Lords Sitting of 10 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.

Defence Staff: Communists
Lord Renton: 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 known communists of various kinds are non-industrial civil servants now serving the Ministry of Defence, and what steps will be taken to ensure that only those who are undoubtedly and exclusively loyal to Her Majesty continue to serve there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, As my noble friend will know, it is not the practice to discuss in detail our security arrangements, and on reflection I hope he will agree that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the number of known members of the Communist Party who are non-industrial civil servants serving in the Ministry of Defence. I can say that the number is very small. While their political views are of course their own concern, steps are taken to ensure that known communists or communist sympathisers serving in the Ministry of Defence do not have access to sensitive information.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and that reassurance. Will he remain vigilant that nobody whose loyalty may be divided will have access to any sensitive information or access to any part of the works and installations of the Ministry of Defence?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it has been the stated policy of successive Governments to ensure that no one who is known to be a member or sympathiser of the Communist Party or of a fascist organisation, shall be employed on work which is vital to the security of the state.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that it has always been extremely difficult to balance the needs of security against civil liberties? Will he give the assurance that no significant changes will be made to the well known established procedures without parliamentary debate?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sure that not only can I give that assurance for the next five days, but I shall be happy to give it for the next term as well!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Earl say what progress has been made with the inquiry into security vetting and other aspects of security?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my understanding at present is that that will fall as some of the other legislation is falling at the moment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, did my noble friend's answer to the second supplementary mean that he was prepared even to consider having to wait for a parliamentary debate before the proper distribution of staff could be decided upon?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I slightly lost the question asked by my noble friend on that supplementary. However, I shall read what he has said in Hansard, and if I may I shall let him know the answer.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all the spy revelations over the past three years concerned people who came not from the working class but from the universities—the higher ups?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the advanced system of education perhaps they will soon be the same.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does every non-industrial civil servant, in respect of whom it is recorded that he is a communist, know that that fact has been entered on his record, and does he have an opportunity to challenge it?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that the answer to that question would be, No.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question which perhaps is more important. Have any of these secret communists made their way to Tory Party headquarters? One sometimes suspects it in view of the strange, unrealistic policies that emanate from there.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has such an excellent entreé into the Conservative Central Office that I shall leave it to him.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that it is very difficult to identify the wolves in sheep's clothing? Is my noble friend completely satisfied that we have the processes to discover who in fact is a wolf in sheep's clothing?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I of course bow to my noble friend's knowledge of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The answer to my noble friend's question is: Yes, we are absolutely confident that we have the right methods for this particular work.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that history seems to reveal that the best recruiting sergeant for the communist party in Great Britain has always been an extreme right-wing Government?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords.

Urban Development: Assistance
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name of the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many local authorities are now receiving special assistance in recognition of the scale of the urban problems and what progress has been made under the Urban Development Grant Scheme.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, about 300 local authorities throughout the United Kingdom receive assistance under the Government's urban programmes which are aimed at the alleviation of urban problems. The bulk of the resources—which stands at a record £400 million for 1983–84—is concentrated in the 62 districts designated under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978.
Under the Urban Development Grant schemes in England and Wales and the analogous Local Enterprise Grants for Urban Projects scheme in Scotland, my right honourable friends have so far approved 120 projects involving total investment in the inner cities and urban areas of £225 million. These projects represent a highly effective use of public resources with only £43 million of central and local government money leading to £182 million of additional private investment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that extremely satisfactory Answer. I hope very much that this will be well appreciated when it comes to the general election because certainly one of the best things that have happened is the policy of the urban development grant. I thank my noble friend very much for this information.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. In my book, the function of Government is first, to identify the problem, and secondly, to do something about it. This we have done.

Public Lending Right Act: Registration
2.43 p.m.
Lord Vaizey: 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 authors have now registered to receive payment under the Public Lending Right Act.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, on 9th May—that is, yesterday-34,980 books by 3,733 authors had been entered in the Public Lending Right Register. There are applications being processed for a further 1,300 authors.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Although authors are grateful to Parliament for the scheme, is he aware that the extreme complexity of the arrangements which have been made for registration are such that the number of authors actually to have registered is disappointingly small?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts has recently made some amendments to the scheme, in particular to improve the position of children's authors, and those changes will also simplify the scheme's administration. I do not believe it would be appropriate to make major amendments to the scheme before we have seen it in operation for a year.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, do not the figures given by the Minister mean that the cost of administering this scheme will be much more than the wretched amounts which a few authors receive?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, of course I appreciate what my noble friend is saying. I would ask him to wait and see what the first distributions will be, and on that we can judge whether or not we shall have to increase the amount.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, can my noble friend possibly say what the cost of administration is as a proportion of the total amount to be expended—because he must be aware that many of us believe that the complexities of this administration are entirely designed to benefit those who administer the scheme and not those who are intended to benefit from it?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think that we must wait until the first year of the scheme is completed before we can make our judgments. I very much hope that what my noble friend is saying will not, in fact, be proved accurate.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps I may come to the Minister's aid. Is it not the case that the cost of the scheme will gradually reduce and that this development will be of great advantage to authors in future?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed, that is so. Again, until we have seen the first year's operation we cannot honestly say whether it will be a good distribution or whether we shall have to put more into the fund.
Lord Morris: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government calculated the potential number of beneficiaries of this scheme and what proportion of that total figure do the 5,000 authors who my noble friend mentioned in his Answer represent?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, in point of fact the total amount available is £2 million. So if he wishes to divide the 5,000 into that he can do so. But we still have to take the number of books and editions into account.
Lord Morris: My Lords, that was not the question that I asked my noble friend. I asked: how many potential beneficiaries are there under the scheme and what proportion of that total number will the 5,000 authors who my noble friend mentioned in his Answer represent?
Lord Avon: My Lords, as the authors are the beneficiaries, that is the answer.

Nuclear Weapons in the UK: Dual control
2.46 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 what discussions have been held or are contemplated with the United States Government regarding control of nuclear devices in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the understanding between the British and United States Governments, summarised in the joint communiqué of 1952, about the use of United States nuclear weapons systems based in this country, has been reaffirmed by the Prime Minister and by the President of the United States. The Government have satisfied themselves as to the effectiveness of this understanding.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. Nevertheless, is he aware that there is still some apprehension regarding this particular policy pursued by both Governments? Can he tell the House what actual arrangements take place to ensure that the installation of these nuclear weapons is safe and that as far as possible any possibility of accident is removed? What consultations take place with regard to the land that is taken over for these weapons to be installed? Thirdly, can the noble Lord please tell the House what progress has been made on achieving the dual key procedure in the event of real hostilities in which those weapons could be used?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the security of the missiles will be the responsibility of a jointly manned United States-United Kingdom force under British and United States commanders. They will be responsible for the security of the missiles at all times, whether on base or dispersed. I think that that answers both the first two supplementary questions of the noble Lord. As regards his final supplementary question, I repeat a reply which I have given on previous occasions in your Lordships' House: a full dual key arrangement rests upon ownership of the missiles, and Her Majesty's Government were certain that in this case ownership was not necessary and would involve the expenditure of money which could be put to better use elsewhere.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister say whether the first agreement has been amended in any form because of the variation in the kind of weapons which are intended as a deterrent and which will probably come into use?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I quoted the agreement in a short debate which took place on an Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and that is the agreement that we have today.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, from the noble Lord's Answer to the first Question, would we be right to assume that, in fact, the Prime Minister is expecting to discuss this subject with President Reagan at the forthcoming Summit?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords. As I said in my original Answer, the matter was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister and by the President of the United States in 1981. Therefore, I do not expect it to be discussed at Williamsburg.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that no exercises whatever have taken place in this matter, and that a single exercise would reveal that in an emergency operational control is the only thing that could make these missiles safe?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if exercises have not taken place, as the noble Lord says, it is because the policy of deterrence works and has worked for nearly 40 years.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Minister of State confirm to the House that the Government have never proposed to the United States that there might be a dual key without our buying the missiles?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is the case. I have already given the reason in the questions and answers this afternoon.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is not a question as to whether we are satisfied or whether the Americans are satisfied with the arrangements? The question is whether the Russians are satisfied with the arrangements, because if the Russians see American-controlled weapons here they may think it is safer to take them out, and that would be very unfortunate for us.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is why it is important that I should make it clear for about the umpteenth time that the use of these weapons is subject to joint decision, and therefore the Russians should not be tempted to make a move. It would be disastrous for them as well as for other human beings in Europe.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government seriously believe that in the emergency of a war situation in which America was involved, America would delay for discussions before using its nuclear weapons in this country? Secondly, may I ask a question I have asked before and to which I have not received a reply: In view of the fact that America has its reserve headquarters for Europe and this country at High Wycombe, how could the Government possibly control the actions of that centre with its missiles in this country?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to both the noble Lord's questions is in this way: the

421
understanding of 1952 in effect means that the use of nuclear weapons in this country and from this country is due to joint decision. Both the Prime Minister and the President have reviewed this understanding in 1981, and both are satisfied that it works well. It is an understanding about which all Governments for over 30 years have come to the same conclusion.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that there are situations developing in Southern America and other parts of the world that could, not inconceivably, cause a clash between the Soviet Union and the United States of America which would not necessarily involve Great Britain? There could be a loosing of nuclear weapons. Would there be then the possibility of a situation arising of United States' nuclear weapons on our soil being used against an enemy with whom we are not at war? Therefore, in these circumstances would the noble Lord agree that the tiny chink of light which has come from Mr. Andropov's proposals ought now to be pursued as that is the only possible way in which we might prevent the possibilities that I have outlined becoming a terrible reality?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in the event of a situation which the noble Lord has described, the use of nuclear weapons from British soil would still be subject to joint political decision under the 1952 agreement. So far as the proposals put forward by Mr. Andropov are concerned, those will be, I have no doubt, discussed in the correct forums at Geneva.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, on the eve of an election where the Prime Minister is claiming that Britain stands on her own feet and is respected in the world, we have a situation where, although there is a joint decision on cruise and other missiles, there are no joint operational checks? Can the noble Lord imagine a situation in the United States where allied missiles were fired only by the British and not by operational control with the Americans? Will he recognise the deep concern there is in this country not only on one side but in all parties, where people are most anxious about the need for dual control? Is it not really quite monstrous, when we are allies with the Americans, that we cannot have dual control, because we shall have to pay them rather a high cost to get it?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in answer to the first supplementary question, the security of the missiles will be the responsibililty of a jointly manned United States-United Kingdom force under British and United States commanders. That means that we are talking of a joint force working to a common purpose. That is one of the many contributions which this country makes to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. As the noble Lord has mentioned the general election, I hope that the electorate will draw their own conclusions from the proposals of the Opposition that that contribution should be withdrawn from NATO.

