Lords Sitting of 9 May 1983

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

Parliamentary Telephone Message Centre
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether he is satisfied with the working of the new telephone message centre in the Houses of Parliament.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the new arrangements for telephone messages have been in operation for only four weeks. I understand that there have been some initial teething troubles but that these are being overcome. If, however, the noble Earl has a specific complaint in mind, I shall of course have it followed up.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that I have put two of my complaints to Black Rod? On one day, the author of the message sent to me was a name utterly unrecognisable although it was carefully and painstakingly dictated by my secretary, who was very familiar with the name. On another occasion, the critical opening sentence of the message was omitted; and, on a third occasion, the message was not delivered at all.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am extremely sorry. I am afraid that these accidents and troubles do happen. They happened under the old system. I am not sure that it has anything to do with the new arrangements; but I am sure that if it has been brought to the attention of Black Rod he will have paid due attention to what the noble Earl says.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is my noble friend the Chairman of Committees aware that there is no dialling code book in the telephone room?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, no. I shall make sure that there is.
Lord Spens: My Lords, has the pink form that arrives with the white form containing a telephone message any purpose?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Lord. I have no idea.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that we should be grateful for the help that we receive from the telephone staff—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps no one wants to ring me up, but I have never had anything but a decent and helpful service from the telephone staff. That should be recorded as well as any complaints that are made.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl. What he says is helpful. I know that the new telecommunications manager is extremely anxious to give the best possible service to the House. I am grateful.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, following upon what the noble Earl has stated—with which I agree—that I have always received excellent service and I have never had any cause for complaint?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am even more grateful to have support from the other side of the House.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that there must be something wrong in the system? I was definitely sent three messages last week but did not receive any of them in any shape or form.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would give me details. I shall have the matter looked into.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree with what I think must be the general feeling of the House that we are grateful for having had an excellent telephone message service for many years, that we all understand that when a new system is introduced there are bound to be teething problems, but that there has been a sharp and measurable drop in efficiency since the new form of service was introduced?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I can only think that this is probably the inevitable consequence of changing the system. I hope that these problems will be overcome shortly.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I received a telephone message a few minutes ago saying that there would be a general election on 9th June?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, that just goes to show the efficiency of the service.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my question was not prompted by any criticism of the personnel in the House but rather the contrary? I was trying to suggest that something has gone wrong somewhere, possibly in another part of the building.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, there has not really been much change. The same telephone operators who were formerly located here are now located elsewhere but they are the same people who dealt with us before. However, there are troubles, and I take the noble Earl's point. We shall endeavour to make sure that the service is improved.

Coastguard Rescue Service
2.41 p.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 make a statement on the future of the coastguard rescue service.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the present responsibilities of Her Majesty's Coastguard for the co-ordination of civil maritime search and rescue. The modernisation of the service with improved communications and operational facilities is continuing.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask when we can expect to have the Government's view on the Rayner Report, which includes the need to modernise our coastal radio stations? Will he say what will be the effect—we hope it will be beneficial—on the voluntary lifeboat system if some of its recommendations are accepted?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we shall, of course, be able to consider the Rayner Report, which, as the noble Lord is aware, is under consideration by the Government. We expect to be able to announce a decision on it in due course. Your Lordships will be aware that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a proud and independent service, which we all admire. It is, however, entirely independent of the Government, and independent even of your Lordships' House.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that, although it may strictly be independent, the volunteers who give such magnificent service in the life-boat system believe that the nation should at least subscribe to testing and examining boats which are used to rescue other people and which sometimes fail and cost the lives of those volunteers? Will the noble Lord not agree that everything should be done to prevent such disasters as those that occurred in the Mumbles in 1947 and as recently as last year in Devonshire, if this is possible by providing better life-boats?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord may be perfectly correct, but I am afraid that all the points that he has raised have nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper; and nor do they necessarily have anything to do with the coastguard service.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, with great respect, it has always been acknowledged right round the coast that there is an inextricable link between the voluntary lifeboat service, the radio stations and everything else connected with this matter. Therefore, are the Government not prepared to consider that there is a link which they could acknowledge and which they could help wherever possible?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we shall read the noble Lord's comments with the greatest interest, and we are
330
very grateful to him for his continued support for the lifeboat service.

Nuclear Weapons: General Altenburg
2.44 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 General Altenburg's statement that a nuclear weapon fired at the Soviet Union would not cause a nuclear war represents NATO nuclear policy, and if so, whether they will make arrangements for the entire population of this country to be evacuated.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are not aware of any such statement by General Altenburg.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this statement was very widely publicised? Is he further aware that there is a reputable scientific body of opinion that takes the view that the deployment of the cruise missile would further destabilise a dangerous situation? Finally, is he also aware that if the Government win—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the Government win the coming election—
The Earl of Onslow: When the Government win, my Lords!
Lord Jenkins of Putney:—the very strong probability is that there will be no election after that as we shall almost certainly be overtaken by a nuclear holocaust?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, General Altenburg suggested that if war did break out the risks of escalation might actually serve as an incentive to conclude hostilities rather than lead on inevitably to all-out nuclear conflict.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, will the noble Lord ask the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, whether his fear that the population of this country might need to be evacuated could be averted if the Soviet Union were offered bases for their nuclear weapons in this country as well as the American's and our own?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in terms of the original Answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the whole idea of evacuation of this country falls.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it might be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, would tell us where the statement that he quoted was publicised?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should be very interested to hear where it came from.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the important practical point is that the talks now going on at Geneva should be successful and should be brought to a constructive conclusion? Can he say whether the Andropov proposals are on the agenda of the Geneva talks and what progress is being made at those talks?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, that is a totally different question from the Question on the Order Paper, which dealt with quotations, or supposedly quotations, from General Altenburg. The whole question of the talks at Geneva and the inclusion of the British deterrent in them is a different matter altogether. The British deterrent is a strategic deterrent of last resort. We do not possess it in order to offer protection to our friends. It is for us and for our own purposes and whether or not it is included is something which has been answered on many occasions in your Lordships' House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Lord himself commented on the nature and possible length of a nuclear war. These are matters which are now being discussed between the USSR and the United States of America at Geneva and they are vital to the talks that are taking place. Is the noble Lord aware that his noble friend Lord Belstead has said on many occasions at that Dispatch Box that we are in close consultation with the United States upon the progress of these talks? Therefore, would the noble Lord be good enough to say clearly whether the proposals are on the table at Geneva and whether the talks are proceeding successfully?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with respect, that simply does not arise from the Question that is on the Order Paper.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does my noble friend have any idea as to where the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, wishes us all to be evacuated, and whether the noble Lord has plans to do a pathfinding mission to this unknown country himself on a one-way ticket?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords. I have some very sound ideas myself both as to where the noble Lord might be evacuated, and as to where my noble friend and I might be evacuated, but I think it might be better not to go into that now.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that his last answer but two about the British thermonuclear force being a deterrent of last resort for this country, constitutes a change in the arrangement whereby it is assigned to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, again I am afraid that that is a completely different question and wide of the mark.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the noble Lord not saddened, although no doubt not alarmed, by the enormous number of ways produced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, of asking the same question over and over again?
Lord Glenarthur: Not alarmed, my Lords, but certainly saddened.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the important point is to continue to prevent war through remaining strong and deterring any possible aggression? Further, would he agree that if we one-sidedly throw our weapons away, we should make war and the loss of our freedom much more likely?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely agree with everything that my noble friend says.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us whether serious consideration can be given to the suggestion from behind me that everybody should be invited to have a nuclear base here? Then, under the system of deterrence, we would indeed be an effective nuclear-free zone.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord and the party opposite not agree that, on the question of nuclear war, there is at least a serious element, and that perhaps they might attune their minds to that particular element before we conclude this Question Time? For example, will the noble Lord not agree that what perturbs many people here and some of the people of our ally nations is the submission during the last big debate that, if there was an emergent invasion through Germany to France, in order to protect herself Great Britain would attempt to wipe out Russian armies with nuclear weapons, which would have devastating effects on the civil populations of NATO countries?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is again going completely wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I do not think it would be right for me to go into another long debate on the whole nuclear issue, which was admirably covered last week by my noble friend Lord Belstead.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we seem to be agreed that General Altenburg made a statement but that we have seen different versions of that statement? Would it not be helpful to all noble Lords if the noble Lord were to clarify the issue by including the actual authorised statement in the Official Report—of course, not authorised by the noble Lord, Lord Dacre—which General Altenburg himself agreed that he made?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am quite sure that, if the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, contacted the radio source in Germany which conducted the interview, they would be very happy to supply him with their translation.

Soviet Visitors to United Kingdom
2.52 p.m.
Lord Bethell: 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 how many members of the All-Union Supreme Soviet or of the

333
Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation visited the United Kingdom during the past 12 months.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no member of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, nor of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, visited the United Kingdom in the past year in his capacity as a deputy of either of these bodies. However, several Soviet visitors to the United Kingdom during the past 12 months have been members of these institutions. Members of the USSR Supreme Soviet will visit the United Kingdom later this month, at the invitation of the Great Britain-USSR Association.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will he confirm that Britain does not discriminate on an individual basis against representatives of these Soviet bodies, which, with us, are members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, whereas the Soviet Government do discriminate and pick and choose on an individual basis between British parliamentarians? Therefore, will he agree that the time has come to redress this imbalance and deal with applications from Soviet so-called parliamentarians on the basis of reciprocity?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can, of course, confirm to my noble friend that there is no discrimination in any sense. My noble friend rightly criticises the Soviet Union for refusing visas on general political grounds. We would not wish to follow the Soviet example by refusing a Soviet applicant solely in retaliation for their prior refusal of a British applicant. Our practice is that visas are refused only when there is clear evidence that the individual concerned is personally unacceptable to us.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it not remarkable that not one of the 1,500 elected members of the Supreme Soviet has ever asked a question critical of the defence policy of any Soviet Government?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there are many things in heaven and earth that are remarkable.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether when anybody occupying an official position in the Soviet Union comes to the United Kingdom, that person is approached by anyone from our Foreign Office, or anyone occupying an official position in the United Kingdom, directing the visitor's attention to the constant and persistent violation of human rights in the Soviet Union as compared with our behaviour in this country—for example, what is happening to Shcharansky at the present time?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I believe that any visitor to this country would immediately recognise what the country as a whole feels about human rights. As regards the other part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I do not think that the duties of a member of the Supreme Soviet can be compared with the duties of a British parliamentarian.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is there any prospect of a resumption of exchanges with the Supreme Soviet through the Inter-Parliamentary Union? They have proved to be of some value in the past, and the complete closing of dialogue with the Soviet Union would not be a very happy augury for the future.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is no closing of dialogue with the Soviet Union at ministerial level. The House will be aware that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary was in Russia last week, or possibly the week before, and, as I said in my original Answer, the Great Britain-USSR Association has arranged for members of the USSR Supreme Soviet to visit the United Kingdom later this month.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, what is the IPU position?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry, but I have no information on that point.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, how can there be parliamentary dialogue between the Soviet Union and Britain when the Soviet side are allowed to pick and choose with which British parliamentarians they have a dialogue?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would say that the boot is equally on the other foot, for Members of this Parliament can pick and choose whom they see in the Soviet Republic.

Future Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, in the light of the announcement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that it is proposed to rearrange this week's business in the House. In particular, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Telecommunications Bill, due for its second Committee day tomorrow, and the Housing and Building Control Bill, due for its Report stage on Thursday, will not now further proceed.
With the leave of the House, I propose to make a further statement about the business for the remainder of this week, later this afternoon. I shall arrange for adequate warning of this statement to be given on the annunciators. However, today's business will remain as it appears on the Order Paper.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young)The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young) had given notice of her intention to move the Motion standing in her name on the order Paper:
That Standing Order 34 and paragraphs (10), (11), (12) and (13) of the Rules for the conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix D to the Companion to the Standing Orders shall apply to the Motion in the name of the Lord Diamond set down for Monday 16th May.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in view of the Statement that has just been made by my noble friend the Chief Whip, I shall not now move the Business Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

Energy Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill
2.59 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Development Commission.]
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment, which would delete the power of the Government to give directions to the development commission in its new statutory form. I am of course aware that this is a normal power which the Government have in relation to bodies of this kind, and I move the amendment to seek certain assurances about the use of the Government's power that they will have to give directions, and about the degree of independence which the commission will have under the new régime.
It does not need a Sherlock Holmes to realise that there has been a struggle about this particular provision. If one looks at Schedule 1 to the Bill, paragraph 11 indicates that the annual report of the commission will set out any direction given by the Secretary of State during the year. That is rather unusual if it really amounts to the commission being able to tell everybody what it was doing independently and what it was doing during the year under direct instructions of the Government.
The historic independence of the commission and the pioneering in support of the most disadvantaged rural areas that it has done for some 70 years or more are well known, but the catalogue—and I could not give it today—bears some examination to see how independent and pioneering it has been. It started just after the first world war in helping village industries and craftsmen from the early 1920s, first of all with an intelligence bureau with advice and information, and then on to a full rural industries bureau. We knew that later in the century as CoSIRA.
Again in the early 1920s the commission was the body which effectively fostered the growth of the rural communilty councils, starting with Kent in 1925, originally working to help craftsmen and having rural industry organisers to help the organising of craftsmen in the rural areas. In 1940 it was the commissioners, under the existing Act, who started a loan fund for rural industry. They started grants for village halls in 1925. They have funded the National Federation of Women's Institutes since 1921.
In my own time as chairman of the commission, we set up the special investment areas which are now effectively the rural development areas. We broadened the whole of our activity to include action plans for the total revival of the more disadvantaged areas. Again, the commissioners spent a lot of money after the first world war on agricultural research. This was then floated off from the commissioners as the Agricultural Research Council, a very eminent body today. The commissioners at that period looked after fishery harbours, taken over by the Government in 1955. I give these just as examples of pioneering which the commission has always undertaken to help the rural areas.
Now why is it important to seek assurances about the future? I repeat the point that this was pioneering Nearly all of it was a very substantial departure from the policy of the Government of the day. It would be disastrous if the commission were in future to be a creature of Government and he denied that continuous pioneering role which it has filled so effectively. In all of that work it nearly always has acted, and still acts today, as a catalyst. It does not put in a large amount of Government money. It offers a little Government money in return for people looking after themselves, or finding extra money from other sources.
The power of the commission under the present Act depends on the fact that it is a standing Royal Commission for a start. It is appointed by Her Majesty. It is not just an ordinary quango. It has this rather extra status of being a Royal Commission. It advises Her Majesty's Government on the spending of the development fund. The development fund is money voted by Parliament every year to help the rural areas on matters for which no other statutory provision exists. It is, if you like, the supporter, until other forms of statutory provision take over, of new ideas which are being pioneered.
The point about the commission is the extraordinary, unique power of the commissioners. It has what is known as a double veto. As the annual report of the commission makes clear, the commissioners cannot spend out of the development fund without the approval of Her Majesty's Government. But equally—and this is the important point—the Government cannot spend out of the development fund without the approval of the commissioners. I have never known an Act of Parliament which brought an outside body so near to control and strong influence over Government policy.
What that in practice meant was that the two bodies, the Government and the commissioners, had all the time to reach agreement in the middle, otherwise they could veto each other. Most important of all, if the Government too often tried to stop the new ideas, the new departures, the pioneering of the commission the commission could wave the big stick and say, "If you go on like this we shall veto other spending out of the development fund". This is an important influence on public policy. It has been an important power. It has worked extremely well by continuously reaching agreement rather than falling out and using the veto between the two sides.
Therefore, I say bluntly to the noble Lord, we are now going into a one-way street instead of a two-way

337
street. The commission will not be able to prevent Government doing a lot of things any more if they fall out. It is a one-way street in which only the Government can give orders to the commission. Therefore, I ask will it still have this same freedom to pioneer that it has always had, or will it just be carrying out Government policy in the rural areas from now on? That pioneering role has been crucial to all the new departures I have listed.
Secondly, will it be the case, as before, that the Government will look to the commission to pioneer in this way and then will take over the commission's ideas when they prove fruitful and practicable and enshrine them in public policy so that the commission can use its resources, its expertise and its energies to find new ideas, to pioneer them again and bring extra new ideas to the help of the rural areas?
Finally, how much money is involved? Is the commission going to be allowed to have a reasonable budget to carry all this out so that it matches at least the sort of money that it has now and preferably goes on to, say, about £30 million a year as opposed to approaching £20 million, which would give it real independence and real power to carry on its most constructive work for the benefit of the disadvantaged rural areas? This is an important amendment on which I hope the noble Lord will tell us exactly what the Government's policy is for the future of this successful, unusual quango which has had such a great history up to now. I beg to move.
3.7 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: We are indebted to my noble friend for putting down this amendment and for explaining his reasons for doing so. On Second Reading, as the Committee will recall, there were several tributes to the work of the commission and to the value of the 1909 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, in particular, gave us the benefit of his own experience as a member of the commission; and my noble friend Lord Northfield, as a former chairman of the commission, obviously speaks with great authority.
The position as of now, as my noble friend has explained it, is that a delicate balance exists between the Ministry and the commission. The 1909 Act serves two primary purposes. First, it ensures that the commissioners are informed of Government policy in the field of activity submitted as a scheme to the Ministry. Secondly, it enables the commission to make certain that no other source of funds is available. The Department of the Environment must approve advances from the development fund, and the Minister can veto the commissioners' recommendations. On the other hand, the Ministry cannot make any advances from the fund without the commissioners' recommendations.
There are other related provisions, as the Committee knows, but that is the key one for the purposes of my noble friend's amendment. That is the sensitive balance to which he has referred. As he said, if the Government resisted too many of the initiatives for the revival of the countryside the commissioners could move to veto other expenditure. Of course, in
338
practice over the years this power was sufficient to cause both sides to co-operate and co-ordinate amicably; and as the noble Lord knows, and as I know from my experience when I was Secretary of State for Wales, it has worked extremely well. Clause 1(8) removes this balance and appears to deprive the new commission of a very important power. It strengthens the department at the expense of the new body, and may do so unnecessarily. It would also be helpful if the noble Lord could give us the information about the budget to which my noble friend referred.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will tell us that he will accept my noble friend's amendment, or, if it is in any way technically deficient, that he will introduce another which will leave the commission with the discretion which it now enjoys. Our united wish is that the new commission should work well. It is in that spirit that I believe my noble friend makes his proposal.
Lord Trefgarne: It might be helpful if I make some brief general remarks before dealing with the specific points that have been put to me. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 together, including subsection (8), to which the amendment refers, replace the development commissioners and the development fund, established under the Development and Road Improvement Acts of 1909 and 1910, with the Development Commission, a statutory grant-aided corporation. Transitional provisions ensure that the present commissioners and staff continue in office without loss of status or rights, and that all the liabilities and assets of the development fund are transferred to the Development Commission to be established under this Bill.
There have been many changes since 1909, and this measure is designed to give the commission a legal and financial status in line with present-day thinking on grant-aided non-governmental bodies. It will also resolve a legal doubt over the propriety of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas (CoSIRA) being given Government funds to provide financial help to small firms. This change has no direct financial implications—the size of the grant is recommended by Ministers to Parliament, after consultation with the commissioners, in estimates—but it will allow certain simplifications of procedure and give the Development Commission a greater degree of autonomy in line with the Government's policy for it.
Our object in drafting these provisions has been to preserve all that is best in the original enactments while giving the commission up-to-date powers and protection. The personnel of the commission and, for that matter, CoSIRA, will have continuity of employment, pay and pensions. The commission will take over the assets and liabilities of the development fund, and the present commissioners will remain in office. We envisage this part of the Bill being brought into force on 1st April 1984.
To deal specifically with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, he is, as he told your Lordships, a former and distinguished chairman of the development commissioners, and has obviously spoken with a great deal of authority and experience. It might be helpful if I first seek to explain briefly the effect of the amendment. This will show why we would

339
not welcome such a change. Removing subsection (8) from Clause 1 would take away the power of the Secretary of State to give general directions, and the duty of the commission to comply. Ministers are answerable to Parliament for the work of the commission, and other analogous bodies receiving public funds. Ministers cannot be held responsible unless they have power to control and direct within the framework laid down by Parliament. The form of words used in subsection (8), or something like them, can be found in a number of recent statutes.
That said, I turn now to the main burden of what the noble Lord said, which was to the effect that we should give the Development Commission the maximum autonomy. These are sentiments very dear to the Government's heart. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in another place reported in March last year the results of an interdepartmental review of the Development Commission and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. The review confirmed the Government's belief in the effectiveness and relevance of the commission's work.
My right honourable friend announced a number of steps to give it greater independence of action. In particular, the commission, instead of the Government, is to choose the areas of greatest need in which it will concentrate its work. They are to be called rural development areas. However, no line on a map can contain all areas of need, and the Government have allocated funds for use outside these areas at the discretion of the commission. CoSIRA will continue to provide its services in all rural areas. Another way in which we want to emphasise the independence of the commission takes expression in this Bill. At present, the commission only advises expenditure. In future, if this Bill becomes law, it will then spend its own grant in aid.
Now manpower and money. The Government were elected on a programme of reducing direct Government involvement and giving value for money. A general policy of holding manpower numbers throughout the public sector at the prevailing levels, wherever possible, was applied to the commission and to CoSIRA. Increases are not automatically refused. In fact, there has been one approved increase and one approved decrease, following a restructuring and up-grading, since we came to power. The commission understands our view that its principal task is to persuade others to take action in their own communities, keeping to a minimum the functions which it undertakes for itself. As for funds, the commission has had all it can spend, and it is the Government's intention to give all the support they can to the employment-creating work in hand.
Increasingly, public funds are used in a pump-priming or "lender of last resort" role, and the Government are grateful for the imaginative way in which the commissioners have found ways to attract private finance. We believe this to be the right way forward. In general terms I can give the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, the assurances he is seeking: that we shall be directing the commission's affairs much less under future arrangements than has been the case hitherto, and that the splendid work the commission has been doing up to now will continue and will be
340
increased. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northfield: The noble Lord has been quite helpful. However, I should not have traded the old Act for the new one. The commission was making good use of the old Act under a sharing of power with Government. It was unique in the history of bodies of this kind. We shall have to watch very carefully whether the one-way street that we are now in—in which only the Government can give the orders, and the commission has no effective right of fight-back with a veto—works to the disadvantage of the commission. Nevertheless, I take the general assurances that the noble Lord has given. We will watch and I shall consider what he has said, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I follow my noble friend in thanking the noble Lord for his reply to my noble friend's speech. I confirm what my noble friend said: namely, that we shall be scrutinising carefully the activities of the commission in relation to the Department of the Environment in future. There is no doubt that the commission has been deprived of a substantial power that it enjoyed under the old dispensation.
The noble Lord made one important point: that the commission will have power to designate rural development areas. This leads me to ask the noble Lord a question which I put to him in another way in my speech on Second Reading. I refer specifically to the position in Wales and Scotland. In Wales the Welsh Rural Development Board designates an area within which it operates. The same is true of Scotland and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. But there are rural areas outside the designated areas of the WRDB and outside the boundaries of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It seems therefore that rural areas in England—all of which are covered by the activities of the Development Commission—will enjoy substantial benefits not enjoyed by areas in Wales and Scotland, which are outside the designated areas of two boards I mentioned but which are, nevertheless, in need of assistance.
I come back to an area in which I have a great interest; that is, north-west Wales, an area covered more or less by the boundaries of Gwynedd. In that area, there are great rural problems. If I may remind the noble Lord and the House that unemployment there now runs at nearly 25 per cent. of the insured population, the House will appreciate that there is a grave problem, that rural industries need assistance and that there is also a need for new rural industries to assist young school-leavers in particular to find the training opportunities, apprenticeships and work in general. Is it the case that the Development Commission and CoSIRA will be able to designate any part of rural England as a rural development area but that there is no authority in Wales and Scotland outside the two rural boards which will be able to carry out this provision?

