Lords Sitting of 1 August 1980

Preamble
(Sitting in the Royal Gallery)
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of London.

ROYAL ASSENT
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Employment Act,

Magistrates' Courts Act,

Education (Scotland) Act,

Water (Scotland) Act,

Solicitors (Scotland) Act,

Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act,

Finance Act,

Breasclete Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

British Railways Order Confirmation Act,

Greater London Council (Money) Act,

Salvation Army Act,

Falmouth Container Terminal Act,

London Transport Act.

ISRAELI GOVERNMENT: EAST JERUSALEM
11.7 a.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to recognise the transference of the Israeli Prime Minister's office to East Jerusalem.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, British Governments have taken the view since the 1967 conflict that Israel's rights in East Jerusalem do not extend beyond those of an occupying power, pending an agreed solution on the
1178
city's future. It follows that we do not accept that Israel has the right to establish government offices there.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that many of us are deeply concerned about the future of Israel? I went there years ago and described it as the most socio-democratic country that I have visited. We are deeply concerned about its isolation now in the world from the United Nations and from the European Community. Can the noble and learned Lord say whether it is true that America has declined to recognise this new office in East Jerusalem, and are not European countries likely to do the same?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, of course I am aware of the concern of all right-minded people about the state of the Holy Land. Those of us who are friendly to Israel—and I hope that they are the enormous majority—are concerned about her diplomatic position. But, as regards the specific question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I think that I am right in saying that the new office, to which he has referred, is not yet there. I understand that the United States has adopted a similar stance to ours about existing events, and so have our European partners, in the main, as evinced by the Venice Conference. I think that the question of the new office is still hypothetical.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that all these issues, including that of the future of Jerusalem, cannot finally be settled except by mutual agreement at a properly convened and representative conference to deal with the future of the area? Secondly, does he agree that attendance at such a conference must obviously depend, as the noble and learned Lord himself said here yesterday, on the total abrogation by any individual or organisation of the intention to destroy another member of that projected conference?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that as usual I find myself in entire agreement with the noble Lord.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, when this matter is being considered will the Government be good enough to approach it with the knowledge, first, that as regards the re-establishment of the Jewish state, Jerusalem was the capital, and for 1,000 years had observed the highest regard and protection for other religions, and that Jerusalem was the town which was saved by Jewish martyrdom for the benefit of monotheism? Will they also take into account what happened when Jerusalem was in other hands? Did we or did anyone protest, other than the Jewish bodies themselves, when Jews were not allowed into Jerusalem for 19 years after another Government had taken it over without anyone's consent? In those circumstances, has Europe really a right to interfere in a matter which is to be considered between the authorities who have dealt with Camp David, which has been so very sadly underestimated by us all?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Janner—whose steadfastness in stating his point of view is, I think, the subject of admiration of all of us—has raised a number of rather different matters. I rejoiced at Camp David, and I would be sorry to see any action taken on either side which jeopardised what was achieved there. I think that matters have not gone as well in recent weeks as some of us had hoped. It is, of course, true that the Jewish population of Israel suffered indignities of an intolerable kind during the 19 years to which the noble Lord referred. I think that during that period of time the British Government adopted a stance in relation to the then occupying power similar to that which we now adopt with regard to the present occupying power. I do not think that anyone is more conscious than I of the Jewish feelings towards Jerusalem. The noble Lord has movingly expressed them on a number of occasions.
I remember that last week the noble Lord referred us to Psalm 122. I remember the words with which that psalm ends, and I happen to have quoted them on Mount Skopos when I had the honour of delivering a lecture on English legal subjects at the Hebrew University. The psalmist said:
"O pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
they shall prosper that love thee.
1180
Peace be within thy walls; and plenteousness within thy palaces.
For my brethren and companions' sakes … I will seek to do thee good".
I do not think that I can better that by way of a supplementary answer.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the manner in which he approaches this. I shall not enter into a biblical dissertation at present. However, does the House realise what all this means to Jewish people? Does it realise that when the soldiers entered Jerusalem the first thing they did was to go to the walls of the temple to pray? During the whole period in which Jerusalem was the capital of the Israeli state, every religion has been most scrupulously cared for. In those circumstances, is anyone surprised that an attack of this sort is justifiable when they consider Jerusalem to be the capital?
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Lord JANNER: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, I am bound to say—it may be bad timing—that I think it is right.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is going a little beyond our bounds of order. Could he come to the climax of his question?
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I just—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can only deal with one supplementary question at a time. I think that the whole House realises the depth of feeling that prompts the noble Lord, Lord Janner, in these matters and is probably prepared to make allowances for that feeling in applying its rules of order. The noble Lord expressed the very deep feelings which Jews have towards Jerusalem. He was quite right in his earlier supplementary question to refer to the fact that the monotheistic religions of the world—which include Islam and, if I may say so in the presence of the right reverend Prelate, my own religion too—are due, of course, to the inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures and to the frequent martyrdoms of the Jewish people.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this matter, but can the noble and learned Lord say whether it is not the case that the main difficulty behind this problem is the fear that the Palestinians wish to destroy Israel? Has he seen the interview with the leader of the PLO this morning denying that that is his attitude and saying that he is quite prepared to enter into negotiations?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did read the press reports this morning, but of course one does not entirely found one's political views on the press reports of a single morning. I think that I had better be a little careful about that, but if it be true, I am very glad indeed that a number of Arabs—and I know that there are a number of such Arabs—recognise the right of Israel to exist; because the destruction of a member of the United Nations would deal a blow to world peace which would not stop at the Holy Land; it would undermine the whole fabric of international law.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should like briefly to ask a question. Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that there are many Jews—and I am one of them—who do not approve of the settlements that have been set up by the Prime Minister, Mr. Begin? Is the noble and learned Lord also aware that, despite what my noble friend Lord Brockway said about the policy of the PLO, in their covenant they have the destruction of Israel stated clearly? Unless they take that out of their covenant there will be no peace in the Middle East.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that the role of Britain, as one now happily of the Nine, is to attempt to instil into the warring hearts of people who are deeply stirred by this question a love of peace. By my answers I have tried to do that. I do not want to go much further than that. Of course what Mr. Begin does is no doubt a matter of dispute inside Israel and it is also a matter of dispute outside Israel, but I would far rather not respond to that part of the supplementary in the way that Mr. Begin responded to my noble friend Lord Carrington the other day.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask whether any Government have as yet announced their intention to recognise the transfer of the seat of government of Israel to Jerusalem, and whether there is any prospect that any Government will?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I would have to have notice of that, but I think none of the Governments with whom we are in closest touch has done so, but I would rather leave that to a Question on notice.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask one very brief question to the noble and learned Lord, which is simply whether Her Majesty's Government realise, as I think they do, that the Jews alone, the Israelis, can give freedom to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians alone can give security to the state of Israel; and that unless and until they both do just this, there can be no hope for peace in the Middle East?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I thought that that was the object of the Camp David agreements in which our friends and allies in the United States played such a notable part. I hope that it will be recognised that both peace and security are interdependent.

JURY VETTING
11.23 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to repeat, with your Lordships' permission, a Statement which my right honourable friend the Attorney-General has made this morning in another place on the subject of jury checks. The Statement is as follows:
"I have now completed the review, which I have been carrying out over recent months in consultation with the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Director of Public Prosecutions, of the arrangements whereby jury checks are carried out in a limited number of cases under the guidelines laid down by my predecessor. In reaching my conclusions I have taken account of the recent judgments of the Court of Appeal, particularly that in the case of R v. Mason. A copy of the revised guidelines

1183
which I propose to issue has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
"The existing law provides, as it has for over 600 years, and rightly in my view, that the parties to any jury trial may inspect a copy of the panel from which the jury in their trial will be chosen, and there is no legal restriction on the use which may be made of this information. It has been accepted by the courts that the objects of this provision were to enable the parties to inquire about the members of the panel and to decide whether any should be challenged. I have also taken into account that, although the selection of those who are summoned for jury service from among those qualified and the final selection of those who are called to serve on a particular jury must be random, both parties to criminal proceedings have the right to object to a juror called to serve, the exercise of which inevitably limits the truly random nature of the jury which eventually tries the case.
"A distinction must be drawn between checks to which my guidelines refer—namely, checks on the Records of Police Special Branches—and checks of criminal records which may be made for the primary purpose of preventing persons who are disqualified by reason of their previous convictions from sitting on a jury. It is a criminal offence for a disqualified person knowingly to serve on a jury and a check of criminal records of the members of a panel is a matter for the police. That was recognised by the Court of Appeal in R v. Mason as a proper thing to be done. The Association of Chief Police Officers, after discussions with the Home Office, is making recommendations to its members as to the circumstances and procedures relating to checks on criminal records, and these will be annexed to my guidelines.
"The checks, which for convenience I shall refer to as 'authorised checks' and to which my guidelines refer, are checks which go beyond criminal records and for purposes wider than the mere discovery of previous convictions. I consider that it is in the public interest that the prosecution should continue to make use of its right to make inquiries about a jury panel with a view to exercising its right to stand by a potential
1184
juror. The practice, however, should not be unlimited and I therefore endorse the general principles of the previous guidelines, which were self-imposed restraints on the part of the Director as prosecutor.
"Experience, recent observations of the Court of Appeal and a keen public interest in the subject have nevertheless caused me to make some revisions to the guidelines. The most significant are as follows:—

(i) No check on the Records of Police Special Branches will be made except on my authority "—

that is, of course, my right honourable friend—

"following a recommendation from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(ii) Except in terrorist cases such checks will not be authorised in cases involving so-called strong political motives.

(iii) In cases involving security, such as under the Official Secrets Act, such checks will only be authorised when national security is involved and it is expected that the Court will be asked to sit in camera.

(iv) In no other type of case will such checks be authorised.

(v) Except where and in so far as it may be necessary to confirm the identity of a member of the panel against whom the initial checks raised doubts, checks will not be made which go beyond checks on criminal records or those of Police Special Branches.

(vi) All parties to proceedings have a statutory right of access to inspect the jury panel under Section 5(2) of the Juries Act 1974. Therefore the judge's authority for access is not required and will not be sought. However, the judge and defence counsel will be informed when a check has been authorised.

(vii) The result of an authorised check will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The director will then decide, having regard to the provisions of the guidelines, what information ought to be brought to the attention of prosecuting counsel.

(viii) Records will be kept by the Director of Public Prosecutions which

1185
I will see and thus be able to monitor the operation of the guidelines".—

the first person singular is, of course, my right honourable friend—
"I have recognised that the defence may have a particular reason to wish to have the panel checked for disqualified persons or to seek assistance in obtaining information relative to its right of peremptory challenge but has no access to the information available to the Crown. It is also my view that the courts have no jurisdiction to order the police to reveal information on their records relating to jurors. Accordingly, in cases which would fall within my guidelines, I will he prepared to consider a request made by defence counsel through the director for assistance in obtaining information. I understand that chief constables, on the general recommendation of their association, will be prepared to consider a request relating to checks on criminal records if approved by the director. In both cases the results of any check undertaken will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions who will treat them in accordance with my guidelines. The intention of this proposal is merely to assist the defence and not in any way to restrict the right of the defendant to inspect the panel and to take such action as is lawful".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement, but it may be helpful to your Lordships to know that I have caused a copy of my right honourable friend's guidelines to be placed in the Library of this House as well.
11.32 a.m.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, while we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord for this morning reading this lengthy Statement of the Attorney-General, I really must make some protest about what is taking place. This is a tremendously important Statement; that it should come before this House on a Friday morning is really intolerable. There are many of my friends in the legal profession who would greatly have liked to be here. I think, for instance, of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others. I, myself, saw the Statement for the first time at five minutes to eleven this morning. This is no way to treat this House. I do
1186
protest most strongly. This is a very important Statement governing a vital aspect of the civil liberties of this country; namely, the right to trial by jury. "The palladium of our liberties" and all sorts of other noble phrases have been applied to it through the generations. In particular, there has been a great deal of concern about the nature and extent of jury vetting.
I should like to ask a number of questions. What troubles me is this. This Statement calls for a debate, and unfortunately I see little prospect of that being possible within the coming week. But I do give notice that we shall need to return to this in detail and with care as soon as the House resumes in October. In the meantime, I must ask the noble and learned Lord what consultations took place before the preparation of this Statement. What consultations took place with the legal profession, with the Bar, with the criminal Bar, with the solicitors, with the various bodies intimately concerned—the National Council for Civil Liberties and other bodies? The Statement itself speaks only of consultation with the Home Secretary, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—which, of course, I appreciate —and the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is no clue to consultation outwith the Government departments themselves, and if that is in fact the position I find it highly unsatisfactory.
I come now to the points of detail. I do not know whether noble Lords who have been listening to the Statement have been able to come to a conclusion that the outcome of all this is going to be more or less jury vetting; it is not clear, and we shall need time to consider it. As I understand it, the basic principle that selection of the jury must be a random selection remains; but when one comes to consider, for instance, what has been done by chief police officers, there has been a certain lack of uniformity in what they have regarded it as proper for them to do. I hope that the references to decisions of the Association of Chief Police Officers will establish uniformity of practice and conformity with the guidelines.
We are, of course, grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for saying that he has put the guidelines

