Lords Sitting of 20 November 1979

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

BARONESS McFARLANE OF LLANDAFF
Jean Kennedy McFarlane, having been created Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff, of Llandaff in the County of South Glamorgan, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Hylton-Foster and the Lord Briggs, and made the Solemn Affirmation.
PERSONAL STATEMENT BY THE LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to correct a mistake in my speech on fluoridation on 15th November, reported in Hansard, vol. 402, col. 1464. In line 7 from the foot of the column, the word "goitre" should be deleted and replaced by "hyperthyroidism".

VICTIMS OF CRIME: RIGHT TO COMPENSATION
2.45 p.m.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will request the courts and police to inform victims of crime of their right to claim compensation at the trial of the accused, to prevent them losing it through ignorance.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Section 35(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 was deliberately framed, following a recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, so that the initiative in considering the question of compensation should rest with the court and not be left to an application by the victim. It remains the right of the victim, however, to make application to the criminal court for compensation or to institute civil proceedings against the offender, if he so wishes. We have no evidence to indicate that the criminal courts are failing to make compensation orders in appropriate cases:

3
on the contrary, statistics show that the courts are making increasing use of their wide power to make such orders.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that very useful Answer. Is he aware that the reason why I put this Question on the Order Paper was that I had discovered two cases where compensation was required by the victims but they did not know that they had a right to it? They did not ask for it, and the court, being ignorant of their requirements, made no order. I have heard of a number of other people who could fall into the same trap if they found themselves in similar circumstances. Is it possible to give more emphasis to this matter so that the court will take cognisance of the fact that the victims may not know their rights and the court may not know what they require?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the cases which the noble Viscount has put to me. The Home Office is sponsoring a research project into the experiences of victims in the criminal justice system to try to ensure precisely that, in the prosecution process, the legitimate interests of victims are not overlooked. Meanwhile, I think that, as a Government we are taking as much action as we possibly can to meet the noble Viscount's wishes. Last year, under the previous Government, 106,000 compensation orders were made, which was 10,000 more than in the previous year.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I follow up that point for a moment? While everybody appreciates that our magistrates are extremely useful, important and knowledgeable people, there are some cases in which it is not brought home at the court itself—and that is what the noble Viscount is referring to—that a person is entitled to compensation. This is really his point, so far as I can see it. If there are such cases as those to which he has referred, perhaps the Home Office will issue a circular or something of that nature to ask magistrates to point out that compensation may be claimed whenever a case of that description arises.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, certainly I would not rule out the suggestion which the noble Lord has made. In addition to that—as the noble Lord well knows with his close connection with the Magistrates' Association—last year that Association sent out guidelines on compensation for cases of personal injury. May I come back to the main point in my reply to the noble Viscount. By statute, the initiative for awarding compensation lies with the court.

BRITISH CALEDONIAN: LONG-RANGE ROUTES
2.53 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for allowing British Caledonian to develop their scheduled long-range network.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, this is primarily a matter for British Caledonian, subject only to their ability to secure the necessary licences from the Civil Aviation Authority. The Government's role is limited in the main to the negotiation of international traffic rights to enable such licences to be exploited.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will he confirm that under the new Civil Aviation Bill, which had its Second Reading in another place yesterday, competition will be encouraged, and British flag carriers like British Caledonian will be free to apply to the Civil Aviation Authority for a licence to operate scheduled flights on these long-range routes?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, Yes, indeed; under the Bill to which my noble friend referred the requirements for the Government to issue guidelines to the Civil Aviation Authority will be removed and it will thereafter be open to any carrier—including British Caledonian and British Airways—to apply to the authority for whatever licences they think they need.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that when Eagle and British Caledonian were allowed to operate in competition with British Airways on domestic routes the services improved out of all recognition? Would he not therefore agree that competition on the long-distance routes will probably have the same effect?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, Yes, I do.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is it not a fact that when British Caledonian took over the South American run from British Airways, which they were running at a loss, within a year British Caledonian turned it into a profit? Should not British Caledonian now be encouraged to do the same thing elsewhere?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I have not the historical facts in front of me. It is certainly the case—at present anyway—that the South American routes operated by British Caledonian appear to be going very well.
Lord DRUMALBYN: In the last answer but one, did my noble friend imply that it was after the licence had been granted with the countries concerned that the Government would negotiate the necessary rights for those flights?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, that is correct. Under the procedure that has been in being for a good many years, it is first of all the responsibility of the relevant authority—in this case the Civil Aviation Authority—to grant a licence. It then falls to the Government to obtain the necessary traffic rights under the appropriate bilateral agreement.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS: REVIEW BODY'S CONSIDERATION
2.56 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to receive a report from
6
the Top Salaries Review Body on the subject of "reckonable service" and other related parliamentary pensions matters which were referred to that Body on 23rd October 1978.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, I cannot yet say when the Review Body will report.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord the Leader for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware —I am sure he is—that, after a decision of the House, it took the former Administration three months before referring it to the Top Salaries Review Body and since then 13 months have elapsed and we still have no report? Will the noble Lord please do his very best to expedite the report?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, it is 13 months since this matter was referred, along with a number of other matters, to the Top Salaries Review Body. It was understood at the time that there were some priorities in this and that there would be more than one report coming from the Review Body. One report has already come from this Body covering four out of the eight. I have no doubt that they will take note of what has been said in the House today.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that the delay is becoming an embarrassment to those who declared an interest in the matter? Is he also aware that if they do not expedite the report and see that it arrives at a favourable conclusion and does justice to people like myself, there is not very much time left?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I have no doubt whatsoever—and certainly it would be the hope of the whole House—that the noble Lord will have many years yet to enjoy the fruits of the report.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that there are a handful of ex-Ministers who left the House of Commons before 1964 and who get nothing? This question has been raised over and over again; sympathetic

7
noises have been made, and nothing happens. I would heartily support the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, indeed there are a number of Members of this House, too, who are involved in this; that I know. I am sure that the Review Body, and particularly their chairman, will take note of all that has been said in the House today. They have already reported on some of the points—they were given an order of priorities—and it is my hope that it will not be long before they report again.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most of us in this House who have declared an interest at one time or another would prefer half a loaf to no bread?
Lord SOAMES: I am not so sure about that, my Lords. I must declare an interest myself.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Boyle Committee have always got things on the boil and we never hear anything about it?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, let us hope it will bubble over very soon.

THE BINGHAM REPORT: INQUIRIES
3 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: 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 intend to pursue further inquiries arising out of the Bingham Report.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as I told the noble Lord on the 21st June, the issues involved are complex and I am afraid I have nothing to add to the Answer which I then gave him.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, as the noble Lord has already referred to the fact that he answered this Question on 21st June, does he recall that he said
8
in that Answer that the Government would make a Statement? When can we expect that Statement to be made?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the matter is now in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions and we have to await his report before we can give an answer.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, have not the Government something better to do than to pursue these obsolete red herrings?

SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL
Read 3a with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I gave notice to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that I should like to make a very brief comment on this Bill at this stage because I spoke on the Second Reading on 19th February and drew attention to Clause 5. I pointed out that it was objectionable because it would have granted a particular power to a single local authority—a power which Parliament had made clear it was not prepared to confer upon local authorities in a Public Bill. To complete the picture for your Lordships now, I express contentment because during June the promoters of the Bill asked for the withdrawal of Clause 5 and so what I was seeking has now happened.
I will not describe again the reasons. I will simply say that this was a clause which could have been damaging to industry. The CBI felt strongly enough about it to enter the proceedings as petitioners against the clause. Because the House listened to me patiently at that

9
time, arguing the case against the clause, it is only proper and courteous on my part now to welcome its disappearance.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, this is a consolidation Bill. It is the result of a recommendation of the Law Commission. It seeks to consolidate the numerous enactments relating to the reserve and auxiliary forces. I note that the earliest of these is dated 1662, so the consolidation is quite a good thing. In order to produce a satisfactory consolidation, it has been found necessary to make the amendment as to the application to the Isle of Man, and that is recommended in the appendix to the Law Commission's report. The Isle of Man authorities, I am informed, are in agreement with the recommendation. The Bill will in due course go to the Committee in the ordinary way if the House gives it a Second Reading. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CHILD CARE BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I understand that no amendment has been set down either to this Bill or to the Foster Children Bill, which stands next to it on the Order Paper, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee on either Bill. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I propose to move that the Orders of Recommitment of each of these two Bills be discharged. We are now dealing with the Child Care Bill, and I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment of that Bill be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOSTER CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged, for the reasons that I have already given.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BAIL ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.6 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Release on conditions]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out ("After the commencement of this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a small drafting amendment, and I am suggesting that the words "After the commencement of this Act" should be left out. My reasons for so suggesting are that the words are unnecessary and possibly confusing, and, if that be so, then I think that they should be left out. At the Report stage or Third Reading in another place, the Solicitor-General for Scotland said that no statute should have unnecessary words. I entirely agree with that and I suggest that these words are completely unnecessary.
As your Lordships will see from Clause 13(2), that provides that the Secretary of State may make an order to bring this Act into force; and, of course, Clause 13 itself will come into force when the Royal Assent is received.

11
The rest of the Act, including what is now Clause 1, may be brought into force on the same date or on later dates—possibly several different dates. So that, in one sense, there is no such thing as "the commencement of this Act". There is only the commencement of Section 1, Section 2 or Section 13—whatever it may be. Indeed, if one looks at Clause 12, one sees clearly that the Act is not to apply
"in relation to bail granted or release authorised before the coming into force of"
the relevant provision. So it would, on one view, be more logical if the opening words were simply, "After the commencement of this section". That would, at least, avoid some confusion arising from several different commencement dates. But my principal submission is that the words are quite unnecessary. In my view, they add nothing to the sense of the clause. Once Section 1 of the Act, as it will be, has been brought into operation by an order made under Section 13, it will be quite sufficient if what is then Section 1 simply begins with the words "It shall not be lawful to grant bail" et cetera. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I have a certain sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, in that one always wants to keep statutes to their shortest, to make every word meaningful, as it were, and not to introduce unnecessary verbiage. I concede at once that this Bill would not fall if the words which form the subject of Amendment No. 1 were excluded, nor could I say that that would in any way make the Bill less able to be comprehensively understood by those who sought to read it.
I put the argument in this way, that although the lines are not strictly necessary it is valuable—as, indeed, the Renton Committee at one stage recommended—that there should be a clear statement, at the beginning of a clause such as this, as to the general purport of what follows. What follows in this instance—which is, in fact, an important matter—is that it stresses that the old system of bail or release based on the deposit of money, which has subsisted or obtained in Scotland for many years, is now to be abolished and that a new scheme, if I may so call it, is to be introduced in its
12
stead. So I think that, in the particular circumstances, these few words are worth keeping and I do not think I can entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord in what he has submitted to your Lordships' Committee.
Finally, I think I should say that in the previous Government's Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill a similar statement appeared, and I have no doubt, the Lord Advocate of the day having resigned, that the noble and learned Lord played a considerable part in the drafting of that measure, which never saw the light of day. Be that as it may, it might be appropriate if the noble and learned Lord were to reconsider his amendment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If the noble Earl is constantly to refer to the terms of the Bill which was introduced by the Government of which I was a member, I shall have a difficult afternoon. But I am taking an independent line, in the sense that if I think that words are unnecessary or that a provision is wrong I shall endeavour to persuade the Committee of that. The noble Earl conceded that the phrase was unnecessary and thought that, perhaps, it was useful to make plain that we were moving over to a new system. I should have thought that it was perfectly plain from Clause 12. However, I have made my point. I have not succeeded in winning the hearts and minds of those on the Government Front Bench. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.10 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 7.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment of similar character, and again we are in the position that we are starting off with words which really are unnecessary. Again, there is a risk of some confusion. Of course, if these words were simply omitted the rest of the clause would require to be tidied up and therefore I should not be able in the circumstances to move that today. So I am asking the Government merely to consider the proposition.
The amendment here is to delete certain words. I suggest that these words are confusing in this sense. They say:
"… it shall not be lawful to grant bail or release for a pledge or deposit of money".
Then, when one looks at the very next paragraph, one sees that one can, in fact, release on bail or grant bail in exactly those circumstances. So there is an immediate contradiction between these words which I seek to delete and paragraph (a) which follows them.
The second point is this. When one looks at paragraph (a), containing the word "only", so that it reads,
"release on bail may be granted only on conditions which … shall not include a pledge or deposit of money",
one sees that the word "only" in line 8 does all that is necessary and the words which I seek to delete are plainly unnecessary. I would ask the noble Earl to consider whether at the Report stage he might delete those words, simply because they are unnecessary and possibly contradictory of paragraph (a). I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: When I was musing—if that is the right word—upon the noble and learned Lord and his amendments, I rather wondered whether these two might have been pleaded in the alternative, but I gather that they are not. Much of what I said about the noble and learned Lord's previous amendment is right so far as this amendment is concerned. I am not going to repeat myself. I am certainly not going to repeat myself about the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill and I promise not to do so, although when that measure eventually sees the light of day in your Lordships' House I fear that we shall have to return to it. When I say that, I have no wish at all to twist the noble and learned Lord's tail.
But, seriously, the second part of the subsection declares,
"it shall not be lawful to grant bail or release for a pledge or deposit or money".
One must go on to look down the clause to subsection (3), because there one sees that Clause 1(3) allows the deposit of money as a condition of release on bail in certain circumstances. But the point I am trying to make is that, even in those circumstances in Clause 1(3), release will principally be on the basis of conditions
14
imposed under Clause 1(2). Those conditions can be imposed under Clause 1(2), and they are designed to achieve the aims set out in that subsection. So that the requirement to deposit money is what I might call an additional condition, rather than the basis upon which the accused is to be admitted to bail. In those circumstances, I suggest that Clause 1 hangs together rather better with these words left in it. I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord that the drafting would be better if it were without them. For that reason, I ask him to withdraw this amendment as well.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I certainly intend, with leave, to withdraw this amendment, but I do not think that the noble Earl has answered my point. There is something of a contradiction between these words and the provision of paragraph (a) and of subsection (3), because these words say that it shall not be lawful to do it, and paragraph (a) and subsection (3) make it lawful to do it in certain circumstances. So that there is an apparent contradiction, and because of the word "only" it is surely unnecessary to have these words at all. If one can delete words from the statute so much the better. The noble Earl does not argue that they are necessary, and if they are not necessary then perhaps they should not be there. However, it would not make sense to press this amendment at this stage, because the clause would need to be looked at again. I know that the noble Earl has not promised to look at it again, but he or his draftsman may look at it to see whether the subsection might be simplified or shortened by the deletion of these words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.18 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("special").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment ties in with amendment No. 6, but I shall have to speak to No. 6 separately. It is an Amendment to delete from line 9 the word "special", and I shall have something to say later about the circumstances in which a pledge or deposit of money may be required as a

15
condition of the granting of bail. But if, as appears to be the case, this is a reference forward to the word "special" where it appears on page 2 in line 13, then, again, it seems to me to be quite unnecessary. It would read perfectly well if line 9 simply stated,
"except in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) below".
So it is unnecessary to use it at all.
But, in any event, there is a slight confusion here. There are no such special circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) below. That subsection is really concerned with the special circumstances of the case—and I emphasise the words "of the case"—and that is a different concept. The circumstances which are envisaged here in Clause 1(1)(a) are the circumstances where the court or the Lord Advocate are satisfied of something, and that is a different concept. So that it would be a drafting improvement to delete the unnecessary word "special". It might be better still to delete from and including the word "except" in line 9 to "below" in line 10, and to substitute the words "except as allowed by subsection (3) below". Perhaps that might be considered. I think it would make the matter simpler and would be logically more consistent. In the meantime, I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: This amendment is really a follower, if I may so call it, of the other two which the noble and learned Lord has moved and withdrawn. It is slightly stronger than the others because, as he points out, the word "special" in Clause 1(1)(a) quite obviously throws the reader forward, if I may so describe it, to Clause 1(3), whereas the word "special" in that subsection appears only in the penultimate line. I do not want to use the word "pernickety". However, I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord is not being rather careful with his construction of this clause. Equally, I see that he has a certain amount going for him in this amendment.
In the circumstances, what I shall do is to take it away and have another look at it. With the draftsmen sitting in the box, certainly I am not going to say for
16
myself that I accept his amendment, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be content if I give that undertaking.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall certainly intimate my content with that and will hope that when we come to matters of substance, which we shall shortly do, the noble Earl the Minister will be equally forthcoming. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.22 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("liberation") to ("this") in line 15 and insert ("may be granted by the police under section 18, 294, 295 or 296 of the 1975 Act as amended by sections 7 to 9 of").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, standing in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. This amendment seeks to eliminate a possible ambiguity in the Bill as it is drafted. No point of principle is involved. I can explain it if any noble Lord should wish me to do so, but in the meantime I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps it is sufficient for me just to acknowledge the accuracy of what the noble Earl the Minister has said. I agree that this is an improvement. It does the kind of thing which I was trying to do in the earlier amendments, but which the Minister has rejected. It makes the Bill simpler. It improves it and makes it more intelligible. If the noble Earl the Minister were as consistent as I, then he would have accepted my earlier amendments.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: I do not know whether it is convenient to ask this question at this stage or on the Question whether the clause stand part. The Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation recommended that amendments should be made by textual amendment wherever possible, and that is done, I notice, in all the other amending provisions of the Bill. I wondered whether in this case it was found to be impossible to amend except by non-textual amendment.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My understanding is that this was indeed the only way that one could do it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.26 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("necessary") and insert ("appropriate").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5 which raises a matter of a little more substance. The word "necessary", the one appearing in the Bill at line 18 on page 1, sets, in my view, far too high a standard. One can demonstrate that by looking at paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Clause 1. If the court has to—and the word in the Bill is "shall"—impose conditions which are necessary to secure that the accused does not commit an offence while on bail, I ask, how on earth does the court do that except by locking him up? Supposing that he is an habitual drunkard or a recidivist, nothing at all can secure that he remains out of trouble once he has been released on bail. It might be for months that he is on bail. How does the court do what is necessary to secure that he remains out of trouble during that period? How do you secure that he does not commit an unrelated, non-cognate offence—for example, a driving offence—when he is out on bail? You simply cannot do it. The only way to prevent him from committing another offence is to lock him up, and even then he might commit an offence in prison.
The correct way to do it is to insert the word "appropriate". I am driven to suggest that the word "secure" is perhaps too strong, for exactly the same reasons, and that the expression "necessary to secure" might be replaced by the expression "appropriate, with a view to ensuring". Therefore, I ask the Government to consider this amendment. It is merely an attempt to make the Act work. I think that the use of this phrase, particularly the use of the word "necessary", requires the court and the Lord Advocate to do something that it is impossible to do. For that reason, the Government should be prepared to reconsider it and to adopt a suggestion of the kind which I have made. In the meantime I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I had rather thought that the noble and learned Lord was going to speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together, but he has chosen not to do so—and that is his choice. If Amendment No. 6 were successful, then I fully agree that the word "necessary" would need to be replaced, otherwise it would be tautologous. However, if one takes the meaning of the word "necessary" in this particular circumstance, it is, I suggest, by definition, a phrase which in effect means "the only appropriate course". If one wishes to use the word "appropriate", it puts it—to my mind, at any rate—on a lower plane of necessity than what is written into this clause.
The whole object of this provision is to try to get away from the old methods under which accused people were liberated, pending their trial. It was an extraordinary system to those uninitiated in Scottish law that, in these circumstances, people had to find sums of hard cash before they could be set free. The Bill sweeps all that away, and I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will agree that that should be done. Indeed, he goes further than he did—and, indeed, his honourable friends did in the other place—on Second Reading by saying that it is a good thing and by conceiving that there may be occasions upon which it will be proper for the old system to be retained, in the sense that there may be occasions upon which somebody will have to find a sum of money before he can he admitted to bail.
The circumstances, then, are set out. I should have thought that subsection (2) of Clause 1 is felicitously worded as it stands and that it would be taking away quite unnecessarily from the ordinary meaning of the word "necessary" to read into it what the noble and learned Lord has read into it. I am afraid that I do not share his misapprehensions.
Lord McCLUSKEY: By thinking that I was going to take Amendment No. 6 with Amendment No. 5, the noble Earl reveals that he did not understand what Amendment No. 5 was about. The amendments are quite unconnected. Amendment No. 5 is concerned with the conditions which the court or the Lord Advocate is to impose. There is no choice; they have to impose conditions

