Lords Sitting of 21 December 1983

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

Unemployment Benefits: Integration
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether consideration could be given to merging the schemes operated by the DHSS and MSC which afford benefits to the unemployed and those threatened with redundancy (such as fares and interview expenses and grants for house purchase and removal) into a single comprehensive scheme administered by one department of state; and whether any amendment to such schemes is envisaged.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the schemes administered by the Manpower Services Commission to pay expenses such as fares to interviews to people who are unemployed or threatened with redundancy are designed to assist in filling jobs which could not otherwise be filled. The payments of supplementary benefit given by the Department of Health and Social Security are intended to help individuals who have the lowest incomes to compete in the job market. The possibility of merging the two schemes has in the past been considered, but the objects of the schemes are essentially different and the Government have concluded that it is better that the schemes should continue to he administered as at present.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. However, will he accept that it does not really come to grips with the substance of the Question? I should like to ask my noble friend whether the approximate grant under each of these three schemes for 1982–83 was of the order of £150,000, £150,000 and £5¼ million respectively? Can my noble friend tell your Lordships'House—and this is relevant to the Question which remains, in my submission, unanswered—the estimated cost of administration of each scheme? Can he also say whether a total grant of under £6 million justifies three schemes which overlap under the administration of two separate departments of state?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend has given me a substantial number of supplementary questions to answer but I shall endeavour to answer them. So far as the administrative costs of the schemes are concerned, I have to tell my noble friend that, on very rough estimates—and the estimates are not very precise—the annual administrative costs of both the
724
MSC and the supplementary benefits schemes are £1.5 million and £100,000 respectively. Whether or not merging the schemes would produce administrative savings would depend upon what were the rules of any combined scheme. The fact remains that the schemes are different, and I am sorry that my noble friend is unable to accept that they are so. However, if I were to enlarge upon the two different forms of scheme—the one as regards the DHSS and the two Manpower Services schemes—I would probably be standing at this Dispatch Box for several more moments. It would probably be better if I write to my noble friend in more detail as regards both schemes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Minister be at least prepared to take to the Secretary of State the submission made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway? It appears to many of us who are interested in providing relief and help for the unemployed and for other people, that the proposals could do two things. First, they could streamline efficiency; and, secondly, they could increase the breadth of assistance so urgently required, particularly for the unemployed.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I said in answer to my noble friend, the combining of these schemes has been looked at. Of course, the Government are prepared to help the unemployed in the ways in which they have already announced and which operate at present. As I have said, there are three schemes and those three schemes are in operation. Whether or not it would be sensible to merge them is something which has been considered and we have ruled that it would not be sensible to do so.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm whether I heard him correctly? I thought I heard him say that the administration of one of the schemes costs £1·5 million, whereas the total value of all three schemes is not more than £10 million, which means that the administration accounts for more than 10 per cent. Perhaps I misheard my noble friend?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, what I said was that the annual administrative costs of both the MSC and the supplementary benefits schemes are £1·5 million and £100,000, respectively. The reason for the MSC schemes costing what they do is that one applies to travel only—that is to say, the benefits that come from the job search scheme cost £115,000. The other scheme—the employment transfer scheme—is the one which provides removal expenses as well and it costs considerably more.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I must press the matter. Having heard that the cost is £1·5 million, did I understand my noble friend correctly to say that the whole thing cost less than £10 million, which means that the administration costs more than 10 per cent.?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think I actually said that the whole thing was £10 million or less than £10 million; but I shall certainly read what I said and if I got it wrong I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, on inspection of the documents that I have received from the Ministry of Transport, there is a very substantial degree of overlap, and hence the Question remains, in my submission, unanswered in any reasoned fashion?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is no overlap because the DHSS scheme applies to those who are on supplementary benefit. Not everybody who goes in search of a job is on supplementary benefit.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if I heard correctly that the cost is about £6 million in total, will the Minister agree that 25 per cent. is a very large percentage for administration?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if it is 25 per cent.; but I do not think that the noble Lord's mathematics are right in this case.

British Rapid Intervention Force
11.12 a.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is to be the name and the total long-term strength of the proposed British rapid intervention force; and whether it is proposed to pre-position military supplies or equipment for it anywhere outside the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently announced a package of measures which will enhance the capability of 5 Brigade to undertake deployments and operations outside the NATO area, although the brigade's primary role remains home defence. These measures will bring the brigade's long-term strength to approximately 4,500 and will mean that more members of the brigade will be given parachute training. The brigade has now been re-titled 5 Airborne Brigade. We have no plans to pre-position supplies or equipment for the brigade outside the United Kingdom.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Government undertake to the House that a Statement will be made to Parliament before 5 Airborne Brigade is ever deployed outside the NATO area, giving a very clear account of the reasons for which it is being deployed; and, further, that if it is so deployed and the reasons are ever changed, an immediate Statement to that effect will be made to Parliament?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must say that I cannot conceive of a situation where 5 Airborne Brigade would be deployed without Parliament having some interest in the matter, but I think that I should want to stop short of giving the assurance for which the noble Lord asks.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us where we have in mind to intervene rapidly? Is not the real purpose of this force to enable our Prime Minister next time to beat the President to the draw? If that is the intention, there are some of us who are a little nervous.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should have thought that the events of last year would have persuaded us to prepare for the unexpected. Therefore, I cannot tell the noble Lord where in particular we might wish to deploy this unit.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, can the Minister say in what circumstances such a force would be used in the United Kingdom or outside, and also what qualities are needed by the force which are not already met by other forms of our Armed Forces?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I say, we came to the conclusion that we needed to make some enhancement to our ability to intervene in areas where vital British interests are threatened outside the immediate NATO area, and that was why we made the changes in the enhancements to this brigade—most particularly, as I have said, an air-transportable capability.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that the consequences of rapid deployment have usually been unfortunate, if not disastrous, for whichever country carries out such a deployment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would not say that at all, no.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, has the noble Lord the Minister noticed that he has already given a commitment of a sort by using the words "where vital British interests are affected"? Is this not perhaps excessively limiting the circumstances in which such a brigade might be sent out of the NATO area?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that I quite follow the gist of the noble Lord's question. I would not wish to go further than I have done. Clearly, we have enhanced the facilities that existed to enable deployments to be made when we think they are appropriate in British interests.

Balance of Trade with France
11.16 a.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the current visible balance of trade with France in 1982 and how this compares with 1972.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in 1972 there was a deficit of £92 million, and in 1982 a positive balance of £223 million.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very encouraging information. Can he also confirm that, in spite of the unfortunate economic tension that exists between Britain and France, membership of the EEC has improved the situation for British exporters to France?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, indeed, I am happy to give my noble friend that assurance. I am sure that he and your Lordships will be glad to know that France is high on the list of the countries providing a most important market for the United Kingdom.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that, whereas the trend in our balance of trade with France shows a favourable tendency, when one looks at the whole of western Europe, and if one compares the first nine months of this year with the first nine months of last year, one sees that there has been a growth of no less than £2 billion in the trade deficit? Will the noble Lord agree that this deterioration calls for an urgent review of our trading position with western Europe?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord has presented some figures, and they are all contained, together with several others, in this very valuable volume of statistics which is to be found in your Lordships' Library. However, the noble Lord and I have discussed this problem many times in your Lordships' House in recent months. Indeed, the Government are continually reviewing the position.

Judiciary and Executive: Independence
11.18 a. m .
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will affirm the principle that the Judiciary shall be totally independent of the Executive.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for the state of my voice. The answer to the noble Lord's Question is: Yes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, although I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are reports in many sectors of the British media that the Government have savaged this vital principle and that the name of the Master of the Rolls has been involved? Is the noble and learned Lord aware that this is considered to be an extremely serious situation? Is he further aware that the ripples of consternation are not limited to the field of industrial relations?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that that will quite do. The Government have not savaged anything—not even the noble Lord!
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend not agree that the great guarantee of
728
the independence of the Judiciary rests in the powers of your Lordships' House to veto the dismissal of any judge at any time?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry; I did not hear.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble and learned friend agree that the great defence and protection of the independence of the Judiciary rests with the power possessed by your Lordships' House to veto the dismissal of any judge at any time?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is not the only defence. This would of course apply to the higher Judiciary, where a Resolution of both Houses is required. But the independence of the Judiciary applies right down the scale to the magistrates in the humblest petty sessional court. There, I think I must say, I remain the bastion of liberty.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, while maintenance of the independence of the Judiciary is obviously of vital importance, is it not also important that Ministers and civil servants should take great care not to involve the judges in political matters?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords. An independent and loyal Civil Service is also part of our constitution, and I think that the loyalty of a civil servant in this particular case was somewhat lacking and has been met with dismissal.
Lord Hale: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack not aware that in The Times this morning there is a specific paragraph or two dealing with discussions between the Master of the Rolls and the Minister concerned with matters of employment, and that the subject raised by The Times is the question a number of people are wondering about, as to how far things are going along this road and whether, for all practical purposes, an involvement of the Judiciary is already substantial?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the only thing of which I am aware is that there was a perfectly innocent conversation between a newly-appointed civil servant, who was not the civil servant I referred to a moment ago, and the Master of the Rolls, in which, following the practice which I think has been the practice of successive Governments, he sought to inform himself of matters which were within the Master of the Rolls' own experience, and which the Master of the Rolls himself had largely dealt with in the course of a public lecture.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor think that the independence of the Judiciary is inevitably affected by communication between the Executive and the Judiciary? When the Executive seeks to learn of the experience of the Judiciary in dealing with certain matters, is there a normal means of communication, or is it left to informal discussion?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords. I think there are both. I have myself taken the opportunity of

729
emphasising the desirability of, apart from the Home Office, informing the Lord Chancellor when these things take place. Sometimes he is capable of giving useful advice.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that I am well used to being savaged by Conservative Governments, and that I am almost immune now to anything they can do because I have survived for so long? The principle that I raised in my Question is fundamental, would the noble and learned Lord not agree? The last reply that he gave, that someone did consult with the Master of the Rolls, gives reason for apprehension, but perhaps he has contributed this morning to relieving that grave apprehension that existed, for which I am sure the House and indeed the country will be grateful to him.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that is pretty handsome. Thank you very much.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble and learned friend not agree, going back to the independence of the Judiciary and the protection of it afforded by this House's power of veto, that it was proposed by the party opposite in the last two elections that the power of veto should be abolished?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that we are straying a little far from the original Question, but I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing that out.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack feel that the happy independence of the Bench of Bishops and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack continues despite cut and thrust in this House? And how much we wish the noble and learned Lord a very happy Christmas?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to reciprocate the good wishes of the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Morris: My Lords, would my noble and learned friend agree that anybody who seeks free legal advice always does so at his peril?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the only legal adviser of Her Majesty's Government is the Attorney-General or, I should have said, the four Law Officers.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I briefly assure the Lord Chancellor that, when I expressed my deep appreciation of his status, standing and assistance, that did not mean, in so far as he admitted that there had been some perhaps minor breach, that this House and indeed people in this country will not nevertheless continue this issue until it is finally cleared up in the interests of our great constitution.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord can discover mares' nests wherever he wants.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Sellafield.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been dispensed with (pursuant to resolution of 15th December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Foreign Limitation Periods Bill [H.L.]
11.27 a.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Exceptions to Section 1]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the following amendment:
Page 2, line 19, leave out from ("would") to end of line 23 and insert ("to any extent conflict (whether under subsection (1A) below or otherwise) with public policy, that section shall not apply to the extent that its application would so conflict.
(1A) The application of section 1 above in relation to any action or proceedings shall conflict with public policy to the extent that its application would cause undue hardship to a person who is, or might he made, a party to the action or proceedings.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. In speaking to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in Committee, I acknowledged the problem which he raised but cast doubts on the noble Lord's proposed solution. The problem was that unduly long foreign limitation periods might not necessarily, by virtue of their length alone, justify the application of the public policy proviso in the Bill. I undertook to the Committee to give the matter further consideration, and this has resulted in the amendment which is now tabled in my name.
After consultation I have concluded that it is possible to adopt Lord Mishcon's formula, for which I thank him. There is, however, one significant difference in my own amendment. In contrast to his amendment, in which undue hardship was an alternative to public policy as ground for avoiding the application of a foreign limitation period, in the present amendment undue hardship is presented as an element of public policy. Underlying this difference is Article 16 of the European Community Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations. Once ratified by the United Kingdom, the only available ground on which our courts may decline to apply a relevant foreign limitation period will be that of manifest incompatibility with what is called ordre public of the forum, which I translate as "public policy". To be consistent with our Community obligations it is necessary to draw the present amendment as a statement of our public policy.
Lord Mishcon's amendment was also confined to defendants. My amendment caters not only for periods of limitation prejudicial to the defendant because of their excessive length, but also for periods being unduly short and prejudicial to the plaintiff. I am advised that in some foreign jurisdictions such periods exist, particularly in the sensitive field of personal injuries. Thus in the very few cases in which litigation in an English court involves the law of another country and in which, as a consequence of the Bill, the law relating to the limitation of that country will also apply, these few cases remain subject to public policy exception provided for in the Bill as originally drafted. But by this amendment is expressly incorporated into that conception an additional element—that is Lord Mishcon's formula of undue hardship. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I propose to follow the artistry of the noble and learned Lord in short and pithy replies which he illustrated so well at Question time. Therefore I merely thank him for the consideration that he kindly gave to my amendment and readily admit that his formula is a great improvement on mine. The Bill has now been improved as a result of our joint efforts, mine being the minor part.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I do not think there would have been an amendment down if it had not been for him so I am not sure that his amendment was the minor part.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Petroleum Royalties (Relief) Bill
11.33 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Avon.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords , this is the last opportunity we shall have before the Bill receives Royal Assent to state the Opposition's fundamental opposition to the provisions of the Bill, which abolishes all royalties for new oilfields outside the southern basin. This is a vital Bill with sweeping powers and I wonder whether it has been appreciated in this House or in another place how important a Bill it is.
I stated quite clearly and unequivocally at every stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House that the principle of royalties was basic and should be retained at all costs. That remains our position today. We also dislike this Bill because it is unnecessarily generous to the oil companies and consequently detrimental to the interests of the British taxpayer and to the interests of the nation as a whole. It is regrettable and also reprehensible that the short-term needs of the Government to maximise revenue in the short term should undermine their future ability properly to control developments in the North Sea and lead to the sacrifice of long-term financial benefits.
732
I also find it quite deplorable that Parliament should be asked to give consent to a Bill of this kind without the Government giving any estimate of the cost to the Exchequer. The Government have asked for a blank cheque which, when it is finally filled in and presented for payment, I rather fear the taxpayer will be many thousands of millions of pounds worse off. That is a matter of great significance.
During the Committee stage the Opposition attempted to improve the Bill in such a manner as to preserve the Government's control of and income from the North Sea, while at the same time ensuring that development—that is including development of marginal fields—continued in an orderly and beneficial manner, consistent with the need to achieve the optimum benefit from the North Sea over the longest period of time. The fact that your Lordships felt unable to agree with our view will, we believe, result not only in a huge loss of revenue, but will also place the Government in a vulnerable position over royalties in other areas of the North Sea, not covered by the Bill. Indeed, we see this Bill as the thin end of the wedge, leading to the complete abandonment of royalties over the whole of the North Sea. If that were to happen, we would be the only oil-producing country in the world without royalty oil. That is something which the whole House should deplore. For all these reasons, and because the Bill undermines the very principles and rights of ownership in the North Sea, we reject this Bill, and although in accordance with the conventions of this House we shall not vote against a Third Reading there should be no mistake about our complete and utter opposition to and detestation of the measure.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in the debates and Committee discussions both here and in another place we have faced a difficult decision of how much needs to be given in fiscal concessions to oil companies exploring, developing and producing on the United Kingdom continental shelf in order to achieve a proper rate of development. It is important that those reserves which can economically be produced should be produced. The fiscal régime must therefore provide adequate encouragement for this, while, at the same time, ensuring an adequate share for the nation.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. claims to have calculated an Exchequer loss of £5,750 million. I do not propose to compete with him in offering calculations that must necessarily be wholly speculative. But by explaining where I believe there are two significant misunderstandings in this particular calculation. I hope that I shall be able to underline two of the principal reasons why the Government are moving this Bill.
First, I see that the noble Lord's figure of 2,300 million barrels of recoverable reserves is close to the equivalent figure in the Brown Book of 300 million tonnes for proven and probable reserves in significant discoveries not yet fully appraised. But I must ask him to recognise that much of this would not have been worth developing without this year's package of fiscal incentives. For no developments were brought forward for approval from 1980 until after last winter's review of the fiscal regime had started. And that detailed

733
review left us in no doubt that a number of fields that were profitable before tax offered such poor returns after royalty and tax that they were likely to remain undeveloped without a significant change in circumstances.
So the noble Lord cannot simply take the whole amount, multiply it by the rate of royalty and accuse the Government of giving the resulting amount away. Rather I suggest to the House that the Government have gained for the Exchequer the tax take from those fields that will now be developed but would not otherwise have been.
Secondly. I think that the noble Lord's calculations assumed a rate of loss of 12½ per cent. May I once more try to explain, as I did during Second Reading, that the royalty relief proposed in this Bill has the effect of increasing the pre-tax revenue potentially liable to petroleum revenue tax and corporation tax. Thus the marginal rate of Government take may be reduced only from 89½ per cent to 88 per cent. Of course some—or even very occasionally all—of the extra revenue may be protected from tax by allowances. But that is right and proper. Unlike royalties, PRT and corporation tax are progressive taxes, with allowances designed to reduce their incidence on less profitable fields. It is through these profit-based taxes rather than through royalties that the Government should take for the nation its share of future North Sea holdings. I should like now to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, for focusing the House's attention on the question of how much paperwork is entailed by various of the fiscal alternatives.
There have been to date three requests for royalty refunds, none of which has been agreed to. Without this Bill, I should confidently expect requests for virtually every new field, most of which would be agreed to. But it is not consideration of a request for, or payment of, a refund which causes the great mass of paperwork; it is the original calculation and collection of royalties. Even though the royalties were to be refunded, these detailed calculations will be insisted upon by licensees since the notional liability to royalty is an allowance against PRT. It is perhaps worth pausing for a moment on the thought that what industry thought of was a refunding of royalty that would have given them relief from tax as well as royalty. Under the Government's proposal in this Bill, the exemption is only on royalty.
The Bill now before the House is aimed at completing the package of which the other parts are in the Finance Act 1983 and the Oil Taxation Act of the same year. It completes the adjustment of the fiscal regime in such a way as to give, so far as can be foreseen, a fair return to companies and enough to give incentive for exploration and development while securing an increased return to the nation through the developments of fields which would otherwise have been by-passed. I do not believe that either the taxpayer or the country have anything to fear from this Bill. In fact, I believe they would benefit from it. I invite the House to agree that the royalty relief as proposed in this Bill should be given and that the Bill be read a third time.
On Question. Bill read a third time, and passed.

Coal Industry Bill
11.41 a.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for a further two years'' financial support to the coal industry when the present powers run out in March 1984. The coal industry makes large demands on public finance. In 1983–84 the EFL for the National Coal Board is £1,195 million, the highest for any nationalised industry. In the same year the NCB are expected to accrue total grant support in the form of deficit and social grants of around £650 million. Even after those grants have been received, the chairman and his predecessor have spoken of an expected loss for that year of £185 million.
Noble Lords will be aware that on 23rd June this year the Monopolies and Mergers Commission published their report on the efficiency and costs of the NCB. The conclusion of the report was that the board faced two central and closely related problems: over-capacity and a number of high cost pits which have become uneconomic. The board in their preliminary response in July agreed with this conclusion.
Both the present and previous chairman have made it clear that action is needed to improve the industry's position and win for it a good future. Those aims have been reflected in the objectives for the board which were put on record by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State in the first sitting of the Standing Committee in another place. They provide that the NCB should earn a satisfactory return on its assets in real terms after payment of social grants. that the board should plan to secure those sales which are profitable on a continuing basis in competition with other fuels, and should progressively reduce operating costs per tonne in real terms.
The manner in which these objectives are met is a matter for the board. Operating-cost savings should result from improvements in productivity. The chairman has also expressed his aim of winning new markets for coal, especially in industry. The Government recognise that continued investment will he needed to assist in reducing costs and to secure long-term future coal supplies.
Despite the industry's disappointing financial performance in the past few years, there have been encouraging signs. Productivity, which remained low throughout the 'seventies has been rising steadily over the past four years, and is forecast to rise by some 3 per cent. this year when compared with 1982–83. Positive appointments have been made to the National Coal Board to help the board to deal constructively with its problems. The Government have provided massive financial support in the form of grants, loans and a continuing large investment programme. We have enabled the board's major investment programme to continue despite the serious deterioration of their revenue position. In 1981–82 the board reported a trading loss of £84 million. In 1982–83 this increased to £123 million and the board's total loss before deficit grant was £485 million.
The result has been that the board have found themselves increasingly unable to finance investment

735
from their own internal resources. In 1982–83, as a result of their losses, the board's reserves became negative and they became technically insolvent. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave an assurance in July in another place that continuing Government support in 1983–84 would enable the industry to operate as a going concern.
In addition to the loan finance which is made available to the board, the Government provide substantial revenue support in the form of various grants. Up till 1982–83 there were a number of specific operating grants to the board. Since 1980, however, payments of individual operating grants have been progressively replaced, as was envisaged in the Coal Industry Act 1980, by a single deficit grant, which is paid in respect of NCB's consolidated loss on revenue account. In 1982–83 deficit grant payments accrued by the board totalled £374 million, more than covering the £366 million interest payments which the board, like any business needing to borrow, must properly pay.
The board has stated its intention of remedying its serious financial situation and achieving a return to viability at the earliest practicable date. In the meantime, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear, we stand behind the board, so that loans to them from the National Loans Fund and revenue support in the form of grants to the board are continuing in 1983–84. Beyond the end of 1983–84 new powers are required if our support to the board is to continue. This Bill makes provision for the powers which are needed to support the industry for a further two years. Thereafter, new provisions will be needed. As was explained in another place, the introduction of further legislation in two years' time will provide the House with another opportunity to examine the progress of the industry towards a sounder financial position.
If I may I will turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 makes provision for loans to the board from the National Loans Fund to continue up to a new limit of £6 billion. At the end of September 1983 the board's borrowing stood at £4,122 million. Clause 1 provides for an interim limit on loans of £5 billion which may be increased by order to £6 billion. Clause 2 provides for a limit of £1,200 million on the amount of deficit grant which may be paid to the board in the financial years 1983–84 to 1985–86, a limit which may be increased by order to £2 billion. It also provides for the repeal of certain sections of the Coal Industry Acts 1973 and 1977 which are no longer needed. The grants made under those sections were completed in the 1982–83 financial year. All future payments of revenue grant support to the board other than social grants will take the form of payments which are made to reduce or remove the group deficit of the board on revenue account.
The next two clauses of the Bill, Clauses 3 and 4, extend for a further two years the powers to make social grants to the board and payments under the Redundant Mineworkers' Payment Scheme. These grants and payments have been made for many years now. Grants now paid under Section 6 of the Coal Industry Act 1977—which provide reimbursement of half of the board's expenditure on a great variety of
736
payments on redundancy and transfer, and also on supporting concessionary coal pools—were first introduced in 1965. The Redundant Mineworkers' Payment Scheme was introduced in 1967, and extended to include concessionary coal under powers taken in the Coal Industry Act 1973. In the debates on the Coal Industry Bills of 1980 and 1982 it was made clear that these grants and payments would continue after their present expiry date of 31st March 1984; and this Bill does so continue them, for two years in line with the other financial powers.
Noble Lords will have noted that the statutory limits on these grants and payments are considerably higher than those which they replace. This arises because the terms of the RMPS have been greatly improved during the last few years, so that payments per redundancy are now much higher than they were. It also arises because the rate of redundancy has fluctuated greatly over the last few years, representing as it does the result of decisions taken by the board's management at local level, in consultation with the unions.
The present situation on expenditure under Section 7 of the Coal Industry Act 1977, which I must bring to the attention of the House, demonstrates all too clearly why the higher limit is needed. The present limit of £300 million covers payments under the Redundancy Mineworkers' Payments Scheme, and also payments to the board in support of the provision of concessionary coal, as introduced in 1973 and extended earlier this year. Payments under Section 7 exceeded the £300 million limit on 2nd December 1983. But no noble Lord could wish payments to redundant mineworkers under the scheme to be halted or curtailed until this Bill becomes law. My right honourable friend is continuing to make payments under the scheme, using moneys already provided within the Vote upon which this expenditure is carried. The position will be regularised by means of the passage of a supplementary estimate, once the Bill becomes law. The final two clauses, Clauses 5 and 6. are those which deal necessarily with interpretation, citation and extent.
The purpose of this Bill is to set a broad financial framework within which the National Coal Board can work back towards economic viability. This is the light in which I would ask noble Lords to view the Bill. This Government want the coal industry to realise its potential and to play a competitive role in the United Kingdom's energy supplies. It is an aim which we share with the industry itself and with all those who are concerned for its future good. We will support the industry while it progresses to the realisation. This Bill, which I commend to the House, is the means of providing continued support.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Avon.)
11.54 a.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Earl for explaining the Bill in detail and for doing it in a way that we could all very easily understand. I have to say at the beginning that the Labour Party, while it has worries about the Bill—great worries in fact—recognises that it deals primarily with the borrowing powers of the board. For that reason, we shall not oppose the Bill or seek to