341
In reply to my question on Second Reading, the noble Lord said that CoSIRA will continue to operate in Wales and Scotland, presumably as agents of the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency. My short question to the noble Lord is whether the Welsh Development Agency and its counterpart in Scotland will be able, through CoSIRA, to designate rural development areas in the same way as they will be designated in England by the commission.
Lord Trefgarne: I have to say that I am not quite certain about the answer to that question. I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to inquire into it and write to him. My understanding is that that is not the case, that they will not be able to do that. I will clarify the position and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I understand his inability at the moment, without notice, to answer a rather complicated question. I would appreciate an answer because this is a matter of the utmost significance so far as the less prosperous rural areas of Wales and Scotland are concerned. I am obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power of Crown Estate Commissioners to grant leases]:
[Amendment 2 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I wonder whether I may trouble the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to deal with a point raised on Report, in another place on this clause. He will be aware that in the final debate on the Crown Estate Commissioners, his honourable friend the Minister announced an internal review of the position in relation to the leases for fish farms in coastal waters. I wonder whether the noble Lord is in a position to tell us how this is proceeding and precisely what it may involve.
Lord Trefgarne: I am aware that the inquiry is proceeding. I am afraid that there are not yet any conclusions to be reported to your Lordships. Perhaps I could make further inquiries and, at the risk of sounding somewhat unbriefed, will again undertake to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Development Commission]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be agreed to?
Lord Northfield: I should again like to ask the noble Lord a question on Schedule 1 which governs the
342
operation of the commission. The schedule has a paragraph dealing with staff. I am very concerned about one particular remark that the noble Lord made earlier; namely, that the Government restriction on staff numbers is being applied to this body. Headquarters staff of the Development Commission number only 36 people. It is a body which is carrying out a vast amount of work on a handful of people. One of its great successes has been it has had for its servants some young and very dedicated staff who, over the years, work all hours and who, in every respect, put so much enthusiasm behind their job that they can manage on very small numbers.
If this body is to become a fully recognised rural development agency and build on these beginnings the last thing it wants at this stage is to be restricted unduly to a staff of 36. This recognition is what all of us were working for throughout the 1970s as we gradually expanded its activities and status and took it into new parts of the country so that there are now, I think, well over 1,000 small factories under construction with agreements with county and borough councils up and down the country about joint plans to revive their most disadvantaged rural districts.
I am hoping the noble Lord will be good enough to qualify what he has said about this, so that, in order that it shall be a fully-developed agency for want of another half a dozen more people, it is not going to be running up against a Government veto in that respect. This is a very important matter for a very dedicated body which is doing a great deal of work by stealth. I hope that the noble Lord will qualify what he has said about the restrictions on staffing levels.
Lord Trefgarne: I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no blind enforcement of any arbitrary level of staffing of the commission under the new arrangements. Of course, it is not possible for the Government to give some carte blanche to the commission when funds are provided by Parliament; but, as I have said earlier, we are fully seized of the important work that the commission does, and if they come forward with a case which on its merit is sound, I am certain that we shall agree to it.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Royal Assent
3.29 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): 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 and Measures:

British Shipbuilders Act,

Level Crossings Act,

Plant Varieties Act,

343

Nuclear Material (Offences) Act.

Matrimonial Homes Act,

Mental Health Act,

Pilotage Act,

Ports (Reduction of Debt) Act,

Water Act,

Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act,

Energy Act,

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Act,

Pastoral Measure,

Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure,

Hampshire Act.

Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill
3.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Up-rating orders.]:
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("month") and insert ("months")
The noble Lord said: For the benefit and convenience of the Committee—and certainly not the Government—I shall move Amendment No. 1 and speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 because these amendments all have the same theme, which is to try to obtain a system whereby the increases in benefits are taken by decisions every six months. The Government may feel that this is impossible; but nothing is impossible in this computerised age, and in fact it seems that the computer given to the Conservative Party by a benevolent friend has even forecast the date of the election, something with which I dealt on the Second Reading. Seriously, the question involved in these amendments is simply that it would be greater justice to have a six-monthly review than the system proposed in this Bill. My reasons for this are quite simple. Some of us perhaps have serious doubts about the intentions of the Government in having 31st May stipulated in this Bill for the decision on pension increases in November, simply because of the forecast rate of inflation.
But this might arise in any Government at any time, and we feel there is greater justice and more common sense in this, in that it may be that in the first six months of decision, the estimate might be out and in November the adjustment can be made—and nobody can complain about that—so that there is a degree of continuity. I accept absolutely and completely that it would be impossible to have a period of less than six months.
There is an amendment down, Amendment No. 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for a new clause which ties up very much with what I am proposing now. My amendment, however, goes into
344
detail; and quite honestly I cannot see why there should be any opposition to it. The only opposition may be that at the immediate moment it could be inconvenient. But, looking ahead, and bearing in mind the tremendous advances made in technology, there is not the slightest doubt that justice could be done and could be seen to be done on all sides by having this six-monthly review.
Arguments can be produced that previous Governments should have done this; but those arguments are no excuse for our not dealing with it now. After all, as I said, we are in a new age that has come upon us somewhat rapidly. I do not intend to proceed further with my remarks on these amendments; but I commend them to the Committee as being reaonable and necessary. I concede the possible arguments that this cannot be done this year. I am prepared to receive an argument on that basis. But, on the general principle, and the principle involved in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I do not think I am prepared to concede anything. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I should like to express support for these amendments, general sympathy with their purpose and I support the concept of bi-annual upratings. As I made clear when we had the debate on Second Reading, I think the Government are right to go back to the historical method instead of the forecast method; but I think that the timing of doing it is wrong and that it should not be done at a time when inflation is expected to rise because that involves a loss. The chief drawback in the historical method is the degree of delay which is involved. Bi-annual upratings will cut that down. It used to be argued by Government that it took six to seven months to carry out the necessary calculations, and that therefore you could not have more than one uprating per year. But I think it became clear during the debate of this Bill in another place that it could be done within five months and therefore it is technically possible to do it twice in a year—and other countries in fact manage to do so. France and Denmark have pensions reviewed twice yearly in relation to the index. In Finland and the Netherlands there is an automatic increase after a 3 per cent. rise in the index. In Luxembourg there is a similar automatic increase after a 5 per cent. rise. In Belgium, it follows automatically upon changes in a prices-and-wages index. It can be argued they have different systems and that ours would need to be accommodated to this idea. Perhaps that is no bad thing and we should think out ways of doing what other people have managed to do. At any rate, it is clear that it is not impossible to have the historic method and to have bi-annual upratings.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: The burden of these amendments is that benefits could and should be uprated twice a year rather than once. In this context, three factors have fundamental importance: necessity, cost and operational feasibility. The main case to be made for more frequent upratings on grounds of necessity arises in times of high and rapidly rising inflation. For example, the argument for six-monthly upratings was particularly relevant in 1974 and 1975 when the

345
annual rate of inflation rose from a low point of under 12 per cent. to a high point of 26.9 per cent.
In such circumstances, the value of benefits was eroding almost as fast as new rates could be fixed. Once the annual rate of inflation fell below 20 per cent., the then Government quickly moved to an annual cycle of uprating. It is an entirely different matter when inflation has been brought down to low, single figures and when the Government intend that it should fall still further. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the inflation situation now is very different from that which existed in 1975 when inflation indeed made more frequent uprating a real necessity. By way of illustration, in the four months from November 1982 to March 1973, which is the latest figures I have at the moment, the R.P.I. had risen by only 0.6 per cent.
I turn now to costs. Six-monthly upratings would add hundreds of millions of pounds per year to the benefit cost of upratings. For example, a May uprating in addition to the normal November uprating would add about £150 million to uprating costs in 1983/84 for each 1 per cent. brought forward. Even if the uprating were to be restricted only to pensions and long-term benefits, the extra cost for each 1 per cent. brought forward would be of the order of £100 million. If there were additional resources of this order available to incorporate in the general social security budget then the proper place for consideration of such matters would be in the annual review itself. Apart from the high-benefit costs involved in more frequent upratings, there are administrative costs and difficulties which cannot lightly be ignored. It cannot be denied that it is operationally possible to uprate more than once a year; but it still takes the best part of six months to carry out the work of each uprating so that a system of twice-yearly upratings would mean a need for more staff and it would mean that large numbers of DHSS staff would need to be permanently deployed on such work. Sometimes our uprating systems have been compared unfavourably with those of other countries, particularly in relation to our partners in the European Community. But this is an unfair comparison because it does not compare like with like. For example, while most member states provide some special help for those with low incomes, including pensioners, our system of supplementary benefit is not in general matched in other EC countries. Furthermore, of the other nine member states, only the Republic of Ireland who also uprate annually, pays its pensions weekly by order-book. All the other states pay their pensions monthly, or, in the case of Italy, every two months, either by post or by credit transfer. If all beneficiaries in this country were to change to a credit transfer system of monthly payment, our operational difficulties would be lessened too.
Recently we gave our pensioners the option of having their pensions paid by credit transfer to a hank or building society, but first returns show that only a very tiny percentage of weekly-paid pensioners have opted to change to that method of payment. As long as our pensioners prefer to have their pensions paid weekly by order-book, we shall have to live with the difficulties that their choice entails. Improved technology will eventually shorten the time taken to
346
deal with the complex process of reassessing the three to four million supplementary benefit cases which are currently reassessed clerically, but it is unlikely that significant time savings will be achieved within the next few years.
Finally, I should remind noble Lords that the cost of benefit increases have to be paid for by the working population. Contributions and taxes have to rise to meet the extra cost involved, and this leads workers to press for more frequent pay increases in compensation. This adds to inflationary pressures and serves to undo the good work of recent years in bringing down inflation to low single figures and in helping to make our industry more competitive in world markets. Now that we have inflation under control, it seems sensible to keep it under control and to reduce it still further so that pensioners may be spared the worry which inflation brings. I hope that, in the light of these arguments, the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendments.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I do not have any intention of pressing them at the present time, for various reasons. At the same time I cannot accept entirely what the noble Lord has said in reply. One of the problems is that his department has been cutting staff. In fact the whole theme of his speech was the necessity for financial savings. He said it would cost hundreds of millions of pounds to do this double check up each year. I cannot accept this, because he is dealing with the old methods that have been employed, whereas I am suggesting that modern methods should be used. His whole theme was financial saving, which is the basis of this and every other social security Bill that we have had since the start of this Parliament.
There is a further point regarding a twice-yearly review. If the noble Lord had seen some of the letters I have received thanks to a small notice in the press on my comments on the Bill, he would realise that pensioners are in a different world altogether so far as the question of prices is concerned. This is something that every Government must consider, whether it be this one or the next one, whatever the next one may be. The noble Lord said they had asked for people to have their payments made directly into bank and Giro accounts. In fact, what he does not realise—and I am talking about the average pensioner and not those fortunate ones like myself who have another pension through service in another place—is that many pensioners have to rely desperately upon their single pension and it is small wonder that there has been very little response. Anybody who is in touch with these people—and I would give noble Lords opposite credit because a lot of them are—would understand. So far as benefits are concerned, the costs must be related to our intention to see that those at the lowest point of the income scale are given a reasonable standard of living. I say from this Box that, if sacrifices are necessary through taxation in order to achieve that ideal, then we as a nation would stand high in the world.
I do not want to intrude upon a defence debate or anything like that, but there is never hesitation when the question of defence expenditure arises. That is money possibly—though I hope to God it will not be—for the eventual destruction of humanity

347
somewhere or another. I am concerned with the people who are in need and who have served this country, whether as dustmen or brilliant technologists. That is why I hope the Government will consider the position further, particularly the question of the review that I am calling for, and taking into account the price situation as it affects elderly people.
As I have indicated, I shall not press the amendments, at this stage. I understand that there may be a Report stage and a Third Reading. As I said on Second Reading, the whole thing is being rushed; and now today we know why. What happens on Report stage will have to be decided after I have read the noble Lord's remarks. In the meantime, in order to assist the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("except that, if in the second year of operation the application of this provision has not been sufficient to maintain the real value of benefits at the November 1982 level then an appropriate adjustment will be made in the percentage increase for the third year.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 and, with the leave of the Committee, to speak also to Amendment No. 8. This is the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and myself. May I say that the name of my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock should have been added, but it does not in fact appear on the Marshalled List.
I think we would all agree that if inflation is running at an annual rate of 4 per cent. in May, this month, and if it will be 6 per cent. next November, the beneficiaries will suffer a loss in the first year. It has been argued that this loss will be made up in the following year. The Secretary of State, Mr. Norman Fowler, in another place said this during the Second Reading debate, at col. 820:
"What will happen under the proposed system is that any inflation between May and November of this year or any subsequent year will automatically be caught up in the following up-rating".
In other words, the loss suffered in the first year and which of course will not be repaid, will not be lost in the second year. That is not necessarily true. There is no guarantee that the loss will be made up, and I should like to explain why I say that.
In November 1982 there was an over-estimate of inflation of 2.7 per cent. so that the figure of increase was higher than the actual inflation would have allowed. We on these Benches are anxious that that amount should not be clawed back: in other words, we want to maintain the November 1982 value of benefits. We want there to be no difference between the real value of benefits at November 1984, when compared with November 1982: that is, that the second year should in fact catch up.
Under the new method the difference in up-rating between November 1982 and November 1984 will relate to a reference period, May 1982 to May 1984. That is under the method proposed in this Bill. Under the old method, it would have referred to November 1982 to November 1984. November 1982 to May 1984 is common to both of those reference periods.
348
The new method has six months, May to November 1982, at the beginning added to it and the old method has six months, May to November 1984, at the end of it. Therefore, the difference between the two methods will depend upon the difference between the rise of prices in these two six-monthly periods at either end.
We know what the rise in prices was in the first six months, May to November 1982. It was only 1·3 per cent., which was abnormally low. If prices rise by 1·3 per cent. or less between May and November 1984, the real value as at November 1982 will have been maintained. But if prices rise by more than 1·3 per cent. between May and November 1984, the real value as at November 1982 will have been reduced and that, I think most of us would agree, is the most likely outcome.
This amendment would ensure that if the 1982 value declined in this way between 1982 and 1984, then an adjustment to take care of that would be made in the 1985 uprating. Thus, the November 1982 value would have been preserved. So that is the object of this amendment. It is to make sure that the November 1982 value is maintained, and it will not necessarily be maintained unless some special provision is made to ensure that that is so. I beg to move.
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: I rise briefly to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. He has moved it so clearly and so ably that there is little need for me to go into a great deal of detail. I noticed that, when the Minister was replying to the earlier amendment, he referred to the extra cost that would be incurred if the changes that we wish for were made. If there is an extra cost to the Government, that must mean a loss to the beneficiaries. When he talks about all these thousands of pounds being a charge on the Government, it makes us feel that we really ought to look at those thousands of pounds of which beneficiaries are being deprived. It cannot work both ways.
Another reason why I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is that there is a volatility in prices and, as my noble friend Lord Wallace said, that volatility particularly affects pensioners, the unemployed and people who are at the receiving end of these benefits, because many of the points which affect the price index are not reflected in the budgets of these people.
Another point which makes me support this amendment is the unfairness of the inability to catch up. For instance, if anybody dies in the period between one point of calculation and another, there is no compensation for his family. If the index has risen and then an unfortunate person dies, that money is lost forever. So the idea that we will catch up next year does not apply, especially to a lot of elderly people. Neither does it apply to the strange and unusual case of a person on unemployment benefit who might, even under this Government, suddenly find a job. He will then be taken out of unemployment benefit and will never be compensated for the shortfall in the unemployment benefit that he received when he was out of work, because he will have got back to work.
If the noble Lord can explain that that is not the case, then I shall be happy to listen to him, but we

349
think that this is a very fair amendment. This question of the real benefit must be more carefully considered, and some way must be found of making it up to people who suffer from the proposals in this Bill. So I support this amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I just want to confirm that it was intended that my name should appear on the amendment, and I have received a handsome apology from the Public Bill Office for the fact that it did not. I shall not detain your Lordships, but I just want to revert to the point I made on Second Reading, which was that we on this Bench support, in principle, the idea of a reversion to the historic method of calculation. We also feel it is extremely important that the new method should not only get off to a fair start, but should be seen to get off to a fair start. It seems to me that the amendment, which has been very ably proposed and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, takes care of this. We therefore feel that it is a reasonable point to which the Government should pay serious consideration. It could be a one-off adjustment to make sure that the whole thing gets going on the right basis. We therefore support the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: The purpose of this amendment is plain, even if it is far from clear, I fear, that as drafted it would achieve the desired result. It provides a variation on a theme which has already been the subject of extensive debate, both here and in the other place. Up to now, the suggestion has been that there should be some form of adjustment to benefits in 1984, if this year's up-rating increase is less than the percentage rise in prices from November 1982 to November 1983. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, goes one stage further than that by proposing to delay any adjustment of this kind until we have had at least two up-ratings on the new basis.
I am afraid that the Government cannot support this amendment. The whole purpose of the Bill is to restore certainty and stability to the up-rating process. We no longer wish to be looking over our shoulder at minor variations in the annual inflation rate from one month to another. We want to get away from all questions of overshoot, shortfall or adjustment. Our simple proposal is that the actual year-on-year rise in prices each May shall be used to determine the rise in benefits in the following November. On Second Reading, I spelled out why the May figures are the latest actual figures we can use, if beneficiaries are to get their increases paid on time. When we reach a position where we can move to a known figure later than May, we will gladly do so, but that time is not yet here.
This year the change in method is being introduced in favourable circumstances for pensioners, despite the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on this point on Second Reading and again today. A significant part of the rise in prices from May 1982 to May 1983 has already been reflected in the November 1982 benefit increase, yet it will also count towards the increase in November 1983. The increase in November 1982 was 2·7 per cent. higher than was justified by the actual rise in prices in the preceding 12 months, yet the 1983 up-rating will still reflect a full 12 months' movement
350
of prices from May to May, and any rise in prices in the 12 months from May 1983 will automatically be taken into account in the 1984 up-rating.
It is better to proceed on this simple and reliable basis than to look back to some base year of no particular relevance to the pensioner. What pensioners will be looking for in 1984 and 1985 is not what they had in November 1982, but whether the rate of inflation can be further reduced below the present level so that they need no longer fear it, as they did throughout the 1970s.
This Government are more firmly committed to bringing down the rate of inflation than any of the other major parties. The smaller and more stable the annual rate of inflation, the less the chance of any significant difference between the May inflation rate and the November inflation rate. Pensioners know that their benefit rises will relate to the annual movement of prices and not to the inherent uncertainties of a forecast system. The Government's position is therefore clear. The November 1982 overshoot is not being clawed back. Pensioners and others have enjoyed that over-provision throughout 1983, and the rates set in 1982 will form the basis of future up-ratings under the historic method. Any further improvement in the value of pensions must, I fear, depend upon the country's economic performance, the generation of new wealth and the ability of taxpayers and contributors to meet the necessary extra costs.
In the light of these explanations, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and those who supported him, will be persuaded to withdraw these amendments. If he presses them, I hope that your Lordships will reject them.
Baroness Jeger: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether the Government will provide any recompense for people who have had an underpayment of benefit because of inflation and who then, because of getting a job, never, apparently, obtain recompense for the period during which they have been underpaid in relation to inflation?
Lord Trefgarne: In the context both of this amendment and of the earlier one, I have already explained why more frequent up-ratings are not appropriate. What the noble Baroness is really asking for, I think, is a weekly up-rating arrangement, or some such arrangement as that, whereby pensioners are always paid benefit precisely in line with the level of inflation. That, I am afraid, is not a practicable proposition, and I cannot hold out any hope of the Government thinking otherwise.
Baroness Jeger: I apologise for not making myself clear. I was not talking about pensioners. I thought I referred quite clearly to the unemployed who will have been receiving unemployment benefit at a rate below inflation but who, if they get a job before the year of reassessment is up, will never get that loss of money paid back.
Lord Trefgarne: I understood the noble Baroness was referring to unemployment benefit recipients. I remember that she referred earlier to pensioners who