1187
in the Library, but they were not there when we arrived this morning; at least I have not had an opportunity of seeing them. So I really find myself embarrassed on this occasion in dealing with the Statement, and accordingly I must reserve our position on this side of the House in regard to what is proposed. There is an indication, which I welcome, that defence counsel are to be informed and to be assisted in various ways; we shall have to see how that operates. Am I to understand from the Statement that these new guidelines will operate forthwith, before Parliament has had a further opportunity of considering them? That, again, I would not regard as wholly satisfactory, and I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would assist us in dealing with a situation which this morning I have found, frankly, quite intolerable.
11.36 a.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating this Statement, may I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in asking the noble and learned Lord whether he does not agree that Friday morning is not really, at short notice, the most convenient time at which to marshal the kind of advice necessary in order to deal with a Statement of such immense importance as this? The noble and learned Lord will realise that we shall wish to study this Statement very carefully. In the meantime, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are noble Lords on these Benches who take the view that we weakened our jury system somewhat by introducing systems of majority verdicts? Thus we welcome this Statement in so far as it makes clear that we will not weaken the jury system further by jury vetting, save in cases in which national security is involved. May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether we will have an opportunity of considering these matters in much more detail at a later stage when we have had more warning?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for the expressions of thanks from the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord. If he will forgive my saying so, I think the noble and
1188
learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—and he knows with what respect and affection he is regarded by my colleagues and myself—was a little unreasonable in his criticism of Friday morning The custom of Parliament is that Statements are made in the House of which the responsible Minister is a Member. When, as is more frequently the case, the House concerned is the House of Commons, it is their usual channels and their convenience which are studied primarily, just as, when my noble friend the Foreign Secretary makes a Statement here, it is his ability to attend and to deliver a Statement in the first place which are normally considered.
Like myself, the noble and learned Lord has been a Member of the other place. He knows that, although it is true that there are distinguished Members of this House who are members of the legal profession and who would wish to be present on an occasion like this, there are far more such members, including my son, who are Members of the other place. These are matters which doubtless were considered through the usual channels of another place when that place designated this particular Statement for a Friday morning. I am sure that, at the end of a session which is heavily loaded and sometimes when tempers rise rather high, all these matters were taken into consideration when the Statement was made.
If I may venture a personal opinion, when the noble and learned Lord consults the guidelines, which of course are the key to the whole matter, he will realise that, in the nature of things, this Statement cannot be really penetrated and discussed in detail; there are many pages with their annexes of closely-typed foolscap, and what the House, I imagine, will want to do, and what I imagine another place will want to do, is to study them carefully and then consider what further comments require to be made. The guidelines, which have no legal force at all, will, I hope, be followed from now onwards, hut both Houses if they desire a debate, which I imagine they will, will have an opportunity to debate them.
As regards consultations, I think my noble and learned friend has pursued the correct course. The matter is far too detailed and urgent to require consultations in that sense, while criminal trials

1189
are going on every morning, and what will be required is a careful consideration by both branches of the legal profession as to the implications, and their comments and those of the press will naturally be taken into consideration. But, until the matter is fully exposed to the public gaze and not subjected to leaks, which are the inevitable accompaniment of prolonged discussion internally, I think publicity and open government demand publication at the earliest possible moment, and of course criticisms will be made.
I do not understand why the noble and learned Lord asks whether more or less vetting will take place as a result of the guidelines; I should have thought it was obvious that the answer was less. I can only attribute the question to the fact that he has, quite rightly, complained that he has had very little opportunity to study the matter in detail. I agree with him that what one wants is uniformity of practice, but once one is given the fact, first of all, that the courts have a limited jurisdiction in this matter and that both parties in every prosecution, some of which are private prosecutions, have the right by statute to inspect the panel—which derives from a statute of 1974, so it has recently been considered by Parliament, but which has an honourable tradition of no less than 600 years behind it; I think it was first introduced into England in 1368 or something of that order—then one must realise that one can proceed, unless one is going to alter the substantive law, only by guidelines and that the essence of there being guidelines is that absolute uniformity cannot be imposed.
The noble Lord from the Liberal Benches, Lord Winstanley, associated himself with the noble and learned Lord's protest about a Friday morning, and I can understand that he himself was in a particular difficulty in the matter because I have no doubt that the Liberal Party would have liked to have seen the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his place, and so should I, but I have already dealt with that and I shall not repeat myself. I do not share his view that the jury system was weakened by the introduction by Mr. Jenkins of majority verdicts. I supported Mr. Jenkins throughout in another place in his desire to do so, and I must remind the noble and Liberal Lord that majority verdicts of acquittal have saved a number of people from
1190
being subjected to a second trial; and the public annoyance caused by the existence of the "oddball" who happens to exist on a panel of 12—or in Scotland a panel of 15 where they have majority verdicts of eight to seven—and who can subject both parties to costs amounting to tens of thousands of pounds if a trial aborts by reason of a disagreement. That is a very real evil, the extent of which is, I think, underestimated.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I do not think the Statement had anything to do with majority verdicts, so I will not deal with that issue, but I confess to a sense of dissatisfaction with the noble and learned Lord's reply. This decision of the Government involves immediate action. As I understand it, these arrangements will apply from now on and, as I further understand, there has been no consultation outside Government departments. I find this a curious form of consultation—Executive action first, consultation afterwards—which is the cart before the horse in our understanding of what open government could indicate. Certainly there will now be careful examination, and of course it will be the duty of the Government to hear and consider whatever representations may hereafter flow. This matter has been on le tapis for month after month and the plea of urgency, with great respect, is not convincing in those circumstances. Certainly there should be a decision and it is right that one should be made.
I am not now going into the detail of the examination of the pluses and minuses of these proposals in regard to the practice of jury vetting, but we shall have to go into them very carefully. I must, however, repeat my feeling that on this crucially important aspect of the administration of justice, this has not been a satisfactory way of dealing with the matters involved. I have not had an opportunity, for instance, of discussing it with the Shadow Home Secretary in another place. That opportunity was not available in the circumstances. All I can now say, apart from protesting, is that we shall return to this subject as soon as may be.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I believe the noble and learned Lord has the wrong end of the stick here.

1191
This is not Executive action; this is a guideline which imposes further restrictions in the interest of human liberty—by way of guideline and not Executive action—as from now on. In other words, it is an enlargement of liberty and not a restriction of it, and it is not Executive action. lf, like Alice in Wonderland, one was saying, "Execution first, evidence later", I would see the force of the noble and learned Lord's protest in that respect, but I do not think it is fair. And I would add that I do not think his other criticism is fair, either. It is true that this is an extremely complex and difficult matter and that it has been protracted for a very long time. That is an argument in favour of urgency and not an argument against it.
I quite understand that the matter requires further consideration and I am sure the House will give it, but to have withheld over the long Recess an enlargement of human liberty on the basis that it is called Executive action is, I believe, a complete misconception of the situation. I hope the noble and learned Lord will realise that I am not intending to express a harsh criticism of what he said; I am simply expressing my personal disagreement.
11.50 a.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I agreed in the main with every word my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones said on this matter and with his protest, although I disagreed with him in what he said about majority verdicts, although it is a question of the manner in which majority verdicts were introduced. It appeared to me to throw away the basic principle of British justice in the administering of the criminal law, without adequate opportunity for discussion. Mr. Jenkins (as the noble and learned Lord quite properly refers to him) called in their absence the evidence of unnamed judges who were alleged strongly to approve of this innovation after several hundred years.
I have previously suggested—and my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has expressed that prompt disagreement that I usually encounter from my legal friends—that there is growing evidence that the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions has increased, is
1192
increasing, and ought to be diminished. It was never intended that the staff and the organisation of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be large enough or influential enough to undertake so many duties and so vast an increase in the number of cases.
I do not often intervene. This is the first time that I have intervened on a question in the Royal Gallery, although I made a brief speech last night. I am speaking about something which has greatly affected my heart during the past few years. There must be opportunity for the fullest consultation before there are taken innovatory steps which weaken the situation or which lead to the possibility of more disagreement.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord began by saying that he agreed with every word of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and then proceeded to disagree with what seemed to me to be the one unexceptionable statement that the noble Lord had made; namely, that we were not debating majority verdicts. Since the new proposals, whatever they may be, and whatever their merits, will not alter the powers of the Director of Public Prosecution, I do not see the relevance of what the noble Lord says on that point.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the making of this Statement today will be greatly welcomed by all concerned with the administration of the criminal law, and that they might have had reason to complain had the Statement been delayed until the re-assembly of the House of Commons on 27th October?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, and I entirely agree with what he says.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, whom I respect very highly and with whose views I most frequently agree. But it is not quite a question of the material itself; we do not know what that material is. I speak as a solicitor of 60 years standing. I wish to ask a question not only in my personal capacity, but also as an officer of the solicitors' group in both Houses. Does the noble

1193
and learned Lord Chancellor realise that this matter has been before us for 60 years, in my experience at any rate? We would be very anxious to use the proposal, but we cannot possibly do anything about it until it appears in the Library. Since we are meeting next week surely an opportunity should be taken after the proposal has been deposited in the Library for those of use who are very deeply interested in this problem to have a look at it. We may entirely agree with it; I do not know, because, first, we cannot hear very easily in this Chamber. Secondly, we must have an opportunity to see what it is all about, so that at least we can either approve it, or make some comment about it. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will realise our difficulty in that regard.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the use of the House's time is not a matter for me. I do not see my noble friend the Leader of the House in his place, but I see the Chief Whip present and no doubt he will convey the feelings of the noble Lord to the Leader. My own feeling is that this is a complex matter and that it should be carefully considered. When we come to debate it, as obviously we must, we ought to have had a much wider opportunity of seeing the reactions in the press and consulting our friends in the profession. We do not want to hurry a debate, but of course if the House wants a debate next week, I am sure that the Leader will pay attention to that.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will permit me to say so, those last observations were more helpful than some of the earlier ones.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad that amity has been restored.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, the Motion put down in the name of my noble friend is a technical necessity to enable what I believe is an uncontroversial Private Member's Bill to obtain a Second Reading before the Summer Recess. My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move the Motion.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 46 (notice to be given in respect of Commons Bills not taken up) be dispensed with for the purpose of enabling the Second Reading of the Married Women's Policies of Assurance (Amendment) Bill to be taken on Thursday next.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TENANTS' RIGHTS, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL
11.56 a.m.
Bill read 3a, with the amendments.
Clause 1 [Secure tenants' right to purchase]:
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 1.
Page 5, line 10, after ("dwelling-house") insert—
("( ) where a dwelling-house is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age and which, since completion or adaption, has always been let for occupation by persons of pensionable age.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is to give your Lordships' House a chance to think again about its treatment of Scotland and England. It has been suggested to me that this amendment is exactly the same amendment as that which we debated the other day—and by the "other day" I mean the other day, the Report stage. It is not the same amendment. Indeed, I have before me the Official Report, from which it is perfectly clear that time after time the noble Earl the Minister took exception to the amendment, on grounds of technical defects and the drafting. He went to very considerable length to prove that the drafting was so loose that you could drive a coach and horses through the whole Bill and its purpose. He implied that somehow or other I had conspired with others to wreck the Bill; hundreds of thousands of one-apartment and two-apartment flats were going to be handled and the tenants of them would be denied the right.
So I looked at the amendment to see whether I could tighten it up to suit the noble Earl. I have found that very difficult. The amendment refers to a