737
delay it in any way. Indeed we shall facilitate its passage through all its stages in this House today. I do not intend to try to encapsulate in what will, I hope, be a not over-long speech the many points which were made in very many hours of debate on Second Reading in another place; but I do want to make a number of points which concern me and the Opposition particularly.
I suppose that from my own point of view I have an emotional attachment to the coal industry because I was born in the Rhondda. Indeed, I was born on the first day of the General Strike, so I was really well into it. But, having lived with it during the early years of my life, the coal industry, as I say, has an emotional meaning for me. During those early years we had pit closures and felt the great hardships of unemployment in the 1930s. So in fact I have experienced what it means to a coalmining industry when pits close and when there is an ever-present threat of closure. But, believe me, it is not only an emotional attachment that persuades me that we need a strong and expanding coal industry. My experience and, indeed, my intellect tell me that such a policy must be right in both the short term and the long term.
As the noble Earl has pointed out, Clause 1 deals with loans to the National Coal Board from the National Loans Fund to continue to a limit of £6 billion. I think we must be clear that these amounts are loans and not grants, and interest has to be paid at a very high rate for a fixed term. These interest charges do impose a very heavy burden—indeed, £1,000 million has been paid in the three years up to the present by the coal industry. They have to meet those charges and it is an enormous burden for the coal industry to bear at a time when its production has been slashed from 128 million tonnes in 1979 to under 110 million tonnes in the current year. And of course this is a time when stocks of coal stand at 53 million tonnes: that is the most recent figure I have seen.
It is no fault of the National Coal Board or of the miners that we have such high stocks of coal and that production has dropped from, as I say, 128 million tonnes to under 110 million tonnes. The fault is due to Government policy over the last four and a half years, which has reduced industrial production in Britain by about 16 per cent. It is little wonder in these circumstances that the board has been unable to meet its financial targets in spite of the fact that we have had the productivity increases which were mentioned by the noble Earl when he introduced this Bill.
The noble Earl also mentioned the Government's policy objectives, and I shall have something to say about those later on. But first I should like to express the Opposition's concern about Clause 4, which seems to confirm our worst fears about the Government's intentions regarding future pit closures. The nature and scope of Clause 4 must give rise to fears of an accelerated pit closure programme and, coupled with three other factors, virtually confirms a policy of significant if not savage reduction in the coal mining industry.
First, we have seen the appointment of Mr. MacGregor. That appointment was bound to raise fears, particularly among miners, that he was going to embark upon the same sort of reductions in the coal
738
industry as he embarked upon in the steel industry, where he closed many plants and put many people—tens of thousands of people—out of work and reduced the steelmaking capacity of this country to below what we in the Opposition think is a viable and safe figure.
Then, during the time I was a member of the Commons Select Committee on Energy, we received the Cabinet Paper dealing with the Government's nuclear power programme. One of the sentences worried us—certainly it worried me and it worried the Opposition very much—because it said that a nuclear programme would have the advantage of removing a substantial portion of electricity production from the dangers of disruption by industrial action on the part of coalminers or transport workers. Therefore we were entitled to believe, and we still believe, that the Government are using the nuclear programme not to undermine but certainly to reduce the coal sales to the electricity industry for the generation of electricity.
Then we had the most recent statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Moore, that there was a possibility that parts of the coal industry could be privatised. Of course, Mr. Moore is a Minister in the Treasury, and we know that Mr. Lawson, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was himself in the Energy Department and no doubt had been considering privatisation proposals while he was there. It is also true that Mr. Walker, Secretary of State for Energy, denied during the Second Reading of this Bill in another place that he had thoughts of privatisation; but, in my view, having read what he said, it was an evasion, and of course we have seen of late that when he has battles with the Treasury, particularly concerning matters relating to fuel prices, he does not win them: he loses them. So the Opposition must be very concerned about the statement that was made by Mr. Moore that there was a possibility that the coal industry or parts of it could be privatised. If pits are closed, if all our fears are realised, then the pits that are closed will be sacrificed on the altar of so-called financial viability. But, as we have seen in the past, what is financially unviable one day can become financially viable the next.
I have had the honour of gaining some experience in the electricity supply industry, and in the 1960s I was the secretary of a local advisory committee in a power station. Noble Lords will know that in the 1960s—and it was under a Labour Government—there were proposals which were carried out to build more oil-powered stations and fewer coal-powered stations. That matter was brought to the attention of my local advisory committee and the people there—ordinary working folk like boiler operators, turbine drivers, coal plant attendants and ash plant attendants—warned the CEGB against this policy of converting their production to oil.
What they said was that while we had coal we had a sure source of supply, whether in peace or in war. They said to the board, "It would be wrong of you to concentrate more of your generation on oil, because it may very well be that the Arab oil states will want a much higher price for their oil in the very near future." They were pooh-poohed. Of course, that would not happen. We had control of Arabian oil at that time. They also suggested that in times of war supplies could

739
be interrupted, and we would have great difficulty in generating electricity from oil-powered stations.
Their objections were overruled, but of course they were proved right. The ordinary working men, who have such common sense, were right and all the Government experts and other experts were wrong, because in 1973 there was a war in the Middle East and we had an oil price explosion and a reduction of oil supplies throughout the world. That makes me believe that we must always ensure that we have a strong and viable coal industry.
Of course, there were all sorts of other things done by the oil industry—the oil lobby as we called it then, and as I still call it—to reduce the coal industry beyond a reasonable measure. I also had the honour to serve as a member and leader of a local authority which ran trolley-buses. Those trolley-buses ran on coal through the wire, and we destroyed the system, not only in Reading but throughout the country. In actual fact, what we were doing was destroying a potential outlet for coal and, at the same time, destroying the best form of stage carriage public transport that we ever had in this country. I hope that we can have it back at some time. Nevertheless, while we were doing that we were also destroying another outlet—a safe outlet in all circumstances—for coal. So those experiences that I have had make me worried about the future of the coal industry and the Government's apparent policy towards it.
I want now to come back to the Government's objectives for the coal industry, and perhaps I may quote what Mr. Giles Shaw, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in Standing Committee. He said:
"First, although coal is one of the United Kingdom's major natural resources, in the Government's view the justification for coal production, like that for any other business, lies in the ability of those engaged in it to earn a satisfactory return on capital while competing in the market place".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee H, 22/11/83: col. 38.]
Let me emphasise the words:
"lies in the ability of those engaged in it to earn a satisfactory return on capital while competing in the market place".
That sounds eminently reasonable; and Mr. Giles Shaw is highly respected on both sides of the House of Commons. It is only reasonable, given Government policy of free market economics. But can it be sensible to determine the long-term future of the coal industry by imposing short-term transient objectives? In certain circumstances, if this were taken to its logical conclusion, the coal industry could be destroyed or, at least, substantially reduced in size.
Let me give your Lordships an example of what could happen if that proposition were taken to its logical conclusion. At the moment, the price of oil is uncertain. We have had talk of late of an oil price collapse. Indeed, prices throughout the world are already under pressure. If oil prices collapsed, it would pay the CEGB—on the basis of competition and of free market economics—to run its 18,000 to 19,000 megawatts of oil-fired plant for base-load purposes. That is the ultimate conclusion that we must reach on this competitive basis. If the CEGB did that, the amount of coal required would be down by 25 million tonnes a year.
740
That is the situation which would face us if we took competition to its logical conclusion in the coal and electricity supply industries. That would be a disaster for the coal industry, as well as for the miners. Then, of course, when the price of oil rose again, as it would do in the long term, the coal capacity would not be available. There will be a need for a strong coal industry from the late 1990s onwards, to compensate for the decline and ultimate exhaustion of North Sea oil and dwindling supplies of gas. We must develop this great national resource. After all, in the previous Bill we have been prepared to write off huge sums in royalties to encourage the development of marginal oilfields and we should not treat the coal industry so differently.
I should like to quote a further passage from the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in Standing Committee in the Commons on 22nd November. He said:
"Second, the National Coal Board should aim to maximise its long-term profitability by securing those sales which are profitable on a continuing basis, in competition with other fuels".
Let me also emphasise the words:
"securing those sales which are profitable on a continuing basis, in competition with other fuels".
Again, that appears to be quite reasonable, but is it? Three-quarters, or 75 million tonnes, of coal production goes to a single customer—the CEGB.
Therefore, the CEGB sets the price of coal, since it sets the price of electricity: but the price of electricity reflects many other factors besides the cost of coal. For example, the electricity industry is at present carrying idle loan charges on 18,000 megawatts of oil-fired plant. What is more. coal is also competing against nuclear power within the CEGB, and, as the Commons Select Committee pointed out in their report on the Government's nuclear power programme, there could be little confidence in the CEGB figures for nuclear generating costs. Therefore, the coal industry is probably competing against incorrect, estimated costs of existing nuclear power plant, and certainly it is competing against the hypothetical costs of the PWR. If they have to compete with other fuels, even now, and certainly in the past, it would have paid the CEGB to use gas to generate electricity, but that would not have been sensible from the country's point of view. It would have been using a premium fuel to produce electricity at a 40 per cent. overall efficiency rate. That would have been absurd; but apparently the Government are saying that coal has to compete with other forms of fuel.
It seems to me that this policy needs to be reconsidered. Although the objectives sound eminently reasonable they are certainly not good for the country, and they are not possible for the coal industry to achieve. If the policy objectives were considered realistic in the context of a total fuel policy, our total fuel policy would be in complete disarray. It would be impossible to plan the future of the coal industry on the basis of competition when the prices of various forms of primary fuels are subject to see-sawing market fluctuations. The need is for a long-term planned energy policy embracing all the energy industries, including oil. Coal is and must remain the basis of such a policy. It is that fuel which gives us the

741
comfort and advantage of fuel independence, not over decades but over centuries.
12.13 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in expressing appreciation to the noble Earl the Minister for the clear way in which he has put this Bill before us for its Second Reading. It is, as he indicated, a short-term measure to give further financial support to the coal industry in its present difficult circumstances. I can say, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, that we on these Benches will also facilitate its passage through the House.
Having said that, however, I believe that certain comments would be appropriate. First, as to the short term, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether, in the matter of their short-term policy, the Government have any intention of exerting pressure on the fixation of coal prices, as apparently they have done recently on the fixation of gas and electricity prices. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to advise the House on that matter.
As to the longer term. I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in that we cannot consider a short-term measure for the coal industry without having reference to its longer-term situation. The longer-term situation for coal must be clear to all who study the energy scene. We are very fortunate in Britain today in having the massive advantage from the North Sea which is being exploited with great skill by those concerned, but we know that those resources are limited. In the case of oil, the peak of production could be reached fairly soon. Thereafter, there will still be many years during which we shall be extracting oil from the North Sea. but probably at a diminishing rate. Gas, also, will continue to be plentifully available, but will come to its peak before very long.
The fact is that we shall need a plentiful supply of fossil fuel in this country and, indeed, in the world for as far ahead as we can see. This is irrespective of whatever development there might be in nuclear or alternative forms of energy, because it is only natural fossil fuels that can meet the wide variety of needs for which we have a requirement in our modern industrial society. We know that, in the matter of reserves, the coal reserves are there. We know that the skills are there—both the mineworkers' skills and the mining engineers' skills. I was a little disturbed, although I may have misunderstood the noble Earl, when he said that in two years' time, when a further Bill might have to be presented to the House, we could then reconsider the position of the coal industry.
I believe that, consistent with this present short-term measure, we should also be taking a view of the longer term. After all, the Plan for Coal, with which the noble Lord, Lord Gormley, and I were much involved some 10 years ago, has now reached a point when it needs to be reconsidered. There is no way in which one could have laid down a plan some 10 years ago which would be totally valid for ever after. After a decade with the Plan for Coal—which has had its successes in many ways, although in some ways it has not worked out quite as planned, mainly for external reasons—it is now time for a major review of the long-term for the industry.
742
I submit that the underlying objectives in the original Plan for Coal are as valid today as they were then, but that they need to be re-stated. There were basically three objectives: the progressive replacement of old and exhausted capacity by new capacity; the progressive improvement of technology in the mining of coal and the using of coal; and a substantial improvement in the productivity of the industry. Major strides have been made under all those heads. It could be that the replacement has not worked as fast as many would have liked, but I must remind this noble House that the closure of collieries is always a delicate, difficult issue raising many social problems of an acute nature, and that it has to be handled with care. I believe that the management of the coal industry and the mining unions have developed a certain skill in dealing with these problems. I hope that they will revert to the way in which these problems were being tackled a few years back but which, unfortunately, has weakened somewhat since.
As to investment, I readily accept that there was a high level of investment during the previous Labour Government and that the level of investment has been continued. We need to know what the position will be in the future. I hope it will remain as positive. As to productivity, I am very glad that the noble Earl referred to the considerable improvement that has taken place from 1979 onwards. In fact, it was in 1979 that after many years of negotiation the incentive scheme was effectively introduced. There is little doubt that it has had quite a dramatic impact on the productivity of the industry, and we would expect to see it going on from strength to strength, not only due to the great skills of the mineworkers but also due to the improved equipment that they now have at their disposal. So we need have no concern on that score.
As to technology, it is going to be increasingly important to concentrate not only on the productive technology but also on the user technology in order to make sure that coal can be used in full conformity with the more stringent requirements of the environment, which I believe is entirely technically possible but which requires a substantial degree of continued research and development.
This is also a time when we should be conducting a major review of the financial structure of the coal industry. If we believe that it is an industry which inevitably has a long-term future, then that future must be based on a clear and well-organised financial base. At the moment, the borrowing requirement of the coal industry is very substantial indeed—and not surprisingly so. When I was involved in the formulation of the Plan for Coal in 1974, I made it clear to the then Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Eric Varley, that there was no way in which we could begin to re-expand the coal industry at the rate which was agreed with him without having to borrow very large sums of money from the Government—for the simple reason that the coal industry had been run down very substantially during the previous 16 years.
Had we sought in our forward plan to limit the amount of investment in the coal industry to funds which could be generated within the industry, we would have had practically no forward plan and practically there would have been no new investment. So what has happened in the way of the extensive

743
borrowings of the coal industry is not something which is due to the fault of those in the industry, as I believe would be readily agreed. It is not even due entirely to the recession. It is due to the fact that for the previous decade and a half there was virtual stagnation in investment in new capacity in the industry. In order to catch up with that, very substantial additional investment had to be made. The only source of such investment, if the industry was not to be priced out of the market, was to turn to the Government for borrowing. I believe that this calls for a more fundamental review of the financial structure of the industry than appears at present to be envisaged by the Government. I shall be most obliged if the noble Earl, when he replies, will comment on that aspect.
To conclude, there seems to me to be no doubt at all that the Bill as now proposed is a valid and desirable one in order to help the coal industry over its short-term difficulties. But what we should be bearing in mind when dealing with the short-term difficulties are the long-term prospects and needs of the industry, and the need of the country for the industry. Those problems also should be attracting our attention, when we are seeking as well to deal with the present short-term difficulties.
12.23 p.m.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for their welcome of this Bill and for their understanding of it. I believe we all agree it is something that must come about. I should like to say, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that we are looking for a strong and expanding industry, and I put no time factor on that search. Although this Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also remarked is for two years only, that does not in any way impair our objective, which is his objective, of a long, strong, expanding coal industry. But it will take time. and it is not something that will happen, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also commented, within two years. It will take a longer period of time than that.
I enjoyed the talk by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, about the flexibility of the various fuel sources and the alternative fuel sources. By the end of his talk, I had come to the conclusion that all of us in the Government have been quite clever because, at the present moment in time, we have the oil (which we do not use very much) and we are now coming up to something like a 20 per cent. proportion of nuclear. That gives us a very nice balance for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned the subject of nuclear. I believe that the power stations coming on stream are the responsibility of all Governments over the past decade. So I hope very much that the noble Lord will agree with the amount of nuclear in proportion. As he knows, since the present Government came to power, because of the inquiry, we have actually gone no further.
I was also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. referred to trolley buses. I myself am also interested in that aspect, particularly in respect of electric vehicles. But, again, they seem to have taken a long time in coming.
Both noble Lords referred to pit closures. I am glad that the noble Lord. Lord Ezra, mentioned it as being
744
a difficult and delicate subject. Indeed it is; but, as the noble Lord. Lord Shinwell, reminded us the last time we had a Question on this subject. it is something which has been going on for many years and is something that will continue to go on. Perhaps I may say at once that nothing Mr. MacGregor has said will change the policy of the Coal Board on that particular subject.
The noble Lord mentioned that production was slashed. The problem here is marketing. If we could get the coal out of the ground at the correct price, then it would be much easier to sell. The problem—and the noble Lord touched on it—is that at the moment we have too much coal for our needs at the present price. That is a marketing problem which, as we have heard, the present chairman wishes to take to heart. I believe in the fundamental point that only on the basis of true competitiveness can the board build a secure future for the industry and its employees, and hope to expand activity in the next century. Opportunities exist for coal in the future, but to be able to take more opportunities the board must provide economical, secure and competitively-priced coal. That is what customers want—the CEGB and other coal users.
I took very much to heart the helpful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in respect of the future programmes for coal. It goes way beyond my brief to comment on that in any detail, but I will certainly bring his remarks to the attention of my colleagues. I did not quite follow the noble Lord on his comments about investment, because at the moment we are still providing a lot of funds for investment. Agreed, there is interest charged on them; but at the moment, of course, the deficit grant helps to balance and write off the interest. I hope that the investment will continue at a rate which the noble Lord wishes and which the Coal Board is now observing.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, if I may intervene. I should like to make my point quite clear. I do not believe it would be healthy in the longer term for the industry to have to depend upon grants in order to pay interest. We should find some other, more effective longer-term financial structure. That was what I had in mind.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I thought that was what the noble Lord had in mind, but I was slightly muddled when listening to him earlier and I wanted to clarify his point for my own record.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, mentioned the subject of coal versus oil for fire stations. I should make it clear that the oil burned at present is at the operational minimal level. I should also like to say a word about the CEGB, because we have been discussing the general feeling of the market at the moment. I should like to say how good I think their merit order system is, and their planning at the moment also seems to be first class.
To return to the subject of this Bill, it is a small Bill to help the coal industry for the next two years. I am grateful to both noble Lords for their general understanding and welcome of the Bill, and I wish to reiterate the Government's wish for a strong and expanding coal industry. I beg to move.
On Question. Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No.43 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 15th December) Bill read a third time, and passed.

Eligibility for Release on Licence Order 1983
12.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Eligibility for Release on Licence Order 1983, which was laid before the House on 1st December 1983, be approved.
This order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which did not draw special attention to it. We had the opportunity of discussing the parole system generally on the Unstarred Question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as recently as a week ago. In that debate I explained that the change in the parole system which the approval of this order would bring about would be one of very considerable significance.
The effect of the order will be to reduce the minimum period of custody which a prisoner must serve before he can be considered for parole from 12 months to six months. The requirement that he must serve one third of his sentence if this is longer than six months will remain unaltered. The statutory background is as follows. Section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 established the parole scheme and empowered the Secretary of State to release on licence, if recommended so to do by the Parole Board, a person serving a determinate sentence after he had served not less than one third of his sentence or 12 months thereof, whichever expires the later. As a result of the interesting and fruitful debates on the Criminal Justice Act 1982 my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, then Home Secretary, inserted Section 33 in the 1982 Act, empowering the Home Secretary to provide a lower period than 12 months by order, subject to affirmative resolution.
The effect of the present arrangements has been to exclude any prisoner from parole who is not serving a sentence of more than about 19½months. The order will in effect reduce the minimum qualifying sentence for parole to about 101 months. We estimate that inconsequence some 19,000 prisoners a year will be eligible for parole, as against 10,000 at present. To this can be added a possible 4,000 more when the new young offenders' sentencing arrangements take full effect. Of these 13,000 additional candidates, about 7,500 adults and about 2,700 young offenders might be paroled each year. This would increase the paroled population from just under 4,000 at present to over 6,000, and would have the very beneficial extra effect of decreasing the prison population by alike amount.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the machinery by which parole cases are reviewed has been carefully developed over a number of years. What we now have is a sophisticated process involving a number of separate components. In each case considered the prison staff have to provide reports on the prisoner's character and conduct. A probation officer from the area to which the prisoner proposes to go on release has to provide an assessment of the arrangements under which he will live there. The local review
746
committee then has to make its own assessment of the case, and this is reviewed by Home Office staff. Only then are suitable cases referred to the Parole Board itself. This machinery may seem rather elaborate, but we believe that it is essential that both the potential risk to the public and the possible benefits to the prisoner should be properly weighed before the case is decided.
Part of that process forms an important part of the protection which the system offers to the public from the commission of further offences. Another element of protection is, of course, provided by the conditions written into each parole licence. These conditions may include requirements such as that the parolee shall meet his supervising probation officer at specified times or live at a particular place or refrain from particular activities. The breach of a condition is sufficient to have him recalled to prison. It is not necessary for him to re-offend.
The risk to the public is generally less for shorter sentences than long ones, and there is, therefore, scope for simplifying the review procedures for cases under two years. In view of the short time available for the process to be completed for prisoners in the new eligible category, we intend to take advantage of this and to develop a process that is at once simpler and more streamlined to deal with them. There is already a presumption in favour of parole in less serious and shorter sentence cases and this will continue to be so. The prime aim of the procedure will, therefore, be to identify the bad parole risk. We shall do so by means of simplified procedures and simplified paper work. We have devised abbreviated report forms for the use of prison staff and a standardised release plan report for use by probation officers. Those cases found acceptable by the local review committee will be dealt with under Section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972. This authorises their release on the recommendation of the local review committee alone, without reference to the Parole Board. It is already in use in respect of all those serving sentences of two years or less, as well as for some others.
My Lords, we have considered the resource implications of these arrangements with care. Some of your Lordships may think, and indeed some of your Lordships have said, that we have exercised too much time and care in considering them; but care was essential. With more than twice the number of prisoners becoming eligible for review, the burden on prison staff, both of providing reports, even in a simplified form, and of administering the scheme, is bound to increase. The probation service in the prisons, and especially in the field, will have an increased number of cases to deal with. Moreover, as every release is the ultimate responsibility of my right honourable friend, the system has to be centrally overseen, and the administrative burden on the Home Office will also be increased. The necessary resources are provided for, and I expect the extra load on both the department and the prison and probation services will be taken up smoothly.
There is one area of the system which needs special mention, and that is the local review committees. They are an essential part of the parole system and in future their role will be even greater. We shall need new members. We estimate that we shall need some

747
200 new independent members. We have already started to stimulate recruiting, but I should like to say to the House and to any wider audience that I very much hope that many public spirited people from all walks of life. and from both the majority and the minority communities, will come forward for consideration for this important work. Anybody who is interested should get in touch with the governor of the prison or youth custody centre nearest to his or her home. I might add that a youth custody centre may formerly have been known as a borstal, and may in fact still be known as a borstal locally, and that is an appropriate place to which to apply.
My Lords. this is an important measure and it forms an essential part of the Government's strategy for the criminal justice system. In view of our very recent debate on the parole and life licence systems as a whole, I hope your Lordships will think that I have explained it sufficiently, and that you will give it the welcome which I believe it deserves. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st December be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
12.37 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his explanation of the order. He is absolutely right that the whole question of parole was debated very fully in your Lordships' House. I can only say, and I say it very humbly, that I wish that the attendance in the House at that time had been greater and that the hour at which that debate took place could have been earlier, because it was a very important debate, especially having regard to our overcrowded prisons and the great national need to face the figures of crime that are ever before us.
It would be wrong, in my view, to repeat the matters that were raised in that debate when we are considering this particular order. The noble Lord the Minister, I am sure, will have been aware, as he frankly admitted on that occasion, of the concern that was expressed in the House that the whole of our parole system indeed needed some sort of expansion and review in the light of existing circumstances. He also will have noted the apprehension that various Members of your Lordships' House expressed—indeed, on all sides of the House that view seemed to be prevalent. There was considerable foreboding about the changes that seemed to be envisaged in regard to the parole system, when one was considering life sentences in particular.
My Lords, narrowing the discussion to this order, as one can, one receives it with pleasure because it is a move in the right direction. I noted, however, that the noble Lord the Minister was short in words, which is unlike him, when he dealt with the question of the resources that were available to deal with twice the present number of those eligible who would be subject to parole review. He said that this would cast a burden upon many, but certainly upon the probation service, and that this had been taken care of—I am paraphrasing the very short sentence he used in this connection. Would the noble Lord the Minister tell us whether the probation service itself is content with the
748
resources which are now to be available to it in order to deal with this matter?
We rely upon the probation service completely for the success of the parole system and, indeed, for so much in seeing whether one of the elements of punishment, namely, the question of the possibility of redemption, is taken full advantage of in our criminal system. I am sure that we should all like to hear from the Minister some assurance that the probation service has been fully consulted, that its manpower is sufficient and that the conditions in which it works and will now have to work under an increased burden are to its reasonable satisfaction.
Having said that, may I also refer to one other matter mentioned by the Minister. That is the increased numbers that will be required for the local review committees. The noble Lord made an appeal which, from these Benches, I should like to echo: that public spirited citizens who feel that they have a contribution to make should come forward to man these committees. There is a great public duty to be done. There are many people in the community who, if they heard this invitation, would respond to it. So far as I am concerned, on behalf of my noble friends, I support that invitation and hope that it will be taken up.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like to give an unreserved welcome to the order. I thought that the noble Lord the Minister looked at me when he spoke of some people saying that the Government had taken rather too long. That is not actually fair. I did not say that in the last debate. I simply said that we had been recommending it for two years. If any of our recommendations get by in two years, we are wholly delighted. Let there be no mistake about that. I have served on a local review committee in my time. I should like to endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is one of the most rewarding, human and satisfying forms of public service. I shall do all that I can locally to encourage people to apply. I hope that prisons will advertise in local papers because this is the only way to attract local people. With that. I welcome the order.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I was, unfortunately, not able to be here when your Lordships were discussing the parole system in general the other day or I would have had a few things to say about the Home Secretary's rule by decree in altering the parole system without the authority of Parliament. I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and unreservedly welcome the order which was advocated at some length, as the Minister points out, when we were talking about the Criminal Justice Act 1982. We are only pleased that after this lapse of time, which may be longer than some of us would have hoped, the Minister has been able to bring forward an order which, as he says, makes a substantial difference to the prison population and will help to relieve pressures on it.
My noble friend and the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, echoed what was said by the Minister about local review committees. Obviously, I also hope that members of the public come forward. I warmly welcome the remarks of the Minister about the