19
such as they consider necessary to secure a certain thing, and that applies whether the conditions are money conditions or conditions about the surrender of a passport or reporting at a police station or whatever. It is impossible for the court to do what is necessary to secure that a person will not commit an offence when he is out on bail. The court can only do what it can reasonably do. They can decide that certain conditions are appropriate and that they are the best ones, but they cannot ensure that there will be no commission of an offence. So I ask the Minister to consider this again and we will deal with Amendment No. 6 when we come to it.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I apologise if the impression that I have given is that the noble and learned Lord thinks that I do not understand his amendment. Let us look at it again. What does Clause 1(2)(a) do? It sets out the aims of bail. Of course, in an imperfect world one can never guarantee that the person who is admitted to bail will not do something which will amount to another offence, or commit another offence. So one takes a risk. Therefore, what the subsection is saying is, first, that the court makes the decision to grant bail, to liberate him. Then it asks, "What do we have to do? What conditions must we impose in order to achieve the desirable factors which are set out at (a), (b), (c), and (d)?" If the subsection had been drafted to the effect that the Lord Advocate considers, in his discretion, that it is necessary—or something like that—then I fully agree that there would be surplusage. But it does not say that; it merely says that the Lord Advocate considers it necessary to secure these things. Surely this is a perfectly reasonable way of drafting it, and, if I may say so, I think that the noble and learned Lord is making rather heavy weather of it.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should like to get on to the next amendment. I do not think that I am making heavy weather of it, and I think if the Minister will look at what I have said he will see that there is some substance in what I have suggested; but in the meantime I will not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.32 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 13, leave out from ("is") to end of line 14 and insert ("the only course appropriate to the special circumstances of the case, and the accused agrees to the requirement").
The noble and learned Lord said: We come now to an amendment of greater importance. The whole purpose of this Part of the Bill is to abolish, except in very special circumstances, the old system of money bail which the Minister described to the House at the Second Reading stage of this Bill. We are all agreed that for the purposes of this Bill there is some merit in retaining for special circumstances the possibility of money bail, but we are all agreed as well that we want to avoid any risk that the old system of money bail will substantially survive. The only purpose of this amendment is to try to help the Government to make sure that it is made plain to the court that money bail is to be confined to very special circumstances indeed; in other words, the circumstances of last resort. That is why I have suggested the words "the only course appropriate" as being the words which ought to be put into the Bill so as to give the court the necessary guidance.
The second part of the amendment requires the agreement of the accused to the requirement of money bail. I mention that because in another place when the Government were asked to specify the circumstances in which they thought it might be desirable to retain money bail—the whole purpose of the Bill being to abolish money bail—they gave the examples of a local government corruption case, of a company fraud, of illegal fishing by foreigners and of tax frauds or tax dodging by people who live abroad. I should have thought that in all these cases the accused would in fact agree to the provision of money bail, and accordingly if we have both parts of this amendment with the words "the only course appropriate" and the requirement of the accused's agreement, then the court would not be at any risk of extending money bail beyond what the Government have in mind.
At Second Reading the noble Earl suggested that we on this side of the House did not trust the judges. I

21
certainly fully trust the judges, but they can make mistakes and there have been instances—and I could give some—where Parliament and the general public have subsequently come to discover that a statute which was passed meant something different from what they thought it meant when it was passed and that was because the court had interpreted it in a particular way. So if we want to make sure that the court does what Parliament wants it to do, then we must make the wording absolutely clear. We can do it with this kind of amendment, and would invite the Minister to accept this amendment more sympathetically than the others. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: As I understand the effect of Amendment No. 6 it would mean in fact that a court (or indeed the Lord Advocate) would be prevented from requiring a deposit of money unless it was satisfied that this was the only course appropriate to the special circumstances of the case and, moreover, the accused person agreed to this requirement. It is not either/or; both conditions would have to he fulfilled. What, one asks oneself, would happen if the accused refused to agree? Under the amendment the accused could withhold his consent and therefore by withholding his consent he could prevent the court from requiring a deposit of money as a condition of bail.
Then one asks oneself, if the court considered, as in the examples produced by the noble and learned Lord and which have been produced to both Houses at various moments, that it could not safely release the accused without such a deposit, presumably he would continue to be held in custody. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would not want to write into this Bill a requirement that a deposit of money to be taken from the accused could be at his election. Putting it in another way, if he refused this requirement he would still be allowed to go free. So if one looks at it in that way, it seems to me that the position of an accused person who refused his consent in relation to the second part of the amendment would be the same as that of somebody who, for instance, merely failed to produce the money, as the Bill is at present drafted. In either case the accused would be held in custody until he complied with the
22
conditions of bail and produced the money or until he successfully appealed against the requirement, or until his trial came up, or, I suppose, unless and until he could persuade the court to vary the conditions. All those four results could flow from that action. In those circumstances the amendment really does not add very much to tile clause. I suggest that the practical effect on the accused is the same. If he refused to find the money the court would not allow him to go, so what is the point of writing it in?
I come to the other part of the noble and learned Lord's amendment—that is to say, the provision that the court or the Lord Advocate would have to be satisfied that it was the only course appropriate to the special circumstances of the case. I think, if I may say so, that the present wording achieves precisely that; it makes it into a matter of discretion. I do not think there is very much between us so far as that is concerned. If one considers what a court is likely to do in the circumstances of some international crook, it is likely to impose a set of conditions of which the deposit of money will be only one. The first condition will obviously be that the said John Smith, or whatever he is called, will turn up at the appointed time for trial. The deposit of money would be, I suggest, the very last condition to be imposed, because it would have to be deemed to be necessary. If one takes the example which have given, one asks what would happen if he then refused to agree to the last condition. The answer is that he would not be liberated, because it would obviously be a serious case. In those circumstances, I can only suggest that the noble and learned Lord reconsiders the amendment, because in the circumstances I have described it will not do what he wants to do, and it certainly would not be something which would commend itself to any court.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Let us take the instance where the accused is told that he must find a sum of money as one of the conditions—say, £20,000. If the option were open to him and he refused, if one takes the Bill as it stands what he would do is that he would not find the £20,000 and therefore the money will not be lodged as bail money. What will they do with him then? He will not have

23
satisfied the conditions and he will not be granted bail, so he will be kept in custody. It seems to me that if the court wants to go through the motions of allowing bail, as courts sometimes do, and fixes a sum of money which the accused cannot possibly find or will not find, it will do that and the accused will be kept in custody, and therefore it seems to me to be logical to require his agreement.
If one thinks of the kind of case we are talking about—the foreign fishing vessel—if the court says the bail ought to be £5,000 or £10,000 and the alternative is that one does not get out at all, the accused is liable to agree to that; the agreement would be forthcoming. One would have thought that the same would apply in the case of a tax fraud or a big company fraud. It cannot be a proper purpose of this Bill to enable the court to fix a sum of bail so large that the accused cannot find it. The accused's agreement is at least an indication that he can find the sum of money which the court proposes to fix, so it does appear logical to require his agreement.
As to the other part, there is nothing between the Government and myself as regards the intention. The difference arises because the Government are declining to give the court special direction in the words of the statute which may be necessary to avoid a recurrence of all the old-fashioned money bail. It can be done by tightening up the words of the statute in the way I have suggested. So I would invite the noble Lord to be more sympathetic towards this amendment.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I think the noble and learned Lord is descending a little from his previously high plateau of logic. In the first place, I would remind him that the average bail demanded in Scottish courts is between £10 and £15, so we are jumping quite considerably into the £20,000 range.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Surely that does not apply to tax frauds and company frauds and foreign fishing vessels.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: No, of course it does not, but those are people who are not going to be worried by this question of consent. The owner of a foreign trawler wants to get on with his
24
trawling, so the last thing he wants to do is to cause trouble in a foreign court. If the noble and learned Lord returns to the point that the legislature has always to be on guard against a court acting unreasonably, in a case where for some reason a court is going to make a special condition of the granting of bail the deposit of a quite outrageous sum of £20,000 which the unfortunate accused is not going to be in a position to find, so he will, against the justice of the matter in so far as his liberation before trial is concerned, be incarcerated in prison, the matter is perfectly simple. If this condition is set and the accused is aggrieved by it then he can appeal. Surely the noble and learned Lord would not go so far as to say that whatever unreasonable and unconscionable attitude could be taken by a sheriff or judge sitting alone such would be perpetuated by an appeal court. I suppose it could be, but there is that safety net, and I commend it to the noble and learned Lord.
If we take the example of the person we are thinking about, who is not going to turn up or is likely not to surrender to his bail at the appropriate moment, the court says to him, in effect, "You may have bail but you must turn up for trial and you must deposit £20,000." The accused then says "No, I will not; I am not going to". Does the court say "Very well, off you go"? It is really not in the realms of possibility. Some sanction must be made in those circumstances, and the fact of the matter is that if he refuses to comply with the condition there are only two courses open—either he remains in prison, or he appeals or persuades the court. For instance, if the court has mistakenly taken a much different view of his particular circumstances to that which it should have taken, he can make a later application to the court to vary the terms: I have no doubt that a court would entertain such an application. I really think that is as far as I can take it. The amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord would really turn the whole thing on its head by giving the accused in such circumstances an election as to whether he wanted to deposit his bail money or not.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall not press this amendment at this stage, but the noble Lord is quite wrong to cite to me the average amount of bail, which has nothing to do

25
with the kind of case we are talking about. Even when the average amount of bail in Scotland was £14 the Thomson Committee found that 27 per cent, of those granted bail were unable to find the money immediately and 2 per cent. did not find the money at all; the remainder found the money after periods ranging from 1 to 116 days.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I suppose one could say that in Scotland crime does not pay.
Lord McCLUSKEY: But we are not talking about crime in general; we are talking about tax frauds, illegal fishing by foreign vessels and company frauds. I would invite the Minister to look again at what has been said today and consider whether he should give better guidance to the courts. It is necessary to ensure that the court is not given a loophole to enable it to continue the system of money bail to which it has become accustomed over a long period of years. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment No. 7. I must point out that if Amendment No. 7 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
Clause 2 [Provisions supplementary to s. 1]:
3.50 p.m.
The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 37 leave out from ("direct)") to end of line 7 on page 3 and insert ("which, subject to subsection (2) below, shall be his proper domicile of citation.
(2) The court may on application in writing by the accused while he is on bail alter the address specified in the order granting bail, and this new address shall, as from such date as the court may direct, become his proper domicile of citation; and the court shall notify the accused of its decision on any application under this subsection.
(3) In this section "proper domicile of citation" means the address at which the accused may be cited to appear at any diet relating to the offence with which he is charged or an offence charged in the same proceedings as that offence or to which any other intimation or document may be sent; and any citation at or the sending of an intimation
26
or document to the proper domicile of citation shall be presumed to have been duly carried out.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I crave the indulgence of noble Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mansfield and myself. This amendment is designed to improve the administration of bail so far as the citing of the accused is concerned. The domicile of citation is the address at which the accused can be sent documents or notice to appear for trial and it is essential that the court should know with certainty the current address selected by the accused and approved by the court. However, since many people change their homes while on bail, it is essential also that an element of flexibility is retained without sacrificing any degree of certainty, to which I have referred. The amendment seeks to achieve those twin objectives in respect of which the present arrangements in the Bill for change of address are insufficiently explicit.
As presently worded, Clause 2(2) of the Bill obliges the accused to inform the court and the procurator fiscal of any change in his address for purposes of citation. It would clearly be undesirable—particularly in the larger offices—for the accused to attempt to fulfil this obligation by telephone; but even if he was required to inform the court in writing, as the clause is presently worded an accused who failed to appear for trial might allege that he had given intimation of a change of address, and the matter could remain unresolved. In addition, as presently worded, the court may not know with certainty what is the accused's current address for citation purposes.
Much of the Bill is designed to avoid the inconvenience and disruption to the public and the courts which would be caused if the accused failed to appear, and these arrangements for changes of address should be as watertight as possible. The Thomson Committee recommended in its Second Report that the accused should have to apply to the court for authority to change his domicile of citation. Clause 2 already provides that the domicile of citation shall be the accused's normal place of residence unless the court otherwise directs. It is therefore appropriate that the accused should not

27
be entitled to change his domicile of citation without the court's agreement.
The proposed amendment therefore provides that the accused must apply to the court in writing if he wishes to change his domicile of citation. The change, however, will not become effective until the court has considered the application and agreed to the change requested. In addition, the court will direct the date from which the change is to have effect and, in determining the choice of date, the court will no doubt have regard to the period required to notify the accused of the decision of the court. Thus, there will be achieved the two elements to which I earlier referred; namely, the certain knowledge of the court at any given time of the domicile of citation and the element of flexibility to take account of changing circumstances.
The amended subsection (3) which we are proposing defines the expression "proper domicile of citation" and determines the effect of sending any citation, document or intimation to such a domicile of citation. In our submission, the amendment will obviate a good deal of potential difficulties in our courts and for the public. It will simplify adminstration by making it more certain that the accused will receive necessary documents and notice that he is required for trial. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before I turn to the substance of the amendment, I am delighted to welcome the maiden speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the Lord Advocate. When I drew attention on Second Reading to the fact that he had not yet addressed the House I did not believe that we would flush him out quite so soon. But I believe that I have helped to do your Lordships a service. The noble and learned Lord, despite his apparent youth, is in fact my near contemporary and is held in the highest regard in the legal profession in Scotland. If he feels that the Committee stage of this modest Bill is perhaps not the centre stage on which to make his debut, I none the less offer him the comfort that I made my own maiden speech at dead of night at the Second Reading of the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill before a
28
thinly attended but very warmly welcoming House. We look forward to his further contributions in future—and trust that he will make many of them from the very position in which I now stand.
Turning to the amendment itself, I believe that it is a considerable improvement. It rather dashes the cup away from my lips because it sweeps away Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 which were modestly designed to achieve the same purpose. However, the amendment achieves all that I had in mind and I am quite content, therefore, that my amendments should fall. This is the only question that comes to mind. The whole burden of the new clause is to enable the accused to intimate a change of address to the court. The provision which the noble and learned Lord has moved requires the court to consider that matter and to decide whether it will have his address changed. Then the court has to notify him—but to which address will the court notify the decision?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I should begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord for the very kind remarks that he has made about what I said. I certainly hope that I shall at least have some opportunity of speaking from my present position rather than his. I suggest that the address to which the intimation would be sent would be the address which the accused had originally used. What is important is that the court should have an address which is the address which founds the basis of citation. The court can fix the date from which the new address will take effect, and presumably the new address will not take effect until time has been allowed for the intimation to reach the accused person. That will enable the accused to give notice in advance if he has the intention of changing his address. He should give notice in sufficient time to have the whole business completed before he actually moves. That is the purpose that we have in mind. We are, of course, grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendments which he had proposed and which have helped us to reach this conclusion superseding his.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Breach of conditions]:
4 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("2 years") and insert ("6 months").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This is the most important amendment that I shall propose in the list of amendments today. I direct your Lordships' attention to Clause 3. Clause 3 prescribes the penalties which may be imposed if a person, having been granted bail, fails without reasonable excuse to appear at a diet which has been fixed for the trial; or any other diet in connection with the case, or to comply with any other condition.
When we come to line 29, we find ourselves in subsection (3) dealing with the penalties that may be imposed when an accused person has been granted hail and fails to appear at the time and place appointed for any diet of which he has been given due notice. Your Lordships will see that in those circumstances the Bill enables the court to impose a fine and a sentence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years. In my view the period of two years is quite excessive for a number of reasons. First, it would enable a sheriff who was sitting in a solemn case to impose a total of four years' imprisonment. At present, the sheriff's maximum is two years. He would be able, in a particular case, to impose two years' imprisonment for the offence itself and two years for the failure to comply with the condition of bail, to wit the turning up at the court for the diet. So, he could impose a maximum of four years' imprisonment and that is a dramatic step forward from the present position. At present, I believe that there is no such power of imprisonment and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that.
If one looks at paragraph 11.20 of the Thomson Committee Report one sees that the committee recommended that any offence should be punishable by imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or by a fine. What the Government have done is to put in two years and a fine so that there is a considerable step forward from what the
30
Thomson Committee unanimously recommended. I have looked at the proceedings in another place and the Minister—I think that it was the honourable gentleman Mr. Rifkind—when speaking on this matter, said that one might have a rather serious case which amounted in effect to an attempt by the accused to defeat the ends of justice. In other words, he does not turn up on the morning of his trial in the hope that in that way evidence will be lost, witnesses will die or not turn up the next time, or whatever. If in fact what the accused man does is an attempt to defeat the ends of justice, then it ought to be charged as such. It surely can be, and the Minister will no doubt be aware of cases in Scotland which indicate that a charge of that kind is perfectly competent at common law. If it were so charged that all the facts can be investigated without there being any change in the normal onus, the onus of proof would be upon the Crown. But under the Bill as it stands, I believe that the onus is on the accused because he is the one who has to prove the reasonable excuse. One sees that at line 23 on page 3 of the Bill, Clause 3(3).
Therefore, for those reasons—and particularly because one does not want lightly to extend the powers of the sheriff in this dramatic way—I invite the Minister to reconsider this provision. One can hardly conceive of circumstances in which it would be necessary for the court to impose a period of imprisonment of more than six months. Certainly the Thomson Committee did not regard that as being at all necessary. Your Lordships may also know that in that committee's report there is a specific provision to increase the sentencing power of the sheriff from two to three years. That is a matter of some controversy and, no doubt, we shall have to look at a provision of that kind in the Government's forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill. That would be the proper occasion on which to look at it. It should not be done, as it were, by the back door; by giving the sheriff this power in the special circumstances prevailing here. There is no support for it in the Thomson Report and there is no need for it in this Bill. I seriously invite the Government not to press this matter. I shall listen carefully to what answer the Minister gives in order to determine whether or not I should seek to divide the Committee on