1195
dwelling-house which is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and which, since the design was carried out and the house was completed, or, if it had been adapted, since the adaptation, has always been let for occupation by persons of pensionable age. The noble Earl will remember that in regard to the other amendment he suggested that it must be unambiguously drafted. This is unambiguous. It is to cover the point about houses that have been designed or specially adapted and which have been let for the occupation of pensioners. It is the type of house in respect of which there is a tremendous demand; and the balance of the ages is such that as people live longer and this age group grows larger, more and more shall we need this type of house. This could not possibly mean every one-apartment and two-apartment house in the public sector. This could not mean hundreds and thousands of houses unless they had been designed or specially adapted for old people. I do not think the noble Earl can rule this amendment out because it is ambiguous in any way; I am perfectly sure it is clear.
The noble Earl said, first of all, that it would include houses which are only minimally adapted. I deny that. The phrase "designed or specially adapted" cannot be construed as minimally adapted. His last point on the previous amendment was that it would apply to houses not actually let to elderly people if a house currently let to another type of householder had previously been let for a considerable time to elderly people. Under this amendment, this house has got to be let, from the start right through to the point of would-be purchase, to pensionable people. So there is no question of his first argument, his second argument or even his third argument applying. I would suggest to the noble Earl that when he comes with tears in his eyes to tell us we would be denying a great section of people the right to purchase their house, he should remember that if they are of pensionable age then, in the case of a man, he is at least 65. Pensionable age is definable. How many building societies in this country would make a loan to a person of the age of 65, payable over, what?—25 years?
Your Lordships will remember that in one of his earlier statements the noble Earl himself spoke about wanting to make it possible for people to be able to purchase their houses while they are earning. We are dealing now with tenants, as well as houses. At least 40 per cent. of these tenants are on supplementary pension; so when he talks about denying to a certain category the right to buy, he is deceiving himself. You have got to balance the rights of this particular group against the needs of other members of the same group who are not properly housed and who need these houses that are specially designed and adapted.
This is a different amendment. It is much more tightly drawn. I know that the Government are sensitive about this; they have got to face a row in another place, because the words to which they objected before were words which your Lordships' House accepted for the English Bill. To my mind, these words (I do not say this simply because I drafted them myself) meet and clear the hurdles of the arguments which the noble Earl put forward. I did not think they were very good arguments at the time, but I thought I would at least try my best to get over them and tighten the wording up. This is an important amendment, and I beg to move.
12.4 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I think we really ought to see what are the effects of the Bill as it stands at the moment. I believe there are hardly any pensioners who want to purchase their house themselves. They know that they will have to move out sooner or later; they may have to move to an old people's home. No, it is not them at all. The people who will purchase it are, of course, the relatives. They will put up the money. They may see it as a good investment. But it really is of no benefit at all to almost any pensioners to purchase their house, except to have something to leave, possibly, to their family.
That is not what the Bill is trying to do. What is going to happen, of course, is that in many cases the houses will be purchased; and if they are owned privately, when three or four out of ten, perhaps, have been so purchased, the whole of that provision

1197
for the old people will be wound up. Why is it that the Government are doing this? I suspect that they do not like making exceptions, and that they think that if this amendment is accepted some local councils may misuse these powers and designate houses as old people's houses to prevent them from being purchased. If that is the case, why do they not say so? As it is, the position is highly unsatisfactory. It is doing great damage for no apparent good reason whatsoever.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was at some pains to try and make out that what we had decided at the Report stage—decided by a majority—should not be applicable. Of course, you can always make small changes in an amendment that is defeated at Report stage, but if, on that basis, you arc going to bring it back here, you are surely at variance with the Standing Orders of this House. The noble Lord makes a grimace, as if he thinks this is trivial, but it is not. It is not by any means so. Our Standing Orders are expressed in very mild terms, but they are nevertheless binding as the practice of the House, and are generally regarded so. I share this experience with the noble Lord because shortly after I first came to this House—a year after—I was on the Opposition Benches, and I, too, was taken to task for trying to use Third Reading to reverse a decision that had been taken on Report.
Your Lordships will be very familiar, I am sure, with the provision in the Companion to the Standing Orders. On page 127 it says:
"It is considered undesirable that an issue "—
not an amendment, but an issue—
"which has been fully debated and decided upon a previous stage of a Bill should be re-opened on Third Reading".
The noble Lord may have thought that my noble friend was concentrating on the wording, which was said to be ambiguous. This very often is an element in resisting amendments, but it was certainly not understood by me, and I doubt whether it was understood by other Members of your Lordships' House, that that was what we were being asked to vote upon. We were voting on the issue.
1198
I submit to the noble Lord that the issue is perfectly clear. The issue has been brought up at the previous two stages of the Bill and concerns dwelling-houses being designed or specially adapted to make them suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age. This has been fully argued. I am not certain that it has yet been appreciated by the House that we are, in this Bill, in a different position from the position in the English Housing Bill, because not a great deal of stress has been laid on Clause 4(4), under which it is open to the landlord,
"…in the case of a dwelling-house which has facilities which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house and which has been designed or adapted for occupation by an elderly or disabled person whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house."
Then, the landlord may make a condition in the sale. The condition will obviously be that that particular dwelling-house, if it is thought fit, should be offered back to the landlord on the death of the new owner. I see no great difficulty about this but it makes a very considerable difference as between the Scottish Bill and the English Bill.
Does it really matter if an elderly person purchases the house which has been specially designed and adapted for an elderly person and in which she or he is living, and it is provided that in this case the landlord can make a condition that the house should be offered back to the landlord on the death of the new owner? This may have been a little obscure in the drafting, but it is obvious that it can be done, and if the house then goes back to the landlord on the death of the elderly tenant, surely that covers everything that is required for the protection of houses specifically adapted or designed for the elderly. If it does not cover all, then it certainly goes a long way to do so; so that on the merits I feel certain that this House should stand by the decision it reached on Report.
Nobody could pretend that the changes that are made in the amendment that we now have before us as compared with the previous amendment are very far-reaching. The noble Lord himself said that it made the situation crystal clear. I do not think he used the word "crystal", but that it made it clear. On the facts on

1199
which we reached our decision at Report stage and the fact that we have this Standing Order, that this was an issue that was decided on Report stage, and on the contents of the Bill itself which do offer the chance for a landlord to reenter into possession of such houses, I hope the House will reject the amendment.
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said. He has read the Standing Orders of the House dealing with the question of the amendment submitted by my noble friend Lord Ross. He himself reads the Standing Orders and tells us that it is "undesirable". There are many things I do which my wife says would be undesirable but she does not prohibit me from doing them. The question is whether one is entitled to interpret the word "undesirable" as something which cannot be done.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord that he will find in many places in our Standing Orders and the Companion to Standing Orders that a certain thing is to be considered undesirable. In my experience, that has usually been enough for your Lordships.
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, coming from a different atmosphere into this one and having sat in the Chair in the other place, one could not argue there on a Standing Order. That may be the practice here; but it does not prohibit one. The noble Lord himself went on to argue the case. He ended by arguing that my noble friend Lord Ross was wrong in submitting it. He gave reasons for saying so. He himself was doing something contrary to what he alleges to be the Standing Orders. However, the point is that if it is out of order, then somebody must rule that it is out of order. Somebody should do that, if that is the attitude.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord repeat the last few words?
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, I said that somebody should rule that it is out of order and that that will finish it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, surely it is for the House to rule it out of order. The House is the custodian
1200
of its own rules. Generally, we find that once the rule is pointed out and the interpretation that is placed on the rule is explained, then appropriate action is taken. I suggest that it would be wise and reasonable for the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in the light of my explanation now to withdraw his amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I should have been delighted to consider that if the noble Lord had made his point succinctly; but then he proceeded to argue that I was wrong in the general principle. He proceeded to examine another clause altogether, which was a justification given by the Government in respect of that and other amendments. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. It was very undesirable, I think, of him—and he would have been ruled out of order elsewhere—when he strayed from the actual amendment and proceeded to tell us about something entirely different. It took him far longer to tell me about my undesirability than it took me to move the amendment, and we should probably have been finished with the amendment by this time but for his intervention.
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Chief Whip is prepared to rule that it is out of order, I will abide by the rules. If he is prepared to rule that "it is undesirable" means that you cannot discuss it, I will accept that decision. What I am trying to get at is the meaning of the word "undesirable".
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, there is no particular Standing Order on this. The Companion to Standing Orders is a guidance for your Lordships. It is only a guidance. It has been the generally accepted feeling of this House that it is a protection for the House, not a protection for the Government, that these matters should not be raised again at Third Reading when they have already been decided upon. There is no question of ruling people out of order. This House does not have firm rules of order It has guidelines; and these are generally adhered to.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Chief Whip to look at columns 771 and 772 of the noble Earl's reply as to why he could not on

1201
behalf of the Government accept the amendment at Report stage? There, he will see that the main reason why he could not accept it has now been changed by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ross. Surely, therefore, it is permissible now to be put to the House?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, the Companion to Standing Orders talks about an "issue". It is an issue that your Lordships are being invited to change. There was an occasion earlier, on a previous Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested at Report stage that he would allow a particular amendment to he negatived and then would revert to it at Third Reading. I got up at that point and interrupted the noble Lord, who kindly gave way, and I pointed out that if he allowed the amendment to be negatived at Report stage he would not be able to revert to it at Third Reading. So the noble Lord did not allow it to be negatived but withdrew it so that he could refer to it at Third Reading.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think we are not going to resolve this by merely discussing the rights and wrong of the matter and by noble Lords on both sides giving their points of view. I think the only way we can resolve it, if noble Lords opposite feel very strongly about the rightness or wrongness of the action, is to move accordingly or to let my noble friend conclude without further intervention and dispose of it in the normal way. This could be the quicker procedure.
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, all I wanted to say is that, if we consider the circumstances, this amendment is largely as a result of the contribution made by the Minister during the debate. He said that the earlier one was in conflict with Clause 4. It was put to him from several parts of the House that we could easily get rid of Clause 4 if that was his only problem. We think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has this afternoon produced an amendment that would be acceptable. In my opinion, that is what the Minister was seeking.
12.20 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has moved his amendment and
1202
he has not seen fit to withdraw it. Therefore I must answer it on its merits. If I say a word or two about what I think should happen at the end of my remarks, they will be in a different context. In truth and in fact, this amendment is a slight variation, both in its drafting and in the effects that it would have on the Bill, upon what we discussed three days ago on Report. The only difference to the situation which this amendment would make is that if the amendment were accepted a local authority would not be able to refuse to sell a house to the tenant on the ground that at some time in the past it had been let to a person of pensionable age.
Before I discuss the amendment in detail I must repeat, I am afraid, some of what I said three days ago about the background to our deliberations. I stressed the importance of ensuring that the legislation will, in operation, reflect the wishes of Parliament, and I reminded the House that we are dealing here with legislation that a number of local authorities which, between them, act as landlords to more than half of the public sector tenants in Scotland, have pledged themselves to frustrate and distort at every opportunity. I drew the House's attention to the fact that those authorities have gone to the lengths of meeting together to plan the means by which they will defy the law, a state of affairs which I think I remarked to the noble Baroness, Lady David, is peculiar to Scotland so far as I know. I perhaps did not emphasise as fully as I might have done that these authorities have not been talking about straightforward defiance of the law but about searching the Bill for loop-holes and for ambiguities which can be exploited to deprive more people of the right to buy than Parliament intended. I ask the House to bear in mind the avowed intent of those authorities to trample over the spirit of this Bill and to stretch the letter of the law to the limits of credible interpretation in their doctrinaire opposition to the will of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, referred to the words "specially adapted", and he disagrees with the meaning and ambiguity which I put upon them on Report. I have to say that there is nothing, for instance, about his definition which would exclude the one-bedroomed