749
importance of having the representation of ethnic minorities on the local review committees. But far more has to be done than simply extending an invitation across the Floor of the House to those people to come forward. There has to be an active search within the community for people of the right calibre to come forward. It also has to be explained to them exactly what is the nature of the duties that they will be called upon to undertake.
My noble friend has the advantage of having served on one of these committees. He has first-hand experience. However, when I asked the Minister's predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether I could attend a meeting of a local review committee to see how it functioned, I was turned down in no uncertain manner because the noble Lord explained to me that these proceedings were entirely confidential, as if I would go immediately to the Guardian and reveal confidential secrets of what had happened in a particular LRC that I might have observed. I wanted simply to understand what the process was in order that I could better advise the many prisoners who were writing to me, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is aware, because they found the process deeply and disturbingly mysterious. I still think that if the noble Lord wants to encourage people to join LRCs, he has to explain more about the nature of the work that they undertake.
I was a little concerned, I hope wrongly, when the noble Lord, Lord Elton, spoke of the simplification of procedures in respect of the short term prisoner, and the ways in which the authorities would try to identify the bad parole risk. I wonder whether that means that the parole authorities will depend extensively on the index of re-convictions which, as the noble Lord will recall, we have had some correspondence about in the past and which has not been validated by more recent studies of prisoners who have been granted parole to see whether it is still a reliable indicator of the propensity to offend again.
I fear that, with the pressure on the resources, there will be an inclination to depend more on some mechanical calculation of the statistical probabilities of offending again which may not be updated sufficiently with information about the actual experience of prisoners who have been released. It may therefore become unreliable. The Minister said that the objective, in the absolute, was the protection of the public from the commission of further offences. I think that he will agree with me, on reflection, that it is almost impossible to undertake to the public that the parole system can do that. It can aim at doing so. It certainly aims at releasing those whose propensity to offend again is less. But the Home Office itself, in the excellent document of its research unit, entitled Taking Offenders out of Circulation, showed the difficulty of predicting the likelihood of a person offending again. This is not a science.
The results achieved so far in anticipating human behaviour leave a great deal to be desired. It is not a way of guaranteeing to the public that someone examined by the parole authorities and released accordingly will be less likely to offend again than someone who is kept in prison. In the nature of things you can never be certain of that. It would be wrong to mislead the public into thinking that all those to be
750
released as a result of the scheme will be angels and will refrain from committing further offences.
These are minor criticisms. I want to echo what has been said and to express wholehearted thanks to the Minister for bringing forward the order, and for helping in a small way to relieve the pressure on the prison population.
12.48 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I should like to deal briefly with the substantive points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked about finance and chivied me for being briefer than usual in terms which makes me feel that sometimes I speak perhaps at too great a length. I take advantage of his invitation. We estimate in broad terms that the cost of reducing the minimum qualifying period from 12 months to six months is some £2.25 million a year. The staffing costs in prisons and the Home Office will be some £1.8 million, and for the probation service some £1.2 million. This is offset in part by savings on victualling prisoners paroled, estimated at some £750,000. It is estimated that throughout the prison system, another 40 clerical officers will be needed at a cost of some £500,000, and in the parole unit, 24 more staff in junior and administrative grades, at a cost of £300,000.
It is more difficult to estimate what increase, if any, will be necessary in the operational staff in prisons since writing parole reports will be only a small part of their day to day duties of supervising prisoners. The reports on prisoners serving a shorter sentence will not be as full as those required at present. It is expected that the cost in increased operational staff will be about£1 million but it may prove to be less. It is estimated that the reduction of the minimum qualifying period will also involve employment of another 11 probation officers in prisons and 69 in the community for preparing the release plans, submitting reports and of course supervising parolees. The total cost in probation staff is likely to be around £1.2 million. As your Lordships know, 80 per cent. of the cost of the probation service is funded directly by Home Office grant. We have consulted carefully with the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and probation committees throughout, and I am not aware that they are uncontented about this. Because the cost is marginal, I neglected to mention the fact that a number of probation auxiliaries will be recruited as well.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this time the Minister has not been short on words but he has been somewhat ambiguous. He stated that he was not aware that the association was uncontented. Could he be rather more positive? Is the association content?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord places me in an awful dilemma. Whatever I say will colour the impression in one direction or another. The fact is that we have consulted both the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and probation committees throughout this exercise. I am not in receipt of complaint from them that they are discontented with this. That sounds as if I am covering up some seething

751
discontent which I know is going on next door but which they have not written to me about. What I am trying to say is something more neutral than that.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have supported the efforts of the local review committees. If necessary, we shall advertise in the newspapers, although in some prisons I understand that the scheme is going rather well without advertisement. The local review committees will not be aware of the reconviction prediction score, although I understand that it has now been revalidated.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor: 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:

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act,

British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Act,

Petroleum Royalties (Relief) Act,

Coal Industry Act,

Staffordshire Act,

Milford Haven Conservancy Act.

Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [H.L.]
12.52 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Government believe that the aims of this Bill will command wide support, not only in your Lordships' House but also in another place and indeed in the country at large. The humanitarian arguments in favour of the voluntary repatriation of prisoners are largely self-evident. A person who is imprisoned in a country which is not his own suffers considerably more from his imprisonment than do fellow prisoners who are natives of that country. Foreign prison conditions may be harsher than those in this country, and foreign practices and foreign languages can aggravate them very significantly. If countries can come to arrangements which enable such prisoners to be transferred to their home countries to serve their sentences there, then the requirements of criminal justice in the country where an offender has been convicted can be met without subjecting the offender to hardships not justified by his crime or intended by the legislation under which he was sentenced.
Those are among the considerations which have prompted the Government to introduce this Bill at the earliest opoportunity. The Bill is a new departure in the administration of criminal law and it introduces an entirely new form of procedure. It may help your Lordships, therefore, if I begin by describing what has led to our bringing these proposals to Parliament and the circumstances in which we do so.
International moves towards arrangements for the repatriation of prisoners began to gather momentum in the 1970s when the United States of America and Canada concluded a bilateral treaty and opened
752
negotiations with other countries. The principle was endorsed at a Commonwealth Law Ministers' meeting in 1977 and at a Council of Europe conference of Ministers of Justice in 1978. This growing international interest led to the setting up in 1978 of a United Kingdom Interdepartmental Working Party on the Repatriation of Prisoners, which reported in 1980. It suggested a scheme for United Kingdom participation in repatriation agreements with other countries. These arrangements would be based on the need for the consent of both the states involved and of the prisoner. The working party's proposals received almost unanimous approval from the many organisations and individuals who submitted their views on the report, and it enabled the United Kingdom to contribute constructively to discussions in the Council of Europe, which began in 1980, with a view to preparing a multilateral convention.
The Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons was eventually approved and opened for signature in March of this year. Its terms are closely in line with the recommendations of the United Kingdom working party and include provision for the three-way consent of the two states and the prisoner. The convention has been specifically devised with the aim of attracting accession by states from outside the Council of Europe, as well as within it.
On 29th July this year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the United Kingdom Government's intention to sign the Council of Europe Convention in August and to introduce general enabling legislation as soon as possible The convention was accordingly signed on behalf of the United Kingdom on 25th August and the present Bill was duly introduced in your Lordships' House on 24th November. The convention has now been signed by 14 of the 21 Council of Europe states in addition to Canada and the United States of America, but no state has yet ratified it. It will come into force three months after it has been ratified by three Council of Europe states.
Those are the antecedents of the Bill. Before I turn to its provisions I think I should explain our general approach to this legislation. First, the Bill does not in itself have the effect of implementing the Council of Europe Convention. It provides general enabling powers, so that the Government will be able in due course not only to ratify this convention, but also to conclude such other agreements as may be necessary to effect the transfer of prisoners. Secondly, it follows from this that we have had to strike a balance between the requirements we have judged necessary to put on the face of the Bill and those which we think are best left to the discretion of the Secretary of State in dealing with the circumstances of the particular case. This is a difficult balance to strike, and I hope your Lordships will feel that we have got it about right.
In considering that issue, I hope your Lordships will realise that the Bill is designed not only to enable us to accede to the convention. It will also provide the provisions under which we shall be able to come to terms with individual states which do not wish to accede to the convention and whose laws and traditions may be very different from ours but from whose prisons we wish nevertheless to retrieve a British citizen to serve his term in the United Kingdom. The

753
citizen of course, will never be transferred without his consent and he will therefore be the ultimate judge as to whether the Secretary of State has or has not exercised his discretion wisely.
The drafting of this Bill is at certain points somewhat complex. I seem to be saying that somewhat often this week. This is largely because this legislation interacts with a considerable number of existing statutes and has implications for a number of others. It is important, however, that the scope of the legislation should be as wide as possible and that we should attract all the necessary powers to enable us to be as flexible and humane as possible in applying it. The detail of the Bill is therefore, as I say, complex in places but the underlying structure is clear.
I now turn to the actual provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 deals with the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may issue a warrant for the transfer of a prisoner. The interdepartmental working party took the view that the authorisation of enforcement in this country of a sentence imposed in another was essentially an administrative, rather than a judicial, function and need not involve the criminal courts. It therefore proposes that legal authority for the detention of a prisoner in the United Kingdom on the basis of a sentence passed by an overseas court should be provided by a warrant by the Secretary of State. We share that view. Clause 1 accordingly provides for such warrants and the conditions that have to be satisfied before they are issued. It similarly provides that a Secretary of State's warrant shall provide the legal authority for the transfer of a prisoner from the United Kingdom to serve his sentence in his home country.
Before a warrant can be issued there will need to be arrangements between the United Kingdom and the other country concerned for the transfer of prisoners. These arrangements may be a multilateral agreement like the Council of Europe Convention, a bilateral treaty or an ad hoc agreement relating to a particular prisoner or group of prisoners where a permanent agreement is not possible or may not be desirable. Such international arrangements will be for the Government to negotiate, sign and ratify, and will not need to be incorporated in the law of the land.
The other main prerequisites for the issue of a warrant are the consent of the Secretary of State and of the appropriate authority in the other country, and the consent of the prisoner. An important recommendation of the working party was that the United Kingdom should aim for repatriation agreements which provide for both states concerned to have unfettered discretion to withhold consent to a particular transfer. There may well be people in this country, or abroad, who have doubts about the exercise of this discretion. I am glad to offer them this reassurance. The Government's firm intention is that the Secretary of State will not normally withhold consent to a particular transfer unless he considers that there are compelling reasons of public policy for doing so.
The consent of the prisoner is another fundamental requirement recommended by the working party and based on Canadian and American experience. It is an important feature of the Council of Europe Convention. Moreover, the Government's aim in introducing the legislation is purely humanitarian, and we therefore see the prisoner's consent to his transfer
754
as essential. There may, however, be the rare case when it is in the prisoner's best interests for a decision to be taken on his behalf, if there is serious doubt about his ability to give a meaningful consent because of his age or mental or physical condition.
Generally, prisoners transferred to the United Kingdom will need to be British citizens. Where an international agreement allows, however, the Secretary of State is to have discretion to approve the transfer of other prisoners who have close ties with the United Kingdom.
For the purposes of the Bill, "prisoner" includes any person, of any age, who is detained in a prison, a hospital or any other institution as a result of an order of a court or tribunal exercising criminal jurisdiction. Children and mentally disordered offenders are therefore included.
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the working of a warrant for the transfer of a prisoner from the United Kingdom; that is, the outward traffic. The Secretary of State's warrant will provide authority for taking the prisoner to the point of departure from the United Kingdom (which will normally be an airport), for handing him over to the escorting officer of the other country and for his removal from the United Kingdom by that officer.
A prisoner's transfer will not affect the validity of the sentence which he is serving in the United Kingdom. That sentence will remain enforceable until such time as it is deemed to have been served by completion of the sentence in the other country. If the prisoner should escape, therefore, and he found again in this country, he could be taken into custody again on the strength of the original order of the court.
Where, under the terms of an agreement, a prisoner who has been transferred from the United Kingdom is discharged in the other country earlier than he would have been if he had stayed here, a procedure is needed to ensure that, should he return here, he will not be subject to arrest and detention under the original order of the court. A procedure is also needed to enable a person released on licence in another state to be similarly treated should he return to the United Kingdom. The Bill provides accordingly.
Clause 3 provides the wide powers needed for dealing with prisoners transferred to the United Kingdom; that is, the inward traffic. The Secretary of State's warrant in those cases will authorise the bringing of the prisoner to the United Kingdom, his delivery to a specified prison or other institution, and his detention within the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State will have power to include in a warrant any custodial order which is available to a criminal court in the relevant part of the United Kingdom. subject to the terms of the relevant international agreement. That is a passage in the Bill which I find difficult to follow, and I hope that those words are helpful. That will give the Secretary of State a very wide power, but it is one that is essential if the Bill is to have the effect many people want.
In the case of transfers under the Council of Europe Convention, for instance, the sentence to be served by a prisoner on transfer to the United Kingdom will be limited to the maximum term that could be imposed on conviction for a similar offence in this country. It

755
cannot be assumed, however, that all states will be willing to have their sentences limited in this way. To get an agreement with some states we may need to agree to enforce their sentences in full. This is an issue to which I shall return in a moment. Under the convention a condition of transfer will be that the crime for which the person has been sentenced to imprisonment must be an offence in both states—that is, under the convention.
It may not be appropriate, however, for all agreements to contain such a "double criminality" rule. It may be desirable to have a repatriation agreement with a country where custodial sentences can be imposed for acts which are not criminal in this country—and we can all think of such acts. An obvious example is an alcohol offence in a Moslem country. Given that we should otherwise not be able to get such prisoners back to the United Kingdom, we would need to be prepared to honour the sentence imposed in such a country, even if the act would not have been an imprisonable offence, or a crime at all, in this country. We should be able to do it, but not be compelled to do it.
The Government fully recognise that the use of the warrant procedure in such cases may cause some concern. Clearly, however, it is the Government's hope and expectation that there will be only a very small number of cases in which we have to contemplate repatriation in circumstances where the sentence. or indeed the offence itself, does not accord with our practice. Without such a power, however, the Government may be unable to help the most deserving cases. I must emphasise here, not only that the discretion would be exercised with the utmost care but that the period of detention authorised by the warrant will attract the normal United Kingdom provisions of remission and parole.
Finally, there is, in those circumstances, the ultimate safeguard of the prisoner's own consent. We have concluded, therefore, that the Secretary of State's powers to order detention by warrant should be flexible enough to accommodate such variations as may be necessary in the light of the terms of particular agreements.
Orders for detention contained in transfer warrants will have the same effect as orders of criminal courts, except that they will not be subject to appeal. Given that a prisoner will consent to transfer only after having been fully informed of the sentence to be served following transfer, provision for appeal is not necessary. The sentence ordered by a warrant will be served in the same way as a sentence of a court, and under the terms of Clause 3(3) and of the schedule to the Bill will be subject to the normal arrangements for remission and release on licence. The sentence will start from the date of the prisoner's delivery to the institution specified in the warrant. In calculating one-third of a prisoner's sentence for the purpose of eligibility for parole, however, the warrant may provide that the time served before transfer will be taken into account. A transferred prisoner will be required to serve after transfer at least the normal minimum qualifying period for consideration for parole, which is currently 12 months but, I think your
756
Lordships would agree, should be reduced to six months.
It is recognised by most countries that, in order to bring about acceptable transfer arrangements, there must be some flexibility about enforcement of sentences in the receiving country to take account of variations in criminal law and practice from country to country. It seems to be generally accepted that following transfer the enforcement of a sentence, including arrangements for remission and conditional release, should be in accordance with the law and practice of the receiving state.
That brings me again to the subject to which a moment ago I said I would return. It is on the question of fixing, at the time of transfer, the length of sentence to be served in the receiving state that some countries are more sensitive than others. Certain countries, for instance, will not agree to their sentences being subject to any judicial resentencing process in the receiving state. As I have already mentioned, we have been able to agree within the Council of Europe, for the purposes of the new convention, that the sentence to be served on transfer should be subject to the maximum term available for a similar offence in the receiving state.
To achieve transfer agreements with some countries, however, we shall need to be prepared to enforce their sentences in full. We hope that the problems arising with the exceptionally long or indeterminate sentences that can be imposed in some countries can be resolved in the course of negotiations. We may obtain agreement, for instance, to a 99-year sentence being treated as a life sentence, and for a sentence of, say, five to ten years being treated as a determinate sentence in the light of actual practice in the sentencing state.
The interdepartmental working party recognised, and it was accepted in the Council of Europe negotiations, that occasionally it may be necessary for a transferred prisoner to be returned to the sentencing state for the purpose of an appeal hearing. Although transfers would not generally take place until the normal time limit for appeal had expired, or any actual appeal had been dealt with, most countries have arrangements for appeals outside the usual time limits, so that justice can be done in the light of new evidence. Clause 4 of the Bill accordingly provides for the temporary return of a transferred prisoner in such circumstances and for his transfer both ways to be authorised by a single warrant.
Legal authority for custody of a prisoner in the course of his transfer and for the arrest of an escaped prisoner must also, of course, be provided for. This is the purpose of Clause 5 of the Bill. A prisoner will be deemed to be in the legal custody of the Secretary of State while he is being escorted in the course of a transfer authorised by a Secretary of State's warrant and while he is within the United Kingdom or on board a British aircraft, ship or hovercraft. The concept of being in the custody of the Secretary of State has been adopted because it is considered more appropriate for any challenge to the legality of custody in a particular case to be addressed to the Secretary of State than to individual escorting officers. This approach provides protection both for British escorting officers and for escorting officers from another country while within British territorial

757
jurisdiction. As is normal for the escort of prisoners, the clause provides for British escorting officers to have the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable.
Clause 6 of the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to revoke a transfer warrant completely or to vary it by revoking it and issuing a new one. This power is necessary so that the Secretary of State may comply with the terms of repatriation agreements. Like the Council of Europe Convention, these will generally acknowledge the right of the sentencing state to review the original sentence on appeal or to grant a pardon, and will require the decision of the sentencing state in such cases to be honoured in the other state.
The cost of introducing arrangements for the repatriation of prisoners is a matter which we have had to consider very carefully. Sending prison officers overseas to escort British prisoners to the United Kingdom will create additional expenditure for the prison services of the United Kingdom, in terms of both officers' time and travelling expenses. We hold the view, however, that the humanitarian arguments for the repatriation of prisoners justify the additional expenditure. We have, however, had to bear in mind that, when British tourists are stranded abroad, our consular service help them financially on condition that money loaned for their return to this country is refunded. It would be anomalous if prisoners being transferred to the United Kingdom were treated more favourably than law-abiding distressed British subjects. Clause 7 of the Bill therefore requires the Secretary of State to make such arrangements as he thinks fit for recovering the prisoner's travel costs from the prisoner or someone acting on his behalf, either before or after the issue of the transfer warrant. Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill deal with such technical matters as interpretation, commencement and extent. The schedule deals with the effect of the Bill on various other enactments; perhaps the most important of its provisions is paragraph 2 which deals with arrangements of release on licence.
Having made those comments about the content of the Bill, I should perhaps add something about the practical implications. First, the question of the numbers of prisoners likely to be eligible for transfer. There is as yet no firm information about the number of foreign and Commonwealth prisoners in United Kingdom prisons who might be eligible for repatriation under the Council of Europe Convention or other similar agreements which might be negotiated because prison statistics record only country of birth, not nationality. The latest estimate, however, is that there are about 200 from Council of Europe states, Canada and the United States of America, and about 100 from other countries.
Information available about British prisoners in gaol overseas who might be eligible for repatriation under the Council of Europe Convention or similar agreements is not complete in relation to Commonwealth countries and the United States of America, but the latest estimate is that there are about 150 in Council of Europe states, Canada and the United States of America and about 100 in other countries. We do not, therefore, expect these arrangements to have any significant effect on the total prison population. It must also be borne in mind that these
758
prisoners will not all be transferred immediately. The rate of transfers will depend upon the rate at which other countries are able to ratify the convention or other agreements to which we may become a party.
I turn now to the position of terrorist prisoners. This was referred to in the Adjournment Debate on the subject of prisoner transfer treaties in another place on 16th April 1981 and I know that it is a matter of concern to many of your Lordships. Terrorists are criminals and are dealt with in the same way as other criminals in accordance with the seriousness of their crimes. I have already declared that the Secretary of State will not normally withhold his consent to the transfer of a particular prisoner unless he considers there are compelling reasons of public policy for so doing. Considerations of public policy might lead to a decision to refuse the transfer of any prisoner who had been convicted of particularly horrific crimes and who might be regarded as undeserving of any degree of public sympathy; for instance, in the case of a murderer, a particularly ruthless and unprincipled drug trafficker, or someone who had killed or maimed in the name of some political cause or committed other acts of a terrorist nature. Each case will be dealt with on its merits taking due account of all relevant factors, including the considerations I have mentioned.
I should also take this opportunity to make clear our position about suggestions for prisoner "exchanges". Prisoner transfer arrangements which the United Kingdom enters into under the proposed legislation will provide for the repatriation of individual prisoners under the conditions provided in the arrangements. There is no question, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, of these arrangements providing for the exchange of one prisoner for another. We must guard against the possibility that British nationals overseas might be unjustly arrested with a view to "trading" them for prisoners in the United Kingdom. British nationals would thus be put at risk if the United Kingdom were to contemplate exchanging prisoners. The British Government will therefore only accept repatriation of individual prisoners in accordance with the merits of each prisoner's case and the conditions provided in the relevant prisoner transfer arrangement with the country concerned.
This Bill provides in a succinct form—more succinct, perhaps, than my explanation of it—the special powers needed to enable agreements to be concluded with other countries for the repatriation of prisoners. Its purpose is humanitarian and it represents a notable advance in international co-operation in this field. On both these counts, the Bill deserves support and I hope that it will have it from all sides of the House.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to ask him to confirm that the Republic of Ireland is not part of the British Islands and that, therefore, these arrangements will obtain between the United Kingdom and the Republic.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me a question to which the answer must be phrased with great care and I shall give it to him when I reply to this debate. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Elton.)
1.18 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords. as is expected of the noble Lord the Minister. he has given us a very clear, lucid account of a good, humane Bill, and in case any words of mine might be misinterpreted in describing the noble Lord's always welcome contributions to this House may I add that in my view he was as concise as was reasonable in his explanation. It is a good, humane Bill and I am sure that it will be welcomed in its general terms in all sections of the House. Because of its humane content I believe that your Lordships will be especially glad that this is going to be the occasion upon which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol will be making his maiden speech. I am sure we shall all listen to him with very great pleasure.
I am tempted, because of the intervention of my noble friend, to preface the other remarks that I may make with a question to the noble Lord the Minister. At my last count—and I may not be up to date—I was told that there were 13West European countries together with America and Canada which had ratified the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, but I noticed that the noble Lord the Minister said that there were 14. Two of those which were omitted when I made my count were Italy and the Republic of Ireland. It may be that one of those countries has now ratified. However, it will be of interest to us to know whether the Republic of Ireland is one of the signatories to the convention. I am not talking in terms of the present Government of the Republic of Ireland: but in future years this may have a little relevance to some of the remarks that I shall make later on.
As I have said, it is a very good Bill. There are some questions which will be in everyone's mind when we consider its application. The first question is one that the noble Lord has been good enough to answer already in his introductory remarks. It is whether we shall be the net losers or gainers, or whether it makes very much difference to our prison population—a matter of terrific concern to all of us when we realise the present overcrowded state of our prisons. I think that the noble Lord has reassured us by saying that, on a rough count, the numbers appear to be fairly equal as to those prisoners who we are holding in our prisons who are nationals of other states, and those of our own nationality who are in prisons abroad. If it be correct—and the noble Lord mentioned this—that this will not be an immediate transfer but will take place over a period of years, it will look as though this is not a matter that need concern us unduly when we think of the crowded state of our prisons.
There is also the question that was raised in the report of the interdepartmental working party which was published in June 1980. Again, it is a matter to which the Minister referred. That working party recommended that:
"Repatriation should normally be possible only where the offences involved are contrary to the criminal law in both countries".
One can well realise the reason for that recommendation. The noble Lord the Minister recognised it and gave an example of an offence which would not come within our criminal law: namely, the mere taking of alcohol and not the excessive taking of it, which in
760
other countries would be an offence. As it is hoped by Her Majesty's Government that there will be bilateral agreements quite outside the convention, we should be very interested to know with what countries Her Majesty's Government are at present negotiating. Perhaps we could have a broad indication as to the countries which may in future be within the ambit of their negotiations from a point of view of bilateral agreements.
It is a very human question for this reason. If a British subject is convicted and sentenced abroad for the offence of merely taking alcohol, or being found to have alcohol in his possession without even taking it. and a sentence is imposed and the transfer arrangements are made, then one could get the odd situation of, it might seem, complete injustice: that in our prisons we are actually detaining a person who, according to our law, would have committed no offence whatever. Furthermore, we could get the situation not only in that case. where there is a question of our criminal law not being the same as that of another country, but we could get the difficult situation of someone who receives a very heavy sentence according to the practice of another country, whereas we might either have imposed no prison sentence at all or a very light one. We all know what policy many of us are trying to recommend in that connection. We then get the inhuman situation of a British subject incarcerated in our prisons who is serving alongside other prisoners convicted of and sentenced for much more serious crimes and being made to serve a long sentence, and a longer one than would be justified in our own country by virtue of the fact that normally the same sort of prison sentence would be served as was accorded in the country that transferred the prisoner.
It is not easy to deal with that purely and simply by a parole system. such as was mentioned by the Minister. One wonders whether a specific power rather than the very general one should not be put into the Bill to deal with a situation of that kind. If it is not included in the Bill. one will want an assurance from the Minister that complete latitude in this connection will be given—and I am talking in terms of lightening sentences and not making them more severe—in any bilateral agreements that are entered into.
This also has a relevance—and possibly it is the other side of the coin—when I deal with a matter to which the Minister referred at the conclusion of his speech. When he was talking about the effect of this Bill on those convicted in our own country of terrorist offences, he rightly said that it was a matter which had exercised the minds of many people who think that this is a very dangerous area. As the Minister mentioned, anxiety has been expressed in other places; indeed, it was very much the concern of an honourable Member in the other place, Mr. Ivan Lawrence. I have his permission to quote the correspondence which took place between him and the Home Office. I have given the noble Lord the Minister notice of the fact that I shall quote the Home Office reply. Mr. Lawrence mentioned his anxiety about what would happen in regard to terrorists who are convicted of terrorism in this country; then, with the prisoner's consent (obviously given in this context) and that of the country with which we had a bilateral agreement. the