31
this or on another occasion in relation to this provision. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: First, I should like to add my words of congratulation to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern on, if one may so call it, his maiden speech. No doubt he may have expected to make such a speech on what I might call a full parliamentary occasion, with the Galleries crammed and the Benches behind him also full. Nevertheless, as a lawyer, perhaps it is more appropriate that he should make his first contribution in the parliamentary workhouse. I have a faint feeling of resentment that no sooner do the two Scottish advocates get together than all becomes lovey-dovey and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, immediately falls backwards and says, "Oh, I shall not move my amendments, I am very content with yours". However, when I get to my feet we find ourselves again in realms of contention; I am afraid that that is how it has to be.
I have listened again to the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I say this quite sincerely: once more I find myself in disagreement with him. The first matter on which I take issue with him is that this Bill will create a new offence. It will be a matter which will be entirely consequential on whatever may or may not happen at a trial. That is a very important point. It will require to be proved in the ordinary way, according to our criminal rules, and the judge—whether he be a sheriff or anyone else—will have to apply himself de novo to any question of penalty. So I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that, if at the end of the day the sheriff—if it is he who is taking the case—reaches the conclusion that the proper sentence for the substantive offence is two years' imprisonment and then the failure of the accused, to turn up at his trial is so gross that he has, in carrying out of his public duty, to impose two years for that offence, this will not be four years so much as two plus two. I say that not as a debating point, because the noble and learned Lord can add just as well as I can. But these are all subject to appeal. A reviewing court may well be able to say, "For the original offence two years was justified, but it certainly was not proper merely because this man failed
32
to answer his bail to give him two years and, therefore, we shall allow the appeal accordingly".
Disagreeing once more with the noble and learned Lord, I do not think that this is an opportunity to give savage sheriffs who would otherwise not be allowed to give vent to such instincts carte blanche in the matter of sentence. The sentence in respect of failure to appear may even be the only sentence which can be imposed if, in certain circumstances, no trial can take place. For instance, I can illustrate it in this way; because an accused may fail to surrender to his bail witnesses may die and, bearing in mind the rules of corroboration, the case may well not be provable against him. He may never be able to be tried or, if he is, he may inevitably achieve an acquittal simply and solely because he has in fact failed to turn up. In those circumstances—and this is a matter upon which we place particular reliance—if the seriousness of the matter is sufficient, it is only right that he should be liable to be sentenced to a substantial period of imprisonment.
The matter does not end there. It may well be that accused people will balance out the likely consequences of appearing to stand trial as against the possible consequences of not doing so. If the potential penalties faced by an accused are grave—if this amendment is accepted—he may well choose to do six months for not turning up rather than perhaps six years for being so foolish as to surrender to his bail. I simply put that forward. I appreciate that in such cases he would have to be sent for sentence. Quite apart from that, if an accused fails to appear, he may cause very considerable inconvenience to the witnesses, who in, say, a complicated case of fraud, may number tens. He would put the community to a great deal of inconvenience and expense. I believe that that should be weighed in the balance. I do not place a great deal of stress on it, but it is worth mentioning.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: As a layman, I should like to ask a question. Did I understand the noble Earl to say that if, because of skipping bail, the accused failed to turn up and there was no trial, one should be able to impose a larger sentence because he would not be tried? Is that logical?
The Earl if MANSFIELD: No, quite the reverse. I was trying to explain to your Lordships that an accused man facing a grave charge might well choose to do six months for having been in breach of his bail rather than do whatever he might be sentenced to if he did turn up. That is what I am saying. No judge would say, "Because the trial against you is vitiated, I shall give you an extra long sentence". He would take all the circumstances of the case into account, including the gravity of the accused's conduct, and sentence him accordingly. I hope that that is now plain to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
I want to remind your Lordships that the two-year penalty is a maximum and not a standard. Therefore, I quite concede that in certain circumstances two years could very well be excessive. But, in a way which is certainly within my personal philosophy, though I do not think it is within the philosophy of the noble and learned Lord—and I do not say this to him rudely—I believe that the courts should be given adequate powers and the maximum discretion; for I believe that in the main they will not impose onerous or savage sentences, and if they do, such sentences can be upset on appeal. As I have tried to say, there may be cases where the fact of the accused not having turned up to stand his trial can, in fact, result in a very distinct public miscarriage of justice. I am quite sure that the courts will take a reasonable discretionary view of this power which we are giving them.
The next matter which I wish to raise is this. The courts frequently review bail during the course of a long case, as it goes along. I hope that the noble and learned Lord is with me. After the first sitting, as the subsequent sittings succeed each other it is in the mind of the judge always to withdraw bail at a later, or at a late stage. In a serious case which is going against an accused man, the temptation to him to just not turn up at the last stage will become more and more overwhelming. The temptation to the judge, if that is the right word, or the inclination of the judge as the case wears on to, as it were, put him inside, to make sure that that does not happen, will get stronger and stronger.
What I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord is that as this clause is at
34
present drafted there will not be any more temptation on the part of the accused to abscond, and there will not be any further inclination on the part of the judge not to continue to give him bail, because if the accused does not turn up the court has its remedy which, in my submission, is a fair and proper one in the circumstances. So that it is in those circumstances—because no absconding may have entered an accused's mind as the trial wears on; he may be inclined, however badly it was going, to stay and face the music—in the accused's interest that the judge has in the back of his mind the penalty if he does not turn up at the concluding stages. So I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the six months which his amendment lays down would be quite inadequate for this purpose.
I want finally to emphasise that the penalty of two years relates only to failure to appear at a diet under solemn proceedings, so that any other breach of condition does not attract this penalty. It is important to emphasise that. The penalties for any other breach of conditions of bail—and those include failure to appear under summary conditions—are very much less. I should have used the word "penultimately" in relation to that particular remark to your Lordships, because my final point is that the accused has a defence. He has the defence of reasonable excuse. Obviously there is no question of any period of imprisonment, let alone one of two years, being imposed upon someone who has a genuine reason for having failed to appear. I emphasise the use of the word "genuine" reason. I do not even say a good reason. If it is a genuine reason it is impossible to visualise circumstances in which a court would take too grave a view of his conduct. We are here talking about the person who fails to attend his trial without any reasonable excuse.
I think that that is as far as I can take the matter. If the noble and learned Lord is asking why we do not charge the man with contempt of court or perverting the course of justice or something like that, may I say that philosophically I regard that as most untidy. At a time when we are really trying to make the law of Scotland far more cohesive it is surely much better that this should be

35
set out in statute form. Here we have a new and, as I suggest, a much more streamlined and satisfactory bail system which, may I say, the English may well want to copy pretty soon. Let us keep it in its neat and tidy state and say in effect to an accused man, "We are going to admit you to bail before your trial under these conditions. If you abuse them, these are the penalties which can be imposed on you in certain circumstances".
4.14 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: It is with a deep sense of humility and indeed anxiety that I venture to intervene in a debate on this matter of bail in Scotland. But as I look round this side of the House find that I am the only person present who has the honour still to be one of Her Majesty's counsel. Therefore, it might be considered discourteous of me if I did not join at least in part with the welcome and congratulations that have been given to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, on his maiden speech, and to express the hope that we shall hear him much more frequently in his House.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, went on further to deal with questions of the position from which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, might be speaking in the future. Let me say at once from these Benches that if he finds some anxiety in speaking in future from where the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is speaking, then he has ample room on these Benches from which he can be heard and his speeches be enjoyed in this House. It came to my mind, as a Celt—and I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn-Hughes, a most distinguished lawyer and a distinguished Member of the other House, is in his place—as the noble Earl was addressing the Committee that there was a deep sense of harshness, even brutality, in his address in regard to the treatment of these offenders. Therefore, without dealing fully with these arguments, I should like to join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to say that it was quite improper almost to include this kind of punishment in a Bill of this kind, and that it would be more
36
appropriate for it to be enjoined in any amendment of the Criminal Justice Bill. Therefore, I should like personally strongly to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in his submissions to your Lordships.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am not in the least surprised that the Government's proposal in this connection has provoked a reaction from the Liberal Benches. Indeed, I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was moved to intervene at the astonishing argument put forward by the noble Earl. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, grasped that argument in its substance absolutely. What the noble Earl was saying was, "We might not he able to convict the accused of the crime with which he was originally charged, and therefore this may be the only penalty available. So we had better make it a nice substantial penalty so that we can punish him for being acquitted on the other charge". That is the essence of what the noble Earl said.
Let us suppose—and I have known this to happen because I have a substantial criminal experience in Scotland (I should say, in the courts, as a practitioner)—that the accused as the trial wears on day after day finds that his chances of acquittal are exceeding small and decides that he will not turn up for the verdict or for the last day of the trial. There is no shadow of doubt that that could properly be charged as an attempt by him to defeat the ends of justice. That is the crime he will have committed. Your Lordships, I have no doubt, can take the advice of the Lord Advocate on that if necessary. He could be charged with attempting to defeat the ends of justice. The penalty for that, it being a common law crime, is not restricted to two years but may be more if the circumstances warrant it. So the proper charge is that charge and not this statutory charge which puts the onus upon the accused person to establish reasonable cause for not being there.
I do not suggest—and I have never suggested to the noble Earl or the Committee—that the man in these circumstances should be charged with contempt of court. I do not think that that is a good idea. But the crime of attempting to defeat the ends of justice is a perfectly sensible crime in the Scottish context. The noble Earl

37
will no doubt take advice on that and on Scottish law in relation to that matter.
There are other points, because this is a matter of considerable importance. Where on earth did the noble Earl get his two years from? It was not in the Thomson Report. It was not in the previous Government's Bill, which restricted the penalty to three months. Where did the idea of two years come from? Next, does the noble Earl realise that the Scottish male prison population is the highest per capita in the whole of Western Europe? Is this an attempt to increase the prison population?
Does he agree that the sheriff is given the power to impose two years plus two years, which to the accused person means four years—whether it is two plus two or not—and is he able to inform the Committee as to what the position is in England at the moment? What is the sentence that would be imposed on any person if the accused failed to surrender to his bail at a trial in England? I invite the Committee to look very carefully at the arguments that have been put forward by the noble Earl. I regard what he put as a bad argument—in fact I think all the arguments are very bad—and in my view the Committee should not approve the measure without better arguments being put forward.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I wish to comment first on what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, regaled the Committee with. We are talking, in the main, not about offenders but about people who are released pending their trial and what we are going to do with them as a community if they fail to turn up. This is the measure which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has seen fit to try to amend. I do not say that rudely, but that is the point of the amendment: to reduce the sentence which can be imposed on someone who fails to turn up at his trial from two years to six months.
What I have tried to illustrate to the Committee is that by so behaving someone may in certain circumstances—such as culpable homicide, rape, a really serious assault or a really serious case of housebreaking—feel that he would prefer not to face the court proceedings. In those circumstances it is a matter of deciding
38
what the community is to do If a case is sufficiently serious, then a court will not grant bail if it thinks the person will not turn up for his trial. It is as simple as that. If, like me—speaking personally for a moment—one is a passionate believer that people should not go to prison at all except in the most dire circumstances, and that they certainly should not go to prison pending their trial if there is any possibility that they can be admitted to bail, then one has to try to provide a framework so that they can, even in serious situations, be admitted to bail if it is at all possible, which is precisely the opposite of what Lord McCluskey was saying. The idea is to reduce the prison population in Scotland, which I know is the highest in Europe—and I spoke until the general election as the president of SACRO. The idea is to reduce it, but the fact remains that society must have some sanction concerning bail if people involved in these serious crimes refused to turn up.
Lord McCluskey asks what happens in England. In England they do it in an entirely different way, in a monetary way, by the imposition of very large sums of money by way of recognisance and sureties, and it is not—I say this without being disloyal to the profession in which I very much enjoyed working for years, and the system of law—a system which works all that well; it creaks. Nevertheless, the English law has its sanctions and we in Scotland must have our own.
I do not think I can take the argument very much further. It is only in certain circumstances that this penalty will he imposed, and I have enumerated them. I suggest that it will be within the discretion of judges or sheriffs, who are well able to carry out their public duty; that if they err then it will be open to appeal to a higher tribunal; and that it is a maximum which will probably be imposed only in the rarest of circumstances but which I think should he available in the armoury of the judge who takes the case. There is nothing harsh nor onerous about this, and in my view it is part of a sensible provision to admit more people to bail than are at present admitted.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I do not propose to press the amendment today because I feel that Members of the Committee

39
should have an opportunity to look at the arguments that have been put forward, and the Government should have an opportunity to reconsider their arguments. This is a serious matter and the noble Earl has not answered my question as to where the two years came from; he has not told us why the Government have chosen to depart from the unanimous recommendation of the Thomson Committee that the sentence should be one of six months.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will permit me to intervene at this stage. I do so on a matter of information which may contribute to his knowledge. I am informed that, under the Criminal Procedure Act 1975, two years is the maximum sentence of imprisonment available to sheriffs in solemn court for common law offences. So the issues do in fact hang together, do they not?
Lord McCLUSKEY: It certainly does not, because what the noble Earl is proposing is to double the sentence. It makes it two plus two, and there is no logic in the two years; there is no authority for it or precedent for it in my submission. I ask the Government to think seriously about this again. If they do not do so this may be a matter on which we shall have to divide. The noble Earl must take advice about what appears to me to be a confusion in his mind between contempt of court and the crime of attempting to defeat the ends of justice. I think that if he takes advice on that he will see that the offence of attempting to defeat the ends of justice is a perfectly proper one in the law of Scotland and one which would be appropriate in the kind of circumstances he has in mind. Subject to returning to the matter on a future occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.27 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 39, leave out subsection (12).
The noble and learned Lord said: I hope we shall now be able to make rapid progress. This is really a probing amendment, but I should explain the background to it. If a person is charged in Scotland
40
with the crime of murder, he may be found guilty of murder, he may be found guilty of culpable homicide—which is the equivalent of manslaughter in England—or he may be found guilty of assault. In other words, the larger embraces a number of lesser crimes. Similarly with rape; he may be found guilty of assault aggravated by indecency. That applies to common law offences. It also applies to a number of statutory offences, and your Lordships will see from the Road Traffic Act 1972 that, for example, a culpable homicide charge may be brought and the jury may return a verdict under Section 2 of that Act; a Section 1 statutory charge under the Road Traffic Act 1972 may justify a jury bringing in a verdict of guilty under Section 2. So the position is that the person charged with one crime may be found guilty of a different but lesser crime of the same kind.
When one looks at the wording of subsection (12) one sees that,
"'the original offence' means the offence with which the accused was charged"
—that, in the example I have taken, would be murder—
"when he was granted bail or an offence charged in the same proceedings as that offence".
Culpable homicide or assault would not be an offence charged in the same proceedings; it would not be the offence with which he was originally charged. Accordingly, it seems to me that the definition of the original offence does not really work here. If, as I suspect, it does not work, I think that the problems can be seen in subsection (6), because
"A court which finds an accused guilty of an offence under this section may remit the accused for sentence in respect of that offence to any court which is considering the original offence".
If the original offence was under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, and the remit is in relation to Section 2—if that were a possible situation—or if the original offence was rape and the remit was in relation to a conviction of indecent assault, I do not think that subsection (6) would work.
So what is required is to see whether the definition of "original offence" properly works. I think that it might be better to move from the concept of the offence with which the accused was charged to the concept of the offence of which the accused has been competently con-