Future Business
2.54 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if, with the leave of the House, I make a further Statement about the remainder of this week's business. In addition to the business which I announced yesterday, and which is now on the Order Paper, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the following items of business should be taken during the remainder of this week. The following items will be taken after the business already on the Order Paper for Thursday, 12th May: all stages of the Importation of Milk Bill; consideration of Commons amendments to the Dentists Bill [H.L.]; consideration of Commons amendments to the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]; all stages of the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill; all stages of the Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill.
After the business already on the Order Paper for Friday: all stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill; all stages of the Finance Bill; consideration of Commons amendments to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill [H.L.]; Motions for approval of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order; and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order. In addition, it is possible that the remaining stages of three consolidation Bills may be taken tomorrow.
Dinner will be available at 7.30 p.m. tonight, as is usual on a Tuesday. It has been agreed through the usual channels that dinner will not be available on Thursday.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, two queries, if I may. First of all, on the assumption that none of the political parties will wish to meet this Thursday in order to discuss next week's now non-existent business, is there any reason why we should not sit at 2.30 this Thursday rather than at three o'clock? Secondly, could we have offical confirmation that the Data Protection Bill [H.L.] will not now reappear in this House in this Session?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I was not aware that there were to be no party meetings this Thursday, but perhaps we could discuss the time for Thursday through the usual channels. I hope that your Lordships will take it that if there is no further announcement it will be at three o'clock, as it is at the moment on the Order Paper. I understand that the Data Protection Bill [H.L.] will not now return during this Session to your Lordships' House.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that amendments, say, to the Scottish mental health Bill, which I gather was still in Committee at a middling stage this morning in another place, will be readily available so that we can see the cost to the Government of the generosity of the Opposition in allowing this to go through?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that full discussions have taken place in the usual channels in another place as to exactly what business should proceed in the two Houses this week. I cannot give the

423
noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, any information now about the availability of amendments, but I am sure that they will be available in some form for him to see and consider.

Business: Standing Orders 37 and 43
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 37 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended for the remainder of this Session so far as is necessary to give Her Majesty's Government power to arrange the order of business; and that Standing Order 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the same period.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business: Advancement of Legislation
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lords concerned to advance the following items:
Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill—From Thursday the 19th of May to this day.
Coroners' Juries Bill—From Monday the 16th of May to this day.
Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1983 and Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1983—From Thursday the 12th of May to Wednesday the 11th of May.
National Heritage Bill [H.L.] and Mobile Homes Bill [H.L.]—From Friday the 13th of May to Thursday the 12th of May.
Copyright (Amendment) Bill—From Tuesday the 17th of May to Thursday the 12th of May. —(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Private Business
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, on behalf of the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the procedural Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this Motion is to enable all Private Bills, currently being considered in this House, to continue their progress through Parliament next Session. I understand that a similar Motion will be moved in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That (1) That the promoters of every Private Bill which shall have been introduced into or presented to this House in the present Session of Parliament, shall have leave to introduce or present the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Noon on the last sitting day of the present Session; and provided that all fees due by them thereon, up to that period, be paid;
(2) That a list of all such Bills, with a statement of the stages at which they shall have arrived, shall be prepared in the Private Bill Office, and printed;
(3) That every such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament for business other than judicial business, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
(4) That the proceedings on any such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
(5) That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to any Private Bill which shall have originated in this House in the present Session, in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed;
(6) That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on any Bill in the next Session unless their petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session.
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill, has consented to place her prerogatives and interests, as far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security: (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time—[Lord Trefgarne.]
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when we had our debates in Committee yesterday, I asked the noble Lord about rural development areas. He then explained that they would be designated by the new commission. I asked him to consider the special position of Wales and Scotland and those rural areas in Scotland which are outside the boundaries of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the rural areas in Wales which are outside the designated boundaries of the Mid-Wales Rural Development Board. In both cases the areas concerned will come under the aegis of the Welsh Development Agency and, in Scotland, under the Scottish Development Agency.
The quesion is whether the agencies will be able to designate some of the rural areas in Scotland and Wales outside these boundaries as rural development

425
areas to receive the benefits of the administration of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. I made the point yesterday that these designations of special rural areas in Scotland and Wales were made because of problems which exist in those areas, such as depopulation, high unemployment and so on, which are well known to the House. The rural areas of England are now to receive the benfits of the administration of the new commission, and all that that involves in terms of resources, and CoSIRA operating in these regions able to help new industries to establish there. I want to know from the noble Lord whether, under the new dispensation, these areas of Scotland and Wales—where there is unquestionably high unemployment and severe depopulation, in some cases—will be able to be designated as rural development areas with all that that means.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, although the point raised by the noble Lord does not precisely fall within the ambits of the Bill, he is quite entitled to raise it, as he did yesterday. I undertook to write to him. I repeat that undertaking now and will be happy to provide a copy of the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

County Courts (Penalties for Contempt) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I propose to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in moving that the said Bill do now pass, I should like to thank the two Opposition parties and others for their co-operation in this matter. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it is clearly in the public interest that the difficulty in the law should be remedied so that orders of courts, including county courts, should be enforced. It is clearly in the public interest for the Bill to be passed through all its stages.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Variation of rent]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out lines 3 to 10, and insert—
("'(1A) Where the evidence available to the arbiter is in his opinion insufficient to enable him to determine the rent properly payable or he is of the view that the open market in rents for comparable subjects in the surrounding area is distorted by scarcity of lets or by other factors, the rent properly payable for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section shall be the rent which he would expect to be paid, in a market which was not affected by such distortion, having particular regard to the following—'").
The noble Earl said: When we considered this Bill on Second Reading I explained that both sides of the industry had expressed concern that Clause 2 of the Bill as drafted, which introduces a new formula for determining rent on review, might not achieve one of the main aims of the Bill; that is, to require an arbiter to have regard to the factors additional to open market rents in the surrounding area, as defined in Clause 2, where these open market rents were unrealistically high because of the scarcity of subjects to let.
Your Lordships will recall that I indicated we were re-examining the wording in detail and that we would present an amendment for the consideration of the House in Committee at this stage. The result of this re-examination is that we have produced this amendment to make it quite clear that, if the arbiter is of the opinion that the evidence of open market rents is distorted by scarcity of lets, or by other factors, he shall, in determining the review rent, discount such distortion and have regard to the additional factors which are defined in Clause 2. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think this amendment was promised in another place and again promised on Second Reading, so that we now have a chance of seeing exactly what the Government propose. I had hoped that we would also have some reference to the premium factor, or key money. I do not see that key money can be stopped. It is not part of the rent; it is part of the bargain of entry. This was one of the other elements I had hoped to see and I was not alone in that wish. Other people had expected the Government to deal with that.
Will the Minister tell us exactly what the change is? He said the amendment meets the point, but we have not had much time to read it. It was not available yesterday. I think I received it a couple of hours ago. It is up to the Minister to let us know what world-shaking change there is here, and I should be grateful

