that the Government are going to keep inflation below 10 per cent. and in single figures, whether they want to offer more to get people back to work. The extra over 9.9 per cent. must fall completely on the ratepayers and not part of it on the Government.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, do I understand the noble Baroness rightly, that if the local authorities ask the Government to send troops in to remove rubbish they will agree?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, if there is no other means of meeting their responsibilities, which the local authorities want to do, if they cannot get the necessary contractors or volunteers to do it, in the very last resort we would have to consider moving in troops.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think I sense the wish of the House that we should now proceed to the next business.

SPECIAL COMMISSION ON OIL SANCTIONS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
4.15 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, That this House do concur in the
850
Resolution communicated by the Commons: that it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses to be known as "the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions" be appointed to consider, following the Report of the Bingham Inquiry, the part played by those concerned in the development and application of the policy of oil sanctions against Rhodesia with a view to determining whether Parliament or Ministers were misled, intentionally or otherwise, and to report;
That a Select Committee of four Lords be appointed to join with the Committee of the Commons to consider the said matter and to report accordingly;
That two be the quorum;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit;
That the Committee have leave to examine witnesses on oath;
That the Committee have power to appoint persons to carry out such work relating to the Special Commission's inquiry as the Special Commission may determine;
That no person not being a Member of the Special Commission shall be present during any of the proceedings of the Special Commission unless required by the Special Commission to be present for the purposes of their inquiry;
That all papers submitted to the Special Commission shall first be examined by their Chairman who shall determine, if necessary after consultation with other Members of the Special Commission, which of the papers should be seen by the Members of the Special Commission for the purposes of the Inquiry and which of the said papers and records should be shown to parties interested or their Counsel or agents, or to witnesses, and which of such papers and records may be retained by Members of the Special Commission or such parties, Counsel agents or witnesses, and which of such papers and records shall be included in or referred to in any report.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when we debated the subject of Rhodesia and the report from Mr. Tom Bingham, QC, and Mr. Gray on Rhodesia

851
oil sanctions last November, I promised that the Government would consider with great care, in the light of the debates in the two Houses and in the light of the Bingham Report itself, whether a further inquiry was called for, and, if so, what form it should take. The same undertaking was given by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts and by Ministers in another place.
In the debate in this House my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, my noble friend Lord Brockway, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, spoke strongly in favour of a further inquiry. Lord Gardiner said in particular that the Bingham Report raised very serious issues, and that to some extent it was perhaps only fair for those who have been Ministers in appropriate Departments under different Administrations at the material time, and who therefore are assumed to know about things, to have an opportunity to have the allegations inquired into. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said that he willingly gave evidence to the Bingham inquiry and would be equally ready to help, to the best of his recollection, any other inquiry, if it were decided to hold one. Indeed, he thought that in some ways a further inquiry might help him personally, although it is right that I should add that he also said that the important matter was whether a further inquiry would do the country any good at home or abroad.
It is true, of course, that a number of noble Lords spoke against a further inquiry. The majority of noble Lords who spoke in the debate, however, did not express an opinion one way or the other on the question of a further inquiry. That was no doubt because the Motion we were debating related to the renewal of the sanctions orders. The overwhelming balance of opinion in another place in the debate on 7th and 8th November was in favour of a further inquiry. As I read the debate, some 24 Members in another place expressed a desire for a further inquiry, whereas only four were opposed. Those in favour of a further inquiry came from all three main parliamentary political Parties, including leading figures in those Parties. One eminent Conservative Back-Bencher said that the integrity of our Parliament was at stake. The Press, I
852
believe, universally called for a further inquiry, and in strident terms.
In these circumstances my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced in another place on 15th December the Government's decision to recommend to both Houses of Parliament, after the Recess, the setting up, by joint Resolution of both Houses, of a Special Commission of Inquiry. This statement was not repeated in this House simply because we had then, happily, adjourned for the Christmas Recess. This occasion, therefore, represents the first real opportunity the House has had to take cognisance of the Government's decision of last December. In effect the Government, having considered the debates in the two Houses and the report, have concluded that the exceptional nature of the events covered by the Bingham Report and the importance of the questions raised in Parliament do call for a further inquiry, and that it should be a parliamentary inquiry.
The first Motion standing in my name invites the House to agree with the Government and with the other place that a Joint Committee of both Houses, to be known as the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions, should be appointed to consider the part played by those concerned in the development and application of the policy of oil sanctions against Rhodesia, with a view to determining whether Parliament or Ministers were misled.
As the inquiry is very largely of a parliamentary nature (because of the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, and the underlying responsibility of the public service to Ministers), we propose that the inquiry should be conducted in a parliamentary context. There are proposed to be five Commissioners from another place and four from this House. The Motion before the House was amended yesterday so as to propose a Select Committee of four Lords rather than three, as in the earlier version. However, I am sure that that change will not occasion the House any inconvenience.
As the House will know, the other place agreed last week to a resolution roughly similar to that standing in my name. I have no doubt that this House will wish to take account of the fact that, on a free

853
vote, the other place voted by a majority of more than two to one in favour of a further inquiry into the matters mentioned in the first part of the Motion. That vote, I submit, reflects one of the strongest reasons why this House should agree to a further inquiry.
As I have said, the Government promised both Houses to consider what was said in the earlier debates in which the elected Chamber was strongly in favour of a further inquiry and this Chamber, in so far as the issue was mentioned in debate, was more or less evenly balanced on the issue. No doubt the House will consider that it would, indeed, by a serious step to reject the views and conclusion so emphatically expressed and arrived at in another place after prolonged consideration of the matter. Noble Lords will bear in mind, I am sure, that rejection of the proposal would be a much more serious step than, for example, this House insisting on a Lords' Amendment to a Commons' Bill. In that case, of course, there would be room for reconciliation. Rejection of this Motion tonight would result in direct confrontation between Lords and Commons.
Mr. Bingham and Mr. Gray made it plain in their report that they had not attempted, in telling the story, to relate it—save occasionally where these were directly relevant to the narrative—to contemporaneous political, diplomatic and economic events. Since the publication of the Bingham Report, there has been much sustained public interest in the topic, particularly in view of the accounts given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and by Sir Harold Wilson of their respective parts in the affair. Sir Harold Wilson in particular—the Prime Minister at the time—has asked for an inquiry and I have already related the view of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that it could help him personally also.
Those expressions of view ought, I think, to be given great weight in your Lordships' House. The opportunity to clear the air generally is one which I submit should not be thrown away and so is the importance of avoiding a charge of a cover-up by Parliament which I fear would be stridently alleged if we rejected the proposal for a further inquiry. I submit that it would accord with the highest traditions of Parliament and of
854
this country if serious charges of mistakes or errors, or even actual deception—as has been alleged—by those holding executive responsibility on behalf of the nation, were fully and fairly examined in a parliamentary context. Finally, I submit that it is necessary for the good relations of this country with other nations. Recent experience abroad has shown that a heavy price may be paid for failure to investigate thoroughly allegations of misconduct in the carriage of public affairs.
The terms of reference of the inquiry will, I believe, enable the Special Commission to concentrate on the issues of political responsibility, whether to Parliament or more generally, which it was not the Bingham Inquiry's task to consider, and to avoid traversing again the ground already covered by Bingham. Equally, it will be able to avoid investigating the possible commission of criminal offences, which is being done by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It will thus be for the Commission to investigate the way in which successive Governemnts pursued the oil sanctions policy and to do so as deeply as may be necessary in order to ascertain and report whether Parliament and Ministers were misled concerning that policy. If the Commission concludes that Parliament or Ministers were misled, whether intentionally or not, it will have the further task of seeking to determine the responsibility of those, whether Ministers, officials or persons outside Government, who were providing, or failing to provide, information.
It is, I believe, common ground that if there is to be an inquiry it should be completed quickly. The Government believe that with the proposed terms of reference this could be done. But the inquiry must also be effective. The Government believe that the powers and procedure proposed for the Commission should enable it to send for persons and papers.
The Government have endeavoured to ensure that the proposed inquiry should satisfy the essential requirements of being fair to the individuals concerned and not damaging to the processes of government or the interests of this country abroad. First, as to the protection of the individuals concerned, the Government propose that the Special Commission should

855
sit in private, as is normal in the case of Select Committees of another place when considering the conduct of individuals. If there is criticism, it will be made known ultimately in the report itself. As to the question whether those who may be involved will know in advance the case that is being alleged against them so that they are able to have the benefit of legal assistance, it will be for the Special Commission to determine how this should be done within its terms of reference and the powers given to it. I am sure that, particularly since the Government propose that a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary should preside, the Special Commission will have these considerations very much in mind, and will hear Counsel, if it so decides, in appropriate cases.
The second main condition which I mentioned as needing to be satisfied is the adequate protection of the interests of Government as a whole and of the United Kingdom's relations with foreign States. This condition relates, in particular, to Cabinet documents. The House will see that the Motion provides what I readily agree is a novel procedure for the determination of the question whether Cabinet documents should be disclosed. The Government's view is that it is essential, in the public interest, to maintain the general rule that discussions in Cabinet and in committees of the Cabinet are confidential and protected from disclosure until the expiry of the 30-year period under the Public Records Act 1958 as amended in 1967. Relaxation of this rule would damage the concept of ministerial collective responsibility and the management of Government business, and the Cabinet system as we know it would thereby be endangered. The Government are, therefore, determined to protect that basic rule of our constitutional practice.
However, at the same time, the Government have had to recognise in the circumstances of this matter that, unless this rule of confidentiality were waived in this case, there could be no full or fair investigation in to the questions of responsibility that are involved. Short of leaving the verdict to history, some waiver is inevitable in the circumstances of the oil sanctions story. If Parliament believes that that story should be fully and fairly investigated, the Commission must, I submit,
856
see the material contemporary documents. To rely wholly on fallible, and perhaps differing, recollections of past events would be fair neither to the investigation nor to the investigators, nor, indeed, to those being investigated.
The Government, therefore, propose exceptional actions in the particular circumstances of the oil sanctions inquiry, which are designed to meet that inquiry alone and are not to be taken as a precedent for the future. In particular, as the House will see from the Motion, the Government propose that the Chairman of the Special Commission should be given a specific function in relation to the production and disclosure of Cabinet papers. It will be for him to determine, if necessary after consultation with the other members of the Commission, what documents are relevant, material and essential for the purpose of the inquiry. The Motion envisages that circumstances may require disclosure beyond the immediate confines of the chairman and members of the Special Commission. Parties interested, their representatives and witnesses are mentioned. While, of course, some of the persons interested will have, and will retain, their normal right of access as Minister to Cabinet papers, it may be essential for the purposes of the inquiry that others not so privileged should also be allowed to see one or more of the relevant confidential papers.
Equally, if a witness desires to bring a particular document to the Commission's notice, it will be for the chairman to decide on its materiality and importance to the issues which the Commission will be considering. The exceptional, and, in the Government's view, vital power of the chairman to determine which papers are to be disclosed in this way will extend to disclosure of papers and records in the eventual report of the Commission.
It is for these reasons and because of the special circumstances and importance of the task which it is proposed to give the Commission, that the Government are prepared to agree in principle that the customary rules concerning Cabinet papers and records will be waived. However, it is essential that these rules should not be relaxed more widely than is required for the particular purpose, and I am sure that the decisions to be taken in due course in

857
the manner I have described will reflect that view. We believe that a Lord of Appeal, who is not likely to be ignorant about political matters and who will have the opportunity of consulting his colleagues if he is in any doubt, is the right person to act as a filter for this purpose.
The Government's wish is that the chairman of the Commission should be a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and, thus, one of the most highly respected and eminent lawyers in the United Kingdom, and with a special place in your Lordships' House and, thus, in Parliament as a whole. I feel confident that the task to be imposed on the chairman is one which a very senior member of the Judiciary and a Member of this House can properly be asked to perform, if he is willing to undertake it. Indeed, a Lord of Appeal is in the view of the Government uniquely qualified to perform the task in question.
I should now say a little about the order of events in this House. If, as I hope, the House agrees with the main Motion standing in my name, it would be my intention to move the second Motion to dispense with Standing Order No. 62. This would be appropriate, since the main Motion requires that no person not being a member of the Special Commission is to be present during the proceedings and, therefore, the general rule that any Lord may attend and speak at a meeting of a Select Committee ought to be modified in the exceptional circumstances of this inquiry.
If the two Motions on today's Order Paper are passed, the Committee of Selection will, I understand, meet shortly in order to select the four noble Lords to be named as Members of the Committee, including the Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. The House will then be asked—perhaps next week—to agree to the recommendations of the Committee of Selection, and a message would be sent to another place to communicate these names and to ask them to agree to the appointment of the Lord of Appeal as chairman. Once the other place have selected their five members and, it is to be hoped, agreed with this House's proposal of a chairman, the Special Commission would then be in a position to commence its deliberations.
I hope that this explanation of the Government's proposals and of the reasons
858
for the Government's decision on the holding, and the manner of holding, of a further inquiry will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur in the Resolution communicated by the Commons: that it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses to be known as "the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions" be appointed to consider, following the Report of the Bingham Inquiry, the part played by those concerned in the development and application of the policy of oil sanctions against Rhodesia with a view to determining whether Parliament or Ministers were misled, intentionally or otherwise, and to report;
That a Select Committee of four Lords be appointed to join with the Committee of the Commons to consider the said matters and to report accordingly;
That two be the quorum;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit;
That the Committee have leave to examine witnesses on oath;
That the Committee have power to appoint persons to carry out such work relating to the Special Commission's inquiry as the Special Commission may determine;
That no person not being a Member of the Special Commission shall be present during any of the proceedings of the Special Commission unless required by the Special Commission to be present for the purposes of their inquiry;
That all papers submitted to the Special Commission shall first be examined by their Chairman who shall determine, if necessary after consultation with other Members of the Special Commission, which of the papers should be seen by the Members of the Special Commission for the purposes of the Inquiry and which of the said papers and records should be shown to parties interested or their Counsel or agents, or to witnesses, and which of such papers and records may be retained by Members of the Special Commission or such parties, Counsel agents or witnesses, and which of such papers and records shall be included in or referred to in any report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.35 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I think that this is one of the most important decisions which this House has been asked to take in the present Parliament. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor implied—but he did not expressly say—that a Commission, or rather a Joint Select Committee (because that is what it is) of the two Houses has never been established before for this or any

859
similar purpose. I am bound to say that I think we should consider very carefully the constitutional problems involved. My own conclusion—and I speak only for myself—is that this is a wholly unacceptable proposal.
I should like to say one or two other things by way of preliminary remarks. The first—and I hope that I need not say it, but I shall ex abundante cautela—is that although I shall be saying many unpalatable things about this Motion, nothing that I say is intended personally either against the noble and learned Lord who has moved it or against any other individual member of the Administration. Nor is it my desire to try to extract—even if it were possible, and I doubt that it is—any Party political mileage out of the criticisms which I propose to make of the Motion. On a free vote—and so far as we are concerned, this will be a free vote—my noble friends are perfectly free to agree with what I say and vote with me in the Lobby against this proposal, to disagree and to vote with the Government or, if they so prefer, not to vote at all. I hope that that will be the attitude of the other Parties, because this seems to me to be a parliamentary occasion on which each Member of your Lordships' House must act upon and speak upon his own honour and his own conscience—as we always do—without any Party considerations or any collective decision intervening.
Having said that, I am bound to say that I consider this Motion to embody a constitutional enormity. I think that both in the short run and in the long run it will redound to the great disadvantage of our country. I think that it will not only fail in its object, but that it is so constructed that it must fail in its object. I think that it not only breaches, but probably breaches irreparably—because I do not accept for a moment that it cannot be treated as a precedent (everything that happens in public is a precendent under our Constitution)—important constitutional principles. Apart from anything else—and I shall come to this later in my speech—it involves the misuse of a valuable member of the Judiciary, for all of whom we have a deep regard, and it is something with which this House should have nothing whatever to do, whatever may be done in another place.
860
As I have indicated, my main criticisms are directed to the form of inquiry and to the constitutional provisions involved. But, as the noble and learned Lord has—in my opinion, quite rightly—done, I think that for a moment and in the light of the Bingham Report we should direct our attentions to whether any further inquiry is either desirable or necessary. The noble and learned Lord did so, and, as I say, I think that he was right. However, my conclusion is the opposite of that which he invited the House to draw.
He quite rightly reminded us that we had a debate on Rhodesia on 9th November. The main subject then was of course the continuance of sanctions, and I confined myself in my speech to the issues involved in that matter. But during the course of the debate at least two noble Lords who had participated in the events under discussion this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, made speeches which I think impressed the House and which are directly relevant to the question that we now have to decide. Read with the Bingham Report I am bound to say that they made it clear to my mind, and I hope to the mind of any unprejudiced person, that there is nothing further to inquire into at all.
If I may remind the House, and I am speaking in very general terms because this is not the main thrust of my argument, there were three phases in the sanctions question. The first was a breach of the law—by which I mean a plain contravention of British law—which was brought to an end when the matter was brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government in, so far as I remember, February 1968, or between February 1968 and February 1969. There then followed a period in which took place what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred to as, I think, the swap. I think both Mr. Michael Stewart and Lord Thomson testified to that.
I think there is nothing new to inquire into about that period. The Government, as we now know from Lord Thomson, were informed. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and I think Mr. Stewart, stated that they regarded it as a repugnant necessity; others will regard it as a disreputable contrivance to evade international obligations. I myself was persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson,

861
but others are entitled to the contrary opinion. It is something about which each man and each woman in the country, perhaps in the world, is entitled to form an opinion of their own in the light of the arguments involved. Nine Members of Parliament, of this House and of the other place, are in no better and no worse a position to make their value judgments about that than anybody else. It will continue to be a matter for debate, but I think there is nothing whatever to inquire into by way of extracting new facts. The case is fully set out in the Bingham Report.
Then there was, thirdly, the period of resumed illegality from 1971 onwards; but it is clear from the Bingham Report and from the speech of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, that neither Ministers nor in fact the holding companies in this country were informed of it. Again, the facts are perfectly well known, and the criticisms are in fact subject to any criminal prosecutions which may or may not be thought necessary relating to that period, and nothing further remains to be discussed by way of the facts. So in my view at any rate there is no prima facie case for a future investigation of any kind; nor any degree of assurance that if there is a future investigation and it yields a non-result, which I am confident that it would, that there would not be a further demand for a further investigation after the conclusion of those hearings.
Nevertheless, the Government have apparently decided to set up a new and unprecedented joint select committee—called, I think improperly, a commission, because it is nothing of the kind—to inquire into whether Ministers or Parliament have been misled. I can see very great disadvantage in holding such an inquiry, both from the interests of Britain and from the point of view, which Lord Thomson rightly stressed in his speech, of the future of Rhodesia, which in this particular context is not something which we ought to disregard. I can myself see a future of endless recrimination, countless leaks, a non-result following years of delay and expense, and perhaps a demand for a further inquiry at the end of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in the speech to which I have referred, made a final plea to the House which is directly
862
relevant to what I want to say, and from which therefore I shall quote an extract. After saying, and in my opinion convincing the House and certainly convincing me, that he had nothing himself to hide, as neither did the succeeding Administration, he said:
"It seems to have become a standard reflex action these days to deal with problems by setting up an inquiry and then to establish a further tribunal to investigate the original inquiry; and so on ad infinitum. This is in danger of becoming a national neurosis—a turning away from reality and the problems of the present by endless recriminations about imaginary conspiracies in the past. In this case the Government have set up a thorough investigation. They have immediately published its results in full. They have sent its findings to the appropriate prosecuting authorities. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said, nobody can seriously accuse the Government of a cover-up in this case. Would it not be now much better for Britain to let the inquest into the past rest there and to concentrate our energies and efforts, as we ought to be doing whole-mindedly in this debate, on facing the future in Rhodesia and trying to avert the final catastrophe that may be so near?—[Official Report, 9/11/78, col. 474.]
I endorse every word of that in Lord Thomson's speech.
But supposing I am wrong in every word that I have uttered to the House up to this moment, must it not be plain that the only terms on which an inquiry of this kind could ever carry conviction would be that there should be full disclosure of all the advice conveyed by civil servants to Ministers and of all the Minutes and all the discussions between Ministers themselves? In other words, all Cabinet papers and all witnesses to be available. If that is not done, is it not obvious that everybody who has the desire to accuse Governments of this country of dishonesty, whether inside or outside the country, will say, and say in a form in which it cannot be disproved, however false it be, that there has been a cover-up?
If, on the other hand, it is done—that is to say, if there is full disclosure—it could only be achieved, to my mind, by breaking two absolutely vital constitutional principles: first, the confidentiality of advice given to Ministers by civil servants, and secondly, the confidentiality of Cabinet documents and discussions. Without them the inquiry must be valueless, especially from the point of view of the foreign relations upon which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor rightly set great stress, because

863
those who are anxious to allege a cover-up will only have their worst suspicions confirmed. If these principles are once breached, however, and full disclosure is made of these matters, a precedent will have been set, despite what the noble and learned Lord has said, because everything that happens in public, every decision of every Government is a precedent; and a precedent will have been set which will be repeated, or for which a demand will be repeated, every time a controversial issue arises giving rise to controversial decisions by the Government of the day.
In the light of the present situation in the world and of the enemies this country and Western civilisation has accumulated against itself, and in the light of the present situation in this country, I can only say I am absolutely appalled at the potential and almost certain consequences and implications for the interest of this country which would follow the passing of this resolution.
The Government appear to think they have avoided the dilemma by an ingenious compromise, the selection of a Law Lord from this House as chairman to act as a sieve to sift the confidential matters before they reach the other members of the committee, and to act as a sieve quite separately to sift the confidential matters and witnesses before the information reaches the other witnesses or solicitors and counsel. The committee's sessions will be held in secret, and that in itself is bound to give rise to criticism—although obviously the Government to that extent are right—and the evidence before them will be at the discretion of the chairman.
How the Government can really believe that such a body can carry any conviction at all against a potential and malicious charge of a cover-up—unless they were already convinced that the whole thing was a mare's nest anyway, which I am quite certain it is—I simply do not understand. They appear to have achieved what I should have thought was the impossible. Instead of solving the dilemma, they have sat firmly on each of the horns of it at once and successfully impaled themselves on a third, the existence of which one would have thought, although it was not on the surface, might easily have been suspected, situated somewhere between
864
the two, for they have misused the Judiciary and compromised its independence by giving it a politically sensitive role.
I wish to discuss at this stage the position of the potential members of the committee, by which I mean the lay members and not the chairman. This, it seems to me, is both morally intolerable and politically indefensible. Since, in the nature of things and from the terms of the resolution, they will have no personal guarantee that their report is based on a total disclosure of facts or documents or, if it is not, what has been withheld from them, the Government proposal renders it certain that the report can have no personal guarantee of its veracity from the members of the committee, and it can carry in the outside world no evidential value whatever. Indeed, if anything be withheld—and one can only assume from the Lord Chancellor's speech that there will be things withheld—it will be assumed, for all I know rightly, that what has been withheld is the most politically damaging matter to this country. I could never myself agree to serve as a lay member on a body of which only the chairman could decide what I could not and what I could be allowed to see before I issued my report.
Although the committee, for the reasons I have given, can carry no conviction—because it sits in private and hears only sifted material—nevertheless the Government have succeeded in breaching the principle of confidentiality, without which I believe no kind of Government can be carried on in this country, because all the material will be available to the chairman. Hitherto, Cabinet documents have been disclosed only by the consent of the Prime Minister concerned; both the relevant Prime Ministers have, I think, raised objections.
Then there is the principle of the anonymity and confidentiality of civil servants' advice. I believe that in confidential matters that has never been breached, yet it is to be breached in this case. The chairman is to see it all and, in the event of his agreeing, so are the other members of the committee; and in the present state of the nation and the outside world I could never agree to the breach of those principles.