1203
house. The Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities expressed the view to the Government during consultations that the definition which the noble Lord put into his amendment might well cover minimal adaptations and link them to the elderly. On the last occasion we talked about grab rails, and so on.
My Lords, continuing with my theme, I also ask the House to bear in mind that those authorities have made it clear that, where they cannot succeed in denying a tenant the right which Parliament has conferred, they will delay its exercise for as long as possible in the hope that they can demoralise and discourage those whose legal rights they cannot take from them altogether. I mention this because I believe that we must recognise that these authorities are seeking confrontation and will seek to deny the right to buy in many cases where there is no justification for doing so purely for the sake of daunting tenants from exercising their rights.
This sets the scene. There are one or two other points to which I should like to return to reinforce what I said on Report. Dealing with the amendment, first, it does not require that a house should be substantially adapted for occupation by the elderly. So far, as I explained in Committee, a house could be excluded from the right to buy because of insignificant and comparatively minor features such as a grab rail or hand rail. Such features will not only occur in houses which do not genuinely fall into the category of special needs housing but could well be installed in any house at minimal cost by authorities bent on frustrating the purposes of this legislation.
Secondly, the statement that houses are designed for the elderly will still, as I said at Report stage, apply potentially to all one-bedroom houses which make up 15 per cent. of the public sector housing stock but also, to some of the 460,000 two-bedroom houses in the stock. It is, as I explained, a matter of fact that many local authorities do reserve their smaller houses and flats for the elderly, and it would be very easy for those who do not already do so to change their allocation policies in order to take advantage of this provision. Once again I stress that these are not special needs
1204
houses, they are quite ordinary houses which happen to be let to the elderly.
What I said, I believe to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was that the effect of the last amendment would be to provide a gateway through which a recalcitrant local authority could drive a coach and horses to destroy the provisions and the principles of this Bill. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to narrow the gateway slightly. It would not stop a well-directed coach from being driven through the gap.
This amendment would be much more candid if it said that persons of pensionable age are not to have the right to buy. That is really what we are talking about—the exclusion of the elderly, not of houses for the elderly—and that is the crux of our difference of opinion with the Opposition. The noble Lord seeks to deny everyone the right to buy; but because they cannot do that he makes a pretence of accepting the principle of the Bill and, from the cover of that pretence, seeks to take the right to buy away from a group that comprises about 30 per cent. of public sector tenants.
The Government's view, as I have said all along, is that the elderly have as much right to the benefits of this policy as anyone. We accept that there will be some who do not wish to buy their home, and we believe that it is those elderly people who are most likely to be sufficiently infirm to be occupying genuine special needs housing. However, we believe that the rest of the elderly should be allowed to decide for themselves whether home ownership is a sensible step at their time of life.
Throughout this Bill, noble Lords opposite have made it clear that they simply do not understand the desire for home ownership and they cannot conceive of choice about housing tenure except in terms of money. We believe that most people see the benefits of home ownership in quite different terms. They see it as a source of security, of independence and of freedom from interference; and I ask your Lordships whether you would accept for a moment that elderly people do not value these things as much if not more than other people. I certainly do not accept that, and I think that it would be unconscionable to deprive elderly tenants

1205
of the chance to spend their retirement years in a house which they can call their own.
My Lords, may I, possibly for the benefit of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth—and I do not say this offensively—and any other noble Lords who may not have been present at our previous deliberations and may not realise how much this Bill differs from the English Bill (and has differed ever since it came to your Lordships' House), say this? The Bill provides, we think, a balance between the rights of individuals and the needs of the public. It excludes from the right to buy all sheltered housing for the elderly and disabled, because we believe that the sale of such houses could cut across the interests of other people in the same group of houses who did not wish to buy; and in looking at the interests of other tenants the restriction to grouped housing is clearly essential. The sale of houses which are not grouped cannot affect the immediate interests of other tenants as long as the elderly people who rent them continue to live in them. However, we fully recognise that once these elderly people cease to live in a house, the community does have an interest in what happens to it, if it is genuine special needs housing, which may be in short supply. Consequently, we have taken the logical step and put in a safeguard of the community interest which operates when the elderly tenants have ceased to live here. That is contained in Clause 4(4) of the Bill which gives landlords the right of preemption—which has no time limit—and this comes in where houses are significantly adapted for the elderly or the disabled. We have heard much of the comparisons with the Housing Bill, but I must remind your Lordships that the Housing Bill as at this moment does not contain the right of pre-emption which I have mentioned and which is a well-known feature of the Scottish law of real property.
It has been suggested, I think, by noble Lords opposite that this Bill does not protect the special needs housing for the elderly, but I must dispute that. It simply is not the case. It gives ample protection to the community's interest where that interest is genuine. What it does not do is to deprive the elderly of the same rights that the Bill gives to every other tenant, where the community does not have a
1206
genuine overriding interest. The elderly are those who have suffered most in Scotland's past and they are the ones who have suffered most over the lack of choice for decent housing in their youth and middle age. They are the people who need and deserve a choice now.
Finally, may I remind the House of the immense care which has been taken as this Bill has wended its long passage through both Houses. In Committee in another place—I have already referred to this—there was a most constructive debate on the part of both Government and Opposition speakers, and amendments were inserted into the Bill without any need for Divisions. The Opposition reserved its right to come back to the matter on Report if it should so wish, but in fact no amendments were debated in a long Report stage, by the standards of the other place with a time-table which is even more crowded than ours. In two full days and part of the night, there was no return to this question of housing for the elderly. On Third Reading, which was a very brief stage, no mention of the matter was made by either of the two Liberal spokesmen who put their point of view and concerned themselves quite genuinely with housing in rural areas; so the House received this Bill, I suggest, in a way which has paid attention to the various principles which we have tried to set into the Bill.
We had two debates on this subject in Committee: one initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, who withdrew his amendment; and the other on a very similar amendment which was introduced by the Liberals. That was debated and rejected on a Division. We then had another very full debate three days ago on this issue and, if noble Lords will bear with me, I should like to concentrate on the word "issue". That finally received the House's decisive verdict only on Tuesday, and now we come back to the matter again on an amendment which I know is slightly different in form, but which raises no different issue—and that is the word I stress—which has not been ventilated before. Matters have already been brought to your Lordships' attention about our Standing Orders and the fact that we do not have a Speaker or anybody who can rule anything out of order in this House.

1207
May I say this in conclusion. I have not been in this House as long as many other noble Lords, but I have been here now for a few years—long enough to gain very considerable respect and, indeed, affection for the way in which the House conducts its business by a habit of self-regulation and self-discipline. If we are going to revive issues on Third Reading which have been as well-ventilated as this one has and which have been decided on only three days before, it will open a door really to a quite radical departure. It will in fact mean that in future the door will be open for your Lordships' House to consider matters on a totally different basis; in other words, issues which have been decided on Report being revived on Third Reading. Speaking purely personally, I think that it would be a pity if this departure came about without very full consultation by those who, as it were, look after our procedures behind the scenes.
My only task is to persuade the House if I can—and I address myself particularly to the Liberals and the Cross-Benchers, and indeed to everybody who loves the procedures of this House as I do—on the merits of the case that we have gone as far as we possibly can in this Bill to provide balanced provisions for the interests of the individual and for the public interest. If the noble Lord, Lord Ross, on reflection, is not prepared to withdraw his amendment—and I do really, for so many reasons, beseech him to—then I must ask the House to vote it down.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether the star which is placed against this amendment means that it only appeared before the House for the first time this morning? Is that really the position?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: No, my Lords; it appeared yesterday after luncheon. I do not criticise the noble Lord so far as timing is concerned.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his last remarks, and in relation to the last point, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, of course follows our proceedings very well. I do not know whether he tried to get a
1208
copy of the Bill reprinted after Report yesterday—he probably got it today; so did I. It was not available yesterday, and when one waits until one gets the up-to-date information on the Bill which one seeks to amend and discovers the Bill is not there, he should be the last person to complain about the lateness of amendments. We finished the Report stage on Tuesday, and the Hansard was available on Wednesday. I put in these amendments as soon as I could, having waited and hoped to get an up-to-date copy of the Bill. Usually one waits until the Bill is reprinted before putting forward amendments. I do not blame anyone for that, except the rush there has been to get this through. It is very seldom, I believe, that a Third Reading in this House follows within two days of the Report stage.
I am very glad that the noble Earl admitted that this amendment was different; he said it was not very much different. But when one bears in mind—and the Report is here in front of me—that column after column of the speech that he made was related to the drafting difficulties and what would happen in respect of these drafting difficulties, I thought it was incumbent of me to tighten up the thing and present what was a different amendment.
Of course, it still deals with the same group of people, but the noble Earl should appreciate that Parliament, including this House, has laid responsibility upon local authorities to meet the needs of those people. One of the biggest problems that a local authority has is to meet the real needs of the pensioners and the elderly; and, with all due respect, after they have stopped earning pensioners are not the people who will enter most readily into the purchase of a house. I think my noble friend Lord Galpern mentioned that the people who will reap the benefits—if benefits there be in this—are the youngsters that are left behind.
The fact is that there is a long waiting list everywhere, in cities, in towns and in the countryside, of old people who are waiting to get into these houses and if they are sold to the pensioners what will happen? They are the places where there will be the biggest amount of change, because they will die quickest. That is a natural fact. The people who will sell the houses are their executors, and I hope that the noble Earl will look at the clause

1209
in relation to executors and the freedom they have in relation to sales, which is different. They do not need to wait for five years and to pay back any of the sale price in respect of these houses. That is covered in other clauses, but I just want to keep to the amendment. It has always been my parliamentary practice to try to keep in order.
The fact is that there are far more old age pensioners waiting to get into this type of house, than there are old age pensioners in them. What should dominate: a right that is not likely to be exercised by a great many of them who arc actually in the houses, or the rights and needs of those who do not have that type of house? That is all we have been trying to get across to the Government and I make no apology for continuing to do that.
I had no intention of forcing another vote, and I shall not force another vote, but I want the Government to appreciate that not all local authorities should be met with this suspicion and fear. If we are blinkered by fear as well as by prejudice, then we shall get a very bad Act of Parliament. It is because I consider, from my own knowledge as Secretary of State and from my own knowledge oflocal authorities, that the Government are doing wrong, that I certainly will not apologise for having brought the amendment before the House. But I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.43 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 36, leave out from ("Crown"") to ("and") in line 41 and insert ("has the same meaning as in section 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Report stage my noble friend Lord Selkirk introduced a fairly long and very welcome amendment, as I said at the time, on Case 17. Under that, there was a definition of the "regular armed forces of the Crown". I pointed out at that time that there was already a definition of the "regular armed forces of the Crown" in Clause 1(12) of the Bill, and suggested that the Case 17 amendment should be brought into line with what was already in the Bill.
It has been suggested to me—obviously, there was not time to consider it then—that it would be better to do it the other way round and to bring the definition in line 36 of page 5 into line with the definition that my noble friend Lord Selkirk included in his amendment, and that is what this amendment does. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for putting down this drafting amendment, which certainly makes the different parts of the Bill more consistent than they were before. I am pleased to accept it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Succession to secure tenancy.]:
12.46 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 18, line 25, leave out from ("below") to end of line 27.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 goes with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, so as to make sense of the business, and it seeks to give to people in public sector housing the same privilege as exists in private sector housing. A new security of tenure has been given to tenants in public sector housing, but the rights of succession allow only one change. After that one change, the house reverts to the landlord for allocation. In private sector housing, there are two changes.
I said in Committee when we discussed this matter—we did not vote upon it—that it would be very unfair indeed if the daughter or unmarried son of an elderly couple had to get out, because, first, the father had died and then, after the house had passed to the mother, she had died. To my mind, that is not the kind of security that is required. I think it was the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless who, in a letter to some of us, drew attention to the fact that they had quite a number of distressing cases of single, middle-aged people who, for the first time, have had to leave home and seek hostel or institutional accommodation. I do not think this is right. It would be