427
to him for that. We are denied further opportunity of discussion because of the farcical nature of the remaining legislative procedure. Frankly, I think that legislation in the House of Lords is given a far greater importance by the public—certainly from the Scottish point of view—than I can see in it. There is an element of farce in it.
There are quite a number of things in relation to this clause and in relation to rents that we could have raised. I was hoping to have put down some amendments in relation to this and to the things that the Government have ignored in the Northfield Report. It may be that that will be a suitable subject for discussion in the debate on the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, although I have been well enough brought up in legislation to know that when one speaks on "clause stand part" one speaks on things that are in the clause and not on things that should have been in the clause. The only time properly to do that is when one puts down an amendment and it is discussed. Although the business has been curtailed of necessity, it certainly was not with my agreement that this bargain has been reached in respect of this particular Bill. I view it with very mixed feelings, and I may refer to it at a later stage.
The Earl of Mansfield: In order to understand the way in which the clause has been amended, one has to read the Bill as we had it on Second Reading with the amendment. The difficulty was to enjoin the arbiter to have regard to the four factors which we conceive on lines 10 to 25 of page 2 of the Bill and at the same time, while he must take an objective test of those factors, to disregard the scarcity (if it exists) of subjects to let in the particular geographical area in which he is working. We had it on good advice—and this was confirmed by both sides of the industry agreeing—that as paragraph (b) of Clause 2 was drafted, there was a real danger that the arbiter was being enjoined to disregard scarcity which was precisely the opposite of the effect which was intended. Therefore, this amendment in those circumstances came to be drafted in the way it has been drafted. The effect of it is that the arbiter will disregard scarcity when he is determining the rent and will confine himself to the four factors which are set out of which probably the most important is sub-paragraph (iii).
What I have to say to the Committee is that this is an amendment which has been (as it were) vetted by both sides of the industry. Of course, it is not for them to agree or disagree to legislation; it is for Parliament to do that. But I can tell your Lordships that, in so far as they were asked to signify an opinion of the amendment, they were both in favour of it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think it is important to get it right because it is not either House of Parliament which is the last determiner of what is the law, it is the courts. Therefore, we want as much clarity as possible in respect of that. One of the other things that people were concerned about in respect of rents was the actual fact of the evidence to the Northfield Committee. We find it on page 25, although it is stated in more than one place and it is also in the minority recommendation of Mr. Colburn and Mr. Peat—and at least one of them was a Scotsman. It reads:
428
There is some evidence to support the view that the price of land is too high if viewed strictly in terms of its current agricultural earning capacity".
Of course, it is true that at times rents are being fixed which are not related to the productive capacity of a farm. There seems to be an independent value for the land as opposed to the profitability of the farm.
I am glad that the Government made another change in another place in relation to sub-paragraph (iv), which reads:
"the current economic conditions in the relevant sector of agriculture".
Originally, I think, the Government had the words, "current economic conditions in agriculture"; whereas, as we all know, there are sectors of agriculture which even at this moment are posing problems and a certain lack of profitability.
Did the Government consider the question of the separation that has grown up in respect of the value of land as evidenced by sales and rent as opposed to the productivity capacity of the individual farms that are being rented or being sold? Because of the situation it is too late now to put down any further amendments. The Government seem to think that they have now put right this misunderstanding. I only hope they are right hut, so far as the explanation given by the Minister is concerned, we could read very many things into even the amended version of paragraph (b).
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Of course, to a certain extent—but not necessarily to a great extent—the productive capacity of land depends on who is farming it. Some farmers are more efficient than others.
Lord Ross of Marnock: May I say that it also depends upon who owns it, as to whether they have ever put anything into it?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.17 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 33, leave out from ("subsection") to ("earlier") in line 35, and insert ("is").
The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting amendment but, because it is slightly more than that, I will explain it to the Committee. Clause 2(d) of the Bill provides, by an amendment to Section 7(3) of the 1949 Act, for the substitution of three years for five years as the minimum review period for determination of rent in arbitration. The proviso to Clause 2(d) provides transitional arrangements for the introduction of the three-year rent-review period under which any rent agreed or determined before the commencement of the amending legislation would not be subject to review by arbitration until the end of a five-year period.
In ordinary language, that means that any rent fixed before the new legislation came into effect, on the assumption that it would run for five years, should not be subject to review by arbitration until the end of the five-year period; thereafter the rent review period would be three years. The classes which these transi-

429
tional arrangements were intended to cover, with reference to Section 7(3) of the 1969 Act, were: first, rents agreed on the creation of a new tenancy; secondly, rent changes by agreement or arbitration; and, thirdly, cases in which there had been a direction by an arbiter that a rent should continue unchanged.
We have now established that the Bill as drafted covers the last two of these elements but not the first; that is to say, cases where a new tenancy has been created with an agreed rent less than five years before the commencement of the Act. This amendment corrects the error. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We are grateful to the noble Earl for having explained the amendment. Subsection (d) is not the most popular part of the Bill because the rent review in Scotland for a statutory period of five years has now been reduced to three years, so that the tenant farmers in Scotland can look forward to having their rents raised every three years instead of every five years. I know that some of the Liberals were even arguing for this proceeding at our Second Reading stage. I hope that they are now explaining to the tenant farmers in the North of Scotland, particularly round Caithness, how helpful they have been to them in supporting the Government in enabling rents to be raised every three years instead of every five years.
The noble Earl the Minister of State was a bit tetchy when I interrupted him during his Second Reading speech—I think during his winding-up—when he was proclaiming Northfield as the justification for the departure from the five-year period and insisting on three years as it was in England. I pointed out to the noble Earl that the recommendation in Northfield was not unanimous; it was a case of most of the members of the committee thinking the period should be the same as in England—three years. That is a fairly important point, especially if the dissenting members of this committee, drawn widely from the United Kingdom, were the Scots. Traditionally we have had a shorter period than in England for rent review. I see no reason why we should not continue with that because farming traditions and a lot of other things are different. I know that is not the point made by this amendment.
I hope the noble Earl the Minister will appreciate that we have to speak where we can in respect of this particular Bill. Let him be thankful it is going through in a very hurried way. The important point is that they seek to be fair. Quite apart from the terms of the lease the period is five years by statute, which has now been reduced to three years, and if there has been a decision by an arbiter we should try to ensure that it will not be changed until a certain period. It would be unfair to apply this new power of review in these particular cases.
I think what the Government are doing is fair and reasonable. I thank them for having discovered their mistake. As we went through this Bill with the usual toothcomb regarding legislation in your Lordships' House, it might well have been that all the Scots and all the English noble Lords were rushing to take part in it because, after all, they insisted that Scottish legislation should be dealt with here and not in
430
Edinburgh. We are not great devotees of devolution—
The Earl of Mansfield: Neither is the noble Lord.
Lord Ross of Marnock: When speaking from a sedentary position the noble Earl is even less careful of accuracy than when he is speaking on his feet.
A Noble Lord: Hear, hear!
Lord Ross of Marnock: When the noble Earl is speaking on his feet, he usually has guidance from others behind the scenes, but he does not know very much about this argument in relation to devolution or he would not have used this particular phrase. If the noble Earl cares to go back to the last Parliament he will discover my name applied to a Bill promoting devolution for Scotland. But from this particular point of view, I would have thought that if we had had that kind of close inquiry we might well have discovered this flaw in the Bill—who knows what other flaws there are?—which will never be noticed until such time as their Lordships in the courts of Scotland decide that what the Bill says is not exactly what the Government meant.
The Earl of Mansfield: Perhaps I should respond briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, accuses me of being tetchy last week—I think that was his word. If I were tetchy it was because the noble Lord struck what the Americans call a bum note and the sound has not become any clearer over the weekend. The reason for the difference between a three-year and a five-year period as opposed to Scotland and England was that traditionally farm leases in Scotland were longer than those in England. Therefore it came to be that five years was considered a reasonable period for review whereas in England, where they were shorter, a shorter period of three years was considered right.
As the noble Lord perhaps knows, in Scotland most, if not all, leases are on tacit relocations, and therefore the old considerations are totally inapplicable. In fact, this was part of the agreement which was, if not welcomed by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, at least assented to, the reason being that instead of as now, when every five years a tenant can more or less expect to have his rent doubled under what I might call a push-pull principle, now the thing falls to be considered in the future after three years and the ordinary conditions which will prevail at the time of the review will apply. I would ask the Committee to accept that this is probably a more logical and satisfactory way of proceeding.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Can we have a pledge from the Government that they will not be doubled after three years instead of waiting for five years?
The Earl of Mansfield: I would have thought that was not for the Government.
Lord Mishcon: Would the noble Earl the Minister care to confirm to the country that his forecast is that every five years the cost of living will be doubled and therefore the rent will have to be doubled every five years? Is that the message of the Government?
The Earl of Mansfield: It has nothing to do with the cost of living. In the past it has been due to the deplorable attitude shown by the then Labour Government to the farming community. In fact, rents bore no relationship to the cost of living except and in so far as the standard of living in agriculture went down because of the appalling policies exhibited by the then Minister of Agriculture towards the European Economic Community.
Lord Ross of Marnock: In that case, can the noble Earl tell us why the cost of farms has gone up and up and up even while there was a Labour Government? For the first time, from the 1948 Act onwards, in Scotland the farmers have a sense of security that they never had before, and if the noble Earl wants a lecture on that, may I refer him to what is going to be part of my bible during the Committee stage—which has been frustrated by some event announced from Downing Street—on land ownership and land use of the Scottish Highlands, which has just come from Aberdeen University. If the noble Earl has time—because he will not be contesting any election—to read that, he will find the latest state of affairs in relation to land use in Scotland and the Scottish Highlands.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Grounds for consent to operation of notices to quit a tenancy.]
On Question. Whether Schedule 1 shall be agreed to?
Lord Ross of Marnock: For the purposes of clarity and the understanding of those outside who will be interested in this matter, could the noble Earl the Minister tell us what part of the schedule is new? I think a part is just repeating the law as it is at present. Can the noble Earl tell us what part is old and what part is new? Can he tell us what is repetition of what presently exists and what is new law?
The Earl of Mansfield: Part I is basically old and Part II is new.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Can the noble Earl make clear as to what it does?
The Earl of Mansfield: I am sorry, I did not hear that request.
Lord Ross of Marnock: If that statute is still in force and new provisions are added, can the noble Lord tell us just exactly how they apply? In other words, I want the noble Earl to make clear to the farming community in Scotland just exactly what the difference now is in respect of those who are affected by Part I and Part II.
The Earl of Mansfield: We went into this during Second Reading when I explained the difference between the old and the new concept of near relatives. If the noble Lord will look at the Official Report and read it with the schedule to the Bill, he will then see
432
how it is that so far as leases in existence are concerned—and we are now talking about succession—there will be no change at all. But, in respect of new leases after the Bill takes effect, which is two months after it receives the Royal Assent, there will be a second class, as it were, of relatives or successors to the tenancy where different considerations will apply so far as a notice to quit is concerned. Of course the cases which are really important are cases 4, 5, 6, and 7—although 7, I hazard, is less important than the other three.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am very grateful for the explanation. I am very sad that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and his colleague who spoke on Second Reading are not here, because they had a great deal to say about the 1968 Act. What this Bill does, in Part I of this schedule, is confirm that that Act which they condemned so much still remains in force and is accepted by the Government for all existing tenancies. The change in tenancies will apply only to those which are entered into after 1st January 1984, when new tenants will discover that they have not the same security of tenure, or conditions of tenure, in respect of succession as existed under the 1968 Act. Following the speeches of those two noble Lords from the Liberal Benches, I was hoping to see an amendment down to leave out the first part of this schedule, but evidently their interest did not sustain them quite to that point.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments: Report received.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read a third time, with the amendments.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I hope it is not out of order to thank noble Lords opposite for having, as it were, facilitated the passage of this Bill towards the statute book. Nobody is going to pretend that it will have a tremendous effect on land holding in Scotland but I think that most people believe it will have a beneficial effect. I am therefore grateful to noble Lords for having made the agreements that they have to accelerate its progress. Perhaps it is not out of order if I also say that I imagine this will be the last time, certainly in this Parliament, that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and I shall face each other across these Despatch Boxes. The last three years or so have been pleasant. Just occasionally tetchiness has broken out but never for long, and it has always been interesting.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I have to be grateful to the Minister for his further explanation on Third Reading of the importance of this Bill. When it had its Second Reading in another place the Minister in charge said that the aim of the Bill was to stem the decline in the number of tenant farmers in Scotland and indeed to increase that number. If that was his aim, I notice that the aim put forward by the noble Minister just now is a little bit less optimistic. We just hope that something good will come out of it. I can tell him the good that will come out of it. For the landlords it will be increased rents—more frequent periods of review and increased rents. For new tenants entering succession after 1st January, they will not have the security that was afforded by the Labour Government's Act of 1968.
It is not so had a Bill as I expected because anyone who knows what happened in connection with the 1956 Act—part of which was put right in Scotland, by the way, long before anything was done in England, because it was 1976 before the change was made in England—will appreciate just exactly the importance of it.
The Minister referred to our confrontations across this Table on Scottish legislation. This is where I think the House of Lords slips up. It has been virtually a dialogue between the noble Minister and myself. I do not call that "close scrutiny of legislation". I think I am right in saying that I occasionally had some help from my noble and learned friend—when he sees a point he makes it, as he did today—but it really is a bit of a farce if this is to be considered an adequate legislative process for Scotland in relation to matters of very considerable importance. I think the noble Minister has learned over the past two or three years. I remember in his early period I described him as "the master of the infelicitous phrase". He has learned that a little more control of that "tetchiness" of his will get him a little further forward.
I have heard reference made to the length of my speeches from this Bench from some noble Lords. Take Second Reading: we had about two speeches from the noble Earl; we had four or five speeches from the Back Benches—all from the Tory side—and two Liberals spoke. You add up all that time and you will see that I have to make up for it in some way and I think I have been very abstemious in relation to my occupation of this Bench. I certainly look forward to legislation in the next House when the noble Earl is sitting on this side and I am supporting the Minister of State from the other side.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