41
victed, but I do not think that that concept would work very well for subsection (4). Accordingly, I hope that the Minister might care to reconsider whether this works at all and to ask his advisers to consider a fresh definition which would work both here and in the other clauses where this kind of provision is found.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: The purpose of the subsection which the amendment seeks to delete is to provide a definition which can be used for economy of language, an object which the noble and learned Lord was seeking to achieve by some of his earlier amendments. I think that it is fairly plain that the definition has to apply at a stage before there is any question of conviction, that is at the stage at which the proceedings are being developed. The idea of including this fuller phrase
"or an offence charged in the same proceedings as that offence"
is to cover the case where the proceedings may proceed on the basis of some offence different from that which was originally charged, because the investigations following on the original charge have produced the necessity for some other offence to be charged. So at least at the moment it appears to us that this definition does work, that it is necessary to have it for purposes of economy, and that it is reasonably satisfactory.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether the Lord Advocate would look at subsection (6), to which I directed attention, because in that situation I think that we are dealing with a different point in time. The subsection states:
"A court which finds an accused guilty of an offence under this section"—
that is the offence of failing to answer to the bail in effect, or of not complying with conditions—
"may remit the accused for sentence in respect of that offence to any court which is considering the original offence".
Does the Lord Advocate not think that the word "remit" relates to remit for sentence, or am I perhaps in error about that?
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I think that is correct, but the point is that this definition requires to work right through from the stage at which the new
42
charge is added to the proceedings to the stage of remit. So the fact that the remit is included does not I believe detract from the previous argument. This definition would enable one to say whether the proceedings going on in the other court were in respect of an original offence by considering whether these proceedings were in respect of an offence which could be charged in the same proceedings as the offence which give rise to the original requirement for bail.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think that I follow that, but I shall read it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.33 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 41, at end insert—
(" ( ) In this section the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall rest upon the accused, but the court may be satisfied that he had reasonable excuse without hearing evidence on oath, without corroboration and on a balance of probabilities.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I believe that as the clause is worded the onus in fact rests upon the accused to prove reasonable excuse, and I should like the Minister, if he agrees, to confirm that. The first part of my amendment is simply to make that explicit, so that there is no doubt about it. That would be in accordance with the Thomson Committee recommendation. The same applies to subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 7 and other parts of the Bill.
The second part of the amendment is designed to make it unnecessary to lead evidence, or if evidence is led, to have corroboration. As I understand it, the position is that the accused may be charged with this offence, but it may well be that in the circumstances it is quite unnecessary for him to lead evidence, or if he has to lead evidence, he may not be able to provide corroboration. It may be possible to discharge the onus upon him by the production of a soul and conscience medical certificate, or indeed by providing information through the mouth of his solicitor or advocate. It may be that it is impossible for him to provide corroboration, and I would suggest that it

43
may be unnecessary therefore to have solemn proof from an accused person in the circumstances covered by this clause. That is the reason why I have put in the second part of the amendment, and I would ask the Government to comment upon that. I beg to move.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: So far as the first part of the proposed amendment is concerned, I respectfully agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said. The onus on this matter is on the accused as a result of general provisions—Section 66 of the 1975 Act for solemn proceedings, and Section 312 for summary proceedings. So there is nothing between us on that, except the question of whether it is necessary to say the same thing again in this provision.
However, so far as the second part of the amendment is concerned, the matter is rather different. If the accused has some reasonable explanation—something has occurred; a medical certificate is available—one would expect that to be presented to the procurator fiscal and, knowing how wisely prosecutions are conducted in Scotland, one would not expect the case to proceed. But if the case does proceed, it will do so in the form of an ordinary trial. I ask myself how, if the noble and learned Lord's amendment is accepted, I would deal with the matter if I were acting for an accused person in the course of a trial.
If I have evidence which enables me to prove the explanation, I ought to put it forward because I have no way of telling until the court has decided, whether it is prepared to accept this lesser evidence. The noble and learned Lord's amendment says only "may", and accordingly I have no way of knowing at the important stage whether or not the court is going to exercise that discretion. If that is the situation, it will produce a most unworkable business, and I find it hard to envisage how the noble and learned Lord considers this proposal could be worked in the course of a trial. It is of course perfectly possible for the court to accept explanations and so on ex parte by way of mitigation, but where the matter actually comes to trial I find it hard to see how this would work, and I would respectfully suggest to the
44
noble and learned Lord that to introduce this provision into the Bill would not be an improvement.
Lord McCLUSKEY: As to the first part of my amendment, I am happy to accept the affirmation by the Lord Advocate that the burden does in fact rest upon the accused and it is unnecessary therefore to proceed with that part of the amendment. So far as the other part is concerned, I am also happy to hear him say that it would be perfectly proper for a person accused of this offence to make an approach through his lawyer no doubt to the procurator fiscal, and that the procurator fiscal, if shown a medical certificate or other evidence of that kind, would be unlikely to proceed.
However, the difficulty does not completely disappear with these two assurances because where a person is brought to trial charged with the offence of not complying with the condition, or of failing to turn up for the diet of trial, and he has only his own evidence, and the burden rests upon him, is the Lord Advocate satisfied that he can discharge that burden without corroborative evidence, and is he satisfied that the court would apply the standard of the balance of probabilities in relation to the onus that rests upon the accused?—because if not, it puts the accused in a very difficult position deriving from the circumstance that he simply was not there at the trial.
Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN: I think that the general position with regard to special defences gives rise to the answer that the accused would be able to discharge the onus on him on a balance of probabilities, and so far as corroboration is concerned, by the nature of the matter I should not have thought that the doctrine of corroboration would have very much of a part to play in this particular situation.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Provisions relating to monetary conditions]:
4.39 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 at the same time. These amendments seek to close a gap in the Bill as at present drafted. Where a summary court makes a probation order, or an order granting absolute discharge, it does so without proceeding to conviction. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 at present extends the reference to conviction in Clause 4(1)(b) to cover these orders. Clause 4(3) provides that a cautioner is not entitled to recover a sum he has deposited where an accused has been charged with an offence of breach of bail, other than failure to appear, unless and until the charge is not proceeded with; or the accused is aquitted of the charge; or the accused is convicted.
The reference to conviction requires to be extended to cover orders of probation or absolute discharge in this context also. If this is not done, the cautioner in such a case would strictly never be entitled to recover his money. The new subsection proposed would define "conviction" for the purposes of Clause 4(1)(b) and 4(3) as including the making of probation orders and orders granting absolute discharge. It subsumes subsection (2). Insertion of the words "of the offence" in line 33 on page 5 is a consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 33, after ("conviction") insert ("of the offence").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 34, at end insert—
(" (4) The references in subsection (1)(b) above and in paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (3) above to conviction of an offence shall include references to the making of an order in respect of the offence under section 383 (absolute discharge) or 384 (probation) of the 1975 Act.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before we leave Clause 4 may I simply direct attention to the opening words of the clause,
"Without prejudice to section 3 of this Act …"
As I understand it, the effect of Clause 4, taken along with Clause 3, is that, where a person has deposited a sum of money in court and he fails to turn up for a diet of trial, a solemn procedure, then he may be required to forfeit the sum; in addition, to pay a fine the amount of which is unlimited; and, in addition, to face a maximum of two years' imprisonment. This merely emphasises the point I was seeking to make earlier, that the Government are giving the court powers which are quite draconian compared with the powers which the court has had hitherto. I merely direct attention to what this clause says in that regard, because it further makes the point that I was making earlier in connection with the provision for two years' imprisonment.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Interim liberation by constable of person charged with offence against a person under 17 years]:
Lord McCLUSKEYhad given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16:
Page 8, line 3, at end insert—
(" (6) In this section the burden of reasonable excuse shall rest upon the accused, but the court may be satisfied that he had reasonable excuse without hearing evidence on oath, without corroboration and on a balance of probabilities.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is one which follows the lines of the one that I spoke to earlier, which was Amendment No. 12. I shall therefore not move this amendment.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCLUSKEY: If one looks at Clause 7—and one should look at Clauses 8 and 9—what one sees is that these clauses seek to enlarge the powers of the police to grant bail. I do not take

47
exception to that; and, indeed, one should not do so. The Thomson Committee in fact recommended that the police should have larger powers to grant bail; and, indeed, I think the noble Earl would say that it was consistent with and was a concomitant of the closing of the courts on Saturdays. The police having a larger power to release people, then perhaps that power will be used quite generously at the weekend.
There is only one point I should like to make here, and it is that there is a danger here. I have had many contacts with the police in the course of my professional career as a prosecutor, and I have been informed by middle-ranking police officers in Scotland that the power of the police to grant or refuse bail is one which they do not particularly want. They saw such a power available in England, and it was a source of corruption of the police—because, plainly, if you give the police a wide discretion in relation to granting or refusing bail, then you give a considerable temptation to those who want to be out on bail to approach the police and endeavour to corrupt them. I do not know whether or not that is true, but I have been told it, as it were, "off the record" by a number of police officers whom I hold in high regard, in the course of the last few years. What we are doing here is to enlarge the power of the police and to enlarge their discretion, and we therefore enlarge the opportunity for some kind of corruption. I do not expect it to happen, and I am not predicting that it will happen, but it is a matter that we shall have to bear in mind as the years go by to see whether or not this larger discretion prompts people to attempt to corrupt the police; and, if that were to happen, of course, then the matter would have to be reconsidered.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I very much hope that it does not. I have a very high regard for our Scottish police. I have not seen them professionally, in the sense that the noble and learned Lord has, but I was a member of my local authority until it was reorganised, and I was on the police committee. In my fairly humble judicial sphere I have also had a lot of dealings with the police. I think that, with the guidelines which my
48
noble and learned friend expects to give and with the discretion which they will learn to use—and I am sure they will learn to use it, if I may say so, judicially and wisely, and not corruptly—this is something which, when we look back on it, we shall think was a matter that we need not have worried about.
Clause 7 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Sittings of sheriff and district courts]:
4.48 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 9, line 38, at end insert—
("(5) Whenever a court holiday is prescribed to occur on a Friday or a Monday with the result that persons arrested on the preceding Thursday or Friday respectively would have to wait three days before the next lawful day, the Sheriff Principal shall make arrangements for a court to sit at least once during such three days to entertain applications from such persons for interim liberation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a matter of which I gave notice at Second Reading of this Bill. The present position is that custody cases are heard on Saturday mornings in the Scottish courts, so that a person who is arrested on a Friday and is detained in custody can be brought before the court with a view to his release by the court on the Saturday morning. The Bill will postpone these Friday p.m. cases from Saturday morning until Monday, and I accept the regrettable necessity for that. But, also, by allowing the court to prescribe court holidays—and the court holidays may take place on a Monday or a Friday—the Bill can extend this period when the court is not sitting (it may happen rarely, but it can happen) for a whole three days, and I believe that that is rather too long.
What I am asking, therefore, is whether, on the rare occasions when the court is not to sit on three consecutive days because a court holiday has been prescribed to fall on a Monday or a Friday, then is

49
it too much to ask for emergency arrangements? The noble Earl will know that during the regrettable strike in Scotland during the spring emergency arrangements were made, which worked very well, for dealing with urgent cases; and one would have thought that some kind of informal arrangement could be made to deal with the custody cases. When one looks at the Thomson Committee report on this, what one sees is that the need to abolish the Saturday sitting derives largely from the circumstances which prevail in Glasgow. It is a pity, in a way, that one has to change the law for the whole country because of what happens in Glasgow, because, unfortunately, nothing works particularly well in the Glasgow Sheriff Court—certainly not as well there as it works elsewhere—and it is a pity that one has to derive from the Glasgow experience the need to abolish the Saturday morning sitting. However, I confine myself to the particular point that, when there are to be three consecutive days on which the court is not sitting, the sheriff principal should make special arrangements for the court to sit at least once to entertain applications for interim liberation. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I have a certain sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord is trying to achieve with this amendment but, for reasons to which I shall come, I regret that I cannot accept it. The effect of the amendment would be to require a court to be held at least once in the three days when it would not otherwise be sitting because the court holiday falls immediately before or after a weekend. First, I would stress that the police in future will be encouraged and enabled to release people more rapidly over a wider range of offences. My noble and learned friend intends to issue what I might describe as guidelines—which were discussed in the other place and to which I can draw the attention of the House, if necessary. As a result, fewer people should be held in custody in future before their first appearance in court. The police, as noble Lords will know, work closely with the fiscal when considering the release of an accused, and the fiscal's recommendation weighs very heavily with sheriffs when bail is being considered.
The bail study, to which I made reference in my Second Reading speech on this Bill,
50
found that in 95 per cent. of all cases where the fiscal opposed bail, the court refused it. It is, therefore, unlikely that an accused would be held by the police where a court would release him if one were to sit. The guidelines which will be issued to the police will seek to ensure that the accused will be released by the police wherever this is appropriate and particularly where courts are on holiday; so I am confident that in practice very few people will be held in custody unnecessarily when the courts are on holiday over a long weekend. And the amendment, in effect, is rather a clumsy way to strike at a difficulty which I think will scarcely ever arise.
If the amendment were to be carried, it would create severe organisational difficulties for the courts. I understand that since the Thomson Report it is not only Glasgow that is in difficulties. One of the main reasons for Clause 10 of this Bill is the problem of obtaining staff for Saturday working. Noble Lords will be able to imagine the great difficulty there would be in obtaining staff to work during a holiday weekend, given the difficulty which exists in finding staff to work on a normal Saturday. In exceptional circumstances, the sheriff principal will be able to arrange for a court to sit; but, in my submission, it will be wrong, in view of the tiny number of cases likely to be affected, to place all courts under a statutory duty to sit in such circumstances. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord's amendment contemplates the court having to sit, whether or not there are any persons to sit in front of it, so little discretion does it give.
Finally, I have to say the words which I heard so often when sitting where the noble and learned Lord is now placed and which I never thought would fall from my lips: the amendment is in any case defective, particularly in its reference to "lawful day" (a concept which we are abolishing) and to the phrase "interim liberation" which is granted by the police and not by a court, which will release on bail. For these reasons, I cannot commend this amendment to the Committee.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I do not doubt that the amendment could be better worded. I wrote it on the shuttle between London and Edinburgh. I do not regard it as being the function of Members of

51
this House to be parliamentary draftsmen. The intent is quite plain. I am not persuaded by the argument of the noble Lord that it is only in very rare cases where the amendment would bite. It is the touchstone of a civilised system of justice that we can cater for the rare case. I made a careful choice when I used the words:
"… the sheriff principal shall make arrangements for a court to sit at least once…".
I had in mind that he could, within his whole jurisdiction, which may include 10 or 12 courts provide that one court should sit in order to entertain this kind of application. So I invite the Government to think again about that. I do not ask them to adopt my wording. I am sure that it could be improved by the gentlemen for whom I have such high respect across the road in the Lord Advocate's Chambers. But I think that the intention is one that the Government might treat more sympathetically. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
4.56 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
Prevention of delay in trials
.—(1) For section 101 of the 1975 Act (prevention of delay in trials) there shall be substituted the following section—
101.—(1) An accused shall not be tried on indictment for any offence unless such trial is commenced within a period of 12 months of the first appearance of that accused on petition in respect of that offence; and, failing such commencement within that period, the accused shall be discharged forthwith and thereafter no proceedings shall be competent against him in respect of that offence:
Provided that—

(i) nothing in this subsection shall bar the trial of an accused for whose apprehension a warrant of arrest has been granted for failure to appear at a diet,

(ii) on application made for the purpose, the sheriff or, where an indictment has been served on the accused in respect of the High Court, that court, may on cause shown extend the said period of 12 months.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, an accused who is committed for any offence until liberated in due course of law shall not be detained by virtue of that committal for a total period of more than—

(a) 80 days, unless within that period the indictment is served on him, which failing he shall be liberated forthwith; or

(b) 110 days, unless the trial of the case is commenced within that period, which failing he shall be liberated forthwith and thereafter no proceedings shall be competent against him in respect of that offence.

(3) The High Court may, on application made to it for the purpose, for any sufficient cause extend the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above:
Provided that the court shall not extend the said period if it is satisfied that, but for some fault on the part of the prosecution, the indictment could have been served within that period.
(4) The High Court may, on application made to it for the purpose, extend the period mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above where it is satisfied that delay in the commencement of the trial is due to—

(a) the illness of the accused or of a judge or juror;

(b) the absence or illness of any necessary witness; or

(c) any other sufficient cause:

Provided that the court shall not extend the said period on the ground mentioned in paragraph (c) above if it is satisfied that, but for some fault on the part of the prosecution, the trial could have commenced within that period.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a trial shall be taken to have commenced when the oath is administered to the jury.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is the last amendment to be moved today. It is one which I foreshadowed at the Second Reading. I beg to move Amendment No. 20: This amendment derives from the Thomson Committee report, paragraph 15.07 (a). I acknowledge that the amendment which I have put on the Marshalled List is one which goes rather too far because it does not simply reform the 110-day rule but also introduces the element of requiring the court to proceed to trial within a period of 12 months after the accused has first appeared on petition in respect of an offence.
May I explain the 110-day rule to those noble Lords who have not encountered it before. The position is that when a person is arrested in Scotland at the present time he must be brought before a court on the next lawful day—which may,

53
under this Bill, be several days later; but he may spend a maximum of four days in custody on that arrangement. Then, on that day, he may be committed and remain in custody for eight clays and thereafter he will be committed if he is to remain in custody until liberated in the due course of law. That period cannot last more than 110 days. So for a maximum of 120 days, a person may remain in custody awaiting the result of his trial. No matter how serious the crime, if the person is detained in custody, his trial must be concluded within about 120 days of his initial arrest.
Your Lordships will appreciate that that could give rise to difficulties in a case where the trial itself is rather long and it is undesirable to release the accused during the trial. The Thomson Committee, recognising this and having regard to some cases that have given difficulty in the past, proposed that the 110 days should extend not to the conclusion of the trial but to the beginning of the trial. That is the amendment which I should like to see incorporated in this Bill.
The noble Earl will no doubt tell me that it belongs somewhere else; but I believe that it might come into the Long Title of this Bill which talks about
"the interim liberation of persons who have been arrested…".
It is urgent because any day one might have a further serious 110-day problem in a case of murder or in a serious rape case. In any event, it is recommended unanimously by the Thomson Committee; it is not opposed by noble Lords on this side of the Committee and it was regarded as not controversial when the other place in the previous Parliament was considering the Criminal Justice Bill. For all these reasons, I hope to hear that the noble Earl is considering this matter sympathetically, even if he cannot accept my amendment in the form in which it is now appearing on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am happy to say that I am inal most complete agreement with the noble and learned Lord as to the intrinsic desirability of his new clause. As he I think appreciates, this is not the place for it. The reform is as dear to my heart as to the noble and learned Lord's, but, alas!, I am advised that it is incompatible with the
54
Long Title of this Bill, which was designed to put into effect two urgent but narrow points, that is, the abolition of mandatory Saturday courts and the closely-related reform of the Scottish bail system. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that, if he will contain himself for a little longer, he may well be content with the proposals which we are going to make on this subject in the forthcoming Bill.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am delighted to receive that assurance. I can contain myself and I shall endeavour to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

ISLE OF MAN BILL
Brought from the Commons: read 1a, and to be printed.