1211
offensive to most people and, I am quite sure, to your Lordships.
I know what the answer will be. The answer will be: Trust the local authorities; the local authorities will not throw them out. But after the noble Earl's explanation of the kind of local authorities we have in Scotland, conspiring to frustrate the law, hating every line in this Bill and doing everything to destroy it, he cannot adopt the attitude that they are all-caring, all-wise and that we can leave it to them. If he is really giving security of tenure, and matching the security of people who are under a private landlord —thanks to the statutory protections that are given to a tenant—then he should make this change.
I have been hoping for better things, and this is about the noble Earl's last chance. If he seeks to do something really good in this Bill, for which I could applaud him, then he should make this change. That is the only effect of the amendment. I have not been conspiring with anyone to see how we could undermine the whole Bill. I am seeking to give that additional protection and I have tried to follow through the consequences of the idea. Hence, the three amendments. My Lords, beg to move.
12.50 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the effect of Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 would be to grant a right of succession, without end, for any family allocated a house.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, a qualified right.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: No, my Lords, the effect of the amendments would be just that. In other words, a house, once allocated, could be passed down through the family for generation after generation, regardless of need. There cannot be any objection to a house passing through several generations of a family, where appropriate. Indeed, it is common practice for local authorities to allow this to happen. But we believe that every once in a while the landlord should have an opportunity to review the allocation of houses against the background of its responsibility to manage the housing stock
1212
in the interests of the community as a whole. It is rather extreme to provide a statutory right in effect to perpetual succession.
The Bill at present seeks only to provide a minimum safeguard of one succession, but public landlords arc usually more generous than this, and I do not think that they really need compulsion to be so. Even when they do ask someone to move, following the death of a tenant, they almost invariably rehouse them elsewhere —perhaps in a house of a size more appropriate to their needs where a single person is left in a large house. I think that this answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, about the single daughter who has devotedly looked after her elderly parents until their death and is perhaps then left in a public sector house which would be much more suitable for family occupation. In this respect, public sector tenants are at much less risk than private sector tenants whose landlords may wish to sell and who are unlikely to be offering alternative accommodation. That is one of the reasons why we have provided a right to one succession in the public sector rather than the two, to which private tenants are entitled.
These amendments would give public tenants far greater rights than the two successions which are allowed to private tenants. The only representations which we have had from local authorities about this clause have been to seek reassurance that it will not stop them from allowing a member of a tenant's family to stay on in the house after his or her death if there has already been one succession. After it was explained to them that they would remain quite free to grant the tenancy of the house to such a person in such circumstances, they were content. Their concern on this point underlines the fact that they are very unlikely to refuse to let a member of a tenant's family stay on without good reason for refusing.
Nevertheless, in cases where the authority's wider management responsibilities give ground for a move, they ought to have scope for requiring such a move. Where this happens, subsection (6) grants the person involved a temporary tenancy of up to six months. I appreciate that an amendment has been tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, which relates to this period, but that is the period contained in the Bill. Its

1213
purpose is for the landlord to consider rehousing the tenant and for there to be time for discussion between them. So people will not be put out in the street after the first succession. Whatever the noble Lord may say, I think that most people are of the opinion that local authorities behave reasonably. At the same time, we say that it would be wrong to deprive the landlord of all say in the allocation of houses over several generations. On the basis that deep down I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, trusts the local authorities, as I do, he may see fit to withdraw these amendments.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I have certainly highlighted the fact. The noble Earl suggests that this would open up the way for an endless succession of tenants. For the purposes of this subsection, a "qualified person" is defined. The person who is left and who is part of the family is a qualified person. If it had been a mother and a son, the automatic translation of the first succession would be from the mother to the son—or to a daughter. There is a definition of "qualified person" which itself provides a limitation.
I am sorry indeed that the noble Earl has not had second thoughts about this matter but I shall not press it to a Division. I sincerely hope that the new-found faith in local authorities being reasonable people will persist in the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.56 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 18, line 36, leave out ("paragraph (a) or (b)") and insert ("subsection (1)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple amendment. In the case of a qualified person being denied the right by the local authority to stay on in the house, they are certainly not thrown out on the street. They are given six months before any change is made in their position. I suggest that they should be allowed to continue in the house for one year. If, as the noble Earl says, local authorities are so reasonable, the need—
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the Deputy Speaker is talking about Amendment No. 4.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I apologise. I thought we were doing what is done in another place where amendments are taken together and discussed together, and if an amendment is not moved then it is not moved. In those circumstances, Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 5 are not moved by me.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 19, line 30, leave out ("6 months") and insert ("one year")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already given the explanation of this amendment, and I do not want to add a single word to it. If local authorities are as reasonable as the noble Lord says, we shall not need to operate this, but where there are some unreasonable local authorities who might enforce it, I suggest that instead of six months we should give the tenant a year. We must remember that "not exceeding" does not mean that they will be there for a year. It may be for six months and six days or six months and seven days. This latitude is desirable, and I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has said, the effect of subsection (6) is that where a tenant dies and leaves either a spouse or another member of the family living in the house in circumstances where they are not entitled to succeed to the tenancy, because the tenant himself had inherited by succession, the Bill grants the person left in the house a non-secure tenancy—that is, a tenancy which does not attract any of the rights set out in the Bill. This is for a period of up to six months. The period is to allow a reasonable time for both the public sector landlord and the tenant to decide about the future. As I said when speaking about Amendment No. 2 and the others, the present practice, some suggest, is that in almost all cases the landlord will be quite happy to grant the survivor the tenancy of the house. In virtually all other cases, if, for reasons of space, which I illustrated, the landlord wants the house

1215
for a larger family, he would offer rehousing elsewhere, perhaps in a smaller house.
In these circumstances, which are totally dissimilar to those in the private sector, I believe that six months is long enough for such decisions to be made. I do not think it is in the tenant's interests that it should be possible to provide him with the rights which this Bill provides for secure tenants for a further six months. If the period were extended to 12 months—or any other period, for that matter—it would expose tenants to delay and uncertainty and I really do not think that would be desirable.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I have no desire to prolong the agony. I never expected that at this late stage there would be a change of heart on the part of the Government. I think my toll of accepted amendments is one or one and a half, but I am not complaining about that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 7:
Insert the following new clause:
("Grants for provision of fire escapes
After section 10A of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(10B) Subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order make the local authority shall make a grant in respect of work for the provisions of a means of escape from fire from a building which, or part of which, is let in lodgings".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns grants for the provision of fire escapes. I tabled this at the behest of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who felt very strongly about it—feelings which I share. At the Report stage I asked the noble Earl whether it was true that there was provision in the English Housing Bill to make it possible for grants of up to £5,000 to be expended on such houses which are in multiple occupation, but I did not get an answer. This is his last chance to answer publicly as to whether that was right or wrong. There is a keen sensitivity about mentioning what is in an English Bill and what is in this particular Bill, and perhaps
1216
that is something of which we have not heard the last.
I think everyone knows the reason for this amendment. These institutions have been the subject of very considerable attention following disastrous fires. They are prone to fire, and elderly and sometimes infirm residents are particularly susceptible, and of course they cannot readily escape. The nature of these places is such that I think we should leave nothing undone that can be done to provide adequate fire protection and means of escape.
I believe there are no definitions in Scotland in regard to multiple occupation, but there are definitions in respect of hostels and lodging houses and that is why the amendment is so worded. I hope the noble Earl will look at this amendment sympathetically. I know it raises a terrible thing—it raises the subject of money. When I see the noble Baroness, Lady Young, sitting there, I can never think of her saying "No" to everything because money is involved. That is the sacred principle at the present time: if money is involved, the answer is "No". Let the noble Earl shake himself loose. Here is a chance for him to so something for Scotland. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is in London today or not, but let the noble Earl strike a blow for freedom in Scotland and accept this particular amendment, even though it means a certain measure of Government expenditure. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I have sat here for an hour and a half and listened with fascination but in silence to this very interesting debate, but in view of the fact that this is an amendment for which my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has great enthusiasm I really must say a few words. In case your Lordships feel that I am about to embark upon a long speech on this matter, I must express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for the way he introduced this amendment. He said that he agreed with and supported the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, for this amendment and therefore, in view of his great support and his emotional appeal, that at last, at the end of the day, the Government should accept an important amendment of this kind, I

1217
will not go into details, but merely ask the Government to support and accept this amendment on this occasion.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, one reason why I cannot accept this amendment is due to a sin of omission by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. During the year 1974 there were in fact two Housing Acts—one for England and one for Scotland. The English Housing Act introduced a grants scheme for houses in multiple occupation in England, but the Housing (Scotland) Act of 1974, as I have said, during a period when the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was the distinguished tenant of old St. Andrews House, did not include the same provision. Therefore we in Scotland have no equivalent to the English special grants system which applies to houses in multiple occupation. I am afraid that remains the position.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, as a constitutional lawyer, would not want to be a party to any constitutional impropriety, even in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. The House authorities, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, have advised that this clause is outside the terms of the Money Resolution, therefore I cannot recommend it for acceptance. Even if, over my head, the House was determined to do just that, I have to advise your Lordships that I think the other place might sink back on their insistence that they deal with questions of finance.
But being positive, if I may say so, about this matter, there are considerable powers in Part VI of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 to deal with such houses. Section 107 of that Act enables local authorities to require the provision of a means of escape from fire and they can do that, where appropriate, in consultation with the fire authority. Although I have said that there is no specific grant aid available for such work, we are of the opinion that local authorities could use their general powers under Section 69 of the Local Government Act 1973 to give assistance where they consider it appropriate. Then, under Section 109 of the 1966 Act they might also do the work themselves and exercise their discretion in relation to recovery of the cost, so that in effect there could be a grant there.
1218
More generally, as I said on Report, the whole question of control over houses in multiple occupation is being reviewed within the Scottish Development Department and our present powers, which are based closely on those in England, may well not be the best way of dealing with the very different type of house used for this purpose in Scotland.
For the reasons that I have given, this amendment would not be a very proper or satisfactory basis for dealing with a problem which rightly causes grave concern. I hope that I am the first to acknowledge the good intention of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and the other sponsors of this amendment, but I am simply not allowed to recommend your Lordships to accept it.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, that is the best reason I have had yet for the turning down of any amendment of mine, that it conflicts with a Money Resolution. If the noble Earl is interested in the proceedings in another place and he seeks to get a volume devoted entirely to Money Resolutions, he will find many a speech of mine on the subject of the Money Resolution, which was always taken after a Second Reading and which we always insisted upon having available to us before we started the Committee stage. If it is outside the Money Resolution then nobody can do anything about it—except blame the Government for drawing the Money Resolution so tightly that such a desirable amendment would not be in order to be put forward and accepted in another place and, of course, here. Irrespective of how the other place occasionally treats this House and the disrespect which it showed the other day, we treat them with due respect so far as Money Resolutions are concerned and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.10 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In moving this Motion I am entitled to say a few words, and they are going to be very few. I had a splendid speech drafted and typed out. The noble Lord says he heard a bit of it; that was another one. But I am not going to give vent to it, because this Bill has been most thoroughly

1219
scrutinised in your Lordships' House. We have debated it for many hours and I make no complaint about that. We have gone to the heart of the Bills' principles time and again. I do not think it would be profitable to go over some of the provisions which are written into the Bill, nor indeed some of the amendments which have been made in your Lordships' House, which go to improve the Bill.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for providing still more opportunities for the Government to consider this Bill. I am grateful to him because it has demonstrated, at least for me, that whatever anybody may say about devolution and assemblies and anything like that, the fact of the matter is that the Scottish Office is able to frame, draw up, draft its own legislation, consider it with its own Law Officers and its own Ministers, can produce a Bill which goes through the other place and arrives in your Lordships' House markedly different from the English version, can continue to debate it in this House and give Government consideration to all its stages. I can assure your Lordships. that my honourable friend who is functionally responsible for housing in Scotland and I have had many conversations on the subject of this Bill and the representations which noble Lords opposite and noble Lords on the Cross-Benches have made to us. In the end it still, as it passes, I hope, finally through your Lordships' House, remains a Scottish Bill and quite different from the English Bill which has already gone forth. To that extent my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is quite sincere.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, who, as I said at an earlier stage, we were so pleased to see had made such an excellent and quick recovery, he also played his part. I should like to thank in their absence the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who, lucky people, have got to Scotland a good deal earlier than the rest of us who have to take the low road. I should also like to thank noble Lords on these Benches who from time to time have made their contributions. I think for my part that the Bill has been an experience and an education, and it leaves your Lordships' House better than when it came into it.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, may I first of all thank the Minister for his kind reference to my health. I hope I have not, by virtue of regaining some of it, unduly disturbed the activities of the House in what is happening this afternoon, saying that probably somebody should rule me and my noble friend Lord Ross out of order because of something which is contrary to the Standing Orders. I must say I have enjoyed very much indeed my first participation in a Bill of this kind at all the various stages.
May I very briefly say this. The Minister will recall that we had a debate on Tuesday and at column 749 I asked him:
"Am I right in concluding that what he has just told the House is that the main attraction for the sitting tenant of a public sector house to buy the house which he occupies, which he rents, is in order (and I hope I have the words right) to bear a greater share of his housing costs?"
The Minister said:
"My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that of course that is not the main gain to the individual tenant, and I did not say it was. What I suggest the noble Lord does is to read the Official Report tomorrow …"
I read the Official Report the next day, and at column 747 I find that what he said was:
"What we are doing is to encourage tenants to bear a greater share of their housing costs …"
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord wishes to be fair, and if he is going to quote me in column 749 perhaps he would continue to the end of the intervention.
Lord GALPERN: Yes, my Lords, certainly:
"…then he will see what is the gain to the tenant about which I pontificated at length—that he will have something to call his own and something to pass on."
I was not referring to that. The noble Earl said that after I had made my comment. At column 747—I can read the whole column if he wishes, and I do not find anything that he said subsequently in his later intervention—he said:
"What we are doing is to encourage tenants to bear a greater share of their housing costs than they do by renting and, by buying their home, to relieve the taxpayer and ratepayer of the burden which they presently bear."