Diseases of Fish Bill
3.40 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, that the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Coroners' Juries Bill
3.41 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It may seem presumptuous of one who has been in your Lordships' House for fewer than four months to be so soon seeking your Lordships' support for legislation. That presumption must be the more compounded when the legislation is concerned with the office of coroner, which dates from the year 1194–789 years ago. I can only ask that that presumption be excused.
I wish, first, to pay tribute to my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Christopher Price, who introduced this Bill there in April this year. It is true to say that, despite the great age of the system of coroners' courts, there has been disquiet over recent years about a number of aspects of the way in which those courts are run. There has been considerable public disquiet about particular decisions of the courts, but I do not think it is appropriate for me to go into any particular cases.
The present position of coroners' juries is that it is not like juries in other courts. In courts, the Juries Act 1974 governs the qualification of persons to serve as jurors in the Crown Court, the High Court and county courts, the summoning of jurors to attend for service and related matters. But there is no such clear indication in legislation of what the position should be for coroners' juries. When a coroner is obliged or desires to summon a jury he:
"shall, as soon as practicable, issue his warrant for summoning not less than seven nor more than eleven good and lawful men to appear before him at a specified time and place, there to inquire as jurors touching the death"
of such-and-such a person. I quote from the Coroners Act 1887, Section 3(1). This not only leaves open the issue of whether there should be a jury, although that issue has been somewhat closed by recent amendments to the Administration of Justice Act; it also leaves entirely the issue of how and from whom the coroner's jury shall be selected.
The coroner's warrant is directed to the coroner's officer who, in turn, issues summonses to a number of adults sufficient to make up a jury. There is advice from the Home Office about how to use the electoral roll and summon jurors on a random basis, as is the case with other juries, but it is still the case that in some areas coroners' officers do as they think fit. It was suggested in another place that they might go out and take people going to or from meetings of the National Front or the Communist Party.
I think we may see that as being somewhat fanciful, but there is evidence that in some parts of the country the coroners' officers, who tend to be police officers, look for retired people who are less likely to seek to be excused, and less likely to make expensive claims for loss of earnings. Of course, the discretion in the hands of the coroner's officer is itself a matter of concern,

435
because, unfortunately, there are deaths in police custody and the idea that a police officer, being a coroner's officer, should have any real discretion about the selection of a jury when the case concerns a death in police custody is worrying, to say the least.
There are other things that could be said about coroners and coroners' juries which I do not think it is appropriate to raise in detail. We could—and I hope that in a new Parliament we will—be talking about legal aid in coroners' courts. We could be talking about the disclosure of police evidence. We could be talking about coroners' courts being held on behalf of the Queen and not on behalf of relatives, so that a wider range of witnesses could be admitted. We could also be talking about civilian coroners' officers, rather than police officers.
But we are concentrating now on one thing and one thing alone, which is the constitution of coroners' juries. This Bill follows recommendations in the Brodrick Report of 1971 and in the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place in 1980. It had the support in another place of the Government. It has the support of the Coroners' Society, whose secretary, Dr. John Burton, I understand agrees with this particular reform, though possibly not with some of the others to which I have referred.
The Bill is a short one. Clause 1 is concerned with the qualifications of jurors, and it seeks—I shall be extremely brief about this—to make the qualifications the same as for other courts, and to make the penalties for misrepresentation or serving on a jury while knowingly being ineligible the same as they would be in other courts. It empowers the appropriate officer—that is, the coroner's officer—to question people who have been summoned to see whether they are qualified, and it defines the fines which are applicable for offences against the Bill.
Clause 2 refers to the extension of the rule-making power, which is concerned entirely in this case with the conditions under which persons may be excused jury service. Again, it seems entirely appropriate that the conditions of being excused for family or business reasons, or for any other appropriate reasons, should be as they are in the courts.
Clause 3 is mostly formal, but includes a provision, lest we should be thought to be infringing on the Royal prerogative, that excludes any inquest held by the coroner of the Queen's Household. As noble Lords will know, the coroner of the Queen's Household holds sway in the Royal Palaces and in this Palace of Westminster.
As I said, this is a relatively modest and uncontroversial Bill. It is part of a whole series of amendments which might be thought desirable to the system of the coroner's court. But, as it is, I believe that it deserves the support of all Members of your Lordships' House. My Lords. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I think that I shall be speaking for the whole House when I congratulate my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey on the skilful manner in which he has, for the first time, introduced
436
a Bill in this House. Bills which are thought to be modest and uncontroversial very often turn out to be highly technical and extremely difficult. I remember on one occasion in the Appellate Committee someone submitting to Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest that the point being taken by his opponent was a merely technical point. Lord Morris said "Ah, yes. Very often, what you regard as a mere technical point your opponent has discovered to be an important point of principle." So there are pitfalls in the apparently uncontroversial.
This Bill has, as my noble friend said, received support from sources well qualified to express a view from experience and knowledge of these matters, and certainly it has our support. I confess however that I think this is a classic case for early consolidation. No fewer than four Acts of Parliament are referred to in the Bill. We start with the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926. Then there comes a reference to the need to amend the Coroners Act 1887. Next there is the Juries Act 1974 and finally the Criminal Justice Act 1982. In relation to the Juries Act 1974, one reads:
"If a person serves on a jury knowing that he is ineligble for such service under Group A. B or C in Part I of Schedule 1 to that Act he shall he guilty of an offence".
All that is very bewildering, and clearly it is somewhat meaningless in some ways—on a first reading, at any rate.
I wonder whether it is intended to explain to the person who is to be summoned to the jury what it is that he must be sure of before he serves. Group A is fairly simple. Members of the judiciary are ineligible for service. So also are other persons concerned with the administration of justice, the clergy, the mentally ill and a group of persons disqualified under Part II. This group includes those who have served any part of a sentence of imprisonment or detention for a term of three months or more.
This is not a very satisfactory way of proceeding with legislation. Therefore I greatly hope that after it has gone through the House the Bill will be an early candidate for consolidation. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were here I am sure we should hear complaints in far more eloquent terms than I have expressed about the need for consolidation. Subject to that point, we on this side of the House give our support to the Bill.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for the very helpful speech he has made and for sponsoring what we all agree is a very useful Bill. As your Lordships have heard, the Bill will implement a recommendation made by the Brodrick Committee as long ago as 1971. It is a useful measure and one that is welcomed by the Government. One of the reasons which has traditionally been given for differentiating the coroner's jury from other juries has been that the coroner's jury may have to be called together in haste. That was indeed the case when at one time the only statute governing the matter was the Coroners Act 1887, Section 3 of which requires the coroner to have his jury summoned "as soon as practicable".