HYPNOTISM BILL [H.L.]
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord DERWENT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title, citation, definition and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of KINNOULL: In moving the one printed amendment to this small Bill, I should say that, if the Committee accept it, I hope to move a manuscript amendment which will be consequential

55
upon the amendment and will affect the Long Title. During the Second Reading of this Bill I undertook to look at Clause 2 and the likely effect it might have on the 1,500 or so lay hypnotherapists who practise up and down the country.
The Committee will recall that Clause 2 is designed to prohibit advertisements relating to hypnotism, other than authorised exhibitions, and to ban the sale of records capable of inducing hypnotism. It was included in the Bill because it was considered offensive that a young, in-experienced hypnotherapist could, without having any real experience behind him, advertise a treatment for stopping smoking or over-eating and invite a member of the public to attend this course. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell described these gentlemen as "cowboys".
My noble friend, Lord Sandys, indicated at the time that his advisers had no real evidence of abuse or complaint that advertising by hypnotherapists was causing a problem. Indeed, he felt—and rightly—that Clause 2 could prove harmful to their leigitimate livelihood and was not called for in this Bill. One thinks particularly of the experienced lay hypnotherapists who are known to do good in the country and who offer advice and help to many people on a range of anxiety-related problems. It seems obviously unfair that they should be linked with the "cowboys" who have no such experience. Since the Second Reading last July I have had communication and correspondence with a number of individuals and bodies connected with hypnotism: individual hypnotherapists, those who have been treated and the three bodies which now represent the body of active hypnotherapists—the British Hypnotherapy Association, the National Council of Psychotherapists and the Institute of Psychology and Parapsychology. Each of these bodies, which have been set up in the past 20 years, provided a code of conduct, standards and ethics for their members, as well as an insistence that their advertising should be in strict accordance with the code of advertising practice.
The impression one has reached as a result of discussions with these people is that the medical world is highly suspicious of the lay hypnotherapists. They are concerned because these lay hypnothera-
56
pists have no medical qualifications and indeed have no need to have medical qualifications to advertise to the public. However, like osteopaths, there are good and bad hypnotherapists and many are extremely good. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is wholly unfair to condemn all for the sake of a few. The lay hypnotherapists themselves, as I have suggested, have tried to put their house in order by the formation of professional bodies. The bodies, as I have said, are subject to a code of conduct. As to those who have been treated by hypnotherapists, they range, if one speaks to them, from those ecstatic at the success of the treatment to those who are simply disappointed. In my submission, there is no real evidence of abuse or need for any special safeguard that arises from the evidence that one has tried to collect.
Hypnotism is a complex, fascinating subject. It spans from the medically qualified to the unqualified. It covers those who believe in it, those who do not and those who are suspicious. I submit that for this Bill to ban the use of advertising or the sale of discs under Clause 2 would be unfair to legitimate practitioners. There are those who favour tighter control of hypnotism and who argue, as was argued during the Second Reading of this Bill, that the Bill should perhaps even be strengthened. I do not accept that, nor do I accept that the removal of Clause 2 would weaken this small Bill. I like small Bills; I understand small Bills. I feel that the main purpose of this Bill remains—that is, the schedule. That is the area which causes the greatest concern: that there should be better protection of the public in stage hypnotists' acts. That is the objective. I hope this Committee will accept it. I commend to the Committee this small amendment to this small Bill. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: My noble friend Lord Kinnoull foreshadowed this amendment when he was speaking to his own Bill on Second Reading at column 1383 on 17th July. He explained that he had reservations about Clause 2, as it was then drafted. The Committee will be grateful to my noble friend for this forewarning. For my part, inquiries undertaken recently by the Home Office have not, as yet, brought to light any evidence of abuse which might justify the retention of this

57
clause. I therefore recommend your Lordships to accept the amendment.
On Question, Clause 2 disagreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule [Amendments to Hypnotism Act 1952]:
On Question, Whether the schedule, as printed, shall be the schedule to the Bill?
Viscount SIMON: Before we agree the schedule, I should like the noble Earl to give us some information about the significance of the word "living" in line 6. The sentence runs as follows:
"No person shall give an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism on any living person—".
I confess I cannot see the significance of the word "living".
The Earl of KINNOULL: Perhaps I may look into that particular interesting point, but I should have thought that the opposite of "living" would not be applicable.
On Question, Schedule agreed to.
5.11 p.m.
In the Title:
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved the manuscript amendment:
Line 3, leave out from ("phenomena") to end.
The noble Earl said: I said earlier that I should like to move this manuscript amendment which I hope is in everyone's hands. I beg to move.
On Question, manuscript amendment agreed to.
On Question, Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

ENERGY AND THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
5.12 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to have obtained enough information about relevant nucle
58
processes to be in a position to take the further decisions needed to ensure that the United Kingdom has an adequate and effective energy programme at the end of the twentieth century and an appropriate nuclear industry of its own. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am glad there is time for a debate on this subject today. It is gratifying that a number of noble Lords with knowledge of this industry have put themselves down to speak. My purpose is to draw attention to the need, as I see it, for much work to be done on this subject now if we are to be sure of reliable indigenous sources of energy in 20 years' time and thereafter into the next century. The present Government have been in office for six months and I believe that is time enough to have made an assessment.
The last Government issued the Green Paper named A Consultative Document on Energy Policy in February 1978. That is nearly two years ago, and I have some questions to ask arising from that, and particularly about this Government's attitude. I should like also to ask for how long they expect the consultative stage introduced by the Green Book to be continued on the question of energy from nuclear sources. Is it, for example, to be indefinite? In its foreword the last Secretary for Energy contemplated updating the document at regular intervals.
I would remind your Lordships' House that supplies of oil and natural gas from the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, which are going to be very helpful during the coming 20 years, are likely in 30 to 40 years' time to be running out. We hope we shall get supplies from elsewhere by then but they could be scarce and expensive. There is another point, which is that in time we should be using more and more of that oil and gas as feedstock for petrochemical industries, rather than burning them off as fuel. To use it for industry would be the most efficient use of a raw material which is not renewable.
Of coal, we have stocks which should last through the next century and beyond. Technical advances may make it less onerous for our coalminers to win that coal in future. For various reasons, however, largely difficulties of access, it is most unlikely that we could supply all our energy needs from that source—coal.

59
At present, there are indeed difficulties about the prices of home-produced coal. None the less, the coal industry should remain a source which can make a very substantial constribution to meeting our energy needs well into the next century.
I turn to other possible alternative sources, and I believe that research should be pursued into the possibilities of solar energy, wind or energy from the tides on a considerable scale. One thing is quite clear about these, though, and that is that it will be 20 or 30 years before any significant contributions could be made from them. I am all in favour of such sources being harnessed, but in our own case we have worries about weather—they are all affected by that—the construction of plant, barriers in the sea and even satellites which may be required for solar energy. These are technical matters which will take time to master. So that these sources cannot themselves meet our estimated needs at the end of this century. There will be a gap, unless the nuclear element can be used. It is imperative, I suggest, that we examine the prospects for the expansion of nuclear sources and take decisions in good time.
Nuclear stations are now providing about 10 per cent. of the electricity in the United Kingdom, since Calder Hall first came into action in 1956 and Chapel Cross in Scotland two years later. Indeed, the United Kingdom was the first country in the world to introduce a large nuclear power station as part of its energy supply system, and both the stations which I have mentioned are still in operation today, although their life was expected to be only 20 years.
Where nuclear stations are concerned there are longer lead times. Indeed, I think that the lead time between the decision to build a nuclear power station and its completion is now running at almost twice the time required for coal, oil or gas fired stations. One of the difficulties too, is that there are important choices to be made as to the type of nuclear station to be built and with developing technology there are new types of nuclear station for commercial use. As regards thermal reactors now in commercial use, the last Government indicated a policy of ordering advanced gas cooled reactors, AGRs, while keeping the options open concerning the American pressurised water reactors,
60
PWRs. I understand that the position is still much the same, but that there may be some statement from the Government within the next few weeks.
However, if we are to stay in this new industry and to benefit fully from the energy which it can produce, we have to be considering the next generation of power stations and this brings me to the fast breeder reactor. Here, again, the United Kingdom has been in the lead, though we may now be losing that lead. We started with the experimental fast breeder reactor at Dounreay in 1955. That was a success and it eventually fed electricity into the grid. Then there was the prototype fast reactor, also at Dounreay, which was decided upon in 1966; and I would remind nuclear scaremongers now agitating in Scotland that at that time, 1965–66, the prototype fast reactor was regarded in Scotland as a prize to be fought for. There was a Scottish campaign to get it and we were successful.
Now Britain is at the stage before a decision on whether we should embark upon a commercial version of the fast reactor. I would remind your Lordships that, if it were adopted and if it were successful, this would be a breakthrough. Fast reactors use about 50 times less uranium to produce the same amount of energy. They are also called breeders because they can produce more of the fuel which they use, although they do not have to do so. They use plutonium which is now produced, as a small proportion of spent fuel, from the thermal stations. They are, I believe, the nearest thing we have to perpetual motion. To have the prospect of something like this at a time when it is known that oil and gas supplies will run down during the next century poses, I suggest, particular decisions.
The Green Paper puts forward three options at paragraph 22 of Chapter 10. The first option is that we should build our own commercial fast reactor, based upon the success at Dounreay. The second is that we should join in an international scheme to build such commercial reactors, thus contributing to our knowledge. The third option is to do nothing and to leave it to others and then, if we need nuclear energy, to buy this technology from abroad.
Those options are still open, but the last Government committed themselves

61
to holding a public inquiry before any final decision was taken on building a fast reactor for commercial use. They stated that it would be a special kind of inquiry—much wider than the inquiries which are held under the Town and Country Planning Acts of either England and Wales or Scotland. I would ask the Minister, my noble friend Lord Gowrie, who is to reply, whether he can tell us more about the present Government's attitude to such an inquiry and whether it would be allowed to range broadly across a whole lot of facts and arguments which would not be accepted at a normal planning inquiry. Some of the more contentious planning inquiries which affect particular areas of the country have taken up to two or three years from the first application to the final decision. This sort of inquiry might well take more time, and that would add to the lead time as regards a decision on a commercial fast breeder reactor. I should be glad to know what is the Government's forecast of the time scale of that inquiry.
I must make mention of nuclear fusion, but I only touch on this subject. Naturally I am delighted that the Joint European Torus is being established at Culham where the research on this has been undertaken for Britain. But it may be 50 years before a practical application of nuclear fusion is found. That is not surprising, as it is a similar process to the production of energy by the sun. But if successful, and if proved to be completely safe, it would mean that energy could be obtained from small quantities of water.
The Green Paper invited public debate. The well-informed in the community can of course contribute to that debate, but most of the general public find it difficult to inform themselves enough. I certainly sympathise with that feeling. Scare stories naturally catch the headlines and are inclined to register in people's minds. The Anti-Nuclear Energy Campaign is inclined to make more impact, even though only a small minority of activists are involved. Those who could correct mis-statements or argue the opposite case are not inclined to enter into public controversy, or are too busy getting on with their work.
As regards the British nuclear industry, this still appears to be in need of re-
62
organisation. I shall not examine the present arrangements at the National Nuclear Corporation and the Nuclear Power Company. I would only add that the British industry ought to be given clear guidelines and the prospect of substantial activity, unless the United Kingdom takes a decision to drop out of the nuclear scene in the future. That would be a very serious decision. During the past 25 years, the United Kingdom has, as I have pointed out, at times been leading the world.
There are two factors—I think very important ones—which must be taken fully into account in considering opposition to going ahead in the nuclear field. The first is cost and the second is safety. On cost and availability—because I put them together—the initial capital costs where a nuclear power station is concerned are large in comparison with others, but once it is built the running costs are considerably less. Units of electricity are produced at lower rates from the nuclear power stations than from the others.
As regards availability, the Automic Energy Authority published very recently that Britain has stocks of 20,000 tons of U238 uranium. That is the equivalent of the total known resources of coal in this country; and one ton of that uranium produces the equivalent energy of 2 million tons of coal.
As regards safety, this I believe will be the vital factor in the decisions to be taken ahead. The Government themselves have to be certain about safety and the public must be convinced. I am not going to dwell on the environment and our heritage because I believe that nuclear power is kinder to them than other sources of energy which produce smoke, soot and ashes. Of course, there are some persons and organisations who are opposed to all nuclear activity of any kind. There are also others who are opposed to nuclear weapons—for example, Polaris bases. I am not addressing myself to either of those objections. My aim is to underline the matters which need careful investigation arising from the use of both the present thermal reactors now in commercial use and the fast breeder reactors as the next generation which could he in use.
The first point to be made is that it is impossible for a nuclear explosion, like an atomic bomb explosion, to take place at any of these nuclear stations. The substances are simply not there which could cause such an explosion. That is not understood in the country as a whole. Secondly, the dangers that there are, other than those which exist at any factory or works, arise from the possibility of escapes of radiation. Those who work in nuclear installations and establishments are protected from exposure. Safeguards and discipline have meant that casualties in the nuclear energy field have been a smaller percentage of the work force than in any of the other fuel industries.
More important, I believe, are the fears of an accident which could cause a leak. This is the kind of fear which there is in the public mind. Besides the cladding and the shielding which there must be—more than adequate in order to protect the world, the people and the environment from radioactive substances—there must be more publicity for the triplication of the remedial measures which exist if a fault or human error arises. There is automatic shutting down of processes if any incorrect functioning occurs. That must be not only the rule; it must be more widely known.
Then there is the question of dealing with nuclear waste—nuclear waste still containing some radioactivity. That is another matter which is an anxiety in the public mind. The transport of such materials to centres for reprocessing happens now. It is a valuable part of the economics of the maximum use of the fuel. I am satisfied myself that the massive flasks which take such materials to Windscale have been tested—dropped from heights and roasted in very high temperatures for lengths of time—and that therefore they do provide the full safety required. But other members of the public have to be satisfied, too. The aspect of safety with which I am most concerned is the possibility of theft of fissile or highly dangerous material by terrorists or some irresponsible régime abroad; for example, an Idi Amin of the future. This would apply particularly to plutonium, which is a valuable part of the cycle which I have outlined. It must be in the national and international
64
interest that we have systems which are perfected to guard against this and ensure that dangerous materials cannot get into the wrong hands.
With regard to the disposal of radioactive waste, we are told that the United Kingdom is pursuing vitrification, that is to say solidifying the waste into glass cylinders which are proof against earthquakes and anything else which could happen to them, since they are to be buried deep in the ground or in the depths of the ocean. The quantities are very small, and I do not think that is realised. For example, in the last 16 years of reprocessing at Windscale the total quantity of highly radioactive waste requiring special storage and disposal could be fitted into a building the size of a house with four bedrooms.
So it is not a volume problem; it is a problem of which are the most suitable places for these radioactive wastes to be deposited. Permission has been sought for test borings into the earth and rock for that purpose. Here, I must be a little critical. I believe that more should have been done to explain before the applications were made what they were about. Almost all the applications were to local authorities in Scotland and if anyone had asked me I could have predicted that most of them would be rejected—as they were—even though they were for testing and there was no commitment to do any actual burying. This is because there is a climate of suspicion and anxiety—and I would add also some hysteria.
The great exception, of course, is Caithness and I am delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is to speak in this debate because he knows that the majority of people in Caithness, who have lived for nearly a quarter of a century beside nuclear energy, regard it as a friend and do not have these fears because they know more about it and would be very happy if more nuclear activity could take place in their area. I am also very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, is to speak as a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority because he may be able to advise us as to how best to proceed now in that situation.
I should like to give an example of the hysteria that I have mentioned. This is a recent item in my local newspaper the