761
country concerned, being very sympathetic to the cause of the terrorist, asks for his transfer, and then, under Article 12 of the convention, which I shall read to your Lordships, immediately releases him or gives him very lenient treatment.
Article 12 of the convention reads:
"Each Party may grant pardon, amnesty or commutation of the sentence in accordance with its Constitution or other laws."
That may be a very great embarrassment to us—and, even more than an embarrassment, a great danger. I believe that your Lordships are especially apprehensive of matters of this kind having regard to the tragic experiences that we have suffered over the past few days. The honourable Member of another place brought that matter to the attention of the Home Office Minister. Mr. Mellor replied to him on 31st August this year in the following terms. I quote only from part of the letter but the part of the letter I quote I shall quote in full. He said:
"I have no doubt that Parliament will expect us to make very clear our policy on the exercise of this discretion."
I pause for a moment to say in parenthesis that that is the absolute discretion to refuse to transfer any prisoner. The letter then continues:
"I do not want to anticipate any announcement we might make during the passage of the legislation. It was, however, a conclusion of the Interdepartmental Working Party which considered this subject in 1980 that the discretion to refuse would not normally be used except for compelling reasons of public policy. The then Minister of State (Mr. Mayhew) indicated, in his reply to an adjournment debate initiated by John Wheeler on 16th April 1981, that in circumstances relating to terrorism, such compelling reasons of public policy might well exist (Official Report, col. 497).
"I would add to this only that such reasons may exist also in relation to a variety of other heinous crimes and a statement of Government policy on this issue will be relevant to this also. I hope, however, that I have demonstrated our awareness of the issue and our appreciation of the particular point you raise.".
That ends the letter.
I listened with great care, bearing in mind this promised statement, to what the noble Lord the Minister had to say in this context. I do not think that it goes far enough. It is extremely difficult, if we do not put something in this Bill, for the Government to walk into difficult discussions that may take place hereafter on the very category of crime I have mentioned. If we were able to say that the Bill that we passed in this connection prevented a transfer, unless there were very special circumstances, in this category of offence—and we may want to mention other heinous crimes, such as murder—that the general rule would be not to transfer but in special circumstances we might, then we would have the flexibility that we want and we would have the reason that we want if ever we are placed in this embarrassing position.
I asked a question about the Republic of Ireland. Nothing that I said in that connection, or will say, is meant to be in the slightest degree offensive to the present Government, which is headed by someone for whom I believe there is universal respect in this country. But we are legislating for future years, and one just does not know what other Government the Republic of Ireland may have. Therefore, purely giving that as an instance, or giving an Arab state as an instance—and, again, that is not meant in any sort of offensive way at all—I believe that we have to be extremely careful and see that our legislation on this occasion provides for this, and does it openly. One can
762
imagine the sort of blackmail to which a Government might be subject in this context if there was not a clear legislative decision and it was merely left to a vague exercise of discretion.
Having made these remarks, as I said before this Bill ought to have a welcome—and I imagine it will receive it—in all sections of your Lordships' House. There are some safeguards I have tried to mention which I think should be in the Bill, and we shall all await with some interest the Minister's reply to this debate.
1.34 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I, too, should like warmly to congratulate the Government on introducing this Bill, and on doing it so promptly to give effect to our signature to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, which, as the noble Lord told the House, was opened for signature in March. There has been no time lost in coming forward with the legislation we are now considering. It is a fairly rare event that I am able to express wholehearted appreciation of something done by the Home Office, and it gives me genuine pleasure to be able to do so twice on a single day, as I have been able this afternoon.
The noble Lord the Minister gave us some history. I can remember back in 1979, when I first became involved in this subject through the work of the National Council on the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad. which was founded early in that year to draw attention to the plight of prisoners in foreign gaols, to try to alleviate their suffering and to campaign for their transfer back to their home country. It has been my privilege to be associated with the NCWPA ever since then. They have played a significant part in bringing this matter forward to public attention over the last few years.
In 1979, also. the Howard League for Penal Reform published a study of prisoners in foreign gaols, and they were arguing the case for transfers. The noble Lord has mentioned the Home Office working group which was established to consider legislation as long ago as 1978, enabling the United Kingdom to enter into arrangements such as are outlined in this Bill. He also mentioned the pioneering work done in the United States, which passed legislation enabling that country to enter into bilateral agreements as long ago as the 1970s. The first of those, between the United States and Canada, came into effect in. I think. 1979, and many others followed thereafter.
In the United States it is already the position that American citizens may be repatriated to serve their sentences in American gaols when they have been convicted of offences in countries as far a field as Thailand, and I believe Turkey also. It was a great pity that we did not follow the American example and seek to enter into bilateral arrangements with all those other countries without waiting for the Council of Europe convention; but I am delighted that we are now not only in a position to give effect to the convention arrangements but also, as the Minister explained, to go for bilateral agreements with countries which, for one reason or another. are not able to accede to the convention.

763
As the noble Lord explained, there is no doubt at all that there is an additional dimension of suffering which is added to a prison sentence if it is served in a foreign land where the language is different, where there are cultural and social barriers between the prisoner and other inmates and staff, and where in the nature of things visits are going to be rare. Also, for westerners in prisons in the third world there is the hardship which arises from having to exist on a diet which may be inadequate both in quantity and quality.
Obviously it operates the other way round as well. The Minister will know of the cases of foreign citizens in our own prisons about whom we have corresponded. For example. there is the Bolivian who was in Parkhurst. where there was not a single other Spanish-speaking prisoner and even no welfare officer who could speak Spanish. In the end, the noble Lord kindly agreed that that prisoner could be transferred to Maid stone, where he was able to discuss matters with people who could speak Spanish. That was a typical example of the kind of thing that happens with foreigners in our prisons. I am sorry to say that this gentleman has now been refused parole, in spite of his exemplary conduct in prison, because his offence was one of those singled out by the Home Secretary for especially sharp treatment in the new policy announced at the Tory Party Conference, though never agreed by Parliament.
I hope that when the noble Lord refers to withholding consent in cases where there are compelling reasons for so doing he is not going to tell your Lordships that one of the circumstances in which he will not allow a prisoner to be transferred back overseas to serve the remainder of his sentence is where the prisoner has committed an offence of the kind outlined by the Home Secretary in his speech to the Tory Party Conference. I should be grateful for an assurance that that is not the intention.
There is one criticism which some people would like to make of the Bill, though it remains to be seen how this works out, and that is that it confers wide powers of discretion on the Secretary of State to transfer or not to transfer a prisoner, without laying any obligation on him to make a statement or to give any indication of what the criteria were by which he made the decision to transfer or not to transfer that prisoner.
We come to the major question which has been discussed already by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about what is to happen in cases of terrorism in particular. I listened carefully to what was said by both noble Lords without being clear in my mind as to how that will work out.
I think there is a difference between repatriation of a prisoner to a country such as Iran where, presumably, someone who has committed a terrorist offence in Britain would be received with sympathy or indeed acclamation and his transfer to a country such as Ireland. which shares the values of this country and would in any circumstances, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, be prepared to honour those arrangements. I would have no fear whatsoever about our proceeding with the transfer of such prisoners to Ireland knowing that their sentences
764
would be served in full. But I should not be happy if it were proposed to enter into arrangements with a country like Libya or Iran for the transfer of terrorists to those countries where a completely different situation would arise.
If the noble Lord would address himself more to the reaction in the recipient country and less to the nature of the offence, we might begin to get somewhere with a system which would be agreed by all to be fair.
However, I do not think that other kinds of offences would justify the withholding of consent to transfer because one runs into all sorts of problems. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned particulary heinous cases of murder. We have been through all this before when discussing the distinction between capital and non-capital murders. We found it was impossible to draw the line in such a way that everybody would agree that the murders which fell on one side were such as to justify the ultimate penalty while those that fell the other side only justified the award of a life sentence. Your Lordships may remember all the arguments that took place about poisoning which is a non-capital offence. Shall we have to draw up lists in the same way as we did then to say that in cases of poisoning or murder during the course of a robbery, for example, we would not consider repatriating those prisoners whereas someone who murders someone else in a fit of passion because of some relationship between them should qualify? It will be extraordinarily difficult if the Minister has to make that kind of distinction in examining every individual case to see whether he should withhold consent for compelling reasons, as he has told your Lordships he will have to do. We shall need to go into this more when we come into Committee.
I shall not try to give any further indication about how we think the definition should be framed at this stage, except to say that it has to be dealt with during the course of proceedings on the Bill and not left to the unfettered discretion of the Secretary of State after we have finished with it.
In the case of British prisoners returning from abroad, the Secretary of State has the power to order their detention. as the Minister has explained, for a period exceeding the sentence which could be passed by a British court for the offence and even to keep the person in prison on account of an act committed overseas which would not be criminal in the United Kingdom. I believe that this is inevitable if one wants people to serve whatever sentences are imposed in courts overseas under relatively humane conditions, no matter how repugnant we may find it to keep somebody in detention for an act which would not be considered criminal within the boundaries of the United Kingdom. This is not just for alcohol offences. People may be convicted of homosexual offences in countries overseas where the acts done were perfectly legal within the United Kingdom. yet we are in the position of having to accept those persons as remaining in detention in Britain because it is the lesser of two evils; they would not be in such a hard position as if they had to continue serving their sentence overseas.
One example which my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge drew to my attention I think should be aired at this stage. If we ever enter into

765
arrangements with the Republic of South Africa there is the question of offences in connection with the apartheid laws there. Many people in this country would draw the line at having people serving sentences in British prisons when all they had done was to violate the iniquitous and evil laws of the Republic of South Africa. I hope that the noble Lord will give some careful thought to whether consent would be given under such circumstances, if there is a possibility under the Bill of our entering into bilateral arrangements with South Africa.
In general I warmly welcome the Government's declaration of their willingness to enter into bilateral arrangements with countries that for one reason or another cannot sign the convention, such as Thailand or Turkey. As the Minister knows, the Thai authorities have been ready to negotiate with us for some time. I hope the arrangements can be completed in the time that it takes Parliament to enact this legislation. As the noble Lord is aware, the penalties for certain kinds of offences in Thailand are extremely severe. For example, there is a 30-year prison sentence laid down for possession of small quantities of designated drugs.
The Minister knows of a young British citizen who is serving a sentence of 35 years in a Thai prison for the possession of 10 grams of heroin on the grounds that if one has more than a certain minimum quantity one must automatically be trafficking in drugs, although no evidence was produced in his case that that was his intention. I welcome the Minister's assurance that in these cases where somebody is serving a long sentence in a prison overseas, once he comes back to this country the British rules on parole and remission would be applied. I should like the noble Lord to give me an assurance that when the parole authorities consider those cases they will have regard to the fact that a person who had been convicted of the same offence in a British court would not have been sentenced to anything like the same length of imprisonment.
I am somewhat more optimistic than the Minister about the effects of this Bill on the prison population. He said that there were about 200 citizens of Council of Europe countries plus United States and Canada serving sentences in our prisons, and 150 of our citizens in their prisons. If the whole lot were transferred the balance would be slightly in our favour from the point of view of the prison population. But if one considers the overall figures, there are 3,500 persons born overseas in British gaols, while I believe that the number of Britons in foreign gaols is about 800. The Minister can correct me if that is wrong. It seems likely, therefore, that in the long run as a result of the Bill there will be some slight alleviation of overcrowding in our prisons which is an added bonus.
Incidentally, I have never been able to discover why it is so difficult for us to record the citizenship of sentenced persons in British gaols. The figures we have relate to country of birth, which the noble Lord explained, but in 1982, for example, there were no fewer than 1,900 prisoners for whom even that information was not available. I hope that the Home Office will take steps to identify those who may be eligible for transfer under the arrangements we are enacting and will also be able to give the House an
766
assurance that full explanations will be given to prisoners about how they can apply for their transfer.
I should perhaps say a word about persons detained in special hospitals. Clause 1(4) extends the power of the Secretary of State to transfer not just prisoners but also those detained in special hospitals under court order, under Section 72 of the Mental Health Act 1959. Presumably, those transferred will be subject to similar conditions to those covered by the 1959 Mental Health Act. In other words, apart from the other conditions that have to be satisfied, the Secretary of State will need to assure himself that proper arrangements have been made for the care and reception of the patients in the country to which they are going to be transferred.
As an aside, your Lordships may consider that the Title of the Bill—the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill—is an inappropriate one, bearing in mind that it extends not only to persons who are detained in prisons but, as I noted, to those who are in special hospitals, as well. The noble Lord may like to consider the suggestion that we should use the title of the convention and call it the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Bill, which would be more explanatory of what we are trying to do. This Bill is going to be greatly welcome to many families in this country whose sons, daughters, close relatives or friends are serving long sentences overseas. It is going to give them new hope that their loved ones may come back to this country where they can see them and give them the support they need during a long prison sentence. It will also give hope and comfort to the families overseas whose sons and daughters are in our prisons. It is a purely humanitarian measure which I think should command the support of every Member of your Lordships' House and of the country as a whole. I am delighted to extend the warm support of myself and my noble friends to this measure.
1.52 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I should like to begin by echoing from these Benches the warm welcome extended to this Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and, before him, by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I rise willingly to speak in support of the Bill because, as the noble Lord the Minister has stated, it seeks to alleviate some of the harsher features of imprisonment in a foreign gaol. To be in prison in a foreign land obviously greatly increases the punitive element in the sentence passed on the prisoner. Then there is the special and isolating deprivation of having little or no access to one's native language, with all that that entails. There is, further, the feeling of being exiled in an alien culture with a very different system of the administration of justice. Ignorance of local language and laws, combined with limited funds available, often means that legal representation when it is available is of poor quality and ineffective.
For those who are in prison in many African, Asian and Latin American countries, life behind bars can be incomparably more grim than any of even the most overcrowded of our own prisons. If the aim of imprisonment is both corrective and remedial then to serve a sentence in a foreign gaol will often reduce the remedial possibilities to a minimum or even eliminate them altogether. This is because prisoners in those

767
circumstances inevitably develop an animus against the country in which they are imprisoned. Since they are usually deported at the end of their sentences they are given little chance of rehabilitation in the community.
I believe that this Bill will prove to be most beneficial to the prisoners concerned, the families, the prison authorities and consular officials. I should like to give one case in illustration. There is a young prisoner at present in Thailand who has served less than three years of a 25-year sentence. He is alone in the world in the sense that both parents are dead and he has lost contact with other members of his family. There is increasing worry about his present state of health and the British consul said recently after a visit that there were serious symptoms of withdrawal. Prison food is insufficient and lacking in nutrition. Should this man become seriously there is no money available to cover the expensive medical attention required. Unless that man can look forward to an early transfer of the kind envisaged in this Bill, his chances of survival are poor. I am sure that there are other similar cases that one could cite.
I hope that the Government will maintain the momentum started by the introduction of this Bill and enter into negotiations with countries outside the Council of Europe, with a view to their joining either the European Convention or in separate bilateral agreements. I understand, for instance, that this has been illustrated by formal approaches made to Thailand.
My Lords, I should like to conclude by referring to the question of the Title of the Bill which was mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Avebury. I am anxious about the use of the term "repatriation", because repatriation is now, rightly or wrongly, a word with emotive overtones because of its use in the field of race relations. Repatriation now suggests to many people some kind of involuntary removal from a country. Nothing could be further removed from the truth so far as this Bill is concerned. The consent of the prisoner is clearly required by the Bill, and this has been stressed by the noble Lord the Minister. It will be unfortunate, I think, if this use of the word "repatriation" created unnecessarily a hostile atmosphere surrounding the Bill. Might it not be better to follow the wording of the Council of Europe Convention and amend the Title to read, "The Transfer of Sentenced Prisoners Bill"?
1.58 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it falls to me to have the honour of congratulating the right reverend prelate, the Lord Bishop of Bristol, on his maiden speech this afternoon. The Bishops on these Benches are of a very, very high order, as we all know. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol is certainly no exception and we have listened very sincerely to all that he has said in his great wisdom about this particular Bill this afternoon. I feel personally that if the Bishops give it a warm welcome and, indeed, if the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also gives it a warm welcome, then the Bill must be a good one. I should like to congratulate my noble friend the Minister, Lord Elton, on his very succinct speech. I do not agree with his words when he said that he did not
768
think that he was succinct; for he was very succinct and was able to put what I reckon to be a very difficult Bill in a very easy way to this House.
As all noble Lords accept, this is fundamentally a humane Bill. It is to help not only people to come back here from abroad but those who are within our prisons or special hospital wards to go back to their own countries. It should not be thought that in all cases prisoners want to be repatriated. I can remember, as a member of a Parole Board, receiving a pathetic letter from a man who did not want to come out of prison because he would have to go back to his own country as we should not want him here, and one understood from what he said that his life would not be of very long duration in his own country. But, of course, in most cases, as some noble Lords have said, prisoners would prefer to go back to keep in touch with their families and realise what is going on.
As I gather, the Minister has said, this really emanated from the Council of Europe. In company with other noble Lords, I should like to know what other countries we are likely to approach to see whether we can get reciprocal arrangements, because that is the fundamental basis of allowing prisoners to be thought of for repatriation. I should like very much to know also at what stage in a prison sentence served in this country repatriation will arise—I still use the word even though the right reverend Prelate does not like it; we shall have to see how it goes in the Bill—and at what stage in a prison sentence a prisoner would be thought of in connection with this. Would it be at the first EDR, as we used to call it on the Parole Board—the earliest date of release? Or would he have to serve a shorter or longer term? I think it would be interesting to know.
One problem to which I have given a lot of time and thought is trafficking in drugs. On the Parole Board one knew that there were a great number of prisoners who were serving sentences because they had been apprehended with a large quantity of drugs which they intended to sell in this country. I formed the view, rightly or wrongly, that these evil people could perhaps even be charged with murder. They could certainly be charged with manslaughter because, if they had not been apprehended, they would have been responsible for causing the deaths of people in this country. I do not think that that is putting it too strongly. If they had not been apprehended. then of course they would certainly have been causing the deaths of people in this country.
The normal sentence of the court would be that they would be deported if they came from foreign countries: and my recollection is that they were held in Her Majesty's prisons and not deported until almost the end of their sentence. I would make a plea to the Government that that should continue, because it was very apparent that people coming from the countries which do send traffickers in drugs to our shores would go straight back and start the operation all over again. There are very many documents within the Home Office to prove this, and I should be grateful if my noble friend could give us an assurance that those people would not be deported despite the fact that, according to the sentence, at the end of that sentence they would have to leave this country. I should not like them to be part of the repatriation process.

769
There is one final small point that I wanted to make, and that concerns the special hospitals to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred. What the other institutions are I have been trying to find out, but cannot, and perhaps my noble friend the Minister would help us on this point. I hope I am right in saying that people detained in special hospitals would be called not prisoners but patients. I think that that would have to be dealt with somewhere in the Bill. It is important to them, because they are certainly not prisoners.
With other noble Lords, I give this Bill a very warm welcome on the grounds that the Home Secretary, the Parole Board, the LRC and others feel that these people could and should be repatriated. I hope this Bill will make their life and imprisonment easier than it has been in the past.
2.5 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, it looks as though the Bill is going to get a unanimous welcome. It certainly deserves it and I add my own welcome to those which have already been given. I disagreed with one or two things that were said by earlier speakers, but I am delighted to say that I agree with everything the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol had to say, and I congratulate him on his contribution. In particular, I agreed with his remarks about the Short Title of the Bill and I hope that we can amend that in Committee.
I very much welcome the wide scope which the Government have decided to adopt in drafting the Bill. I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is absolutely right in saying that the Government need a great deal of flexibility to be able to arrive at suitable bilateral treaties and other arrangements outside the Council of Europe Convention with individual countries. It is clear that we are going to have to balance the need for that flexibility against the very wide discretionary powers that the Bill provides. I should like to return to that.
I think the case for the Bill has been very strongly made, but perhaps I might mention one particular case. However, before doing so I would like to say a word on what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about the history of this, as it were, from outside the Government. I have been involved for many years, as a trustee of Release, in work in this field and have warned young people travelling abroad about the dangers they face in smuggling drugs from one country to another, or indeed in buying drugs in certain countries. For several years now really marvellous work has been done by the National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad, with which I am also connected as a trustee, in helping in some really desperate cases both the relatives of people in prison and the prisoners themselves. Very often the only hope that prisoners have of a continued existence at all is the help given by this voluntary organisation.
For example, there is a 34-year-old Briton currently serving a 30-year sentence in Turkey for a minor offence involving about 4 oz. of cannabis. I wanted to use this case to comment on what the noble Baroness said earlier about drug traffickers. Of course, it depends not only on the drug involved and the quantity involved but also on who you manage to catch. Very often the people bringing illegal drugs
770
through customs are couriers. They are not the people who stand to gain financially to any significant extent from the sale of the drugs. That is why very often the customs and the police follow the person with the drugs from the airport to some other destination and try to make an arrest subsequently.
Therefore, there is no simple answer to this problem. It depends on whom you catch, his position in the organisation, how much he stands to gain financially, whether he knew in detail what he was carrying, even if he ought to have known, and so on. This particular offence of the possession of four ounces of cannabis, which would be a crime in this country, would not be a crime in some other countries in Europe and some parts of the United States. When we talk about people committing offences in other countries which will not be offences in this country, we need to remember that that can work both ways in, maybe, a more limited number of cases. There will be some people imprisoned in this country for offences which would not be offences in their own country. Does the noble Baroness want me to give way?
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, we are talking—are we not?—about people who have been sentenced to a considerable number of years of imprisonment for having in their possession drugs with a street value of probably from £250,000 to £500,000?
Lord Melchett: Yes, my Lords. There are clearly serious cases of smuggling very dangerous drugs like heroin, and I shall come back to that point in a moment. To return to the case which I was mentioning, of the Briton imprisoned in Turkey and serving a 30-year sentence of which he has served about six years, that individual is very seriously ill. Although there have been contradictory reports from the Turkish prison authorities, it appears that the person concerned may well have cancer, and there is no possibility of medical treatment being given, so far as I can ascertain, simply because the facilities are not available in the Turkish prison system. It seems likely that, unless that individual can be transferred back to this country in the reasonably near future, he will die. I wanted to mention that case in particular, because it emphasises that we are not talking about just a humanitarian measure; we are talking about a humanitarian measure which might make the difference between life and death for quite a few British citizens who are in prison abroad.
If I may come to the point which the noble Baroness mentioned of the severity of a particular offence—and indeed my noble friend Lord Mishcon also made this point—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that it would be impossible in the Bill to set out categories of offences, or indeed to ask the Government to do so in advance, as the noble Baroness did, for which the Government would not agree to a transfer. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, when we were looking at the question of capital punishment for murder for a single offence, it was quite impossible in advance to distinguish between particularly serious cases and less serious ones. I think that that has been agreed by all parties, and certainly by the judiciary. Exactly the same argument would apply to other cases.