437
However, Section 13(2) of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926 enabled the coroner to open an inquest without a jury, subsequently adjourning it and summoning the jury rather more at leisure, so that there is nowadays no reason why that jury should not be selected in exactly the same way and by the same means as juries in other courts. That is what the Bill will achieve. Clause 1(1) of the Bill, by applying to coroners' jurors the same qualifications and disqualifications as already apply to jurors in other courts under the Juries Act 1974, will enable the selection of coroners' juries to be made at random from the electoral roll.
It is intended that if the Bill becomes law, administrative arrangements should be made for this to be done by the same machinery as in other courts. Selection of jurors will therefore no longer rest with the coroner's officer, as at present. The clause goes on to create a number of new offences—new, that is, in relation to coroners' jurors, since they and the associated fines are identical with those which the Juries Act 1974 applies to jurors in other courts. The clause also provides for the coroner to authorise a person to question, or cause to be questioned, any person summoned to serve on a coroner's jury to establish whether the person is in fact qualified to serve as a juror.
Clause 2 extends the rule-making power in Section 26 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926 under which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor makes procedural rules in relation to inquests. This will enable those provisions of the Juries Act 1974 which relate to the excusal of jurors to be applied to coroners' jurors. Although these rules are made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I understand that he is advised in this matter by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary who has a general responsibility for the law under which coroners work.
Clause 3 gives the short title of the Bill, and provides that if it becomes law it shall come into force on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State. I have already referred to the administrative arrangements which have to be made for the selection of coroners' jurors by the machinery used in other courts. It would take a month or two to apply that machinery to coroners' juries, to make the new rules I have mentioned and to promulgate the arrangements to all those concerned. It is envisaged that the rules will come into force on the same day as that appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Act to come into effect.
Clause 3 also removes from the Coroners Act 1887 a disqualification which has become redundant since it is now covered by the disqualifications in the Juries Act 1974, and provides that the Bill, if it becomes law, will not apply to any inquest begun before it comes into force, or to any inquest held by the coroner of Her Majesty the Queen's Household. The Bill applies only to England and Wales.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked about the possibility of a consolidation measure. I should like to follow this up with a letter to the noble and learned Lord on the matter. As I understand it,
438
there is the possibility of introducing further legislation in due course, taking into account the recommendations of the Brodrick Committee before any further consolidation measures come into effect.
Until yesterday I had fully expected that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and I would not be so fully in accord over another rather larger Bill which was to have been before your Lordships' House this afternoon, so it is with much pleasure that on behalf of the Government I welcome this Bill whose aims the Government fully support.
Lord Morris: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him, regarding the question put to him by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, concerning consolidation, whether the Government could possibly think up more excuses for avoiding consolidation than the one he has just promulgated, because the excuse which is always given is that there is more legislation in the pipeline and this is the wrong time to consolidate.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot fully respond to my noble friend's point about consolidation. I should like to seek advice and talk to him about it.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; Bill read a third time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I must express my appreciation to the Government and to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for the welcome they have given to the Bill. I am particularly gratfule to the noble Lord for making it clear that the Government will attempt to simplify the introduction to the Bill by simplifying the dates provided for in Clause 3. We are already indebted to the Government for another matter; namely, the institution of rules by the Attorney General for juries in other courts, whereby the procedures drawn up by the Royal Statistical Society for the random selection of jurors from the electoral roll have been brought into force by this Government. Since it is the last week of this Government, it would seem churlish not to say so before they vanish into oblivion.
My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn Jones referred to the necessity for consolidation. Although I sympathise with him, it would be sad if we were to lose some of these splendid words which appear in the 1887 legislation. I should hate to lose from the statute book the words:
"good and lawful men"

439
as applied to coroners' juries. And since the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, referred to the Telecommunications Bill, I have a particular affection for another 1887 Act, which crops up in the Telecommunications Bill, and that is the Military Tramways Act. Again, that is something that I would be sad to see being lost from the statute book.
I wish to mention just one other point, which concerns the disqualification of jurors. Some noble Lords may have been puzzled by the proposal in this Bill to remove the disqualification of prison officers under certain circumstances. The reason for that is that there occurs in existing legislation for other types of juries a general disqualification in respect of prison officers. I felt it was necessary to refer to that in case this proposal was thought to be a step backwards rather than a step forward. These, however, are minor points. I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken and I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill [H.L.]
4.2 p.m.
Lord Kennet: 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 Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord CULLEN OF ASHBOURNE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Prohibition of female circumcision]:
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("person") insert ("for ritual, cultural or traditional reasons").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, Clause 1(1)(a) will read as follows:
"to excise, infibulate or otherwise mutilate any part of the labia majora or minora or clitoris of any person for ritual, cultural or traditional reasons",
making it quite clear that this is something different from normal medical practice. I apologise for not being present at Second Reading, but I have read Hansard carefully and have noted the wide agreement for and unaminity towards the purposes of this Bill. I also noted that there has been a good deal of discussion about ways in which this Bill might be improved. I wonder whether this modification will clarify the position because, as the Bill is drafted, matters are dealt with the other way around. To clarify this point, I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, is of course the reason for this Bill; in broad terms, the Bill exists to prevent precisely that which is described in his amendment. But I wonder whether it is fair to the courts to move these words into the Bill. Let us just think what might
440
happen if a prosecution is brought. The court has to decide whether the reason for the operation is ritual, cultural or traditional. An argument is then bound to develop between the prosecution and the defence as to what is enjoined by the culture or tradition of the patient and what is not enjoined by the culture or tradition of the patient; and about what the ritual commonly practised in the patient's homeland is and what it is not. I wonder whether that is a firm enough basis on which to expect a court to pass judgment. The rituals, cultures and traditions of the peoples where this operation is endemic are continuously changing. The evidence brought before the court might be out of date, or it might be held that it was out of date. The argument would shift onto even shakier sands.
This is why, when drafting this Bill in the first place, I thought that I should try to avoid subjective words such as "cultural" or "traditional" and try simply to define an action that was to be illegal unless certain defined persons declared positively that it was for the health of the patient. I still believe that it is better that way around. It will be more easily argued before the courts that way around. I hope therefore that, having heard the other side of the argument, the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, will agree that his amendment can be dispensed with.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: While appreciating the purpose of this amendment I support the objections made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, because my reading of this amendment is that it will weaken the Bill. The amendment tries to define three reasons for female circumcision, but there may be many more, and different words may be used. I can think, for example, of "religious" reasons. Such reasons might be covered by "cultural", but then they might not be.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, drafted this Bill in order to avoid any ambiguity and any cultural offence, I suggest that by selecting these three terms—although I fully admit that they are the main terms which could be held to cover virtually all the causes—there is the danger that, in a court of law, other words could be used which might not be legally covered by the three terms included in the proposed amendment. For that reason, this amendment will weaken this Bill and I do not believe that any member of this Committee wishes to do that.
Lord Trefgarne: If I may, I should like to say a few words at this point about the Government's position. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said, the way he has constructed his Bill is to prohibit all operations on these parts of the female anatomy and then to provide certain savings in terms of medical necessity. The Government have a good deal of sympathy for the line proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, because, if for no other reason, it means that the somewhat draconian policing arrangements which are called into play by Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill will not then be necessary.
I recognises that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has softened, or proposes to soften, those arrangements quite considerably. All the same, I am tempted to prefer the line proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, knows, the Government have been consid-

441
ering whether it would be possible to table our own amendments to achieve this purpose. I am sorry that, in the helter skelter of the weekend, this has not proved possible, although considerable efforts were made.
The Government position, then, is that while we are generally neutral to the individual amendments which now come before your Lordships, we certainly endorse the essence of that which is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in that we ought to put beyond any doubt that this procedure is unlawful. Having said that, I will leave the detailed consideration of these amendments to your Lordships.
Baroness Gaitskell: I utterly reject this amendment. It does nothing to improve the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has so courageously brought forward and which will make history at this time. To talk about the cultural attitude towards it does not make that attitude good; it still remains cruel and ignorant, and there is nothing to be said in its favour. The fact is that there are certain cultural customs that are not to be admired. With regard to its being traditional, if something is traditional and it is bad, do we have to go on with it? I have never heard of such a thing. It simply does not make sense at all. So I hope that neither the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, nor any of us will accept this amendment.
Baroness Jeger: This is a very difficult and sensitive problem and I think we all appreciate how the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, have endeavoured to meet it. On balance, however, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, will not press his amendment. It seems to me we can only legislate here for the courts of this country, and how difficult it is going to be for the courts of this country if we put before them judgments which have to be made on the ritual, cultural or traditional reasons which are extant in other countries. I feel that is putting an onus on the courts that would be most impractical and most unfair, and, while appreciating the motives for it, I very much hope the noble Lord. Lord Hunter, will not press his amendment.
Lord Hale: I had not intended to intervene. I have much sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said. It is 40 years since I was in Kenya and was made aware of this practice, which applied in certain tribes and not in others so far as one could know, and particularly in the Kikuyu tribe, where it was a common practice in those days to see the woman of the household, often the grandmother, walking in front carrying an enormous sack, posho, on her head, and the young grandson smoking a cigarette and walking 20 yards behind. At that time Lady Summerskill wrote to me and asked if women's rights were looked after in the colonies I was visiting, and I gave her a very strong indication of this practice which appeared to have no possible explanation at all, except the enslavement of women by the deprivation of any form of sexual temptation. I do not know what we can do by legislation, except in this country; but one could at least perhaps think of trying to do something by education in other areas. It is an important subject; it is one that everyone has taken seriously and I know
442
this House is anxious so to do. It is a very vicious practice.
May I just say one thing about our courts dealing with the terms of Lord Hunter's amendment. Only two or three days ago I was reading a brief account of A. J. P. Taylor's article on the criminal libel case in which the title of the criminal libel was The Cult of the Clitoris. He says that in the course of that stormy trial, which had juries going mad and judges beyond control—and Mr. Justice Darling is one of the 47,000 people in the black book who have been accused as a spy—the judge confessed, and the Director of Public Prosecutions added, that neither of them knew what the clitoris was and had never heard of it before the case. This was regarded apparently as an even graver circumstance.
Viscount Tenby: I must say I am 100 per cent. in favour of this Bill: "There is a destiny that shapes our ends rough hew them as we may."
Lord Hunter of Newington: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Masham of Ilion Baroness Masham of Ilion moved Amendment No. 2.
Page 1, line 12, after ("fine") insert ("or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both").
The noble Baroness said: For the convenience of the Committee, I would like to take amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. These amendments, if agreed, will mean that if a person is guilty of an offence the possibility of a prison sentence will be included in the Bill, in Amendment No. 2 on conviction on indictment, and in Amendment No. 3 on summary conviction. These amendments will place female circumcision clearly within the context of Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I have spoken to many people from all walks of life who have been shocked that female circumcision for non-medical reasons has taken place in this country. All people with whom I have discussed this Bill feel that a fine is not a strong enough disincentive to stop this practice from taking place.
If medical doctors are found guilty of an illegal practice they can be struck off the medical register by the General Medical Council. But how do we know there are not witch doctors and other people who might be interested in performing this mutilation? We live in a very complex, mixed society.
I have looked up the Offences Against the Person Act 1961. The section that covers bodily harm and intent to wound does not say anything about the performing of these acts with the consent of a parent. This is why I think we want a clear Act of Parliament which prohibits female circumcision for non-medical reasons. It is an extraordinary custom. If the Bill does not include the penalty of imprisonment it is lessening existing legislation, which I am sure is not the intent of this Bill.
My interest is to protect children and young people who sometimes are in the hands of parents or grandparents who, because they have been circumcised, think the next generation should suffer the same