865
I turn to the position of the Judiciary. The Attorney General appears to have thought—indeed, he said so at col. 1791 in the House of Commons debate—that the chairman's judicial experience would make him peculiarly well suited to the task. I hope it will be believed that I yield to nobody in my respect for all the members of the Judiciary, and in particular noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches, but with great respect to them all—and I see some of them present here this afternoon—I can conceive of few careers less suited to the present task than that of a judge.
The selection of material will not be based on the criteria common to litigious proceedings. Of course, it will not. On the contrary, it will be an exercise in political expertise, and this is a field in which our higher Judiciary is of necessity imperfectly trained. I do not envy the position of the chairman. If the position of the other members of the committee is, as I have suggested, intolerable, the position of the chairman will be a good deal worse. Every decision he makes will subject him to criticism both inside and outside this country.
The Attorney General said in the passage to which I referred that the only criteria he would have to apply would be those of materiality and importance—importance, that is, for the purpose of the inquiry—but the noble and learned Lord was wiser than to make any such pretence, because if those were the sole criteria to be applied, then the members of the committee could judge for themselves those criteria as well as, and probably a good deal better than, the legal chairman. But they are not to be allowed to judge them for themselves. The test will be the public interest in the political sense, and whatever the chairman does he will therefore put his neck on the political chopping block.
What of the witnesses who are called to give evidence and whose conduct will be called in question? They are not, reading the resolution, necessarily to see all the material which will be before the committee—a fundamental breach, I would have said, of the rules of natural justice. Apparently ex-Ministers are to be allowed to see the papers of their own Administration, as they always are, but that is clearly not enough. Apparently they are not to be allowed—there is no
866
guarantee under the terms of the resolution that they will be allowed—to sit in on the deliberations of the committee. They will not be allowed, unless the chairman decides they can, to hear the other evidence.
What about the civil servants? Natural justice would seem to demand that they should see everything, but according to the resolution that is not necessarily to be the case. Supposing witnesses wish to refer to something which, in the public interest, the chairman has excluded from the consideration of the committee? Often matters of defence assume their importance, materiality and significance only during the course of a hearing. Supposing they wish to refer to witnesses who have given evidence before them but whose evidence they are not necessarily to be allowed to hear? Or to documents available to the previous Administration or to a subsequent Administration? What are the ex-Ministers and civil servants supposed to do about that? And what about the legal representatives, their counsel and solicitors, who apparently to some extent are to be allowed to take part in the proceedings? Are they to be allowed to see the Cabinet documents, and which of them? Are they to be allowed to listen to the other witnesses, and which of them? We are not told.
It is, with respect, a misuse of judicial time and judicial impartiality to employ a full-time judge on an errand of this kind which, so far as I can see, is bound to lead to disaster whichever way it is conducted. In the long history of Parliament—and it is a long and honourable history—we have never up to this day seen a body of this kind. We have never seen set up before a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, falsely called a Commission, presided over by a judge who is eligible only because he happens to be a Member of the House of Lords, sitting in private and operating as a court of inquiry on incomplete material which it is not allowed to sift for itself—material going into the conduct of Ministers and civil servants, who have no right to attend the whole hearing or to know the full extent of the evidence.
My submission to the House is that this is a proposal which would get the worst of all possible worlds. I do not accept the view that if it were to be

867
rejected, there would be a confrontation with the other place. It is open to the other place, if it chooses to pursue a course of conduct which I would condemn as a folly, to set up its own select committee in the ordinary way. They have a tragic and unfortunate history, and I would certainly hope that such a committee would never be set up. But that we should, under threat of disagreeing with them, be asked to compromise our own honour, integrity and fundamental constitutional principles, which have hitherto been thought to be unbreakable, seems to me an argument which cannot possibly be allowed to succeed before your Lordships.
Enough is enough, in my judgment, and Bingham was enough—perhaps too much. I beseech the House to throw out the Motion. If the Government wish to advise the House of Commons to go on with another inquiry, let them do so on their own responsibility, but let this House have nothing to do with the disreputable process which will ensue if we pass the present resolution.
5.2 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, it is with the greatest possible diffidence and hesitation that I find myself disagreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. I must suggest that the greater part of his very weighty and formidable argument was directed to the issue of whether this House should set up an inquiry into the matters set out in the Motion before us. That is not the issue. Your Lordships' House is not being asked to set up an inquiry. Your Lordships' House is being asked to join in an inquiry, to co-operate in an inquiry which, quite clearly from the terms of the Resolution passed in the other place, is to take place whether or not your Lordships' House likes it. So the real issue before your Lordships' House today is whether we should play our proper part in that inquiry, or whether we should leave it to go ahead, instituted by the other place, without our co-operation.
I make only two observations about that. First, those of us who believe in a bicameral legislature believe that there ought to be the greatest possible co-
868
operation at all times between the two Houses. There is here an offer by the other House that we should join them in forming a Joint Select Committee of Inquiry into these matters. For us to decline that invitation, to say, "No, we will have nothing to do with it. You get on with it, and do it by yourselves," would seem to me to be against the spirit in which we should attempt to operate a two-Chamber system of Government. I would add one other reflection on this line. If there is to be, as there clearly is to be, a Commission of Inquiry into these matters, is it better that it should be composed entirely of Members of the other place, or would it perhaps be better to include some of the responsible Members of your Lordships' House?
I believe that, because of those arguments, much of what has been said so far by the noble and learned Lord about whether there is a need for an inquiry, is perhaps not of direct help to us in the difficult decision that we have to take this afternoon. On the question of whether there is a need for an inquiry, I wish to make only one or two observations. I addressed your Lordships' House at great length on this matter, starting at 17 minutes past one in the morning of 10th November. I would not be so rash as to presume that what I said then is necessarily fresh in the minds of all your Lordships, but, equally, I would think that it would be quite wrong to repeat now at length the arguments that I put forward then. In a very few sentences, it seems to me that there are serious issues raised, and not answered, by the Bingham Report. There are issues as to the integrity of successive Governments; as to whether they knew of the extensive breaches of the sanctions orders; and, if they did not know, as to what were the reasons why that knowledge was kept from them. There are issues as to the role of the Civil Service, and, in particular, as to the role of the Civil Service in relation to the incoming Conservative Government of 1970, which clearly require careful examination. There are issues as to the role of BP, in which the Government have a majority shareholding, as well as having directors on the board, and issues as to whether—as there are some indications in Bingham—there may have been collusion between the oil companies and Mr. Smith before UDI was declared.

869
I should not for one moment seek to prejudge any of these matters, but it is, I believe, fair comment to say that these are all issues that stand out as having been raised in the Bingham Report. They are not answered, and they are matters which in my view greatly affect the accountability of Government in this country, as well as our reputation for our system of government. When I spoke to your Lordships in November I indicated that in those circumstances it seemed to me that there was clearly a case for an inquiry, and nothing I have heard since has removed my view of the need for one; if anything, other disclosures have perhaps strengthened the need for such an inquiry. Back in November I suggested that perhaps a judicial tribunal of inquiry might be the best solution in a very difficult situation—every solution has certain disadvantages. But I accept that the time that that would take is in itself a very powerful disadvantage, and it seems to me that the Government have devised a proposal, which is now before your Lordships' House, which is ingenious and which on the face of it appears to meet many of the difficulties which were expressed then.
Of course I note what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, about appointing a Lord of Appeal as chairman. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will forgive my saying that I am not one who believes that on every conceivable occasion, and for every public inquiry, a Lord of Appeal as chairman is necessarily the best answer. It is clearly desirable that where possible those who occupy such high judicial positions should not be dragged into the political arena unnecessarily. I would say, in passing, that I should have thought that one ought to try not to use the services of a Lord of Appeal in order to arbitrate, for example, in a wage dispute or matters of that kind. But this is a very different kind of inquiry. It is obviously an inquiry into political matters—of course it is—but it is also an inquiry where there will be clearly defined issues in which evidence will have to be sought, assessed and weighed. One would have thought that in those circumstances a Lord of Appeal would have been particularly suitable to undertake the difficult and responsible job of presiding over such a commission.
870
The other objection that was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, related particularly to the very difficult problem of the confidential Cabinet documents, and so forth, which necessarily must, to a limited extent, be made available if the inquiry is to be successful. As I read the terms of this Motion, what is in fact suggested is simply that the chairman should look at those documents first, and if they are relevant they should be disclosed to the rest of the Commission; if they are not relevant they should not be disclosed; and if he is in doubt about their relevance he should consult the members of the Commission as to their use. I find this no more than a formalisation of the practice which any good chairman of any responsible body invariably adopts. He invariably looks at all the papers which are produced before him by his secretariat in order to see which of them are relevant for the body over which he is presiding; and he does not trouble them with those which are not relevant. I can see nothing startling or surprising in the proposal which is now made, and I can see that in a difficult situation it is perhaps the best possible solution.
My Lords, the only other observation I want to make about this matter is this. It is clear that there will have to be investigated the activities that took place during both Conservative and Labour Governments. There is obviously a danger that members of this Commission might find themselves influenced by their own political affiliations. I hope very much that, when the membership of the Commission is chosen, it is chosen from people who are not going to be swayed by their own Party political affiliations, and chosen with a recognition that the broader based the membership is the more likely it is that the findings of the Commission will prove to be acceptable to the general public.
My Lords, for those reasons I regard this Motion as inviting us to co-operate in a practicable exercise, and I hope it is an invitation that your Lordships' House will feel it proper to accept. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I consider, of course, that this is not a Party matter. My noble friends on these Benches are free to take their own view on this subject. Perhaps they are even more free than they usually are;

871
but I hope that I have been able to persuade at least some of them that this is a Motion which ought to be supported, and that this is an inquiry which it is very much in the public interest to hold.
5.13 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, started his speech he made the point—and I think it was probably his main point—that the inquiry would go ahead anyway, and that it was only a question as to whether we participated. In that I think he is plainly wrong. The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that he would release the Cabinet documents only to a Law Lord for his examination. Remove the Law Lord and you remove the inquiry. I think it is as simple as that.
My Lords, I think on a famous occasion, and in a speech of model length, a Member of another place got up after Mr. Disraeli had spoken and said, "I say ditto; I say ditto twice", and sat down again. I feel I might almost confine myself to saying that to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, with which I found myself in tremendous agreement. Periodically the British people suffer from an attack of morality, and they have of late developed the deplorable tendency of, on these occasions, setting up quasi-judicial tribunals with a quasi-criminal jurisdiction and a real capacity to destroy. If I have been consistent in nothing else in my political career, I have opposed every single one of those tribunals; but this I find the worst of the lot. It is a constitutional monstrosity. It is a trident which impales all three branches of our Constitution.
Parliament is an assembly of equal Members; an assembly of Members who come with an equal mandate and an equal summons, whose basic right is access to all the proceedings of their House of Parliament. Here we are to set up a parliamentary committee from which we and Members of another place are to be excluded. I think that is without precedent. It is certainly a grave offence to the very basis of our institution, certainly so far as the Executive is concerned. The Executive is the Cabinet. The Cabinet is entitled to the protection of con-
872
fidentiality, and so are the civil servants who serve that Cabinet. I am quoting from memory, but I remember so much the splendid words of the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, given upon the occasion of his impeachment, when words which he had used in Cabinet were quoted against him. He said words to this effect:
"My Lords, if words spoken in Cabinet, words spoken maybe but to find a better answer, are taken against a man to destroy him, then all the lions of treason which you have chained are loosed upon you".
This is the profundity of the principle which we are so casually being asked to break.
Within our Constitution are the rights of the individual—the rights of the individual to an accusatory form of trial; the right to be charged, to know the charge, to hear the evidence, to meet the evidence in public; the right to be protected from the inquisitional trial, the "punt around to see what is wrong and who you can pin it on" kind of inquiry which is proposed in this kind of tribunal. Of course the Executive have the right to set up inquiries. If Dr. Owen, the Foreign Secretary, did not know what had been happening to oil sanctions (he must have been the only person who did not, if he did not know), and if he did not trust his Department to tell him, he was entitled to ask Mr. Bingham to find out for him. Mr. Bingham did find out for him. He found out very thoroughly, and he told him. If Mr, Bingham's report disclosed criminal offences, he had the right and, indeed, probably, the duty to refer those matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who would consider judicially whether action should be taken. I believe the publication of the report was a naive bétise which ought not to have happened. It could only embarrass people who had been serving their country, and damage our country's interests. But that is beside the point.
Now we are to have this new Commission. Its purpose is not to improve on Bingham. It is not going to find us anything new. Its purpose is to pillory. Its purpose is to find and denounce sin. This, to my mind, is utterly unacceptable. In a sense it is a court that we are asked to set up. It is to be presided over by a judge—a learned Law Lord. It is to hear counsel, or at least two of its members

873
are, because apparently it is a court of nine with a quorum of two. It is to hear sworn evidence, or at least two of its members are. It is to see all papers, or at least one of them is, and the others are not. Its proceedings are to be in secret. How do you keep the secret? Think of the leaks that happen. And, supposing somebody does not like what has happened, does not think he has been fairly treated in this tribunal, what is he going to do?
I found myself on one occasion after a similar tribunal (in which, actually, I was the accuser) in which I disapproved—rightly or wrongly, I am not saying—of what had happened and the fact that it had been heard in private. I went straight out and published the transcript and said: "Now take what action you like". Supposing that somebody who is condemned or criticised in this Commission proceeds to do that. What are we to do about it? Are we to have him up for breach of privilege? Are there going to be libel actions on what he said? Where does the protection come in? This secrecy thing is a recipe for every kind of rumour, defiance and embarrassment. Again, there are parties and their counsel; they see no charge, they see but part of the evidence; they are ultimately reported upon—and may be destroyed.
I remember being deeply impressed—and I will paraphrase, for these were words said in another place—by the words said by the late Sir Alfred Butt when a tribunal of this sort had condemned him for having made use of information from the late Jimmy Thomas as to what was going to be in the Budget. It was a charge that he always completely denied. In paraphrase, this is what he said: "I have always deemed it an absolute right to be tried in a court of justice when my case could be tried alone, when I should have the full details of the charge against me, where only properly admissible evidence would be given for me and against me but no matters concerning other people of which I had never heard and whose existence was unknown to me would be introduced with all the prejudice that such an introduction might invoke. To my horror I learned yesterday for the first time that no such opportunity was to be afforded me. There is to be no prosecution. My case is never to be tried. I would ask people to visualise the position
874
in which I now find myself. I have been condemned and apparently I must suffer for the rest of my life from a finding against which there is no appeal, upon evidence which apparently does not justify a trial; and there is now no method open to me by which I can bring the true and full facts before a jury of my fellow men. If any good may come of this, the most miserable moment of my life, I can only think that my position may do something to prevent any other person in this country from being subjected to this wretchedness, without trial, without appeal, and without redress."
My Lords, I think that that puts this dilemma before us and puts it magnificently. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I profoundly hope that this House will reject this deplorable proposal.
5.24 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I should begin by saying that at the time of UDI I was special assistant to the then-Foreign Secretary, Mr. Michael Stewart. In that capacity, I accompanied him to the United Nations Security Council meetings that immediately followed Mr. Smith's decision. However, I think it right to say also that at no time was I involved in any of the issues which are involved in the report of Mr. Bingham. By the middle of 1966, I was at the Home Office as special assistant to Mr. Jenkins. Thereafter I had no dealings of any kind with issues in Rhodesia or the policy of sanctions.
Having said that, I believe, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and with my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton, that this debate which we are having today raises constitutional issues of the greatest importance and has to be approached in that light. I will say at the outset in regard to the Government's Motion on the question which we now have before us that their motives in this matter are, in my view, entirely honourable. I do not believe that they decided lightly to recommend the appointment of this Special Commission, recognising as they must have done the significance of what they were doing. Indeed, I must say this, too. I am certain that many of my former colleagues must have approached the appointment of this body with a great deal of repugnance, breaking as it does virtually all the conventions that

875
attach to the confidentiality of Cabinet and ministerial discussions.
I believe that the reasons why the Government took a different view of this matter were set out by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. They were, first, because of the pressure which had been applied by a number of Members of the other place in favour of some further inquiry following that conducted by Mr. Bingham—pressure which, as my noble and learned friend rightly said, came from both sides of the House and also from a number of newspapers. I will return to that particular matter, if I may, later. Secondly, I think the other reason why we have this Motion before us was fairly stated by my noble and learned friend. It was that if some further inquiry did not take place, it would be said that there was a cover-up by members of the Establishment.
That is the argument, basically, that we have before us. I must tell the House that I do not find either of these arguments at all persuasive. I should like to give two reasons why I consider it would be a profound mistake to set up this Special Commission. First, after the publication of the Bingham Report—and here I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—I am not at all clear whether there is anything other than of course exclusively political questions, left to inquire into. Mr. Bingham investigated this matter and everybody who participated in the last debate paid tribute to him. He investigated with great care and great thoroughness into all the questions which surround it and why it was that oil reached Rhodesia after 1965.
Those who favour this Commission appear to accept a great deal, if not all, of Mr. Bingham's analysis. As my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General said in another place on 1st February:
"The function of the proposed special commission will be mainly to make political judgments".—[Official Report, Commons, col. 1712.]
Political judgments! That is what we are talking about. Those are the words of the Attorney-General. That is, in fact, in his view the central question which would be before this Special Commission. But if it is to be a Commission which is to be set up to make political judgments,
876
I am bound to say that I consider it wholly inappropriate that a Lord of Appeal should be in the chair. We have to face the fact that in the past few years judges have increasingly come under political attack. I deeply regret those attacks. They have come from people on both sides of politics and sometimes from people who should know a great deal better.
It seems to me in this situation, a matter of crucial importance to the people of this country, that we should not deliberately push judges into the political arena—and, certainly, they are going to be pushed into that arena if this Motion is carried tonight.
As my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, pointed it out, in this Commission the Chairman is not just one of the members; he is the central figure. He will decide, possibly after consulting other members, which Cabinet papers and which Government files the other members of that Commission are going to see.
My noble friend Lord Paget corrected the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who I am sure if he re-examines the Commons Hansard will see this particular point. The Attorney-General made it absolutely clear in another place that the position of the noble and learned Lord who would preside was of such importance that without his being given those powers, the Government would not make the papers available to the Commission at all. That is not my statement, but that of the Attorney General. It is not a question of his being the Chairman and being given powers appropriate for the chairman of any body. They are special powers given because of the confidentiality of the information that is going to be presented to him.
This decision of the Government to arm the Chairman, with special powers came under severe criticism in another place. People objected to it. That re-emphasises the risks which are involved in asking a Law Lord to take on this particular task. Let there be no doubt that if the noble and learned Lord who would preside over this Commission were to decide against allowing the Commission to see some papers, or any reference being made to