351
might suffer a similar disadvantage by dying in between up-ratings. The same argument applies to unemployment benefit recipients as applies to pensioners who sadly die while in receipt of pension in between up-rating points: that in order to ensure that unemployment benefit recipients are not disadvantaged in the way the noble Baroness describes, up-ratings on a very frequent basis would be necessary. For the reasons I have described, I fear that this is not possible.
Lord Banks: The reason why this amendment was put down was because there is no guarantee that the up-rating in the second year will make good the loss which I think we are all agreed is bound to take place in the first year. The noble Lord did not address himself to that point. He said he did not think that the amendment would achieve its purpose, but he did not say why he did not think it would achieve its purpose. He said he wanted to get away from overshoot or shortfall. The whole purpose of my argument was to show that under the present system you could not get away from overshoot and shortfall. If, therefore, you did not want to lose value, it was necessary to have an arrangement of this kind. I can well understand that these are quite complicated arguments to take in when expressed verbally. Therefore, I believe it is only right that the Minister should have an opportunity to read what I have said and then to answer the points I have raised. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I hope to return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
(". The Secretary of State shall, not later than six months after the date on which this Act comes into force, recommend to Parliament a method to provide for bi-annual upratings of the retirement pension.")
The noble Lord said: The earlier amendments dealing with bi-annual up-ratings obliged the Government to up-rate twice a year. The noble Lord put forward objections to that: administrative objections, and objections as to the cost of benefits and the cost of administration. This amendment does not oblige the Government to up-rate bi-annually at the start. It does not even oblige the Government to up-rate biannually at any time. All it does is to ensure that the Government recommend a method of doing this to Parliament within six months of the Act coming into force. We know that other countries manage to do this. We realise that there are perhaps difficulties within our own system which would need to be removed in some way if we were to do the same as other countries, but there is no reason why we should not do the same. We know that technically it is possible so to do. Therefore, all the amendment asks is that the Government should look at this question to see how what is done in other countries could be done here, and to recommend such a change in due course. I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I rise to support this amendment, which I consider to be excellent and also extremely acceptable to the Government, who now have the opportunity to prove that they are prepared to look into the future with, shall I say, a more benevolent eye than they have looked into the past since they have been in office. This is an arrangement whereby the Government can make up their mind in due course. It does not tie them down to detail, as did my amendments, excellent though they were. If the Government refuse this amendment, the mind boggles. There is no reason whatever why any reasonable Government should not accept this amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: We on this Bench support the amendment. It is worth pointing out—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, hinted at it—that this amendment is very similar to one which was put down by one of the Government's own Back-Bench supporters in another place, who pointed out when moving it that the Conservative party had made election pledges on two occasions to bring about a reform of this nature when they came to power but that it had not happened. I am very glad that in this Committee the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has finally put to death the ground of administrative impossibility of a biannual up-rating. It is interesting that the noble Lord has admitted that it is possible, in direct contradiction to what the Minister, Mr. Rossi, said in another place at col. 327 on Wednesday, 20th April: that bi-annual up-ratings are so administratively difficult as to be beyond contemplation. The noble Lord, I am glad to say, has corrected that error.
It is obvious from the implications of the Bill before the Committee at the moment that if the Government are planning to make an announcement in June—17th June has been mentioned for an up-rating—and if it is to be in place for implementatation by 21st November, the period would be five months and one week. Therefore, by implication, in this Bill it is perfectly clear that an up-rating can be performed in just over five months. This is exactly what the amendment proposes, if the Bill becomes law.
The administrative cost is not great. It is about £10 million per bi-annual up-rating. It is clear that we should get feasibility and the fact that it is not costly out of the way. The remaining important consideration is simply that of the effect on public expenditure. If the Government are going to reject this idea, they must come clean and reject it on the grounds of additional public expenditure. The Government would indeed incur extra cost on a rising rate but if, on the other hand, inflation continues on a steady path or on a downward path then the Government would save money.
Finally, this proposal seems to me to be a logical extension of the Government's own proposal to make the up-rating system fairer, more accurate, and more in tune with the real and actual inflation rate ruling at the time. On those grounds, and on the grounds of the Government's previous election pledges, I can see no reason why the Government can possibly reject this amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not again deploy all the arguments

353
I deployed against earlier amendments along these lines. As I ventured to suggest then, Conservative support for this idea, which certainly was around in 1974 or 1975, was in the context of a rate of inflation in excess of 20 per cent. I am ready to accept now the arguments in favour of this sort of arrangement when inflation is running at that sort of level. But we are now facing inflation at a wholly different level—something below 5 per cent., I suppose, at the present time. So it follows that the necessity for more frequent up-rating falls away.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that it is not possible to say that two annual up-ratings are a physical impossibility so far as the DHSS are concerned. However, it is a very major undertaking, let me say. The noble Lord referred to a figure of £10 million for administrative costs. It is at least that. It involves the employment of some 1,300 extra staff, which is not a prospect we would lightly entertain. However, the essential point is that upon which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, put his finger—that the extra costs in terms of the increased benefit that would have to be paid out will be very substantial. I referred in my earlier remarks to a sum of about £150 million in respect of each 1 per cent. brought forward in this way.
I have to tell the Committee that unless we are to somehow reduce existing benefits to cope with that additional cost, we shall be imposing an additional burden of this amount upon employers and employees. That is not something they would lightly entertain. Indeed, I believe it would be widely regarded as unfortunate, and it is not something that I am prepared to recommend to your Lordships. I hope that, for the reasons deployed earlier in relation to the other amendments and now underlined again by me, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will not press his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to the fact that an additional 1,300 staff would be necessary. There is the possibility that, by taking 1,300 people from the unemployment queue and thus relieving the state of the need to pay unemployment benefit, there will be some saving of public money.
Lord Trefgarne: The difficulty is that I do not believe there are 1,300 experts of this kind on the unemployment register.
Baroness Jeger: Then train them.
Lord Banks: I must say that I find the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, disappointing. I had hoped that the Government would be prepared to accept the concept of bi-annual up-ratings even if they were not prepared to incorporate this as something that would be brought into practice as soon as the Bill becomes law. As my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock pointed out, it seems that public expenditure is the only substantial ground on which this proposal is registered.
If there is an increase half way through the year, it is true that a certain amount of expenditure would be
354
added in the next six months that otherwise would not have been made—but the increase at the end of that six months will not be so great as if the first up-rating had not been undertaken. So I am not sure that the argument that the noble Lord has put to us is as strong as he thinks it is. I believe that there is a very strong argument in principle for establishing that we want to move towards bi-annual upratings. For that reason, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Howie of Troon, L.

Airedale, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Amulree, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Banks, L.

Leatherland, L.

Barrington, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Mayhew, L.

Bishopston, L.

Mishcon, L.

Blease, L.

Molloy, L.

Blyton, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Oram, L.

Brockway, L.

Peart, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Byers, L.

Plant, L.

Chitnis, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Rea, L.

Collison, L.

Reilly, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Sainsbury, L.

David, B.

Segal, L.

Diamond, L.

Shackleton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Shinwell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stedman, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ezra, L.

Stone, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Tordoff, L.

Gormley, L.

Underhill, L.

Gregson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Daventry, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Davidson, V.

Ampthill, L.

De Freyne, L.

Auckland, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Avon, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Eccles, V.

Beloff, L.

Effingham, E.

Belstead, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Elton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Forbes, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gainford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Glanusk, L.

Craigavon, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

355

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Orkney, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Henley, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Portland, D.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Radnor, E.

Kilmany, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rodney, L.

Kinnaird, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Somers, L.

Long, V.

Spens, L.

Loudoun, C.

Stamp, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathspey, L.

Lyell, L.

Sudeley, L.

McFadzean, L.

Suffield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Terrington, L.

Mansfield, E.

Teynham, L.

Margadale. L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Trenchard, V.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

Tryon, L.

Molson, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Monson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Vickers, B.

Morris, L.

Vivian, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Young, B.

Newall, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

County Courts (Penalties for Contempt) Bill [H.L.]
4.23 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Its purpose is to restore the position which everyone had assumed was the existing law before the 10th March this year, when your Lordships in your judicial capacity gave judgment in the case of Peart v. Stewart. In that case it was held that a county court was an "inferior court" for the purposes of Section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and that accordingly its power to deal with civil contempts was limited to 30 days' imprisonment. rather than two years.
For well over a century, by virtue of what is now Section 74 of the County Courts Act 1959, the county courts have had the same power as the High Court to deal with civil contempts—that is to say, breaches of injunctions. In paragraph 204 of their report, the Phillimore Committee recommended no change. The purpose of Section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was simply to substitute a fixed instead of an indefinite term in such cases and to impose a maximum of two years on the terms of imprisonment which could be imposed on any occasion. It was not the intention to create any difference between the High Court and the county courts in this regard.
During the preparation of the Bill the question was raised as to whether the drafting, and in particular the
356
definition of "superior court" in Section 19, was really clear enough for the purposes of Section 14, and I was assured that it was. Since I am responsible for the drafting of Bills—of that Bill, at any rate—which I introduce, I apologise for the error. It is fair to say that no discussion took place on the Floor of the House and that the advice I received on the subject was entirely reassuring.
From the point of view of policy it is vital, I am afraid, that the status quo as between High Court and county court should be preserved for this purpose. The county court now has a wide matrimonial jurisdiction, apart from everything else, and a general jurisdiction wider than ever before. If I may give one example, which is slightly diverting, sent to me by a judge who was rightly disturbed by the decision in Pearl v. Stewart, I will quote his letter, as follows:
"I write to bring to your attention the distress, difficulties and expense which the decision in Peart v. Stewart is causing in practice.
"I have at least one unbalanced man resident within the district of this court. He has a mania for molesting and assaulting the woman with whom he formerly lived. I made a non-molestation injunction against him, which he ignored. I sent him inside for five days. The next time he did it, I sent him down for 14 days. On the third occasion, the judge who was taking my list for me while I was sitting in crime, very sensibly sent him down for six months, but having regard to Pearl v. Stewart he was released after three months. This, I think, encouraged him and on his current breach he is again inside for one month. The woman concerned must be having a frightful time, knowing that he is likely to be hack on her doorstep before long.
"He now writes what I regard as his usual letter, saying that he will not offend again, and he will come before me early next week asking for an early release. I would not give very much for his chances of success, but he will be out before long and I expect will re-offend.
"Have I still got to play this ineffective 30 day game with him, with all the expense that it involves?
"The woman will be represented, on legal aid. Two bailiffs will have to take him to Bedford Prison over 50 miles each way. (Where he is well known and was welcomed last time by the Officer on the gate with the words 'Hello, you back again'.
"I thought at first I might be able to resolve some of the difficulty by transferring the matter to the High Court so as to get the extended and necessary jurisdiction, but I do not think I have power so to do. Nor, indeed, if I did, would it serve any useful purpose, because the Courts Administrator tells me the only authority he has to appoint me a deputy High Court judge is in divorce and wardship cases, and if it went to London even more expense would be caused".
My Lords, that letter speaks more eloquently than I of the necessity—indeed, the urgent need—of this Bill. So I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that cautionary tale. I venture to think that there will be little dispute between the two sides of the House, tempting as it will be from now on to find reason for difference at all possible opportunities until the battle of the hustings is resolved one way or the other.
Obviously it is essential that courts should have the power to enforce orders against recalcitrant parties, particularly in the case of those who have been subjected to orders arising from the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, and the need to protect what—alas!—is usually the lady who has been the subject of violence from the continuance of the violence against her. The noble and learned Lord has

357
pointed out that the jurisdiction of the county courts has of course increased very greatly in recent years, and the particular jurisdiction under the 1976 Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act is an important and useful illustration.
It is also the case that county courts grant far more injunctions than any other court in England and Wales. Therefore, it is very important to get this matter clarified. I am bound to say that I share whatever responsibility there was for the failure to spot this point at the earlier stage with the noble and learned Lords dealing with Peart—I should continue to pronounce it "pert" in case there is confusion with a most respected noble Lord in the House whose name is pronounced in a slightly different way and who assures me is no relation to any of the parties in question.
This provision therefore to give to the county courts the same power as exists in the courts of superior jurisdiction seems to us to be right. It does not follow by any means that the message should go out that the county courts should necessarily impose penalties of imprisonment over the period of one month that they can presently exercise. The two years is a maximum term and they will no doubt exercise their discretion as they think fit in the use of that power against recalcitrant litigants who have refused to obey the orders of the court. In the circumstances, we agree with the passing of this Bill.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, in view of the changed political situation, may I not only express my support for the Bill but also the hope that it will be found possible for it to reach the statute book before Parliament is dissolved.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for his well informed and helpful speech and also to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, with whose sentiments I agree. However, I can only say that these things can only be done by agreement.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Saint Christopher and Nevis Termination of Association Order 1983
4.32 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th April be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, nearly two years ago I had the honour of seeking your Lordships' approval of a draft Order in Council which made Antigua and Babuda a fully independent nation within the Commonwealth. She had previously been a West Indian Associated State under the West Indies Act 1967. Today it falls to me to ask your Lordships to approve another draft Order in Council confirming the same status on St. Kitts and Nevis, the sixth and last of the Associated States in the Eastern Caribbean to achieve this momentous step forward in the history of a people.
It is proposed that this order, which will be made under Section 10(2) of the Act, should come into effect on 19th September this year. Thereupon the islands of Saint Christopher and Nevis will become a fully independent sovereign federal domocratic state which should be described as the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis (of St. Kitts and Nevis) or simply Saint Christopher and Nevis (or St. Kitts and Nevis). Her Majesty the Queen will be head of the independent state. Under normal circumstances I would have waxed lyrical and eulogised on the beauty of the two islands and the long historical association between these islands and the United Kingdom, but in the event I think that perhaps it is better if I restrain myself.
The West Indies Act 1967 created the concept of associated statehood. This enabled certain small territories in the Eastern Caribbean, which were not then ready to move to full independence, to be given full internal self-government. The United Kingdom retained responsibility only for defence and external affairs, although certain of the latter responsibilities were also delegated to the Associated States' Governments. There has been a steady movement on the part of these states, over the past nine years, towards full independence.
The House of Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis has by way of resolution requested termination under Section 10(2) of the 1967 Act, and there is no reason not to accede to that request. This is the same method as has been followed in the transition to independence of the other five former Associated States.
British policy on the application of this section of the 1967 Act has been consistent under successive Governments. Provided that two particular criteria are met, we are prepared to move the necessary order. These criteria are: first, that it is demonstrated to our satisfaction that independence is the wish of the majority of the people in the state; and, secondly, that the independence constitution properly protects the rights and freedoms of these people. I am satisfied that both criteria have been met. A constitutional conference was held at Lancaster House in December under the chairmanship of my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I was a regular attender at it. The coalition Government of St. Kitts and Nevis, led by Premier Dr. Simmonds, and an opposition delegation, led by Mr. Moore, participated.
The draft before the conference had been prepared by the state Government and embodied proposals which were published in July 1982, subsequently discussed fully in the Associated State and approved by the state's House of Assembly in October. My honourable friend visited the islands later in October to meet the political leaders and to familiarise himself with the issues. He was entirely satisfied that all the political parties there were agreed on the principle of independence and that this was the wish of the majority of the people.
The constitutional conference produced a report which was a thoroughly considered basis for a constitution. Regrettably the opposition delegation felt that the proposals they put before the conference were not adequately discussed, and they participated intermit-

359
tently, not taking part in the signing ceremony. I am satisfied, however, that their criticisms of the manner in which the conference was conducted were unjustified. When the St. Kitts and Nevis Government delegation were presented with reasoned, careful and constructive criticisms of the draft constitution they showed that they were prepared to go a considerable way towards meeting the opposition's point of view.
The opposition had full opportunity to present their own proposals as well as to comment in detail on the draft constitution before the conference. The final version of the constitution, which incorporated amendments made in the light of conference decisions, was debated over a period of three days in the St. Christopher and Nevis House of Assembly. The constitution was then approved by a resolution of St. Kitts and Nevis House of Assembly, a copy of which I have had placed in the Library of this House.
The proposed constitution is similar to those under which the other Associated States became independent. In the opening statements by the premier and the leader of the opposition it rapidly bcame apparent that the possible secession of Nevis was still, after many years, a bone of contention. This is why it contains a number of novel features in that it contains provisions for the automony of Nevis within the federation, and for secession of Nevis from the federation. The provisions for Nevis to secede would require the introduction and the passage of a Bill in the Nevis Assembly supported by a two-thirds majority of the elected members. This would subsequently need to be approved by a referendum in Nevis by not less than two-thirds of the votes cast by persons registered on the parliamentary electoral roll there.
Further provisions would ensure that adequate notification of the proposals for separation, including the proposals for its future constitution, would be given to enable proper discussion and explanation to take place. Arrangements would be made for independent and impartial observers appointed by an independent international body to observe the procedures involved in the referendum and to report publicly on the manner in which it had been carried out. The provisions for the Nevis legislature and administration, the financial provisions and the right of secession will be entrenched in the constitution. For this reason we are confident that the interests of the people of Nevis have been safeguarded.
St. Kitts and Nevis will be the first dependent territory to become independent after the entry into force of the British Nationality Act 1981 on 1st January 1983. Those who were formerly citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies by virtue of a connection with St. Kitts and Nevis become British dependent territories citizens under the 1981 Act. They will become citizens of Saint Christopher and Nevis on independence day, when they will lose their British dependent territories citizenship unless they qualify for retention of that citizenship by virtue of a connection with a remaining dependency. No one will lose British citizenship as a result of the independence of St. Kitts and Nevis.
As the wish of the majority of the people of St. Kitts and Nevis is for independence, it is encumbent upon us to respond now to that wish. With full indepen-
360
dence, the state of St. Kitts and Nevis will be able further to develop its co-operation with neighbouring states, notably within the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, in the activities of which an independent St. Kitts and Nevis will be able to play a full part. This will be an important contribution to the stability of the region.
Aid to St. Kitts and Nevis will continue after independence and we shall be discussing a suitable aid package with the St. Kitts-Nevis Government once this order is approved. We hope and expect that aid to St. Kitts and Nevis from other sources will increase as a result of independence.
Finally, I am happy to inform the House that the St. Kitts and Nevis Government have announced their intention to apply for membership of the Commonwealth. We look forward to continuing our links with them within the Commonwealth. I know that the good wishes of the House will go to the Government and people of St. Kitts and Nevis as they approach their independence, an important stage in their development. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th April be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
4.41 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the order to us. We are all concerned to ensure that the islands, which have been so closely associated with this country for so long, will enjoy a successful and prosperous future.
I read the report of the constitutional conference to which the noble Lord has referred with great interest. I noted that there were some acute disagreements in the discussions which took place in December. The experience is that each of these islands in the Caribbean (some of them very small) has its own identity and its own ethos and that its people are sensitive about amalgamation and about constitutions in general. Being an islander myself, and having represented an island in another place for nearly 30 years, I can fully understand this attitude. There were many times when I felt, in frustration, that Anglesey should declare UDI. I can therefore well understand that there could be disagreement between the various parties. There is no difference of opinion about independence. The arguments over the constitutional arrangements—and these are sincere and deeply held—are profound. It is clear that doubts still remain, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said.
I have read the petition presented to Her Majesty the Queen by the St. Kitt's Labour Party, and I would refer to some of the points in it. They have of course argued for a federal form of government but not of the type which has now been agreed by Her Majesty's Government. What the St. Kitts Labour Party have been pressing for is a federal form with two subordinate legislatures. They say:
"The chief defect is simply this. No provision whatever has been made for any local Government or elected political institutions of any kind in the Island of St. Christopher, apart from the Federal Parliament".

361
They argue that Nevis is being granted an assembly with wide autonomous powers (with a Lieutenant Governor and a Premier) out of all proportion to its population, Nevis being much smaller than St. Kitts. They make the point that:
"the proposed Constitution locks the people of St. Christopher, a sugar island, into a straitjacket, of which Nevis, with no interest in sugar, is given the key".
They also say that representation in the single chamber legislature is unfairly weighted in favour of Nevis:
"an island with one fifth of the voters electing not less, but possibly more, than one third of the representatives".
As the noble Lord is aware, they ask for independence to be withheld until the constitution is amended to provide for a sub-legislature for St. Kitts on the lines of Nevis. That is the nub of the case of the St. Kitts Labour Party.
The key question is whether there is adequate evidence that the electors of St. Kitts are in favour of the constitution. At what stage did it become clear to Her Majesty's Government that the majority of the population, or of the electors, of St. Christopher were in favour of this particular constitution? That is the requirement of Section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967, as the noble Lord is aware. I am informed—perhaps the noble Lord can confirm or deny this—that there remains substantial opposition to the constitution. I refer specifically to page 19 of the White Paper, which summarises the objections and gives details of the objectors. It seems to me that this is a formidable opposition and that it is incumbent on the noble Lord to explain to the House how the Government have been able to come to these present conclusions in the face of this opposition.
I have received representations myself. If I may, I will read a paragraph from one letter from a native of the island. He says:
"The chief defect of the proposed constitution is that there is no provision for any elected representative body for St. Kitts itself other than the Federal Assembly, while Nevis would have its own separate legislature.
This inferior position in the new Federal State is not one from which St. Kitts can escape by secession, though secession is to be allowed to Nevis"—
this is a point that the noble Lord made clearly in his speech. Thus the proposed constitution locks the people of St. Kitts, as I said before, into the straitjacket which I described. The letter goes on:
"At this late stage it may suffice to insert in the proposed constitution a provision that there should be an Assembly for St. Kitts, which should hold its first meeting within 12 months of the next elections".
The proposal made by this correspondent would be supported by the St. Kitts Labour Party. As this is the final stage of debate on this matter in Parliament, I think it right that I should summarise the case made by the petitioners, and I invite the noble Lord to reply to it.
Before I conclude, may I say how much I welcome that section of the conference conclusions which deals with the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. I refer particularly to paragraph 11(a) of the White Paper. I think that this is sufficiently important for me to quote it:
"Provision would be made on the lines of the existing constitution for the protection of individual human rights. Additions to the
362
existing constitutional provisions would include provision for the right of a person to belong to a political party or other political association and protection of the individual against discrimination on grounds of sex or birth out of wedlock, as well as race, place of origin, political opinions or affiliations, colour or creed".
It is one of the tragedies of our time that these words and all that they imply are frequently flouted and disregarded. But they are fundamental and there can be no civilised existence without them. I hope that the current disagreements can be swiftly resolved. I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that the matter of aid is to be a subject of discussion very soon. I hope therefore that these two islands will have a successful and happy history.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, this will be a very historic moment for your Lordships' House. I hope that your Lordships realise it. Although much history has been seen here, with the independence of St. Kitts/Nevis we are seeing what is virtually the end of the British Empire. St. Kitts/Nevis has the distinction of having been the first British colony in the Caribbean, and, as your Lordships can see, it is almost the last. It is certainly the last of the Associated States.
Seven years ago the attempt began to bring the three islands, St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, into independence. This was led by the late and much lamented premier Robert Bradshaw. After years of discussion, for better or for worse, Anguilla was in 1979 hived off. The process of attaining independence then continued for the two states of St. Kitts and Nevis. Then, of course, a perceptible change was made. Nevis did not wish to enter into independence with St. Kitts. I well remember the leading members of the Nevis Reform Party, who are now Ministers in the Government, coming here to try to persuade me to support them in their claim. They were interested either in separate independence or remaining a colony like Anguilla. To the credit of the British Government—I have to give them credit—they were never encouraged in this secession.
In the Caribbean democracy still prevails. At the last election the Labour Party in St. Kitts-Nevis was defeated. It is worth remembering—this is vital to what is going on and to what may happen in the future—that although the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party lost the election in St. Kitts-Nevis, it won the election in St. Kitts. The consequence was a coalition between the minority party in St. Kitts and the two elected members from Nevis who were committed to secession. They won the election on a programme of secession. That does not necessarily invalidate what has happened. It is very much to the credit of Her Majesty's Government that they were unwilling to allow this state to go to independence as a result of secession. They encouraged the two parties to come together and work together in the coalition to form a Government and to seek independence as one state.
The Nevis Reformation Party was not prepared to go into independence except with an assurance that if working together became imposible it could secede. The issues were therefore resolved by an agreement to draft a constitution that would give Nevis adequate representation in the central Parliament, a local assembly and the right to secede. Thus, all Nevis's worries were assuaged. The present Opposition did not