443
fate. It is a vicious circle of custom. Anyone who heard the cries of the children who had undergone the agonies of this mutilation must surely agree. If we legislate it is important to make it clear that these people taking part in performing or subjecting their children to this vile practice are at risk of going to prison. I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: The Bill as drafted does, of course, create an offence, and in order to put it beyond doubt that that is a criminal offence it does provide a penalty on conviction. The amendment only increases the penalty on conviction. We may want to do that in order to express a greater abhorrence of the practice concerned than would otherwise be the case. We may want to do it because we are trying to put it beyond doubt in the wake of the 1861 Act, which has not been applied to those who have committed these atrocities in this country. In that case we should want a prison sentence.
On the other hand there is this consideration. If we are talking about medically qualified people—a doctor, surgeon, or a nurse for that matter—who is convicted of the crime created by this Bill, that person is ruined. The professional bodies will not smile on his future career even if he is only fined. The disgrace should be sufficient to deter him from doing it again. Then we come, as the noble Baroness said, to the unqualified person—the "witch doctor" or the back street barber-type semi-trained midwife—who may not be deterred by a fine. We could say, as a counter argument, that she will be charging a great deal less than a surgeon, by definition, and that is why she gets the work. No one likes insanitary operations for their own sake. Therefore, she will be doing it quite a lot if she is to afford the kind of fine that is already in the Bill.
There are many pros and cons. I have not even mentioned overcrowding in prisons and the general considerations of penal reform. In short, it is an issue on which I, as the simple layman introducing the Bill, find it impossible to have an opinion. This is where I believe it would be helpful if the Government could tell us what, in their view, would be the best sort of penalties to have in the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne: I fear I cannot go that far, but I can say that I think it is important that the penalties provided for in this Bill are the sort of penalties that one would receive for comparable offences under other legislation and also that the penalties provided in the Bill are appropriate for the courts in which the offences will come to be tried, should that happen.
It is not certain that we have achieved that, either in the drafting of the Bill as originally presented or, indeed, in this clause as it might be amended by the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness. I should like to reserve the Government's position on that, but I cannot think that this is a matter of great substance standing between the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and myself.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like to say a few words in support of the amendments. The way that society relates to and views a particular crime is very much represented by the measure of punishment
444
which is doled out for that crime. At present we have and awful lot of offences which draw a fine. We are all liable to a fine most days. We park our cars for five minutes too long somewhere and attract a fine. Someone who is fined for an offence is socially completely acceptable, but someone who has been imprisoned for an offence is not socially acceptable. It is quite a different degree of punishment. There is a great divide between the offence of parking one's car for five minutes too long and someone who performs this operation. In my view, therefore, it is important to show that society views this particular crime as serious by adding to the Bill that it should be an imprisonable offence.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I find it impossible to support this amendment on the ground that one should not invent new reasons for sending people to prison when informed opinion is perfectly clear that, first, it does not do them any good when one has done so, and, secondly, that it does not act as a deterrent to people who do not understand our mode of thought.
The technical people, such as doctors or nurses, as has already been agreed, would be properly punished by their own trade unions, so to speak, if convicted of such an offence. The less educated, less sophisticated, or, if you like, more ritually devoted people will not be affected in any way by being sent to prison. It is an entirely inappropriate sentence for either a priest who is doing something because he believes it is God's will or for a mother who is doing something because it happened to her mother. I believe it to be absolutely misguided at this stage to introduce imprisonment as a punishment for something which we all believe should be severely punished. It is our duty, and we are happy to support it, that the operation should be made illegal in this country, but not to the extent of imprisonment.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: I support my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton. I do not think that many English, or should we say Anglo-Saxon, horn doctors are likely to be inclined to pursue this type of operation. It is not unnatural to think that those who have been born and bred in a country where female circumcision was normal practice, who have qualified and come to practise in this country and whose whole environment and culture has accepted it as reasonable practice, are more likely to be the doctors who would perform these operations.
They are not likely to perform them in a National Health Service hospital. If a very strong-minded father or mother, with the old cultures instilled in them, wish it done to their daughters they are likely to pay for it privately, and perhaps quite heavily. To pay out a fine they will lose no face, but if they are sent to prison I am sure it will do more to bring home throughout the country that we do not accept this mutilation of women who are operated on where there is no medical need; that we do not accept it and that we are not prepared to accept it.
I think it should be for the courts to decide whether a fine or imprisonment is appropriate. However, I do not believe that a fine will bring home the depth of disgust and revulsion that we have towards this practice in the same way as sending people to prison.

445
Many of these people, particularly those who are well established and seeking to maintain their old ideas and cultures, will be quite ready and prepared to pay considerable sums of money to have this operation performed. A fine will mean nothing. The courts should have the power to decide what the penalties should be and, however short a term of imprisonment, this will bring home the gravity of the crime far more than a fine ever could.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I support both the amendments of the noble Baroness and I do so for two reasons. However, before I give them may I appeal to fellow Members of this House not to use the term "witch doctor" as it has been used. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about this term. Indeed, in many parts of the world what is better termed as traditional medicine is now recognised, and co-operated with, by what we might call modern or scientific medicine.
The two reasons that I believe can be adduced in favour of these amendments are, first, that it will strengthen and more clearly define the very passionate statement which was made to us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the Second Reading of the Bill. He stated quite categorically that this operation was an offence under present law. One reason for this Bill is to make this quite clear, and it will only be made clear if the penalties are spelt out in the Bill as they were in the 1861 Act.
My second reason for supporting the amendment is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby- Smith, pointed out, in these cases a fine is likely to have very little deterrent effect. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, about our universal desire to reduce the prison population, and the doubts as to whether in certain cases prison is a deterrent. However, these amendments affect very few people. They will not increase the prison population by any substantial number, and in this particular case I do believe that imprisonment will be a deterrent.
I refer your Lordships to the comparison mentioned in the Second Reading debate between the danger of what may happen if this Bill is passed and what used to happen (and no doubt still does in a reduced number of cases) on abortion. There can be backstreet circumcision, as there was back-street abortion. It is not normally conducted by members of the medical profession—although we know that it has been conducted by them at a very lucrative rate. It is more likely that this operation will be performed by unskilled people who, once the Bill is passed, will certainly know that it is regarded in this country as a very important and serious offence. But they will know that only if this kind of amendment, which lays down imprisonment and/or a fine, is spelt out to them.
We also know that, as in back-street abortion, the fees paid for this kind of operation may well be very large. In that case, the fine will not be any kind of deterrent. We as the Parliament of this country should make it quite plain, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did, that this is considered to be a wounding offence—an offence of wounding against the person—and that the penalties for that are the same as those for any other kind of deliberate wounding. It is
446
only if we spell that out clearly that we can attack the danger of the Bill being circumvented by back-street methods, which must be clearly defined as a grave offence against the person. I believe that these amendments—and this kind of amendment alone—will make this clear to the public.
4.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fully sympathise with the strength of feeling which has led noble Lords to support this amendment—indeed, these two amendments. But I beg the House to think of it from the penological point of view and from the point of view of the appropriateness of custodial sentences. There are two kinds of people who are likely to commit offences under this Bill: first, those who do it for gain; and, secondly, those who do it for religious and/or cultural reasons. The majority of those who do it for gain will presumably be qualified medical practitioners, for whom it is correct to say that the threat of a fine may not be the overriding consideration. But the condemnation of their medical colleagues will be inevitable if they are convicted of an offence under this Act. They will certainly suffer far more severely from the disapproval of medical colleagues than from the fine itself.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Does the noble Lord not realise that in the case of back-street abortions, many medically qualified people made a career of this, despite the fact that they were barred by the British Medical Council? As I am putting this to him, will he also consider that the likelihood is that back-street circumcisions will be performed professionally by many people who have no medical qualifications whatever?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was about to raise that second category in my next remarks. Of course the condemnation of the law in this case will apply particularly strongly to medical practitioners. The problem about back-street circumcisions is not really an issue of the kind of penalty that should be imposed but whether such people can be found. I believe that is the consideration to which we should be confining ourselves.
So far as those who do it for ritual or religious reasons, again I really do question whether imprisonment is an appropriate penalty. I suggest that the question we should ask is, if imprisonment is to be imposed, are these the kind of people who will require secure custodial treatment or the kind who will go pretty well straight away into open prisons, where security is not the concern? Custodial sentences are for the protection of the rest of the nation and not for custody itself. Unless we are absolutely convinced that these people are a danger to the rest of the nation and should be locked away in secure conditions, we ought not to be creating new custodial offences.
Baroness Lockwood: I rise to support the amendments. I do so on the grounds that I think the nature of this offence is something which we must take into account. I very much appreciate the arguments of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey and others about custodial offences and not wanting to