1221
I studied the Conservative Party manifesto which was put before the Scottish people at the last general election and it says:
"…to give council, new town and SSHA tenants the legal right to buy their homes."
There is no mention there of the fact that they will be doing their duty by relieving taxpayers and ratepayers of a burden by
"encouraging tenants to bear a greater share of their housing costs".
I hope when the Minister comes to discuss the consequences of the passing of this Bill he will have a word with the local authorities to suggest that when they receive an application from a sitting tenant of his desire to purchase the house they will send, together with the application form, the Minister's remarks upon what he will be doing for his fellow taxpayers and ratepayers.
Buying a home, as the noble Earl knows, is one thing; meeting the expenses out of income is quite another. Many of us sometimes fail to budget for the cost of maintenance. The cost of repairs can be very heavy indeed. I have already dealt with that and I am not going to go into it in detail this afternoon. But repairs will have to be carried out. I think it is only right that together with the application form there should be a booklet sent to the possible purchaser with a list—not of the things that my noble friend Lord Ross said the tenant should indicate he knows he is entering into, but a list should be sent, together with the application form, by the local authority, which would illustrate exactly what sort of responsibilities he undertakes. There is nothing novel in that because smokers when they buy a packet of cigarettes are told on every packet
"Her Majesty's Government Health Department warning. Cigarettes can seriously damage your health".
A pamphlet that would illustrate what could happen to the prospective purchaser's financial stability could easily be incorporated in a booklet of that kind.
There is one factor which has not been mentioned. What is the difference between the renting of a house and the purchase of that house? In Glasgow, the figures are that for a three apartment modernised semi-detached home in Knightswood, the selling price of which
1222
would be about £14,000 and the net price £8,400, the present monthly rent is £29·28. The monthly mortgage repayment would become £60·90. There is a difference of almost £31 that a tenant, who is perhaps not so well aware of the factors involved, will have to be sure that he can budget for and maintain.
At present we have steep unemployment figures, and a survey was published the other day by the Frazer Institute, associated with Strathclyde University, indicating that by the end of the year the number of unemployed in Scotland will be 250,000 rising in 1981 to a much higher figure. Therefore, if at all possible we should try to assist someone, who is not accustomed to dealing with these matters and who does not have much knowledge of the situation in which he can land himself, with the serious matter of purchasing a house.
Finally, the noble Earl has told us during the course of our debates that he read the Sunday Post. It is a great pity that he did not read the Sunday Mail last Sunday. It would have done him the world of good, because I think that it would have softened his attitude to some of the amendments that my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock proposed during our discussions. It says there quite clearly:
"In Glasgow—where the regional unemployment rate is 12·8 per cent. —12 people per month approach the district council with the intention of selling their homes."
Those are not people who are in local council houses: they are people who are in privately-owned houses who know all about housing and who now find themselves unable to meet the cost. They illustrate the situation and have done careful research on the matter. It says:
"Most shattering result of unemployment is losing the family home. Since mortgage interest rocketed … earlier this year, families have been approaching local housing authorities saying they must sell their property because they can no longer keep up payments."
It goes on to refer to the experience of most local authorities in Scotland.
Therefore, my appeal is as follows: If we cannot do anything about the Bill, let us postpone bringing it into operation for five years which will may be give us a more stable period of employment and greater security for the individual who

1223
elects to purchase the house which he is renting at present. If that is not possible, then I think that the local authorities somehow or other, despite the clauses in the Bill, should be allowed to deal with the situation—of which they have firsthand knowledge, far better than any sheriff, lands tribunal and so on—of those who wish to buy their houses and at least protect their interests in the case of unemployment.
1.23 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, this is more or less the last lap on this Bill and it may well be the last Housing Bill in which I shall participate. I have participated in every Housing Bill since 1945 on the committee, and when I was not on the committee I was the person behind it who took responsibility for it. I do not think that we shall have another one in the lifetime of this Parliament unless things are very bad indeed.
First, I should like to thank noble Lords for their patience in listening to me. I had the impression at one time that well, they had spent a long time on the English Bill, so could we not hurry up with the Scottish Bill. Their Lordships were the people who wanted the affairs of Scotland to be debated here in London—they are the last people to complain. However, everyone showed patience and I am very grateful for the help of my colleagues. At times it was not so much a debate that went on as a dialogue that went on for quite a period. I express appreciation for the fact that the noble Earl was able to sustain himself so well during that period. As they would say in Scotland, "He's paid for it". That is his job.
I am glad the noble Earl said that it has been educational. He did not advance whether he had education as regards the new Opposition or whether education in respect of the Bill. However, I always gave advice to my junior Ministers that the Bill was more important than their speech and they must be careful that in their speech they did not rouse the Opposition to unnecessary oratory. The other thing I felt in Opposition is that if a Minister did not know the Bill at the start of proceedings, then if the Opposition were any good he would know the Bill
1224
by the time it was finished. I think I agree that this has been an educational experience for the Minister and for those who sustained their interest throughout.
It was an educational experience for myself, too. I am glad that we found a Minister who was frank, who told us plainly and clearly not once, not twice but three or four times—and did it within the space of five minutes—the purpose of the Bill. I know that we heard impassioned speeches about owner occupation. I thought of an old lady of 83 living in a council house, how her heart would surge at the thought that now she could buy that council house and get a loan that she could repay over the next 25 years. How out of touch can the Government be to think that even the people of Scotland will fall for this kind of thing! But when I get a Minister coming along and saying:
"… public sector tenants are a financial burden on the community. What we want to do is to lighten it, and to impose on those tenants … heavier share of the cost of their housing. This is what this is all about."—[Official Report, 29/7/80; col. 748.]
Thanks to the Minister for his frankness. It is all about money. He said:
"What we are doing is to encourage tenants to bear a greater share of their housing costs than they do by renting and, by buying their home, to relieve the taxpayer and ratepayer of the burden which they presently bear … council tenants … were a charge—a burden, if you like—on the taxpayer".—[official Report, 29/7/80; col. 747.]
You can give grants to agriculture—that is an investment. You can give grants to industry—that is an investment. You can give relief to owner-occupiers—that is an investment. But people who cannot pay the economic rents are told that the help they get, or the local authority gets to build the houses, to clear the slums, to get rid of overcrowding—that is a burden on the taxpayer. We were not talking here about housing, but about people, about tenants. We were talking recently about old-age pensioners. Now we can proclaim to the old-age pensioners why this is being done—because you are a burden on the taxpayer. I do not know what the Minister is worrying about. That is what he said: "This is what this is all about." He must live with his words.
I am interested in housing. The fact of the matter is that the Government are cutting down the amount of money that would create hew houses. They are

1225
cutting down the amount of grant that should be going to support local authority housing. Here we are giving this gloss in order to pass the burden over to other people. "This is what this is all about says the Minister. So, we shall have fewer houses built, we shall have fewer houses available for the local authorities to rent to meet a still growing need, and we shall have higher rents for local authority houses and higher rents for public sector housing. Oh!, but the Secretary of State is going to intervene, not to phase it out, but just to say what the maximum will be in any one year.
The outlook is bleak, even in terms of controlling inflation, because if we increase the cost of housing, be it rented or be it owner-occupied, then I am afraid that it is contrary to the type of battle that people are fighting elsewhere or which the Government say they are fighting elsewhere. I think that this is a wrecking Bill. It is wrecking decent local authority democracy and it is wrecking the housing plans that have been built up by local authorities of Labour, Conservative and Liberal complexion over the last 70 years. I do not think for a minute that the Government appreciate the consequences that this will have—the change in attitudes that this will lead to in respect of house allocation. Practices that have been in existence for a long time will disappear because now every person who is allocated a house will have the right to buy.
There is no choice. One has the right to buy only the house in which one is living. But I can assure the noble Earl that in local authorities there will be very considerable pushing and shoving to get into the desirable houses. I hope he realises the kind of field that this opens up. As I said the other day, people are not objective about housing; they are very subjective. This will be worse than jury vetting—vetting who got that very good house that they are now buying. It will affect people. It will affect attitudes. It will affect the ability of the local authority to carry out the statutory responsibilities laid upon it by this House.
It is not a simple Bill. It is a slogan that, translated into a Bill, will wreak considerable damage upon the housing outlook in Scotland. We have tried our best to deal with the elderly, to deal with the rural areas and to deal with the question
1226
of the private tenants as well—all to no purpose. The Government have been inflexible. A Government who will not bend will break. That is the lesson that I take from the handling of this Bill. If they carry on in this way, if this Government do not bend—not just in respect of housing but in respect of industry—they will either break or be broken.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
1.33 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. This Bill contains a number of different provisions, but at this stage I do not intend to deal with them at any length. Those that have attracted most attention—the structure of the Health Service, fund-raising and private practice —are three on which I shall say just a few words, although there are other very important parts of the Bill.
At the beginning I should very much like to thank my noble friends Lord Cullen and Lord Sandys, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay for their great help in the earlier stages of this Bill, and to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the helpful way in which we have been able to deal with the business, and to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
I am pleased that the House has been able to make a positive contribution to the Bill, and that there have been included in it amendments giving an enabling power to make payments to doctors' wives and, of course, a later amendment on the inclusion of representatives of district councils to be included on the list of those who may be local authority representatives on district health authorities.
First, on the future structure of the National Health Service, I believe the use that we shall be making of the powers in these clauses is widely welcomed as a way of providing a better and more efficiently managed Health Service, more

1227
quickly responsive to local needs. Secondly, I come to fund-raising. We have debated this provision at some length and I hope that although we may not have persuaded all the noble Lords opposite that this provision is not to be feared, we have at least explained to them that what it allows is no more than the sort of activity carried on by a whole host of perfectly respectable fund-raising bodies. It is a useful but modest extension of existing powers. Voluntary funding is not an alternative way of funding the National Health Service; it is a supplement, small in national terms but helpful locally.
Finally, I come to private practice. I hope that we have made our policy on private practice quite clear. We believe that private provision should be allowed to develop subject only to the condition that in doing so it does not prejudice the National Health Service. We have applied this principle to both private practice in the National Health Service and in the private sector, and it is effected by the legislative and non-legislative safeguards which we have discussed. Our encouragement of private practice in no way undermines our commitment to the National Health Service. Indeed, as we have explained, we support private medicine because it helps the National Health Service by relieving pressure, filling the gaps where the National Health Service is relatively weak, and bringing in pay bed income. We believe that it adds to the total resources for health care in the country and we believe that nothing but good can come of co-operation between the two sectors. They are not incompatible.
I should like to conclude by repeating something which my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne said at the end of the Second Reading debate:
"If we can achieve that consensus view, then I believe that we shall have performed a valuable service which will allow the NHS and the private sector together to get on with their proper job, which is to provide the best health service possihle."—[Official Report, 23/6/80; col. 1433.]
I hope that your Lordships will now agree that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª. —(Baroness Young.)
1.36 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for her opening comments, and I should like to say how much I and my colleague Lord Wallace of Coslany are grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, for always being available if we wanted to see them to discuss any matter with them. We have found this of considerable, and, I think, mutual, value. It was my intention to raise a number of points this morning, but in view of the fact that we have had the intervention of a very long Government Statement on this Friday and that other matters have taken much longer—and if I am perfectly honest with the House, I have a train to catch at two o'clock if I am fortunate enough to do so—I propose to be much briefer than I had intended.
We are really concerned with three of the clauses which are the major clauses so far as we are concerned: Clause 8, which deals with the repeal of provisions relating to the withdrawal of pay beds and the dissolution of the Health Services Board, and Clauses 9 and 10, which cover the treatment of private patients in National Health hospitals.
As your Lordships will know, we were glad to see that in Clause 1 there would be a major change in the structure of the National Health Service. The more we have read the Bill—and some of us on this side have read it several times—and read about the Government's intentions as regards linking private medicine with the National Health Service, the more we have become concerned. It is perhaps not generally recognised that the National Health Service, as a separate service from the private sector in this country, has always been of supreme importance to the Labour Party. It has not been just one of the sacred cows; it is, in fact—and I think will always remain—the most important sacred cow in the Labour movement.
I was particularly concerned yesterday —less than 24 hours ago—when my attention was drawn to a circular issued by the Government some weeks ago—but, understand, not publicly released—urging health authorities to involve the private sector in planning the pattern of local services and calling for far-reaching co