65
Northern Scot. The headline is: "Lethal danger to Scotland". The sub-headline is "SNP and nuclear waste". Then it reads:
"Scotland is rapidly becoming one of the most lethal places on earth".
This claim was made by an SNP councillor. He said,
"… the Government had still not scotched rumours that foreign nuclear waste might be dumped in Scotland and added that the Common Market—with the blessing of the then Labour Government—had pinpointed 13 Scottish sites suitable for the dumping of nuclear waste materials. In addition, he stressed, Common Market money had been made available to enable a German firm to prospect for uranium in Orkney and the new Scottish Secretary was storming ahead with the Torness nuclear power station to supply English consumers with electricity … No British Government has the right to saddle Scotland with nuclear garbage which could endanger future generations. We … are totally against nuclear dumping anywhere in Scotland".
The House may find it difficult to believe that such ridiculous and misinformed nonsense could be uttered, but I have registered this because it shows the kind of hysteria that there is in some places. The public see that sort of headline and are worried. Of course the persons who utter that kind of thing do not want to know the facts; they do not want a complete assurance about safety. They welcome having a grievance; they welcome having something vaguely associated in the public mind with the atomic bomb and Hiroshima with which to carry out a scaremongering campaign.
I believe it was unfortunate that more preparation was not undertaken before the applications were made. As for Torness—because your Lordships will notice that all the nuclear subjects have been put into that statement, including Torness, which is an application for a power station—there are already four nuclear power stations in Scotland and this would be the fifth. In the past Scots have made the most of new engineering and technology. For example, where electricity was concerned—and that was very dangerous when it first started—Lord Kelvin, of whom the City of Glasgow are very proud, and rightly so, would never have been able to make the advances he did if such a scaremongering campaign had been effective against him and his colleagues.
So far, Scotland has had the benefit of being in the forefront, especially with Dounreay. I believe there must be and
66
should be a rational weighing of the pros and cons when further nuclear energy decisions are taken. But Scotland will suffer unnecessarily if fear and prejudice prevail. In 20 or 30 years' time if nuclear power is established in the world (as seems likely) as a main source of energy in the first half of the 21st century, people in Scotland will look back and feel that they were let down if we have missed out, through misinformation, false alarms or apathy. This applies to the whole country, too.
I appeal for more courage in public life, as I did on another subject last week—not only in Parliament but also in local authorities and articulate bodies who are concerned with these subjects in the country. Safety must be paramount, but let us consider, coolly and rationally, the advantages and disadvantages. Let us remember the coming general shortage—the energy gap; let us concentrate on conservation of energy; let us ponder on the likely fuel bills in the future for the less fortunate in the community, including old-age pensioners dependent upon their pensions. Those bills will be less, the risks of hypothermia will recede, if nuclear generation can be employed. But the decisions, my Lords, cannot be put off indefinitely.
5.38 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we on this side of the House are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for putting down this Unstarred Question. I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that the House should have some information from the Government about their policy in this field, especially as there has been a good deal of Press speculation lately. It is also of the utmost importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, that we should begin to have some idea of our national energy objectives and policy over the next two or three decades, otherwise standards of life as we know them will become increasingly difficult to maintain.
As the noble Lord said so rightly, we have no more than 30 or 40 years to find a replacement for oil. Indeed it might not be so long as that for Europe as a whole. I hear that certain of the OPEC oil-producing countries are now considering a new depletion policy which

67
could result in more oil being left in the ground. The price of crude has certainly doubled this year over 1978, and of course the oil crisis has become even more pressing since the political troubles in Iran. Conservation and energy-saving will become increasingly important, but these (with the renewable sources which the noble Lord mentioned, such as tidal power which I think in particular is probably the most feasible of them) will not meet more than a very small proportion of our needs. Fusion, of course, is a new form of energy, but this is essentially long-term and it will involve a great deal of research of astounding complexity. As Dr. Guido Brunner put it so graphically when opening the JET project at Culham:
"The task of developing fusion is certainly technically more difficult than putting a man on the moon".
He went on to add that it is clearly of more direct significance. It is not thought that fusion will be a feasible alternative source of energy before 2030 at the earliest, according to the 1978 Green Paper, and I have never seen that refuted.
So, my Lords, what alternatives have we left for the immediate future? We are left with coal and nuclear energy. Coal is tremendously important for our future. We are blessed in these islands with enormous deposits. We already know how to develop new uses for coal through the liquefaction and gasification processes. Here I should like to pay a tribute to Dr. Dainton and his team at the National Coal Board's research station at Stoke Orchard, who are doing outstanding reasearch work in this sector. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us when he thinks these two processes will become commercially viable, and what is the timescale when they could be put into large-scale production. I hope that the Government are also going to help the coal industry to modernise further, because coal and nuclear energy should be our two options for the future: coal for oil and nuclear power for our electricity needs.
I hear all kinds of stories flying about that the Government are intending to run down our coal industry once again—a mistake that the two major parties have made at different periods since the war—and that they intend to rely to an increasing
68
degree on imported coal. I do not mean just coking coal, which we have to import, but all types of coal. I hope these stories are not true, because even with nuclear power we shall still need a coal industry. Perhaps the noble Earl will comment on this when he comes to reply.
I am glad to see that the case for nuclear power which was put so well by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was supported by the TUC Congress at Blackpool and also by the recent CBI Conference. It is essential that we should press on with our nuclear programme now and also ensure that it is made as safe as possible. There is, of course, as the noble Lord said, no such thing as absolute safety. There is certainly not safety in coal mining, where since the war thousands of our miners have died from pit accidents and pneumoconiosis. I agreed with Mr. Mick McGahey when, in putting the case for nuclear power at Blackpool, he said that no generation is entitled to rob future generations of their inheritance. May I, therefore, ask the noble Earl this evening to give an account of the Government's nuclear policy.
According to Press reports, the Government are planning to invest in 10 new nuclear power stations over the next decade and a further 10 after that, making 20 in all by the end of the century. One hears that the type to be chosen will be the PWR, the pressurised water reactor, rather than the advanced gas cooled reactor which has been developed over here. I accept that the PWR has certain advantages. It can be assembled in half the time—five years compared to 10 years for the AGR, and it costs half as much. But the PWR is not thought to be as safe as the AGR, and it is certainly the PWR that was used at Three Mile Island, although this did not result in loss of life, happily. I must also ask the noble Earl whether the Government intend to proceed with a full-scale fast breeder reactor, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. And will any decision be subject to a public inquiry? I understand that there is now increased confidence in the safety aspect of the prototype at Dounreay, and we shall certainly need to consider the fast reactor option in view of the impending uranium shortage, which could begin to restrict nuclear power station ordering by the 1990s.

69
May I add here that my noble friend Lord Bowden has asked me to say that he regrets that a long-standing engagement prevents him from taking part in this debate today. I remember that when we last debated energy on 23rd July last my noble friend described a Canadian type of reactor which could be developed to use thorium, which I understand is in plentiful supply. My noble friend asked during that debate whether the Government would give their view on this type of reactor and its possibilities. He received no reply from the noble Earl, perhaps because the noble Earl, who is always so courteous in trying to reply to every question, had not the time. My noble friend has asked me to raise it today, and if the noble Earl was able to give a reply this evening we should be grateful.
I must also ask the noble Earl about the future structure of the nuclear industry, and I should be grateful if the Government would give an indication about their long-term nuclear policy, as well as some indication of their nuclear policy in general and what role they consider nuclear power should play in supplying our future energy needs.
5.48 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, we, too, from these Benches are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for raising this Question at this time. For my part I really want to speak on the second part of the Question, about the further decisions needed to ensure that the United Kingdom has an adequate and effective energy programme at the end of the 20th century. I am not sure if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has not jumped the gun a bit in putting forward some basic assumptions regarding the need for a nuclear industry at all, and for how many and what type of reactors. It may be a little premature when, in my opinion, the Government have yet to prove their case for the need of nuclear energy. I think there is a real need for this because the gross energy demand figures have not been fully worked out. As we all know, the nuclear option in the energy equation can only contribute electricity.
The question we wish to ask from these Benches is, have Her Majesty's Government calculated the total anticipated load
70
factors for electricity up to and beyond the year 2000 before estimating nuclear plant requirements? Therefore, I want to use the opportunity of this debate to sound out the Government's thinking in this area in order to obtain confirmation that there is a target demand, and that it has made full allowance for the substitution of oil-based fuel for electrical power, especially in the transport sector.
My Lords, it would appear from the information so far available that if present trends are extrapolated our society could, by the turn of the century, be moving towards an all-electric life style. To give an example of this, it appears to me that it will be far too costly for the general public to use either private or public transport powered by oil products 20 years from now. If the same freedom of movement is to be allowed as today there must be a massive substitution programme in the transport field which can, in my view, only be satisfied by electrical power. For me, the popular slogan "Power to the people" should mean the ability to turn on an electric light, yet two-thirds of humanity are without this capability.
That is the situation as it stands today; 20 years from now it could be much worse. With an exceptional oil-cost scenario as supplies become scarcer, the developing world will cease to develop unless there is a long-term electrical power generation programme capable of operating in the early part of the 21st century. I mention that because it is quite possible that the energy plight of the less developed countries may have political implications for the industrial world over the next 20 years, in that there could be serious interruptions of supply to the West due to political pressures from Third World countries who see that they may not be able to develop because there are no oil-based products for them to develop with. If that were to be the case, the energy shortage of 20 years hence could be brought forward by at least 10 years.
Therefore, we have a series of questions which the Government should be in a position to answer today regarding an adequate and effective energy programme at the end of this century. Until those questions can be fully answered, I cannot see on what basis Her Majesty's Government intend to order replacement plant

71
for the Central Electricity Generating Board, whether it be nuclear or coal-fired plant.
I mentioned substitution earlier, and that is particularly relevant in the area of public transport. It is depressing to hear of rumours of projected closures of part of our rail system when, so far as I can see, it will possibly be the only means of satisfying the long-distance travel needs of the general public by the turn of the century. Therefore, will the Government categorically state that they do not intend to cut back railway investment, but intend to transfer more, not less, funds into the expansion and electrification of the entire system, so that the railways can be completely electrified by the year 2000? If the Government are not in a position to give that undertaking today, then we must first question their wisdom and then ask how the general public will be expected to move about the country as from the 1990s.
Secondly, can the noble Earl indicate whether he is putting aside any funds for a feasibility study of the electrification of the motorways by the year 2000? Again, we feel that this is an area that may need electrical power if the major road network system in this country is not to be fully utilised through a cutback in the volume of traffic for which it was originally designed.
Thirdly, can the Government indicate their plans for the electrification of urban transport systems? By the turn of the century diesel or petrol driven buses may be far too expensive to operate as a cheap method of public transport. Therefore, have Her Majesty's Government taken into consideration the extra power requirements needed to electrify all urban transport systems by the year 2000? At this stage I think it proper that I declare an interest, albeit a small one, in a specialist manufacturing company of current collection and electric traction equipment.
These are just a few examples in the transport section of where there appear to be no further plans for electrification at present, whereas if these policies are fully implemented, as I believe they must be sooner or later, there must occur before the end of the century a considerable increase in demand for electricity which has no connection with industrial or economic growth.
72
When the Government review their nuclear programme, will consideration perhaps be given to recommissioning some of the urban coal-fired power stations that are currently considered uneconomic by the CEGB? It occurs to me that the capital required to refurbish these stations in order to incorporate the new advances in the fluidised bed process of combustion, designed to burn urban rubbish as well as low grade coal, may be more economic for the country than investment in, say, one more nuclear power station. Would there not be an economic case for using these units to supply local towns or cities with domestic electrical power? In some cases these small urban power stations could be used effectively for combined heat and power systems, mainly because of their low transmission costs.
There could even be a case for these power stations, if they were so designed, to be run and operated separately from the CEGB, by the local authorities. For instance, I think that we have a test case as regards Battersea Power Station, which I understand is due to be shut down because it is considered uneconomic. But, based on what I said earlier, is it not possible to consider a new future for Battersea Power Station as being, say, managed by London Transport or the GLC in order to provide power to run an electrified urban transport system for London? Battersea Power Station also has—it may be inadequate but it does have it—a district heating system. That could equally well be refurbished and provide much benefit to the citizens of London for the future. It could also perhaps be refurbished with a fluidised bed system of combustion that could absorb a great deal of the rubbish that is collected from the streets of the inner city. I put that forward merely as a thought because I do not really want to see Battersea Power Station or other smaller urban power stations just left as monuments to an extinct power programme while we have to rely totally on a main centralised grid system with a nuclear or coal backup, it makes no difference which.
There is another point—and I think that this would be an opportunity for the noble Earl to clarify it—concerning the grid system. I understand that it is the policy of the CEGB to maintain a capacity

73
margin in excess of 28 per cent. However, the Government must be aware that that is not being maintained, as was indicated in a statement by Mr. Alex Eadie, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Energy, on 8th February this year, where he admitted that the peak demand in January of this year was 44·1 gigawatts, which was 79 per cent. of the declared output capacity of 55·8 gigawatts. The plant available at the time of peak demand was only 46·1 gigawatts, thus reducing the actual capacity margin, according to my calculations, to a mere 3·5 per cent. We believe that this is far from adequate and, therefore, must ask Her Majesty's Government what will be the anticipated capacity margin percentage during the peak demand period of January/February next year, and whether they would be able to confirm that the view expressed from some quarters that there is an excess electricity supply situation as of now is incorrect. Furthermore, what is the capacity margin calculated for the next 20 years, and does it allow for the increased uses of electricity in the substitution of electrical power for systems currently burning oil products?
As noble Lords are aware, there are a number of vested interests concerning the Government's choice of the type of power generation. Some of those are commercial, others are political and trade union interests, and some are environmental. I do not believe that, in the short time available for an Unstarred Question, there is time to go into the details. But, the concern from these Benches is that the basic arithmetic regarding the supply of electricity to this country allows for the anticipated substitution to which I have referred.
With regard to some of the other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I am sure that noble Lords will have seen Energy Commission Paper No. 6 produced by the Department of Energy and entitled Coal and Nuclear Power Station Costs. It is clear from the details given in that paper that there is a definite requirement for both coal and nuclear stations to produce electricity. The comparative costs, as shown in tables of profiles 1–4, indicate that there is not an excessive difference in cost per unit of electricity generated once the anticipated increased prices of coal and oil by the year 2000 have been properly costed.
74
Therefore, I feel that at this stage, whatever type of nuclear power station is finally incorporated into future energy programmes, it must first be proven to be safe both for the workers in it and for those who live near it. The safety factor should be considered before all other economic considerations of power generation with which this debate is concerned. Perhaps the Government can confirm when the noble Earl gives his reply, that the safety priority is being given the place it should have in the reorganisation of the nuclear industry and the Government's purchasing programme.
Finally—I raised this point on another occasion—can the noble Earl confirm that the possible dangers of the CO2, problem that I have raised on previous occasions in the House are being taken into consideration in the forming of future energy policies and in the choice of type of power stations? Have there been any further developments in this area? This has recently been referred to in the Press by the West German Government and Cabinet, who have expressed public concern about the amount of fossil fuel burning that may occur over the next 30 years and also concern about for the possible changes that could result in the weather. I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for asking a whole series of questions, but the point of this intervention is to ask the Government whether they themselves have asked these questions in the first place.
6 p.m.
Lord SHERFIELD: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the House for missing the first few minutes of this debate. I was sitting in a Committee in another place in a room which had inadequate information about what was going on in this House. I wish to take the occasion of the timely Question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to raise just two points arising on it. Therefore, I shall not add greatly to the number of questions which have already been thrown at the noble Earl who is to reply to the debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, there have been smoke signals which seem to herald an announcement of a new or fresh British nuclear programme. I hope that they are well-founded, because a great deal of time has been lost and firm decisions are overdue, But I submit

75
that an essential prerequisite of a successful programme is that the nuclear industry should have the organisation and capacity to undertake it. In the past—and it has been a sorry tale—the nuclear industry has either been overstretched or starved of work and has been kept in a continual state of uncertainty by shifts in Government policy or the absence of any policy at all.
My mind goes back to the 1950s when the nuclear programme was stepped up from two to five stations, and when five consortia were put into a competition which was wasteful of resources and, in effect, of doubtful value. The task of building five different designs with five different fuel elements was eventually successfully accomplished, but it took up the total available capacity and there was nothing to spare for marketing or for building prototypes other than the experimental fast reactor.
When the Magnox programme was completed there was a long period of dither during which the two—and there were then only two—American firms virtually collared the world market. When the advanced gas-cooled reactor system was finally selected no lessons had really been learned. There was again a competition and, again, three different designs were chosen. Meanwhile, the Atomic Energy Authority had been authorised to build the steam-generating heavy water reactor prototype. After this had been commissioned, the South of Scotland Electricity Board proposed to build a power station to this design, but although I believe—and the recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is probably better than mine on this case—that they received authority to proceed, in the end they did not obtain the resources to do so. In the event, the steam-generating heavy water reactor has, as a power station, been eliminated. It is a rather melancholy reflection that, had the South of Scotland Electricity Board been enabled to go ahead, we should now have a water reactor well on its way in construction.
Meanwhile, the nuclear industry was reorganised in 1974 on lines which do not seem to have worked out particularly well. Subsequently, two advanced gas-cooled reactors have been projected, again, I understand of rather different designs.
76
In practice, therefore, it is not, I think, much of an exaggeration to say that every single reactor in the British nuclear programme has been a one-off reactor. Meanwhile, the Americans, the Canadians and now the French have effectively standardised on one design.
It is also relevant to observe that in general the nuclear components of the stations and the fuel elements have given relatively little trouble, but the non-nuclear components—the blowers, the turbines, the heat exchangers and even the civil engineering—have at one time or another caused unacceptable difficulties and delays. Tonight I do not intend to debate the merits of different types of reactors. My concern is that the Government should satisfy themselves, before deciding on a programme, that the industry is organised so as to be able to carry it out, and especially that if they proceed with two reactor types rather than one, they should ensure that there are adequate design and engineering resources to cope with both of them. I hope, too, that they will bear in mind, when drawing up this programme, the resources required for a commercial fast reactor in the reasonably near future, because I agree with other noble Lords who have already spoken that there is an urgent need to press on with this project.
My second point is a different one, which has also been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, but it is just as important for the success of a nuclear programme as a well-organised industry. I refer to the activities of the various bodies which constitute the antinuclear lobby—though it sometimes looks more like a crusade—and the need to react to them. I do not want to discuss the domestic aspects of this question, which should properly include some analysis of the many strands of thought and opinion within this movement. But there is a European dimension to it, for it is one of the reasons for which the European nuclear programme is falling so far behind the target necessary to achieve the nuclear energy objectives set by the European Economic Commission for 1990. There is, indeed, a global dimension to it, for the lobbies in the United States have—admittedly with some assistance from the White House—temporarily brought the nuclear building programme there almost to a halt.