877
those papers in the report of the Commission, he might well find himself personally at the centre of a bitter Party political dispute.
I do not believe that it is right to put a Law Lord in a situation of that sort in any circumstance whatever, all the more so because we are facing a situation where there are some who believe that there are not just errors of judgment which have been committed by the Ministers or civil servants, but that there is a monstrous conspiracy. I believe that if this resolution were to be carried, the refusal by the noble and learned Lord to make any papers available, however sensitive or damaging they might be to the conduct of the foreign policy of this country might create the highly unenviable situation where he would be accused of being personally involved in a cover-up.
As I have made clear by now, I profoundly dislike this proposal. It could lead to a new and utterly unjustified attack on the integrity of our Judiciary. I consider that there is a clear national interest in not putting one of Her Majesty's judges in such a position. There is a second reason why I believe this proposal to be a serious mistake. The creation of this Commission, armed with these powers, would do significant harm to the relationship between civil servants and Ministers. The Commission would be invited to examine submissions made by officials to Ministers and, in particular, to consider how much members of one Administration were told by officials about the confidential discussions of members of a different Administration.
These are deeply sensitive issues. The clearest rules exist in the Civil Service about such matters. But those rules and all the considerations relating to it would have to be swept aside in order to make it possible for this Commission to do its work. I must tell the House, quite bluntly, that I can think of few proposals more potentially damaging to the creation of that atmosphere of trust that is so essential in the terms of the relationship between Ministers and officials; and there has, I am afraid—we have to recognise this unpalatable fact—been a very significant deterioration in this relationship over the past 20 years.
I was very struck by talking to a most distinguished Permanent Under-Secretary
878
of State upon his retirement from the Civil Service only a relatively short time ago, when he said, looking back on a highly successful career, that were he to be beginning his life again he would not decide to join the Civil Service. When I pressed him as to why that was, one of the principal reasons he gave was this deterioration in the trust between Ministers and officials. There are a number of obvious examples of this: the late Mr. Crossman's memoirs is a good example; and I hear that another book of this kind is about to emerge. I think it is deeply reprehensible. I believe that further progress in this direction of creating distrust will be accelerated if we appoint the Commission on the basis that we are being invited to appoint it today.
All this being so, why should we proceed to appoint this Commission, my Lords? I know that it will be argued—and, indeed, it has been argued—that if we were to reject the resolution, people outside this House would say that this confirms the fact that there is some form of top people's conspiracy. To be absolutely blunt, one has heard this argument time and time again. My noble friend, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, made this clear in an allusion in the speech to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred. Over the past 20 years we have had one inquiry after the other, one tribunal after the other, all supported, I may say, by substantial numbers of Members of another place. My noble and learned friend rightly drew attention to the fact that there was a high degree of enthusiasm for this particular Commission in another place. There was a great deal of enthusiasm for some of the others as well.
Let me remind the House of some of them: first, the Bank Rate Tribunal. Do your Lordships remember that? It was not a particularly happy episode. It was a series of totally baseless allegations against honourable men, made no doubt in good faith—I make no allegation against any individual. We had conversations in trains which were being repeated to a tribunal of inquiry. Secretaries were being asked who said what on the platform at Haywards Heath railway station, and so on. At the end nothing whatever at all came out of it. However, it did not stop all the innuendoes. At the end

879
of it all those who had wanted to believe the worst of their fellow men were not persuaded by the report of the tribunal. I remember very clearly—I was working in another place at the time—what was said: "Well, what do you expect of a tribunal of inquiry when the reputation of the City of London is involved? Of course there is going to be a cover up". Exactly that type of person is going to say the same thing all over again about a report of this Commission, if it is appointed. At that stage a great deal of damage to the national interest will have been done.
After the Bank rate tribunal we then had the tribunal on Mr. Vassall. Grievious allegations were made against the then Civil Lord of the Admiralty; again there was a high degree of enthusiasm in another place for a tribunal, and indeed there was a great deal of support in newspapers for a tribunal. And what came out at the end?—absolutely nothing. The thing was baseless from start to finish, except that two journalists had by that time gone to prison because they declined to answer questions put to them by the tribunal. A third journalist, when asked by the Treasury Solicitor where he had got his information from, said that unfortunately he, like the other two journalists, might not be able to make that information available to the tribunal. That third journalist did not have the same enthusiasm about going to prison as the other two, and after a moment or two he said that he remembered exactly where he had put the name of his informant: he had put it in his notebook. The interest of the Treasury Solicitor, or his representative, was quickened and he said that that was good news at least and would prevent unpleasantness with the tribunal. "Unfortunately", said the journalist, "I had it with me when I was on the border between China and India at the time of the Chinese invasion. I had to leave my quarters rather hurriedly, and I left my notebook there." That is exactly the sort of nonsense one gets with bodies of this sort.
One could go through all the extraordinary allegations made against members of the Administration and against Mr. Harold Macmillan which led to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, having to conduct an inquiry—preposterous nonsense, cocktail-party-circuit stuff—
880
but still, after the report, the allegations continued. That is because, unhappily, we have a situation in this country, and indeed in many others, where some people want to believe the worst of their fellow human beings. In this matter I do not wish to appear in a white sheet in any way: not at all. At the time, in one of the examples I have given I was firmly persuaded it was right to appoint a tribunal of that character. But I am bound to say that when I saw what had happened, and in particular saw the damage done to the civil liberties of many of the people dragged in front of these tribunals, I certainly changed my view.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—because I think he indicated he was coming to his conclusion—may I ask him one question? If we decide we are not going to associate ourselves with the other place in this inquiry, will there not be more innuendoes? May I ask my noble friend to think about this: will there not once again be an attack on the House of Lords because it has failed to respond to a decision made by another place? Is that not likely? Will they not say: "This is another cover-up"?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Oh yes, my Lords: indeed they will. My noble friend is absolutely right. A number of those people are going to say that anyway. That is what I was trying to point out. I think we should take decent account of the views of another place; and certainly when a majority Party in another place has a clear mandate to pass legislation it is clearly wrong, in my view, for this House to stand in its way. But this is a totally different question. We are being asked to set up a joint committee of both Houses—a committee armed with totally new powers which, as I have tried to indicate, will do grievous damage to the reputation of many in public life and will call into question the independence of the Judiciary. It will, in my view, be extremely harmful to the relationship between Ministers and civil servants. To be absolutely frank with my noble friend, I am prepared to put up with a great deal of unpleasantness from another place in order to avoid that.
My noble friend Lord Paget referred to one other question which I have briefly

881
touched on already: it is this. I have given brief examples of past tribunals. The situation is that, after months of inquiry and at substantial public cost, it is discovered that there is nothing whatever in the allegations. But, of course, after that has taken place, we have had a time during which the reputations of decent, honourable men have been put in jeopardy. Honourable men who have committed no offence have been rigorously examined by counsel searching—as indeed was their duty—for the slightest indication of any inconsistency in their evidence.
We are now being asked to travel down this same path all over again. Once again, the Treasury Solicitor will be involved and, if I may say so, he already has one tribunal of inquiry sitting. Then there will be counsel. The reputations of many honourable men, both former senior officials and former Ministers, will be placed in jeopardy; and, on this occasion, there is a major distinction because this inquiry is going to take place behind closed doors. I can think of no formula more certain to fuel rumour and gossip than such a procedure. Finally, there will be a report; possibly someone will be criticised—may be harshly criticised. Perhaps an incautious statement made by an official in a submission to a Minister will be censured. Perhaps a former Minister will be accused of having been less than frank because of an injudiciously-phrased answer to a supplementary question asked in another place. It may be that the reputation of a man who has done great service to this country will be seriously damaged.
On the central question before the Special Commission, we already know the answer. At least in the Bank Rate Tribunal there had to be an inquiry as to whether there had in fact been a leakage of information at all; but on this occasion it is a totally different matter. This time there is no doubt what the situation is. It is not a matter where there is a great deal of dispute. The central question before the tribunal—or, more correctly perhaps, the Commission—has already been disposed of in the report of Mr. Bingham. This entire problem would have been resolved had one thing been done, and it is this. If, at some stage in the history of the 1964–70 Labour Government or the Heath Administration or the current Administration, some Minister
882
had come before Parliament and said: "Unfortunately, gentlemen, our sanctions policy is a total ruin: we cannot stop oil getting to Rhodesia and it is as simple as that", all this hullaballoo would have been stilled. There is no doubt about that.
However, with great respect to the House, it is of course not so simple as that for Ministers. Had a British Government put the matter as clearly as that before Parliament, it is quite obvious what would have been the consequences. There would have been demands for a special meeting of the Security Council of the United Nations; there would have been demands for armed intervention in Rhodesia, and arguably, even in South Africa; there would have been demands for economic sanctions against South Africa itself. One does have to ask oneself whether in fact it would have been a sensible thing for a British Government to have moved in that particular direction. I gravely doubt whether it would have been even remotely sensible for them to have done that. Quite apart from our position at the United Nations, there would have been a situation where we should have been confronted with a direct attack on British economic interests both abroad and in this country; and if we look back at the economic situation we were facing at that time, when we were desperately fighting to safeguard the international position of sterling, I think it would have been quite preposterous to believe that any British Government would have taken such action.
So, my Lords, I have put before the House the reasons why I believe that it would be a profound mistake to appoint this Commission. I think that, if appointed, it would as I have indicated, do substantial injury to relations between Ministers and civil servants, as well as to the reputation of the higher Judiciary. It would solve almost nothing, and I believe that many of the allegations that have been made would be repeated. In short, there is great merit in this House rejecting this proposal and, certainly, if the noble and learned Lord divides the House I shall be with him in the Lobby.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him one question after listening to his rather paranoid speech? How are we to get within a mile of open government

883
if we do not have a Commission, when the other House of Parliament requires it and requests it? What is this sensitivity that must be squashed between members of the Government and the Civil Service? They do not always get on. It has been known before.
Several noble Lords: Speech! Order!
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend regarded my speech as paranoid. I have known her for many years, and will therefore take her censure in as reasonable and equable a way as I can. I have indicated at some length why I came to the conclusion that I did. I did so, I hope, for the same high motives that will no doubt persuade her to take a different view.
5.52 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I have a faint recollection that the last time I took part in a debate I had some controversy with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. On this occasion I am glad to be able to say that I am in complete agreement with every single thing that he said. My only regret is that he did not say it with perhaps a little more vigour. Indeed, I find myself in complete agreement with almost everything that has been said, including the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, with whom I have to admit I have seldom been in agreement about anything.
We are here considering what is really a very serious constitutional question, and I put my name down to speak because I happen to have had in the past some experience of tribunals and inquiries. I was Attorney-General at the time of the Bank Rate tribunal. I was Lord Chancellor at the time of the Profumo inquiry. What is more, I was a member of a Select Committee of another place which had the unenviable task of inquiring into a leak of a Budget secret by a Cabinet Minister. I must say it was with great regret that I read this Motion on the Order Paper today. It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said, that the Bingham Report left a lot of questions unanswered, a lot of i's not dotted and t's not crossed, but is that really an argument for another
884
inquest? It may be that last November there was a considerable demand for further investigation, and it is sometimes the case, I feel, that politicians take themselves too seriously. Whatever may have been the position last November, I do not believe that the public cares a hoot about this now. It has other things to think about, and it will think far less about this matter by the time this so-called Commission reports, if it ever is set up.
I am not going to take up time by considering whether or not there is anything more to inquire into. Let us suppose for a moment that the inquiry is entirely negative and that the report does not criticise anyone. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked, will that satisfy anyone? They will not know what has happened in private. At least it could be said in relation to the Bank Rate tribunal that not a stone was left unturned, not a conversation was left unreported. It was all investigated, and one hoped by the thoroughness of that investigation to stop the talk, to stop the scandal. But will this inquiry in private do anything of that kind? No, my Lords. So, if there is a complete clearance, I do not for one moment think it will be effective.
I am much more concerned about the person who is commented on adversely, or who may be, by such a report. The words that the noble Lord, Lord Paget, cited from what Sir Alfred Butt said after the Thomas inquiry had great force. I remember, too, the position of poor Mr. Belcher after the Lynskey tribunal—condemned, not charged, not tried, and with no opportunity of clearing his reputation. Before that inquiry, we had the inquiry into the Budget leak, and I hoped that, after the Marconi inquiry, the Sir Alfred Butt inquiry and the Dr. Dalton inquiry, we had seen the last of inquiries of this character by Select Committees of the House of Commons.
I have to say that it was a very unpleasant experience sitting on that committee which inquired into Dr. Dalton's conduct. That committee was not judicial in the least degree. It split on Party lines and it was the most unsatisfactory investigation that I have ever taken part in. Now, my Lords, what is proposed?—not just a Select Committee of the House of Commons; that the House of Commons can appoint at any time it

885
wishes—but that we should participate with them in a Select Committee to perform the kind of functions of the committee which was appointed to inquire into what Dr. Dalton had said.
Of all forms of inquiry, I believe that a Select Committee of the House of Commons, of this House or a Joint Committee—whatever label you give to it—is about the worst kind of investigating tribunal that anyone can devise. Think of the position of anyone v/ho is condemned, criticised, by a finding in the report of this Commission. No one will know on what evidence he has been condemned. Will he know? He will know some because he will have seen some of the evidence. Can he be sure that he will have seen all the material evidence? Can he be certain? The public will not know whether he is rightly or wrongly condemned—there will be nothing in the nature of a trial. He will be condemned to the public, without justice being seen to be done. I think that is very wrong indeed.
I do not want to take up much time on in is because so much has been said, but I wish to add a word or two about the appointment of a noble and learned friend of mine to preside over this Commission. I am sorry that he was asked to do so. I know, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, knows, what pressures are put on the Lord Chancellor by any Government—they must have been put on the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—to provide judges to preside over all kinds of inquiries, to take part in settling all kinds of disputes; and we have all had to resist those demands. I am sorry that on this occasion that demand has not been resisted, because I think that the noble and learned Lord has been asked to undertake a task which no one filling his high judicial office should have been asked to perform. I leave on one side the fact that his absence, or his devotion to this work, will seriously affect the proper administration of justice. We cannot really dispense with his services in a judicial capacity. But he is not just being asked to act as chairman of an ordinary committee. He has to be the sieve of what the other members of the Commission see, and I cannot think that the other members of the Commission
886
will be very happy about that. They may feel that they ought to be shown some things which he in his discretion says that they are not to see.
What about the parties and the witnesses? They may not see all the documents affecting them and yet they may be criticised. I have not known of a tribunal where persons who may be criticised or condemned have not been able to see every single document and every single piece of evidence that may affect them. To refuse them that amounts, to my mind, to a denial of natural justice. This is a cleverly designed compromise between keeping secrecy for Cabinet documents and endeavouring to let this go forward. I think that it is the worst of both worlds.
I shall not touch on the question of civil servants about whom the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, spoke so well in his observations, with which I am in complete agreement. However, I hope that it is not too late to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to think again. At the end of the day I can see my noble and learned friend, who has been forced into the political arena, being attacked from all sides because of his report and because no one will know how he has functioned. The result is not going to bring satisfaction to anyone. The result of these other inquiries did not bring satisfaction to anyone. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asks whether we ought to refuse this invitation. This invitation to join with the other place is unique, and I hope and trust we refuse it.
6.2 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I apologise for not having put down my name to speak, but when the list closed I was not aware that I personally was going to be referred to in this debate. For the reasons which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have given, I support the Motion. I shall leave it to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack to reply to the arguments which have been advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone.
I am concerned to say only that I remain of the opinion which I originally expressed when last we debated this point.

887
Successive Governments have been accused, not only in this country but in many other countries, of knowing perfectly well what was happening in relation to Rhodesian oil and of decieving Parliament. I could not blame anyone who read the Bingham Report and who, in addition, heard what my noble friend Lord Thomson said, for concluding that at least the Members of the Cabinet must obviously have known what was going on. They might particularly think that of me because, although it is no part of the duties of a Lord Chancellor, at the request of the then Prime Minister I went to Rhodesia with the Commonwealth Secretary just before UDI to try—unsuccessfully, I am afraid—to persuade Mr. Smith and his colleagues not to declare UDI, and throughout I remained very closely concerned with Rhodesian matters.
The opinion which I ventured to express last time and would express again is that it is only fair to those who are in that position that there should be some inquiry by some body which will ascertain the truth. I join with everything which my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, have said about committees of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act. I said exactly the same when I spoke before. I said then that I should not have liked at all having to appear, under the Act, before a tribunal of inquiry. I remain of that opinion. I said that I thought that there ought to be an inquiry, and I suggested an inquiry by a Commission of Privy Counsellors.
I personally should be perfectly happy to appear before the body of fellow Parliamentarians which has been proposed, particularly, of course, if it is to be chaired by a noble and learned Lord of Appeal. I have no idea who he might be, but whoever he is I should be very happy to appear before him.
I do not want to enter into a discussion as to whether or not he ought to occupy that position. I think that recently there has been some misunderstanding in the columns of the Sunday Telegraph. That paper carried an article by a Mr. Johnson about the law, in which he wrote that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, had said that judges
888
could not help getting involved in politics. Mr. Johnson said that that was an answer to what I had said; namely, that I did not like judges being involved in Party politics. But Party politics are one thing. The noble and learned Lord involved in this matter will in no way have been involved in Party politics.
I am also deeply indebted to my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton for his solicitude. He said what an awful thing it would be for me to have to appear before this body. But nobody else in my position has spoken, and all I can say is that I should be perfectly happy to appear before such a body. I consider that it is only fair to those who are in my position that there should be an inquiry to find out the truth. I shall not be in the least concerned with the evidence as to what Mr. Heath or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, knew about these matters. But I am concerned with my own honour and with my own position. I should welcome an inquiry. I think that this is the right form that it should take, and I support the Motion.
6.7 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very interested in the note upon which my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner ended his speech: the right of those who have been pilloried to have the accusations examined. That is the beginning of the story. It was said, I think by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, that this would be an exercise in pillorying, but the pillorying has happened already. The Prime Minister and other Ministers have been pilloried in the Press. They have been charged with misleading, with deception, with humbug, with hypocrisy. Those charges have already been made. There has already been a chorus of accusation.
There is a feeling, which has been expressed in the Press and in the organs of public opinion, that there are outstanding matters, quite apart from the right of impugned individuals to have their reputations cleared and the matter decided one way or the other. There is a feeling that the Bingham inquiry did not include in its terms of reference any examination of the question whether Parliament was misled about the story of what occurred,

889
or whether Ministers were misled. That was no part of the terms of reference of the Bingham inquiry. Those outstanding questions remain, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, put it.
As I have said, the Government, faced with an almost overwhelming demand in another place that there should be a further inquiry and in the light of the factors which I have mentioned, had the agonising task of trying to determine which would be the fairest and the most effective way of dealing with the situation, assuming the need for a further inquiry. We examined the tribunals of inquiry procedure. The great mischief of those proceedings was that they were held in public. There was no opportunity for those who were cross-examined to avoid the daily newspaper reporting that took place long before their explanations ever came to pass. One of the reasons why we thought that this inquiry, if it is to take place, should be conducted in private is to limit the risk of public pillorying, and secondly to limit any damage which might arise from the publication of Cabinet papers and Cabinet documents.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, spoke about the requirements of natural justice, and of course I am concerned to see that the principles of natural justice are maintained. With regard to the production of documents, the essential sieving process will be to look through the mountain of papers that will have to be examined for relevance, for connection and for their necessary production in the inquiry to get at the facts. One of the reasons why I think it is desirable that there should be an eminent judicial figure in charge of the inquiry is the certainty that, certainly within the limits of that procedure available to him, he will see that justice is done. That is one of the reasons why a series of Lord Chancellors have asked eminent judges to conduct inquiries: first, in the hope that they will do their best in the circumstances, and secondly, because of the confidence that that fact will inspire in the public.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, referred to the way in which Lord Chancellors have resisted pressures put on them by Governments; but the resistance does not seem to have been very effective because inquiries have taken
890
place. In 1972 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, was asked to intervene in a highly contentious arbitration over pay increases in the fuel industries. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was asked to report upon the great turbulence in Red Lion Square in 1974. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, was asked to inquire into events in Southern Africa. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Chief Justice Widgery, was asked to investigate the highly-argued and controversial events of so-called "bloody Sunday". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, was asked to conduct the Aberfan inquiry, where the conduct of a great nationalised industry was at stake.
We have heard of the bank rate inquiry which was presided over, I think, by the late Lord Parker, and then there was the Lynskey Tribunal itself. Then, more recently (I am not sure whether it was not after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, became Lord Chancellor) the Vehicle and General Insurance Company Inquiry was set up with one Lord Justice and two eminent lawyers who have since gone on to the Bench. All these people were selected by Lord Chancellors. I do not like the word "pressure" very much, which was used by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. One would hope that normally a request by the Lord Chancellor to a judge would be complied with, but there is certainly no compulsion about it.
So we are not acting afresh and anew in this scene, and what is less likely to be damaging to the judge because of an alleged area of political sensitivity—to use the phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—and what, at least, is reassuring in this matter, is that, so far as I know, it is not a Party political question. That is something which really helps when one considers whether one is damaging the standing and position of a Lord of Appeal in involving himself in the way that is suggested here.
It seems to me, with great respect, that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, brushed aside too lightly the intervention of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. In the face of the overwhelming decision in another place that this inquiry should take place, if we now set our faces against it T think it will do grave damage to

891
this House. It will be a clear confrontation. We know of the mischief that lies about against this place; we know of the mischief that lies about in regard to any Establishment institution or person in these days, and the allegation of "cover up"—of hiding things—I fear will be made not only in this country but also outside this country if we do not proceed along the road that is suggested.
Of course I realise that there are unattractive features about it. One can only apply one's ingenuity—the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, used the word "ingenuity"; that is not an offensive word so far as I am concerned—as best one can to deal with an exceptionally

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Oram, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gregson, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Balogh, L.