363
disagree on the matter of independence. In fact, they were proposing independence themselves. But they certainly disagreed with the method by which the state should go into independence. The Opposition affirmed that the present constitutional structure in which the country was going into independence was likely to make for fragmentation. Their solution, with which I would not agree, either, was to do the fragmenting now. They felt that since, in effect, Nevis was going to secede anyway, it might just as well secede now rather than have a few years in which it ruled St. Kitts and then secede.
It is therefore important to note that while the claims of Nevis have been met in full, St. Kitts now feels cheated. That is the problem with which we are faced. I have received many representations, among them one from Brian King. It is funny that someone should ask who Brian King was, because he was a fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge. He has been a lecturer in jurisprudence at Cambridge for several years. He is a native of St. Kitts and only recently retired there. He was around here much of the time and attended most of the constitutional conferences relating to other Caribbean countries. I was therefore most amused when I was asked who Brian King was.
Brian King was most concerned about this issue. He made many representations to me. The suggestion mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is in fact a solution that he believes can be applied now and can work; that is to say, there should be an assembly for St. Kitts and a proper Senate in which the two islands are equally represented. This would permit a proper federation rather than a country that can be described as a federation of St. Christopher-Nevis or St. Kitts-Nevis. Let it be a federation, and, if a federation, let it be a real federation in which there is a federal House with all the powers including states assemblies in St. Kitts and Nevis and in which there is a Senate that equally represents the two states. That is the solution. It is still possible to get that solution agreed between now and 19th September, which is the date on which independence is scheduled.
St. Kitts is the oldest of the British colonies in the West Indies. It was settled a year before Barbados. Like most of the states in the Caribbean, it has witnessed the vicissitudes of British naval history during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. It is interesting to recall not only that the most distinguished sailor in British naval history lived in the Caribbean but that Nelson also married in Nevis. The United States of America also is right to be grateful to Nevis because one of the founders of its constitution, Alexander Hamilton, was born in Nevis. If one goes to Nevis, one can find a plaque to his memory.
On reading the constitution, I wondered whether that was the reason why Nevis was being so well favoured by the constitution. It could well be felt that Nevis is famous enough to deserve it. I am afraid, however, that this would be a terrible gamble. I have already pointed out that, although the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party lost the last election in St. Kitts-Nevis, it won the election in St. Kitts. It won four of the seven seats. If, at the next election, it wins five of the seven seats, there is a change. I presume, however, that the next election will be fought on the constitution that will involve 11 seats of which eight will be in St. Kitts.
364
It is still possible for the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party to win six of the eight seats. There was a time when it used to win all the seven seats. The whole issue therefore is adumbrated on something that could crumble in 1985.
There has to be an election in 1985. It is because I personally regard it as so dangerous that I hope that Her Majesty's Government will pause at this moment, think again and perhaps confer with the present Government of St. Kitts-Nevis, and put forward the suggestions that have been made. I cannot see that either the Nevis Reform Party or the People's Action Movement could object to this arrangement. It is an arrangement under which there would be a proper federal state with an assembly in St. Kitts, an assembly in Nevis and a federal House of Assembly in which both parties would be adequately represented. But in addition there would be a Senate in which they would be equally represented so that all the worries of Nevis could well be met and the worries of St. Kitts could also be met, and we would have a proper, well-constituted state. Therefore, I sincerely hope that even at this stage—because between May and September there is plenty of time—we can get this change effected so that St. Kitts-Nevis can go into independence without the problems that I personally at the moment foresee.
I have spoken for a long time on this subject, but I wish to make two further comments. When considering independence there are two matters as regards the Caribbean about which Her Majesty's Government need to concern themselves. The first is the security of the region, and the second is economics. I hope that the Government have taken cognisance of what the Eastern Caribbean is trying to do for itself by way of security. The Governments of Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding whereby these parties agree to prepare a contingency plan to assist each other on request in natural emergencies; smuggling; search and rescue; immigration control; fisheries protection; offshore installation; pollution control; natural and other disasters and threats to national security. It is the general hope and belief that St. Kitts-Nevis would play a part in this as soon as she becomes independent.
It is also the hope of all the Caribbean Governments that Her Majesty's Government would do everything possible to encourage this joint venture, not only by "words of wisdom", but in a very practical way by perhaps assistance in procuring, as I must acknowledge Her Majesty's Government have done in respect of St. Vincent and the Grenadines in helping to secure patrol boats to scour the rather long distances between one island and another. This is an area in which we ought to play, and need to be seen to play, a major role.
As regards national security, the states have no intention of protecting themselves against foreign powers. They cannot do so—it would be practically impossible for them to do so. But they certainly feel that they could handle threats from marauders who endanger their immediate economic well-being. For this reason I hope that the Minister will inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to keep a weathered eye on the area by way

365
of supporting whatever these newly emergent states can do for themselves as a measure of security. This is something that we can do and it is something that we must do.
As regards economics, the prime economic factor in St. Kitts-Nevis is sugar. There is a secondary industry which is very much in its infancy in those islands—namely, tourism. The Government there intend to pay attention to this matter. However, at this stage it will be of interest to point out that the exchange rate of the pound sterling to the dollar so adversely affects the whole economy of St. Kitts-Nevis that for sugar alone I am informed that the Government of this new state will be losing in the coming year something in the vicinity of 12 million to 13 million East Caribbean dollars just because of the way in which the exchange rate is running at present. As regards tourism, St. Kitts-Nevis has begun a drive towards increasing the number of tourists arriving in the country. I wish to deal with another aspect of that matter later. However, first I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to another matter.
It is customary that Her Majesty's Government give to a newly independent country a golden handshake. From reports that I have been receiving from different territories in the Caribbean this gift has come to be regarded as neither golden nor a handshake. It is not golden, not because they are pressing for a greater amount—not that I would object if the amount was greater—but because it has suddenly dawned on these states, who thought that they were being given, in most cases, a grant and a loan together totalling £10 million for the economic improvement of their state, that there is nothing of the sort. So far as I have been able to gather, what in fact really happens is that after independence the Foreign and Commonwealth Office aid department seeks to set up a quasi-colonial relationship. It administers the golden handshake in a series of driblets, small portions of monies which are carefully checked and monitored as if the state were still a crown colony. The state is never really able to undertake any major projects which in its own view are of absolute necessity, but there is a system of patching up. The independent state is being kept ever on a lead. I do not think that that is the concept of a golden handshake.
I feel—and I know that the people of the Caribbean feel—that it is a mechanism to keep the state in economic colonial relationship with this country. That is exactly what the states would wish to get away from on becoming independent. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government can make a firm commitment to giving the economic aid for the advancement of St. Kitts-Nevis in a way which, in the view of the new state, would better serve its economic interests. I have recently had some complaints from Antigua about the way in which it is now being treated. I hope that this will not be repeated in the case of St. Kitts.
It seems to me curious that although Her Majesty's Government are prepared to support the wider integration of the Caribbean islands, they have been prepared to deny the islands the use of British West Indian Airways as their regional carrier. One of the planks in this integration is air linkage because we are talking about a lot of little islands. Throughout it was
366
hoped—indeed, it was almost taken for granted—that the introduction of a regional carrier would enable these territories to advance the integration. It has been blocked time and time again through the British Government insisting on British Airways being the carrier rather than British West Indian Airways.
For some time now the Eastern Caribbean islands have thought it in their best interest to have a regional carrier and have turned to their own British West Indian Airways to be that carrier. I for one can see no reason why Her Majesty's Government should continue to stand in the way of the development of the area in this way in order to provide a few seats for British Airways.
These independent states have repeatedly approached Her Majesty's Government with, as I said before, the intention of assisting this progress of integration and the economy of these states, which to such a large extent depend on tourism. In fact, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their attitude in this particular matter, because I know that St. Kitts-Nevis has had overtures made about British West Indian Airways being designated as its carrier. I hope it will not have the same experience as Antigua and St. Lucia have had when they have tried to same thing.
Finally, may I again suggest that the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis be approached with a suggestion that the constitution be amended in the way that has been suggested. I know that it will increase the cost of government. But I personally think that it would be more sensible to have better government at an increased cost; it would certainly be less dangerous. I am well aware of the fact that we cannot dictate to the St. Kitts Government, but I still think that between now and the time for independence we can use such influence as we have to suggest to them a way in which this present problem can be resolved.
It is rather ironic that, having been so critical of the organisation of the Caribbean, I should find myself unable to give the wholehearted support that I should have liked to give to this order. At least this order has not furthered the break-up of the area. But the reason I have to be as critical as I am is that I really think that we are laying the seeds for a further break-up. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position in this matter.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Pitt, with his very eloquent speech, and my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, I approach this order with mixed feelings. My own particular link with this Associated State dates from the 1960s, when, as I have mentioned to your Lordships' House before, I was sent with Sir Nigel Fisher—because of our joint knowledge of this area and of the people concerned—to try to prevent the secession of Anguilla from this Associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis and Anguilla. The process, during which we negotiated with mini-shuttle diplomacy on aeroplanes between Anguilla and St. Kitts, was one which I shall remember for the rest of my life.
The position is that there is one justification for the secession of Anguilla which certainly does not exist in the case of Nevis. I want to state that from the

367
beginning. The Anguillans are some scores of miles away across the Caribbean ocean. Their forefathers were mainly pirates who landed in the area and intermarried with the black people whom we had brought there from Africa. They did not have many links in a very real sense with the island of St. Kitts, which is a sugar island and, as my noble friend Lord Pitt has indicated, a one crop economy. It was almost an accident of history—a grouping by former British Governments of the three islands together—that made it into one state—St. Kitts, Nevis, Anguilla.
Despite our efforts—Sir Nigel Fisher's, mine and those of successive Ministers—in the end we have had to accept the secession of Anguilla. But a constitution which, as my noble friend says, sows seeds for this to happen to Nevis is only regrettable. In contrast with Anguilla, Nevis is just across the road from St. Kitts. It is almost physically linked to St. Kitts. There is there a community of interest which did not exist in Anguilla. It is sad that the precedent of Anguilla is, in a sense, being seized on by the people of Nevis when the comparison is illegitimate. That is the first point I want to make and, therefore, I join with my noble friends Lord Cledwyn and Lord Pitt in saying that there is a great deal to worry about in the provisions for the possible secession of Nevis.
The tragedy is that in a way this would not have happened if it had all come to fruition a few years ago. At that time the giants of St. Kitts' history were still alive. One was Robert Bradshaw, who had a long history in the Caribbean, not just as Premier of St. Kitts but also as the Finance Minister in the defunct Federation of the West Indies in the 1960s. He towered above all his contemporaries. Sadly, he was to die two or three years ago, and one of the saddest days of my life was to represent Her Majesty's Government at his funeral. I felt that the end of an era was all around me.
Then very quickly afterwards the man who had joined with him to do so much for St. Kitts—Paul Southwell—also died. He was not originally a Kittician, but an adopted Kittician, as my noble friend confirms. I thought that he would carry the day and see the island through to independence with proper safeguards for the future, but sadly, he too died very shortly afterwards. With great respect to the Ministers and people who are in power today, they are not the giants that were Robert Bradshaw and Paul Southwell. If those two had been alive, we would not have had an independence conference of this kind with so much disagreement and with the seeds of danger so clearly sown. They would have towered above it, and I am sure would have rallied the people of both islands to a much more satisfactory continuation of the link between them.
So I approach this with mixed feelings. I shall not repeat the arguments that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn has put from the Opposition Front Bench as to the dangers of the detail in that constitution. But there is one other thing that needs to be said on this day when we are bidding goodbye to most of our former colonies of the Caribbean. It is that our record in the area is not all that good. It is not something I go around the world praising and taking credit for. In the first place, by our act, we scuttled out of the Caribbean much too soon. We allowed fragmentation to occur.
368
We encouraged unnecessarily the idea of early independence for states which are now too small to make strong headway in the currents of world economics. I would have said to hell with the Committee of the United Nations and hung on to our role a good deal longer. We had a job to do there which was to encourage these islands to work more closely together in a federation after the first one failed, and to unite their economies in a way that we had never successfully done when their links were always with us and never with each other as colonies.
Secondly, we never did it right in terms of economics either, as my noble friend has hinted. In the 1960s we managed to get the Canadian and American Governments to join with the British Government in sponsoring a study by Dr. Carleen O'Loughlin of the University of the West Indies on the cost of bringing these islands to real economic take-off point. My Lords, it was peanuts. A few million pounds at that time would have taken these islands forward to a real springboard for independence. Instead, all the initiative was left. The British Government said, "Oh, it's not our responsibility. We're just going to get out. We've had enough". The result was that we never tried to get the Canadian and American Governments to join with us in executing the recommendation of Dr. Carleen O'Loughlin's study, which would have started these states off on a basis of real economic viability. It is to our shame—one I shall live with for the rest of my life—that we got it wrong in the Caribbean, and we should not be going around at all proud of our record.
Now I come to the future. The Government have at least some chance of making up for some of this in the golden handshake that my noble friend mentioned. First, we have to try to help diversify the economy of the main island of St. Kitts. If we can do so and get it off sugar, it will be for the good of those people there. Secondly, when it comes to tourism, St. Kitts has one of the most beautiful beaches in the Caribbean in the southern part of the island. It desperately needs funds to launch it as a major tourist resort now that the airport has been upgraded to take really big jets. The possibilities are great. We should see that some of the money is used to give that island a second chance of economic viability.
Finally, in that list of possible shopping for a golden handshake why not see that there is a physical link of some kind with the island of Nevis, just across the road? That would be one way of stopping the talk in Nevis of secession. It would be one way of making them realise that the British Government strongly feel that this would be a mistake. How big a mistake? It is a few thousand people wanting to become an independent nation in the world. Frankly, it is ridiculous. Although we can fly the flag of self-determination we still have a role in the world of offering advice.
The advice that ought to go out from this House today is that we do not believe that it would be right for Nevis to fragment even further the Caribbean with all the dangers that that can hold, with all the continual strife it will make in the future between these two virtually linked islands—virtually physically linked as they are—and we ought to be saying to them that part of the golden handshake that we hope to be able to offer will strengthen and not weaken those links which are for the good of both the islands and both the

369
peoples. It is not a happy day for those of us who are interested in the Caribbean and know and love all of its peoples. We have to wish an Associated State luck, good fortune on independence, but on this occasion it is with mixed feelings that we do so.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful, and I am sure that the Government and people of St. Kitts-Nevis will be, that three noble Lords have felt sufficiently moved by this order to speak on it in your Lordships' House today. I must, however, begin my reply with a general observation. St. Kitts and Nevis have had internal self-government since 1967. That is, for over 15 years. In this time Governments of two political persuasions have ruled both conscientiously and well. That is not supposed to sound patronising. It is something that I feel.
It has been consistent Government policy over many years to bring people to full independence in accordance with the United Nations Charter when both they and their Governments request it. Much of this debate this evening has centred upon Nevis secession—not surprisingly. It was brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and his noble friend Lord Pitt. Since 1975, attempts to bring St. Kitts-Nevis to independence have foundered because Nevis distrusted the St. Kitts Labour Government, which, as we have heard, was in power for 30 years up to 1980 and wanted a separate status. Talks in 1979 broke down when Nevis rejected this Government's proposals for independence to be followed after 18 months by a binding referendum on secession.
Relations between the two islands have, I am glad to say, improved greatly since 1980. Agreement has been reached—and the House should not underestimate this—for a secesssion clause in the constitution which requires, as I said in my opening speech, a two-thirds majority in the Nevis Assembly, referendum approved by not less than two-thirds of the electorate, and independent international monitoring of it. The time is now opportune to bring St. Kitts-Nevis to independence as a unitary state.
In essence I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who referred to himself as an islander—recently I have been considering other sorts of islanders, those made by Britten Norman, but we will let that pass—asked why St. Kitts had not got its own secession arrangements. It is really a question of where the pressure has come from over the years. It has always been Nevis that has sought autonomy from St. Kitts and not the other way round. There has been no adverse reaction from the people of St. Kitts to the present proposals. Perhaps most importantly of all, and finally, it is for the Government and people of St. Kitts-Nevis to work out constitutional arrangements that suit them. We are satisfied that this is what they have done, and that they have had ample opportunity to do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, asked whether we are satisfied with the security arrangements in the Eastern Caribbean generally. As the noble Lord well knows, associated statehood was conceived as a stepping stone to full independence. All the political parties of St. Kitts are in favour of independence. This new
370
status will enable St. Kitts-Nevis to obtain aid and technical assistance from a wider range of international sources.
In passing, I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that this aid package—or what he rather unfortunately, I thought, referred to as a golden handshake; it is not intended to be that at all, for to my mind at least that has totally different connotations—is of course still a matter for discussion. This discussion will go on between this Government and the St. Kitts-Nevis Government for some considerable time to come, but of course there is no point in pursuing that unless the House passes this order this evening.
This new status will enable St. Kitts-Nevis to obtain aid and technical assistance from a wider range of international sources. It will permit an even wider participation in regional fora, such as the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. Contrary to the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, may have left the House with, Her Majesty's Government greatly welcome recent efforts of Easten Caribbean States to co-operate in mutual security arrangements, and look forward to assisting with training and equipment and in whatever way would appear to be appropriate at the time.
I am quite satisfied that enough time was available for public discussion and debate on this proposed termination order. The question of independence for St. Kitts-Nevis is far from new. Moves were first made to organise a constitutional conference in 1979 by the Labour Party Government led by Mr. Leigh Moore. Informal talks were held, but they stumbled over the issue of Nevis, whose representatives were insisting on a referendum being held before independence. That was overridden and it was agreed that St. Kitts and Nevis should move towards independence as a unitary state as early as possible in 1980. The proposal finally came to grief when Mr. Moore's party lost the general election held in February 1980 and he went into opposition. His subsequent objection to proposals for independence to go ahead under the Government of Dr. Kennedy Simmons seemed, therefore, to be based on somewhat political reasons. The independence debate has been in progress for several years and all the points at issue have been aired many times.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked me when were the Government in this country saitsfied that there was political agreement on the subject of independence in St. Kitts and Nevis.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I asked when the Government were satisfied that there was ample evidence that the people of St. Kitts were in favour of this constitution.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification, my Lords. When the constitutional conference was held the fact that both parties were there represented was an indication of this. However, in my book, the real acceptance, or perception of the acceptance, came in the debate in the legislative assembly in March this year, when both parties spoke and there was a vote at the end.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, asked why was the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis not asked to hold an election or referendum.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I did not ask the noble Lord that, my Lords.
Lord Skelmersdale: I apologise, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, gave me the impression that he had asked, but since he has now confirmed that he did not, I shall not answer.
The one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, did ask about was the exchange rate. It is a factor that because the Eastern Caribbean dollar is a currency on its own and is not, as I understand it, linked to any other national currency, it will suffer the vagaries of the exchange rate, particularly in relation to the pound, which has been doing some rather strange things lately for no apparent reason, at least to me, though I am sure that many noble Lords will know exactly why. It is a matter for the Eastern Caribbean states to decide whether this should continue or whether the Eastern Caribbean dollar should be linked to the United States dollar, to the pound, to the Japanese yen, or to anything else that they may like to discuss.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, also commented about the local airline, BWIA, British West Indian Airways. The question of this airline's rights are a matter for discussion between the St. Kitts and Nevis Government and Her Majesty's Government after independence. I should point out that BWIA is the Trinidad national carrier and is not, as yet, a regional carrier, because it has no regional ownership.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, this is the whole point that has angered me. British West Indian Airways is owned by the Trinidad Government, but every West Indian Government except Jamaica has so far asked that British West Indian Airways should be made the regional carrier and on each occasion the British Government—because British Airways objected—has obstructed that. It is no use any British Minister saying that it is a matter for discussion between this Government or that Government. In effect, when the Government come to make a decision they obstruct. That is what has been happening with British West Indian Airways.
I wish to go further, if your Lordships will permit me, to say that British West Indian Airways was once a subsidiary of British Overseas Airways Corporation. When the federation broke up, Trinidad was the only country that had money and it bought British West Indian Airways. It was always intended to be the carrier for the whole area and the only reason it is not the carrier for the whole area is because the British Government have always backed British Airways in obstructing it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a matter of opinion which I do not particularly want to get drawn into at this moment.
The arrangements for the independence settlement will be discussed very soon and no doubt the St. Kitts and Nevis Government will put forward arguments advanced by the noble Lord. We must not forget that British aid is British money and must be properly accounted for, subject, of course, to the annual parliamentary appropriations.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, asked me, and talked in quite a piece of his speech, about the history
372
of our relationship with the Caribbean as a geographical area. I assure him that we recognise our continuing responsibility for assisting the economic development of the Commonwealth Caribbean. We have not neglected and are not neglecting our responsibilities. British aid to the Caribbean is currently running at £25 million a year, which is a substantial sum by any standards.
In conclusion, this debate is about something which is basically simple, and that is whether the democratically expressed human rights of a group of islanders should be denied expression by the will of this Parliament, to which, quite evidently, the answer must be, No. It is no for perhaps a slightly different reason. In his opening speech to the constitutional conference in London, Mr. Leigh Moore, the Leader of the Opposition, stated:
"I wish to affirm that the people are not against independence".
I hope that your Lordships' House will not be either.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lotteries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
5.38 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is to correct an anomaly identified in paragraph 12.201 of the final report of the Royal Commission on Gambling (Cmnd. 7200) in 1978. The anomaly is prejudicing the export of material by certain firms in our domestic printing industry which specialise in the production of tickets for lotteries conducted wholly abroad.
There can be no justification for United Kingdom legislation penalising our export industry. This is not merely a theoretical fetter on export effort and potential, but can be illustrated by one undertaking's performance. Since 1973 its export turnover, which recently rose to 41 per cent. of the whole, has totalled £10,783,000, and in 1981 it was £2,745,000, to 22 overseas countries, giving employment to 300 people. These achievements have been secured in the face of the strongest overseas competition and despite the effects of the recession.
The anomaly arises in Section 2(1)(a) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 and can be traced back through Section 42(1)(a) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 to the Lotteries Act 1823, when, no doubt, printing exports were of much less consequence than they are today. The final report of the Royal Commission in 1978 could hardly have put the case for altering the anomaly more forcefully and succinctly. In paragraph 12.200 it says:
"We received formal evidence from Kenrick and Jefferson, an old-established firm specialising in security printing, complaining that section 42(1)(a) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (which has become section 2(1)(a) of the 1976 Act), as at present interpreted, has prevented them from exporting lottery tickets. They say in their evidence: 'Being an ethical house we obey the law. At the same time we know that overseas lottery tickets are printed in the United Kingdom, and subsequently exported.' Far from suggesting that the offenders be made to toe the line, it is our contention that the law should be changed in order that others may legally participate in this trade".
In the following paragraph it says:
"Our terms of reference are concerned with gambling in Britain,