771
In practice in this country it must be right, however undesirable it may be. to allow the Government the discretion for which they ask in the Bill and to refuse transfer if they consider that right and not to do so if they do not. I welcome the form of words which the noble Lord, Lord Elton. used in describing the circumstances in which the Government would refuse a transfer. I am sure we can probe that in a little more detail at the Committee stage, but I strongly feel that attempts to define particular categories of offences in the Bill will lead us into a quagmire from which we shall never emerge, and from which the Bill and future transfers of prisoners may never emerge.
To give one example to my noble friend on the Front Bench, he mentioned terrorist offences. In Northern Ireland. which this Bill covers, a very large category of criminal offences are classified as terrorist offences—far more than I think my noble friend had in mind when he was talking about terrorist offences. He was clearly referring to very serious offences involving. I imagine loss of life; but it does not seem to me very fruitful to go down that avenue. It would depend as much as anything. as the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, said, on the attitude of the recipient country, as on the particular offence and the circumstances surrounding it. It would also be affected by the number of years that a prisoner has served and on a host of other factors, including the changed personal and family circumstances of the prisoner. After all, there have been some very serious terrorist offences committed by people in the United Kingdom, where the Government in subsequent years have seen fit to release them early for particular reasons—the attitude of the prisoners, their health, and so on. So I would counsel very strongly against attempting to put definitions in the Bill, where people would not be transferred.
I also disagreed strongly with my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the imprisonment of people here for things which were not offences under our own criminal law. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, did not go as far as my noble friend, but he suggested there might be a point at which we would draw a line. He gave the example of somebody imprisoned in South Africa for an offence against the apartheid laws, and said how many people in this country might well feel it intolerable for such a person to be transferred and then held in prison in the United Kingdom. But the choice is not between the person being imprisoned in the United Kingdom and not being imprisoned at all. The choice is between the person being imprisoned in the United Kingdom and being imprisoned in South Africa. However the individual prisoner—and this is the safeguard against this point in the Bill—will have the opportunity of deciding which he or she would prefer. I have no doubt which I would prefer, if I had a choice. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, or my noble friend would disagree that if they had a choice they would prefer to serve a prison sentence in the United Kingdom rather than in South Africa. It may be upsetting for citizens of the United Kingdom to have people in their prisons for such an offence, but we have to bear in mind that we are giving the prisoner a choice. If he takes that choice. as most sensible people
772
in South African gaols would. we should allow him to exercise that choice and serve his term here. So again I personally have no problems over that and believe that we should keep a complete discretion for the Government to transfer people to this country, if prisoners so wish.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before my noble friend finishes with that point—South Africa was not an example which I gave, though I wish I had thought of it—would he not think it really terrible that we should hold in our prisons. subject to prison discipline, those who had been convicted under South Africa's apartheid laws? Even if prisoners wanted to come back here, does not that cast a shadow upon our own administration in our own country?
Lord Melchett: No, my Lords. I do not think it does. And, yes, I do think it is terrible, because the only alternative is to leave the person in prison in South Africa. We know what fate awaits a large number of people in prison (particularly if they happen to be black) in South Africa for offences against those laws. They are likely to die in prison. In return, I would ask my noble friend whether it is really tenable, just to be able to wash our own hands, to keep people in prison abroad where they may face death, as in the case I have given—it would also apply to people in prison in South Africa—rather than to transfer them here where, however disagreeable it may be to my noble friend and myself that they should be in gaol, it would be a great deal better from the individual's point of view. That seems to me to be the overwhelming argument.
With respect to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I do not believe that you can start picking categories. That becomes just too difficult to stomach. Either we say that we are prepared to accept the principle of people being in gaol in this country for something of which they have been convicted abroad but which would not be a criminal offence here, or we say that we are not prepared to accept them. We cannot start to construct a list of priorities and say that some offences are so terrible that we shall not have them here while others are just about all right and we shall have them in our prisons. I would remind both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that this will work in reverse. People will be in prison here for criminal offences which are not criminal offences in their own country, so it is not going to be altogether a one-way traffic.
I should like to raise a couple of points, having, I hope, though I am not sure how effectively, defended the Government's position on a fairly wide discretion under general terms—to have a go at a couple of particular areas where the Bill gives discretion to the Government quite unnecessarily. The most glaring example, it seems to me, is in Clause 1(1) of the Bill. After the three conditions which the noble Lord set out have been satisfied—the prisoner's agreement, the existence of a treaty and the agreement of the two Governments—it is still only discretionary for the Secretary of State to issue the transfer document. Once the three conditions have been met I believe that the Secretary of State should issue a transfer document, and that it should say "shall" and not "may" in that part of Clause 1. The only reason why the Government

773
may wish to retain some discretion is because they need to make sure that the travelling expenses will be met. That seems to me to be far too petty a ground, if that is the only ground on which "may" is justified for that discretion to remain in the Bill. The three conditions set out in Clause 1 are right. Once they have all been met—they include the agreement of the Secretary of State in this country—a transfer document should be issued without any discretion being left to the Government.
I am concerned generally about the question of travelling expenses and the extent to which the Bill as drafted will mean that people will languish in foreign gaols although all the other conditions have been met, simply because they or their representatives are unable to meet the cost of transferring them back to the United Kingdom. I hope we can look again at that point in Committee.
I am also concerned about remission. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and other speakers have rightly laid stress on the fact that once a prisoner is back in this country the normal procedures for parole and remission will take effect. According to my reading of the Bill, there is, first, a double jeopardy insertion in the parole provisions, that somebody has to serve the minimum period in a United Kingdom gaol, of a year at the moment, although it may be reduced to six months, however long they have spent in prison abroad. That is unnecessarily restrictive. More seriously. the period of the sentence upon which remission is judged starts when the person is in prison in this country. It takes no account, as I read the Bill, of the period which they spent in prison overseas. That must clearly be wrong. I hope I am right in my interpretation of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that, if not today at some other point before we reach the Committee stage. If I am right, it is something which we shall be able to change in Committee.
I hope also that we can make it mandatory in the Bill that prisoners are told the terms of the transfer warrant. It seems to me, as I have said, that the prisoner's consent is the major safeguard against some of the rather abstract difficulties—if I may say so—which have been raised about keeping people in prison here. It is clearly vital that prisoners should know what they are letting themselves in for. Although I know that the Government intend that prisoners should see the transfer warrant and know what is involved, at the moment it seems to me that that is not mandatory on the face of the Bill—and, clearly, it should be.
I warmly welcome the Bill. I was delighted at the speed with which the Home Office has moved. I hope that the noble Lord may be able to tell us more about the ratification of the Council of Europe convention—not only about the timing for United Kingdom ratification once the Bill has passed through Parliament but also whether the Government have any information about other countries ratifying the convention so that a sufficient number ratify to bring the convention into force. We shall continue to need to make progress, not only with the legislation but with implementing it, if we are to save the lives of some people—our own citizens in prison abroad—and not
774
see people die before we can bring these provisions into force.
2.21 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I first ask the House to accept my apology for putting down my name to speak not early enough for it to be included on the list of speakers? I hope to mitigate my offence, first, by being fairly brief; secondly, by congratulating the Government. I warmly welcome this Bill. I entirely agree with the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. I warmly congratulate him on his maiden speech—and I do so after having recently made my own maiden speech. I have no doubt that although there are difficulties to which your Lordships have referred, and I wish to touch upon them, this Bill will put right not just a hardship but a dual hardship.
During the periods (a) when I was a Minister in the Home Office and (b) when I was a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I became very much aware of the problems of hardship of people from overseas who were—as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said—in British gaols and wishing that they could be home and receive visitors, or at least be in communication with people of their own nationality. That applies in exactly the same way to British people who are overseas and from whose relatives I repeatedly receive expressions of concern about whether their sons and daughters, or wives and husbands, could not be brought back to Britain. So I am certain that this Bill will put right a dual hardship and is therefore entirely a humanitarian Bill.
Of course I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, as well as by others, that we must seek to reach agreement with as large a number of countries as possible. It may be that the countries where some of the greatest difficulties apply are the same countries where it will be most difficult to get such agreement. But we simply have to face that fact. The Foreign Office, who will act on behalf of this House and the Government when this Bill becomes law—as I am sure it will—will no doubt work very hard in that respect.
Before I come to the main point I want to make, I wish to say that I believe we shall find ourselves in considerable difficulty—and I say this, too, to my noble friend Lord Melchett—with those who have been committed for offences which are in no way considered offences in this country. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in this respect, and I am thinking of apartheid cases. It may be the case that such instances can be dealt with by parole and remission, but I am quite certain that they have to be so. I should find it very difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would, being associated with the anti-apartheid movement, to conceive of people remaining for long in British gaols who have committed offences which we should not conceive of as being offences.
The main reason I wished to speak was to follow on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, in relation not just to those in special hospitals but to others affected and who are, in fact, mentally disordered offenders. There are three particular

775
questions I would put to the noble Lord, Lord Elton—since at the moment he cannot actually hear the question, I shall have to try to attract his attention. I assure the noble Lord that they are three questions to which I would not expect him immediately to give an answer. I raise them because I believe that they are probably matters that ought to be thought of before we reach the Committee stage of this Bill.
The first question arises on Clause 1(1)(c), the issue of warrants of transfer. The meaning of the word "consent" I am certain needs to be clarified. Will prisoners be entitled to legal advice before giving their consent? What are the circumstances envisaged by the Bill where a person will be authorised to consent on behalf of a prisoner? These are difficult questions. Is it contemplated that there will ever be circumstances in which a mentally disordered prisoner or a patient under a hospital order—for instance, a person convicted by the courts but sent to hospital and not to prison—able to consent himself will have that decision taken for him; and, if it will be taken for him, what are the circumstances in which the decision would be taken on his behalf?
The second question concerns Clause 2, which is transfer out of the United Kingdom. Under Section 86 of the Mental Health Act 1983 the Secretary of State already possesses powers to transfer abroad—I am quoting—alien patients, including those under a hospital order; before doing so he has to obtain the approval of a mental health review tribunal. In exercising this power the Secretary of State does not have to obtain the consent of the patient. I would appreciate some clarification of his powers under the Bill, and would like to know whether independent advice as to the patient's current needs and state of health, of the sort provided by a tribunal under the Mental Health Act. will be taken into consideration?
The last question of the three concerning mental cases arises under Clause 3, transfer into the United Kingdom. Clause 3(1)(c) gives the Home Secretary unfettered discretion to detain the prisoner domestically. While I appreciate the need for wide discretion, I am concerned that the terms of the warrant would not exceed the sentence, or equivalent hospital order, under which the prisoner was detained abroad. In the case of prisoners who have been sent by a foreign court, on conviction, to the equivalent of, say, Broad moor under the equivalent of our hospital order, such order is decreed to last for a limited time. Will the Home Secretary under the wide discretion afforded to him by this clause feel able to subject them to an indeterminate hospital order on their transfer to this country?
As I said, I do not expect the noble Lord to answer these questions at this stage, but I think they are difficult questions; they are questions which we shall have to have answered before this Bill finally becomes law. In conclusion. I congratulate the Government on acting quickly on what I am quite certain is an entirely humane Bill which will bring reward not only to the prisoners themselves, be they here or abroad, but to their parents and relatives who will again have contact with them, which in many cases has been denied for a very long period of time.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise to reply to the debate in an unaccustomed glow of comfort brought about by the unfamiliar and unbroken succession of compliments and welcome to myself and the Home Office, not only for the wisdom of our policies but also for the speed with which we have implemented them. It is therefore in the most euphoric of conditions that I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol on what was a notable maiden speech. I assure him that I would have been just as full in my praise had I been subject to the shower of objurgation and brickbats to which I am normally submitted at the Dispatch Box.
If I can now take the business more seriously in hand. I welcome the very close interest which all your Lordships who have supported the Bill have given to its detail. Conflicting views have become apparent. not only between the parties—in fact, not between the parties—and doubtless these will be aired at the Committee stage. For information, I start (since we should know precisely with whom we are dealing in these matters) by saying that I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, by a slip of the tongue. asked which countries (he thought there were 14) had ratified the treaty. I am sure he meant to ask how many had signed the treaty. I shall read them in what appears not to be quite alphabetical order: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Liechtenstein. Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain. Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. That is the alphabetical list of members of the Council of Europe. It has also been signed by Canada and the United States of America.
This brings me to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I can assure him that the expression "British Islands" is defined in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 as meaning the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The term "United Kingdom" is defined in that schedule as meaning Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Wherever the expression "British Islands" appears in the Bill, it is to be construed in accordance with that definition; that is, as excluding the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is a member of the Council of Europe but has not yet signed the convention. If it ratifies the convention, transfers between the United Kingdom and the Republic will he possible under the convention.
If I may now revert to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, he recounted the case history of a particular prisoner in Thailand whose chances of survival are low unless he can look forward to repatriation under the Bill. This is a moving example of the type of case that this Bill is designed to relieve, and vividly illustrates the humanitarian benefits that may flow from it. This lends importance to the negotiations that we are conducting with the Thai authorities. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate for this illustration. We share his concern for the situation of British prisoners in Thai gaols, as, indeed, do specifically the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Avebury.
The Thai authorities have indicated that they are not interested in accession to the Council of Europe

777
convention but will be happy to consider a bilateral treaty with the United Kingdom. Work is in hand on the drafting of such a treaty. Because of the particular interest in an agreement with Thailand, I should like to point out that although the United States of America, Canada and some European countries have negotiated bilateral treaties with Thailand. those treaties cannot come into effect until the Thai Parliament have enacted the necessary legislation. Our latest information is that their legislation is not likely to be introduced before 1984. I should perhaps also mention that a condition included in the treaties so far negotiated with Thailand is that prisoners must serve four years or a third of their sentence in Thailand before transfer.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked with whom we were conducting negotiations and with whom we might wish to negotiate. The only other country at present is Peru, and we are hoping that Peru may wish to accede to the convention. If it decides not to, we shall approach Peru with a view to a bilateral agreement. There are no other specific bilateral negotiations in view.
A number of your Lordships were exercised about the kinds of offence which might make a prisoner eligible for transfer under the arrangements in the Bill and under the convention. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that there are no categories of offence listed; and I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that all cases will be considered in their individual merits, subject to the public policy considerations that I have already mentioned on my opening address. There are no predetermined criteria for deciding who should be transferred beyond those provided for in the Bill. Each case will be considered on its merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put his finger on many of the difficulties inherent in the task that we have set ourselves, particularly outside the convention. The task is to get back to their homes British citizens languishing in foreign gaols. In doing that we are not of course our own masters. The convicting state will return the prisoner only if it is satisfied with the terms on which this is done. That means that we may have to choose between leaving our fellow citizens where they are and having them back on condition that we keep them in prison. The prisoners will share in that choice. Some of us sometimes find ourselves faced with choices that are truly bewildering. The choice may simply be as to whether it is better to suffer an injustice at home or abroad. I must emphasise that the Bill does not pre-empt that choice; it merely leases either decision open. We shall have to consider the pros and cons for each case as it arises. Equally, we shall have to consider the merits of each individual bilateral agreement as it arises. That goes for every other country in the world, whether it practises apartheid or not. These are matters to which your Lordships may later wish to return.
Your Lordships have raised a number of other matters. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the Parole Board will take into account all relevant factors, including the fact that an offence was not a crime in this country when the prisoner was sentenced for it. I cannot confirm to him the larger number of prisoners that he referred to; I think it was
778
800. They presumably include untried prisoners. I aim to have more complete figures available at the Committee stage. I recognise the noble Lord's anxiety about our methods of recording citizenship, but again we are considering how we can improve the way in which it is recorded.
Your Lordships referred to a number of other matters. The one principally in my mind is the provision not on the face of the Bill to deal with terrorism. I have made it clear throughout that it would not be appropriate to have categories of crime. Numbers of your Lordships have given reasons why it would not be appropriate to have special categories of crime. I entirely sympathise with the abhorrence of my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve for the crime, for instance, of trafficking in drugs, which I have always called murder by proxy—and a particularly sordid form of murder at that. But I think that to make specific cast-iron categories makes for had law. That does not mean that this Government's face is not set inflexibly against terrorism. We do not intend to put ourselves in a position where we can be browbeaten into the exchange of prisoners on any grounds, whether terrorists or not. We intend that the public interest shall always be the basis of our decisions when it is a case of not returning a prisoner. Under recent and horrific circumstances, none of your Lordships can be in any doubt where the public interest lies. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1983
2.40 p.m.
Viscount Long Viscount Long rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st December be approved.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1983 has been laid before your Lordships in accordance with Section 148 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which requires the Secretary of State for Employment to carry out each year a review of the limits relating to certain payments made under the Act. The limits are the weekly earnings limit laid down for the purpose of calculating redundancy payments, the basic and additional unfair dismissal awards, and certain debts in relation to the insolvency provisions of the Act; and the daily limit on guarantee payments to workers on short-time and temporary lay-off.
The Secretary for Employment has by law to take account of three factors in carrying out the review and reaching a decision. These are, first, the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain at the time of the review; secondly, the national economic situation as a whole; and, thirdly, such other matters as he thinks relevant. If, as a result of the review, the Secretary of State considers that any of the limits should be changed, he must lay before each House the draft of an order giving effect to his decisions; and where he decides that a limit should not be varied, he must lay before each House simultaneously with the order a report giving his reasons for not varying those limits.
As part of the autumn 1983 review, the Government consulted a wide range of organisations for their views of what changes, if any, should be made to the limits. In the light of these consultations the Government have decided that all the monetary limits covered by the review—that is, the limits of payments for redundancy, for basic and additional awards for unfair dismissal, for certain debts payable under the insolvency provisions of the Act, and for guarantee pay—should be increased. The proposed changes, which I shall later refer to in more detail, are set out in the draft order. If the order is approved in both Houses, the changes to the limits will come into effect on 1st February 1984.
I have mentioned the three factors which the Secretary of State must take into account in reaching decisions on the limits. One of these factors is the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain at the time of the review. The August 1983 figure for average earnings, which was the latest figure available at the time of the review, showed an increase of 8.5 per cent. over the previous 12 months. The figure for September 1983 was 8.5 per cent. and the provisional figure for October is 8.7 per cent. higher than a year previously.
If the level of earnings was the only factor to be considered, that would suggest that the limits should be increased by 8 to 9 per cent. The Secretary of State, however, also has to take into account the national economic situation as a whole. Although the Government recognise the need to protect employees, they are also aware of the need, on the other hand, to keep within tolerable bounds the burdens which the employment protection legislation imposes on employers. The Government have therefore decided that increases in the weekly earnings limit of 3.6 per cent. and guarantee payment of just over 5 per cent. are the maximum increases which can be justified in the present economic circumstances.
The current weekly earnings limit for calculating certain payments under the Act is £140. The Government therefore propose that that limit should be increased to £145. For redundancy payments, that means that the new maximum redundancy payment under the statutory provisions will be £4,350—that is, 30 weeks at 145—which will be the amount due to a man aged between 61and 64 who has served 20 years and is entitled to one and a half weeks' pay for each year of service. The increased weekly earnings limit of £145 will also apply to certain payments made to employees under the insolvency provisions of the Act. The additional cost to the redundancy fund from which such payments are made is expected to be marginal.
Another of the payments subject to a weekly earnings limit is the basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal. I would remind your Lordships that this part of an unfair dismissal award is intended to reflect broadly the amount of redundancy payment which would have been received by an employee if he had been made redundant instead of being unfairly dismissed. For this reason we consider that the limit for calculating the basic award should remain in line with the redundancy payments earnings limit. The new maximum in the basic award therefore remains
780
exactly the same as the maximum redundancy payment of £4,350. The additional award which an industrial tribunal may award where an employer has refused to comply with an order to reinstate or reengage a dismissed employee is also currently subject to a £140 weekly earnings limit, and this too is increased to £145.
Finally, I turn to the daily limit on guarantee pay. The Government propose to increase this limit from £9.50 to £10 which is an increase of just over 5 per cent. We have decided not to increase the other limits, namely, the specified number of days in any relevant period—now five days—and the length of the relevant period, which is now three months. The reason for the decision was given in the report laid at the same time as the order, and is that the maximum number of days for which payment is required to be made still seems to strike a fair balance between the employer's obligations and the employee's rights.
To sum up, the increases take some account of the increases in average earnings, but are inevitably strongly influenced by economic and employment considerations. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st December be approved.— (Viscount Long.)
2.48 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for explaining the order in such detail. As he has said, the order seeks to raise the notional "week's pay" used to calculate redundancy, unfair dismissal and insolvency payments from £140 to £145 a week which, as he has said, is an increase of approximately 3.6 per cent.; and also to raise the daily limit for workers on short time or temporary lay off from £9.50 to £10 which is an increase of something slightly over 5 per cent. In arriving at these figures as the noble Viscount said, three factors have to be taken into account: earnings, the retail price index and certain other relevant factors to which the noble Viscount referred. Yet, as the noble Viscount said, during the period under review earnings moved up by almost 9 per cent. and the retail price index has moved up by 5.1 per cent.
I think one should point out that this is the fifth annual review in which the real payments have lagged behind the increases in earnings and prices. Last year the increases of 4.6 per cent. and 3.8per cent. were made at a time when earnings moved up by 9.3 per cent. and the retail price index by 11.4 per cent. Indeed, it has been calculated that if the real value of these payments were to be maintained, the notional week's pay figure should now be in the region of £200 and not £145. One wonders what are the other factors which the Government have taken into account in arriving at these figures.
The noble Viscount mentioned the question of the national economic situation. But is it right that those receiving redundancy pay, those on short time and those in need of the benefits should be penalised in this way and not have these benefits increased truly in line with the rate of inflation and with the general rate of earnings? We regard it as most unsatisfactory that proper and real increases have not been agreed.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, on these Benches we should also like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for having explained this order in considerable detail. We also have one query to put to the noble Viscount which follows along the lines of the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. We note that the increase provided on the daily rate is 5.1 per cent., whereas the increase from £140 to £145 seems to be considerably less—in the region of 3.5 per cent or 3.6 per cent. Could the noble Viscount enlighten us on the reason for the disparity in these increases?
Viscount Long: I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Kilmarnock, for their kind words about this order. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said that it was unsatisfactory. One cannot satisfy everyone, and when one starts raising a great deal of money it becomes very costly. The noble Lord referred to the other factors to be taken into account: the general level of earnings, the national economic situation as a whole and any other relevant matters which crop up at the appropriate time. In any one year one never knows what will happen. Therefore, one has to take into consideration at that moment of time what has suddenly been brought forward. At that time the figures have to be examined and this year earnings have been increased by just over 5 per cent. Since this criterion was first introduced by the Labour Government some years ago earnings have gone up every year. This Government have increased the percentage slightly but not, as the noble Lord said, by what he wants. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked me about a certain matter which I would ask him to repeat.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I simply wanted to ask the noble Viscount—and I think I did ask him—why the up-rating on the daily rate from £9.50 to £10 works out at just over 5 per cent. whereas the figure which has been chosen for the weekly rate off 140 and which has been raised to £145, works out, according to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, at 3.6 per cent. I just wondered what was the reason behind the thinking which produced these different varieties of up-rating on a very similar theme.
Viscount Long: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord, I think it was in the autumn of this year that this problem arose. It was then that it probably needed to be adjusted. Account must be taken of the law and consultations between employers and trade unions have helped. The Secretary of State came to the view that a modest increase in the limits was justified. However, we have tried to be sensible about this and we therefore propose to increase the earnings limit by £5. I agree that it is not a lot, but it has gone up by about 50p. As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I think he will find these figures in the financial review published in the autumn.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the noble Viscount finally sits down, perhaps he could confirm the figure I gave him: that if this weekly figure had been up rated in line with inflation and in line with earnings, it would now be £200 and not £145?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am not at all certain of my answer to that. I think the noble Lord will find that financially we could not go as far as that.
On Question, Motion agreeed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1983
2.55 p.m.
Viscount Long Viscount Long rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th December be approved.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, almost exactly a year ago the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, presented a similar order concerning the Construction Industry Training Board. The purpose of such orders is to enable the board to raise a statutory levy of a certain amount upon employers in the industry. The present order requires Parliamentary approval because one part of it involves a levy of 2 per cent. on payments made for labour-only subcontracting.
Noble Lords are well aware of how important the construction industry is to economic growth in this country, particularly now when output is beginning to rise. This rise in output highlights the need for more and better training in the construction industry, particularly an industry with such a large and skilled mobile workforce.
The levy which your Lordships are asked to approve is expected to raise a total of some £42 million to meet the training needs of the industry. It is important to ensure that these costs are spread among employers and that all but the very small contribute, to pay for the overall training needs of the industry. For small firms there is an exclusion level which applies to those with an annual total payroll of less than £15,000.
The proposals before your Lordships provide for an occupational levy for the main part of the construction industry. This is a set amount for each occupation and is subject to an overall limit of 1 per cent. of employers' wages bill. These occupational rates vary from £18 to £85 according to the type of craftsman trained. This system reflects the extent to which the board has been able to meet the training needs of various categories of workers. I am pleased to be able to say that the occupational rates remain unchanged from last year.
Also proposed is a 2 per cent. levy on labour-only sub-contractors. This levy is to be applied to payments made by firms employing labour-only subcontractors. For their other occupations such firms will pay the fixed occupational levy subject to the overall 1 per cent. limit. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I explain that labour-only sub-contracting is defined as the provision of man and tools to do a job, where the main contractor provides materials, and any necessary plant.
The reason behind the proposal to raise a levy of up to 2 per cent. on labour-only sub-contractors is that there is evidence of the growing use by main contractors of labour-only sub-contractors who are known to do very little, if any, training. They rely on the rest of the industry to produce trained personnel.