Hampton, L.

Phillips, B.

Banks, L.

Henderson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Barrington, V.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Boothby, L.

Jacobson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Jacques, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Snow, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Leonard, L.

Stone, L.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Thurso, V.

Dowding, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

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

Longford, E.

Whaddon, L.

Foot, L.

McCluskey, L,

Wigoder, L.

Gaitskell, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

McNair, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Garner, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gifford, L.

Northfield, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Derwent, L.

Hale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Hanworth, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Amory, V.

Dundee, E.

Hawke, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Henley, L.

Auckland, L.

Elton, L.

Hewlett, L.

Avon, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Hood, V.

Belstead, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bessborough, E.

Faithfull, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bethell, L.

Falkland, V.

Inchyra, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Forester, L.

Inglewood, L.

Caccia, L.

Fortescue, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gainford, L.

Killearn, L.

Clitheroe, L.

George-Brown, L.

Kimberley, E.

Cockfield, L.

Gisborough, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Glenamara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Gordon-Walker, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Lyell, L.

Croft, L.

Gowrie, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

Marley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Gridley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

De La Warr, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.

Mottistone, L.

difficult situation. In my opinion, this problem will fester on unless something is done. In my view, this noble House will be doing a disservice to Parliament if it resists the Motion that I have proposed, having regard to all the restraints that have been imposed upon the potential for mischief, for the protection of Cabinet documents and for the protection of those whose reputations have so far been pilloried but who have not been given an opportunity to answer.
6.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Non-Contents, 102.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Newall, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Northchurch, B.

St. Just, L.

Strathspey, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Salisbury, M.

Terrington, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury. L.

Sandys, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Onslow, E.

Savile, L.

Ullswater, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Sligo, M.

Vernon, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Somers, L.

Verulam, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Spens, L.

Vickers, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stamp, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ridley, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to; a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons accordingly.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
6.25 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we now move to somewhat less controversial territory, namely, the Legal Aid Bill, the Second Reading of which I now move. This Bill will enable me and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to make better use of the money which is available to pay for the civil legal aid scheme. I emphasise that in this debate we are solely concerned with the civil legal aid side. It will also enable me to simplify administration and make it easier for people to obtain legal representation. It is an essential part of the package of improvements in the financial conditions for legal aid, advice and assistance which I referred to on 14th November when moving the resolution to approve the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1978.
It is now nearly 30 years since the passing of the Legal Aid and Advice Act under which the present civil legal aid scheme was set up. During that time nearly 3 million people have been granted legal aid certificates to enable them to pursue their rights through the courts. I recollect, as I was in another place at the time, that when the original Bill was introduced it was described as a Bill which would open the doors of the courts freely to all persons who may wish to avail themselves of British justice, without regard to the question of their wealth or ability to pay. There is no doubt that the scheme has opened the doors, but of late it could be argued that they have not been opened widely enough.
Over the years since the civil legal aid scheme was started, the demand for legal
894
services has increased while economic circumstances have, unfortunately, meant that the resources available to meet that demand have not always increased correspondingly. In 1950 the cost of the civil legal aid scheme in England and Wales to the taxpayer was about half a million pounds. It is now £44½ million. Despite this enormous increase in the money made available from public funds, it has not always been possible to maintain the coverage of the scheme in the face of inflation, although in recent years Governments have more or less succeeded in doing so.
I think that it will be common ground to say that it would not be right to make fundamental changes in the arrangements for legal aid while the Royal Commissions on Legal Services are considering the arrangements for legal services as a whole. This Bill and the other measures which I have mentioned represent a serious effort to open the doors to justice as widely as possible in present conditions.
My Lords, I should like to begin by outlining my proposals for improving the financial conditions for legal aid, advice and assistance, and then indicate the essential part of this Bill in the package. I propose to lay regulations which will, together with this Bill, achieve a significant improvement in the coverage of legal aid. At least 70 per cent. of households with two parents and two children will become eligible for legal aid, advice and assistance, and well over 30 per cent. will get it free.
The regulations I propose will increase the limit above which one ceases to be eligible for free legal aid from a disposable income of £815 to a disposable income of £1,500. I should point out that disposable income means income after tax, rent or mortgage and other necessary expenses such as travelling to work, have been deducted and allowances made for dependants in the form of further deductions. They will also increase the limit above

895
which one ceases to be eligible for legal aid from a disposable income of £2,400 to £3,600. The limits for capital are to be increased as well. The free limit will be increased from £365 to £1,200, and the eligibility limit from £1,700 to £2,500. These changes will be accompanied by increases in the allowances for dependants when assessing disposable income to take account of the commitments they involve.
Regulations will also improve the limits for advice and assistance—that is, separate and apart from legal aid. The free limit will be increased from a disposable income of £25 a week to £35 a week; the eligibility limit will be increased from a disposable income of £52 a week to £75 a week, and the capital eligibility limit will be increased from £365 to £600. Those figures are in respect of advice and assistance.
The Bill will enable us to reduce the amount of a person's legal aid contribution by regulation and we intend to use this power to reduce the contribution fraction from one third to one quarter. Thus instead of a person's contribution being one third of the difference between the free limit and his disposable income, it would only be one quarter. Clauses 4 and 9 of the Bill, which achieve this for England and Wales and Scotland, are therefore a very important part of the package. It is no use being eligible for legal aid if one cannot afford to pay the contribution.
I would hope to bring the regulations improving the legal aid limits and the allowances for dependants into force at the beginning of April of this year and to make regulations reducing the amount of contribution payable as soon as possible thereafter. The Bill is therefore urgently needed and I hope that it will be given a speedy passage through both Houses.
The advice and assistance scheme is the subject of the other important change made by the Bill. At present, legal representation in court is, subject to one exception to which I shall refer in a moment, available only under a legal aid certificate. A legal aid certificate can only be issued after an applicant's means have been assessed by the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the merits of his case considered by the Law Society.
896
It costs quite a lot for the Supplementary Benefits Commission to assess an applicant's means and for the Law Society to issue a legal aid certificate. This is money well spent in the case of proceedings costing hundreds of pounds. It is not well spent where they cost under £100 and the contribution actually retained is a fraction of that sum.
Indeed, one of the objects of the measures with which I am dealing is, so far as possible, to reduce, or at least to contain, the high cost of assessing applicants' means by reducing the need for the SBC to do so, and by simplifying the procedure itself. Last year, it cost nearly as much to assess applicants' means for legal aid as the Legal Aid Fund received in contributions retained. However, it must be remembered that the cost of legal aid would have been higher if applicants' means had not been assessed by the SBC. The value of assessment procedures must be considered in terms of fraud prevention as well as of contribution retained. However, assessment procedures must be appropriate to the circumstances of the case. Expensive procedures must not be used where the cost of proceedings is small and the safeguards are adequate.
The procedure whereby legal advice and assistance are made available provides us with a satisfactory alternative. In the case of advice and assistance the client's means are assessed by his solicitor. If he is eligible, the solicitor may advise or assist him. Provided that the cost of that advice or assistance does not exceed a specified limit—presently £25—the solicitor may without prior authority from the Law Society send the bill for his costs, less any payment due from his client, to the Law Society which then pays it out of the Legal Aid Fund.
That procedure is not only economic and efficient where relatively small sums are involved, but it is also convenient for the solicitor and his client. They do not have to wait for an assessment by the SBC or a legal aid certificate, but can get down to business straight away. Unfortunately, as the law stands at present, representation is available under the advice and assistance scheme only at the request of the court. It is therefore necessary to change it and that is what Clause 1 does

897
in respect of England and Wales and Clause 6 in respect of Scotland.
Although the objective is simple, it cannot be achieved without some complicated consequential changes as reading the Bill, I fear, shows. The advice and assistance provisions which were introduced in 1972 were not designed to cover representation, and it is necessary to ensure that the necessary adaptations will cover all relatively inexpensive proceedings whenever they may occur.
The first use which I would intend to make of the regulation-making power conferred by Clause 1 would be to make available under the advice and assistance scheme legal representation in matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts. Wide regulation-making powers have therefore been taken. That, and the need to adapt the advice and assistance provisions to representation, has produced, as I have said, a slightly longer and more complicated Bill than I should have liked. Minor and technical consequential amendments to existing legislation have tended to obscure the purpose of the Bill—namely, to contribute to the improvement of the financial conditions for legal aid and make representation available under the advice and assistance scheme.
Before dealing briefly with the remaining provisions of the Bill, I should like to say something on the position with regard to law centres. When I moved the increases in legal aid limits last November, I said that I intended to include in my package of improvements to the legal aid scheme some "modest reinforcement" for law centres. Law centres are able to make a valuable contribution, especially in inner urban areas, where there is a severe shortage of solicitors, and I am in no doubt that more centres would improve the quality and availability of legal services in those areas. It is there that additional facilities are most urgently needed to ensure that all sections of the community have adequate access to legal advice, assistance and advocacy, and are able to take advantage of the rights that Parliament and the law have provided. The extension of legal services in this way, is, I believe, a matter of justice, in the sense of giving equal access to the law to all. Experience in recent years has shown that law centres are best able to help in the fields of housing, social security and employment.
898
As the House will know, we are expecting later this year, the report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services and I do not think that it would be right for the Government to embark on any major initiative while the Commission's report is awaited. I am, nevertheless, aware of the growing number of groups which are anxious to embark on law centre projects and are urgently in need of financial support. That is why I am proposing some additional expenditure on law centres. The money will be available as short-term support for both new and existing projects. I very much regret that I am unable to devote more to them. It is all that I can afford.
Turning to the remaining provisions of the Bill, the most important is a power to require different maximum contributions in different classes of case. This is contained in Clause 4 for England and Wales and Clause 6 for Scotland. A power is necessary to deal with those classes of case where, after litigation has been concluded, in practice a majority of contributors receive their contributions back, their cases having been won. The amount returned is substantial. Since legal aid began, contributions amounting to £56 million have been received in England and Wales, of which £30½ million were retained and £25½ million returned to contributors.
There is one class of proceedings where contributions are returned in 90 per cent. of the cases; that is, in personal injury cases. Here it seems to be a waste of time to collect substantial sums of money by way of contribution only to return them to contributors at the end of the day. Indeed, this requirement works particular hardship where there is difficulty in meeting contributions, and people may be deterred from bringing proceedings altogether. Worse still, where children are injured there are a limited number of cases where parents are reluctant to co-operate with contributions and their children's proceedings may suffer in consequence.
A small fixed contribution will not, of course, affect the operation of the Law Society's charge, which will continue to operate on any damages received. Where an offer is unreasonably refused, costs will not be recovered and the assisted person will have to meet them out of his damages.

899
Clause 2 simplifies the machinery for prescribing different prospective limits on the cost of advice and assistance. This power will be needed more often if limits have to be adjusted to the cost of representation in different types of proceedings. Clause 3 provides for the prescription of increased payments where the financial limit for advice and assistance has been exceeded substantially as the result of representation or assistance. Clause 5 makes consequential adjustments to the operation of the Law Society's charge. Clauses 6 to 10 make corresponding provision for Scotland.
Of the remaining provisions of the Bill, your Lordships may like to note Clause 12(2), which applies the Scotland Act 1978—under which legal aid, advice and assistance are devolved matters—to the Bill. There are also a number of minor Amendments set out in the first Schedule; they are either drafting Amendments, which could not be taken into account when legal aid legislation in England and Wales was consolidated by the 1974 Act, or are minor improvements. They include a discretion to depart where appropriate from the existing link with the rules for the calculation of entitlement to supplementary benefit, increased fines and a technical extension of the terms of reference of my Legal Aid Advisory Committee to cover recommendations relating to the administration of legal aid generally. Similar changes are made, where appropriate, to the Statutes applying in Scotland.
Finally, it would certainly not be right for me formally to move that the Bill be given a Second Reading without paying a tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, and his committee, who advise me on legal aid matters. The measures which I have announced are, indeed, largely based on their recommendations. They have put an immense amount of work into them and I hope they will feel that their efforts have been rewarded when I say that their advice has been invaluable not only in the task of opening the door to justice wider than before, but also in seeing that it is not blocked by unnecessarily complicated procedures. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and his committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
6.45 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I would certainly agree with the noble and learned Lord that, in advance of the report of the Royal Commission, one should not embark upon major alterations in the system of legal aid. Some of your Lordships might have been forgiven if, upon first perusing the somewhat bleak text of the Bill, your comprehension was temporarily delayed whether or not this was happening. However, I understand that this is bound to be a technical subject and, of course, it must be drafted in a technical manner.
Consequently, I am sure that the House and those interested in this subject outside the House will have been particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the explanation he gave. Not only did he have an opportunity of explaining the Bill, but he has now outlined—I think for the first time—the rest of the package of which he gave us foreknowledge on 14th November last. He has told us not only what is in the Bill but, very much more importantly, the new limits and alterations that he is proposing to make by way of regulation in due course. He also said a few words about the law centres. Those we shall deal with when the regulations come before Parliament. However, I think I should at once say to the noble and learned Lord that the serried ranks of those sitting on this side of the House—indeed, on all sides of the House—will not wish to delay by one minute the passage of the Bill.
It must be beyond Party politics that the proper administration of justice needs not only the original legal aid that was introduced in 1949; we have now discovered that it also needs the younger sister called "advice and assistance." I am not quite sure whether, in fact, we have added a third member to the family here, called "assistance by way of representation." Perhaps we have almost done so. However, if that is a happy event in this family, it seems to me to be a good thing and one which we should all welcome. I cannot take the metaphor any further, but as between the different schemes and the different adaptations of the system, I agree that there should be the greatest possible

901
degree of flexibility according to the infinite variety of cases that fall to be considered.
It must also be true that, as in the case of so many other numerical and financial limits which we have in modern legislation, Parliament cannot accommodate within its timetable substantive legislation which amends for inflation or for adjustments which are based on experience or on policy. Thus, we must have these regulation-making powers, some of them in this Bill being subject to Affirmative Resolution—I think that most of the changes in limits which the noble and learned Lord has just announced will, in fact, have to be debated in both Houses—others under the legislation being subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. In fact, the Bill takes the process even further than it has gone before, because I think the last matter of substance that required legislation to change it has now been made subject to regulation-making powers.
If one looks at the English statute on this—the Legal Aid Act 1974—which was a consolidation measure, one sees that under every one of the first 19 sections, except under Section 10, there are powers to make at least one set of regulations or, alternatively, to operate by way of scheme, rules of court or, subject to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's determination, direction or approval. There is very little substantive law left in the Act itself. Of course, the Bill adds further to regulation-making powers.
Even before I heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord, I understood—I hope correctly—that the purpose was really twofold: to stretch as far as may be possible the fairly limited financial resources that are available so as to assist, in so far as we can, all the deserving cases. Of course, it is for any Government to decide what amount of finance is to be put into this branch of public expenditure, whether by way of legal aid itself or advice assistance, or by way of help to the law centres.
These are fairly substantial increases that the noble and learned Lord has announced. I suppose it will only be after the passage of time when some statistics have come forward that we shall be able to see whether, with the counter adjustments, the cheapening of various
902
other processes under the package deal that is being put forward, public expenditure is being wisely and properly expended. I certainly would not wish to throw criticism in advance upon the changes that have been announced today. Inflation has been enormous, incomes and disposable incomes have gone up colossally, and I should think that a fairly substantial change in this field is probably due.
Not only was that the prime object of the Bill, but I also understood that the attempt was being made to provide the right sort of assistance for every given occasion; not the more expensive legal aid if assistance by way of representation would do, and vice versa. We are also very anxious to ensure that where threshold of income or of capital, which are bound to be arbitrary, happen to occur in the case of any individual, those who are just on the wrong side do not suffer disproportionately; and that is something else that the noble and learned Lord is proposing to do.
Of course, it is only right that precisely the same rules should be made for Scotland as are to be made for England and Wales. If the matter becomes devolved, well, at least in Scotland they will start off level pegging with what happens South of the Border. The Statute is the frame-work alone. All we are here doing is a little carpentry to it, and it is when we come to look at the regulations themselves in due course that the detail and the important features of the picture will be filled in.
There were two things I wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord. One of them arises out of what he said about the way in which the disposable income, and also the capital, will fall to be assessed under the assistance by way of representation scheme. He pointed out that this is done at the moment by the solicitor. The solicitor has guidance in this, I should think, not very easy task in the Schedule to the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1973. Of course the amounts are small, although they are to be increased, as we have heard.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is able to say anything about this. Since that system has been in operation from 1973 onwards experience must have been collected of how it works in practice; whether indeed frauds are detected and

903
whether it is a satisfactory sieve through which to pass the various applicants in these smaller cases. I note that he is now extending this, because of course even if the representation is going to cost more than the basic limit of £35 it will still be the solicitor who assesses the financial characteristics of the applicant.
In the 14th paragraph of Schedule 1, which the noble and learned Lord mentioned, there is an indication that we may be going to depart from the strict application of the rules applied by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I wondered whether this was an indication that the Government were thinking that the moment had come to move cautiously forward in the direction of allowing the solicitors, subject to the Area Committees set up by the Law Society, to do more and more of this difficult and expensive work at present carried out by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Can he say whether the experience so far has been satisfactory in this respect so that we would be justified in exploring this, since, as he said, it must be an expensive process to go to the Supplementary Benefits Commission and probably only justifiable where the amount of money and the importance of the case is of very great substance. We plainly could cut back on public expenditure if this is a satisfactory way of checking the means of the applicants.
The other thing that occurred to me as I read through the material presented in this Bill was the question of consolidation. Of course this does not solely depend on the consolidation of statute law because, as I said, there is mainly a succession of regulations and subordinate instruments which make the changes. I have been very kindly lent a copy of the Legal Aid Handbook, which must be the bedside reading of every solicitor who is engaged in legal aid advice and assistance. The last edition was published in September 1976. It is a truly admirable book for those who wish to understand this subject. Since, there was in 1976 at least one set of regulations made; in 1977 in England and Wales there were 12 sets of regulations and in Scotland seven; in 1978 I think there were four in England and Wales, and four in Scotland; already this year there has been
904
one in England and Wales, and now we are promised I would think something like half a dozen more at the beginning of April. In addition there have been amendments to the Act itself in England and Wales by the Administration of Justice Act 1977, and there have been amendments to the legal aid scheme.
That I have discovered with the assistance of your Lordships' Library and by knowing my way round the Printed Paper Office. These facilities are not available to any solicitor even probably in the middle of a large city, and certainly not in the country areas. If consolidation gets very far behind the inevitable spate of subordinate Instruments that come out, I am afraid that from the practitioner's point of view these changes will be missed and mistakes will be made. This may be even more important if, as I have suggested before, it is the solicitors who are going to be doing a good deal of the assessment of incomes and capital, because some of the amendments of course go to that very matter and the regulations that govern it.
Finally, I would suggest to the House and to the noble and learned Lord that the corollary of the flexibility that he is asking for in these further amendments and removals of inhibitions in the Bill, the increased ability to adjust as often as may be needed, is a requirement that we should have as often as possible up-to-date texts readily and quickly available so that all can see exactly what is the latest state of the law on this subject. I do not know again whether the noble and learned Lord could comment on that, as I believe, not unimportant matter. It does not go to the substance of the Bill, and neither does the other matter I raised; and all I can say in conclusion is that I would join in wishing this Bill a swift passage so that we may proceed along the lines that nobody would doubt are needed.
6.58 p.m.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, I was asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to tell the House, and indeed in particular the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, that he very much regretted that he had to hurry away after the last debate to attend a meeting of, I think, Justice. He asked me not only