373
not with unnecessary hindrance to Britain's export trade, Nevertheless, it does seem absurd that a law which has remained unchanged since 1823 should be able to have this effect. We hope that the hindrances referred to by Kenrick and Jefferson will be quickly removed."
Moreover, the reality of the threat to the printing undertakings of this country is shown by the representations made by their overseas printing competitors to our industry's potential customers abroad, alleging that those undertakings are in breach of United Kingdom law in making printed lottery supplies. A letter dated 23rd June 1982, addressed to the Finnish Embassy commercial department from the European representative of an American printing company, actually threatened that if the British printing company got the order they, an American company, would initiate a prosecution in this country against them. Your Lordships may think that this is an impertinence, but, whatever it is, it certainly is not a situation which should be allowed to continue. There is also no virtue in our police authorities being required to investigate complaints of this nature, as, indeed, has occurred.
It can be added that the present anomaly in Section 2 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 is contrary to the Treaty of Rome as a (and I quote from the treaty),
"disguised restriction on trade between Member States".
Article 36 of the treaty is in the following terms:
"The provisions of Articles 30 to 34 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States".
The terms of the Bill have been limited strictly to curing the acknowledged anomaly. The source of the problem is in the opening words of Section 2(1):
"Subject to the provisions of this section, every person who in connection with any lottery promoted or proposed to be promoted either in Great Britain or elsewhere"—
and those are the two offending words—
"shall be guilty of an offence".
Put shortly, the new subsection (4) proposed in the Bill removes the offences of printing and selling material to the promoters of any lottery conducted wholly outside Great Britain. It does not, for example, tamper with the offence of distributing in Great Britain tickets or chances in a lottery promoted outside Great Britain (such as the Irish Hospitals Sweep, for which tickets cannot be sold here).
It has been made clear that the Department of Industry and the Home Office are fully in sympathy with the modest purpose of the Bill, and drafting of the Bill has been undertaken in consultation with their officials. If any point of drafting arises, sympathetic consideration will be given to it, but it is hoped that the preliminary consultations have ensured that no amendment should be necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, chairman of the Gambling Board, has been good enough to say that, although it is not the responsibility of his board, the board finds no problems in this amendment. What is plain is that, for the safeguard of the export potential of this sector of
374
our printing industry, this alteration of the law is urgently needed. It should not await the uncertainty of the timetable for any future Government measure in this field.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Irving of Dartford.)
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, for having brought this short Bill before the House and for having explained its purpose so clearly. Your Lordships will have realised that something must have been overlooked by Parliament when it came to deal with the legislation on lotteries. Because I felt that it was incumbent upon me to do a little research work to see how this error occurred, I found something which may lighten your Lordships' hearts on a day when very serious announcements have been made.
The fact of the matter is that the 1976 Act was a consolidation Act. It followed upon 1975, when, of course, it was decided that local authorities should have a part to play in lotteries. Being a consolidation Bill coming before your Lordships' House and another place, it was not suitable for any amendments to be thought of; so one had to go back to the 1963 Act, and one finds that that, too, was a consolidation Act and therefore not appropriate for amendment.
In the history of this matter, the preceding Act was the 1934 Act. I take your Lordships back, with some sense of amusement, to a time when in your Lordships' House the very clause of which my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford has been speaking was discussed. In 1934—and I read from the Official Report of your Lordships' proceedings of 31st May of that year—the following interesting discussion took place at the Committee stage of the Betting and Lotteries Bill then before your Lordships' House. It was the Duke of Atholl who started a discussion upon this and an allied clause, and perhaps I may read it:
"Before this clause is passed I should be glad if the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill"—
it was the Marquess of Londonderry, in fact—
"would describe to the House what he means by a lottery as the words in the clause, 'all lotteries', seem to me to be rather sweeping. It is just as well that the public should know not ony what constitutes an offence such as we find in this Bill, but also what constitutes a lottery. My reason for asking this is that ignorance on this point may lead virtuous people astray and involve them in a heavy fine and imprisonment. For instance, all members of your Lordships' House have received a notice of a ballot, of which apparently the Lord Chancellor is the promoter. They have been asked to subscribe 7s. 6d. each for the chance of obtaining a prize in the shape of a seat for the ceremony of Trooping the Colour on June 4. All the money subscribed is to go to expenses. The money is to be enclosed with the application, and in no circumstances will the money be returned, although it is not known whether the amount received will be sufficient to pay for the erection of the stands or whether it will be in excess of the amount required. Perhaps the noble Marquess will tell me in what way this so-called ballot differs from a lottery. If it does not, I feel that I should warn a certain high dignitary of this House as well as the Secretary to the War Office that lotteries promoted for good or national objects in this country are not always looked upon favourably by the authorities."
The Marquess of Londonderry—and I say this with great respect to the noble Marquess—was, I think, caught on the wrong foot and, in his reply (with which I shall not trouble your Lordships) he endeavoured to throw the burden upon the poor Duke of Atholl by

375
asking him, since he had raised the question, to define for himself what a lottery was; otherwise apparently to the noble Marquess it was somewhat of an impertinence to raise the matter in Committee in your Lordships' House.
In fact, this very anomaly, as your Lordships may feel it to be, which prevents British printers from printing lottery tickets for a lottery promoted wholly abroad, was again dealt with by the Duke of Atholl, to whom one really feels one owes a debt at this moment. He raised this very point—I am now reading from col. 719 of the same day, 31st May 1934—and said:
"Supposing there was a sweepstake in some foreign country: there is no reason why our printers should not print the tickets so long as they are honest people and it is not against the law in this country. I am not quite certain whether it is covered in a later Amendment I am going to press".
Then Viscount Bertie of Thame said:
"May I ask the noble Marquess whether foreign premium bonds which might be printed in this country for foreign Governments would not come under this Bill?"
The Marquess of Londonderry replied that he would make inquiries; he was again extremely helpful. All my researches after that do not reveal the result of those inquiries. Apparently the noble Duke who raised the matter originally was persuaded, possibly by some other greater matter of state, not to raise it again.
So that is the history of the matter which is before your Lordships today. It comes in this very innocent but very proper Bill which is introduced in order to try to amend something which was discussed in 1934 but which, unfortunately, was not dealt with. Perhaps it is an encouragement to all members of your Lordships' House that once they have seized upon a good point they will never leave it, whatever the Minister tries to do, to you.
The final thing I want to do is this. My noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford referred to the way in which British printers were prevented from getting perfectly legitimate orders by reason of the present state of the law. He referred to a letter which was sent, and only because I find it to be the unacceptable face of capitalism do I intend to read the letter; then I will trouble your Lordships no longer. It illustrates quite definitely how unfairly some commercial firms work within this country in order to try to rob our own people of very proper contracts even though our law seems to be somewhat defective in the matter. I should like to read to your Lordships this letter, which comes from a Mr. E. Kelly and is dated 23rd June 1982. It is written from Warwickshire, and is addressed to the Finnish Embassy, Commercial Section. It reads as follows:
Dear Sir.
"I understand that arrangements have recently been concluded between your Government and Norton & Wright Ltd. of Leeds, whereby that Company will supply tickets for use in your State lottery.
"It is my duty to bring to your attention the fact that it is totally unlawful for a British company to print and export lottery tickets for use abroad (Section 2 (1)(a) of the Lotteries & Amusements Act 1976) and it seems totally incongruous that a Government such as your own would countenance flouting British law in such a way.
"As the European representative of a major print group in the United States of America (from where export is perfectly lawful) I have taken very detailed legal advice and I can assure you that the prohibition on exports from Britain is quite specific and that Norton's activities are open to the deepest question.
"To substantiate my point, I enclose a letter from the Department
376
of Trade, the contents of which were made known to Norton & Wright over a year ago. I thus give you warning to look into this matter before my company initiates a prosecution against Nortons—the result of which may well prove extremely embarrassing for your Government—both practically and politically.
"My company will be represented at the forthcoming Lottery Congress in Lausanne and will be delighted to suggest alternative and more legal arrangements for your Lottery's consideration".
The gentleman signs himself "Yours faithfully".
We have an opportunity this afternoon, as a result of my noble friend's Bill, to rectify this matter and to see that such letters can no longer be sent to deprive lawful and respectable British firms of the business which they undertake, in many cases most efficiently. It is therefore with some delight that I support my noble friend's Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Irving, has somewhat pre-empted what he feels the Government might say about his Bill; but I should like to congratulate him on the lucid way in which he has explained the points that he wanted to make about this Bill.
As he described, and as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also pointed out, it is, at present, an offence under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 to print any ticket for use in a lottery promoted or proposed to be promoted except as provided for by that Act. Lotteries promoted outside Great Britain are, as provided by the Act, unlawful. As we know, this is not a new restriction; it has existed for many years, at least since the early nineteenth century. The purpose of the Bill before your Lordships is to remove that restriction by amending the 1976 Act so as to enable printers in Great Britain to print and supply lottery tickets and associated lottery material such as advertisements, for use in the promotion of a lottery wholly outside Great Britain, such as a foreign national lottery, which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to.
Lottery legislation is framed so as to control and regulate lotteries conducted in Great Britain and to prevent the importation of advertising material, notices or tickets relating to foreign lotteries over which we would have no control. The legislation is there to protect the public from buying tickets in lotteries where there can be no assurance that such lotteries are properly run. The restriction on the export of lottery tickets no doubt made sense when such export was perhaps simply the first stage before reimporting the tickets to this country as spurious foreign lottery tickets. But such a restriction no longer seems appropriate when many countries run large national lotteries of their own—lotteries, moreover, which require specialised printing of a kind which British companies can provide.
The existing legislation was never intended to prevent or restrict legitimate commercial export activities, but it is important that any relaxation in the law, such as that proposed in the Bill, should not undermine the controls which protect the public. In particular, we must be satisfied that there are adequate safeguards to ensure that tickets for foreign lotteries are not distributed in Great Britain or exported and then imported.
With these considerations firmly in mind, the Government support the principle of this modest Bill.

377
The Royal Commission on Gambling, who noted that the point was outside their terms of reference, nevertheless recommended that this change should be made and we had noted it for inclusion in more general legislation on lotteries. The Gaming Board, whom we have consulted, also have no objection to the proposals in the Bill.
There are some amendments we should like to see made to the Bill, both of a technical nature and to ensure that there is no loophole which permits the distribution in Great Britain of lottery material intended for export. These would in no way affect the main purpose of the Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Irving, has described. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, it would be our intention to offer the noble Lord, Lord Irving, amendments which he might move at the Committee stage and such other assistance as might prove necessary.
I said that this was a modest Bill but it is one which could serve a useful purpose. It would open up a potential export market for some sectors of the British printing industry and that is something I am sure your Lordships' House would wish to encourage. My Lords, in conclusion I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Irving, on introducing this Bill. I do not, of course, know what the rest of the week holds in store for us and I hope the noble Lord will not be too despondent over the timing of the Second Reading of this Bill in view of the announcements that have been made today; but I can reaffirm with a certain measure of conviction that if he were to introduce it again later in the summer, the Government (as they are now) will support the principle behind the Bill.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord and the Government for their very sympathetic support for the Bill. I should be only too glad to entertain the amendments that are suggested. I am afraid that I cannot make the same remark that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, made earlier this afternoon in another Second Reading debate. I cannot hope that the Government might find time for the Bill before the end of this Parliament, but I will certainly be back with it in the next Parliament.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Charities Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Solvent Abuse (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Future Business
6.1 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the rest of this week's business. The business tomorrow, Tuesday, will now be as follows: Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill—Third Reading; County Courts (Penalties for Contempt) Bill [H.L.]—Committee and remaining stages; Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill—Committee and remaining stages; Diseases of Fish Bill—Committee and remaining stages; Coroners' Juries Bill—Second Reading and remaining stages; Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill [H.L.]—Committee.
The Business of Wednesday will be as follows: Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1983 and the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations of 1983—Motions for Approval (these two orders being advanced from Thurday); Charities Bill—Second Reading and remaining stages; Solvent Abuse (Scotland) Bill—Second Reading and remaining stages (these last two Bills being the two which have just arrived from another place today); debate on Industrial Production on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
The Business on Thursday will include the following items: National Heritage Bill [H.L.]—Consideration of Commons Amendments; Mobile Homes Bill [H.L.]—Consideration of Commons Amendments (these two items being advanced from Friday); Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill—Report and Third Reading: Copyright (Amendment) Bill—Second Reading and remaining stages. In addition, the House will be asked on Thursday and Friday to deal with other Bills brought or returned from the Commons. Further details will be announced tomorrow.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for so promptly making that Statement and advising your Lordships of the proposed Business for the remainder of this week. I assume that the intention will be that the House will meet on Friday at 11. o'clock as previously arranged.
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords. That is the case.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, may I say how grateful we are to the noble Lord for giving us as much notice as possible of the re-arrangement of business. I know that we shall be very happy to seek to assist in ensuring that the non-contentious matters that still remain can be put on the statute book before Parliament is prorogued. May I ask the noble Lord whether, in relation to prorogation, he is in a position to give any indication as to the timing or indeed, the manner in which it will be done?
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords. As I understand it, the House will adjourn in the normal way on Friday and Parliament will be dissolved by Proclamation thereafter.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, my I ask the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip one technical

379
question? As we are meeting of Friday at 11 a.m., will the business include the Starred Questions on the Order Paper in the normal way?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I imagine that it will. If I am wrong, I will let the noble Lord know.

Diseases of Fish Bill
6.5 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I must declare an interest, in that I am a fish farmer of, I suppose by English standards, fairly considerable size, and furthermore—and this is a point which should be made before speaking about this Bill—I am a fish farmer who produces fish entirely for food. In other words, fish that leave my farm leave it dead. Your Lordships will have realised that there are certain prohibitions and restraints on fish farmers within this Bill which are a little stronger than they were in the 1937 Act, but they will bear a little heavier on those who sell fish for stocking rivers or lakes than on those, such as myself, who as I said, sell entirely for the table.
We have often spoken of fish farming in your Lordships' Chamber and I myself have once or twice before. Lady Emmet of Amberley used to keep the subject before our eyes and perhaps we should have got further by now if she were still with us to do so. The subject is of very considerable importance, and it completely belies the small size of the Bill. In I think 1980 the Government produced a consultative paper which had various paragraphs on fish farming and fish diseases. It bore very heavily on the importance and the danger of fish diseases, in view of the fact that fish farming has grown so very quickly of recent years, and in relation to this Bill we must consider just how quickly this emergent industry, if I may call it that, has grown. It is not a large industry now, but I started fish farming about 14 years ago and I believe that in this country there were then some 20 or so fish farmers of any size at all. Now I am told that there are approximately 470. This morning, I motored up from my home just south of Salisbury and passed four fish farms. Fourteen years ago, after leaving my own fish farm I never saw another fish until I got to Billingsgate.
As I said, this subject is important, and it is also important to look a little at the way in which fish farming has grown. There are a large number of fish farms which take the process from the very start to the finish. They take the eggs from the female fish, fertilise them and grow them on until eventually they go to market in one way or another, either alive or dead. But there is another very large section of the industry which has emulated the fatstock industry and divided itself up. There are farmers who grow eggs and sell them on and others who take the fish as far as the fingerling size, or even larger. One hears of fish that are almost mature being sold just to be finished, as a bullock might be finished off in a yard in the eastern counties, perhaps having been born on the borders of Wales. This means that fish are moving across the country in tanks on lorries or trailers almost every day. As well as passing fish farms on the way up from
380
Salisbury, nearly always I pass a tanker containing, I believe, trout.
Another development of which the Bill before your Lordships takes cognisance is that over this span of 14 years, or a little longer, fish farming, which used to involve almost entirely trout, now involves all sorts of fish. As your Lordships know, the salmon farming industry off the coast of Scotland has become very important, and of some size. One sees farmed salmon advertised in many fishmongers in London and elsewhere. The industry is still growing. People are beginning to farm eels, using the warm waters of power stations, or similar situations. Halibut and turbot are farmed. Shellfish are farmed, too, and have to be taken notice of very particularly. Even such species as crayfish are, I am told, farmed. Whether this is a successful venture I do not know.
If noble Lords consider this growth and the diversity which has emerged, it is not surprising that the fish farming industry has somewhat outgrown the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 and also the Shellfish Act 1967. It would be remarkable if it had not. We should be aware of the risk that this Bill tries to obviate, so far as possible. The risk is that we shall move disease rapidly from one fish farm to another, or from one catchment area to another, or from one marine area to another and damage not only our fish farms but, very important indeed, our natural and still very prolific waters.
Your Lordships know, because it has been written about recently, that in this country there is an enormous and growing population of anglers. It would be ironic as well as a catastrophe if fish farmers, who to a large extent provide fish to give pleasure to anglers, at the same time provided them with the necessary disease to kill what fish they have, plus the new influx, and to destroy their fisheries. We should therefore be very grateful to Mr. Corrie in another place for choosing to promote a Bill dealing with this subject.
As I have already said, the Bill updates and reinforces the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 and makes a small but important addition to the Shellfish Act 1967. It does this in a variety of ways. The Bill enables the Minister to act more quickly in times of emergency, and with a little more force. In Clause 1 there is a slight relaxation of the 1937 Act rules. Salmonids will now, if the Minister sees fit to issue a licence, be allowed to come into Scotland from Northern Ireland. I believe that this is of importance to fish farmers in Northern Ireland. I believe also that their own laws on fish farming and general health and hygiene are very strict.
The next point that I should like to bring before your Lordships relates to speed. When the Minister wishes to designate an infected area he will be able to do so on the suspicion of disease. This will speed things up quite considerably. In the fish farming climate in which we now live, this is very important indeed. One might say that at the moment there is no disease which requires to be dealt with speedily, but that would be wrong. There are a few diseases which need to be dealt with quickly in order to prevent them getting a hold and causing real difficulty. But what must always be at the back of our minds when we are talking about the Bill are the diseases which might come to this country. Two are now rife on the Continent, particularly in

381
France. For obvious reasons, they are given initials. The first one is VHS—viral haemorrhagic septicaemia. The next is IHN, which is infectious haematopoetic necrosis or something of that sort. The names are enough to frighten any honest fish farmer. I was speaking a few days ago to a very clever professor from Idaho who has studied fish all his life. He said that we can well do without both of these diseases and that we ought not to spend too much time talking about them; the best thing to do would be to take some action.
The Bill also strengthens the controls which the Minister can apply within a designated area. It alters the rules to the extent that, as well as not allowing live eggs or fish to leave the farm, it prevents them from coming into the farm, though foodstuff is allowed to come into the farm. Nobody expects the fish to starve. The Bill also contains the all-important provision extending these controls to cover farmed sea fish. It makes provision for cages in the sea. Both freshwater and seawater fish will be covered by the same rules.
The Bill alters the timing of the preliminary period during which a fish farmer is told that he must stop the movement of fish. At present, a period of 16 days is applied, and it is reapplied ad infinitum, if necessary. The period contained in the Bill is longer in order to give the scientists more time to work on the problem. The period is 30 days and it can be extended to 60 days. After 60 days, however, instead of continuing to renew the period, the area has to be designated. Action of another kind has to be taken.
My next point relates to notifiable diseases. Many new diseases are appearing. This underlines the fact that speed is important. Furthermore, some diseases which long ago frightened us very much are not now considered to be important. Therefore the Minister has been given the power by Negative Resolution to add to and substract from the list of notifiable diseases. The list would only get longer and longer, and in the end it would produce a ridiculous situation. Many practical people agree that certain diseases should come off the list and should no longer be a burden and a worry.
It has been suggested that there should be something in this Bill about the importation of dead fish, which can, of course, carry disease. I am assured that this matter is perfectly adequately covered in the Animal Health Act 1981, and it was said in another place by Mr. Buchanan-Smith that he would be perfectly prepared to use that Act if it were thought necessary to do so.
All these new enabling powers are of importance, but perhaps central to the whole question are the innovations which are included in Clauses 7 to 9. Here we have fresh powers to enable the Minister to ensure that fish farmers are registered. It may come as a surprise to some noble Lords to learn that, so far, they are not registered. There is no guarantee that anybody knows quite where they all are. It is obviously of the most vital importance that one should know where these fish farms are. In fact, nothing would be really workable without that knowledge.
Furthermore, power is given to make fish farmers keep records. We all hate keeping records, but again this is a point of considerable importance, and one
382
would hope that the records would be kept to the absolute minimum. They might be records showing the movement of fish and the quantity of fish kept on the farm, which would go hand in hand with the record of the species kept, and so on. This seems to me to be the skeleton of the Bill on which other matters must be built.
In Clause 6 we come to shellfish. This is a very interesting area but it is a little out of my realm. Previously, under the shellfish Act which I mentioned, there were prohibitions against bringing shellfish into an area—certain areas outlined on a map of the British Isles. Clause 6 seems to bring the shellfish situation into line with the inland fish farming situation, where shellfish not only cannot be brought in to a designated area but cannot be taken out either. That again seems absolutely logical and sensible. I have nothing more to add about shellfish except that I believe it is an area where one would hope that, with sensible controls, perhaps coming in with your Lordships' approval, there might be scope for some considerable expansion.
I hope that I have been able to outline this Bill with reasonable clarity. If the fish farming industry is to progress and fulfil its full potential, the strengthening of the 1937 Act is absolutely essential. It would be a very good thing if the fish farming industry did progress and grow larger along the right lines. It has done a good job so far in saving imports. It may not be a grand affair but, when I started fish farming, Billingsgate and every other fish market was full of Japanese, Danish and Italian fish, and that is no longer so. They still come in, but not to the same extent. But if in expanding the industry we also spread disease to each other's fish farms and, worse still, pollute our natural waters—whether they be the seas or the rivers of this country—then it will be a real tragedy. This Bill is of the greatest importance to fish farmers, to riparian owners and to anglers. I should like to commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(The Earl of Radnor.)
6.26 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, one of the nice things about this House is the connections one renews. For many years I sat under the noble Earl's father as a governor of the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering. He was a man of great perception and handled his governorship and chairmanship very well indeed. I can see something of the father in the son, in the way that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, introduced this Bill today—and I should like to compliment him on that. He has, obviously, deep knowledge of the subject, being a fish farmer himself. Like the noble Earl, I should like to compliment the originator of this Bill who was lucky enough in the draw in another place to introduce this Bill, which we all hope we can get through by Friday. As we all heard, a few moments ago, it is to be dealt with tomorrow.
This Bill seems to be very pleasing and satisfying to the NFUs of all the countries concerned, and that is always a good sign. As the noble Earl has said, it has become quite an industry. He gave figures showing how it has developed over the years. He mentioned the fact that motoring up from Salisbury not many years ago he never passed a fish farm—but today, as we all