77
Inevitably, the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island has had an important impact in encouraging the anti-nuclear forces to redoubled effort. So it is worth pausing for a moment to consider this. I have only read summaries of the Kemeny Report on the incident which was recently delivered to President Carter. But the reports in the responsible Press may, I think, be taken as reliable. One from the Economist reads:
"The health effects were negligible. Nobody died or was seriously injured. The small doses of radiation vented as steam will not even add to the cancer risk of those affected, but there was anxiety and stress amongst the local population."
This incident was caused by an amazing concatenation of human errors, which one expects will he obviated in future by better operating procedures, but which nevertheless the reactor design was adequate to resist. In this country, I think one can he sure that the competence and vigilance of the Nuclear Inspectorate would prevent a similar situation arising. The incident has added fuel to the anti-nuclear campaign, but this is only one facet of the environmentalist obstruction of the development of all forms of energy production, which, in my judgment, is becoming an increasingly serious threat to an adequate supply of energy in 20 years' time.
On the nuclear aspect, I draw your Lordships' attention to the French case. The French organisation for the production of nuclear power is a simple one. The French Government is committed to a policy of generating 50 per cent. of the country's electricity supply from nuclear stations by 1985. The responsibility for the programme rests with the French Atomic Energy Commission: there is one customer, Electricité de France; there is one construction company called Framatome; and one reactor design. The French nation has, it seems, accepted the logic of a large nuclear power programme to cushion them against the lean years of the 1990s. What a contrast to this and other countries! It would be a Pollyanna who supposed that such a situation could now be brought about in this country or indeed in the United States. I need only refer to the objections in the United Kingdom to the opening up of new coalfields, or, in the United States, to oil prospecting off the Californian coast.
Tonight I only really want to make one point. It is that only a government can
78
give the lead and respond effectively to movements of this kind—strong, well-financed, emotionally committed, not in many cases well-informed, and not too ready to listen to argument. Sir Hermann Bondi, the Chief Scientist to the Department of Energy, in a recent symposium on this general subject, is quoted as having said:
"… with reference to the psychological roots of the difficult situation in which we find ourselves, the education of people in probability and statistics is totally insufficient. It is because of this that astrology is such a popular subject, and equally that it is very difficult to make our arguments heard."
One has only to enumerate the number of coal mining, chemical plant and similar disasters, with heavy loss of life, which have occurred in the world during and since the Three Mile Island accident, to illustrate the truth of that remark.
Sir Hermann went on to say that there seemed to be two areas where the public does not want probabilities, however small, but wants safety—in medicine and nuclear power. He was reminded of a remark about the Royal Commission on the Safety of Medicines; that its name was absurd. For either a substance was biologically inactive, in which case it would be safe but would not be a medicine, or it was biologically active, in which case it might be a medicine and assuredly not safe.
We are confronted here with a very complex and difficult situation. The environmentalist, in his well-meant efforts to make this world entirely safe for future generations, is only too likely to ensure for them a miserable life. The problem has been posed, much better than I can express it, in a recent publication, Thinking Through the Energy Problem, put out by the influential Committee for Economic Development in the United States. The report says inter alia:
"Environmental protection is often treated, officially as well as popularly, as an absolute—not as an economic choice, not as a correction applied to the price system, not even as part of the cost of our energy, but as a matter of regulatory standards and prohibitions to be judged and administered without compromise, sometimes as a kind of militant opposition to economic improvement and growth."
A little later on they say:
"… misconceiving the nature of environmental problems, mismanaging the regulatory process, failing to recognise that objectives have to be compared with costs and that environmental

79
values compete with other values, could double or more than double the environmental costs associated with energy. Policy errors of that magnitude should not be accepted as inevitable".
These pungent observations are directed at the situation in the United States, which is rather different from that in this country. But in this country we have analogous problems of environmentalism which, I believe, can only effectively be tackled at governmental level. These involve some difficult and probably unpopular decisions. Previous Governments have a rather poor track record in this respect, mainly, I suppose, for electoral reasons. The present Government have so far shown an unusual capacity for taking unpopular decisions, and I hope they will find it in them to apply the same determination to energy policy.
6.17 p.m.
The Earl of KINTORE: My Lords, I wish to talk really about only one aspect of this problem, the nuclear energy side of the question, and in that regard the fast reactor and the safety angle. I said a few words on this not very long ago. I should like to say now that I think there are 20,000 tons of uranium 238 lying in stock. The only way you can use that is in a fast reactor. It is fertile, and it is not fissile. Unless you put it into a fast reactor, how are you going to use it?
The other thing is this. Not only have you got that lying about, but you presumably have a certain amount of plutonium lying about. Whatever kind of reactor you use, a thermal reactor, you produce plutonium. You cannot help it. It is a by-product of the process. That is lying about or, I hope, locked up somewhere or other. However, it is available. Unless we are going to burn it up and use it in making electricity, it seems difficult to know what to do with it other than use it in nuclear weapons and the likes of that, which maybe is not all that possible or feasible.
When you come to the safety angle, it is recognised generally that the nuclear industry is the safest industry in the world. How much safer can you get than that? I do not really understand the difficulties that are in the way. I can say a little about that. I think it is the way it is put over. May I give an illustration
80
of that. I attended a protest meeting—I was not a protester; I was on the other side—where there was potential prospecting for uranium mining, in Banchory in Scotland, near where I live. One of the protesters said to the chap who was in charge and speaking for the electricity board, "Will you give me a written guarantee that, living 10 miles away from where you may or may not mine, if we let you go ahead, my son's chances of getting cancer will be no greater than they are already?" This chap gave an enormous number of figures and scientific explanations, which nobody understood, when all he had to say was, "I will willingly give you here and now a written guarantee, and I will sign it, that your son is much more likely to be struck by lightning than have an increased risk of getting cancer". The trouble is that the scientific people will not explain it in simple language. There is no point in having an enormous amount of science if people do not understand it. Obviously the scientists must deal with design and so on, but in putting it over to the public we have fallen down because it is hopeless to try to put the situation over to the public in a scientific manner.
It has not been stressed that apparently one requires a fuel processing plant in conjunction with a fast reactor and we are apparently now commissioning the first in the world, at Dounreay, of a size large enough to cope with the prototype fast reactor. The design may be the same, but it requires scaling up to about a 1,300 Mw size of station because that is the kind of station which will have to take over. If we do not do that, France, Italy, Germany, Holland and Belgium are all likely to show us a clean pair of heels. France started a 1,200 Mw station in 1977. I do not know how late they are or if they are late at all, but they reckon that in three years' time that station will be complete. It is essential to have operating experience with a station of that size; problems always arise when something is scaled up; and to imagine that it will be all right because all the experimental work has been done, so that all one needs to do is suddenly have a crash programme when one finds oneself in a jam and build five or six fast reactors, is just not "on".
In connection with safety, the American Three Mile Island type of accident would

81
not upset a fast reactor of the Dounreay type because they experimentally cut off the cooling circuit and it operated safely on 13 occasions without any circulating pumps running. Thus, even if it were left alone one would have this safety factor, and in some ways it is safer than an ordinary thermal reactor which, as I have said, has a magnificent safety record.
The necessity is to take the decision. Let us take the plunge and utilise what we have in hand—what we have in stock, one might say—which we cannot use in any other way, and perhaps let the argument rage as to which type of reactor one should develop—I hope it does not because we have now been at it for long enough. I could not agree more with the idea that one should back one's design and have not one-off but ten-off in series. That is the logical way of carrying out big engineering projects if one can, and that is what we should do. It is essential to take the decision and get on with it because the more difficult the technology the longer the lead-in times, and when the public inquiries and the rest have taken place the time is added to, and before the plants can be got running one finds oneself in a frightful hurry and then one is apt to cut corners, which must not happen in the nuclear energy field. All this is really caused by people in the environmental lobby and others who have some sort of horror of anything they do not understand. We must make a real endeavour to convince people that this is not the extreme danger they fear it is.
I live near Aberdeen and the background radiation from which we all suffer is double the value there compared to elsewhere in this country. Perhaps I am doubly stupid as anybody else, but I live there and it has had no effect on me. Around Aberdeen the radiation is double that around London. That is the sort of thing of which people should be made aware: the fact that infinitesimal additions are being talked about. The nuclear energy programme produces no CO2 because it is not burnt in that way and the amount of undesirable waste products produced by an ordinary oil or coal-fired power station is terrific by comparison; and that is another big point in favour of a nuclear programme.
Oil will be in short supply despite our North Sea oil. The price is going up
82
and coal is also getting more expensive, though certainly it is there. The availability of fossil fuels are subject to the hazards of democracy, something we should not ignore. I believe the case for getting on with the full-scale advanced fast reactor is so apparent that I hope and believe Her Majesty's Government will see it.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for raising this Question. I am also very grateful to all other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate for the way in which they seem to have agreed that the important task which lies before the Government is to get on with both a nuclear programme in order to meet our electricity needs for the future, and with educating the public at large as to the safety and the usefulness of this form of energy. I would submit that there has been a remarkable unanimity from all sides of the House on the need for nuclear energy to fill the energy gap which we all know is going to exist, and which is very nearly existing already. I think that it is accepted by everybody that some nuclear energy will he needed. Therefore if we are to embark upon a programme of nuclear power stations, it has to be a properly integrated programme for nuclear energy. In saying that, I would stress the importance of the fast reactor to any programme of nuclear energy embarked upon. The fact is that it is the water-moderated reactors, the magnox reactors, and the advanced gas-cooled reactors which produce the radioactive waste which has to be dealt with. It is the fast reactors which can deal with this waste. In fact the amount of radioactive waste produced by a fast breeder reactor over a period of time is so small that, if fully distilled down to its minimum size, it would probably amount to only a couple of breakfast cups full of undisposable waste in a year from a full-sized power station.
The amounts produced by other forms of nuclear reactor are quite large, and these large quantities of radioactive material, which cannot be burned in the existing types of nuclear reactor, can form the fuel for the fast breeder reactor and can then be further burnt up almost 10

83
destruction within it. This is a very important point which I feel the Government must teach the country at large about.
We have heard a great deal about safety. Nearly all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have stressed how safe nuclear energy is, what a high standard of safety exists within the nuclear industry. What they have perhaps not stressed is the very low standard of safety which exists in many other of our power industries. I travelled down today by car from Edinburgh. It was a beautiful day for a run down the A1. The whole countryside was clear, there was hardly a cloud in the sky. But there were a number of very curious clouds to be seen on every side, particularly as one drove through Yorkshire. These clouds seemed to be arising from a root in the soil. They were mushroom shaped, and they had thin stratus clouds spreading out from them at a thousand or two thousand feet up in the sky. Each one of them was arising from a coal-fired power station. As I travelled down the A1 I could see Ferrybridge for miles ahead, but as I got to Ferrybridge the sun was obscured; the sky was darkened; the light became yellow; the smell assailed my nostrils, even though I was inside a motor car, and I could see the moisture arising from the cooling towers and the coal chimneys, which were like enormous hypodermic syringes injecting pollution into the atmosphere.
The pollution that they were injecting into the atmosphere was highly radioactive. It was more radioactive than a full-scale fast breeder reactor would be allowed to be. It was pouring uranium out into the atmosphere. It was pouring out into the atmosphere radon, which is a highly toxic radioactive gas, at double the rate that would be allowed from any form of nuclear reactor. I ask Her Majesty's Government that, when they are considering the power programme for the future, they should also consider safety in regard to all other forms of power production and impose upon those forms standards of safety and cleanliness that are at least as good as those employed within the nuclear industry.
I do not think that there is going to be any dissent about the importance of the
84
nuclear option to this country in meeting our power needs in the future. But I believe that it is essential that we all also agree on the importance to this country of having our own strong nuclear industry and our own strong nuclear research. We must not leave the nuclear industry standing around undeveloped for so long that it becomes a lame duck through stiffness of the legs because it has simply been standing still. We must make sure that we press on and try to recapture the position in atomic research which we once held. We must make certain that we use our standards of safety and excellence, and not put ourselves in the position where we simply have to buy abroad because we have not developed any of our equipment to the point at which it can be used.
The last part of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is perhaps the most important part to which to get an answer. We should press the Government to tell us precisely what decisions they are going to make
"to ensure that the United Kingdom has an … effective energy programme at the end of the twentieth century and an appropriate nuclear industry of its own".
This is vitally important. As your Lordships know, I live in a part of the world where the nuclear industry is very important to us, so naturally I have an interest in it. I also have a knowledge that it is a good industry both to work in and to live beside. I do not actually work in it. I work at many matters that are close to the industry but none of them is necessarily connected with the Atomic Energy Authority. I know that it is a good neighbour and that it is being run by people with high scientific and ethical standards. I should like to ensure that the nuclear industry that we develop and use in this country is our own nuclear industry, one which is continuing these high standards of safety and ethics and the high standards of research which I have seen in Dounreay, my neighbour.
6.40 p.m.
Lord NOEL-BAKER: My Lords, I must begin by apologising profoundly for intervening in this debate, during the earlier stages of which, owing to circumstances over which I had no control, I was not able to be present. I must also apologise for my most discourteous attempt to intervene in the debate at a moment when I should not have done so.

85
I can only apologise to your Lordships by saying that the handicaps of being deaf, blind and crippled are very considerable, and I ask for indulgence as well as forgiveness.
I rise, my Lords, because I have the gravest doubts about the wisdom of developing the nuclear power industry in this country or elsewhere, and I should like to reinforce with all my ability what my noble friend said from the Opposition Front Bench about the necessity for the Government to put safety first. There are three unresolved safety problems. The power plants are not yet certainly safe from leaks of radioactivity. I was staying in the Valley of Buttermere when the big Windscale accident happened a number of years ago. In Buttermere we were safe because there were two lines of hills in between us and Windscale; but the danger in Windscale itself, and around there, was very considerable indeed. And assertions about the amount of radioactivity which escaped make it appear a very grave danger. Much later, only two years ago if I remember rightly, there was a leak of radioactivity from Windscale in an emission of water—an accident which the authorities there in fact did not report to the Government for a very considerable time. That is risk number one.
The second risk is the disposal of nuclear waste, and, with great respect to the noble Lord who spoke of it just now, I believe the risks and the future danger arising out of the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste are very considerable indeed. I consort a good deal with physicists who have been concerned with the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and they believe that this problem is as yet unsolved; and that, if it is solved, it may be extremely costly. No one has yet devised a method which will certainly guarantee future generations from the risks which nuclear waste may involve.
But, of course, by a great margin the risks of the explosion of a nuclear power plant are by far the greatest. Noble Lords have spoken of Harrisburg, of the Three Mile Island plant. What happened there was that for a long period of days there was a very real risk that an explosion would happen which would destroy the plant and would involve the loss, as was officially declared by the nuclear power
86
authorities of the United States, of 50,000 lives. Harrisburg does not stand alone. Two years before there was a near accident at Brown's Ferry plant in the United States, and when the emergency was over the managing director of Brown's Ferry declared that it was only by pure good fortune, by sheer luck, that there had not been a disaster in which, as in Harrisburg, 50,000 lives might have been lost.
It is all very well to talk of the risks and dangers of other forms of industry. In a debate in which I took part a year or two ago an authority who was in favour of nuclear power compared the risk of the loss of life with that of miners' lives in the coalmines. I used to have to deal with the loss of life in coalmines. Before the war it was very serious indeed, with the roof falling in on the miner in the gallery—a thousand lives a year; three deaths per working day. When the mines were nationalised it was still 600 a year—two lives a working day. The number of miners underground is now less than half what it was when the mines were nationalised. The loss of life per annum is now under 50; that is to say, a reduction of nearly 14 times compared to the reduction in manpower by a half. I submit to your Lordships that the risks of no other industry compare in any significant way with the risks of explosion, which can cause the enormous loss of life that might have happened at Harrisburg and Brown's Ferry.
The major point about those stories is that both near accidents were due to human errors. The noble Lord said that the human error which happens in the United States would not happen here. But why do we make such an assumption? The United States operators are very highly educated people. They are disciplined and drilled in all that is required to make the plant safe; and yet, within a period of two years, both in Harrisburg and at Brown's Ferry, the human error happened. I think this is the more significant and the more important because it is the plan of the nuclear industry to export nuclear plants to many other countries in the world, and particularly to Third World countries. But, surely, the chance that you could get personnel to work the nuclear plants in Third World countries sufficiently educated and sufficiently well-drilled to avoid human error is very much less good than it is in the