1229
operation between the National Health Service and the private sector, and the loosening of the present limitations on contractual arrangements. I informed the noble Baroness the Minister yesterday about this circular, although I have not seen it, but I am well aware of its contents. It seems to me from what I know of the circular that there will be a very real incursion by the private sector into the National Health Service.
I want to ask the noble Baroness—and I do not necessarily want replies today; she is pressed in much the same way as I am pressed at the present moment—whether the circular also suggests that health authorities might offer financial assistance to private companies to help maintain or develop independent companies. This is what I understand is in the circular, and I understand that comments have been requested from the administrators of the regional health authorities, the administrators of the area health authorities, and the secretaries of the boards of governors of the postgraduate teaching hospitals.
It seems to mean that the National Health Service will be allowed to make contractual arrangements with profit-making hospitals and nursing homes, I think for the first time. I see arising from that that, if used by the National Health Service, it is going to be involved in exorbitant fees. We are concerned at the suggestion of using non-national health facilities as a proper way of providing services. As I understand the situation, it is suggested that where National Health Service patients are dealt with in the private sector—and I am quoting from a circular which I admit I have not seen—they could be charged for optional amenities which are not part of the hospital provision. Does this mean that national health patients could get certain private patient facilities over and above what they would have got under the National Health Service, provided they pay for it? My friends and I are concerned at the way the Government are, if my information is correct, proposing to let the private sector play such an important role in the provision of health facilities.
I think that all this amounts to an attack by the Government on public health. It is clear they are planning to
1230
make the private sector a much more important part of health care in this country. I do not have to tell the noble Baroness the Minister that private health in this country is a growing and expanding industry, and it can only grow, and it can only expand, at the expense of the National Health Service. I believe that the Government are already conducting a long-term survey of the possibility of extending private medicine by insurance schemes. This seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction, because it rather looks as though we are moving not towards a real National Health Service but towards a National Health Service where people will be expected to pay, where they will be encouraged to undertake private medicine by insurance schemes; and unless we are careful we shall return to the system of voluntary hospitals.
I became aware of this circular only yesterday, and it is one which gives rise to a great deal of concern. I would say to the noble Baroness the Minister that if any Government department—and particularly in this case the Department of Health and Social Security—is going to issue circulars of any kind during the passage of a Bill through this House and the circulars are going to be concerned with the content of the Bill, it would be a good thing if shadow Ministers were given an opportunity of seeing them so that they could comment on them before the Bill has been passed.
1.44 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I too should like to express my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lords, Lord Cullen and Lord Sandys, for their courtesy and the fair manner in which our representations have been met. True, differences of opinion still exist, but that is expected in a true democracy such as ours. I would go further and, so far as Clause I is concerned, congratulate the Government on realising the major error in a previous Conservative Government's reorganisation, and acting so promptly to put matters right. I only wish that the Government had the same courage to put right many of the bureaucratic errors made in the local government reorganisation by the same previous Government headed by Mr. Heath.

1231
The reorganisation proposed in Clause 1 will involve great responsibility on those involved in the inevitable staff changes. Some promising officers will be lost to the service, and some careers blighted. This will no doubt be the most worrying and agonising situation created by the Bill. We shall watch the position closely. In the meantime, one can only hope that the maximum understanding and generosity will be shown in handling such a difficult and, to some, painful operation.
The Government's attitude and action on pay beds are regrettable. One can only hope that this will not create difficulties among staff. In the main, the only section that welcomes pay beds in the National Health Service is a majority of consultants, and it would appear to me that this is mainly for financial reasons. I am glad to be assured by the noble Baroness in a courteous letter that amenity beds will continue undisturbed in National Health Service hospitals, provided that there are National Health Service patients who require the privacy of a small room or a bed in a small ward, at a cost of £3 or £1·50 per day depending on the type of accommodation provided, as against pay beds for private treatment at about £57 to £113 a day. I fully accept that people have a right to choose private or public service. All I can say from personal experience is that my family have every reason to express very sincerely our gratitude for the skill and care given—and still being given—to us by the National Health Service medical staff, doctors and nurses, over a long period. To us the National Health Service has been the greatest social change in our lifetime.
At various stages of the Bill I have expressed doubts about the necessity of Clause 5 and the fund-raising efforts implied. However, the decision is taken. Those of us involved in voluntary effort will, I am certain, do our utmost to ensure that in any effort involving voluntary spheres of activity, co-operation will be fully given to ensure maximum success. A recent fine example has shown that anyone with large capital resources can give generously of personal finance to the National Health Service. Those of us not so generously endowed can continue to give voluntary effort and co-operation. There is plenty of scope and room for
1232
voluntary effort in the National Health Service.
Finally, my Lords, I would say this. Miracles cannot be achieved overnight. The new reorganisation will of necessity take time, and a great deal of patience will have to be exercised. On all sides of the House we must exercise all the influence and example we can to ensure the success of Clause 1. The principle of a National Health Service available to all irrespective of colour, class or creed, is a great ideal. It must be preserved at all cost, and protected from clashes of political ideologies.
1.49 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Wells-Pestell and Lord Wallace, for what they have said about the arrangements as this Bill has proceeded through the House. I would, as a new issue has been raised, like to reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on what he has said. To myself and my noble friends it is a matter of regret that he should continue to feel that anything that we may have said about private patients is in any way designed to take away our support for what is done in the National Health Service. This is clearly the most important part of the health services of our country and we stand by it; we support it, and we are great respecters and admirers of what it does.
That said, I think we would all recognise that it is helpful at a time of economic difficulties that we should make the best use of all the resources that the country has, and, above all, that in anything we do we would be putting patients first and not some kind of principles about private practice or National Health Service as a way of helping sick people. The letter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was sent to health authorities by the Department of Health and Social Security on 30th June. A similar letter was sent to professional and private sector bodies. The last part of the letter deals with contractual arrangements and other forms of co-operation between the National Health Service and the private medical sector. It covers a draft circular on the subject on which health authorities have been asked to comment.

1233
The circular sets out revised guidance on contractual arrangements—arrangements whereby the National Health Service uses private sector facilities as a way of providing services to the National Health Service patients. I should make it clear that there is nothing new about this sort of arrangement. As the circular points out, since its inception the National Health Service has entered into contractual arrangements, and this is a recognised way of providing services. About 3,000 private beds are used in this particular way.
The noble Lord asked about contracts with profit-making bodies. One of the things we have done is to lift the administrative bar on contracts with profit-making institutions. This seems to us to be an unnecessary restriction. There may be circumstances where buying a service on a contractual basis and including an element for this may still be the best option to a health authority. Our aim is to secure the best use of resources, and if such a contract is the best use then we see no reason why it should be prohibited. The noble Lord also asked about optional extras and payment. The sort of situation that we envisage is where a National Health Service patient is in an NHS-used bed in a private hospital and asks for an extra amenity such as a colour television. The patient pays for this in exactly the same way as he would pay for it if he were in an NHS hospital bed. The fact that this is a contractual NHS bed in a private hospital makes no difference at all to the arrangements.
The noble Lord also asked about assistance to private hospitals. The body of the circular deals with contractual arrangements between NHS and private hospitals. The NHS is able to help such private hospitals, but only to the extent that this is of benefit to the NHS patients using the private facility on a contractual basis. Finally, if I may just comment on this point, there is nothing in the draft circular that depends in any way on the content of the Bill before the House. The power to use non-NHS facilities for National Health Service patients is in Section 23 of the 1977 National Health Service Act, quite unaffected by this Bill.
I have covered very briefly a number of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, raised. At an earlier stage, when there were a number of issues
1234
like this, we did feel that if this was a matter which the House would like to discuss further a debate on these matters could always be arranged through the usual channels when we return, in another Session. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I am glad that we agree on both sides of the House about private fund-raising. The fact that all of us have taken part in this from time to time—I know the noble Lord does a great deal in this respect to raise money for hospitals—means that we are both agreed on the value that this can be, and I should like to give a last assurance that we are not by these means suggesting that the National Health Service should be financed in this way. At an earlier stage of the Bill we debated very fully the question of staff, and I hope I have been able to give the noble Lord the assurance that we are as concerned as he and his noble friends are that the interests of the staff will be safeguarded in any reorganisation.
On Question, Bill read 3ª, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CRUISE MISSILES: CONTROL SYSTEM
1.56 p.m.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will arrange with the United States Government that the cruise missiles to be deployed in this country shall be under the double key system, as earlier generations of United States strategic missiles deployed here have been.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to its staff for keeping them, for even a few minutes, at the end of one of these exceptionally busy weeks. I do so for a particular reason. It is that the cruise missiles which are the subject of my Question were announced in December of last year—that is eight months ago—and during all that time the country has not yet received an absolutely clear picture of the command and control arrangements for those missiles. Meanwhile, American politics are going on. They are entering an election period, and a period during which it would be harder for Her Majesty's Government to hold

1235
meaningful conversations with the American Administration. Therefore, I thought it would be justifiable to detain the House for a few minutes before the Recess.
I speak as one who, over 15 years, in season and out of season, in this House and in print, has insisted upon the quite special danger of the build-up in Western Russia of intermediate-range nuclear missiles, first the SS 4s and 5s, and now, of course, the far more modern SS 20s. I therefore accept—this is all an introduction—that NATO had to do something. I do not wish to enter into the question whether the relative priorities as between the new weapons deployment, on the one hand, and the new arms control proposition with NATO, on the other hand, were correct. I do not wish to dwell on the question whether the choice of the cruise missile was correct. I accept that all this was reasonable and I do not oppose Government policy in any way in having come to the arrangements they have; I merely seek clarification.
Twenty years ago, the last time we had American strategic nuclear missiles on the soil of Britain—those were the Thor missiles—there was a dual key arrangement; that is to say, it was perfectly clear and fully understood by all that not one of those missiles could be launched in any circumstances whatever without the consent of the British Government—the specific and detailed consent to that launching at that moment. Then there came a long period when there were no American missiles on British soil, but only American bombers carrying American nuclear weapons on British soil. During that period the dual key system gave way to outright American control. We are now back, or we shall be back in two years' time, with the cruise missile, to the stationing on British soil of American nuclear missiles of strategic range. My Question, therefore, concerns whether it is right to continue with the arrangements found appropriate for bombers by Governments of both parties now that we are back in the age of American missiles on our soil.
The distinction is a real one. Any Government can ask—even order—their ally to remove aeroplanes from their airfields within a few minutes. They
1236
can simply fly to another country. Not so with missiles. Even the fairly small cruise missile will be mounted on a pretty hefty vehicle, and obviously one cannot fly a cruise missile off the soil of a country to another country with peaceful intent. This is an absurdity. So presumably the removal of cruise missiles would entail those enormous vehicles rumbling along our roads to a port, where there would have to he a ship ready to receive them to take them somewhere else. This is not a thing that could be required of an ally within a few minutes; it might take days. Perhaps the Minister will be able to comment on that aspect. Prima facie, therefore, it would he appropriate to go back to the dual key system with an undoubted British veto on each and every launch, whatever the circumstances.
The Government have returned slightly different answers when quizzed about this at different times and I wish briefly to review them. On 17th June in the House of Commons, Mr. Pym said:
"On the question of use, I confirm absolutely and have no hesitation in saying that the political decision requires a joint decision by the two Governments. —[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/80; col. 1345.)
Mark the phrase "political decision". On the same day, the noble Lord the Minister, who is to reply to this Unstarred Question, said in this House:
"… these missiles will be under single key, but the arrangements which have obtained for many years will continue and the matter will be subject to a joint decision between the United States and the United Kingdom.—(Official Report, 17/6/80; col. 992.)
Note the phrase "the matter". On. the same day, the same noble Lord also said:
"The actual firing of the missiles could not take place without the necessary political authority under the same arrangement as has obtained ever since 1952". —(Official Report, 17/6/80; col. 998.)
Note the words "political authority". On 20th June, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, again:
"The use by United States forces of bases in the United Kingdom in an emergency is a matter for joint decision …". —(Official Report, 20/6/80; col. 1314.)
Mark the use of the word "bases". On the same day Lord Strathcona again:
"My Lords, these are single key systems … The United States, like the United Kingdom, have committed themselves to consult with their allies, time and circumstances permitting, before releasing their weapons for use".—(Official Report, 20/6/80; col. 1316.)