383
know, one can hardly go anywhere without seeing a sign announcing trout for sale.
I do hope that the suggestion made in another place at Committee stage, that fish farming be called "aquaculture", is not taken up. I believe that the term "fish farming" is much better and that "aquaculture" is really going beyond a joke. We already have agriculture and horticulture, and in some areas we even have "horseyculture"—an expression I do not like, either. I have nothing against the horse but just feel that that is going a bit too far.
This Bill, as the noble Earl pointed out, is necessary because when one gets intensification—and we are experiencing intensification in nearly everything in agriculture at present—there are always problems. One has only to witness this in the case of other stock, be it the fattening of pigs, poultry or even cattle. In the case of agriculture, we are getting into a fantastic situation with cereal diseases. We might even have a Diseases of Cereals Bill—although I hope I shall not see it—in this House, which would give us a far bigger headache than any other Bill I can think of. This question of intensification requires looking at and this Bill is dealing with it, and is doing so in good time.
When the original Bill was introduced in another place, some points arose at Committee stage which were quite interesting. One of them was mentioned by the noble Earl, and it was the matter of compensation if there happens to be a disease where the fish have to be destroyed. We have had cases of fowl pest, which have compensation (although it is a different system now); foot and mouth has compensation; and Aujeszky's disease in pigs has compensation by a levy.
I wonder what the noble Viscount would think of a levy of some description or some method of giving compensation if a fish farmers' stock had to be destroyed and he was put out of business for some considerable time? We have such an arrangement in the case of foot and mouth disease, although there is no compensation for the loss of profits in the case of foot and mouth disease—one has to insure against that. At Committee stage in another place, it was suggested that there could be insurance—but if one insures for loss of profits, then there should be some system of compensation for loss of one's stock.
Then the noble Earl mentioned the question of registration and records. As he said, all of us dislike keeping records, but it is absolutely necessary. When there is an outbreak of foot and mouth records are kept so that animals all over that area can be traced very quickly, and it is an essential part of the system. But it is not going to be an easy one to enforce to begin with. There is the question of registration fees, which was mentioned in Committee in another place. I would have thought that if registration was mandatory it should be free. Otherwise, if it was voluntary and there was a voluntary levy it may be suggested that there should be a fee; that fee has not been decided yet and it will no doubt come out when it is seen what the cost is going to be.
There is the question of sea fisheries, what will be a fish farm and what will not, when it is on the coast. Another thing about the Bill is the question of siting, whether if you have a farm you can site your fish section of it anywhere you wish, or whether the
384
Minister would be given some power of planning control over fish farming. I do not know the answer, but I think it is something that needs to be looked at very carefully. I remember when the fishing grants for sea farming were brought in a few months ago in this House, I asked what would be the case if somebody pumped sea water into an inland reservoir, whether that would be considered salt water farming. I do not think I ever got an answer to that, and that is a little problem that might arise in regard to fish farming.
Then, of course, there is this problem of definition and how you get normal fishing excluded from fish farming. At Committee stage in another place the longest debate took place on the question of barring certain equipment for netting, particularly the gill net, mainly because if a fish gets enmeshed in a gill net it causes injury, particularly in smaller fish, and I gathered that that is a reason for disease spreading in injured fish. I am surprised that this was left out of the Bill. I think the Minister in charge of the Bill gave an undertaking that this would be looked at at some future date. Those are all the points that I want to make. I think this is a very necessary Bill, and it has been put forward to this House by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, very well indeed, So far as we are concerned, we give it our blessing.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for clearly introducing this Bill; he did it in a very nice, clear, low-key way. I think if I had been in his shoes I would have stressed the urgency a little more, but then I look at it more from a fisheries point of view than from that of a trout farmer. I will come back to that later, but all is not always particularly peaceful between the fish farmers of the country and those who look after the river systems in which the fish farms operate. However, I am delighted at the news we had from the Government Chief Whip that this Bill still has a very sporting chance of survival and becoming an Act before the end of this Session.
I believe that this Bill is just in time for the sport of fishing and for the fish farming industry, because otherwise we were heading for trouble. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, mentioned the intensive keeping of animals in unnatural conditions, which fish farming does, and indeed fish and trout are as susceptible to disease as anything else, possibly more so. There is also the problem with any fish disease in a river system that water flows downhill. That sounds an awfully simple remark, but if you imagine a lot of people in a narrow tunnel with a soft breeze blowing through it, if the man at the front sneezes loudly enough there is a fair chance that everybody else will catch a cold; so it is with the poor fish, and a big outbreak of disease in a fish farm can go down the river.
I set out for the House today with a lengthy list of reasons and examples as to why this Bill was necessary, and indeed a few suggestions as to improvement, or, rather more accurately, additions that could be made. However, with the general election now announced, and it being perfectly clear that there must be no interference with this Bill if we are to get it through, preferring, as always, half of a good cake to no cake at all, I will not be proposing any amendments; nor will

385
I expound at length on the virtues of the Bill; I seem to sense that the House has accepted its virtues.
I have to declare an interest at this stage, although I hope noble Lords will see it more as a qualification for speaking on this somewhat obscure subject than anything more sinister. I am effectively a shareholder and a director of a fish farm by virtue of my membership of a fishing club in Hampshire of which, very democratically, all the very few members are both shareholders and directors; and we do operate a trout farm within the meaning of the Act, although it is largely for restocking purposes and the surplus fish are sold to other people. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said that he used to drive to London without passing a trout farm. I think that is not strictly true because in fact he passed that trout farm, which has been in existence very much longer than has his; namely, 100 years or more. The noble Earl laughs; he knows the one I mean.
I said earlier that this was half of a good cake, and I say that because I have done quite a lot of homework on this Bill and I am absolutely assured that it has been very thoroughly dealt with in the other place by Members who have considerable knowledge of the subject, whose hearts were in it and who pursued it very thoroughly indeed. I am no parliamentary draftsman, but I am as convinced as one can be that there are no i's to dot and t's to cross and that the Bill is in good shape.
May I suggest, however, that this is an opportunity—and it would not be a waste of our time—to raise two very important matters which are not covered by the Bill but are in need of legislation shortly. The first is directly concerned with fish farming and its impact on fisheries and fishing in our rivers. It sounds a small matter, but I hope I will show that it is a matter of considerable concern to the fisheries with whom the fish farms have to exist. It relates to the gratings used at the top and bottom ends of the flow of water through the fish farms. It seems that no regulatory authority has any jurisdiction in this matter. The National Farmers' Union guidelines, which I understand is the document that aspiring fish farmers and existing ones refer to from time to time, are quite silent on the subject. Incidentally, the NFU guidelines are fairly long on very sensible suggestions, but very short on details. If the NFU is listening, they could well do with some up-dating.
To return to the gratings, and to start at the upstream end, there seems to be some evidence in some rivers that smelts, the young salmon descending down the rivers, are becoming either trapped against the gratings at the upstream end of fish farms or passing through into the fish farms and being trapped there. A standard of grating should be imposed upon fish farms to ensure that this is not possible. Alternatively, a by-pass for the smelts should be provided, or it should be ensured that they are lifted out by some method and put back safely below the fish farm. With the state of salmon as it is, it is vital that every smelt should get back safely to the sea. I gather that is not always happening.
At the downstream end of the fish farms the problem is one of escapees from the fish farms. Noble Lords may think that fishery owners adjacent to fish farms would be delighted with a bit of free restocking.
386
But that is not always so. They have not welcomed fish from the fish farms among the wild popoulation. Frequently they are of the wrong breed. For example, small rainbow trout may get loose among a fishery that tries to concentrate on brown trout. The balance of the ecology, and the number of fish in a fishery, are very delicate matters. Angling literature is full of examples of waters being over-stocked, which totally ruins the fishing in the process. What happens is not, as one might expect, that some fish die and the stock then balances itself. All the fish in the fishery suffer. Therefore, a sudden arrival—obviously accidental because no fish farmer wants to lose fish, but they are just careless—should be prevented as far as possible.
The second matter, touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that is lacking in the Bill but on which I hope we shall get some action from the next Government, whichever it might be, is the question of monofilament gill nets. As we have heard, this was brought up in another place under this Bill, the argument being that salmon which escape from these nets, which is quite frequent, are badly damaged by them. They have big cuts and gashes on them, as I have often seen. When this was raised in the other place the Government Minister, Mr. Buchanan-Smith, said on Third Reading:
"It would not be appropriate to deal with the matter now at length, but there is no evidence of a causal connection between certain type of tackle and disease"—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/83: col. 552.].
The scientists may not yet have come up with the full answer on that, but I should have thought that any animal suffering the loss of large parts of its skin and covered in raw patches must be more vulnerable to disease than animals that are unharmed.
Gill nets for salmon, in my view, remain a national disgrace and are operated by those who seek to reap where they sow nothing. The species will rapidly become endangered. They are not subject to any effective control, and I trust that the next Government will urgently grasp this nettle. This is a non-party matter and, if your Lordships will excuse me, I can do no better than to quote from what Mr. Mark Hughes, a Labour Member, said on Second Reading on the subject of gill nets:
"Finally, it is the will of the House of Commons that the use of monofilament gill nets"—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/83; col. 552.]
Did I hear, "Order"?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is out of order in quoting a named Member of the other House.
Lord Tryon: I stand corrected, my Lords, but I believe I may paraphrase. What he said, in effect, was that everyone, apart from the gill netters themselves, now seemed to be agreed that gill nets were thoroughly undesirable in every possible way and that it was time something was done about it. I could not agree more with that, and I pass on that remark.
To conclude, fish farming, as we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is a rapidly growing industry. Rod fishing is a rapidly growing sport; perhaps one of the fastest growing in the country. The National Anglers' Council says that about six people an hour are taking up fishing for the first time. That is

387
quite a growth spread over the year and, as we know, adds up to many millions of people with trout fishermen alone now standing at the remarkable figure of about 800,000. All of this is at risk from disease unless we are very careful, and this Bill is the first useful step to our being more careful.
6.48 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, may I first congratulate my noble friend Lord Radnor upon bringing this Bill before your Lordships, and say how pleasant it is to be here with what is virtually a non-controversial Bill, but a very important one for the fish farming industry as a whole. My noble friend started off with the echoes of one of our late noble friends, Lady Emmet, who never wasted a moment from the Back-Benches to inform whoever was Minister of Agriculture that fish farming was a very important subject, and she would never let it rest at that. I am sure that she would be very proud that we are now going one step ahead to help fish farming in regard to fish farming diseases.
My noble friend mentioned also, as he commenced his Second Reading speech, that this is now a very up and coming and growing industry. I understand that there are now about 470 fish farms scattered about the country. I can probably name one more which is just opening in my own town of Bradford-on-Avon. Therefore, in listening to your Lordships this evening I welcome and sympathise with all that has been said, and, whatever we can do to help the fish farming industry, this is where it should begin. Therefore, on behalf of the Government I welcome the Bill.
Although the Bill was not introduced by the Government, it has received the Government's wholehearted support. The Bill concerns fish diseases and as such is of particular interest to the fish farming industry. Fish farming is a small but important part of food production in this country and, as I have already said, a growing industry. The measures that the Bill introduces will provide a significant step forward in fish disease control and prevention. I am pleased, therefore, that the Bill has been welcomed by the fish farming industry as a whole.
In England, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has responsibility for the policy and implementation of legislation which the Bill amends: the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 and the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967; in Wales and in Scotland these Acts are the responsibilities of our right honourable friends the Secretaries of State.
Both the 1937 and 1967 Acts are amended by the Bill so as to give Ministers powers that go wider than those currently contained in those Acts. For example, the amendments to the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 will mean that it will be possible to take precautionary disease control measures at a much earlier stage, thus helping to stop the spread of fish disease. The amendment to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 will mean that, in addition to controls on depositing shellfish, it will now be possible to control the taking of shellfish from specified areas, again helping to stop the spread of disease.
As your Lordships have heard, the Bill also introduces new powers in relation to registration and record-keeping by fish farms and shellfish farming
388
businesses. This will provide Ministers with information hitherto not available which will enable movements of fish and eggs or shellfish to be traced if there should be an outbreak of disease.
These powers already exist in relation to animal disease and, similarly, are essential for fish and shellfish diseases if we are to have a chance of keeping ahead of the most virulent diseases on the notifiable disease list. Thankfully, some of these diseases have not been found in our fish, but the economic implications for fish and shellfish farmers, were they to occur, would be disastrous. Something of what can happen has been seen recently in relation to bonamia in shellfish. The situation in relation to disease does not stay still. The Government are, and will continue to be, in close contact with the industry to ensure that the powers provided in this Bill, taken with existing powers, will be selectively used in the way most suited to the circumstances of a disease. The vast majority of responsible fish farmers and shellfishermen recognise the need for the provisions of the Bill and welcome the protection which tighter control should give against the minority who could put their livelihoods at risk.
I have listened to some very interesting speeches this evening. I feel that I should now try to answer some of the questions which have been asked. My noble friend Lord Radnor mentioned the control of the movements of fish, eggs and food into farms, as I believe did other noble Lords. The Bill provides a general order-making power. Orders will be made individually in each case, as is appropriate. As now, movements will be controlled only to the extent necessary in the circumstances. Some flexibility may be possible, depending on the risk, and it may be possible to authorise certain categories of movement. This is how we have dealt with diseases in the past. We shall continue to develop our policies in consultation with the industry. There will be no sudden general imposition of tighter controls on infected sites. That is not the purpose of the provision.
My noble friend and other noble Lords were worried about the list of diseases. The Bill enables diseases to be added to a list of notifiable diseases, and removed from it, and for this to be done more swiftly than under the 1937 Act. The changes will be made by order, subject to the negative resolution procedure. Speed can be of the essence if a new disease threatens fish stocks. Our scientists will keep the list of notifiable diseases under review, and make recommendations as circumstances change.
I believe that my noble friend and others were quite worried about the import of fish and eggs from Northern Ireland. The Bill provides for the amendment of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 to enable the absolute prohibition of the import into Great Britain of live salmonids to be relaxed by order. Following consultations among English, Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers, it was decided to instruct our scientists and veterinary experts to consider further the absolute ban on the imports of live salmonids from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Obviously, the outcome of that examination is not yet known. It may be that some relaxation can sensibly and safely be allowed; it may be that the existing absolute prohibition will have to be adhered to. We shall have to wait to see. However, it seems sensible to

389
provide for the possibility at some time in the future of allowing some imports of live salmonids into Great Britain from Northern Ireland, or conceivably from elsewhere. The Bill provides for this eventuality. I hope that the answers I am giving are a help to the House, because we should like the Bill to go through before the end of this week.
My noble friend asked a further question regarding the registration and keeping of records. We propose to make an order establishing a scheme of registration for fish farmers as soon as possible after the Act comes into force. Without the registration and the keeping of stock and movement records, we cannot hope to trace the movements of fish and consequently cannot keep one step ahead of a disease. I should stress that there will be no question of refusing registration; all fish farmers will be on the register.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, mentioned a further worry as to the compensation of fish farmers. The Government understand the wish for the compensation of fish farmers who may face financial hardships as a result of the Ministry's movement control measures. The question of compensation is a difficult one. It has been raised in the context of our review of inland and coastal fisheries. The Government have listened with interest to the representations that have been made; but we do not think that this is the time for a decision. More discussions are needed and will take place to analyse the problems and ensure that we get the approach right. When solutions emerge we shall consider any implications for legislation.
However, I should like to bring one further point to your Lordships' attention. In the animal health field, compensation is paid only in respect of animals slaughtered compulsorily. Ministers do not at present have a power of compulsory slaughter in relation to fish disease. This Bill does not seek to provide them with one. I would recommend to your Lordships that the questions of compulsory slaughter and compensation are linked together. We should not try to separate them. This is not the appropriate forum for these issues to be resolved, and we should permit the separate discussions on these complex issues to go forward unhindered. The Bill before us has tackled many questions on which there is wide agreement. We should seek to secure these measures and consolidate them, and not put them at risk by trying to address matters of great controversy to which solutions have not yet emerged.
I turn to a further point raised by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, and that concerns gill-netting. When this Bill was considered in another place there was a full and valuable discussion about the use of monofilament gill-nets to catch salmon. It is the Government's view that this subject is outside the scope of this Bill. This Bill is designed to extend the protection for farmed fish from diseases, and is not primarily concerned either with methods of commercial fishing or with fish in the wild.
A number of amendments were tabled in another place which sought to introduce into the Bill measures designed to control the practice of monofilament gill-net fishing for salmon. However, controls on the use of
390
monofilament gill-nets are already available to water authorities in England and Wales under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. Under that Act, water authorities have extensive responsibilities over the fisheries in their areas and they have wide powers to make bylaws banning or regulating the use of different sorts of nets. A number of water authorities have already made such bylaws. However, I am very well aware that the water authorities face problems in enforcing their bylaws. Therefore, the answer must not be to produce even more legislation but to enforce the existing controls effectively.
In Scotland, there is a complete ban on the use of drift nets from fishing boats for catching salmon and migratory trout. The issue of the use of a particular type of net such as microfilament gill-nets therefore does not arise. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland makes strenuous efforts to ensure that the ban is enforced.
One of the arguments put forward for the need to control the use of monofilament gill nets was that such nets were a contributory factor to the spread of disease among fish because fish that escaped from the nets were invariably injured and maimed, making them more susceptible to disease. However, in the light of scientific guidance there is no casual connection between certain types of tackle and diseases. All nets can injure fish, but I have no evidence that monofilament gill nets cause proportionately more damage than others. Scientific advisers have presented preliminary reports on the use and distribution of gill nets in England and Wales and on a survey of public literature about the use of gill nets in other countries. These reports do not demonstrate that the gill nets cause undue damage to fish, or that any regulatory measures are needed. These reports have been placed in the Library of the House. However, these are only preliminary reports. If the final report produces evidence which will mean further controls to establish that banning, and so on, might be necessary for certain reasons, the Government will have a totally open mind and a readiness to consider the matter.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, it was interesting to hear that scientists say that gill-netting does not do any harm or any more harm than other types of netting. Would the noble Viscount care to take a nylon cord through his hand quickly and then compare the difference between that and a natural fibre cord?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I see that the noble Lord is a fisherman. I am not. I do not know how cruel one can be towards a fish, but I am sure that netting does injure them.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, mentioned registration fees. The Bill requires that a registration fee shall not exceed the cost of registration. That appears in Clause 7(6). If that is any help, it is one small step forward. The noble Lord also asked about inland fish farms using pumped sea water. Such farms are dealt with in the same way as inland farms using fresh water. I am not an expert on whether you tap the salt water straight from the sea or add salt to it. I hope, however, that my answer is what the noble Lord requires.