783
The 2 per cent. levy on the payments made by main contractors is a means of sharing the cost of training and enabling them to benefit from the supply of skilled labour. It is expected that the 2 per cent. levy rate—over and above the basic 1 per cent. limit—will add about £3.5 million to the board's levy income.
A new element in this year's levy proposals for the construction board concerns the inclusion of the brick manufacturing industry following the abolition of the Ceramics, Glass and Mineral Products Industry Training Board. The Construction ITB has not yet been able to incorporate the bricks sector into the mainstream of its activities. The proposed 0.2 per cent. levy is estimated to be the amount sufficient to cover the brick manufacturing sector's proportion of the board's operating costs.
I commend these proposals to your Lordships. They have been unanimously approved by the board, on which employers, employees and education interests are well represented. They have also been approved by the Manpower Services Commission. In particular, the main employer associations in the industry have indicated their agreement with the 2 per cent. levy for labour-only sub-contractors. I therefore commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th December be approved.—(Viscount Long.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for explaining this order. The order imposes a 1 per cent. payroll levy on construction employers in order to finance the work of the Construction Industry Training Board. This order is to be welcomed as it provides the only way of providing training in a substantial industry of some 1½ million employees which is now in the midst of a recession.
Unfortunately, the work of the Construction Industry Training Board has not prevented a continuous decline in the numbers in apprentice training, which have gone down from over 12,000 in 1980 to just under 8,000 in 1983. It has also not prevented disagreement in public between the chairman of the Construction Industry Training Board and the Manpower Services Commission over the utility of the youth training scheme in construction. I understand that he said he feared that the general training provided by the youth training scheme was not what was required. There is a need for the Construction industry Training Board to widen its functions in relation to apprentice training. It could provide further organisation and registration rather than leaving this whole process to the Building and Allied Industries Training Council. Having said that, we welcome this order.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for having explained so clearly the terms of this order. We find ourselves in general sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has just said about it; but having said that, like him, on behalf of my noble friends I find the terms of the order acceptable.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their kind remarks about this order. One would like to see more young trainees coming forward, but what it amounts to is more advertising and getting them to come forward to learn a basic skill. This is what the construction industry wants.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Eurocontrol (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1983
3.2 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th November be approved.
The noble Lord said: Those of your Lordships who have had the opportunity of studying this draft order will see that it gives effect in United Kingdom law to the requirements of a Protocol which amends the 1960 convention that created the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, more normally known as Eurocontrol. The protocol was signed on 12th February 1981, and laid before the House in October 1982.
The purpose of this draft order is to implement Articles 22 (7), 23 and 24 of the amended convention by providing for immunity from suit and legal process for the director general of the organisation, inviolability for the official papers and documents of representatives of the contracting parties, and by exempting from our social security scheme those members of Eurocontrol's staff who are neither British citizens nor permanent residents of this country. Currently Eurocontrol has no premises or property here; the director general and all of his staff work outside the United Kingdom, and we have no reason to believe that this situation will change in the near future. The grant of these privileges and immunities is not, therefore, expected to have any significant effect here. However, all contracting parties are obliged to provide for them under the terms of the amended convention, and they may be required should Eurocontrol hold a meeting here.
As the changes to the operation of Eurocontrol were debated in your Lordships' House earlier this year when your Lordships were considering what is now the Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Act 1983, and as the draft order does not affect the operational working of the organisation, I will confine myself to reminding your Lordships that the main effect of the protocol was to transfer back to the contracting parties the responsibility for providing air navigation services above 25,000 feet. It will also enable Eurocontrol to expand and reinforce its role as the centre for collaboration between the contracting parties in the future development of air navigation services. The organisation will of course continue with its other welt established tasks which range from basic research to the training of engineers and controllers. The other contracting parties besides the United Kingdom are France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland. It is expected that the changes which will follow from the protocol will provide the framework for a much more positive co-operation venture in the future. I hope your Lordships will approve the draft

785
order, thereby demonstrating our continued interest in the important work which Eurocontrol carries out. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th November be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
3.6 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, we have had a clear explanation of this order from the Minister and I thank him for that. We have also had clearance from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and they find nothing in the order requiring our special attention. Following what we have heard from the Minister. I have no questions that I wish to put to him. Therefore it remains for me simply to indicate that we support this Motion. We understand the necessity for the order, even though, as the Minister has explained, it will have little significant effect in the United Kingdom, since the director and his staff are resident outside the United Kingdom. Without further ado, I would commend this order to the House.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, from these Benches we should also like to thank the noble Lord for repeating and explaining the main provisions of the order. In common with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, we feel able to support the order in its entirety and have no questions to bowl at him.
Lord Lyell: I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for his study and the care with which he has looked at this order. He asked me one or two questions before we came into the Chamber about Eurocontrol. I hope I was able to assure him that the order we have before us has simple objectives. I was grateful to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for not asking me to get further into the soup and inviolability; otherwise we should have had to call upon higher authority and lengthy explanations. I hope your Lordships will feel that I have done my best to explain the order with clarity. It is a fairly simple order but it has ramifications. I am grateful for the welcome accorded by your Lordships this afternoon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Telecommunications Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1983
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 30th November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this scheme and the scheme following it on the Order Paper today makes changes in response to the changing needs of agriculture and are designed to make policy savings of about £30 million a year. I should explain that one reason for confining the major changes to the national grant
786
schemes is that current discussions within the European Community about a new farm-structures directive will inevitably lead to changes in the European Community scheme before too long; and amendments to those schemes, therefore, have been kept to a minimum.
The package of changes which we are discussing today brings together a number of related aims not only for the improvement of the structure of farm businesses but also for the conservation of our national heritage. The Government believe that, given the will, agriculture is a strong force for the conservation of the countryside, so part of this package gives encouragement to conservation aspects of farming. The other aims of the package are to give additional aid to the glasshouse sector; to simplify the schemes and make them more selective in their operation, while preserving the balance of additional support for less favoured areas; and to achieve the savings necessary to pay for the increased glasshouse assistance and for the eventual introduction of increased support in the marginal areas.
If I may, I will speak about both this order and the next one now, since changes in the Agriculture and Horticulture Co-operation Scheme, which I am moving now, are largely consequential upon the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme, which is the next item on the Order Paper. Inconsidering changes to the coverage of the AHGS, we have reallocated resources between differing sectors of the industry and have aimed to achieve administrative simplicity. The latter thought was uppermost in our minds when it was decided that in future we would grant aid only the external envelope of agricultural buildings, together with any integral dividing walls. This followed the exclusion of plant and equipment because it would be inconsistent to allow in items of equipment under the guise of fixtures and fittings, as this has been a fruitful area for argument in the past under the national scheme, where plant and equipment have not been eligible for some time. Our decision will, I hope, mean a greater simplicity in the administration of the scheme.
Land drainage has always been an important element in our capital grant schemes because of its effect in achieving long-term improvement to agricultural land. For this reason we have maintained substantial assistance, though at the reduced rates of 30 per cent. and 60 per cent. in the less favoured areas. There are three other areas of saving in the national scheme which I should like specifically to mention. Grant aid for grain drying and storage where the grain is to be sold off the farm is to be discontinued. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, agricultural plant and equipment have been ineligible for grant aid under the national scheme for some years; and in the case of mixed holdings it has been difficult to judge whether the plant and equipment used for crop production or harvesting had an application to only the horticultural side of the business. So we have taken the view that plant and machinery ought to be removed totally from the grant schedules, apart from plant and equipment for the preparation for market of horticultural produce and for heating systems for glasshouses, including boilers. Thirdly, the lowland rate for land reclamation and grassland regeneration, introduced to meet a

787
particular set of circumstances, has done its work, we believe, and can now be dispensed with. Thus, this item will remain eligible only in the less favoured areas.
An area of clear need which remains protected in these orders is the orchard replanting scheme, which will remain at its initial level of 22½ per cent. As I have said, we have taken the opportunity in these orders to do something for two very worthwhile causes: the heated glasshouse sector and conservation. The Government's election manifesto included a commitment to the glasshouse industry for special help in the form of additional investment aid to encourage the better use of energy in glasshouse heating.
The changes brought about by these Statutory Instruments are increased aid for the replacement of heated glasshouses and improvements to existing glasshouses, including thermal insulation and, furthermore, because of the very exceptional circumstances, an increase in the six-year ceiling under the national scheme on the amount of investment which can qualify for grant by about £30,000, where this expenditure is incurred wholly for eligible energy-saving facilities. This additional support, worth about £2 million a year, represents a worthwhile and necessary assistance and I expect that growers will take full advantage of it.
As to the co-operation scheme, I would pick out the following for special mention. The Government have accepted the view of the Co-operative Development Board and the organisation Food From Britain that grants for certain non-capital costs incurred by co-operatives are a priority in the co-operation scheme, and we have therefore agreed that an additional £200,000 should be added to the present financial ceiling of £250,000 during each of the next three financial years. I know that the board and its chairman, particularly welcome this increase and I hope that your Lordships will welcome it likewise.
At the same time we recognise that there should be some reduction in grant aid for capital items under the co-operation scheme to contribute towards overall savings. The amount of grant currently awarded under the scheme is running at about £4½ million a year, and is I believe indicative of the Government's commitment and continuing high level of support to co-operation. The co-operation order therefore amends the rates of grant specified under the Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme in a number of respects, which I shall not detail now. But I shall of course, try to answer any questions which your Lordships may put to me.
The other area where these schemes make what I think is a most useful contribution is that of environmental conservation. So we have increased the rates of grant payable in the upland areas for hedges, walls and shelter belts of trees to 60 per cent. of cost, and I hope that these attractive rates will encourage landowners and farmers to establish or improve hedgerows and traditional walling. Another important step has been our decision to put a complete ban on grant aid for hedge removal. For a long time it has been ministry policy for grant aid for hedge removal to extend only to where it was essential for the achievement of an
788
overall investment; for example, a drainage scheme. But now we are ending even this very minor concession, and I can state unequivocally that hedge removal for field drainage will be ineligible under the farm capital grant schemes. That means no grants for hedge removal at all.
Finally, I should like to touch on the position of the marginal areas and their future status as less favoured areas. In announcing these present changes, my right honourable friend said that once this change in status had been agreed by the Community the marginal areas would become eligible for less favoured areas rates of capital grants (with the exception of roads, grids and bridges);also, that for planning purposes we had in mind head age payments at about half the present less favoured areas rate, but the actual rates would fall to be determined in the autumn of 1984. We cannot of course move forward without Community agreement. but we trust that this will be forthcoming. In the meantime, I take this opportunity of reiterating our conviction that the marginal areas are most deserving of help and of our pledge to give it. My Lords, I beg to move the first of these orders.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 30th November be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has, with his usual clarity, gone fairly closely into the details of this scheme. Although he said that he would be brief, he has done a good job in a very short time and I shall try to do the same. He opened by saying that the alterations in the various grants are, to a certain extent, to move with the times. I think he mentioned the changing scene in agriculture. He also added that they would save money and I think that saving money is what the Government have mostly in mind.
I wonder whether he could help me on the figure of £30 million, which I think is the amount that is to be saved. When the motion for the approval of the scheme was moved in the other place, a figure of £2,256 million for spending on agriculture was given. Does that cover everything? I gather that there is an increase of £437 million. But a figure of £422 million was also given, which the Minister said was not a real figure. It seems to me that £422 million is a very real figure. However, the Minister subtracted it from the £437 million increase, which resulted in the figure of £15 million which he defined. They want to find a further sum of £15 million, making £30 million. Could the Minister tie up these figures a little better than I can?
The Minister has gone into the matter in detail, and I do not want to repeat what he has already said. If the Government believe that it is necessary to save £30 million. I would ask them to place a little more emphasis on the horticultural and glasshouse industry, and on conservation. I would ask them in particular to increase the help they are giving to the upland areas, or to the less favoured areas as they are now called. I hope that the upland areas will take advantage of what is available, because there is a good deal to be done, as the Minister said, about replanting hedges, et cetera.
We welcome the fact that the co-operative section of the schemes will also be helped by an extra £200,000.

789
The Minister emphasised that some of the savings will change the priorities in the grant scheme. The priority today is not to give any help towards fixed equipment for milk, cereals, grain drying and so on, which is probably right. However, if one looks back to the early 1920s and the 1930s, the infrastructure of agriculture was in a terrible state. It continued in that state right throughout the war and for many years after. These grants have greatly improved the infrastructure of agriculture in every way. Our fixed equipment for buildings, roads, drainage, et cetera, is second to none in Europe. It would be a pity if the infrastructure were whittled away too much. I give that warning to the Government, in particular about drainage. I repeat that nothing has helped arable farming—indeed, all farming in this country—more than the help we have received for draining the land. Literally millions of acres still require to be drained. It would be a pity if this effort were to be depressed too greatly. There was a 50 per cent. drainage grant scheme, which rose to 60 to 70 per cent. for the upland areas. First it was reduced to 37½ per cent., and now it is down to 30 per cent. This is bound to depress the effort which people can put into draining their land. I should like to ask the Minister whether a person who began a scheme but who did not apply for a grant before this alteration was made on 1st December will come into the new pricing scheme or whether, if he can prove that he started his scheme in all good faith and hoped to receive the previous grant, he will receive the old grant.
I emphasise again that the Government should not make too harsh cuts, in particular when it comes to fixed equipment for drainage. Perhaps I could mention that the liming grant was reduced quite a long time ago to nothing. It, too, did a great deal for agriculture. Apart from those few points, I welcome both the schemes.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for having so lucidly explained the order. We particularly welcome the effects of the order on hedgerow protection. It is always a difficult balance, as we all know, between agricultural and environmental interests, but this seems to us to be a step in the right direction.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for indicating their support for these orders and for allowing me to speak to both of them together. My brief answers will be confined entirely to the second of the orders, the national scheme order.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me about a set of figures which my honourable friend the Minister of State gave in another place on 15th December (col. 1275 of the Official Report) in replying to the brief debate on these same orders. I believe it is fair to say that my honourable friend was, first, giving a total planned expenditure figure of £2,256 million for expenditure on agriculture, fisheries and food. My honourable friend added that that figure represented an increase of £437 million over our previous plans. He went on to make the point that much of that sum is still for intervention board European Community expenditure. At the very end of his remarks—and I believe it was this point that was troubling the noble
790
Lord opposite—my honourable friend explained that £422 million of that figure is met from the FEOGA expenditure of the Community, and therefore is either fully or partly repayable. That is why my honourable friend said that it was not a real figure, because we get either some or all of the money back.
The point I should like to make to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is that although it is a fact that we are concerned with public expenditure (and, indeed, I invited the noble Lord to make the criticism by saying that there was £30 million of planned policy expenditure in the statutory instruments, and the noble Lord predictably said that he felt savings loomed large in the mind of the Government in bringing these statutory instruments forward) I believe your Lordships would wish to be aware of another aspect.
While those two statutory instruments combined, together with two other statutory instruments which do not have to appear on the Order Paper because they are subject to negative resolution, come to £30 million of planned policy savings, my advice is that the expenditure we shall actually incur in horticulture and agriculture during the current financial year will come out at around £205 million on capital grant expenditure. That will be very much the same as it was last year. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to recognise that even though we have this policy savings intention, the buoyancy of investment on capital grants is remaining. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will welcome that because he, with his great experience, pointed at the end of his remarks to certain areas, such as liming and drainage, where he felt it was very important that investment should continue.
So far as drainage is concerned, may I just say that in making the package of grant rate reductions we have had regard to the overall balance and the need to allocate reduced resources to where they will be most beneficial. Perhaps your Lordships are not aware—and I venture to say that because certainly I was not— that in England and Wales about 96 per cent. of drainage grants go to the lowland and marginal areas; and about 40 per cent. of the grant paid is to businesses described as cereals or dairy enterprises.
The importance of field drainage is still recognised, since it will continue to carry a higher rate of grant than other aspects: outside the less favoured areas, 50 per cent. higher than the basic rate of 20 per cent. for buildings and other land works; 40 per cent. in the less favoured areas. That shows that we continue to take the words of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, seriously.
I was grateful for what the noble Lord said about the importance of horticulture. In my opening remarks I omitted to say that the difficulty for so many of our horticulturists, particularly in the glasshouse sector, has been what has amounted to unfair competition from the other side of the North Sea. That is for reasons which I believe we would not wish to go into today, but they derive from very beneficial gas prices on the other side of the North Sea. This element of unfair competition has, we believe, been put right; but the legacy is that the glasshouse people have had a very rough time, and we hope that the increase in this package will be of use to them.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me about how the changes will work. I am advised that

791
under the national scheme the changes will apply to expenditure incurred on or after 1st December this year. If a claimant can demonstrate that he or she has incurred expenditure before this date they may be eligible for the old, and usually higher, rates of grant. May I finally say I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for what he said about the emphasis we have put on trying to do something additionally to help conservation, and let us hope that this may have a beneficial effect.
On Question. Motion agreed to.

Agriculture and Horticulture Grant (Variation) (No. 3) Scheme 1983
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this second order be approved.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 30th November be approved.—(Lord Belstead)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Animal Health and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the Animal Health and Welfare Bill be now read a second time. This Bill affects a wide range of legislation on the control of animal disease, veterinary medicines, artificial methods of livestock breeding and the welfare of poultry in slaughterhouses. In some respects the Bill simply brings existing legislation up to date; in other areas it clarifies the legislation; and in others it introduces new provisions to reflect areas of concern which have developed since the original legislation was made.
I should like to describe the clauses which amend the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967. In June 1979 the Farm Animal Welfare Council was formed by the Government. Since then the council has done much valuable work and I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the members of the council who, I know, devote a great deal of time and effort to their work. In January last year the council reported on the welfare of poultry at the time of slaughter. The report makes a number of very important recommendations for improving the way poultry are looked after while awaiting slaughter and at the point of slaughter. Clauses 4 to 7 of this Bill are a result of those recommendations.
The most radical change is that the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967 is to be extended so that it will apply to all slaughter, and not only, as at present, to slaughter for sale for human consumption. This is achieved by Clause 4. The background is the increase in sales of live poultry direct to the intending consumer at markets and in certain shops. Although the majority of poultry sold in this way are in fact slaughtered on the seller's premises, they are, technically speaking, slaughtered after sale. I am sure your Lordships will agree that birds slaughtered in these circumstances should have the same protection as birds slaughtered before sale. There are however certain circumstances where the normal methods of slaughter provided for
792
by the 1967 Act are inappropriate—for example, where birds have to be killed to stop the spread of disease, in the course of an authorised experiment or by a vet acting in his professional capacity. In all these cases adequate safeguards already exist to protect the welfare of the birds, and the Bill therefore provides an exemption from Section 1(1) of the 1967 Act in these circumstances.
Clause 5 of the Bill enables regulations to be made requiring that people who carry out certain tasks in poultry slaughterhouses should be licensed by the local authority. This reflects one of the most important recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Workers in red meat slaughterhouses have had to be licensed for more than 50 years now, but there has been no such requirement in poultry slaughterhouses. Clause 5 enables conditions to be specified which would have to be satisfied before a licence could be issued. This will enable us to provide, among other things, for adequate training, on which particular stress was laid by the Farm Animal Welfare Council and by others with an interest in this subject. There will, of course, be full consultation with the poultry industry and with other interested organisations before any regulations are made.
Clause 6 provides for the preparation of codes of practice on the humane treatment of birds in slaughterhouses. The Government consider that this is the most effective way of ensuring compliance with many of the detailed recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, particularly the recommendations directed at slaughterhouse operators. Although the codes would not themselves be directly enforceable in law—this would run contrary to the essence of a code, which is flexibility—they could be used as evidence in a prosecution for a contravention of the Act or of regulations made under it.
Clause 7 provides powers of entry to officers of the agriculture departments or of the local authority on premises where the commercial slaughter of poultry takes place. Powers of entry already exist in the 1976 Act, but it is necessary now to take account of the fact that many more premises will become subject to the Act once it is extended to cover slaughter for purposes other than sale for human consumption. Many of the premises covered now for the first time are very different in nature from the normal poultry slaugher house, and a rather different power of entry is therefore necessary.
I turn now to those clauses which amend the Medicines Act 1968. That Act controls the production and supply of veterinary medicines as well as human medicines, and Clauses 11 and 12 of this Bill deal with two separate aspects of the way veterinary medicines reach the animals for which they are intended.
Clause 11 deals with medicated animal feeding stuffs. The sections of the Medicines Act dealing with medicated animal feeding stuffs were, I think it is fair to say, added at a late stage in the passage of the 1968 Act and have proved extremely difficult to interpret and to operate in the 15 years since the Act was passed. During those years, however, the administration of medicines through feed has become much more widespread, particularly in pig and poultry farming. I believe that your Lordships would agree

793
that this sort of medication of food-producing animals should be carefully controlled.
Clause 11 deals with two separate problems which have caused difficulty over the years. The first problem is the instructions which manufacturers of medicated feeding stuffs receive from veterinarians. Before the Medicines Act was introduced, medicated feeding stuffs were controlled under the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956which required a veterinary surgeon's instructions for the feeding stuffs manufacturer to be in the form of a written direction. Subordinate legislation contained detailed provisions as to such matters as the content and period of validity of the written direction. In the Medicines Act, however, the term "prescription" was used and no powers were taken to lay down the formal content of the prescription.
The absence of a specified form of instructions brought in by the 1968 Act has caused difficulties in the trade and representative organisations have been unanimous in asking for a return to the use of a "written direction" so that manufacturers receive instructions in a clear and standardised form. Clause 11 provides for this in the new Section 40(2)(b).
There have also been ambiguities over what actually constitutes a medicinal product in respect of medicated feeds. Clause 11(2) therefore takes power for these ambiguities to be resolved by order. Such an order would be made, of course, only after consultation with all of the appropriate interests. At the same time we shall also reconsider the licensing of medicinal products used in the feeding stuffs sector with the aim of ensuring that those with a high level of medication are incorporated into feed under carefully controlled conditions. Where conditions cannot be so carefully controlled, only products with an appropriately lower level of medication will be available. The powers to do this are already available to the Government.
Clause 11 also provides for a system of registration for manufacturers and distributors of medicated feeding stuffs. The necessary powers appear in the new Section 40(7). The Government envisage that a manufacturer or dealer who wishes to register for the purposes of the regulations to be made under this provision will be required to sign an undertaking that he will comply with a code of practice which the Government will adopt, covering such things as record keeping, storage of medicinal products and the avoidance of cross-contamination. Our intention is that the code of practice should be drafted by an organisation representing the trade associations whose members are involved in the medicated feed sector. By this means we hope to achieve an improvement in the standards of manufacture and distribution of medicated feeding stuffs without proposing requirements which are unrealistic or unworkable. I emphasise that the provisions of Clause 11 are, in general, enabling powers. I assure your Lordships that before any subordinate legislation setting up the new arrangements is introduced, there will be detailed consultation with all interested organisations.
Clause 12 clarifies Minister's powers to require the registration of agriculture merchants selling veterinary drugs and enables fees to be charged for registration. We have recently reviewed the operation of the
794
Merchants' List Order and have decided that agricultural merchants should be able to continue to sell merchants' list products to farmers but that there needs to be some improvement in the handling and distribution of the products through merchants' premises. Here again a code of practice is the method by which we hope the necessary improvements will be achieved. The code of practice is being drafted by the Animal Health Trade Associations Group which represents the trade organisations involved in the distribution of merchants' list products, in consultation with the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the agriculture departments. The code is almost complete. An undertaking to comply with the code of practice will be one of the conditions for registration in regulations which we intend to make under the new Section 57(2A) contained in Clause 12.
Controls of artificial breeding are included in Clauses 8 and 9. Government controls of artificial insemination have existed since the 1940s when the technique first became commercially viable. Section 17 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1943 introduced enabling powers for the agricultural Ministers of Great Britain to make regulations for controlling artificial insemination and also imposed control over imports of semen through a system of licensing. Thereafter a series of regulations was made relating to cattle and pigs. The twin purposes of the controls were to prevent the spread of animal disease through the distribution of semen and to limit the use of animals of poor or unproven merit so as to avoid diluting the quality of the national herds.
Since the introduction of artificial insemination a number of other techniques, such as embryo recovery and transfer in cattle and cloning, have been developed and are now well established. There are, however, no statutory powers available to us at present to control the use of such techniques in artificial breeding, although the potential for the spread of animal disease and for the use of poor quality donors is only slightly less than in the case of artificial insemination. Clause 8 allows such controls to be introduced by providing for regulations to be made for the purposes of controlling the practice of artificial breeding of specified livestock. Such regulations may prohibit the carrying on of any specified activity in connection with livestock, semen, ova or embryos except under the authority of a licence or approval. Importation of breeding products may also be regulated. The controls over artificial insemination would thus be maintained and extended to cover the use of ova and embryos.
In addition, the clause provides for regulations to determine fees for the issue of licences and approvals. The cost of veterinary tests and inspections has risen considerably over the years, and if forms of artificial breeding other than artificial insemination are to be controlled, a further large increase might be expected. It is considered that in the future at least part of this cost should be recovered, though at this time it is not possible to say at what level fees might be fixed.
May I briefly say a few words about natural breeding. The Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls)Act 1931, and the Horse Breeding Act 1958, were passed to prohibit the keeping of bulls and stallions of a prescribed age for natural service, unless they were licensed. As with artificial breeding, the

795
object was to improve the quality of the stock. However, the operation of the 1931 Act was suspended in 1976—I think that that was at a time when the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was a Minister in the ministry—as it was considered that the advantages of good husbandry practice were widely recognised, and that standards were considerably higher than when the Act was introduced.
As for stallion licensing, the rising cost of licences encountered opposition from the horse industry. The horse breeding organisations themselves strictly regulate the standards applicable to stallions accepted for registration in stud books, and they had no objection to ending stallion licensing. An animal is very unlikely to be used for breeding purposes if refused entry to the stud book, whether or not it is licensed under the Act. In 1982 the age at which a licence was required was raised from two to five years, thus effectively suspending stallion licensing for a number of years. So Clause 10 repeals those two Acts and formally ends controls on natural breeding.
I wish, finally, to turn to the first three clauses of the Bill. Your Lordships will have seen that these clauses provide for changes to be made to the Animal Health Act 1981. The first of these changes—in Clause 1—extends the powers which exist for the seizure of material to prevent the spread of disease. The House will be well aware of the serious implications for the agriculture industry should there be in this country an outbreak of a disease such as foot-and-mouth. Fortunately, we have an excellent record in terms of freedom from disease, and this is in no small part due to the framework of legislation upon which disease control work is founded. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. There is continuing need to look at our controls and to adapt them in the light of changing circumstances.
In the particular context, the last few years have seen significant technological advances which have led to an increasing use and movement of animal semen, embryos, and ova. As your Lordships will fully appreciate. these could transmit disease, and there may be circumstances which would necessitate the seizure of such material in the face of an outbreak of a serious disease, so that the risk of spread could be minimised. It is with that especially in mind that wider powers are sought, because at the present time they are not contained in existing provisions. Your Lordships will observe that before these powes were exercised Parliament would have the opportunity to examine the subordinate legislation, which would set out in detail any specific proposals for seizure.
Specifically, Clause 1 extends the enabling powers for the seizure of material under Section 35(1) of the 1981 Act, so that it can include anything. whether animate or inanimate, by which, or by means of which, any disease might be carried or transmitted. Additionally, Clause 1 amends Section 36 of the Act, relating to compensation for seizure, so that where the Minister seizes anything which is obtained from, or produced by, a diseased animal, he will pay compensation if the Ministers have made an order to that effect.
Clause 2 seeks to extend the powers of entry contained in the 1981 Act. I am well aware of the
796
sensitivity which accompanies this subject, and your Lordships may be assured that the Government would not propose increasing powers of entry without being completely satisfied that this course was necessary, and that the Veterinary Service, whose record on this is very good, will whenever possible continue to reach agreement on entry. Currently powers are available which allow veterinary surgeons of the state Veterinary Service to go on to farms to determine whether disease exists, without there being any previous suspicion of disease. This power relates only to foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever, and pleuropneumonia. It does not extend to other diseases, some of which, in particular those which have recently emerged, are extremely difficult to identify. It is therefore important that as part of disease control and eradication measures it is possible in certain circumstances to enter premises, without there having been suspicion that disease exists, in order to carry out investigations. Clause 2 therefore extends the powers of entry in Section 63(9) of the 1981 Act to all notifiable diseases.
Finally, with Clause 3 we have taken the opportunity offered by this Bill to make sure, for the avoidance of doubt, that our powers to make orders protecting the welfare of animals in transit may be used in relation to that part of the journey to or from ports or airports in Great Britain which takes place in or over our territorial waters.
I must apologise to your Lordships for the lengthy explanation of the main provisions of this Bill, but it has aspects which are both technical and detailed. If it would be for the convenience of your Lordships I will put copies of the Notes on Clauses into the Printed Paper Office to prepare for the Committee stage.
I hope your Lordships will agree that this Bill provides real improvements in the legislation and takes account of the concerns of those affected by it in one way or another. I trust that it takes account of the concerns of the House also. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Belstead.)

Sellafield: Abnormal Discharges
3.51 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement on Sellafield being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a further Interim Statement about the recent discharges at the Sellafield plant in Cumbria.
"During the six days from November 11th to November 16th a series of abnormal discharges were made from the Sellafield plant of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. through the pipeline to the sea. The discharges followed the washing out of the reprocessing plant in the course of annual maintenance. Following a management error in the operation of that plant, radioactive liquids including solvent, and particulate matter of higher than normal activity were transferred to a sea tank.