1237
Mark the phrases "time and circumstances permitting" and "before releasing their weapons for use"; not "releasing their weapons" but "releasing their weapons for use".
On 13th June, Mr. Hayhoe in the House of Commons said:
"The United States …has committed itself to consult its allies, time and circumstances permitting …".—(Official Report, Commons, 13/6/80; col. 1095.)
The same reservation. And most recently, yesterday, in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, answering a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, used two key phrases:
"My Lords, it has been said many times that the matter of the control of these bases is a question of joint decision between the two Governments …The bases may not be used without such a joint decision".—(Official Report, 31/7/80; col. 1040.)
The question is, precisely what is the arrangement? Could the Government be rather more frank than they have yet been? We know that the use of the bases, in the sense of the stationing of the weapons on the bases, has been the subject of a joint decision. We also know that the cruise missiles will not be fired from those bases; they will be removed from them by road anywhere up to a distance of 50 miles—I quote the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona—and will be fired from elsewhere (from a roadside, a wood or a farm) and not fired from the base. What we are talking about, then, is not the arrangement for the control of the bases but the arrangement for the control of the firing of the missiles.
Since we are a sovereign and democratic state, and since the preservation of our sovereignty is infinitely important to us because of our democracy, I believe it is wrong to allow another sovereign state—even a democracy, even a friendly democracy and even our closest friend in the world—to have untrammelled decision over the launch of weapons, which would of course involve the total destruction of our society, from our territory without our having a veto. I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, can tell us we have that veto. My first question, therefore, is whether we have it, and I believe he will have to answer, "No, we do not".
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to repeat that specific question?
Lord KENNET: My specific question, my Lords, was: when the American cruise missiles are deployed in Britain, shall we have an undoubted veto in detail over each and every single launching of any such missile from any site whatever in Britain? I believe the noble Lord will not be answering "Yes" to that question.
My second question is based on the fact that it is not too late to seek such a veto. Answering the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, yesterday, the noble Lord gave a reason why we had not yet obtained such a veto. It was that it would cost us some money because we should have to staff, service and possibly even purchase the missiles themselves, as opposed to their warheads, whereas at present we have not purchased them and do not intend to purchase them or service them. This has been negotiated between the Government and the American Administration. Maybe such an arrangement is convenient to the German Government in their relations with the United States and in their perception of how the Soviet Union will react to their relations with the United States. I can therefore understand that it is a suitable arrangement for the Germans.
Is it suitable for us? Is it really the case that this Government have tried to obtain the veto, which I believe they should have, from the Americans and have been told point blank, "You cannot have it unless you buy the missiles outright"? If that has not happened, then I urge on the Government the desirability now—it is not too late by any means; we have two or three years to go—of putting this possibility, in friendly terms and in private, to the American Administration, and of our Government basing themselves in doing so on the arguments which apply in this country where, goodness knows!, it is hard enough to get public consent to defence expenditure without incurring almost wilful difficulties like this.
2.8 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am sorry that the debate is being held at this time,

1239
and I wish that we could have had a proper defence debate, though I am not blaming the Government about this. I have expressed my views to my noble friend. I understand his enthusiasm, and he is perfectly right in doing what he wishes—
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, will my noble friend give way for a moment? I have come into the Chamber specially. This is a vital debate. It is concerned with the whole issue of control. We are giving away some of our sovereignty. I am all for strength, but I am not for provocation of the Russians. I want to know the position. I hope that we shall be able to have a proper debate on this matter later. A Member has the right to call a debate at any moment he wishes, and I should not want in any way to interfere with that right, but I am sorry that the Chamber is almost empty this afternoon for this vital debate.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I hope that we can have a debate on this issue when the House is meeting under different circumstances. We arc near the end of a Session, and unfortunately very few of our colleagues are present. This is an important matter. I tried to use my influence on my noble friend in regard to the debate, but of course I recognise that he has a point. The Question is concerned with the double key system, and whether our sovereignty is affected, and so forth. I do not disagree with my noble friend on this, and I do not think that the Government will. On the other hand, I do not want to get involved in a major defence debate, because we shall come to this later when we come back after the recess, and I should prefer to see that we deploy arguments of another kind.
Apart from that, I consider that my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek is absolutely right, and I take the view that we should be thinking in terms of getting together. There is too much jingoism on each side. I say this because the Government's admirable defence paper contains an historical account of the signing of SALT II in Vienna by President Carter and President Brezhnev. As the paper says, it was
1240
"an important step in the long process of limiting strategic arms. Following the movement of Soviet into Afghanistan at the end of 1979, however. President Carter asked Senate leaders to delay the ratification debate on the Treaty".
I hope that today we can be told what progress has been made in this direction. SALT II was important. It is a complex agreement, as was said in the White Paper; but I believe that it is the only way. We must have détente in the best sense; otherwise both sides will build up arms, including nuclear weapons, when really the world cannot afford it. I am a multilateralist in defence; I believe in defence. I am certain that the main issue is not merely the double key system. Rather, the main issue is whether or not we can use our influence to get talks going on an international level, and I hope that the Government will be able to say something about that.
2.11 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, it is easy to understand the anxieties and the concerns that have been expressed here today. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and like other noble Lords, in a sense I regret that this should be the occasion on which we are addressing such an important problem, but of course, we have addressed it before. As the noble Lord said, we addressed it yesterday to some extent in a Starred Question, and it has been referred to on a number of occasions in various debates.
It sounds trite to say this, but the question of the control over any nuclear weapons deployed in this country or in other parts of NATO clearly is a matter of literally the utmost importance. In addressing the question I shall be seeking to allay some of the fears expressed by the noble Lord with regard to the terms upon which United States ground-launched cruise missiles arc based in this country.
The noble Lord asked me certain very specific questions, and I should be in some difficulty if I attempt to examine those questions with a lawyer's microscope and go into some of the semantics involved in them. However, I shall do my best to make clear both the Government's commitment and position. I believe that at various times there have been some misunderstandings and a certain amount of

1241
muddle about this issue. I shall have to check the references that the noble Lord mentioned. The noble Lord quoted some references in which he tried to show that the position has changed, and in that regard it is possible that we are not totally comparing like with like, nor addressing the same problem. I hope that that will emerge from what I am going to say in the next few minutes.
I should like to try to put some of this in historical perspective first, because it is relevant and it is important. The deployment to which we are referring at the present time is part of NATO's long-range theatre—and note the word "theatre", my Lords—nuclear force modernisation programme, which was agreed by Alliance Ministers in Brussels last December. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that he did not invite me to rehearse all the arguments for that modernisation programme. That is not what we are discussing, and I am thankful to him for recognising that this afternoon. Nor, I think, do I need to emphasise the Government's wholehearted commitment to the execution of that programme—and this is important in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said in parallel with the arms control discussions with the Soviet Union. We believe that this combined approach is at last showing some signs of being taken serously by the Russians, but that is all I am going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, about the question of SALT discussions, which I think are not strictly speaking relevant to this fairly narrow point which the noble Lord is raising.
The deployment of the ground-launch cruise missile, or GLCM (sometimes called "Glickam", I am sorry to say, but as I might slip into calling it that later I had better admit to it now) will involve 160 missiles in the United Kingdom, and it is part of the alliance-wide defence arrangement. Here is a case of NATO acting in concert in the face of a common threat. The Government's position has been widely debated, both in Parliament and by the press, and by the public at large, most notably since the announcement of the location of the cruise missiles at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth, and I believe that the programme has widespread support. But any discussion of the question of control has to be placed in its wider
1242
context. The deployment to bases here of US forces, both nuclear and conventional, is not, of course, in any sense new. For some 30 years US aircraft and missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons have been based in the United Kingdom. These have included the B29, the B47 and the F111 bombers, and the Thor, Polaris and Poseidon missiles. Successive United States and United Kingdom Governments have made appropriate arrangements to cover the use by the United States of these bases.
Following discussions between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Truman in January 1952, the official communiqué stated—and I quote:
"… under arrangements made for the common defence, the United States has the use of certain bases in the United Kingdom. We reaffirm the understanding that the use of these bases in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government in the light of the circumstances at the time".
That understanding has comprehended subsequent US basing arrangements in the United Kingdom, including the cruise missiles, which will start to arrive at Greenham Common in 1983.
My Lords, the concept of dual key, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has referred, has sometimes been misinterpreted. However (and I think he said this), correctly understood the term applies to physical means of control over the weapon system; but sometimes commentators have loosely referred to dual-key when in fact they mean dual-control or joint-decision. Only one US nuclear missile system based in the United Kingdom has been governed by a true dual key, and that was the Thor intermediate-range ballistic missile, based here from 1958 to 1963.
A direct comparison between that intermediate-range ballistic missile system and the United States ground-launch cruise missile is misleading because of the important difference that the Thor missiles came into United Kingdom ownership while the ground-launched cruise missiles will remain US-owned and operated. In both cases, the warheads remained under ultimate US control. The Thor missiles were manned and operated by the RAF, although any decision to launch the missiles—and this

1243
was made clear in Command Paper 406 published on 22nd February 1958—would have been a matter for joint decisions by the two Governments. The other US nuclear missile systems which have been based in the United Kingdom—the US Polaris boats at Holy Loch—were not operated under the dual-key arrangement although the Truman-Churchill provisions for joint decision still apply. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord will see that he is incorrect in implying (in his original Question, anyway) that earlier US nuclear missiles deployed in this country were all under a dual key system.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, may I interpose at this point? I may have been correct since the Polaris and Poseidon missiles were not deployed in this country. The noble Lord said that the only US missile system to have been deployed in this country to have been under dual key was Thor. The point is that this is the only one that has ever been deployed on the soil of this country—and it was dual key.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I had better check exactly what the noble Lord is saying to me and what I have said to him. If I am wrong, I will write to him. I will grant him this. Clearly, the Polaris and Poseidon missiles are not deployed on the soil of this country, since they are submarine-launched systems, but they are deployed from bases in this country; and that is an important point.
There is another point. All the ground-launched cruise missiles that we arc now discussing are not strategic systems in character. They are intended as a modernisation of the ageing, land-based, long-range theatre nuclear forces which NATO at present deploys—that is, the UK Vulcans and the US F.111s. Their bases, like those for the US F.111s, are already sited in the United Kingdom, and they will be subject to the same arrangements for joint decision by the two Governments. The Government arc wholly satisfied with the arrangements that will govern the use of the ground-launched cruise missiles in an emergency. As the noble Lord rightly said, I sought to explain yesterday to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that a dual key system
1244
would entail the United Kingdom acquiring the cruise missile system—that is, without the warheads—and providing the manpower to operate and maintain them. Dual key procedures already apply to United States warheads intended for use by United Kingdom-owned aircraft and artillery systems based in this country and on the Continent.
The US Government has made it clear to us and to other European countries who are accepting basing of the Pershing II and cruise missiles that they would be willing to sell us missiles for operation on a dual key basis. However, as the Government are satisfied with the current arrangements for control over ground-launched cruise missiles to be based in this country, we do not believe that a dual key system would be a sensible use of our limited defence resources. Unlike our independent strategic and theatre nuclear forces, a United Kingdom dual key would add little to deterrence. The Russians would know that the weapons could not be used without a decision by the United States Government, and their perception of the likelihood of its use would he no different from that under the current arrangements for "joint decision".
I doubt whether I have satisfied the noble Lord. I have done my best. May I try to sum it up by the simple point that, on a dual key basis, we would have to find a lot of money to indulge in the luxury of the pride of ownership, without gaining any greater control over the use of the weapons. That is our position.