391
The noble Lord, Lord Tryon, mentioned gratings on fish farms. That is a good point which can be taken up in continuing discussions with Ministers and the National Farmers' Union in England and Wales. The noble Lord will be relieved to learn that the NFU guidelines are currently under revision in this forum, as he probably already knows. I am not a fish farmer, nor an expert on fish; nor am I an expert on aquaculture. I hope however that my answers to your Lordships' questions will have helped the progress of the Bill. I hope that the Bill goes through the House at the earliest opportunity in order to help fish farming. In the meantime, I congratulate my noble friend and leave him to wind up the debate.
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, for giving the Bill such a kind and considerate reception, slightly critical in places. I thank my noble friend Lord Long for putting the Government's position so clearly and sympathetically. I must admit that I was pleased to hear (if I heard rightly) that the remaining stages of the Bill will be dealt with tomorrow. That is very important. It is like sitting on a volcano, with had diseases abroad and with a growing industry. To put this Bill back at this stage and not to bring it forward to the statute book would constitute a real danger to the fisheries of England.
My noble friend Lord Long has done so well that there is nothing much for me to say. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, in the hope that this subject will not be called aquaculture. I shall continue to call myself a fish farmer and not an aquaculturist. That term does not seem to suit either the job or the people who perform it. I like the idea of a levy to guard against possible compensation. There is one enormous disadvantage. When a levy was exacted for another purpose, it took a long time for fish farmers to agree to part with their pennies to fund a situation that had not yet materialised. It was, however, an extremely good idea. It is very much an aside, but insurance for fish farming is difficult. One is always being asked to count the number of dead fish. If one is dealing with four and a half million, half of them at the bottom of four feet of water, with just their tails sticking out of the mud, it cannot be done. Then there is no payment which, I suppose, is reasonable.
The whole question of siting and planning is wide. I would imagine that any Government would keep it under review simply for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, mentioned—that water runs downhill and that pathogens, I understand, run uphill, or perhaps upstream. The noble Lord also mentioned migrating smolts. In my experience, the water authority deals with that situation. It takes a great deal of trouble to see that they are put in smolt traps or diverted in some way or other, preferably around the farm. It has been many people's experience that once they get into the farm some rather large smolts are found among the trout and there they sit. Whether they ever reach the sea, I do not know. Fortunately, whereas the eel follows the bottom of the current, the smolt follows the top current and goes over waterfalls. It is often possible to see that they are diverted around the farm.
392
I am probably wrong, but in my experience I have always assumed that if I have an inadequate grid, this would be considered as polluting the water. Whether or not that is so, we look carefully at grids and water authorities to see that they are behaving themselves. This is possibly a loaded question. The noble Lord who is a little upstream of me on the same river, has perhaps experienced some foreign trout creeping up to him.
I do not think there is anything more to say except to feel pleased that Mr. Corrie, in another place, has brought this Bill forward. I congratulate him on his luck in the ballot, and express my great pleasure that the Bill will be carried through. I commend it to your Lordships once again.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Public Houses: Hours
7.10 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper—namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to introduce flexible hours of opening of public houses in England and Wales, bearing in mind the success of these arrangements in Scotland".
The present situation about the licensing laws for England and Wales is governed by the Licensing Act 1964, which is a consolidation Act of previous licensing laws, the latest of which was the 1961 Act and, for Scotland, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. The former—that is the 1964 Act—allows little or no flexibility of hours of opening; the latter allows a great deal of flexibility at local discretion.
Last November, the Brewers' Society sent to my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross, in his capacity, I hope, as secretary of our little repeals group, of which I am the chairman, a draft of a Bill to abolish:
"the restrictions in the Licensing Act 1964 on the hours during which intoxicating liquor may be sold, supplied or consumed in licensed premises or in the premises of a registered club".
This, in fact, meant the repeal of the whole of Part III of the 1964 Act, which deals with permitted hours—a subject in which my small committee found itself very interested.
At the same time the Brewers' Society published an article in the trade magazine Brewing Review entitled "Pot Luck". It said:
"The laws governing pub hours vary all over the British Isles: getting a pint depends on where you are—and when".
It set out the differences in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in the isles around us, showing up glaring inconsistencies.
Meanwhile, I had been in touch with the National Union of Licensed Victuallers, who said in June of last year that they liked the idea of bringing the English law into line with the Scottish, but that some preparatory work would have to be done first. I met their parliamentary committee some three weeks ago and I was asked then to initiate this Question which I am asking today. The result of this is that I have a joint brief from

393
the Brewers' Society and the National Union of Licensed Victuallers which is a very useful document.
So, my Lords, what are the differences? In this respect I do not propose to involve myself with the special problems that exist in Wales. I am not sure whether we have any Welshmen who are to speak today, but the problem of whether certain parts of the country should be "wet" or "dry" on Sundays is for them to settle and not for us. No, this is a general approach to Her Majesty's Government about introducing flexibility into the permitted hours of opening in England and Wales. At present the situation is governed by Section 60 in Part III of the 1964 Act, which lays down general rules about permitted hours of opening—basically, between 11 a.m. and 10.30 p.m., with a break of two and a half hours from 3 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. There are variations for Sundays and holidays which I do not think need affect us today. That was the situation under the 1964 Act.
In 1972 the Departmental Committee on Liquor Licensing, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, presented a unanimous report. Of course it covered a great many matters, but on flexible hours the committee recommended:
"that a personal licensee be permitted to sell intoxicating liquor by retail for on-consumption at any time between 10 a.m. and midnight."
The committee qualified that by saying:
"We are not suggesting that licensees should be compelled to open",
for all those hours. They wanted the choice left with each individual licensee.
A further recommendation would give the power to licensing justices to impose:
"a limited restriction on permitted hours of opening, provided they are satisfied that this is in the interests of public order, safety, health of amenity".
Those recommendations have not been implemented by any of Her Majesty's Governments since 1972.
Meanwhile, in Scotland a similar departmental committee known as the Clayson Committee reported a year later in 1973 and made recommendations on the flexibility of hours very similar to those of the Erroll Committee. The Scottish Office acted on that report by producing the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. On flexibility of hours of opening, that Act contains provisions on permitted hours very like those in the 1964 Act. But there is an additional provision in Section 64 entitled:
"Occasional and regular extensions of permitted hours".
It is that additional provision which has brought about the flexibility of hours of opening in Scotland in different locations. The additional hours have to be granted locally. Therefore, flexibility of hours is not operating throughout the whole of Scotland, but only in parts. This has been, we think, a great success. However, it is very difficult to find out from Her Majesty's Government whether it has in fact been a success or not.
Last June, in answer to an Oral Question, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who I see on the Government Front Bench, replied to me:
"the Government have no firm information on the effects of the extension of permitted hours in Scotland, nor have they received any representation that the increased hours have had any adverse effects".
394
The noble Lord went on to say:
"I am able to say that there has been no significant increase in drunkenness offences or motor vehicle offences caused through drink since the 1976 Act came into force"—[Official Report, 18/6/1982; col. 770.]
That is a very important comment by Her Majesty's Government because a great many of the objections to flexibility of hours have come from people who think that more drunkenness and more drink and driving offences would occur.
A second Question was asked only three weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. This time his Question was:
"What assessment has Her Majesty's Government made of the effects of the relaxation of the licensing laws in Scotland in 1976 and 1977?"
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said:
"The Government have made no recent assessment of the effects … An earlier survey, carried out immediately before the coming into operation of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, with following surveys in March 1977 and November 1978, indicated that there was no significant change in the average consumption of alcohol, since those drinking tended to do so at a more leisurely pace, and supported the suggestion that changes in the licensing laws had produced no adverse effect."—[Official Report, 25/4/83; col. 798.]
That comment is, I think, a very important one, because it is the contention of both the Brewers' Society and the National Union of Licensed Victuallers that there is not likely to be any great increase in the expenditure on alcohol by any particular person if the hours are flexible. People go into pubs with a certain amount of money in their pocket and they will spend it. At the moment, if they are near to closing time, they spend it quickly. If the laws were to be more flexible, they would have much more time to spend their money and would be much less likely to become drunk, with all the nasty effects that that may have.
The worries about the introduction of flexibility are included in a discussion pamphlet entitled Drinking Sensibly, which was issued by the Department of Health and Social Security in 1981. There is a bit about flexible hours there. On the whole, I would suggest that they treat the matter rather neutrally: they do not really shoot it down or commend it. However, in that pamphlet there was one interesting little comment about what happened in the state of Victoria in Australia when that state extended the final hour of opening from 6 p.m. until 10 p.m. It says:
"A study of the effect on motor accidents of a change in closing time from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. found that although the overall total of personal injury accidents remained unchanged, the previous accident peak between 6 and 7 p.m. had disappeared and had been replaced by one between 10 and 11 p.m. It is accordingly possible that changes in licensing hours had significantly affected drinking patterns without apparently influencing overall consumption."
That is a point which both the Brewers' Society and the National Union of Licensed Victuallers make—that they do not anticipate any large increase in the personal consumption of any particular individual. What they do anticipate is that there will be more people finding time to make use of the pubs if there is more opportunity for them to get to those pubs. So we hope that the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. The advantages of flexibility are really that the gap during the afternoon, when pubs have to close, would disappear to the benefit especially of foreign tourists. I live in Kent and I see foreign tourists passing through who are absolutely infuriated when they

395
arrive at a pub at about 3.30 p.m. and are told that they cannot get any intoxicating liquor until 5.30 p.m.
Publicans could time their opening hours to fit in with local conditions. That is particularly the case where there is a large factory working on s shift system. At the moment some shifts end at the time when the pubs have to close. It would also mean that in holiday resorts the pubs could keep open during the afternoon and possibly not open so early in the morning.
The point here is that each licensee should be given an opportunity to decide how long his pub should be kept open. He does not necessarily have to keep the pub open for the whole time. He can introduce a break at any time that suits him and that suits his local clientele. One should remember that a licensee is a very responsible person because, if he behaves irresponsibly, his licence will be taken away from him. Of course, this is not so much the case with other places where alcohol can be purchased at all hours of the day, particularly supermarkets, where there does not appear to be that amount of supervision, especially over the age of the purchaser, which a responsible licensee will exercise.
Therefore, Scotland is in the lead. I am an expatriate Scot and I have very little opportunity of enjoying the benefits of the flexibility of hours which exist in Scotland. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will very soon give us down here the opportunity of enjoying those benefits. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for initiating this Question. I may not be the only Member of your Lordships' House to own a pub, but I do believe that I am the sole licensee here. So for those two reasons I must declare an interest. Over some months now I have seen at first hand the real need for more flexible hours within the existing framework of the permitted 62½ hours per week. In my pub we work a 53-hour week, which I think is sufficient for our area. However, with plans for expansion I can see restrictions on our enterprise as things stand. As the noble Lord, Lord Spens, knows well—for he is a part of my Back Bench group on small businesses—we have these considerations with regard to forward-looking enterprises very much in mind.
A rural inn such as mine would benefit greatly if it could remain open until midnight, and at lunchtime until three o'clock. I can assure your Lordships that customers travel considerable distances for a good meal. As the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has said, licensees are highly responsible people—they have to be. Surely they can be relied upon to run their businesses well, for if they do not they go out of business. It is as simple as that. Competition is extremely fierce and many pubs have indeed closed. We can, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said, lose our licences, and that of course means that we lose our livelihood as well, if we trangress the law.
The police have not been mentioned much today, but surely the police would prefer a fixed later hour of midnight. Then they would not have to go around the
396
neighbourhood seeing whether somebody who had a licence until the normal closing hour of 10.30 was not staying open until 11.00, and that the people allowed to stay open until 11.00 were not staying open until 11.30. I think that they have to waste a great deal of time.
Times are changing fast. There is far more leisure time, sadly due to unemployment but also due to the shorter working week. As the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said, why should we not follow the Scots? There does not seem to be any proof, if that is what we are looking for, that there is more drinking leading to more accidents and to more crime—which perhaps is even more important than car accidents—although of course people feared that that would happen.
Our EEC partners think that we are absolutely crazy about our licensing hours. As many noble Lords who have travelled abroad will know, the French often remark on this. Tourism is of tremendous value to this country, and this is a point worth thinking about. I hope that my noble friend can give some hint as to when we might see a really sensible and constructive approach to the flexible hours suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Spens. I can assure my noble friend that if we receive such encouragement it will receive widespread approval from the vast majority of licensees, not least myself.
7.32 p.m.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, I have no wish whatsoever to enter into this particular debate on this Question on any form of prohibitionist ticket. I have been for over 15 years closely associated with the field of alcoholism and alcohol abuse in Scotland. I have also been for many years the chairman of the Scottish Council on Alcoholism. But I should like to make it clear before I go any further that those over whom I take the chair in all the voluntary agencies throughout Scotland—because we are differently organised to in England—as well as myself, have a deep detestation of the prohibition lobby, on the basis in Scotland of the terrible damage that we have seen done by it in those areas of our native country which subscribe somewhat to it for social or religious reasons. Therefore, I rise as a humble Scot on a Question which pertains essentially to England and Wales, but I also rise with the, I hope, useful knowledge of a little of what has happened in Scotland since the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976.
If one is going to ask Her Majesty's Government for a view upon a particular question, I would have thought it fairly reasonable that all your Lordships would, in one way or another, look for evidence, and that it would be upon that evidence that you would hope to receive your reply from the Government. Although I have said that the Scottish Council on Alcoholism is entirely separate and autonomous from anything in England, I have received correspondence which has asked me to pass on to your Lordships the apologies of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for his unavoidable absence. On his behalf, for he is chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism which deals with south of Scotland—and, as I say, somewhat differently from us—may I express his apologies for his absence, and his wish to be associated with those remarks I may make where they affect England.

397
What evidence do we in fact have? There are three research reports available which are relevant. The first was by Bruce in 1978, and the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has already referred to it. He interviewed 1,700 Scots, all adults, before the first changes in the law came into effect in 1976. Then again, he interviewed them three months later. He also collected sales data from 40 bars which had taken advantage of what we call the "extra hour". He concluded:
"The survey of licensed premises showed a significant reduction in pattern acceleration in drinking towards the end of the evening. Thus, although the "beat the clock attitude" to drinking has not disappeared, it has at least diminished".
This overall favourable report was followed by a publication by Knight and Wilson in 1980 based upon research undertaken between October and November 1978, also referred to by my noble friend Lord Spens. That was some two years after the extension of permitted hours. The report was primarily aimed at Sunday opening. However, the findings within the area on the extra hour tended to support Bruce. With regard to Sunday opening, on the other hand, the report found that while the sample as a whole had not increased their weekly consumption of alcohol, subgroups within the sample had altered their drinking behaviour. For instance, those young males who had earlier reported high levels of consumption now reported a very significant increase in their drinking. Thus, the impact appears to have been one of facilitating the drinking of heavy drinkers, but does not seem to have altered the drinking habits of the more moderate males or females. In view of the Clayson recommendations this was an important finding.
"All day" licensing has only been widespread in Scotland during the past three or four years. Therefore, in fact there is only one available study upon it, and that is by Davies and Fisher. The study was restricted to Glasgow. The sample of public houses was small—only 19 out of Scotland's approximate total of 4,350—and difficulties in such studies are well known to your Lordships. Nevertheless, the insight gained was not without interest. The overall impression gained from reading the report—and I would strongly recommend your Lordships to do so—is that afternoon drinking is not a species apart from lunchtime or evening drinking, but is just more of the same. Different public houses have different types of customers who patronise their favourite establishment at different times and consume varying amounts of alcohol of different types.
In saying that I am not in any sense trying to be facetious, but it highlights what appears to be an essential criticism of the current all-day licensing legislation as we know it in Scotland. The Clayson Committee recommendations—indeed all the recommendations—were based on what is known as the social integrationalist approach to alcohol consumption. Simply stated, this philosophy suggests that by removing restrictions on the availability of alcohol one diminishes the taboos and the myths that exist about alcohol. Greater freedom of use, it is argued, should gradually lead to more responsible use, with the integration of alcohol in the broad fabric of everyday life—in other words, alcohol as an unremarkable and unemotive product.
398
Controls on the misuse of alchol are shifted from the law to more informal social controls. The classic example of this type of drinking is that of the French and the Italians who consume two or three times more than we do per capita in Scotland, but—this is the important point—little overt drunkeness is exhibited. Yet what has happened with all-day licensing? As noted earlier with the Sunday opening of public houses, the informal social controls have not been built in with the liberalising of the law. From evidence that is available to us today all that has happened is that the traditional styles of drinking have been extended over a longer period. For example, Davies and Fisher give no indication that the patron of the all-day licensed premises is a new breed of moderate drinker, or, more importantly, that he or she is accompanied by the potential social control of his or her spouse or their children.
A further comment on the failure of the legislation to build in social controls alongside the more permissive measures is the fact that by 1979 only 47 out of the 15,800 licensed premises in Scotland, which is 0.3 per cent., were of the refreshment type of facility that allows families to utilise licensed premises.
Statistics from the Strathclyde Region—and those we never take lightly in Scotland because half the population of Scotland lives in that region—show that, in 1980, 99.2 per cent. of all regular extensions were granted to ordinary licensed premises into which children under 14 years of age were not permitted to enter. This is hardly the breeding ground for a revolution, minor or otherwise, in the nation's drinking habits in Scotland.
Up North—I mean by that, Scotland—the main areas of contention about the putative success of the legislation concern official statistics relating to alcohol-related offences. Clayson claimed not so very long ago that since 1976 the,
"whole totality of drink related offences has diminished".
Dr. Clayson, whom I know and who is a most honourable man and whom I respect, could make such a statement on statistical evidence only until that statistical evidence was subject to close scrutiny—a scrutiny which become all the more necessary when it was observed that it was being most vociferously supported by the licensed trade. It is absolutely true that in 1977 convictions for drunk-driving and drunkenness were on the decline; hence the Minister's answer. But the fact is that this trend had started before the introduction of the 1976 Act so there is a good reason to suppose that the two were unrelated. Indeed, it is relevant to note that, while crimes made known to the police rose by 12 per cent. in the period 1976–77, there was a drop of over 5 per cent. in convictions for all crimes and offences.
We all know that convictions for any offence are strongly influenced by police activity. Thus it must be drawn to your Lordships' attention that in 1977 police manpower in Scotland was 10 per cent. below establishment and that within Strathclyde Region itself—I repeat that that area contains half the population of Scotland—a ban on overtime working was enforced. Therefore, the influence of Strathclyde Region's policing had a massive effect upon the national statistics available. For example, in 1979

399
Strathclyde accounted for 84 per cent. of all convictions for drunkenness in Scotland.
Also in 1977 the court staff in Glasgow took it into their heads to take industrial action and many minor offences associated with drink led to police admonition rather than convictions. It is interesting to note that when normal working was resumed and the police manpower increased in Scotland—not just Strathclyde—by 10 per cent. or by 1,200 officers in 1979 as compared with 1977, convictions for all offences rose. For example, drunk-driving convictions rose from 8,460 in 1977 to 10,594 in 1979—hardly, I should have thought, the base on which to claim, whether it be my friend Dr. Clayson or anyone else, that the whole totality of drink-related offences has diminished. So statistics certainly show that any decrease in alcohol offences has been shortlived.
Perhaps the most worrying point upon which one may safely place a finger—and because it has to do with health maybe it upsets me most—is the international evidence which links alcohol-related harm with per capita consumption. As one increases, so does the other. It must be fair to surmise that the legislation which makes alcohol more available and which encourages wide and more prolonged consumption contributes to more rather than less damage. As a horrible example, between 1978 and 1982, deaths from liver cirrhosis alone rose by 27 per cent.
A noble Lord: In Scotland.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, yes, in Scotland. It is perhaps proper to note that one of the recommendations made by the Central Policy Review Staff in 1980 was that Scotland should reconsider its all-day legislation and that there should be no adoption of such liberal practices South of the Border.
My Lords, before I take my seat once again, may I stress that the agencies to which I have referred in Scotland do not support the prohibition lobby? At the moment I am bombarded! There are three points of view, and there have been for about three years. On the one hand, there are those who place to one side and cast away all evidence of damage and who support wholeheartedly the Act of 1976. On the other hand, there are those who claim that all evidence of damage is directly attributable to that same legislation. In the middle, stands the largest group; and I place myself among them. They are those who simply do not know. For us in Scotland, legal parlance might be used, I suppose, and we would say that, in either case, it is not proven.
We believe that it can be argued that there is little substance to the claim that the new licensing law has made the Scots into a nation of social drinkers. Although the extra hour does appear to be popular and may have reduced the "10 o'clock swill", this is the only part of the law, the only part, that is above suspicion. The Scottish Council on Alcoholism works very closely with the agencies of the Scottish Office. I have been working alongside them, as I have said, for the past 15 years. I have always found, within this field in Scotland, that, if you take a matter of deep concern to the Scottish Office and that matter has merit,
400
perhaps not immediately but at some time in the future, you get a constructive response.
It is now three years since we first voiced our deep concern on this division of opinion in Scotland and we have continued repeatedly to do so. Hence, I place my trust in my experience of the Scottish Office which would suggest to me that we may well expect from them, from the Minister or the Secretary of State, some action in the not too distant future following the collation of the information that they have apparently been gathering. For that reason, I would hope and, indeed, would ask the Government to wait just for a time until they have some hard evidence to hand before committing themselves one way or the other with regard to a change in the licensing laws in England and Wales; for, in my view, it would be premature, if not irresponsible, to act at this point in time.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, to discuss flexible hours of opening of public houses. Flexible opening has a certain familiar ring to me, and it would be strange if I did not support the essence of this debate. It is difficult to discuss this matter without bringing in the pros and cons of drinking alcoholic beverages. I respect the views of those who sincerely believe that alcohol is the root of all that is evil in this country today, but, although I am well aware that the abuse of drink can cause untold misery—and, as a retired magistrate, I have seen much evidence of this—yet I do not believe that certain alterations in the opening hours of public houses would aggravate the present situation. I recognise that there is need for more research in this area, and I should like to make the further suggestion that the Government give support to the commission project on this matter.
Of course, the Erroll Report, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, could be said to have examined the whole situation very thoroughly. I think it is worth quoting from the concluding paragraph of the chapter of the Erroll Report which deals with public house opening hours. On page 161 it says:
"In the last analysis the success of our proposal depends on two factors. First, it is essential that the approach of licensees themselves should be directed away from any undue reliance on the letter of the law towards a genuine attempt to interpret local needs and to take effective action to meet them—even if this means changing previously established hours of work. The whole point of our proposal would be lost if licensees either felt themselves compelled to open for the full 14 hours permitted by law, or stuck to their present hours of closing, regardless of any demand for alternative hours which might exist in their locality. Second, our recommendations would place a very considerable responsibility on licensing justices, the police and local authorities".
This brings me to the views of the Justices' Clerks' Society in their paper, Licensing Law in the Eighties, published in April 1983. The society states that they feel that the problems of misuse of alcohol are not susceptible of solution by legislation alone. They most certainly advocate a number of changes in the licensing laws while remaining firmly of the view that the public must be educated from a very early age about the dangers of alcohol abuse. They advocate treatment for alcoholics and charge the Government with the duty to encourage and fund research into the whole problem of alcoholism.