87
United States; and I submit that this factor of human error is one which should make the Government hesitate very much indeed.
Last week I was in Paris at a UNESCO "Roundtable" on nuclear problems. There were present two great physicists: Professor Isidor Rabi, who was one of the principal figures behind Oppenheimer when the first atomic bomb was made; and Professor Alfred Kastler of France, who is regarded as perhaps the leading physicist of his country. Both were extremely alarmed about the proliferation of nuclear power plants and the danger that that would mean the proliferation of nuclear weapons in a number of countries which do not now possess them. You cannot have a nuclear power plant without the risk that someone will misuse the product to make nuclear weapons. If there were no other reasons against the proliferation of nuclear power plants, I should regard the risk of proliferation of weapons as absolutely decisive.
I conclude what I have to say by quoting Alfred Kastler who said that he believes that the power of the future is not from nuclear plants; "the energy of the future is solar energy, unpolluting and inexhaustible". I believe that the Government would do well greatly to step up the research that we are now carrying out with solar energy. Three physicists to whom I attach the greatest importance, Professor Bernard Feld of MIT, Professor Joseph Rotblat and Alfred Kastler, are all agreed that the right plan for energy today is a crash programme on solar energy research.
6.51 p.m.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I wish to apologise for intervening in this debate. I did not intend to do so but, having listened to a number of extremely able speeches, I feel that some aspects of the problem have been strangely neglected—except for some allusions by the last speaker the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, who has not, however, developed them. I am speaking now of only one type of reactor, the fast breeder reactor. One aspect which has not been mentioned is that the future must belong to the fast breeder reactor for one simple reason: that any other type of reactor requires uranium ores of such richness that the
88
supply of them will last for only a very few years. If we want nuclear power to play a big role in power generation, we must use fast breeder reactors sooner or later because they are the only ones which are able to use low-grade uranium ores, the supply of which is ample and which lasts for thousands or tens of thousands of years.
Many speakers, among them the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, emphasised that fast breeder reactors have the advantage that they do not create much nuclear waste. That is true. But what was not mentioned is that they have the extreme disadvantage of producing as a by-product the material out of which nuclear bombs are made. I am not referring to the danger that there may be a nuclear explosion—
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord got it right. They consume plutonium. They may be made to produce some sort of plutonium; but it is not bomb-quality plutonium.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount and readily defer to him. I would not claim to have any sort of technical expertise in that field. I have heard various scientists speaking on the subject who urged that we should go into fast breeder reactors despite the very serious danger (which they recognise that they create) that the plutonium manufactured by these reactors could fall into unauthorised hands and that, with that aid, a nuclear bomb can be manufactured very easily in a back yard, so to speak. Once these reactors are available, it will be almost inevitable, as the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, has just said, that nuclear weapons can be manufactured by all sorts of Governments.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord was here when I spoke at the beginning of this debate, and therefore he should remember that I myself said that I thought the greatest danger of all was the possible use of plutonium by terrorists or some irresponsible powers. But I may point out to him, first, that the present system, the AGR and Magnox, produces a small quantity of plutonium now; and, secondly, that the fast breeder reactor (which uses plutonium as a fuel) can either use it all up

89
or produce some more. It can do either; so that, from the point of view to which the noble Lord referred, it has an advantage over the present generation.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I must admit that perhaps my attention was wandering or I was not here when he made these remarks. I did not know that he covered these points.
Noble Lords may remember that some time ago—quite some time before the accident at Three Mile Island occurred—the American Government brought the utmost pressure on the German Government to prevent the German Government from selling to Brazil the "Turnkey" system, meaning a fully equipped fast breeder reactor. The American Government at that time was extremely anxious that there should be international agreements on the subject of whether fast breeder reactors should or should not be produced and on what sort of safeguards should be introduced before individual countries go ahead with them. One conclusion that I would draw from that is that if it is true, as some speakers have said, that the French Government is having the whole of France studded with sufficient fast breeder reactors to cover 50 per cent. of its energy needs by 1985, and if the Germans and various other countries are to do the same, I cannot see the fact that we are also doing it or not doing it will make any substantial difference.
I do not see that the danger lies in the existence of these plants as such. I do not think the danger that quasi-legal, paramilitary organisations intent on upsetting the normal order will have power to overun these plants, get hold of the material and use it for blackmail by creating a nuclear bomb, is any greater, or as great, here compared to a number of countries in continental Europe—not to speak of Latin American countries and various other places. I do not feel that from that point of view it should weigh more heavily on our decision than on the decisions of other countries. But I feel that we ought to strive more strongly for an international agreement on these matters and that we should not indulge separately, by way of international competition, in forms of development of energy which make the world altogether too risky a place to live in. That is not
90
because of any explosions or dangers of the sort which most noble Lords have been speaking about, but simply because of the danger that they make the spread of manufacture of atomic weapons and their possession by untrustworthy groups of powers (I do not want to put it more precisely than that) so much greater than it now is. That is the point that I should be grateful for the noble Earl to cover in his speech.
7 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I think that this has been a most valuable debate on a subject that is of the first importance for the economic future of this country. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for putting down his Question, and for his lucid exposition of the issue. I congratulate him on the quality of the speeches that he has attracted. It is my general rule to try to wind up Unstarred Questions in something like 12 minutes. If I go a little over that tonight, it is because your Lordships have put very many and quite detailed points to me which I must try to answer as best I can. I am also grateful for the largely constructive and co-operative approach of the noble Lords from the two Front Benches opposite: the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the Opposition, and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for the Liberals.
The United Kingdom is an industrial trading nation that, despite a relatively deep-seated and problematic decline, still maintains living standards far higher than most of the world's. The Government want to see these standards maintained and improved. Without this the process through which economic benefits once the prerogative of a few, are becoming available to the many, would halt once and for all. The opportunities and limits of economic growth are inextricably linked to the supply of energy. We operate a mixed economy with regard to energy, and we have done so for years. We have coal, gas, oil and nuclear energy in principle. For the foreseeable future we shall be able to dispense with none of these. In a world faced with energy shortages or blockages of supply, nuclear power is vital. The United Kingdom's present and unlooked-for period of self-sufficiency in energy is not expected to last beyond

91
the 1980s. That is barely 10 more years. By the 1990s, our oil and gas supplies from the North Sea are expected to be declining sharply and we shall be facing a rapidly changing energy outlook. We are investing heavily in the coal industry—a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and others—to provide new and modern capacity for the 1990s, by which time many existing pits will be exhausted. If manpower considerations (which is really perhaps a polite way of saying "if pay demands") allow, we shall continue and accelerate that progress. I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that the same manpower points apply to the necessary development and progress in the transport industries.
We have given energy conservation a central place in our energy policy. The projections recently published by the Department of Energy assume that around 20 per cent. of final energy demand can be saved by the year 2000. This will in itself require a considerable effort, not to say some pain. In the present state of knowledge, it would be very risky to plan on the assumption that higher conservation savings will be completely achieved, though we must of course continue to try. Nor would it be sensible to assume that we are going to be saved by conservation alone. Alternative energy sources such as the wind, waves and sun —and the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, laid great stress on the latter—are being explored. Our spending in these areas has increased year by year, but progress in research of this kind depends less on the amount being spent than on the state of the technology itself, and these renewable energy sources are not expected to make a significant contribution before the end of the century.
Again, the end of the century is not so far away and we do not discount this contribution and we shall continue to try. The Department of Energy's projections for the year 2000 suggest that there will be a substantial gap between energy demand and indigenous supplies. That is after making allowances for substantial savings from conservation and for the full exploitation of our coal resources as well as a major expansion of nuclear power. It implies an energy import requirement that could be over 100 million tonnes of coal equivalent
92
at a time when oil supplies are expected to be becoming increasingly scarce and expensive on international markets. The cost to the balance of payments of meeting this requirement through imports could be between £2½ and £8½ billion. Of course, projections are just that, they are projections. Prudence and common sense suggest that they are unlikely to be very far wrong. At the Tokyo Summit the leaders of the West agreed that without the expansion of nuclear power, generating capacity, economic growth and higher employment would be hard to achieve. It would be entirely wrong to imagine that because of our present oil and gas resources this conclusion at Tokyo somehow did not apply to us.
As I have said, nuclear power is not a new development in this country. Our first full-scale nuclear power station, which as my noble friend pointed out, was also the first in the world, was opened in 1956, and since then we have commissioned 9 Magnox and 2 advanced gas-cooled (AGR) stations. Between them they already supply 12 per cent. of our electricity, the equivalent of consuming 7 million tonnes of oil at conventional power stations. Three stations from our first AGR programme are still under construction and they are due to come into operation in the early 1980s. Nuclear power will then be accounting for about 20 per cent. of our electricity, equivalent to burning some 14 million tonnes of oil at power stations, or about the output of a large North Sea field such as the Piper field.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and others, have referred to the recently published Kemeny Report on the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island (also referred to as Harrisburg) in the United States. It is understandable that this event has aroused great public concern. The Secretary of State for Energy has asked the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to provide an assessment of the implications of this report for the United Kingdom, and I understand that my right honourable friend will wish to publish this.
The safety record of our civil nuclear industry has been quite outstanding, and I agree on this point with my noble friend Lord Kintore. During 22 years of operation no accidents have occurred at commercial nuclear power stations that have

93
given rise to significant public hazard and we have no evidence that any injury has been caused by radiation from a nuclear power station in the United Kingdom.
In fact, the consequences of radiation were fairly well understood even 20 years ago, and there is probably no other area of industrial activity in which such a wealth of time, expertise and resources have been devoted to safety issues. I take the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that perhaps we may have emphasised nuclear safety even at the expense of other and quantifiably more urgent safety standards.
Our nuclear industry has not always received the full credit for its safety achievements. I think it is particularly important, now that the critics of nuclear power are searching for and receiving widespread publicity, that this safety record in this country and elsewhere should be fully recognised. In a dissenting view shared by the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor (though on another point that I shall come to), the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, mentioned Windscale. That raises a slightly different issue to the main thrust of the debate, which is not about the disposal of nuclear waste—I am prepared to deal with that if noble Lords wish—but the question of nuclear energy generation.
What is alarming is that the United Kingdom's nuclear industry, in spite of this record and in spite of our early lead in this area, has suffered from an absence of orders during most of the 1970s and from a long period of uncertainty about its organisation. The Government believe that it is crucial for the long-term health of our nuclear industry and our economy that the organisational issue should be resolved very soon. We have also confirmed the two AGR orders that were announced by the previous Government last year, and work has now started on both the Torness and Heysham sites.
In addition, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Nuclear Power Company are now actively exploring licensing arrangements for the construction of a pressurised water reactor in the United Kingdom. No arrangements have been made on licensing and of course the eventual construction of a pressurised water reactor here would be unthinkable
94
unless the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate were fully satisfied about its safety. I would much rather put it that way than simply say "unless the Government were fully satisfied"—though of course the Government likewise would have to be fully satisfied.
No further orders for nuclear power stations have been announced and recent Press reports on this point have been speculative. But let there be no doubt that it is the Government's view that nuclear orders will need to continue if we are to have a realistic long-term policy for meeting our energy needs. Our oil bonanza would prove a curse, not a blessing, if we used its relative easing of energy supply difficulties to put off a process that others like France are not postponing. Without the prospect of the widespread adoption of the fast reactor, shortages of natural uranium could begin to constrain nuclear power station ordering beyond the end of the next decade. The case for the fast reactor rests on its ability to make use of plutonium and depleted uranium, which are the byproducts of thermal reactors.
The prototype fast reactor which has been operating at Dounreay since 1975 means that the United Kingdom has an important international position in fast reactor technology. The last Government invited the Atomic Energy Authority and the nuclear and electricity supply industries to consider the options for fast reactor policy and to make proposals to Ministers. The main issues are whether we should go ahead with the construction of a full-scale commercial demonstration fast reactor and the scope for possible international collaboration. We will need to consider the next steps when this report has been made, but any decision to build a CDFR in the United Kingdom would be subject to a full and thorough public inquiry. The United Kingdom is also the host to the Joint European Torus, the large-scale European Community research project on nuclear fusion. This is, of course, a project which looks even further into the future, and probably well into the next century, at any rate so far as commercial development is concerned.
Let me deal as concisely as I can with some of the individual points that have been put to me. My noble friend Lord

95
Campbell asked about the fast reactor and the need for a public inquiry and I think I have answered that in the substance of my speech. We have made it clear that any decisions in this area would be subject to a full public inquiry.
I am glad, too, that my noble friend raised the role of nuclear power in Scotland. That was something of a theme in this debate, with contributions from Scotland made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and my noble friend Lord Kintore. Whether one is looking at the technological frontiers that I have mentioned or at commercial and economic aspects, Scotland has some of the most important nuclear installations in the Kingdom. I have in mind, of course, the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay which I have mentioned, where the Prime Minister in September reopened a reprocessing plant that is the first of its kind in the world. But probably no less significant than the developments at Dounreay has been the performance of the Hunterston A Magnox station, built in 1964, which was cited in Nuclear Engineering earlier this year as having achieved an 85 per cent. life-time load factor—higher than any other station in the Western world. This station, together with the much larger Hunterston B Advanced Gas Reactor and British Nuclear Fuels plant at Chapelcross, generated over 20 per cent. of the electricity consumed in Scotland in 1978 and 1979.
I do want to get across that we are not talking about a future nuclear industry in this country: we have one at the moment. We are talking about its development. A start has now been made on the new AGR at Torness, announced by the previous Government last year, which is a thoroughly topical issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked about the role of the coal industry and I have had something to say about that already. Nuclear power stations that are being considered now will not of course be operating until close to the next decade; so, by the 1990s, as oil and gas become increasingly scarce and expensive, we expect new markets to be opening for coal in certain uses—such as in industrial boilers—where in our view it will become increasingly competitive. In addition, coal may well be needed for the manu-
96
facture of substitute natural gas. That point was also raised although I cannot without notice say exactly what level the research on that has reached at the moment. The general picture is that less coal will be available for electricity generation, and nuclear power will be needed, in our view, to fill the gap.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, also asked about the use of reactors of the Canadian type in the United Kingdom. Of course the steam-generating heavy-water reactor—a type in some ways similar to the Canadian reactor—was considered for the United Kingdom. But in January 1978 the previous Government announced that on the unanimous advice of all concerned it should not be adopted for the next power station orders. The then Government also decided to discontinue work on it; and that remains our position.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, argued persuasively that by the year 2000 there would be increased demand for electricity and he laid particular stress on the transport industries. Yet, in spite of this emphasis, he felt that the Government still needed to prove the case for the nuclear industry. He also raised some rather detailed points. I will deal with them as best I can, but, if I do not pick up all of them, perhaps I may read through Hansard tomorrow, pick them out and write to the noble Lord. As I have said, he referred to the electrification of transport. I would need notice in order to reply in detail to him, but I can say that the Central Electricity Generating Board believe that the nuclear capacity now under construction that was announced last year is needed to meet electricity demands by the late 1980s, without envisaging any change in their planning margin.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, treated us to a very clear analysis of the lessons of the past and where we have gone wrong. I certainly agree with him that we have got to get the right organisational structure, and get it soon. I know that my right honourable friend is working with great speed to this end. He mentioned the Kemeny Report, and I have had something already to say about that. I would myself welcome the noble Lord's testimonies to the quality of the Nuclear Inspectorate and I should like to echo them. He said there would be difficult

97
and unpopular decisions for Government in this area. I personally believe that if inflation is the great issue of the 'seventies. So if we get that under control, the question of the expansion of nuclear energy may be the leading political concern of the 1980s.
The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, referred to the problems of disposal of highly active nuclear waste. It is a detailed subject and I cannot spend long on it, but perhaps I can give him some consolation by these remarks. A large scale research programme is in progress to find an acceptable way to dispose of highly active nuclear wastes. A method of converting highly active waste in glass blocks—called vitrification—has been developed and proven on a pilot scale, and a demonstration vitrification plant is planned to be in operation by the late 'eighties. The Government consider that there are three feasible options for the disposal of the containers of this vitrified waste—in stable formations on land, on the bed of the deep ocean and under the seabed. Our view is that none of these options should be ruled out at this stage.
Several noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, raised the question of the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons, arising from the generation of nuclear power. My own instinct is that certain limited nuclear weapons are well within the capacity of even quite minor industrial countries at the moment. But since the earliest days of nuclear power, the danger that the spread of civil nuclear programmes might increase the possibilities for other countries to obtain weapons has been recognised, and I cannot pretend that the risks can be completely eliminated. Our aim is, and must remain, to reduce them to a minimum and they have to be balanced against the benefits of the peaceful use of nuclear power.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, about the importance of considerable international effort here. It has been, and continues to be, devoted to minimising the risks of proliferation and the United Kingdom continues to play a full part in them. We have signed the non-proliferation treaty and agreed to detailed inspection of our civil nuclear activities, as part of the International Atomic Energy Agency's system of safe
98
guards. The United Kingdom also plays a full part in the international fuel cycle evaluation, which was launched in October 1977, to find ways of reconciling the widespread development of nuclear power with the proliferation risks. The United Kingdom chairs the Nuclear Supplies Group, which has established guidelines on the conditions to be attached to the export of all nuclear materials and technology, and we have agreed on restraints in the transfer of highly sensitive technology. In the final analysis, the decision to build nuclear weapons is political and the best way of reducing the risk of proliferation is to work for stability in international relations. But I acknowledge that technical and institutional barriers can make an important contribution.
As many noble Lords have said, the nuclear industry has come under increasingly intense scrutiny from the Press and from anti-nuclear groups in recent years, and of course it is right that the issue should be fully and publicly debated. But I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend, that those whom he graphically called nuclear scaremongers must not be encouraged to develop a vested interest—an industry, so to speak—out of the kinds of public fear and anxiety which, in my view, are psychologically located not in nuclear power stations, but in nuclear bombs and the tragic dawn of our nuclear age in 1945. The Government believe that we must take a positive attitude towards the future development of nuclear power, and ensure that its inevitable links with growth in the economy give it the priority which it deserves.
I hope that what I have said this evening will give the House a distinct view of the Government's commitment to the continued development of nuclear energy. Your Lordships will not expect me this evening to itemise a programme of development in anticipation of any announcement by the Secretary of State for Energy in another place. For the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said, we shall have to watch patiently the smoke signals as they arise. But I did, yesterday, have a long and detailed conversation with the Secretary of State about this debate, and I can guarantee that what has been said will be studied by my right honourable friend himself.

99
I myself shall, of course, tackle the industrial and employment-manpower implications of the debate within my own department.
Lord NOEL-BAKER: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he say a word about research on solar energy?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I did make some remarks about solar energy, so may I refer the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, to the text? I agree that there should be an expansion of research, and this has continued. But our advice is that even if we are luckier than we dare hope, we shall still need a nuclear programme.

SEVERN-TRENT WATER AUTHORITY BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.