905
to convey to the House his regret at not being able to be here, but also to convey to the Lord Chancellor his great satisfaction that this Bill had been brought to this House.
I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two because it is perhaps unnecessary to say very much about the Bill at this stage. It would be a great mistake to conclude from the rather scanty House this evening that this is a matter of concern only to lawyers. It is very much more a matter of concern to the ordinary public. This, I imagine, is the most substantial step forward that has been taken in the field of legal aid since the original Legal Aid Act 1949.
When I was trying to think of what I might say today it struck me that the Bill had two defects, if the Lord Chancellor will permit me to say so. One of them is what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, called the rather bleak terms in which the Bill is written. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if one read the Bill as a piece of consecutive English prose it is well nigh incomprehensible, and certainly I do not think it would be recommended, even by the Lord Chancellor and even to lawyers, as the bedside reading about which Lord Colville was talking.
The second defect of the Bill is that until the Lord Chancellor told us a few moments ago what his regulations were going to contain we had no knowledge whatever of the benefits that would be given to us by the Bill or the scope of it, or indeed how far the promises that had been made would be fulfilled. The difficulty we faced in not knowing what the regulations were to be was not cured even by the Explanatory Memorandum, which says, for example:
"Clause 1 extends the provisions of the 1974 Act relating to advice and assistance so as to permit assistance by way of representation in circumstances to be specified in regulations".
While that is immensely encouraging, it is wholly uninformative. Thus, we had to wait for what the noble and learned Lord told us to know what the Bill really means. When the noble and learned Lord commended it to us, I thought I understood for the first time what Robert Browning was talking about when he spoke of greeting the unseen with a cheer: that is certainly the mood in which the
906
House received the Bill from the noble and learned Lord's hands today.
As a result of that, until the Lord Chancellor explained to us the details of the recommendations and the figures of the matter, we were in the position of being faced with a debate in which we could not know what we were talking about. Happily, that has never proved an inhibition in your Lordships' House, nor prevented noble Lords from taking a full part in the discussion. I am not worried about those two defects because, when we had the debate on 14th November of last year on the temporary regulations which the noble and learned Lord was then introducing, he promised that in this Bill there would be comprehensive and significant improvements, as he put it, and, because I have always a touching, indeed childlike, faith and trust in the noble and learned Lord, I was quite confident that the regulations, when they eventually saw the light of day, would fulfil our wildest expectations. And so it has proved.
I noted the figures as the noble and learned Lord gave them. It would not be possible for me to express any view about the detail of those figures at this stage, but we shall of course have the opportunity of discussing them in proper detail in Committee and when we have the regulations for our approval. It will be time enough then to consider the detail of the thing; meanwhile perhaps I may ask that for what we hope we are about to receive the Lord may make us provisionally thankful.
7.5 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, it seems to me, in view of the few noble Lords present, that the importance of the subject we are debating is not fully appreciated, and that is a great pity. I say that because in my view it is a very important one and, as will be clear from what I am about to say, one which has been under consideration in the solicitors' profession for many years. However, at the outset I wish to say that we are greatly indebted to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the keen interest he has taken and is taking in this important subject and for the comprehensive speech he made.
I appreciate that it is difficult, even for us as lawyers, to understand at short notice

907
the full extent of it but, as I shall explain, I have been in touch with the Law Society about their views on the matter; they have certain information which may be of interest to the House. I would comment in passing, as a member for about 40 years of the Consolidation Committee, to which reference has been made, that, as and when we get the report of the committee and discuss it further, it will be essential to have a consolidation Bill. The trouble is that if we had a consolidation Bill at the present time it would mean having another consolidation Bill, and I hope that within a short time of getting the report of the Commission we shall further discuss the matter fully.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Perhaps I may intervene simply to make myself clear, my Lords, because I understand the point the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is making, having myself served on that committee. In this case, I think it is probably consolidation of the regulations that is needed, and that does not have to go before the committee.
Lord JANNER: I am sure the noble Viscount understands what I was driving at, my Lords. I do not want the Consolidation Committee constantly to be changing Consolidation Acts. I thoroughly agree that it is highly essential, particularly from the solicitors' point of view, that we should have the law contained in a clear form. I believe our thanks are also due to the Government for the steps they are proposing, as outlined by the Lord Chancellor.
Commenting on the Bill, I wish to refer to what I consider to be a useful perspective based on a traditional and ethical approach. That may sound a little far-fetched, but I think I shall be able to explain what I mean to the House and, while it may not appeal to everybody, it certainly appeals to me. First, however, let me recall that I remember the extremely serious position in which clients were placed in so many cases during the first 30 years—the first half—of my practice in the law. Even if a person, having taken legal advice, had a substantial chance of being successful in pursuing a claim by way of litigation, he was in many cases unable to do so because of financial difficulties.
908
I should like the House to take note of this because time and again, both here and in the other place, people comment on the solicitors' profession in terms which are certainly not justifiable. When they attack the profession they do not realise what it actually does. The noble and learned Lord of course knows that it serves an extremely useful purpose.
The effect of the changes is to make very substantial increases to the upper and lower financial limits for legal aid. I want to comment upon what the Law Society considers to be matters of importance. The allowances for dependants which are deducted before computing an applicant's disposable income are to be increased. At the same time, the assessment of an applicant's resources by the Supplementary Benefits Commission is to be simplified, as we understand it, so as to remove in most cases the necessity for an interview. This is a desirable reform because, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, it will cut down the time taken to grant legal aid, which at present is rather lengthy.
Your Lordships will recollect that Magna Carta stated:
"To no man will we deny, to no man will we delay justice or right".
Even in the Middle Ages steps were taken to help poor litigants, and the legal profession has a very honourable record of doing this on a charitable basis over many centuries. When the Legal Aid and Advice Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in 1949, its sponsor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shaw-cross, who was then Attorney-General, claimed that it would open the doors of the courts of justice to the little man and bring about equality before the law. That did not happen at all adequately—far from it. It was only in 1956 that legal aid was made available in the county courts, and only in 1960 that the pink form advice scheme came into operation. (The form contained particulars which every interested lawyer knew about). As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, reminded the House, in 1950 80 per cent. of the population were eligible for civil legal aid The proportion has now come down to under 25 per cent. There are authentic cases, some of which were presented on a television programme about a year ago, of people of modest means, with

909
very modest savings, being outside the scheme on financial grounds. Even people on social security have been excluded, many having found that the contributions required were beyond their means.
In my view, the Bill will bring about a substantial improvement in this unsatisfactory situation, and I gather that about 65 per cent. of the population will become eligible for civil legal aid, and that the contributions which so often in the past have been too great for many people to meet, will certainly now be far more reasonable. Some may say that this is a bonanza for lawyers: In fact, civil legal aid work, particularly in the county courts, is barely remunerative. I do not know whether the general population realises that, but it is a fact. It may be that lawyers whose practices deal only, or in the main, with legal aid cases make a living from such cases, but I can assure your Lordships that there are very few solicitors—and I think that this applies to the Bar, too—who make much from the work which they voluntarily and willingly take on under the scheme.
The Bill makes access to the courts of justice possible for many who have been denied it. It brings equality before the law closer, but this idea which was proclaimed in Magna Carta will not be fully achieved, even with the benefits that will come from the passage of the Bill, which I hope will receive the unanimous support of the House.
I have been in touch with the Law Society regarding the contents of the Bill, and I endorse heartily what the Society feels about it. Substantial increases are to be made to the upper and lower limits for legal aid, which are rather low at present. As a broad generalisation, it is believed that a man with a wife and two children and average commitments for housing will be eligible for free legal aid up to a gross income of about £100 per week. At the other end of the scale, a man with similar dependants and housing commitments appropriate to his gross income, will probably get legal aid, subject to contribution up to a gross income of between £9,000 and £10,000 a year, and in some cases even above that.
I do not wish to detain the House much longer, but perhaps your Lordships will
910
allow me to say a little more about what the Law Society thinks about the Bill. Clause 4 contains an important provision which permits my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to prescribe by regulation the maximum contribution required of an assisted person. This will give effect to the intention announced in his 14th November speech to reduce the fraction of a person's disposable income which is taken by way of contribution. At present this fraction is one third, and we understand that it is intended to reduce the fraction to one quarter. The combination of the raising of the lower eligibility and the reduction of the fraction will have the effect of reducing substantially the contributions which people are requested to make. At present, there are many anomalous cases and, for example, even some people dependent on welfare benefits are required to pay a contribution beyond their means.
I believe that, upon examining the other clauses as well, the House will agree that the Bill provides a very useful contribution to the advancement of legal aid. Along with the Law Society, I sincerely hope that the Bill will become law by the end of March, so that the new financial conditions can be brought into operation in April. I am quite sure that those noble Lords at present in the House will agree that this should be done.
7.20 p.m.
Lord HAMILTON of DALZELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his kind reference to the work of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Aid, of which I have been chairman for the past six years. In that time I have been responsible for the last six of its annual reports, in each of which we have urged on the Lord Chancellor of the day various ways in which the Legal Aid and Advice Scheme might be improved. We have had some successes, but regularly we have come up against the stumbling block that some of the improvements which we have recommended could be achieved only by legislation, for which Parliamentary time could never be found. Others involved extra money, to be added to the cost of the scheme, which was in any case increasing rapidly year by year, and we never got very far with them either. Then, any prospect of early

911
action seemed to become even dimmer when the Royal Commission on Legal Services was appointed. Assurances were given that it would not be necessary for all progress to be halted until after it had reported, but to me, at least, it seemed possible that we should not see anything much in the way of change until the Royal Commission's findings were made known.
So, my Lords, my Committee was delighted to learn last autumn that there was a chance of getting a Legal Aid Bill in this Session. This was confirmed in the gracious Speech, and on 14th November the noble and learned Lord announced his intention to introduce a package of improvements, including a Bill to provide those parts of the package which would require legislation; and, accordingly, in our current annual report, now ready for the printer, we record out satisfaction that some of the improvements we have proposed have at last a chance of being implemented. We have naturally been awaiting with eager anticipation both the Bill and the unfolding of the noble and learned Lord's complete package, which was explained to us so clearly and gratifyingly today.
So far as the Bill is concerned, I must confess that when it emerged I found some difficulty in following exactly how it achieved any of the things we were hoping for; and I am glad to learn that I was not alone in this, and that even certain noble Lords learned in the law found themselves in the same difficulty. However, the noble and learned Lord's office quickly provided me with an explanatory note, and the noble and learned Lord has himself filled in the detail today; so I think I now understand what it sets out to do, though not necessarily precisely how it does it. I therefore propose to refer to the principal intentions of the Bill, without reference to the particular clauses which effect them.
Before I come to that, I should like to say how very pleased I am that the noble and learned Lord has found it possible to increase the upper and lower limits of eligibility to the extent that he has told us he intends to. The original Legal Aid Act of 1949, which set up the scheme, declared its purpose as being to make legal aid, advice and assistance available to people of "small or moderate means";
912
and in its early years the scheme did in fact come close to ensuring that anyone could obtain legal services at a price which he could afford. The burden of my Committee's complaint in recent years has been that the proportion of the population qualifying for assistance under the scheme has been falling steadily, until a stage has been reached where the only people who can afford legal services are the poor, who get them free, and the rich, who can pay for them. The mass of the population in between—those whom the Act no doubt had in mind as being of moderate means—are faced with heavy, if not prohibitive, expenses.
The improvements in the eligibility limits which the noble and learned Lord has announced today will undoubtedly go some considerable way towards restoring the proportion of the population who can be helped by the Legal Aid Scheme—not quite back to the original level, but certainly as much as could be hoped for at a time of economic stringency. But even with this improvement the contribution payable by those whose disposable income falls between the upper and lower limits could represent a very heavy burden. The contribution laid down in the present Act is one-third of the disposable income, and even within the present eligibility levels that is quite enough to cause some people to abandon their efforts to secure their rights when they learn what it is going to cost them. So I fully support the Bill in seeking to introduce flexibility by allowing the amount to be paid by way of contribution, in legal aid as well as in aid and advice, to be varied by regulation.
The noble and learned Lord has told us that the intention is to reduce the maximum contribution payable in legal aid from one-third to one-quarter of the disposable income. That will be a considerable help, but it need not necessarily be the right proportion for ever. A further change may become desirable sooner or later, and it is therefore surely sensible to enable this to be effected at the right moment by regulation, rather than having to wait for another Bill. Another advantage of this provision—and this, too, is something which my Committee has strongly recommended—is that it enables the maximum amount of contribution payable to be varied according to the class of proceedings. The noble and learned Lord has explained

913
to us the value of this provision. It would allow all certificates in certain classes of case to be issued with a nil contribution apart from a small handling charge. At present, the contributions are returned to the applicant in so large a proportion of some types of case that the administrative cost of collecting and returning them almost balances the value of the contributions which are retained by the fund. So, here again, a sensible improvement becomes a possibility.
However, in one respect the Bill does not go quite so far as we should have liked. It has been made clear to my Committee from many sources—indeed, it is probably common knowledge—that the normal attitude of the people of this country is not to seek the help of a lawyer if they can possibly avoid doing so, since they fear that once they have set foot in a solicitor's office they will have committed themselves to unpredictable but undoubtedly heavy expense; and, with the present provisions of the Advice and Assistance Scheme, there is for many people some substance in this fear. In consequence, they do not take their problems to a lawyer, and may well suffer injustice by default. Even the improved eligibility limits which are now proposed are unlikely to cure people's instinctive, if unreasonable, dread of falling into the clutches of the legal profession.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Does he realise that there are Citizens' Bureaux, and does he not realise that what he is saying now does not apply to the average person? When people come to a solicitor's office—and I am speaking from 60 years' experience now—if the solicitor finds that the person is poor or is not sufficiently able to meet the reasonable fees which solicitors are entitled to charge, that person is not turned away. That is the position now, and I hope it will be noted.
Lord HAMILTON of DALZELL: My Lords, I do not think that is relevant to what I was suggesting. The point I was trying to make is that people are reluctant to go to solicitors at all because they are afraid of the expense they may be involving themselves in if they do. I think that is probably common knowledge. People know that they should go to a solicitor for a divorce, they suspect that they ought to
914
go to a solicitor to organise their will and perhaps to buy or sell a house, but otherwise they are determined at all costs not to go to a solicitor until they are driven to it. I entirely agree that, if they do go to a solicitor, when they get there they will get all the attention, solicitude and everything else they want. All I am saying is that, on the whole, the people of this country do not go to a solicitor if they can help it.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but as an old Parliamentarian I can say that most people who have grievances or who want advice go to the advice bureaux of their respective Members of Parliament, and I know of no colleague in the other place who would dream of telling them not to go to a solicitor or who himself would not ring up a solicitor to obtain advice if the person was not in a position to pay for it.
Lord HAMILTON of DALZELL: My Lords, the whole point of what I am trying to say is that my desire is to encourage people to go to solicitors and to make it possible for them to be paid for when they get there. I am not in the least suggesting that there is anything wrong with the solicitors. What I am saying, and still say, is that people have an instinctive reluctance to go to a solicitor if they can avoid it. That is something I think we want to overcome, and I am suggesting how it might be overcome. The suggestion that my Committee has made is that it might be got over if a provision were made and were well publicised that anyone at all could go to a lawyer and have a free diagnostic interview of, say, half an hour, the cost of which would be met by the legal aid fund. In this free interview, the client could explain his problem to the solicitor and be told whether its resolution needed a lawyer's services, and, if so, what sort of expense he might be letting himself in for.
We were told that the cost of this provision would be quite small, since the only circumstances in which the free interview would represent an additional cost would be either where no action by the solicitor resulted from it or where action did follow but the client did not qualify on financial grounds for legal aid or assistance. In any case where action followed which was paid for wholly or

915
partly from legal aid funds, the free interview need represent no extra charge on them. I understand that this could not be done under the terms of the present Bill and I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord, when he comes to reply to the debate, can tell us why it would not be desirable at least to have something in the Bill which would make it possible to introduce such a scheme, if its merits were to become apparent and accepted, without having to wait for the next time there is a Bill on this subject. After all, the impression that one gets throughout this Bill is that every opportunity is being taken to introduce flexibility so that improvements can be made in the scheme whenever the time seems ripe, without having to wait for another opportunity for legislation. Why not this one?
Our other principal recommendation has been accepted for inclusion in the Bill. That is that the green form scheme should be extended to cover representation in appropriate circumstances. As the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, at present it is confined to advice and assistance with the single exception of duty solicitors' schemes in magistrates' courts. The green form provides a simpler and cheaper but at the same time less precise method of assessment than that for full legal aid. It may therefore very well be suitable for some civil proceedings in magistrates' courts just as much as criminal ones.
It seems possible that it will also be the best method, if, and when the time comes, to provide legal representation in tribunals. There is no doubt that legal representation is needed in some of the more complicated cases in most, if not all, the different types of tribunal. But the tribunal system was designed to be simple and relatively informal, and there is a natural reluctance to run any risk of making it over-legalistic by bringing in lawyers where they are not essential. This is a dilemma which it will not be easy to resolve, but sooner or later it must be resolved; and I am glad that in the Bill we here have another example of powers being taken which make it possible to introduce a scheme for tribunals without having to wait for another chance to legislate.
916
So, my Lords, I welcome the Bill. I hope it will commend itself to your Lordships and that those who understand the mysteries of its verbiage will find that its provisions correctly achieve its stated objects. The Bill is an essential part of the package which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been at such pains to prepare and which will greatly improve the scope and effectiveness of the legal aid scheme. My only concern is that I detect an element of uncertainty in the air about the possible life of this Parliament, and I am therefore most anxious that the Bill should have a smooth passage and pass through all its stages here as quickly as possible.
7.34 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, the introduction of a Legal Aid Bill provides the opportunity of reviewing the civil legal aid scheme as a whole. The coverage of the civil aid scheme is extraordinarily, illogically uneven. Sometimes it is first class. In cases in the High Court and in the appellate courts, a person eligible can have the services of the best lawyers in the land. In other areas, the scheme today is niggardly and sometimes nonexistent. In the county courts, for instance, where so many acute family problems and housing problems must be resolved, legal aid is set about with a quite disproportionate amount of bureaucratic "hassles" , both for the client and the solicitor—disproportionate to the amount of money involved and the time spent on them. For the client, there is a lengthy assessment of means; for the solicitor, cumbersome procedures for the taxing of bills. In consequence, the conscientious solicitor, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has said, finds it difficult to make a reasonable income and the less dedicated solicitor is deterred from taking any part in legal aid at all.
Then, in tribunals, which are just as much a court to the person who wishes to obtain a benefit or compensation for unfair dismissal or the resolution of an immigration problem, the scheme is not available at all. When it comes to who is eligible, the position today is that only a minority qualify and an even smaller minority qualify under the legal advice and assistance scheme. The consequence is that if one were to sit in the office of a solicitor who has a legal aid practice with

917
a clientele in the lower half of the national income bracket, one would find, in case after case, perhaps even in the majority of cases today, that the solicitor would be saying to the prospective client that he would have to charge sums of money to advise, negotiate or represent the client, sums which the client cannot reasonably afford. Outside the solicitor's office, one would find many more who do not come in, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, said, because of the fear that large outlays of money would be involved. This is not in relation to some luxury of life; this relates to a service without which one could say that people cannot be fully citizens of a democracy. If there is unequal access to the law, then society is not governed by the application of laws but controlled by those who can afford to use the law.
My Lords, I have the honour to be the chairman of the management committee of the Legal Action Group, a body of some 4,000 members, predominantly lawyers but also advice workers of various kinds. The Group has waged a tireless campaign, particularly within the legal profession, to expose and to reform the injustices of our system of justice. Part of the answer is an extension of what has come to be known as the public sector of legal services; namely, law centres and other public agencies. I wish to put only one question to the noble and learned Lord as to the part of his announcement which concerns the public sector. Within the scope of this new package, how much money is to be devoted to the law centres? I do not think that I gathered the amount involved; if I had done I should have been able to assess how much one should welcome that part of the announcement.
Another part of the announcement which more concerns the Bill that we are debating today and is something on which the Legal Action group has equally earnestly campaigned is that we need much greater numbers of solicitors' offices doing legal aid work—able to do it, without undue obstacles, in a comprehensive way and able to respond to the needs of the people who come to see them. That may in the longer term require much more streamlined procedures and better ways of financing the legal aid scheme. I hope also that the Group
918
of which I am chairman has also had its influence within the Lord Chancellor's Office; and T hope that the package announced is in some way a reflection of that influence.
I had been about to say this evening that in his term of office the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had not yet been able to make any real progress to resolve the kinds of unevennesses, anomalies and injustices to which I have referred—that is, I am bound to say, until today; because the announcement made about the increase in the eligibility limit is, in legal aid terms, a dramatic one. A very substantial increase has been made from about 25 per cent. to (the noble and learned Lord says) 70 per cent. of the population. For securing that, the noble and learned Lord must be congratulated. It is not for lack of goodwill that progress has been delayed until now. It has always been said to be for lack of money. Even now and in the future we shall have to continue to grapple with the problem of securing money for legal services and for the provision of access to the law. As a society, it would appear that we do not put upon justice the same priority that we put on other necessary and important public services, so much so—and I say this with the greatest respect and regard for the noble and learned Lord and his staff—that we do not even have a department with a full responsibility to take into its orbit the provision of legal aid and legal services across the board. As to those wider questions, one can only hope that another legacy of these years of the noble and learned Lord's term of office will be a Royal Commission report with sufficient imagination to grapple with the proposed changes that are needed in the organisation of legal services.
The Bill, even though it is not intended to make big changes, falls to be looked at by reference to these general points of principle, and there are of course many parts of it which are to be welcomed unreservedly. Clause 4 allows for greater flexibility in the proportion of disposable income to the contributed. That was very badly needed. As has been said, contributions have often been a very real hardship and, still worse, a deterrent to many people who have just causes to pursue in the courts.