401
I do not believe that the changing of the opening hours of "pubs" would increase the alcoholic problem. It is merely the occasional drinker who would be able to take advantage of the more flexible hours. The Justices' Clerks' Society, alas! do not include a recommendation for more flexible opening hours among the various options that they present for amending the present licensing laws. They say that there is no public demand. I think that they are wrong. Why are we having this debate if there is no public demand?
There are two last points that I wish to make very briefly. They are that, if we are going to amend the licensing laws, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and my noble friend the licensed victualler, would hope that we would take note of and fall in with the laws of Europe. Total bewilderment faces tourists either from Europe or from the United States of America who foolishly believe that they can buy a drink when they want, as they do in their own countries.
Finally, I would ask your Lordships to spare a thought for the family with young children who take the car and go for a day out in the country and who are forced to eat either in an hotel at great expense or in a cafe (if there is one) because the children cannot enter a public house. Surely, family rooms should become a pleasant and legal accessory to any public house, where the parents may drink and both parents and children may eat. I hope the Government will feel that today's debate will provide impetus towards the research project I have suggested—a project which could be speedily set up after the Government have overwhelmingly won the forthcoming general election.
8.1 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Spens for introducing this debate on a subject which, although it has been extensively debated, has seen little constructive change to the fragmented and outdated liquor licensing laws that are applied in England and Wales. I shall be reiterating what many of your Lordships have already mentioned and I would ask you to excuse me for doing so.
There are some extraordinary anomalies in the way in which the laws operate, and noble Lords have already referred to some of them. For example, one is not allowed to buy a drink in a London pub at midnight but one is allowed to drink at any time on a moving boat, train or plane. Also, children are allowed into some licensed premises but not into others, where they may or may not drink alcohol, depending on a complicated interaction between their ages and the nature of the premises.
It is surely time that Her Majesty's Government—and I refer to future Governments as well, of course—were persuaded that there is a popular demand in this country for action on this subject to complement the many years of "consideration" which, according to ministerial replies, have been devoted to this matter. I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that the people of England and Wales are sufficiently mature to decide for themselves when and where to drink alcohol.
I myself support the recommendations of the 1972 Erroll Committee, calling for the reform of the liquor
402
licensing laws and, more specifically, the recommendation that pubs should have the right to remain open from 10 in the morning until midnight, leaving it to landlords to decide exactly when to do business within those hours, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Spens. I regret that, so many years after that excellent report was compiled, Her Majesty's Government still feel that the report requires further consideration. I would suggest that the time is ripe for action and I therefore strongly recommend the arguments that were put forward so eloquently by those noble Lords and Baronesses who have spoken before me.
There are indeed many advantages to be gained from greater flexibility in licensing laws in England and Wales, and I shall mention a few of them. First, it would allow consumers to make up their own minds when they want to drink. Secondly, tourists would find the country a more congenial place to visit, and we should earn more foreign exchange from their increased spending. The present liquor licensing laws are a considerable handicap to the holiday and tourist industries. Thirdly, the boom in over-priced nightclubs in London would be curtailed and more people would be attracted back to the traditional English pub.
It is sad that when one leaves a cinema or theatre in the evening one is often too late to have a relaxing drink in a pub without being pressurised and hassled by the landlord concerned to clear his bar. More employment would be generated by the modest proposals of the noble Lod, Lord Erroll, as bar staff would need to be recruited in order to meet the extra demand. Also, imaginative and industrious licensees would be given the incentives to develop catering and other ancillary services in an effort to compete with licensed restaurants; and this variety would do much to brighten up our cities. The spread of better quality pub food and of pub entertainment has shown consumers the great economic potential of breaking down the rigid division between bars, restaurants and entertainment.
I can well appreciate the concern of the opponents of liberalisation, who argue that longer drinking hours would lead to more drinking, which in turn would cause more health problems. This approach, backed by the French demographer, Dr. Sully Lederman and his theory of the "log normal curve", has been seriously undermined and challenged by numerous researchers of late. I would support the theory of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, that the most decisive influences on consumption rates are the general economic climate and the real price of liquor. It is on this point that parallels can be drawn from the effects of the introduction of flexible drinking hours in Scotland, where I believe it is now possible to buy alcohol in a pub from 10 in the morning until 2 o'clock the following morning, subject to the discretion of the local licensing authorities.
Since the liquor licensing laws were liberalised in 1976 in Scotland, statistics have shown that consumption has actually decreased slightly, and so has street drunkenness and drunken driving. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, seems to disagree with me, but we are all entitled to our own interpretation. Liquor prices in Scotland have remained stable despite higher overheads through

403
longer hours. More and more places are providing food and generally finding ways of making more money in extra time. The success of the liquor law reforms in Scotland illustrates the inadequacies of fragmentary reform and the viability of such a liquor licensing reform which needs to be introduced in England and Wales.
I shall not detain your Lordships further on this subject. The arguments of those of us who have spoken show the great support for flexibility of licensing laws and have been well developed by speakers. I feel that the strength of our case has made it clear that such a reform is indeed most necessary. I look forward to hearing the speech of the great "reformist" in our House, my noble friend Lord Hams of High Cross. I look forward also in due course to the speech of the Minister. I shall be most interested in what he has to say in reply and I hope that he will include some proposals for the reform of the licensing laws rather than further references to the Government's need to contemplate the subject.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I agree and join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in promoting what has so far proved to be a sober and interesting debate on the merits of more flexible opening hours. He pointed out that he has received some support from the informal Repeal Group, which seeks to challenge outdated laws that restrict the freedom of adult citizens to live their own lives without hurting the like freedom of their neighbours. I would say to my noble friend Lord St. John of Bletso that we take one test of whether legislation is outdated by asking: if this law did not exist, would it be necessary to invent it? I believe on that issue the present licensing laws impose objectionable fetters on millions of people that are not justified by any overriding imperatives of public policy.
Since some time ago the Tory party appeared to cause some confusion in the public mind between the Peerage and what became known as the "beerage", I think we should all declare an interest, or lack of interest, in this particular form of consumption. From the published figures I find I am well below the average annual consumption of 200 pints of beer per head of the population, although in wine I am safely between the annual average of 170 pints in France and the 14 pints in the United Kingdom. I must tell your Lordships that, although I have never regularly taken advantage of the varied facilities of the 76,000 public houses and licensed hotels in the United Kingdom, I have to admit that on rare occasions I have been known to curse mildly because I could not find a single pub open at a time when it would have been convenient on a journey, on holiday or to celebrate a family or friendly reunion. I commend to your Lordships the thought of how much worse it must be for the millions of our fellow men who through work or from choice do not live their waking lives from approximately dawn until after dusk.
We have heard that the present licensing laws were introduced under emergency powers in the First World War, just as Tudor monarchs once clamped down on ale houses to encourage archery. I have no
404
doubt that the stipulated nine or nine and a half hours' opening time from 11 a.m. until 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. generally suit the average convenience of the population. But the question I want to ask is why do averages come into it? The average man does not play golf or visit Covent Garden or even indulge in hunting, shooting and fishing. It does not follow that strictly minority activities should be regulated by reference to average tastes or majority prejudices.
In one of the appendices to the excellent Erroll Report there is a summary of an official survey into public attitudes towards licensing laws. It shows that about half of the random sample in 1970 favoured keeping opening hours as they were, and as they still are. But the other half was divided between a larger fraction favouring later closing and a smaller fraction preferring earlier closing. For a liberal democrat the only logical deduction from such a conflict of views is that the more flexible the hours of opening the larger the number of people who would get what they want.
It is only in politics that we think it right for majorities constantly to impose their will on minorities. In the market place, of which I am known to be an admirer, it is minorities that rule the roost all the time. Except for monopoly services such as the letter post, telephones, gas or electricity, almost everything we buy and where we choose to buy it reflects our individual preferences. In the cars we drive, in the clothes we wear, in the food we eat, we are all minorities. We would be voted down if we had to carry a democratic majority with us on every line of consumption.
I do not deny that all freedom is capable of abuse. We should, every one of us, be concerned that there are approaching 50,000 cases of drunken driving, but that remains a minute fraction of the 2½ million serious offences recorded by the police in a recent year. Although no more than 0·004 per cent. of men are treated for alcoholism, we all know of others who are at risk. But the Erroll Report confirms our everyday observation that there is no simple correlation between excessive consumption and the number of hours that pubs are open, especially when drink can be so easily obtained for consumption at home. This lesson has not been disproved by experience in Scotland since the law was liberalised in 1976 and is upheld by evidence from places as far apart as Sweden or Australia, where severe restrictions on hours have not checked abuse. Nothing in the interesting sociological speculations of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, linked more flexible hours with proven excess. In the end he seemed to me to fall back into agnosticism.
I believe that we cannot make people better by legislation. That is the task for teaching, preaching, personal example, and in the last resort enforceable laws against anti-social behaviour. It is clearly not a sin to drop in at the local. Indeed, no less an authority than the Director of the Christian Economic and Social Foundation, the Reverend George Brake, recently urged the need to preserve the place of the pub, which he thought,
"the most favourable controlled environment for the consumption of alcohol".
He added that,
"the well-managed public house provides a convenient controlled environment for drinking and is to be preferred to the uncontrolled situations in which drinking takes place at the present time".

405
If the licensing laws were abolished, as I would wish, no pub would be required to open for more hours. Some pubs in some areas would no doubt preserve the present arrangements, while others elsewhere on some days or at some times of the year would open longer and later. The Erroll Report quotes the licensing authorities in London as granting 64,000 extensions in 1970, while a sample of 29 petty sessional divisions gave 28,000 exemption orders for an average of between an hour and an hour and a half of extra opening.
No wonder the witnesses petitioning the Erroll Committee in favour of almost completely relaxing the law included the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police, as well as tourist boards and various catering and hotel organisations. There were of course then, as there will be again, familiar lobbies in favour of tighter controls. The question is: who will speak for the millions of unorganised consumers?
I would argue that, whether any one of us would personally wish to take advantage of more flexible hours, we should not stand in the way of removing restrictions upon others with different preferences. Opening hours are no more a matter for majorities to override minorities than the times at which cinemas, restaurants or shops ply their trade between willing buyers and willing sellers. The contract that is implicit in a free society is that, even where our emotions are involved, we respect the choices, even the whims, of our fellowmen as a condition for having our own differing tastes and values tolerated by others. If we admit that all freedoms are subject to abuse, we must acknowledge the need for penalties where excess may harm others. But such possibilities do not in my view justify the condescending paternalism, however well-intentioned, that tries to impose a selective morality by the crude, insensitive steamroller of statutory prohibition.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, we are indebted, as several noble Lords have said, to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for raising this aspect of licensing laws concerning public houses and, of course, the various licensing Acts, including those affecting Scotland. As several noble Lords have pointed out, as long ago as 1970 the Erroll Committee reported on the situation. Thirteen years later, the situation has changed radically and new licensing laws are needed as a result of further consideration, especially to deal with the inconsistencies in the law to which reference has been made by various noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, made reference to a report from the Justices' Clerks' Society, which I have also received. It is a very valuable report called Licensing Law in the Eighties. As she will know, being a magistrate like myself—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am now retired.
Lord Bishopston: I am also retired, my Lords, so we are still level-pegging on the supplemental list. But I was a magistrate for two decades from 1957. As I was saying, the society was founded as far back as 1839, and it is the professional body representing the principal legal advisers to the magistrates of England
406
and Wales. In the early days they may have had whiskers and so on, but now their ideas are very much up-to-date and they have on many occasions provided those who need such information with reports which are well worth scrutiny.
On the subject we are considering, I think we should ask what criteria we should look for in the matter of opening hours of public houses. If we refer to the incidence of the effects of alcohol, we are told that the times of opening and the duration of opening are not the main factors. That may be so, but surely the supply and consumption of alcohol and its effects need to be considered comprehensively with other means of procurement and consumption. We should also look at the matter, as several noble Lords have said, with an eye to the effect on tourism. Several inconsistencies have been mentioned tonight by noble Lords. Certainly we should have regard to the needs of visitors, both from home and from overseas. Above all, we should see the whole matter in the context of what is generally good for the community at large.
In his speech the noble Earl, Lord Minto, made various criticisms of the present situation, some of which were well justified. I notice that the Justices' Clerks' Society points out that alcohol, in combination with other factors, is connected closely with the loss of many working days, with the break-up of or misery within many marriages, and with the commission of criminal offences, as can be seen by the daily court lists.
The report seeks to be unbiased with regard to the two sides which have expressed their views, but the fact is that alcohol is a factor of some importance. Alcohol-related illness is increasing rapidly. The Office of Health Economics estimates that there are three million heavy drinkers, some 100.000 problem drinkers and 150,000 alcoholics in England and Wales. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, has mentioned some of these problems. There is also a big increase in drink-related offences by young people. There needs to be some tightening up of the controls on the sale and consumption of alcohol by minors. There is need for more home influence and for more teacher influence. All this should be dealt with in the social context.
If I may consider that aspect, there is no doubt that for many minors the public house is what the youth club and the coffee bar used to be. In many rural and other communities, public houses provide a centre for fellowship and a meeting place, especially for younger people. I have mentioned tourism. We are well aware of the importance of tourism to our country. Conversely, we are also well aware of what we should be offering to tourists who come here from abroad. A number of opinion polls have indicated that a majority of people, especially in the 20 to 30 age group, are in favour of reform.
On the matter of licensing hours, any poll is likely to come up with the suggestion that licensing hours should be extended and that people should be allowed to drink what they like when they like. There are other considerations. It is quite clear that if there is no control over closing time and somebody is drinking at 11 o'clock at night the licensee may have to stand around for many hours while a very small amount of alcohol is consumed. This can be detrimental to the viability of the establishment and may have an effect

407
upon the staff. But there is a need for us to review the licensing laws in order to get rid of some of the inconsistencies which have been mentioned, and to bring about a greater degree of standardisation throughout the country.
With regard to licensing hours, the factor of availability includes the number of outlets and the price. There is need for effective control by means of licensing laws and, therefore, for more action—sometimes by the police and by other agencies. There are many problems, including the absence of national standards for licensing committees and the fact that many registered clubs are not strictly controlled. There is a laxity of proper control, under Section 77 of the Act, and also a lack of control, in many cases, of under-age drinking. There is need for public awareness of the effects of alcohol in a number of ways.
With regard to the particular aspect under review this evening—the permitted hours of licensed premises—although the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and other noble Lords have advocated flexible opening hours there appears to be no proof that the public generally wants or needs such a revision. As we know, there would be the problem of monitoring and of checks by the police, especially when the permitted hours of opening varied from those of other licensed premises in any particular licensing area. Because of the increase in the number of registered clubs, discos and other licensed premises, there would be the added facility of what one might anticipate would be continuous drinking, with people leaving one establishment and going to another nearby where the hours were rather different from those of the establishment which they had just left; or there would be the possibility of people going to registered clubs to continue their drinking. I am not suggesting that flexibility and the inconsistency of the present laws should not be considered. There may be a case for the permitted hours in registered clubs being the same as the general licensing hours in a particular district, even if they had to be extended to cover some of the anomalies which have been mentioned. There is a case for a more standard approach through the licensing committees.
Reference has been made to the departmental report, under the chairmanship of Lord Erroll of Hale, which was published some years ago. Little has been done by successive Governments to bring into effect some or all of the recommendations contained in that report. The fact is that the situation has changed greatly since the report was published. There are more outlets, and the problems connected with alcohol abuse have increased. I believe, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and others are right to stress the need for a review. Although we should be looking at the need for flexibility in licensing hours I do not believe that we should be looking at that question in isolation from some of the other aspects which should be considered by the licensing committees. However, this is a matter for the next Government. I am pleased to say here and now that my right honourable and honourable friends in the other place, and my noble friends in this House, will take note of what has been said tonight.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for providing us with this opportunity to debate a subject of such importance and to examine the issues which it raises. I think this is the first general debate that we have had on the reform of the licensing legislation since 1973, when your Lordships discussed the report of the departmental committee on liquor licensing, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, which was presented to Parliament in 1972. I am sure that those of your Lordships who are familiar with the report will agree with me that it provides an excellent starting point for any consideration of proposals for reforming the licensing law.
The committee recommended fundamental changes in the law. Many of its proposals—and some of these have been implemented—were quite acceptable. The proposals which proved most controversial when the report was discussed in your Lordships' House were those for extending the permitted hours, the fettering of the justices' discretion in the granting of new licences, the lowering of the minimum drinking age and allowing children freer access to public houses. Because of the concern which had been expressed in the debates in your Lordships' House and in another place about the likely effect these proposals would have on alchol misuse, the Government of the day concluded that the report would need to be considered against the background of growing concern about alcoholism and gave an undertaking that such proposals for change as were brought forward would be those which the Government believed to be in the general public interest and generally acceptable to public opinion.
There is no doubt, I am afraid, that since 1973 the problem of alcoholism has increased. Estimates vary of the number of problem drinkers in the United Kingdom. The OPCS in 1979 estimated that between 1967 and 1977 the number had increased by 50 per cent.—that is, from about 500,000 to 750,000. Others suggest larger or smaller numbers, but all agree generally on the scale of the increase. Most of the other indicators of misuse have also risen very substantially. The social and economic costs of misuse are considerable and it is hardly surprising, therefore, that successive Governments have shown a reluctance to introduce legislation which would make alcohol more readily available.
A further factor which has influenced Government thinking has been the findings of a number of influential bodies which have looked in detail at the problems of alcohol misuse and at ways of controlling it. In 1977, the Expenditure Committee in another place and the Government's Advisory Committee of Alcoholism both published reports which, having examined among other things the extent to which availability might be a factor in misuse, stressed that extreme caution should be taken over any relaxation of the licensing law.
Since this Government have been in office, we have received many representations from those who would like to see the licensing laws relaxed. At the same time, we have had to meet the costs which fall on the health

409
and social services which are attributable to alcohol misuse. We concluded that because of our duty to the public, it would be irresponsible to take any initiative in the direction of relaxing the licensing laws in isolation from the wider issues and without regard to our general strategy for helping to prevent alcohol misuse. At the same time, we thought that the issues which had been brought to our notice by the reports to which I have referred should be the subject of informed public debate. To that end, in December 1981 the Health Departments published the discussion document Drinking Sensibly, to which the noble Lord, Lord Spens, referred. The booklet looks at the different issues and the scope for action by both individuals and the Government.
Of particular reference to this afternoon's Question are those sections which deal with the relationship between alcohol consumption and harm, and the effectiveness of legal restrictions controlling the availability of alcohol. In deciding to publish the document, the Government hoped that they would promote public discussion of these issues and that the responses would enable sensible decisions to be taken as to whether the licensing law might be reformed, and, if so, how.
Having said that, the Government have recognised that the licensing law of England and Wales was in need of reform. The Licensing Act 1964 was a consolidation measure of statutes dating back to the last century. During our period in office, the Government have effected a number of reforms, mainly by assisting Private Members and Members of your Lordships' House to promote legislation which we felt would be useful.
For example the Licensing (Alcohol Education and Research) Act 1981 wound up the licensing compensation scheme and enabled £2 million to be allocated for funding alcohol education and research projects under the direction of the Alcohol Education and Research Council, which meets under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Windlesham. This Act has also enabled £1 million to be allocated to the Licensed Trades Charities Trust. Most recently, we gave assistance with the drafting of the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Bill, which was introduced in another place and which was taken through all its stages in your Lordships' House by my noble friend, Lady Trumpington. There have been a number of other measures, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made orders which have almost abolished the system of licensing planning in some parts of the country.
My noble friend, Lady Trumpington, referred to recent recommendations of the Justices' Clerks' Society. I can say that these have been received by the department but no conclusions on them have yet been reached. They are receiving careful study, and I can assure both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, of that; the Government greatly value the society's views. My noble friend Lady Trumpington asked also whether it will be possible to arrange for some special new research programme. That is an interesting suggestion and one of which I shall take note—and I shall ensure that my right honourable friend does what he can in that respect.
410
At the same time as the other measures to which I have referred, we have been unable to support proposals for making the law more restrictive where, on the evidence available, we have felt doubtful whether such measures would contribute to any reduction in alcohol misuse. That is why we have resisted proposals for restricting the sale of drink by way of wholesale, and the imposition of further restrictions on retail sales in supermarkets. I recognise that the licensed victuallers and the temperance movement, among others, feel strongly about these matters—but they have not conclusively proved their case for the imposition of restrictions, which would place substantial burdens on wholesale dealers and retailers. I have given these examples by way of showing that the Government have not been inactive in this area.
Turning specifically to the Question on the Order Paper, during the last four years the Home Office has received many representations on the subject from the licensed trade and from other interested organisations. The trade has been particularly worried about the adverse effects which the wider economic recession has had on its profitability, and it believes that the solution lies in its members being permitted to open for longer hours or being able to vary the existing hours so that they attract more custom—and this point was expressed by my noble friend Lady Sharples, with her own special expertise in this area. The tourist industry has supported the trade on the grounds that the existing licensing hours are unattractive to tourists—a point made by my noble friend Lady Sharples and by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. Neither of these arguments should be allowed to influence the decision on this matter. The licensing law exists primary to protect our own society and it is perhaps relevant, and interesting too, that the Home Office has not received a great volume of correspondence from individual members of the public on this matter.
The essential difference between the English and Scottish divisions as to the permitted hours lies in the discretion given to the licensing authorities to vary the general permitted hours of opening. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest, coming from that relevatively enlightened part of the world. The prescribed hours of opening in both countries are broadly similar. They allow public houses to open in weekdays between 11.00 a.m. and 10.30 p.m. or 11.00 p.m. with a break or two hours or two and a half hours in the afternoons. The hours on Sunday are shorter but are also broadly the same. Prior to 1976, as your Lordhips will know, Scottish public houses were required to close at 10.00 p.m. and all day on Sundays.
In England and Wales, the power of the licensing justices to grant regular extensions is tightly circumscribed. As a general rule, early morning and afternoon extensions may be granted only in the vicinity of markets, and extensions beyond the evening terminal hour are available only where the sale of drink is ancillary to the provision of food or music and dancing.
In Scotland, following the reform of the law in 1976, a licensing board has a much wider discretion and may grant extensions for any part of the day in respect of

411
individual premises if it considers it desirable, having regard to the social circumstances of the locality in which the premises are situated or to activities taking place in that locality. Although it is perhaps arguable that Parliament intended it to be used quite extensively, this power has been widely used to permit Scottish public houses to open during the afternoon break and late at night, particularly in the larger towns and cities. Some boards, however, have adopted a policy of refusing to permit afternoon opening.
Provisional assesssments based on surveys carried out in 1976, 1977 and 1978 would seem to suggest that the consumption of alcohol has not been significantly affected by this extension of hours and that those drinking do so at a more leisurely pace. It is interesting that the statistical data on drink-related offences indicate that recent trends show a decrease in offences of drunkenness, and between 1972 and 1982 there has been little variation in offences of drinking and driving. The statistics do not, however, separately identify offences occuring during or immediately following permitted or extended hours.
With regard to any increase in alcoholism or other medical problems, the statistical data likewise show that there has as yet been no indication of such adverse effects. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, talked about another survey which had been carried out, but I must say to him that that particular information has not yet been widely publicised or debated. The Government wish to continue to keep all information that comes to hand under review as it emerges, and I myself consider that the analysis which the noble Earl made in his very interesting speech was in itself a very worthwhile study. I am sure the Home Office will look at this in great detail.
While the evidence relating to Scotland might suggest that the case for introducing into England and Wales more flexible or extended hours of opening has been proved, I must sound a note of caution. The last survey on the effects of the changes in Scottish licensing hours was carried out in 1978; that is, before afternoon extensions were granted as commonly as they are now. While we think that the Scottish experience so far is encouraging, the Government believe that more time and possibly further research are needed to assess the situation before introducing a similar relaxation into the law of England and Wales.
I recognise that the reply I have given to this Question may come as a disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and also to the Licensed Victuallers and others who wish to see the law amended in the way the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and others have suggested. The Government are not insensitive to their views, but, as I have indicated, in considering any proposals to relax the licensing law we must first consider them in relation to our general strategy for helping to prevent alcohol misuse. If it is a crumb of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord St. John, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, both of whom have made powerful speeches this evening, we have not closed the door on the possibility of longer licensing hours, but we wish to be assured that opening it wider will not lead to an increase in the problem. The
412-414
noble Lord, Lord Spens, has, however, provided us with an opportunity for debating the subject, and for this I know we are all very grateful.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before nine o'clock.