447
increase the prison population, but we are not today concerned with the reform of penal law. If we were, we should be looking at the whole range of penal offences. We are here to consider a Bill which seeks to outlaw a very serious offence and one which we do not want to see grow in this country. Therefore I think it is absolutely essential that this House should make it as clear as it possibly can to the rest of the country that this offence will not be tolerated. If that is so, the only remedy we have is the most serious remedy in our land—imprisonment. On those grounds, I support these amendments. I do so without prejudice to what I might say on a future occasion if we are reviewing the whole of the penal system.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I point out that neither I, nor I think the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, gave the overcrowding of prisons—which we all admit to be disgraceful—as a reason for what we said. Both of us—I speak for myself, but I think for him also—believe that to send someone to prison, where it can do him or her no good, where it has no deterrent effect, and where the people do not understand the reason for it, is ridiculous, and we oppose it.
Lord Somers: I should like to say how very much I support the noble Baroness's amendment. It has been mentioned that female circumcision might be carried out for cultural or religious reasons; but when one comes to live in a country which is not one's own, one must first assume that one is going to obey the law of that land. Although we make very great allowances so far as religious and cultural practices are concerned, I do not think that in a case such as this that point should be taken into consideration. So far as the overcrowding of prisons is concerned, I quite agree that that must be considered; but, on the other hand, the offence will not involve very large numbers, and so I do not think that that consideration should stand in the way.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Kennet: The question is not whether all those convicted should or should not be sent to prison, but whether the courts should have available to them prison sentences to be imposed on those whom the courts consider it appropriate to deal with in that way. I was very disappointed that the Government were not able to tell us what to do. I am even more disappointed that I am not able to tell the Committee what to do. The Committee is full of wise heads, and many strong arguments have been advanced on both sides. On this occasion, when the arguments are so closely balanced, it would seem to be a time when it would be logical to have a Division. But I must say that I rather hope that there need not be a Division for a reason which I think will be obvious to all of those who have heard the debate. Although the measure is a non-party one, it is not absolutely clear that it is a non-sex one, as it were. So if those who are against the amendment are able to accept that it might be inserted in the Bill, at least at this stage, I should find that a very happy outcome.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge; I do not feel that either the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, or
448
I wish to oppose the ladies, who are the people at risk in relation to the Bill. So, speaking for myself, I should not wish to force a Division.
Baroness Gaitskell: There is one aspect of this matter which has not been mentioned today. The primitive attitude to female circumcision rests not only on traditions, but on the male desire for the female to be pure for him. They will go to any length to achieve this, and they achieve it very well by cutting off the seat of pleasure. That is not only the most cruel, but also the most unkind, the most primitive, and the most important aspect of the matter which we should reject.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I ask the noble Lord whose Bill this is whether he said that he would be pleased to accept the amendment?
Lord Kennet: Yes, I should have made it clear that I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert (", or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to,
Clause 2 [Saving for necessary surgical operations]:
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, leave out from beginning to second ("the") in line 20 and insert ("a registered medical practitioner is or).
The noble Lord said: Having settled what is illegal and what punishment there shall be for those who break the law, we now pass to the question of who shall be entitled to perform what would otherwise be an illegal act, if he thinks fit, and why. As drafted, the Bill states that the operation may be done for the physical health of the patient provided that,
"two registered medical practitioners, not being members of the same practice",
are of the opinion that it should be done. During the discussions which between the Second Reading and Committee Stage of the Bill have taken place in the customary way with various medical bodies and the Government, I have accepted the view which was put to me that that provision is too stringent. The view was particularly that of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I may add in passing that it was not the view of the British Medical Association, nor was it that of the Royal College of Nursing, nor the Royal College of Midwives.
It was, however, the view of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists which, after all, has a great deal to say in matters of this kind. The college stated that tens of thousands of operations which fall under the definition in Clause 1 are carried out every year for the physical health of the patient. The operations are typically for cancer and for pre-cancerous conditions. Why, the college asked, should a doctor have to obtain the opinion of another doctor, in another practice, before going ahead with what is a

449
perfectly routine operation? I think that the college is right. That is why I commend the amendment, which will have the effect of requiring the opinion of only one doctor—and that is putting back the provision just as though it referred to any other operation—provided that in the opinion of the doctor or surgeon who does the operation it is done for the physical health of the patient, and not for any other reason.
There is one other point which I should touch upon in passing. It was also represented to me by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that midwives should have the same right to perform the operation if, in their opinion, it was for the physical health of the patient, because the need to perform an operation of this kind could arise during an obstetrical emergency in the course of childbirth. I have looked into this point very carefully, and of course it is obviously so that a midwife alone with an obstetrical emergency must have the right legally to do whatever she has to do for the physical health of her patient.
The obstetrical procedure that we are talking about here is called episiotomy, and it consists of a cut into or down the perineum, which may be very slight, or it could be a considerable incision, which is afterwards repaired. It is a cut—and that is the key word. If Members of your Lordships' Committee will be so kind as to turn to Clause 1(1)(a), you will see that the word "cut" does not appear there. The words which are used are "excise", which means to cut out, "infibulate", which means permanently to sew up in an unnatural manner, and "mutilate", which means mutilate. The work which does not appear there is "cut". So I believe that I am safe in recommending the Committee to accept the amendment without any mention of the midwife, because she will be quite all right in the ordinary practice of her duties; the Bill will not touch here. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: This clause, and the one which follows it, are the two clauses in the Bill which give the Government the greatest difficulty. I accept that the proposals contained in these amendments quite significantly improve the position so far as the Government are concerned, but we remain doubtful in particular about the requirement that the views of two psychiatrists shall be taken into account if the operation is to be done for reasons of mental health—
Lord Kennet: I wonder whether the noble Lord would be so courteous as to allow me to intervene? I apologise to the Committee. I had completely forgotten that the two psychiatrists referred to in the sub-paragraph were dealt with in the same amendment. No, indeed, they are not. I am right, and the noble Lord is wrong. The two psychiatrists are in fact referred to in Amendment No. 5, and at the moment we are on Amendment No. 4. If the noble Lord thinks fit, I hope that we can clear the position of a surgeon and the question of physical health under Amendment No. 4, before proceeding to consider the question of mental health under Amendment No. 5. Will that be acceptable?
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord is aware of the anxieties that we have about the particular matter which is addressed by this amendment, because we have discussed them privately together on an earlier occasion. I have to say that I am not entirely convinced by the arguments which the noble Lord adduced about the situation of midwives, which we would certainly wish to consider rather carefully. The noble Lord will remember the thoughts that I have put to him privately on that matter and I hope that he will allow me the opportunity of considering the words that he used in the Committee this afternoon in support of the assertion that he now puts to your Lordships. I was hoping to avoid undue discussion of the subsequent amendment by simply, in a very short way, expressing the Government's view on that, but I am happy to await another opportunity.
Lady Kinloss: I should like clarification on one point. What about sex change operations? Are they included?
Lord Kennet: What about sex change operations? Sex change operations are usually the other way round: they usually make women out of men and so the surgeon is cutting bits of men and not bits of women. I do not know whether that meets the noble Lady's difficulty?
Lady Kinloss: A friend of mine who is a consultant anaesthetist said that this should be put in under the exemptions.
Lord Kennet: I have to confess that I have not grasped the force of the noble Lady's doubts. Perhaps the noble Lady would formulate her worry more clearly?
Lady Kinloss: It was simply pointed out to me by a consultant anaesthetist that it should be clearly defined whether sex change operations are allowed or not.
Lord Hunter of Newington: This is a very important matter which, from my memory of Hansard has been overlooked. It is not correct that the change is always in one direction. I think that this matter should be considered.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Is it not true to say that no doctor would perform a sex change operation except for the benefit of the health of the subject? Is that not covered by the Bill?
Lord Kennet: I think that is the case. If we are to tackle the difficult question of so-called sex change operations in an amendment in Committee to this Bill—which is for another purpose—let us first be clear that there is no such thing as a sex change operation. There are artificial constructions which can be made in the person of a man and on the person of a woman which will help them to live as if they belonged to the other sex, but in law and in biology they remain of the original sex. All right, they are called "sex change" operations for short.
I do not think that anyone would argue that such an operation should be carried out except for the health, either physical or mental, of the patient. The present