797
Attempts were made to transfer the more active material to another storage tank. This was only partially successful and a significant quantity of the radioactivity was discharged to the sea.
"The radiochemical inspectorate of my department and the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive have been carrying out detailed investigations into the causes of the incident. Neither I nor my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy have yet received the final reports. While it seems clear that there has been no breach of the authorised quarterly numerical limits on the discharge or radioactivity, there may well have been breaches of other conditions; namely, those requiring exposures from discharges to be kept as low as reasonably achievable and those requiring proper records to be kept. It is also possible that there were some breaches of other conditions of the NII site licence. For these reasons the matter has been brought to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions with whom my department and the Health and Safety Executive are co-operating.
"The most important thing is to prevent any repetition of such an incident. Both the NII and my department have notified British Nuclear Fuels Limited of the further measures they wish the company to take. The measures so far taken by British Nuclear Fuels Limited include a ban on the discharge of free solvent and an automatic cut-off system governing the discharge of liquid from the sea tanks. Other measures are in hand.
"Extensive and continuing monitoring of the environment has confirmed that the risk of harm to the public was, and remains, extremely small. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is today answering a Written Question announcing the publication of a report on the marine environmental and agricultural consequences of the discharge. Copies are in the Library of the House. This shows that there has not been any significant effect on fish, shellfish or other foods. There is therefore no reason why people should not eat local catches or local farm produce.
"Also published today and placed in the Library is a report by the National Radiological Protection Board, prepared for my department, on the distribution and analysis of samples of seaweed and other flotsam collected from the beach 10 miles either side of the pipeline. One conclusion of the report, confirmed by separate analysis carried out by MAFF, is that the radioactivity in the samples was well below the level that would constitute any hazard to the general population in the area. The NRPB's main concern however is that anyone handling the more active samples taken from the beach could exceed the annual dose limit for the skin after only comparatively brief direct contact.
"It was for that reason that, on 30th November, my department advised the public to avoid unnecessary use of the beaches on this stretch of coast for the time being. I have to tell the House that radioactive flotsam is still occasionally being found, so that it is not yet possible to withdraw that advice. It remains true that any risk of contamination to the public is
798
extremely small. People should nonetheless continue to avoid unnecessary use of the beaches between St. Bees and Eskmeals and should not handle objects washed up by the sea. Monitoring will continue and my department will keep the public fully informed.
"Mr. Speaker, this is an interim report which I have thought it right to make to the House before we adjourn for the Christmas recess. The Government intend that the reports both from DOE's Radiochemical Inspectorate and from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate should be published as soon as possible after they are received by Ministers, provided there is no risk of prejudicing any legal proceedings. When we have the final reports I will make a further statement to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this interim Statement to the House this afternoon. Is the noble Lord aware that the Statement adds little which is new to what we already know from the press and, indeed, from the company's own statement? Secondly, does he realise that there is real public anger following this incident and that the incident itself calls into question the competence of the management at Sellafield and has seriously damaged the image and the credibility of the whole nuclear industry?
Would the noble Lord assist in resolving the conflict which seems to exist in the Statement between the concern of the National Radiological Protection Board for people handling the more radioactive samples taken from the beaches, and the Government's advice that any risk of contamination is extremely small? Would he also say what is meant by "unnecessary use of beaches"? Does this mean the general public, local authority people, or who? Will the noble Lord say a little more about the possible prosecutions, and will the Government be reviewing—as we believe they ought to have done a long while ago—the upper limits of radioactivity discharged to the sea?
Finally, we welcome the noble Lord's commitment to making a further Statement on this matter and to publish the nuclear inspectorate's report—and I hope that he will give me the assurance that it will be in full—as soon as possible after the Recess.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we too should like to welcome the Statement and to thank the Minister for making an Interim Statement even though, at this particular time, it does not add very much to what we already know. Nevertheless, it was a very important incident. We shall want to comment more fully on it when the time comes. In the meantime, it is right that the House should be kept informed.
At this particular moment there are only two specific questions that I want to ask. The Statement says that the most important thing is,
"to prevent any repetition of such an incident",
and there I am sure the whole House would agree with the Statement. It goes on to say that BNFL, have been

799
notified of the further measures that the department wish the company to take, and that,
"the measures so far include a ban on the discharge of free solvent and an automatic cut-off system governing the discharge of liquid from the sea tanks. Other measures are in hand."
What other measures are in hand? This is an important question because it is quite clearly the key point of the Statement.
The second question that I want to ask concerns the hazard to the general population:
"anyone handling the more active samples taken from the beach could exceed the annual dose limit of the skin only after comparatively brief direct contact."
I entirely welcome the steps that have been taken to make certain that such happenings are as few as possible, but what advice has the Department, or anyone else, given to the general public if they should feel that they have run the risk of handling such material? Have they issued instructions so that the general public in the area really know what to do if, by any chance, some of them, who have not heeded the warnings for one reason or another, should stray on to those beaches?
4.1 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for recognising both the serious informative purpose of this Statement and also for recognising that it is an interim one, and that I, or my noble friend, will be reporting to the House at a later date. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked when that later date would be. Obviously it cannot be until after the report to which I referred has been received by Ministers, but as the Statement makes clear the intention is to publish it.
The noble Lord said that the Statement adds little new from what he has read in the press and what has been issued by BNFL themselves. But this is the first occasion when Parliament as a whole has been informed by the Government, and it is of course right that this should be done. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. The noble Lord is worried about the difference between the concern of the National Radiological Protection Board and the Government advice. The job of the National Radiological Protection Board is to point out to the Government, whom of course it advises, and to the general public that dangers are possible—I would not put it any higher than that—as a result of this particular incident. But the Government advice, as was mentioned in the Statement again, was that the risk to the general public is small. The reason for that is that the radioactive isotope involved is ruthenium 106, which gives off beta radiation and has a comparatively short half life of only six months. This means that the only danger is where a contaminated piece of flotsam, or seaweed, is held in the hand for a considerably long time, or gets lodged under the fingernails, or perhaps might be put in a child's pocket where he, or she, regularly rests their hand. These are comparatively unlikely happenings, but it is only right that the public should be made aware of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked me what other measures British Nuclear Fuels have in hand. It would weary the House unduly if I went through them
800
all, but I asked my advisers exactly the same question. The answer I received was that these measures include the review of operating instructions, records and procedures; the installation of additional instrumentation within the plant and on discharge pipe work; and increased sea tank capacity to hold effluent before discharge. I have no doubt that in subsequent talks and negotiations with the management of the plant, my department and the various boards involved, there will be other measures to add to that list.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the problems that have been revealed are all unique to Sellafield? If not, could he say what other action elsewhere is being taken?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean unique in this country or unique worldwide?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, unique to Sellafield.
Lord Skelmersdale; My Lords, I am not quite sure of the drift of the noble Lord's question. Is he asking whether there are any other incidents from other plants situated in this country, or situated anywhere in the world?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I invite the noble Lord to say whether there is any question of the same disastrous mistakes being made elsewhere in this country otherwise than at Sellafield.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. No, it is totally unique to Sellafield.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for the answers he has given, may I press him on two or three points? First, I asked whether the NII report would be published in full. That is an important question which needs an answer. Is it to be abridged or will the report be published wholly and in full? Secondly, will he say more about the possible prosecutions? If he could give some more information about that subject I should be most obliged.
I should like to express my further concern about the danger which the Minister has admitted exists, particularly to small children who may stray on to these contaminated beaches and pick up contaminated material. This is extremely serious because small children will be most at risk. I should like to know whether the Government have in view any additional precautions particularly for the sake of children.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord. He must chalk it up to my inexperience in these matters. So far as possible prosecutions are involved, while they are in the domain, however loosely, of the Director of Public Prosecutions, he will understand that I am unable to give him very full details. The plant is allowed to discharge low-level radioactive discharges to the sea under authorisation from the Department of the Environment. As the statement says, these should be as low as is reasonably achievable, which seems to be unlikely—I would not put it higher than that—as a result of this particular incident.

801
I recognise the noble Lord's great concern on the remarks that I made about small children, but he will equally recognise on his part that it is injudicious, wherever one is in the country, to allow small children to roam unaccompanied and at will on beaches, whether in the neighbourhood of Sellafield or Brighton.
The noble Lord asked about Government advice. As I believe I said earlier, the Government have published two press notices. I shall quote from the end of one of them:
"It might be wiser nonetheless for members of the public to avoid unnecessary use of the beaches (or swimming in the sea) on this stretch of coast for the time being.".
I cannot emphasise too strongly that this was not only correct advice but wise advice to give at that time.
The noble Lord also asked whether a review of upper limits would not be appropriate—presumably upper limits for radioactive discharges to the sea. Obviously that is one of the things which are concerning Ministers in my department at the moment and they will consider this matter very carefully.
I think the noble Lord had another supplementary question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It related to the publication of the NNI report in full, my Lords.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, unless a particular part of it pertains to possible prosecutions, yes, the report will appear in full when it is published.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord answered the second of my questions, which was about advice to the public—and this is brought up by the point about children on the sea shore.
If children have been there, has any advice been given about what action they should take? Are there particular centres to which they should report for advice? Has advice been given to the local health authorities as to what advice to give to people who feel that they may have been damaged? What steps have been taken in the whole of that direction? I do not think the Minister has touched on that.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I am sorry. My understanding is that the Department of Health and Social Security are proposing to issue special advice to doctors in Cumbria. If people are in any doubt that they might have been in contact with any of the flotsam or seaweed, their local doctor would be the first person to contact.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hesitate to inflict myself on the House yet again but I feel that I must press the Minister further on the question of children; because children seldom read press notices and, secondly, if children are allowed to roam anywhere it is probably on the beaches. Generally speaking, except for the water—and there is a risk of drowning, of course—children tend to wander far and wide on the beaches. I hope the Minister will give further consideration to that point in the light of what we have said this afternoon.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall certainly give further consideration to that point. I referred earlier to parental responsibility—and parents can read press notices. The advice is widely circulated in the area. Fortunately, at this time of the year the particular beaches to which I referred are not used to any great extent. Nevertheless, I could not agree more strongly with the noble Lord that the advice must be got through to children and their parents, neighbours or guardians or whoever could be tempted to use the beaches for example, for recreation, at this time of year. Further, I am advised that British Nuclear Fuels Limited are in touch with local communities. They are playing their part responsibly in circulating the information that I have given to the House this afternoon.

Animal Health and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, in introducing this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, did a good job. He said it covered a wide field. He can say that again: it covers a very wide field indeed. He went over it carefully, and I was intrigued that he started at the end and worked backwards—a novel way of introducing a Bill. I hope he will not mind if am a little more conservative and start at the beginning.
We in this country are very jealous of our animal health and welfare. It is a record that we have in this field that we want to protect as well as we possibly can. I remember—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, will remember, too—the outbreak in 1967–68 of foot and mouth disease which devastated a whole area in the north-west and, particularly, Cheshire. I think I would give Ministers almost any power that might prevent that happening again. That is why I am pleased with Clauses 1, 2, and 3.
I should particularly like to mention the clause in which there is power to control on the sea and in the air above it. It must be very difficult to control small private planes bringing in seamen or, for that matter, dogs, and small boats and things like that. People are so stupid. The other day there was the case of a woman who smuggled in a dog. They do not realise what an appalling disease is rabies. I hope that the power this clause gives to control the sea and air can be used (although I can see the difficulties) to prevent the actions of stupid people.
The following clauses, Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7, deal with poultry, and particularly with their welfare and slaughter. This is quite a problem, as we all appreciate. I would just point out that you have to slaughter something like 300 or 350 head of poultry individually to get the same weight of meat as you do from an 1 11-cwt. bullock, so one might say that the problem is almost 350 times as big in slaughtering poultry. There is no doubt that the extra control given in this Bill regarding inspections, and so on, is a very good thing. Quite a lot of poultry has to be slaughtered because of disease; people are inclined to think that they are going to die anyway and must be got rid of; and sometimes the slaughtering leaves much to be desired.

803
There is one small point. There is quite a lot of small-time slaughtering on farms where people are rearing perhaps a few hundred turkeys, or even fewer. They might find a little difficulty as to the licensing, and I hope that care will be taken about the size of the unit that has to be licensed under the new regulations.
The British Veterinary Association welcome the whole Bill and all its regulations; but they wonder, because the farm welfare councils have had points put to them and have taken up almost all of them except one. That is that an official veterinary surgeon, as the enforcing officer on the spot, should be made formally responsible for the supervision and welfare of the birds, and should be required to report to a local authority any breaches of welfare regulations and to spend sufficient time each day at the plant to carry out these duties. That has not been included, and I can quite see why: because it would need a very big plant to require somebody to spend a considerable time each day on the spot. I visited the United States with the Plant Committee on Animal Diseases and Fowl Pest, and I saw that most of the big plants in the United States had a veterinary person present there all the time, with quite a few inspectors under him. Would the Minister care to comment as to whether or not that regulation which they want to put in is too onerous?
On Clauses 8, 9 and 10, which concern the control of new techniques of animal breeding, this is very necessary. Ovary transplants are getting quite common, and there are various other new techniques. The NFU are a little worried about what it might cost to control all this, with the licensing and so on. From the figures that have been given, it might seem rather high, and I wonder whether the Minister could comment on that.
The question of giving up bull licensing along with the licensing for stallions, we agree with. There is no question but that the improvement of livestock has been tremendous in this country because of bull licensing, and I can hardly imagine that any farmer would now go back to using a scrub bull in this year and age.
There is one point about medicinal feeds, if that is the right expression. If there is to be the question of licensing and a lot of regulation and control of this, one would hope that it is not going to put up the price of feed. It is dear enough as it is; and some people are quite worried that the licensing might tend to create a hit of a monopoly in the production of these foods, although there are plenty of such firms. I think we have to take care and watch to see that too much regulation does not put up the price of feed, which is dear enough already.
We know that today quite a lot of people are involved in "do-it-yourself" artificial insemination. I do not know whether it would be feasible to allow "do-it-yourself" implantations. That might be a little difficult, but the point has been raised with me.
I do not want to say anything else, except that we give the Bill our blessing and we think it is very necessary. I notice that the Bill suggests that the Government do not know what it will cost; they are being a little coy about the cost. But if it costs a little
804
more, the fact that it might save any animal disease will make it worthwhile.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I welcome this Bill and so do many organisations concerned with the welfare of animals. Because of its numerous provisions over a fairly wide area, the Bill may need rather more attention in Committee than it is possible to give it on Second Reading. This is probably the one week in the year when one might concentrate on slaughter and I shall have a word or two to say about that in a moment.
The time factor here is rather important. We are now seeing from the Farm Animal Welfare Council the first products of their long consideration and investigation into matters of concern which led the Government to strengthen the council and to give them more positive and wider terms of reference in 1979. I would refer to the fact that the General Election in 1979 was the first time ever that all political parties had something in their respective manifestos promising attention to matters of animal welfare, and this was one of those items in the manifesto of the Conservative party.
The reconstituted Farm Animal Welfare Council asked for its terms of reference to cover conditions of animals and birds at the time of slaughter. When that was granted, they began their investigation into the first stage of this matter relating to poultry in July 1980. But we are now on the threshold of 1984 and we are only just dealing with the recommendations of the first phase of their investigation. They made a report on this matter in January, 1982, and then began on the second part of their reference, on conditions of animals at the time of slaughter, by embarking on the red meat side of this matter. We have not yet received a report on that from the Farm Animal Welfare Council, but that is pending and it will be every bit as important as the one relating to poultry.
I know that time is bound to be taken up on consultation with a large number of organisations that claim to have a voice in the ear of the Government when they are contemplating legislation, but it seems to take rather too long. I have looked at the list of all the organisations and enterprises who were consulted and they are numerous—commercial, animal welfare, local authorities, the lot. All, of course, have a stake in what is recommended in this Bill. However, I hope that no time will be lost by the Government in implementing the recommendations that are designed to stop cruelty. This is a very big matter of public importance and cruelty should be stopped as quickly as possible, where it is known to exist.
This is the season of the year when we probably all think of slaughter. We seem to celebrate the great secular feast of Christendom by killing all creatures, great and small, so long as they are fit to eat, and we generally indulge appetites for enjoyment and good living. This means that an enormous amount of slaughter has been taking place in the last few weeks. One shudders to think of the conditions which many of these unfortunate species have to endure. The domestic fowl is probably the biggest sufferer.

805
The noble Lord the Minister referred to the fact that some of the recommendations, especially regarding the licensing of slaughterers of poultry, have applied to cattle and other animals for a very long time. Why is that, one wonders? The answer lies in the fact that cruelty to animals arouses a great deal more emotion and distress than cruelty to birds. As a matter of fact, the domestic fowl is probably one of the most bountiful discoveries of man in the feathered world, but it is probably the most ill-treated. If one considers the life of a domestic fowl from incubation to slaughter, it is a pretty miserable existence. We treat them, under modern conditions, as nearly as we can get to making them the raw material for the manufacturing food industry. From the beginning to the end they do not live in any conditions or in any circumstances which can be called natural.
In those circumstances, we have to be as well disposed to living things as we can be. We produce eggs like shelling peas, and we kill day-old chicks like mashing potatoes. The survivors are put into cages. They may be de-beaked, de-feathered, generally mutilated, over-fed and doped with chemicals, and they may end their days on the shackle line in the slaughter house. That is the history of the domestic fowl in what we call a civilised society. We are all comforted by the fact that the British people are fond of their animals and treat kindly everything in the feathered world and in the world of animals. The truth is that the new cruelty lies in the commercial exploitation of animals and birds in order to satisfy the demands of the consumer society. Cheap food has become almost a political commandment, though I am glad to see that the report of the select committee in another place came down very firmly against regarding cheap food as taking precedence over the welfare of animals.
The noble Lord the Minister referred to the work of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which I am sure we all fully appreciate. We probably do not always realise what an unpleasant task a committee of this kind has to undertake. Fancy going round slaughter houses for 18 months looking at the conditions under which things are dispatched and having to take note of them and try to formulate recommendations for improvement! When people have done that for two or three years, I should imagine that it is very difficult to get a good night's sleep. They naturally look to the Government to take very close notice indeed of the recommendations which they have made.
One would not have gathered from the speech of the noble Lord the Minister that the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, from which Clauses 4 to 7 in the Bill are derived, contains 37 recommendations,10 of which are recommendations for further research. I will not enumerate them; they cover a fairly wide field. They relate in some respects to detailed methods of slaughter such as the length of time which animals may be left on the shackle line and other distasteful facts about the scalding pans and all the rest of it. I should like to know from the Minister how the research is going. There commendations to embark on research were made in the report of the committee in January 1982. I hope that by now matters of research are under way.
806
There were five recommendations for a change in the law not involving any further research. They cover two of the clauses in this Bill, and they are both of great importance—there is no doubt about that, as the Minister explained. There are, however, some recommendations that do not involve research which are not included in the Bill, and I believe that in the subsequent stages of the Bill we may ask the Minister why that is so. I suggest that we shall need to look at the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council numbered 5, 6, 19, 21, 29 and 37. In fact, you really need to have the report in front of you to serve as a guidebook to take you through the Bill and what it does and does not do. The two important recommendations in the report that do require legislation are included in the Bill, and for that we are grateful.
There is one aspect that we always leave aside when dealing with matters of slaughter; that which is commonly known as ritual slaughter. Paragraph 56 of the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council states:
"At businesses we visited where slaughter was carried out by the Moslem method for the food of Moslems, the birds were kept on the premises and slaughtered in the most squalid conditions. Nothing can apparently be done about it by the authorities as the birds are sold to the customer live and slaughtered for him immediately afterwards. We understand that this type of trade is outside the scope of the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967, which relates only to poultry slaughtered before being sold for human consumption."
I ask why it is that in every respect other than the treatment of animals, we insist on religious minorities living in this country observing the law of the land. We are legislating against female circumcision. We do not permit breaches of our marriage and divorce laws. Those who come here or those who are born here who are of different religions can be expected to observe the laws which have been laid down by Parliament for the better conduct of our affairs.
I look back to the fact that this concession to those of the Moslem religion were first made to the Lascars on the ships in the ports of Scotland 60 or 70 years ago. Now, the Moslem slaughter industry has become a major factor in the treatment of our animals. I see that among the list of those consulted by the Farm Animal Welfare Council and by the department are the Imam of Woking and the Islamic Cultural Centre. I wonder what they had to say. I wonder what they were asked to comment upon. I wonder whether it was upon their continued exclusion from provisions which were going to apply to Christians and all other members of the community—separately, of course, from the Jewish people, who have their own method of slaughter also. It is the Moslem method of slaughter which is rapidly growing, and it is not only for the food of Moslems either, because restaurants, eating houses and shops are open to all and often it is very difficult indeed to know whether you are in a Moslem restaurant or not.
I know these things are kept behind a kind of shield from public discussion and so forth. But what will be the position inyears to come when we have two sets of laws to deal with the slaughter of animals, one applicable to the British people, the Christian people, and an entirely different one applicable to another religion—a method adopted under the cover of religious immunity which otherwise could be prosecuted under the Protection of Animals Act 1911?

807
Well, I have said it again. I tried to get a Bill through your Lordships' House earlier on to put certain restrictions on the immunity which had been granted so many years ago under very different conditions and which is now becoming, in my opinion, a matter of considerable concern. Anyway, we shall have to deal with the matter again at some future time.
I come to my final comment on the Bill and what is not in it. There is plenty that could be in it, but one must not lumber up a Bill with too many things; it takes so long to get through and I know the problems of the value of parliamentary time. I refer to fire. Really, some of the tires that take place in intensive poultry units are devastating and disastrous from the point of view of the welfare of the birds inside. To read of 20,000 birds going up in flames is pretty horrible. There are regulations which require daily inspection of appliances and of equipment and so forth, but they are difficult to enforce, and it is even more difficult to get prosecutions when there are allegations that there has been neglect.
The regulations against fire in regard to all intensive agricultural units should be much strengthened. I think that is the least we owe to helpless species, locked up, unable to escape, if fire breaks out. Probably some units rely on defective equipment for their compliance with fire precautions, and that is all that stands between them and the whole thing going up in flames.
Having said all that, I add that the Bill is welcome. As my noble friend said, the British Veterinary Association welcome it. I suppose I ought to declare a new interest because recently I was elected an honorary associate member of the BVA—which does not give me any more authority or any more knowledge, but at least it is an acknowledgment of the work that I am trying to do here and elsewhere for the furtherance of the welfare of animals.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I intervene at this moment not merely to say that I welcome this Bill and the way it has been introduced to us; nor merely to say, although it is true, that I go along with a very great deal—almost entirely—of what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said; but because it is conventional at this stage, even if one cannot make a Second Reading speech (and there is not very much about this Bill which calls for a Second Reading speech), to put down a marker about various amendments that may be necessary.
It is a Bill that has to be looked at closely. It is a Bill that we shall have to examine over the next few weeks. There are one or two things that need amending. To take one minor instance, I dislike what is contained in Clause 4(2), at line 28,when the Bill talks about the slaughter of chicks and includes the word "unnecessary" before "suffering". It does not seem to me that any suffering of this kind should be necessary. This is a perennial let-out, the kind of word that is included in order to make everyone rather more happy. I think that it can come out. There are a number of similar points.
Where possible, we should see that in any regulations that are introduced, there is as much scope
808
given to the veterinary profession as possible. I regard the whole area of factory farming as not part of a civilised attitude of people towards the animals with which they deal and off which they live. Our civilisation will have to change the way that it deals with animals. The increasing trend towards factory farming is revolting, denaturing and dehumanising. Having said that, we have to deal with the regulations for what actually exists at the moment. When dealing with embryo transplants, where you are getting to the more extreme edges of the factory process, that is an area where veterinary surgeons should undoubtedly be brought in and where any attempt to make this whole process more of a routine matter, which just happens under regulations without any particular responsible professional oversight, should be resisted.
It would be silly to go through the whole list of possible amendments but we should look at the Bill closely at Committee stage. I hope that your Lordships will do exactly that.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the reception that you have given the Bill, on which, clearly, we shall return to some work when the Christmas recess is finished. Your Lordships have mentioned the clauses that amend the Slaughter of Poultry Act. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, expressed disappointment that some time has elapsed since the 37 recommendations were made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in its report. I think that the noble Lord may suspect that we propose to do little more about the report other than what is included in the Bill. I should like to take the opportunity to give a reassurance that these clauses, important though they are, do not constitute the sum total of the Government's action on that report.
I have already referred to the regulations that we intend to make on the licensing of slaughterhouse employees and the codes of practice that will be prepared. The Government will also be issuing proposals shortly for amendments to the Slaughter of Poultry (Humane Conditions) Regulations that will take account of several of the council's recommendations. We have already commissioned research as recommended by the Council. I regret that I am not in a position today to give the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, the details that he requested. But research is in hand, and it has been commissioned with the Agricultural and Food Research Council. All in all, a great deal of work is being done to improve the welfare of poultry in slaughterhouses.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie referred to one particular recommendation of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. That is recommendation 37, which says that local authority official veterinary surgeons should be made responsible for supervising welfare in slaughterhouses.
Your Lordships will know that enforcement of the legislation on poultry slaughterhouse welfare is a local authority function. We propose to ask local authorities to implement that recommendation. Nevertheless, the chairman of the Farm Animal Welfare Council has written to my right honourable friend asking him to introduce legislation on this point. This concern was reflected in the words of the noble Lord. Lord John-Mackie.