919
Then we have the proposal for different contributions for different kinds of cases. My noble and learned friend has indicated that personal injuries are the kind of cases envisaged by this new proviso. I hope that that will be introduced soon. The trouble with regulatory powers is that they can so often promise so much and achieve nothing. There is a particular example which needs to be mentioned as a cautionary tale in the field of legal aid. The Children Act 1975 had an express provision to provide legal aid to parents in care proceedings in the juvenile courts. There is as yet, four years later, no such legal aid available, and one always has to be cautious when proposed changes are to be introduced by regulations. I am heartened—and I hope that this is right—by the news that all these regulations are not to be put off until some long time in the future, but are to be introduced within the next month or two.
I come finally to a reservation which I feel bound to express about the new scheme of assistance to representation. It does not appear to resolve the anomalies that I mentioned. If anything, it increases the unevenness and confusion. I hope very much that this will not become a new kind of legal aid on the cheap. What is absolutely vital is that the quality of service which can be provided under the new scheme, and the range of people who can be affected by it, remain unaffected. I say this particularly because there is power in the Bill, as I understand it, for the area committees to refuse legal aid to an applicant on the grounds that it would be more appropriate for him to receive this other form of legal aid. Therefore we can have two possibly conflicting schemes, with different ranges of people eligible for them and different kinds of services being brought within them.
There is power for this legal aid to be granted subject to limits, both as to finances, the money that can be spent, and the kind of work that can be done. Both of those are objectionable. For a client to be told that he can be represented only up to a certain amount artificially limits the amount of money that a solicitor is able to spend and the amount of work therefore, that he is able to do. One of the virtues of the existing legal aid scheme is that once a certificate has been granted, except in fairly rare and limited cases it
920
covers all costs properly incurred. That is as it should be because one never knows in advance precisely what extent of work has to be done to secure justice for a client.
If the limitation of the legal aid is in respect of the kind of work that can be done, it is equally objectionable. Already grave misgivings are being expressed about the operation of my noble and learned friend's divorce measures, where in a divorce case legal aid is available for some kinds of work and not for others, creating serious confusion in the relationship with the client. So I ask most earnestly that this scheme in its operation should not add to the confusion but should be the means by which these various schemes can in fact be harmonised. What we need is for people to be able to be told, when they come to a solicitor's office, either that they are eligible for legal aid, whether it is advice, negotiation or one kind of case or another, or that they are not eligible, or that they are eligible subject to the payment of some kind of contribution.
If there is a need for the simplification—as indeed there is—of the administration of the legal aid scheme, then the answer might better have been to simplify the existing scheme rather than introduce a new one. However, if the two can, as it were, grow together and just be two different administrative ways of achieving the same end in different kinds of cases, then one sees great hopes for it. One sees hopes—and perhaps my noble and learned friend can confirm this—that it can extend beyond the fairly limited area of cases for which it is now proposed and that it is a suitable vehicle of assistance for other cases, in particular for representation in tribunals, because that, of course, is a much greater area of unmet need today.
If, on the other hand, the scheme that is administered and the regulations that are adopted are niggardly and cost cutting, if they limit the number of people available to a small proportion or if they limit the advice and assistance that can be given to a low financial limit, then there is a danger that this kind of scheme opens the way to further scrimping on what is already an under-financed service. I conclude, however, on a note of greater hope; that having heard the totality of my noble and learned friend's package, one

921
can with some confidence say that under his tutelage this new scheme will be used for good, and not for cheeseparing, purposes. With that, I welcome his Bill.
7.47 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support that the Bill has received from all quarters of the House, and because it was not only lawyers who contributed, but a distinguished layman in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. We are grateful for all he has done and I am grateful, as J said, for the work done by him on my advisory committee over which he presides. There is still a great deal more to be done. While I have no doubt that the improvements both as to quantum and as to administration which my proposals will affect were necessary and ought to be dealt with now—and the noble Lords have agreed with that view—of course we are awaiting the report of the Royal Commission on the provision of legal services for many of the matters which have been raised, such as for instance the provision of legal aid for tribunals and matters of that kind. I hope that it may well be that I shall still be in a position to do something about the provisions, but we shall see.
I should like to make one matter clear. I have a very strong legal aid section in my office with dedicated and able lawyers and administrators. I noted a reference from the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that he has indeed had encouragement and assistance from them. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, identified with his usual clarity what I have been trying to do. He pinpointed that the aim is to provide the right type of assistance for those needing it most. That seems to me to be an excellent purpose and I think that the Bill and the package will help in that direction.
I have been asked a number of questions. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked me how the process of assessment by solicitors was functioning. It seem to be functioning satisfactorily. I have no reason to think that the way it is working is causing problems. I ought to say that the whole position with regard to assessment of resources is being looked at by the Royal Commission. Here again, I await with eagerness their proposals. Some
922
have indeed suggested that we should eliminate altogether the role of the Supplementary Benefits Commission; but here again, as I say, we shall wait to see what is recommended following the overall consideration of that matter.
It is a fair criticism to remark, as did the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on the complexity of this Bill. To describe it in those terms is absolutely right—it is not my favourite night-time reading—but I think there may be some comfort to be taken from the fact that a consolidation of legal aid regulations is in an active state of preparation. I am afraid we have held it back to take account of the regulations which will be made under the Bill, and as soon as those are made it is intended that they should be incorporated in the consolidation. Indeed, I hope that the Amendments which are effected by the Bill—the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, referred to them—will be embodied in the new legal aid handbook which will then contain all the legislation, both primary and secondary, relating to legal aid in a convenient form. I noticed that my noble friend Lord Janner referred to that. It was indeed good to hear him speak of legal aid and I noted the throw-away line when he spoke of his 60 years in practice as a solicitor. I had the privilege of being briefed by him: indeed he once sent me to Addis Ababa on a case, and I would tell your Lordships about that remarkable experience,
"had we but world enough and time".
I just want to say that it was I who taught the lawyers of Addis Ababa to call each other "my learned friend" even though they did not always feel as friendly as that towards their opponents. However, I must not indulge in "anecdotage", having reached a dangerous age.
I am glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Janner, of the approval of the Law Society in the respects which he indicated: that is very encouraging indeed. I am sorry we have not been able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, about the matter of provision for a free initial diagnostic interview. It sounds a thoroughly alarming business but I hope he will agree that, with the new high free limit for advice and assistance, most of the people needing free advice will now be able to get it, certainly far more than was the case previously. The resources for legal

923
aid, advice and assistance are limited, and I confess to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that when I made my maiden speech from this place five years ago with a confident trumpet call for a wide extension of legal services, I had not then anticipated that we were running into an economic blizzard that has affected our resources in that field. However, I am glad that even he now recognises, at any rate in this package, that we are making a significant improvement.
There was a question about the failure to give effect, even at this point of time, to the provisions in Sections 64 and 65 of the Children Act. This enables the court to grant legal aid to the parents of children in care and related proceedings, but only where the court has already made an order under Section 64 of the Act that the parents may not represent the child in the proceedings. We have advanced a little in that field in that part of the section has been brought into force—that part which deals with proceedings arising from unopposed applications for the discharge of care or supervision orders. They were proceedings of the kind which led to the discharge of the care order of the poor child, Maria Colwell, with such tragic consequences. That means that, at any rate in that class of case, courts can now grant parents legal aid. I am afraid that time has advanced and I cannot go further into the reasons why there has not been a more general extension. One of the problems concerns the difficulties which arise from setting up panels from which courts could appoint guardians ad litem to represent children. I am advised that this would be expensive for the local authorities and the probation service who would be expected to provide most of the members of the panel. There again, we shall hope to progress in that direction also.
I end by expressing my gratitude for the support these proposals have had. I remember when I was PPS to Hartley Shawcross way back in 1949, when we set out on this road. It has been of great importance to our people. I agree with what has been said. I regard the provision of legal services as a crucial social service. It is not always easy to get all one's colleagues in the Government to agree with that proposition. There is the faint suspicion that it is a way of
924
enabling lawyers to feather their nests, which is an unworthy accusation. I am glad that, at any rate in this Bill, we are moving a little further along that vital road to help the ordinary citizen in his or her affairs.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
7.58 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Social Security Bill be now read a second time. The main feature of this short, but important, Bill is that it provides for an extension in the upper age limits for the receipt and payment of mobility allowance. Otherwise, the Bill is largely technical. It makes improvements in social security appeal procedures, alters the attendance allowance provisions and makes miscellaneous changes, particularly in relation to the new pensions scheme. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by going into a detailed description of all the provisions contained in this Bill. There will be the opportunity to discuss details when the Bill goes into Committee. However, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention today to one or two of the more significant provisions in the Bill.
My Lords, perhaps the Bill's most important provision is contained in Clause 3—the extension of the age for the receipt of mobility allowance, once awarded to 75 for both men and women, instead of 60 for women and 65 for men, as at present.
The Government have wanted to make this extension for some considerable time, and we are pleased to be able to do so now that the necessary resources have become available. Moreover, we have been able to bring about this important improvement before any beneficiary has actually reached the age at which we would have been obliged under the existing law to withdraw the allowance. Furthermore, Clause 3 provides that women will be able to establish entitlement to the allowance up to the age of 65, like men. Women will be phased into the scheme in the same way, and at the same time, as men of a similar age.

925
There has been some alteration to this Bill since it was first presented in another place, and I intend to refer later to some of the changes which have been made. However, it is appropriate for me to mention now that the Government have accepted the spirit of two Amendments made in Standing Committee in another place which also relate to the mobility allowance. Clause 3 of the Bill now provides that the Secretary of State, when he is considering the rate of the allowance which he is by statute required to do annually, should take into account any changes in taxation which directly affect the cost of motoring for persons in receipt of mobility allowance.
The phasing out of vehicle excise duty and the consequent increase in petrol taxation is clearly one such change; there is, therefore, now a statutory obligation to take this into account in reviewing mobility allowance. However, as my right honourable friend the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled made clear in another place, this cannot mean that the Government will commit themselves to freezing taxation of the disabled motorist at its present level. The Government are committed to the revalorisation of petrol duty. Energy conservation needs may dictate still further increases in petrol duty in the coming years. Mobility allowance is a major contribution—but a contribution only—to the cost of mobility to disabled motorists.
Clause 3 also now provides that the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament, as soon as is reasonably practicable after he has carried out his review of the rate of mobility allowance, a statement setting out his conclusions and the reasons for them. The Government have deliberately aimed to give the Secretary of State the same flexibility about the timing of this statement as he has regarding increases in the main social security benefits. I thought it right to go into some detail on Clause 3 of the Bill, for I am well aware of the interest which many noble Lords have in the problems of the disabled.
I turn now, however, to some of the other features of the Bill. A large part of the remainder of the Bill is concerned with tidying up the law relating to social security. Though it is to be regretted, it should cause no surprise that a social
926
security scheme which is as comprehensive, and therefore complex, as ours should require running repairs to its legislation from time to time. This is even more the case in a period which has seen the introduction of the new pensions scheme, the first benefits of which become payable from April of this year. The introduction of the new scheme has been achieved at the same time as other major improvements in social security. The November 1978 up-rating took pensions and other long-term benefits to a level some 20 per cent. higher in real terms, despite price increases, than in October 1973; the Child Benefit Scheme is now operative and by April child benefit will have reached £4 for each child, and we have legislated for a range of new benefits for the disabled.
However, work on the preparation for the new scheme revealed areas in which there were some defects in the statutory provisions. It is clearly important that these should be corrected before payments begin to be made in April.
The bulk of the technical provisions in the Bill which relate to pensions legislation fall into this category, including those in Part I of Schedule 1, which provide that some of the improvements introduced by the new scheme should apply only when the relevant event—for example, death or the attainment of pension age—occurs on or after 6th April 1979, when those improvements come into effect, as had always been the intention. These include the payment of a retirement pension to certain widowers on their deceased wives' contributions, the topping-up of a surviving spouse's retirement pension with the deceased spouse's pension and the abolition of the married women's half-test. It was originally intended to achieve this by regulations, but we were legally advised that the Pensions Act did not contain the necessary powers. It is therefore necessary to make appropriate amendments to the relevant provision in the Statutes, and this will be achieved by the amendments set out in Part II of Schedule 1.
I should like to say a word about Clause 10, which remedies a number of technical defects in Section 59 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. That section is intended to bring the arrangements for increasing official pensions—

927
that is, occupational pensions for former members of the public services and other related groups—into line with those for increasing the earnings-related additional component of the new state pension. The amendments in the Bill are needed to ensure that these new arrangements operate to provide the level of price protection for official pensions that Parliament has always intended.
I turn now to the improvements in appeal procedures which are encompassed in the Bill. I need not dwell on the minor changes in National Insurance adjudication arrangements which are provided in Clauses 6, 7 and 8. However, Clause 5 provides for two significant improvements to the Supplementary Benefit Appeals Tribunal system. It is intended that, in future, there will be a second tier appeal, on a point of law, to a National Insurance Commissioner. This will avoid the present somewhat cumbersome, and certainly expensive, arrangement whereby a claimant who wishes to take his case further than the Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunal has recourse only to the High Court. In introducing this second tier appeal, the Government have felt it logical to utilise the system of appeals to the National Insurance Commissioner, which, I think most people will agree, has stood the test of time.
We have also made provision for the introduction of a small number of legally-qualified senior chairmen into supplementary benefits adjudication. These senior chairmen will participate in the training of tribunal chairmen and members and in monitoring the performance of the tribunals in their areas. This is an entirely new feature in social security adjudication and I feel sure that it will be welcomed by your Lordships.
We have also met a criticism made by both Government supporters and the Opposition in another place, that clerks to supplementary benefit appeal tribunals were not always seen to be independent of the Secretary of State. We are providing that in future they shall be assigned only after consultation between the Secretary of State and the appropriate senior chairman (who will himself be appointed by the Lord Chancellor) and that the Secretary of State will consider
928
representations from senior chairmen about the desirability of terminating a clerk's assignment.
At the beginning of this speech I mentioned that the Bill makes certain changes in the provisions for attendance allowance. These are contained in Clause 2. The first change will ensure that the generality of kidney patients undergoing home dialysis should receive the allowance, thus restoring the position to what it was before the Attendance Allowance Board, in the light of developments in connection with home dialysis, revised its guidance relating to the application of the existing law in 1977. The second change will remedy an unintentional effect of the present law, whereby people who are undergoing hospital dialysis as out-patients get the allowance, even though their attendance needs are met by the hospital staff. Finally, we wish to take enabling powers so that the six-month qualifying period for attendance allowance can be waived when someone loses the allowance because of an improvement in his health, but shortly afterwards suffers a relapse.
At the Report stage in another place, an Amendment was tabled which was designed to enable those who were described as "common-law husbands" to qualify for the invalid care allowance. As many of your Lordships will know, this is an allowance which is payable to those who give up work to look after certain classes or relatives who are seriously disabled. The Amendment was withdrawn after my right honourable friend had undertaken to consider seeking the advice of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the matter. He has announced today that it has been decided to refer the matter to the committee.
It is perhaps appropriate at this point for me to give notice to your Lordships that the Government, in fulfilment of an undertaking which we gave in another place, intend to introduce an Amendment to facilitate the procedure for phasing out the earnings rule for retirement pensioners, as and when resources permit. Your Lordships will be aware that the Government are committed to the abolition of this rule when resources allow. We therefore propose to table a new clause for consideration by your Lordships at Committee stage, which will enable the Government, by means of orders subject

929
to Affirmative Resolution, to phase out the retirement pensioners' earnings rule by steadily reducing the period over which it applies, as a step towards complete abolition. In so doing, the Government are simply taking power to make changes. The question of using that power would need to be considered in the light of the economic situation prevailing at the time. I am sure your Lordships will understand, however, that resources do not permit any move at present. Any future decision to exercise this power would be subject to the Government's views on priorities in assessing the many competing claims for Government expenditure on scarce resources at that time.
I have dealt only with the more significant clauses in this rather technical Bill. I hope noble Lords will agree that its contents are neither likely to be controversial, nor a matter for Party politics. I recommend the Bill to the House and beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Wells-Pest ell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, noble Lords will be glad to have heard about the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. In brief, economical terms, the noble Lord dealt with it in the space of 15 minutes. I hope I shall be very much shorter than that, but the shortness of my remarks will not conceal any churlish feeling towards the Bill. Certainly it is to be welcomed, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell anticipated. Indeed, there is much to be welcomed in the Bill, although there is one matter which I must mention to the noble Lord before we go very much further.
While we welcomed the fact that the noble Lord sent to us the notes on clauses, we have found this Bill to be very difficult to deal with in one particular respect. On a subject which the noble Lord rightly referred to earlier as one of great complication, one carries a small library. Usually I equip myself with the Social Security Act 1973, the Social Security Act 1975, the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 and the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1977. But that is only part of the library. There is a whole host of orders which are ancillary
930
to and supplementary to the other legislation.
We have encountered one particular problem relating to the mobility allowance clause, Clause 3. May I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to the fact that reference is there made to Section 37A of the principal Act. Despite that reference to the principal Act, one will not find Section 37A in the principal Act. It is contained in Section 22 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. This illustrates one of the central problems relating to social security; namely, the maze of clauses and other amendments which have been added over the years. We on this side of the House can claim to have added to the complication.
Even at this late hour it is worth mentioning a point on the drafting of legislation. I refer to the Renton Committee. The noble Lord has heard me speak before on this subject. However, may I quote the words of a former Sovereign, King Edward VI, who said, and I quote his words from the Renton Report:
"I would wish that … the superfluous and tedious statutes were brought into one sum together and made more plain and short and to the intent that men might better understand them".
Those wise words of a former Sovereign could indeed be applied to the social security provisions.
We suggest that this may be done by the application of a Keeling Schedule. The noble Lord will be aware that my noble friends have referred previously to this problem. It was referred to at Second Reading in another place. We submit that there are limited, special occasions when a Keeling Schedule can be a valuable asset. I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has suggested that it would be useful in particular cases, and I quote again from the Renton Report at page 83. The words here are:
"Lord Gardiner, in his evidence to us, complained of the inconvenience of not being able to see at a glance from the Schedule what was to be left out and suggested that material to be omitted should be printed in distinguishing type"
I think this is a matter of great complication in an area where there is so much legislation, but I will leave it at that for the time being.
There is much to be commended in the present Bill. We are glad that the noble

931
Lord has introduced it in felicitous terms. The background to it, however, is less felicitous. I refer to Clause 2. The noble Lord will be aware that my honourable friend the Member of Ealing, Acton in another place, Sir George Young, introduced last Session in another place a Private Member's Bill which was going to remedy the case referred to, which resulted from a decision by the Attendance I Allowance Board. This was the celebrated and important case of a certain Mrs. Broomfield, who had her attendance allowance stopped in September 1977. We welcome the fact that at last the Government, who were not willing last year to give a fair wind to the Private Member's Bill, have incorporated Clause 2 in the Bill now before us and have permitted home dialysis patients who are dialysing for two periods a week to be permitted to retain the allowance. We also agree with the waiving of the six months qualifying period where a patient suffers a relapse, having previously lost the allowance owing to a recovery. That is another welcome change.
We agree with the noble Lord that the mobility allowance is welcome, but we think that some of the logic is misplaced here, for although it may be very welcome to extend the mobility allowance for ten years, how is it that at the age of 75 such allowance is no longer required? We agree with the Government that the pressure of economic circumstances is such that at the present time it would be difficult to cast an eye to the future, but I was interested in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, because he made specific reference to the fact that funds are now available. If the funds are foreseen to be available for ten years ahead, we wonder how he is able to see as far as that in present circumstances while, when referring to other parts of the Bill, he is less certain of his ground. We believe that there is a case for examining the position on the mobility allowance on Clause 3 and we shall look at it with considerable care.
At Report stage in another place Her Majesty's Government made two very imporant commitments which have already been referred to by the noble Lord. The first was the phasing out of the earnings rule. This has been a matter of great controversey over a long period, and from
932
this side of the House we can certainly give three cheers and look forward to the publication of the clause before the Committee stage.
I believe that I can set aside a large number of pages of my speech because I feel that it will be in the interests of the House to do so, particularly as we are sitting very late on a Thursday night and still have a further item of business before us. But before I sit down I think it is important to mention the financial effects. In the Explanatory amp; Financial Memorandum there is a statement which says:
"The Bill will increase expenditure on mobility allowance by £5½ million in 1979 and 1980 and the increase will rise to £20 million in a year after four years".
Other provisions of the Bill make further commitments which were envisaged in the principal Act, but, as we understand it from the present analysis given by the Government, there will be little saving. We had previously understood that there were to be savings under the earnings rule, but I have examined with care and interest the correspondence between some of my honourable friends in another place and I understand now that what was previously foreseen as a saving is in fact not a saving. However, I am glad that the Government recognise this and have published this fact in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I have spoken long enough on this Bill. We shall be addressing to your Lordships' House a number of Amendments on, certainly, three clauses, namely, those concerned with the attendance allowance, mobility allowance and the earnings rule.
8.26 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his careful explanation of the provisions of this Bill. As he indicated, it is a modest and uncontroversial measure. He made it plain that it is principally concerned with four matters: the mobility allowance, the attendance allowance for kidney failure patients, supplementary benefit appeals procedure and the rectification of defects in the Pensions Act. I should like to make a brief comment about each and then add a further comment about Clause 12.