451
amendment deals with those who have a right to declare what is and is not for the physical health of a patient. I do not believe that the so-called sex change operations come into the discussions on this amendment at all. They may come into the discussion on the next amendment, which deals with the mental health of the patient, and perhaps we could defer the discussion until we come to that amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the amendment?
Lord Kennet: No.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("and") and insert—
(";or
(aa) two consultants in psychiatry are of the opinion that the operation is necessary for the mental health of that person; and").
The noble Lord said: We come now to the question of the mental health of the patient. When an African woman goes along and asks for a so-called circumcision in this country or anywhere outside Africa, she has to convince the doctor—if she goes to a doctor—that she needs it. The first reaction of any doctor in this country is, "No, I will not do that; it is abhorrent". But if she then appears very miserable until she gets it, in the conviction that she ought to have it because her custom demands it, then the doctor concerned may conclude that she is depressed and that the only way in which to remove her depression is to accede to her wishes and perform the operation.
It should be the purpose of the Committee to prevent that. It is too easy a way round what we wish to suppress. That, then, is one of the reasons why I have proposed the rather laborious procedure of requiring two consultants in psychiatry to give their opinion that the operation would indeed be for the mental health of the patient.
There are other cases. It has been presented to me and to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that there are some women and girls who get such a terrible itch in that part of their person that their life is rendered quite impossible by it, but there is nothing physically wrong with them, and that a surgeon may then say, "Well, I cannot cure the itch but I can remove the part which itches" and that in those cases he ought to be free to do so. There are also the cases which are reported—once again by those who speak for the Royal College—of girls and women who believe that they are not pleasantly formed in those parts and wish to have nature's work corrected. They may become so miserable about it that the surgeon may decide that the best way to relieve them of their misery—not of any illness because there is no physical defect—is to change the shape of their body.
It seemed to me that in that case the person who ought to be deciding about how ill the woman is mentally, how deeply depressed and how deluded she may be about her own shape, is not a surgeon at all but perhaps a consultant, or two consultants, in psychiatry
452
and that is why I have put them into the Bill. Why two?—for the familiar reasons; familiar from the old abortion legislation—that one may make a trade of it, two are less likely to do so and, therefore, it is a greater safeguard. It is as simple as that.
I am not at all sure that I should tell the Committee that I have got it right. I am not at all sure that there have to be two psychiatrists and I am open to conviction that there need not be. For that reason I am disappointed again that the Government have not seen fit to put down an amendment which they could have agreed with the Royal College—since it is, I believe, the opinion of the Royal College which sways the Government on these matters—for our consideration at this stage. I have put an amendment down because I still think that this is probably the best way to proceed. I do not think that there will be many cases in a year of the kind that I have outlined. I do not think that the burden on consultant psychiatrists will be very great. There can be no question of an emergency. Nobody ever goes into a deep depression or suffers from delusion in an emergency. There is always time for a second or third opinion.
I submit to the Committee that probably the amendment has it about right. In the Bill as originally drafted there was nothing about mental health at all. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, spoke about draconian policing arrangements. I admit that the Bill as drafted was draconian: it said physical health or nothing. Now it has changed to physical health on the decision of any one doctor, and mental health if two psychiatrists say so. In my view it is about right, and I would hate to go beyond that. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: Of course this is a non-party Bill and I must make clear that I am speaking only for myself. I would be appalled if this amendment were accepted. I very much hope that it will be withdrawn for further consideration. It seems to me that the noble Lord is scoring in his own goal because he is writing into the Bill other circumstances in which female circumcision is to be allowable. He is broadening the reasons for this mutilation to take place. It seems to me that, by accepting the fact that there are physical conditions—for instance, some forms of cancer—where it is necessary for an operation to be performed in this way, we really are opening the doors wide to abuse by suggesting that a couple of psychiatrists can find that it would improve the mental health of a woman to be mutilated.
There are all sorts of mental illness which have masochistic impulses in which people want to be hurt. It seems to me to be extraordinary to suggest that any woman who is so mentally ill that she wants to be hurt in this terrible way should have her wishes carried out as a result of professional advice. As for the noble Lord suggesting that there might be cases of malformation, in my view that comes under the physical problem. If it is a question of itching, that is a physical problem. These women must be helped, and they must be helped by the profession to resolve these symptoms, because in the cases to which the noble Lord has referred the problems are largely those of symptoms.
In fact, if I were to come across two psychiatrists who would certify that for the mental health of a woman she should be mutilated in this horrible way, I

453
would suggest that they be sent to a couple of psychiatrists—in fact to the whole College of Psychiatrists—because the situation would seem to me to be quite unacceptable. The noble Lord said that he included two psychiatrists because he thought that one might be on a profiteering game, and that two would be less likely to be so. I can assure the noble Lord that, having lived through some of the bad old abortion days, if there were two doctors involved, there were likely to be twice as many abortions, and there is certainly no protection in asking for two opinions because one chap always asks another chap who he knows would be on the same side; there would not be any contradictory evidence.
Therefore, I hope that this amendment will not be pressed. I think that we must all consider this further, and try to work out if there are any ways of helping women who are in real distress; and I hope that that help will be constructive and not mutilating.
Baroness Gaitskell: I should like to say a few words about this. I think that we have been discussing certain aspects of female circumcision in an almost ridiculous way. When we speak of pruritus as a reason for circumcision, I do not think that there is any sense in what we are saying; it is ridiculous. There are any number of conditions where it exists and it does not need female circumcision. It is dangerous for us to speak as though we are doctors and specialists; we ought not to do it on this Bill. Because it is a good and a necessary Bill, we ought to pass the Bill without delving into all kinds of mental conditions. What mental conditions? We do not need to consider that matter. We should stick to the Bill and its limitations. If we go further, we shall make fools of ourselves.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I could say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jeger and Lady Gaitskell, that one of the difficulties is that the term "female circumcision" has come to describe a whole range of operations, from a quite severe total removal of the clitoris, as it is called, to something very much less than that. It is the difficulties with operations at the smaller end of the scale that we are here considering.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, explained, the fact of the matter is that the best expert advice that we can obtain is to the effect that there really are difficulties here and there are certain circumstances—such as those described by the noble Lord—where, in the Government's view, a formalised requirement for a consultant psychiatrist to be involved is not necessarily appropriate. That, frankly, is the principal difficulty which the Government now see with the measures which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, brings before the Committee at this moment. Therefore, I hope that he will not wish to proceed to get this Bill through its final stages because, as I say, the Government have considerable doubts about a good deal of it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he could ask his advisers how often an operation has been performed in this area for a psychiatric reason, because it is known that phantom pain can drive people to insanity, alcoholism or suicide. If it is a case of saving life, then perhaps such an operation should be performed.
Lord Trefgarne: With respect, the present legal position provides that these operations may take place, and I think that the onus for proving that some new constraint is necessary rests upon the noble Lord, Lord Kennet,
Lord Kennet: Let me attempt to do so. Let us suppose that I walk into a surgery and say, "My right arm hurts, I ask you to remove it"; the doctor says, "This is bad news", and he causes me to be subjected to every known physical test, and finds that there is nothing wrong with my right arm. He may then say, "You have a delusion", and I say, "It is not a delusion, it is pain". He may then say, "It is phantom pain. It would indeed remove the pain if I removed your arm". Would we not think that the surgeon who forthwith proceeded to do so would be very wrong if he had not consulted a psychiatrist before doing so? Of course, any sane, qualified surgeon would consult a psychiatrist in such a case. Of course he would.
In what way is my arm more valuable than the sexual parts of a woman which it is proposed should be free to be removed on the say-so of a surgeon alone when there is nothing whatever wrong with them? I am happy to withdraw this amendment and to leave the Bill in the condition in which it started; namely, that the operation shall be legal only for the physical health of the patient, and there is no let-out at all from that. If that is the will of the Committee—and I rather sense that it is the will of the Committee—then I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I suggest to him that, in the intervening time between the Committee stage and the Report stage, or when the Bill is reintroduced, he considers this aspect of introducing an amendment which is based upon consultation with two psychiatrists for the mental health of the person. I think that we are in a difficulty here. I should like the noble Lord either to answer this this afternoon, or to consider it. None of us in this Committee is fit to understand the deep, psychological trauma that this traditional practice produces in its victims. None of us is capable of understanding the consequences of centuries of practice which have developed this custom. Therefore, none of us is capable of understanding what deep mental disturbance may be caused—indeed, is often caused—among young women who do not have this operation performed.
I should like the noble Lord to consider whether, by including the consultation with two psychiatrists, he may not be opening the way to the possibility that in certain cases two psychiatrists will find that young girls—who have not been circumcised but who come from a culture in which circumcision is considered to be an essential element in growing up, in becoming an adult and in being accepted as a member of the tribe or clan—can have such a deep mental depression if they are prohibited from circumcision that they will have to say, "In this case, for the mental health of the patient, it is necessary to circumcise". I should like the noble Lord to consider that possibility, because in my view the answer to it is not that we simply vilify the culture, or the tradition, but that the psychiatrists' job is to find the way to restore such patients to mental health without going through the process of circumcision.
Lord Kennet: The noble Lord asked me whether I agreed with him. The answer is, yes, I do. I entirely agree with him, and I notice also the Government's unhappiness about having those two psychiatrists on the scene; and that is why I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Notification of operations under section 2, etc.]:
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("be") to end of line 18 and insert ("separately recorded by the consultants concerned in a form which may be inspected by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health and Social Security").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 6 is about what the consultants in psychiatry have to do in order to make their opinion accessible to the chief medical officer of the department. Since the consultants have not been written into the Bill, this amendment does not arise, and therefore I do not move it.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
5.12 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 19, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: We are back now with physical health. We are back with what the registered medical practitioner does when he considers the operation is necessary for physical health. Clause 3(1)(b) of the Bill as drafted is part of what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has called my "draconian policing arrangements". I think that in this case his description is justified. It is a hit draconian and I propose therefore to delete the paragraph.
This would mean simply that the surgeon would have the same right to do this operation to safeguard the physical health of the patient as he would to do any other operation, but the operation could only legally be done in a National Health hospital or in a registered nursing home, and in both places operation notes are automatically preserved. I consider that that is enough safeguard for the future, and therefore the extra arrangements in the clause of the Bill are not necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne; I am bound to admit that I find this amendment something of an improvement. As I have said in relation to earlier amendments, I do not think that it goes far enough, but as far as it goes I agree with it.
Lord Kennet: May I ask the noble Lord what he would think far enough? This simply allows the surgeon to do this operation like any other operation so long as it is in a sterile place.
Lord Trefgarne: I was speaking in general terms about the other improvements I should have liked to have seen in the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On Question, Whether the Title shall be agreed to?
Lord Kennet: I wish to speak at this point on what we should do next, given that Standing Orders are suspended, the election is coming up, and so on. I had thought that, if the Bill went through the Committee stage without too much trouble—and I think it has gone through the Committee stage without too much trouble and has been improved—it would be right to bring it before the House on Report and remaining stages either tomorrow or the next day. As I sense that that is the wish of the Committee, that is what I intend to do. I shall be in touch through the usual channels about it.
On Question, Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Parkeston Quay Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past five o'clock.