809
In view of the concern, my right honourable friend is discussing the matter with the local authority associations as a matter of urgency in the hope that some way can be found to meet the recommendation. I can say no more than that at this stage, but I can assure your Lordships that we are fully siezed of the strength of concern in many quarters on this point and shall do our best to resolve the matter soon.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, made the general point on more than one occasion in his speech that we must be careful about putting up fees and making things too expensive, even though the objectives might be desirable. In particular, he mentioned the question of regulations putting up the cost of medicated feeding stuffs. We are conscious of the need to avoid regulations which would have that effect. That is why we envisage that an organisation representing the trading associations concerned should draft the proposed code of practice. The Pharmaceutical Society intends to keep enforcement costs to a minimum.
Rather the same matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, regarding the costs of operating the licensing of artificial breeding. The exact charges will be a matter for careful consideration. I am advised that a rough estimate of the cost of a bull approval at present is about £150 to £200. But the level at which charges may be fixed will depend on such matters as which service it would be appropriate to charge for. I hope that I have made the point that throughout all these matters in the Bill we intend to become involved in consultations wherever it is reasonable so to do.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, also made a point about the interests of the small-scale poultry slaughterers. I cannot at this stage say precisely which activities will be covered by any licensing requirement under Clause 5 of the Bill. The Bill contains enabling powers only. Before licences are required regulations will have to be made, but again I give an assurance that there will be full consultation before that happens. I can assure your Lordships that careful consideration will be given to all representations made to us. But we must bear in mind on this point that our priority, first and foremost, must be the welfare of the birds.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, put a point about ritual slaughter. Having heard the noble Lord's concern, it is important for me to make the point that slaughter after sale, as described by the noble Lord, and indeed in the Farm Animal Welfare Council report, will under the Bill be subject to the 1967 Act as a result of the legislation, if it goes through. In particular the conditions under which the birds are kept while awaiting slaughter will be subject to regulations. On religious slaughter generally, I can tell your Lordships that the Farm Animal Welfare Council will be reporting separately, I understand, next year. I think that we should await that report before making further proposals.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, referred to the desirability of having Clause 3 in the Bill and the difficulty of preventing people acting in a foolish way and trying to bring things into the country which could perhaps spread disease and bring tragedy upon so many. Of course I agree with that and am most grateful to the noble Lord for saying that.
810
I should like to refer to some concern that has been expressed that Clause 3 may affect vesselsor aircraft which are in innocent passage through our territorial zone—that is to say, craft which may pass through our waters or airspace on their way from one place to another without calling at a British sea port or airport at all. I can confirm that there is no intention of using the clarified powers in that way. Current welfare orders apply only to animals carried to or from a port or airport in Great Britain. There is no intention in the Bill to change that.
I should like again to thank your Lordships for taking part in the debate. I think that we can look forward to an interesting and a full Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Calke Abbey: Tax Laws
4.50 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will change the present tax laws, so that the Treasury can accept, in lieu of capital tax, the offer of Calke Abbey, its contents and park, together with an additional 8,000 acres of agricultural land, to provide an endowment fund for its upkeep by the National Trust.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question that stands in my name on the Order Paper. As the House is shortly to rise for the Christmas Recess, I shall not of course detain your Lordships for long, but I have ventured to put down this Question because in my submission the assured future of this great and unique house, and its estate in Derbyshire, is crucial.
Calke is an important part of our heritage. The contents have remained untouched and virtually unchanged for well over a hundred years. Calke is a good example of what the interior of a great country house was like in the last century. The house itself dates from 1701, though there has been a priory there since long before that.
What is particularly interesting to the present age is the fact that the family never threw away anything. All the furniture and furnishings are untouched by time. Calke is a unique microcosm of the past. The house, which is listed as Grade I—and rightly so—is unique and typically English. In the words of an article in The Times on 9th of this month:
"Even discounting the highest flights of enthusiasm, Calke Abbey is without question worth preserving intact".
This matter has been debated in another place, and an early day Motion in another place, which has already attracted a number of signatures, urges the Government to make a decision as a matter of urgency.
The family could have taken steps to protect Calke, but they were badly advised. Here I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, whether he will explain what his honourable friend Mr. Neil Macfarlane meant, when the matter was debated in another place on 6th December last, when he said, as reported at column 303 of the Official Report:

811
"It would be inconsistent and even unfair if we were now to 'correct' the situation at Calke by providing for its future maintenance and preservation entirely at public expense".
May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether the family is now to be punished by the Government for receiving bad advice? If they had been less unworldly, and had formed a Calke Abbey estates company, or some other quite legitimate device to keep the estate together, none of this problem would have arisen, and the Treasury would not have had the windfall of some £8 million, which is the amount of capital transfer tax payable, following the death of the former owner, Mr. Charles Harpur-Crewe, in 1981. The interest on late payments which has already been paid—and this is incredible—totals a further £1 million, and interest continues to accrue at the rate of £1,300 a day while the problem of Calke is shunted backwards and forwards between the Treasury, which is mainly interested in raking in this unexpected windfall, and the Department of the Environment, which seems incapable of any constructive action, and just stands back hoping that the National Trust and the family trustees will find some solution.
Government departments are of course always fearful of creating precedents, but Calke is not like any other house. It is a unique and unrestored survival from the past, and if it is allowed to be broken up, something precious from the viewpoint of our social history and heritage will be lost, and furthermore a house with great potential for tourism will be lost as well.
Quite frankly, the position is that Calke is at risk because of a quibble. The National Trust wants the house and park, but the trust cannot accept the property without an endowment. The life tenant is willing to make over to the trust a large amount of agricultural land which would provide an endowment income as was done in the case of Hardwick. I should have thought that this would be an excellent investment for the nation; but oh no! it is not as simple as that. It seems that under the present tax arrangements agricultural land for some reason is not considered part of the nation's heritage. A park with deer or even lions is apparently okay, and considered part of our heritage, but not a field with cattle or sheep or wheat.
Kedleston was also going to be lost through a quibble, this time over VAT. The owner of Kedleston was prepared to give the house and park to the nation in lieu of CTT. Then Customs and Excise ruled that VAT had to be paid on the notional value of the property, although no money was passing—that is, VAT on the contents totalling about £300,000, which the owner had not got. So Kedleston, with its great historical associations, would have been lost all because of a quibble. Fortunately, the Prime Minister herself took an interest and intervened with the happy result that the rules, which no one had realised would have this effect, were changed in the last Finance Act. At least one hurdle over the acceptance of Kedleston has been cleared.
I hope that the Government are now going to do something about Calke Abbey and its estate. I am sure that a solution could be found if there is a will. The tenants are getting increasingly concerned about their
812
future if the estate is to be sold and broken up. The Harpur-Crewe family have been good and well loved landlords for many hundreds of years. All who care about our heritage are greatly worried. The Government claim that they believe in the importance of our heritage. I hope that they will now cease to stand aloof and take some action to save this unique house.
If it is a question of money, may I remind them what Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas said in the last Parliament for the Government when he was a Cabinet Minister and was speaking on the Second Reading of the National Heritage Bill on 3rd December1979. I quote from Hansard of that date, col. 63. He said:
"The grant-in-aid for the fund and the reimbursement to the Inland Revenue will both be borne fifty-fifty on the Votes of the Department of the Environment and the Office of Arts and Libraries. Of course, if a really big house or other piece of property came along for consideration either by the trustees of the fund or for acceptance in lieu of tax and it exceeded, or would unacceptably deplete, programmed expenditure, the Government would have to consider whether it would be possible to make the necessary funds available".
That is what they said when the Bill was going through Parliament.
I am advised that there is nothing in the present tax laws to prevent the Government from accepting this property for the nation. I am advised that a change in the law is not required. What is required is a change of attitude on the part of the Government, and the will to save this important part of our national heritage. My Lords, I beg to ask the Question.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, this is the first time that I have addressed your Lordships' House since my appointment as chairman of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. It was a great honour and pleasure for me to be invited to take on the leadership of this commission, and also a great privilege and challenge. I hope that there will be many occasions upon which I shall be able to offer the help of the commission in its work—and statutory duty, indeed—of preserving our historic heritage and advancing the knowledge and enjoyment of the public of that heritage. The commission has not yet, in fact, taken on its full responsibilities. It does so on 1st April next year. However, I hope that the commission can play some part even before then.
The importance of Calke Abbey has already been described and I shall not repeat what has been said. However, I should like to underline the unquestionable importance of Calke Abbey in the eyes of the commission. The house is a Grade 1 listed building. There are fewer than 6,000 Grade 1 listed buildings out of the millions of buildings in the country. Of course, even within those 6,000 buildings one may on occasions have to make a very difficult choice, but, by virtue of its Grade I listing, Calke Abbey must be regarded as being of exceptional importance.
Nor is it just the building itself which is of special importance. It is the surrounding landscape and the timeless contents of the house which make the entity unique. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission wishes to see the house, its contents and the surrounding land preserved and wishes, if possible, to contribute to the work of achieving that result.

813
A great deal of work has already been done in seeking ways of preserving Calke Abbey, and much time and ingenuity has been spent. No solution has yet been found. Nevertheless, I welcome unreservedly the recent initiative of Lord Charter is in calling a meeting in early January to see what more can be done. The commission has been invited: it will go and it will play its part. There are several instances where historic buildings have been preserved as a result of, at the right time, the initiative and enterprise of a family or group of individuals, even when the immediate prospects have seemed extremely bleak.
Recent publicity has created considerable interest in Calke Abbey. It is no longer unknown and will not be so in the future. It should be possible to build on the goodwill and interest which has been created and perhaps to let tourism contribute to its upkeep. However, expressions of goodwill are insufficient and I should, therefore, like to offer practical help on behalf of the commission.
The commission will be glad to support the initiative, first, of Lord Charteris. For example, if it is decided to open Calke Abbey to the public, it will be ready to give practical advice on the presentation and on other ways of opening the abbey to the public. It may even have some part to play in giving other commercial advice as to how the property can be developed. But above all it will be ready to consider sympathetically any request for grants towards repairs. It will be ready to help in any other way within its statutory powers and the resources available to it.
Although we do not take our powers until 1st April, we think that we should be failing in our duty if we did not offer our good services to help solve this problem. Let us hope that together we shall be able to do so.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for raising this matter. I am also grateful for the opportunity it gives me, as Chairman of the National Trust, to state the Trust's views, which have not always been clearly understood. I think it is clear that no change in the tax laws is needed. There is nothing in the present law which would prevent the Government from accepting what we call, by way of shorthand, non-heritage land as an endowment for this house if they pleased. But what I understand the Government to be saying is that the case of Hardwick, which has been quoted as a precedent when non-heritage land was accepted as part endowment for the house, is not an appropriate precedent now because in those days there was no National Heritage Fund, and this is now the appropriate national pocket to draw upon for conservation or preservation purposes.
If that is the Government's reaction to the generous offer made by the Harpur-Crewe Trustees, then we are entitled to remind them—as did the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—of what was said when the Bill went through another place. The noble Lord has reminded us of what Mr. St. John-Stevas then said. In fact, the Government made it quite clear that they did not expect the fund to cope with a number of important items coming up together. They went further, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, at the end of the debate, said:
814
"I believe that some hon. Members have tended to think that the money we are talking about here, the £15½million, is all that is available. Of course, resources are extremely tight, but we have made clear also that should a major object come up,… the Government will themselves look at the whole issue and consider whether special treatment should be given to that important matter." [Official Report, Commons, 3/12/1979; col. 165]
Of course that does not amount to a promise that every important object will necessarily be acquired, but it amounts to a promise that the Government did not intend to shelter behind the National Heritage Memorial Fund and simply say, "If they can't afford it, then we have no responsibility, and that is an end of the matter." The intention clearly was to look at each situation on its merits, and that is right and proper. That is what should be done.
What are the merits of Calke? I shall not take long talking about the merits of Calke. That has been done so much in your Lordships' House and outside. But at one time it was suggested that the trustees of the National Heritage Fund were perhaps not very much interested in Calke. Of course it is true that the strength of the desire to preserve Calke must vary and is likely to vary from trustee to trustee, but of their interest in Calke there can be no doubt whatever, and the letter in The Times from my noble friend Lord Charteris is clear evidence of that.
I can speak only for the National Trust, but in our opinion it should be preserved not because it is of top quality architecturally, though it is very fine and grade one, but because with its extraordinary contents, its wonderful park, its exceptionally fine stables, which I think have not been mentioned today, and above all what I can only describe as its Rip van Winkle condition, it is a document of social history of unique value. It is something else. It is an oasis in a region encircled with towns—Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, and Burton—and if it could be presented to the people of that area it would be an enormous boon to them.
The machinery enabling the Government to accept the Calke Trustees' offer is there, but supposing that they will not use it, is there any alternative? I believe that there is. I was much impressed and encouraged by Lord Charteris's letter to The Times suggesting a wider partnership of interest, and the meeting to which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has referred is to take place, and I hope that the Government will also be on the sidelines and will be ready to give encouragement. The National Trust will certainly be there. I am glad to hear that the new commissioner is going to be there, and may I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, on his appointment. We intend to work closely together, and we have known each other for a long time and it will be a pleasure to do so.
To the National Trust this proposal seems a most constructive way forward, and we are ready, like the commission to play a part if the initiative is successful. Urgency is of course essential with interest running as it has been running for so long at these high rates. But the Government would have to make a contribution beyond simply accepting the house, contents, and park. One possibility they might consider arises from a valuable examination of the landscape which was made by a distinguished landscape architect and scholar of landscape history, Mr. Bodfen Griffiths, who is on the council of the National Trust, who

815
represents the Institute of Landscape Architects there, and who has been looking at the grounds, and who wrote to The Times saying that he had found unmistakable evidence of,
"a carefully planned man-made landscape extending beyond the park, deliberately planned as extensions of the park design."
I only mention this because I should have thought that it might provide the opportunity for the Government to redraw the boundaries of what they are prepared to accept in lieu of tax a little broader. If that were so, a greater acreage might qualify as heritage land, and if the land has rental value it would reduce the required capital endowment. I think more than that would be required from the Government if this is to be successful, but that might be one thing that they could perhaps do.
I want to make one last point, and it is about the National Trust. We do not see ourselves as the sole solution to the future of these great houses. It would be disastrous for the heritage if one organisation was the only available agency of preservation; and it would be disastrous for the National Trust itself if it were thought of as that agency. Our growth presents us with quite enough problems as it is, without our wishing to force the pace.
The first line of defence should be the private owners themselves. Wherever they can carry on, that is much the best solution, and successive Governments have made it a good deal easier.
We now have the new commission, which may wish to add to the one great house inherited from the department (Audley End) and take on several more. As I have said, we wish them well. There are other solutions in appropriate cases.
Mr. Buxton, of Period and Country Houses, and Mr. Kit Martin, the son of the famous architect Sir Leslie, have shown what can be done in a variety of architecturally and historically important houses by conversion to apartments. Such solutions are probably more appropriate when there are no historic contents, or very few. On occasion that is a good way round the difficulty. The National Trust is only suitable on certain occasions. It is a long stop to be called on only when it is the best solution available.
I do not want to prejudge the issue, but it probably is so in the case of Calke. Calke is the English Erdigg. Your Lordships are probably acquainted with Erdigg in Wales, given to the Trust by the late Philip Yorke a few years ago. Calke is architecturally more important than Erdigg, though its furniture is less fine. They are alike in that they are both unique survivals in their respective countries of a vanished way of life. It is an extraordinary coincidence that in the case of both houses the family should come to an end with two bachelor brothers. In the case of the Harpur-Crewes there is an unmarried sister as well. They also have in common that for centuries neither family has thrown much away, and that each house retains extensive outbuildings still used for the same purposes as those for which they were built hundreds of years ago.
The Trust is felt to have made a splendid job of restoring Erdigg and ensuring that the public sees it unspoilt. Without making immodest claims, it probably is at the moment, though not necessarily
816
always in the future, probably the best qualified agency to tackle this kind of problem at Calke.
In conclusion, I am sure a satisfactory solution can be found if all the interests concerned with Calke's future work together, but that must include the Government. Let them give us a nod of encouragement and the rest of us will get on with the work.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for giving me the opportunity to expand on my necessarily brief answer to the recent Starred Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on the future of Calke Abbey. In spite of the terms of the Question I am answering now, there is no doubt but that this is primarily a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It does not have nearly the Treasury implications that the terms of the noble Lord's Question would imply.
Whether or not to accept Calke Abbey is not a taxation matter: it is simply a question of policy and practice in the use of acceptance in lieu procedures. The tax laws actually allow my right honourable friend to advise the Inland Revenue to accept virtually any property. There is no statutory bar to accepting farmland. Indeed, even a suburban semi or a country cottage could be accepted. However, the decision to forgo tax revenue is the same as increasing cash spending—both count as public expenditure. The procedures for the acceptance of property in lieu of tax were introduced to protect the heritage, so the sensible course is to use acceptance in lieu funds for acquiring what is actually heritage property.
There is no doubt in the Government's mind that Calke Abbey is of heritage quality. We have accepted the advice of the Historic Buildings Council on this, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already said that he is willing, in principle, to accept the Abbey, its park and contents at a cost of some £2 million or so in forgone tax provided that satisfactory arrangements can be agreed for its future maintenance and preservation.
In another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has also indicated that there could be significant Government grant towards expenditure on the much needed repairs. Given the advice of the Historic Buildings Council as to the importance of the building, I have little doubt that they would recommend substantial grant towards the expected massive repair bill. My noble friend Lord Montagu—and I hope that these little differences of title will not cause me to lose my friendship with him—has indicated that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission would also be willing to assist. I am grateful for his helpful intervention and I take this opportunity of recording my congratulations on his appointment as chairman of this important new body. We expect great things from him and from his commission.
These facts—not facts of my noble friend but those referred to earlier—it seems, tend to have been overlooked. The country is fortunate in having a fine heritage of important buildings, of which Calke, important as it is, is neither the finest nor, as yet anyway, the best loved. Yet already we have

817
committed ourselves in principle to forgoing well over £2 million of tax to preserve it, provided—and this is important—that arrangements are made for future care and maintenance.
Is this an unreasonable condition? It would certainly be irresponsible to commit resources on this scale without giving thought not just to repair bills, but to the access roads and car parks needed to open the building to the public, and to the continuing burden of future maintenance and running costs. The National Trust are keen to have the property, but have said they can accept it only if they are given an endowment of £4 million, plus a capital sum of £3.5 million spread over, say, 10 years for repairs and other works; that is another £7½million. It is something approaching £10 million altogether for just one, so far little known, building.
Can it be worth it? Are there not other ways of preserving the building without such enormous outlay by central Government? I am glad to say that, with this very question in mind, the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, has agreed to call a meeting of all the interested parties in early January to see whether it is possible to find a way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson suggested that it was our joint noble friend Lord Montagu who was chairing this meeting; but I understand that it is Lord Charteris.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, it was not my intention to say that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I misheard. We can look at Hansard in due course. I understood the noble Lord to say that. However, we are all talking about the same meeting, which is the important thing. At that meeting the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, will be exploring the possibilities for a different and, I would hope, less costly scheme for preserving the property: a scheme where future maintenance does not require massive Government funding in addition to the initial purchase. This is a most helpful move, and the Government are grateful to the noble Lord for taking this initiative. In recent weeks this little known estate, for so long unknown to the public, has suddenly become something of a cause célèbre. With the noble Lord, I recognise this. Judging by the widespread interest, there now must be people prepared to put time, cash and effort into working out an acceptable solution. So the time would seem ripe for just such a meeting, and I wish it success.
Your Lordships, you will gather from this that I do not accept the premise in the noble Lord's Unstarred Question that acceptance of 8,000 acres of agricultural land and their transfer to the National Trust is the only way of preserving Calke. Perhaps I should explain some of the background to this case more fully than I could on a previous occasion.
The main—indeed, probably the only—reason why we are now being pressed to accept the Calke Estate in this particular way is that the property forms part of a trust set up many years ago, doubtless for excellent reasons, and that the trust was still in force when Mr. Charles Harpur-Crewe died in 1981. Since that trust was set up various concessions have been introduced for historic houses, not least tax exemptions that are available on the creation of a maintenance fund. The concessions are available, but owners certainly cannot
818
be forced to use them; and, in the case of the Harpur-Crewe estate, they were not adopted. Thus, on the death of the late Mr. Charles Harpur-Crewe, the trustees faced a huge tax bill. That much is fact. It is then argued that, because this tax was in the nature of a windfall to the Government, it ought to be ear-marked for the particular purpose of buying in land that could have been put into a maintenance fund.
It is further argued that the importance of Calke is as an historical entity—that the Abbey, the outbuildings, contents and park together form what has been described as "a unique time capsule". The noble Lord compared it with Erdigg, which I visited not long ago, and suggested that the importance of this entity overrides all normal procedures and justifies earmarking. That, my Lords, with the greatest respect, is emotion. Many people fail to organise their affairs in the most tax-effective way but there is no suggestion that all such windfalls could be earmarked to provide a benefit which might have been produced by different tax arrangements, even if they are windfalls at all, which is an attitude that I reject.
Expenditure on the heritage is not different from expenditure of any other kind. It has to be accounted for in the normal way through parliamentary Votes. This Government have a proud record of helping the heritage, but, rightly and necessarily, it is done within the normal tax and expenditure framework. If Calke had been accepted on the basis of the trustees' offer it would have cost the Government £10 million. We must not lose sight of that. Secondly, it is suggested that there are precedents for the Government buying not only historic houses but also agricultural land, as an endowment. That happened once only some 25 years ago, when Hardwick Hall was accepted. I hope that I answered this when replying to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, a few days ago.
With the new and much improved arrangements introduced in 1980 the Government now makes provision in the Annual Estimates only for buying through acceptance-in-lieu procedure property which is itself of heritage quality, where the recipients of such property, including the National Trust, also need endowments which they are not able to finance from their own resources and they can apply to the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The trustees of the fund, whose work has commanded widespread respect, have the difficult task of assessing priorities. I have no doubt that their decisions reflect the fullest possible consideration of the competing claims on their resources. While clearly no open-ended commitment can be given, it is only fair to remind the noble Lord, as indeed he has half-reminded me, that certain assurances were given at the time the National Heritage Bill of 1980 was passing through Parliament. We gave assurances then that if a really important property, such as Chatsworth, were offered, we would consider increasing the amount provided for the acceptance of offers, but this can be done only by re-allocating resources from elsewhere or by drawing on the Contingency Reserve.
Your Lordships will of course note that the example quoted in that case was Chatsworth. Happily, I have no grounds for believing that that fine house is at risk, but it does give some indication of standards. While there could be some properties for which as much as

819
£10 million of public money or even more might be an entirely defensible price, I do not myself think that Calke comes into that category. There must be another way.
Thirdly, the impression has been given that unless the property is transferred to the National Trust more or less immediately, it will be irretrievably lost. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, that black holes may exist in outer space but not in Derbyshire. There is no reason to suppose that Calke will disappear into a black hole unless the Government accept the solution which the trustees have proposed. The Government readily accept that the National Trust, with its fine record, would be an admirable custodian of Calke, but we cannot accept that it is the only possible custodian; or that the property must be transferred to the National Trust regardless of cost. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who referred to a recent Times letter. I would only say that in the meeting to which we both referred it is my view that there is a little "give" on all sides.
To answer what was possibly the main point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I hope I have explained by now that there is no question of penalising the trustees or the owners of Calke Abbey. The point is that many owners of historic houses have made appropriate provision for the future maintenance of their property. We cannot turn the clock back every time someone does not arrange his affairs so as to optimise his tax position, and I find it strange that the noble Lord should invite me to do so. We are where we are now.
As I have already said, this country is fortunate in its superb architectural heritage. Few of the great country houses are as little known as Calke, so it is relatively easy to speculate on others that may sooner or later be offered to the Government. In all cases, we must look at all possibilities. We cannot leap to the conclusion that direct transfer to the National Trust with an endowment is necessarily the only or best way of dealing with them.
There has been some publicity given to claims that, in offering the Calke Estate to the Government, the trustees are making a broad and generous gesture. While I know that the offer is made from the highest motives and that the present life tenant Mr. Henry Harpur-Crewe and his trustees honestly believe that the offer they have made represents the best and safest way of ensuring that this unique place is permanently and fully accessible to the public, nevertheless the offer as it stands does not require any financial sacrifice by the trustees. On the contrary, it leaves the estate better off at least by the value of the douceur; that is, the special rebate given to owners when heritage property is acquired by the Government. And there would also be certain practical and financial advantages in direct transfer to the Government as a single package.
I make this point in no carping spirit; indeed, I recognise that, because of the form of the trust deed and the fact that the ultimate heir of the estate is as yet untraced, the trustees face exceptional legal difficulties. Nevertheless, I am encouraged to learn that they are now looking for ways in which they themselves might contribute towards the future
820
maintenance of the property. I have no doubt that the trustees would like to make such a contribution if it is legally possible for them to do so: this is what they have always said. But I cannot accept that their offer in the form it has taken so far would represent anything but a normal commercial transaction.
On the last occasion when Calke was discussed in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that the Government should "show effort and imagination". By this he appears to mean finding £10 million simply because that was the sum requested. There must surely be other ways. The Government do recognise the importance of Calke and are, in principle willing to accept the heritage property. But they are not prepared—I repeat "are not prepared"—to breach the principle that the procedures for accepting property in lieu of tax should be reserved for property which is of heritage quality.
It is precisely because effort and imagination are needed that we welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, in bringing together all interested parties to look for a way forward. I know that everyone entering these discussions does so in the most constructive frame of mind. It is my earnest hope that a way can be found of securing the future of this unique property. Provided that that can be done, the Government will take pride in fulfilling their conditional pledge to accept the heritage property through the acceptance in lieu procedures. This debate has added to our consideration and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond.

Adjournment
Lord Denham: My Lords, before I move the adjournment of the House, I know that my noble friends behind me would expect me to express to noble Lords in all other parts of the House best wishes for a very happy Christmas, a very restful Recess and, in every sense but the political one, a very prosperous New Year. I know that I speak for all parts of the House when I say that we wish all the staff at our end of the Palace, who serve us so well, a very happy Christmas Recess.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to associate my friends on this side of the House with the remarks of the Chief Whip. We should certainly like to be associated with him in the Christmas wishes he has extended to Members of the House and, in particular, with those which he has accorded to the staff of the House. Without the staff we could not function at all. We are very grateful to them. I fear that in the New Year we may have some even longer sittings than we have had in the first term of this session. I was glad to see that in a Question for Written Answer which will be published tomorrow in Hansard the noble Lord has informed your Lordships that the Easter term will be one week shorter than usual. We shall be grateful for that little mercy. With that, may I associate my colleagues with the noble Lord's remarks.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, we are much impressed by the noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale's statement of

821
Government policy: that we are where we are now. We are even more encouraged to think that we shall not be where we are now for the next four weeks or so. We have the very greatest pleasure in expressing our seasonal greetings to our noble friends in all parts of your Lordships' House and to all the Members of the staff, to whom we owe so much.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, my noble friends and I should like to associate ourselves with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. We should like to extend our very best wishes to members on all sides of the House and in particular to the staff for their efforts on our behalf, especially as it seems likely that we shall have to put a considerable strain on their patience with us on our return. In the meantime, we wish them and all your Lordships a very happy Christmas.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at half-past five o'clock until Monday, 16th January next.