933
As the noble Lord said, the alterations to the mobility allowance constitute the principal feature of the Bill. I certainly welcome the removal of the pensionable age limits of 65 for men and 60 for women and the extension of the mobility allowance to age 75 for all who are entitled to it at age 65. I welcome also the equal treatment for men and women which this change involves and to which the noble Lord has referred.
I should like to raise four questions. The first is one that has been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys: is it right to limit it to age 75? In the discussions in another place the Government spokesman took the line that it was not possible at this stage to say what the provisions for the disabled might be in 1989, which would be when the first person benefiting from the change would reach the age of 75, but it seemed to me that that was not a very good argument because if a better scheme is to be found, a change could quite easily be made. I therefore want to ask whether the real problem is one of expense. One can understand that this may well be what is concerning the Government. A figure of £50 million was mentioned in the discussions in another place but I do not know how firm that figure was. It was the figure given for extending the age to life, and that would compare with an estimate of the ultimate cost through the proposals which are envisaged of between £35 and £65 million. That was rather a wide range given by the Government spokesman but I suppose we might be talking in terms of doubling the expense if that first figure is right. I wonder whether that is the problem that is worrying the Government.
My second question is this: Can it be right to exclude those who have become disabled over age 65? Again, is the only objection here one of cost? A figure of £200 million was mentioned if they were included and one can see that it is a large figure to contemplate at the present time, but do the Government hold that immobility due to old age should not be catered for and are they afraid that if they did extend it to people who become disabled over age 65 it would be difficult to distinguish between disablement due to old age and disablement caused in other ways? Personally I hope that they
934
are not making a distinction of that kind. I think it would be invidious.
The third question is this: should the mobility allowance be taxed? I raise this, although it is not dealt with directly in the Bill, because of a hint—at least I took it to be a hint—given in another place by the Under-Secretary of State for the Disabled during the Second Reading debate. He seemed to suggest that it was likely that the two-pronged system advocated by the Disablement income Group of an allowance for the disabled which would meet the specific expenses which disabled people have, coupled with an income where this was required to replace loss of earnings, would eventually be the pattern that would be adopted. If that is so, presumably that allowance would not be taxed and presumably it would include the mobility allowance. One can understand that the income would be taxed but the mobility allowance would not, although in the tax credits scheme which we on these Benches are putting forward both these means of assistance, the allowance and the replacement of earnings, would be untaxed credits set along with other credits against the tax on every pound which that scheme would involve.
The final question about the mobility allowance is, is an allowance of £10 adequate? I know we always come back to this and I know we always come to discuss means when that point is raised. I am thinking particularly of people attempting to purchase a vehicle with their £10, and I realise that for many of them the other costs, the costs of maintenance and running the car, would be prohibitive; the whole of the £10 having to go to pay for the purchase or leasing of the car. I say that without in any way playing down the excellent work that is being done by Motability.
Turning to the attendance allowance for kidney failure patients, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in welcoming the fact that the allowance is to be returned to certain patients who dialyse at home and who lost the allowance through the change in interpretation. I think it quite understandable that the allowance will not be paid to most of those who dialyse in hospitals and do not have any home attendance costs. I am glad the Government will waive the six months' qualifying

935
period for the allowance where there has been an improvement and then this is followed by a relapse. I am glad also that a means of paying back amounts to those who had their allowance withdrawn has been found.
Turning to the supplementary benefits appeals, I welcome the two-tier appellate system—the appeal which the noble Lord described from the tribunal to the National Insurance Commissioner. I do not think the question of legal aid was satisfactorily resolved when these matters were discussed in another place, and perhaps we shall be able to return to that during our discussion of the Bill. I think perhaps it is going to be a problem when an appeal is made to the National Insurance Commissioner, legal aid not being available at the present time. I was interested in what the noble Lord had to say about means of making the tribunals to a certain extent independent of the Department of Health and Social Security. I wonder whether that can be taken further and whether it might be satisfactory to have them appointed entirely independently of the Department of Health and Social Security, possibly by the Lord Chancellor's office. I am glad to hear about the appointment of the senior chairman, and I am glad to read in the Bill about the extension of those who qualify to be National Insurance Commissioners to include solicitors with ten years' experience in addition to barristers and advocates with that amount of experience.
All proposals dealing with supplementary benefits at the present time have to be seen against the background of the supplementary benefits review document, Social Assistance, and if there is going to be much more reliance, as that document suggests, on a more detailed Act of Parliament and less discretion on the part of those applying the benefits, then the appeals system is perhaps going to be even more important than it is now. That document, Social Assistance, did make it clear that one in 10 of our population depend to a degree on social assistance. I feel that the terms of reference of that review were too narrow and that if we were to reorganise the whole system along the lines of the tax credits system we could retain the discretion that it is now
936
proposed to remove for a much reduced supplementary benefit.
Turning to the rectification of defects in the Pensions Act, these are largely what has been described as running repairs, but I do not intend to examine them in detail tonight. I note that the Public Service Pensioners Council are still in dispute with the Government over the use of the phrase "complete months" to cover an incomplete month with 16 days or more. This arises in particular—it arises in other ways, of course—in connection with the decision to increase public service index-linked pensions on 11th November 1979 instead of 1st December. Eleven days in November will not count for the calculation. The Public Service Pensioners Council say that they would prefer to use the phrase "days" instead, believing that to be simpler and fairer. I am wondering whether the Government have had any second thoughts on that and whether their objection to the use of "days" is purely administrative.
Turning to Clause 12, which deals with the maternity grant and the death grant, this, of course, is a matter which we debated, certainly as far as the death grant is concerned, when I asked an Unstarred Question fairly recently, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, replied. There is now in the Bill this clause which places an obligation on the Secretary of State to review the death grant and maternity grant to see if they have retained their value in relation to the general level of earnings and prices obtaining in Great Britain. I am glad to see that in, but I regret that the Government do not intend to act on it; that is to say, they will conduct the review but will not, if the review shows a decline in value, take steps to put it right. The noble Lord said when I asked a direct question a few weeks ago that it was the Government's intention to allow the death grant to decline further in value. I wonder if he still holds to that or whether he has had the opportunity to think further about it. At any rate, we shall no doubt discuss that during the Committee stage.
Finally, may I welcome what he had to say about the earnings rule. We on these Benches have long been opposed to the earnings rule and although we are not seeing its end as yet it is nice to know that

937
arrangements are being made for its end so that it can come smoothly when it does eventually come. With those few comments and questions, I am content that the Bill should receive a Second Reading from the House.
8.38 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think I ought to allow myself to be seduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, into going down the two roads of Renton and Keeling, which he invited me to do. Having said that, may I say that we appreciate the problems referred to by the noble Lord. Consideration is given from time to time to the consolidation of social security legislation, and we will bear in mind the points made by the noble Lord in this connection. Similarly, with regard to the Keeling Schedule, which I understand involves the setting out of the relevant provisions as amended in the enactment which amends it, this is a complicated business, but we will give consideration to what the noble Lord has said. I think I could at this stage remind him of the fact that under Section 37A of the principal Act, brought in by Section 22 of the Social Security Pension Act 1975, the law on social security is regularly brought up to date and is published, together with subordinate legislation, as probably the noble Lord knows, in three volumes which are colloquially known as the Brown Books. If he has not seen them, I would advise him to go to the Library and have a look at them.
The noble Lord, together with the noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised the question why a stop at the age of 75. I do not think that there is any point in beating about the bush. It is largely a question of money. When one is planning ahead there is a great deal of merit and virtue in fixing some type of limit when one cannot see clearly what may be needed in 10 years' time. I, like the noble Lord, can remember the introduction of the "trike" . We had great hopes for that continuing, I was about to say, almost indefinitely. Then a whole series of events happened which made it necessary for us to rethink the situation.
We must all face the fact that it may be necessary in the next 10 years to change completely the whole concept of mobility.
938
The very fact that we are prepared to continue it to the age of 75 has already brought with it completely new thinking when we come to realise that one of the original purposes of the mobility scheme was to assist people to get about and to get to work and to do something about their own livelihood. Now we are thinking about the situation in very different terms. We are thinking of the needs of people who are over 65. It does not seem to me—and I am not trying to make a political point—to be unreasonable that we should say: "All right, this is what we shall do until both men and women reach the age of 65" knowing full well that long before we reach that stage, long before the next 10 years is up, we must be thinking in terms of the pattern of mobility allowances in the future. I do not think that I can say anything more about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked whether it is right to exclude those who are not disabled before the age of 65. Again, I come back to the original purpose of the mobility allowance which is comparatively new. We must bear in mind that it was given for a specific purpose; namely, to be of some real value to people under pension age who are dependent upon mobility to carry out or do a job. We have changed it and I think that we must go one step at a time. It is no good my pretending that even if we thought otherwise we could do it financially. I do not think that there is a possibility of extending the scheme, in the way that the noble Lord suggests, for people who are unable to claim it before they are 65 years of age, simply because of the amount of money involved.
As regards taxation, it is not that I want to give the noble Lord a dusty answer, but that is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I am not in a position at this stage—and nor would any of my friends in the Department be in a position—to make any comment about the taxation of a mobility allowance. Whether the mobility allowance of £10 is enough will depend again on the financial situation, as do so many other matters.
As regards the maternity and death grant, it is perfectly true that when the noble Lord asked a week or two ago whether the present position did not mean that, if nothing was done to increase the death

939
grant, as time went on its real value would become less and less, I said "Yes" because that is so. However, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to consider the maternity and death grant. The noble Lord suggested that the Secretary of State would not do anything about the matter, but I am saying that under this Bill he is obliged both to look at the maternity and death grant and to give his reasons for doing what he proposes to do, which may be nothing or something.
I am grateful for the comments which both noble Lords have made. I realise that we shall be able to discuss these matters in greater detail during the Committee stage. However, I should like to conclude by saying that, by and large, this is not a political Bill: it is a sincere and sustained attempt on the part of the Government to remedy certain deficiencies and to make more adequate provision in certain respects.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEER BILL [H.L.]
8.45 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 1 [Close seasons and nightly close times]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("if") to end of line 40 and insert—

("(i) he is an authorised person; and

(ii) he has reasonable grounds for believing that deer of the same species are causing, or have caused, damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property on that land, pasture or woodland; and

(iii) it is likely that further damage will be so caused and any such damage is likely to be serious; and

(iv) his action is necessary for the purpose of preventing any such damage.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and it would be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 14. If those Amendments, as a group, are acceptable to the House,
940
I shall not move Amendments Nos. 6 to 10 inclusive. During the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, raised a number of matters and on three issues I offered to meet him before this stage of the Bill. I would begin by thanking the noble Viscount for his courtesy and the helpful spirit in which he met me. I think that on most matters—perhaps all except one—we have now reached agreement, and Amendment No. 1, with which I should now like to deal, is the first fruits of that agreement.
During the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, objected, first, in principle to the use of the words:
"if he satisfies the court before which he is charged"
which appear in Clause 1(7); and similarly to those words which appear in Clause 2(3). Secondly, he objected to the use of those words, without their also being used in Clause 2(4). So he asked for the Bill to be made in some way consistent. Amendment No. 1, if taken particularly with Amendment No. 4—Amendment No. 5 being a drafting Amendment and Amendment No. 14 a consequential Amendment—does, in fact, make for the consistency for which the noble Viscount asked. In effect, to put it as briefly as possible, we are now removing the words that offended the noble Viscount so that they do not appear in Clause 1 or Clause 2 and therefore they are now fully consistent with the words in Clause 2(4). I see that the noble Viscount is nodding his head, and although this matter is very technical I think that I have carried him with me.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for pointing out this possible inconsistency and I hope that I have fully met him by moving these Amendments. However, I have one reservation which is most important. The point about removing those words—and I must make this clear to the House—is that their removal does not, in fact, affect the impact of the Bill. The subsections about which we are talking create, in effect, statutory defences or exemptions as regards the offences that are being described at those points in the Bill. But if we remove the words about "satisfying the court", it will, under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, nevertheless remain the case that in the end it will be before a court that the matter must be settled and that in the

941
court it will be for the defence to prove the matter. It is the defence who have to satisfy the court about the exemption and the statutory defence. Therefore, to take the words out will show consistency in the Bill but will not, in fact, alter its impact. In the end it will be in the courts that the matter will have to be tried and in which the defence will have to prove that the exemption has been rightly earned.
That leads me to my final point. The second reservation which I have about the way in which I am now proceeding in order to meet the noble Lord is that it could be taken as slightly to discourage the police from going to court when they have prima facie evidence of an offence. it could be thought to be slightly discouraging the police in that respect by omitting these words. I am sure that police constables are well aware of the 1952 Act, in the way that I have just described. However, it would be very helpful if my noble friend on the Front Bench felt able to confirm what I have said, that taking these words out will not, in fact, alter the need of the defence to prove these matters in court and should not in any sense discourage the police from taking action when there is prima facie evidence of the defence described in these parts of the Bill. With those words, I am happy to move Amendment No. 1 and I trust that I have met the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in so doing.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, not only for taking on board this suggestion, which I made at an earlier stage in debate on the Bill, but also for his extremely helpful and courteous manner and attitude which culminated in delaying this stage of discussion on the Bill so as to give us both time to discuss these matters. I know that he had reservations over this and I am sensitive of the efforts he went to in order to meet me, and am extremely grateful. In fact, he has met all my objections on this. In spite of the reservations to which he referred, I can have no objection to the due process of law; I can have no objection whatever to people having to rely upon the statutory defence, if that is how the matter is constructed.
I do not believe that the way in which the Bill is drafted will in any way prevent
942
the police from pursuing a prosecution if they believe that the law had been broken. However, I believe that as it is now stated, it does just guard against the possibility of harassment of people pursuing their legitimate business and protecting their legitimate rights. Therefore, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I certainly support all the Amendments to which he referred; I shall support him on the other Amendments as well as upon Amendment No. 1.
Clause 2 [Prohibited firearms and ammunition]:
8.55 p.m.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 16, after ("order") insert ("either generally or in relation to any species and description of deer specified in the order").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, noble Lords will remember that during other stages of debate upon this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, held out the prospect of an interdepartmental review to look into a number of aspects concerning the control and poaching of deer, and the methods of taking or killing deer. We understand that this interdepartmental review is, indeed, a firm promise. It is more than just a nice idea; it is, indeed, a promise given not so much by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, himself, as by the Government when they gave support to the Bill which, of course, is the noble Lord's brainchild.
This interdepartmental review is absolutely vital to the acceptance of the Bill as it is now drafted. It is absolutely vital to my acceptance of the Bill and it is vital to the acceptance of the Bill by the farming community. Indeed, anyone who wishes the intentions of the Bill well would I am sure like it to be guaranteed that this review will take place and might, indeed, blossom into something a little wider than simply a one-off review; that it might blossom into my ideal of having some sort of a deer commission to deal with these matters in the future.
Therefore, it is extremely important that in agreeing to the Bill, in passing it through your Lordships' House and wishing it on its way through Parliament

943
to another place, we should leave it so that when this interdepartmental review is set up, it will be able to carry out its recommendations, or that the Ministers responsible are able to put into effect the suggestions which arise from the deliberations of the interdepartmental review. I honestly believe that in one area—that of weaponry and particularly the area concerned with farmers and the kind of weapons which may be used for the control of the deer population—I have exposed a slight weakness in the Bill as originally drafted.
The Amendment proposes the following insertion in page 3, line 16:
"after ("order") insert ("either generally or in relation to any species and description of deer specified in the order")".
Together with the later Amendment, No. 13—which is part of the same thinking—it is designed to enable the Minister responsible to implement any advice which the interdepartmental review may give him on these matters.
I genuinely believe that without these Amendments the Minister would not be able effectively to implement all the recommendations which he might receive. Even if it is thought that he might be able to implement some of them, it is a pity to cast doubt upon the ability of the interdepartmental review to be effective. Therefore, I recommend this Amendment to your Lordships and also Amendment No. 13, which is a similar Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I have a reservation about this Amendment, but at this late hour I do not think I need describe it. I shall talk to the noble Viscount about it afterwards. I do not think that my reservation does any great harm: I shall simply say that I am happy to accept the Amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("shot commonly known as") and insert ("to say size").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 as set out on the Marshalled List. This is a drafting
944
Amendment. I am advised that the words there amount to a more felicitous way of expressing what I had intended. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 29, leave out from ("if") to end of line 38 and insert—
("(i) he is an authorised person; and
(ii) he has reasonable grounds for believing that deer of the same species are causing, or have caused, damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property on that land; and
(iii) it is likely that further damage will be so caused and any such damage is likely to be serious; and
(iv) his action is necessary for the purpose of preventing any such damage;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("the") to ("any") in line 3 and insert ("use as a slaughtering instrument, for the purpose of killing any deer, of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again I have already spoken to this Amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
(Amendments Nos. 6 to 10 not moved.)
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert ("(that is to say size AAA or any larger size)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is again a more felicitous way of expressing what was inserted in the Bill at Committee stage.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food") and insert ("agriculture Minister").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the

945
House if we discuss with Amendment No. 12, Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. At the Committee stage, and with the helpful support of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, we inserted in the Bill a power for the Minister of Agriculture to share power with the Home Secretary over the phasing out of weapons. We were warned at that time that of course the Minister of Agriculture's remit does not cover Wales and Northern Ireland. In order to make provision for that fact we now have to alter the wording to substitute the words "agriculture Minister" for the words "Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food", and then insert, particularly in Amendment No. 20, a definition of the words "agriculture Minister" so that it means in respect of England the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in relation to Wales the Secretary of State for Wales, and in relation to Northern Ireland the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. Although it is rather complicated, in effect this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 12, after ("species") insert ("and description").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert ("conditions which must be satisfied").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is really consequential on Amendment No. 1, and I spoke to it at that time. I beg to move.
Clause 4 [Removal etc. of live deer]:
9.5 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("from one area or place to another").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Governments frequently come in for a great deal of criticism. There was some a short while ago in your Lordships' House about the amount of unnecessary words that one finds in the various statutes, and so on. There is nothing in this Amendment other than to take out words which, in the view of Parliamentary draftsmen and, if I may say so, the Government too, are quite unnecessary. As drafted the amended Bill reads:
"takes and carries away any live deer from one area or place to another;"
What we are saying is that it is difficult to take something away without taking it away from one area or place to another. If your Lordships agree with me, and I am sure you do, I should like to move Amendment No. 15 so that we leave out "from one area or place to another". I beg to move.
Clause 17 [Orders]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 13, line 1, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the Minister and the agriculture Minister acting jointly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is again an Amendment to which I spoke when I spoke about Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 13, line 2, after ("him") insert ("or them").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("of the Minister").
Page 13, line 9, leave out ("of the Minister").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Clause 18 [Interpretation]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 13, line 17, at end insert—
(" "the agriculture Minister" means—

(a) in relation to England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;

(b) in relation to Wales, the Secretary of State for Wales; and

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland;")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Schedule 2 [Prohibited firearms and ammunition]:
9.8 p.m.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 15, line 46, at end insert—
("Supplemental
10. In their application to any Muntjac deer or Chinese Water deer—

(a) paragraph 1 above shall have effect as if there were added at the end the words "of less gauge than 12 bore"; and

(b) paragraph 7 above shall have effect as if there were added at the end the words "other than a cartridge purporting to contain shot none of which is less than 164 inches (4·09 millimetres) in diameter (that is to say size BB or any larger size)".")

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I fear I cannot be quite so expeditious as we have been up to now, because this is the moment at which, in Committee, I began to give away rather more than I meant to because of the lateness of the hour. This Amendment is slightly different in form and wording from a similar Amendment which, with permission, I withdrew in Committee, but the change is due solely to some helpful drafting advice I received in the meantime. My intention and that of the Amendment remain the same.
Let us go back to the beginning and ask ourselves what it is that the Bill is intended to do. First, it is intended to outlaw certain cruel or undesirable methods of killing or taking deer, and, secondly, it is designed to define the rights of certain people to take deer in specified circumstances and to strengthen those rights by making it an offence by someone not
948
having them to kill or take deer in whatever circumstances they may try to do so. With those intentions I am in broad agreement. But there is a third objective which should form one of the Bill's intentions and which, though it may not form one of the Bill's objectives in the form in which the Bill is now before your Lordships, nevertheless, in my view, must not be made more difficult to achieve; that is, the proper management of deer as a native wild life species and as a food and leisure resource.
It is no good my moaning on about the Bill's deficiencies in that respect. I have made the point and, in fairness, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, accepts my contention in this matter but pleads pressure of time and offers me the sop of an interdepartmental review. As one whose family motto is J'aime le Meilleur, I find the sop unsatisfying, but practical politics make me tighten my belt and accept it as better than nothing. I know I am not going to get a Deer Commission out of the Bill, but two blacks do not make a white; people will still have to manage and control deer populations. It will be more difficult to do so without the help and advice of a Deer Commission, but the job will nevertheless have to be done.
When I say "manage and control" I do not just mean stop deer marauding on farm crops; I mean cull populations so as to keep them in a stable and healthy state. What I am talking about is what will have to be done constantly every year in order to prevent the farmer from being forced, as a last resort, to rush out with his shot gun so as to cut. down, if possible, an unacceptable and recurring damage to his livelihood. I am sure Lord Northfield will agree that one of the factors which makes the Bill important is the steady growth of the deer population of England and Wales and the steady spread of deer populations out of their traditional territories; and, one might add to that, a steady spread of non-native species escaped from deer parks.
The end result of such growth and spread is marauding pressure on to farmland. The marauding pressure will intensify as deer habitats fill up as a result of this expanding national herd. This means that more and more people will become "authorised persons" within the meaning

949
of the Bill. As a result, more and more firearm certificates will have to be issued to more and more persons, not only with just cause to possess them but with real need to possess them to discharge their public duty, and therefore more and more high-powered rifles will be firing off in the fields and coppices of rural England and Wales with every-increasing danger to the general public.
We must remember that the minimum calibre that will be allowed to be used against any species of deer if the Bill is passed as it now stands is six millimetres. If such a weapon is to be used in butts for target practice, the butts will require to be carefully surveyed and appropriate permission will have to be sought. But used against deer, the angle and line of fire will always be different and often will be chosen in haste and in seconds by a single person who is not necessarily one endowed either with specialised knowledge or experience. Such a weapon as the Bill specifies, if used in properly surveyed and authorised butts, would be fired towards a butt with a safety area of at least a mile behind it, protected by red flags and backed up by a code of safety practice. Fired in a field, no one will know what safety area lies behind the target, and it will seldom be possible even to guess.
In my view, the Bill as it stands constitutes a very definite danger to the public. This would not be so—at any rate, not to anything like the same extent—if the shotgun were still allowed as a weapon for at least some kinds of deer. The argument against the shotgun is that to allow its continued use might be cruel. This I do not necessarily believe. Given the right loads and ranges, I consider the shotgun equal in effectiveness, if not more effective than the smaller calibres of rifle allowed by the Bill. Indeed, I consider the chance of inflicting a nasty non-lethal wound on some of the smaller kinds of deer to be more likely with a rifle that than with a shotgun.
I have tried to explain this to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, by drawing pictures for him. Although I think he liked my drawings, I do not think that he liked my argument. There is no opportunity here in your Lordships' House to draw pictures, and I have to rely upon verbal imagery to try to persuade your Lordships of the strength of my case.
950
I will therefore not try to put across its technical merits in detail to your Lord-ships, but rather I will put it to you in the following way. The shotgun is allowed at this moment, and any load within it is legal, and any bore is legal. It follows therefore that my Amendment, by specifying BB fired from a 12-bore, goes quite a long way along Lord Northfield's road.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and I agree that an interdepartmental review of weaponry is essential, and it will be necessary to make the weaponry part of the law more sophisticated. I am prepared to believe that it may be necessary to increase the calibre of minimum weapon for the larger species of deer, because personally I consider that the the 6 millimetre is too small for red deer at some of the ranges at which one would wish to use it. To go the whole way with the Bill, and to ban the shotgun altogether, would create very definite dangers to public safety and to the lives of innocent bystanders. This step should not be taken therefore until after the interdepartmental review, particularly in the case of the smaller species of deer. In short, I am suggesting a compromise with public safety in mind, and I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, should be content with the same assurance that he gives me, which is that the interdepartmental review should be wiser than us both. I beg to move.
9.16 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, it always seems to me that it is the last hurdle that is the most difficult to clear, and I regret to tell the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that I agree almost one hundred per cent. with the noble Viscount regarding this Amendment. I know that it is very late not only in the evening, but also in terms of the stage of the Bill, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will see the validity of the argument. I think that it is completely sound.
I wish to make one or two points about these two particular species. First, they are exotic. I do not like exotic animals in principle, and I believe that many farmers would agree with me on this. Secondly, they really are pests, and they are small pests, too. They are little bigger than a hare, and they breed not like

951
ordinary deer, but, I believe, two or three times a year. They do not seem to mind man, which is another aspect which is important from the safety point of view. They breed very close to man. They breed very close to me, and I farm in Oxford, very close to a large city. They also breed in Surrey. Hence, I would support the noble Viscount entirely in this matter of the question of safety.
Now, when it comes to killing them—and I admitted to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in the corridor that, I regret to say, I shot one of these perfectly easily with a size 6 shot—I do not think it is right to shoot them with a rifle. It is perfectly easy to shoot them with a shotgun. I would make one further point about this. I was talking to my—I was going to say my head forester, but that would be totally untrue; I was talking to the Forestry Commission officer who came to advise me over amenity planting the other day, and he explained to me that the great problem he had with muntjac and Chinese water deer, most of which had escaped from some noble Duke's land not very far away from me, was that they breed at a great rate. If they do increase at this rate, the time to control them is when people go out shooting. I should hate to see people using a rifle in a pheasant shoot, but, on the other hand, it is very easy to shoot these beasts if they increase in number to the extent that this man was trying to tell me they might.
I am not advocating the size 6 shot for these beasts, but what I am saying is that they could be a menace, and this interdepartmental committee should have the power to say, "No; these must be shot, or may be shot, with a shotgun because they are a pest, they are a nuisance, they kill our trees". I hope the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will be able to accept this particular Amendment. I feel very strongly about it, and I should hate to see his Bill have a hiccup at this stage, because even I, who was very much opposed to it, have really got quite fond of it, and I should not like to see it have to come up again. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, we have had good relations throughout this
952
Bill, and I hope that what I have to say will not ruin them. The position is that there is here a conflict of evidence. I am perfectly well aware that the noble Lords who have spoken are great experts on deer. But so, for example, is Mr. G. Kenneth Whitehead. He is probably the greatest living English expert on deer, and he takes exactly the opposite view to that taken by the noble Lords who have just spoken. He would not allow any shooting of deer of any kind with a shotgun, and, in particular, he would not agree to, would not support and would give evidence against the use of the shotgun in this way against muntjac and Chinese water deer. Indeed, I may say that this goes much further. The main body of members of the Deer Society (this does not exclude individuals, of course) would join Mr. Whitehead in saying that this case is not proved and that, indeed, there is an alternative view about which they feel equally strongly. That is the first point.
I have to say, furthermore, that there has really been no authentic test that we know of—no test of any sort, either before the Bill that we are discussing or during its passage—to check on this point. The position therefore is, very strongly, that I hope the noble Viscount will feel—and I have met him on all his other Amendments—that on this one the right course of action is for the interdepartmental committee, seeing our words in black and white in Hansard and reading the case for and against this matter, to evaluate the two points of view as quickly as possible (and indeed, I hope, carry out the tests) so as to allow a proper decision to be made in accordance with the powers in the Bill.
We have a conflict; and we have a situation in which I hope that that conflict can be resolved in better ways than by arguing across the Floor of the Chamber on technical matters. But there are other points that I would put to your Lordships before I close. First, let us be clear about the Bill as it stands. The concession for the use of the shotgun—and I say this strongly to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley—by a farmer to protect his crops against deer of any kind, including these two species, is fully safeguarded in this Bill. Therefore, what are we now talking about? We are really talking about the shooting of these two

953
species of deer—and I say this strongly to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—primarily for sport and pleasure. That is why I want to say first: let us be clear what we are talking about. It is a narrow area. I am not trying to be critical. I am saying that this is not going to harm the farmer protecting his crops; this is a case where the Amendment would come into operation mainly in connection with sport or pleasure.
The second major point is that Great Britain is now virtually alone in permitting the shotgun to be used on deer. Even in Ireland, under the 1976 Act the shotgun is not being allowed on any animal larger than a hare. So we are not alone in trying to take this general stand against the use of the shotgun.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, is there a large population of muntjac and Chinese water deer in Ireland?
9.26 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Of course not, my Lords. I am putting a different point to the noble Viscount—and perhaps he did not hear me—that they have made a definition which is that they think that cruelty is so easily inflicted that they have put a ban on the use of the shotgun on any animal larger than the ordinary hare. That is their reasoning about the dangers in the use of the shotgun. This would include any animal of that size even though they do not have these two particular species there.
Thirdly, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, spoke at an earlier stage about one standard weapon being prescribed in the Bill. I want to point out that this is a mistake. We are not here imposing a difficulty on farmers protecting their crops nor are we prescribing a standard weapon. We are only prescribing a minimum-sized weapon. Let us look at the particular problem of the muntjac and the Chinese water deer, bearing this in mind. The great difficulty arises—and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, knows this better than I—that the problem we now have with these two species of deer is that they are now quickly colonising more and more of the territory at present mainly covered by the roe deer. They are intermingling on a huge scale. If you take any 100-kilometre
954
square map you can see that wherever there are muntjac deer there are roe deer. This is the great problem we have when we come to the precise technical argument.
Therefore, it would be quite wrong to lay down two different rules about weapons for two kinds of species which, as I want to prove in a moment, are very similar in size. This is very important and I hope that the noble Viscount will pay attention to this point. The great difficulty is going to be—and the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, said this at the Committee stage, when he pointed it out very carefully—that it would be:
"totally impossible to carry out a distinction of this kind between the roe deer and the muntjac deer".
It would make for a nonsense. It would provide the perfect excuse for a man who had shot a roe deer with a shotgun. He could say: "I thought it was a muntjac." I want to come to their similarity in stature in a moment. Secondly, I would say that it would make life easier and a good deal more profitable for poachers, who can obtain shotguns easier than rifles. They could use it and say: "I hit a roe deer, but I thought it was a muntjac deer, and I thought I had every right to use a shotgun on a muntjac deer. I am so sorry it was a roe deer."
Thirdly, it would be unfair, unrealistic and quite impossible to put on the police the burden of making this distinction when they were told that they had been aiming at the one and unhappily had hit the other. It would make for utter confusion if one tried at this point to make a distinction between what could be used on a roe deer and what could be used on a muntjac deer.
I want to talk now very briefly about the dimensions. First of all, if one looks at the body size of a muntjac deer—and I have the standard picture of the muntjac deer in front of me from the Field Guide to British Deer—it can be seen that the body size of the muntjac deer is virtually the same as that of many roe deer, particularly with the female. Indeed—and I bring this to the notice of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso—in quite a few cases the muntjac deer is larger than the female roe deer. So we would now be prescribing for one a weapon quite improper compared with an animal of similar, indeed perhaps smaller, size.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord in what sense he means larger? Does he mean in weight, volume or height?
Lord NORTH FIELD: My Lords, I am coming quite deliberately to the point. If one looks at this in greater detail, one finds that the total body size, total length, is something over 3 feet 6 inches including the head. They hold their heads differently. The muntjac deer holds its head straight forward instead of holding it upright. The total length of body is about the same, about 3 feet 6 inches. The total depth of their body is about the same, about I foot. Their weight is also often very similar. Indeed, as I have said already, in some cases the muntjac is bigger particularly than the female roe deer.
If one looks at the target problem, which I know concerns the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, the problem of targeting on the animal, it is the case of course that the neck of the roe deer, which is the main target point, is larger. However, I am told by those who know better than I do about these things that the total body, as well as the neck, may well be a place at which to aim on a muntjac deer with a rifle. This is because a shot from a rifle will bring the deer down almost wherever it is aimed. Quite simply, the dimensions are virtually the same; the only difference is in the shortness of the leg. This is the great problem: namely, that the muntjac deer has short legs but a similar body. So we have this problem. Quite frankly, it would make a nonsense in the Bill to differentiate between roe deer and muntjac deer.
I want to deal with two or three very small points and then I shall try to end. The noble Viscount took a long time and I am bound to reply to him because he feels very strongly about it. The point is that he himself was under a misapprehension—I hope he now admits it—when he said at the time of our last discussion on the Deer Bill in our previous session that some of them—and he was speaking about muntjac deer and Chinese water deer—are little bigger than hares. I am quoting from his own speech. This really is wildly wrong. The average weight of an ordinary brown hare is from between 7 to 8½ lb; the weight of a male muntjac is between 40 to 50 lb.—
956
roughly six times as heavy. A female muntjac weighs about 30 lb. So really he cannot make these wild statements about size. Quite frankly, the similarity is greater than the dissimilarity between various kinds of deer, and these animals are not like hares.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, if the noble Lord is quoting figures, may I ask him to quote Chinese water deer?
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I have the figures here. The Chinese water deer weigh up to 35 lb—four to five times as much as a hare. Those are the figures. He said that some of them were "little bigger"; they are four and five times bigger at the very minimum and I want to state that quite bluntly to him.
Lastly, may I mention one final point. There is a particular characteristic of the muntjac. They fight with their teeth, and nature has consequently provided them with an additional protection; they have extra thick and hard skin on their head, neck and shoulders. In fact all their skin is tougher than that of a roe, and penetration by shooting—to be lethal and not merely to wound—must be by appropriate weapon and ammunition. This is a very difficult matter. It means that if a shotgun has to be used—the noble Viscount may be able to use it successfully: no one is denying that—in the hands of less experienced people it can often be the cause of terrible maiming and suffering rather than of bringing down the animal and killing it. Indeed, one would say that the maximum distance from which a shotgun ought to be fired is 20 yards. Can he really tell me that he can get within 20 yards every time of a muntjac deer? That is one of the difficulties—you cannot be sure of that, particularly if you are aiming at roe deer and not certain of what you are doing, because they will not be within 20 yards.
Finally, I said to the noble Viscount at the Committee stage, and I say to him again, that it is not good enough to use such phrases as, "we should use the sort of shot that are used on the larger size of geese." That is not fair. The average size of shot he is using is used on geese, and they are only six or seven pounds in weight as compared with these deer. Secondly, in a rough shoot anybody who is out with 5's, 6's and 7's in his gun is not

957
going to unload when he sees a muntjac running across in front of him and quickly put in No. 2 shot. Of course not: he will take a pot-shot at the muntjac deer with the shot that he has in his shotgun. That is just the sort of thing that we do not want to encourage.
I have tried to answer the noble Viscount in technical terms because I fairly realise that he is not to be set aside with a simple statement of principle on this matter. I have tried to go into detail. The kernel of my case is that it would be quite impossible to do this and to enforce it when we look into the problems, particularly in connection with roe deer. I think it would make a nonsense of the Bill to do so. I hope, therefore, that he will look at it in this way: that our views are on record now as two opposing views, that there are witnesses like Mr. Whitehead who can be called in to put his experience against that of the noble Viscount, and that it is for the interdepartmental committee to look at this matter and see whether we can reach greater sophistication in weapons definition, although at this point I do not think it is so clear that we ought to do anything in the Bill itself.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I am still not impressed by some of the arguments that have been adduced. If I may reply to some of them fairly quickly, I should like to begin by saying that I am not bowled over by the name of the expert which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has called to his aid. He stalks on the place next door to me and I have met him—
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, if I might just interrupt the noble Viscount, the expert concerned is actually a friend of mine. He happens to be a paper manufacturer by profession and lives in Chorley in Lancashire.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. We go on to the argument which was put forward by the noble Lord, and that is that in Ireland they have said that you shall not use a shotgun for anything larger than a hare. If they had said "You shall not use a shotgun for anything smaller than a roe" they would, in effect, have been saying the same as my Amendment says.
958
This Amendment is said to make a nonsense of the Bill, because the poacher could use it. The poacher is going to come up with all kinds of stories. I have personal, first-hand experience of deer poachers and they will use any kind of excuse. On one occasion, when I caught some deer poachers red-handed with a shotgun after red deer at night, their claim was that they were trying to shoot a dog which was running amok and killing sheep. The sheriff did not believe them any more than I believed them, and they were duly convicted. We can place some reliance on courts in being able to distinguish between a tall story, a good story and a true story.
The noble Lord also suggested that, in the heat of the moment in the field, people will not be able to tell one deer from another. But in the heat of the moment in the field when birds get up, it is necessary for a gun to be able to tell a snipe from an oyster catcher or some other small wading bird—a knot or whatever it is—that is a protected bird. It is perfectly possible to do so, and indeed I am quite certain that all but the most careless trigger-happy guns would be perfectly well able to distinguish between one target and another and hold their fire.
The noble Lord then spoke about enforcement. The only way in which you will enforce the provisions of this Bill is if you can produce a dead animal. If you produce a dead animal with the wrong kind of shot inside it, that is the one way in which you will be able to enforce the Bill. If you do not have the dead animal, even if the person has fired at it with the wrong kind of shot, you will never be able to prove your case, because of the way in which the Bill is drafted.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, the noble Viscount is not taking the point that I tried to make. When you take the fact that the muntjac body is about the same size as, and often bigger than, a roe deer's, the perfect answer in that case, when accused, is "I shot a roe deer, but I thought it was a muntjac deer". This is one of the basic arguments to which the noble Viscount will not apply his mind.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I was just coming to that point. The noble Lord goes on about this question of size. There is a tremendous difference in

959
shape. You recognise the flying bird by its pattern of flight. You do not recognise it by identifying the plumage markings. You know the way in which the bird flies, and the way in which it gets up. The same is absolutely true of these deer. The pattern which you see in your sights is totally different in the case of the roe deer and the muntjac deer. Their heights are different. The weights are enormous in pounds, but most of that is stomach fill. Most of this is what is in the rumen. If the hare had a rumen, it would be approaching some of these deer very much more closely.
So I am not at all impressed by these arguments, but I am impressed by another argument, and it is extremely unfortunate that this Bill is always being taken late at night. In Committee stage, we were debating against the clock, trying to get the staff of the House home to their beds. Here, again, at Report stage we are last on. We are late, and the House is not so full as one could wish it to be. I am impressed by the arguments of my noble friends and the Whips on the other side of the House: that, as the House is not so full as it should be, perhaps it would be unfair to proceed further with this Amendment. However, I do not abandon it. If I withdraw the Amendment tonight, I shall return to it again at Third Reading, because I am not convinced or persuaded by the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has used. I do not think that it is right to expose the general public to considerable danger to life without showing good cause why this should be done, and I do not believe that good cause has been shown. Nevertheless, in view of the lateness of the hour and in view also of the time which we might want to take in thinking over this matter a little further, may I ask for your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.