Lords Sitting of 5 March 1984

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

Statistics: Basis of Comparisons
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, with a view to giving the House meaningful information, they intend, whenever giving figures which compare one period with another, to rely on constant prices as far as possible rather than, or in addition to, current prices.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the Government presents information in whatever form they think is appropriate in the circumstances. We are, however, committed to drawing up and presenting public expenditure plans primarily in cash.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for the clear enunciation of his reply? That is about as far as I can go. Is the noble Lord aware that I was hoping very much that this House would take the same view as the other place; namely, that on nearly every occasion information of this kind, comparisons, would be given in constant prices and real terms rather than in figures, as measured by a shrinking yardstick, which are not at all meaningful? Does the noble Lord feel that Members of this House should be treated as second-rate citizens in this respect? Is the noble Lord aware that there have been at least two occasions when figures given at current prices have led to the conclusion "more" when at real prices the answer would have been "less"? Is that not unfortunate and likely to be misleading?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, whenever we are asked for information in a particular form we always endeavour to supply it in the form in which it is asked. In our day-to-day lives we conduct our transactions in terms of money of the day. Wages and salaries are paid in terms of money of the day, and goods and services are bought and sold in terms of money of the day. It is perfectly right and proper, therefore, that Government expenditure should be planned on the same thesis. Wherever comparisons are made there is sometimes merit, in statistical terms, in expressing comparisons also in terms of constant prices, and this is in fact extensively done.
May I draw the noble Lord's attention to Table 1.14 in the current White Paper on public expenditure, which expresses public expenditure in cost terms; to Table 1.13, which shows public sector capital spending, both in cash terms and in cost terms; and to Table 3.8 in last year's Budget red book, which shows constant price forecasts of expenditure, imports and gross domestic products, and so on, ad infinitum?
Lord Oram: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord: are not overseas aid statistics a particular example of the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has called the attention of the House? For example, in the recent information on overseas aid for 1982, figures are given for three years at current prices, apparently, without any allowance for the inflation factor. Since Government spokesmen often claim generosity in this field, is it not important to have a realistic rather than an inflated view of the situation?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, may I draw the noble Lord's attention to Table 1.14 in the public expenditure White Paper, which gives the information precisely in the form in which he is requesting it?
Lord Oram: My Lords, since this is a publication issued by the Overseas Development Administration about its work, is it not important that the figures in this publication should also be correct in this respect?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the suggestion by the noble Lord that information is not available is not correct. It is set out perfectly clearly in the public

3
expenditure White Paper, and the table was inserted specifically for that purpose. Overseas aid is shown as a separate and distinct item in that connection. So far as concerns the publication to which the noble Lord has referred. I will certainly look into the matter.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Her Majesty's Government's views should be greatly welcomed in that it demonstrates that they do not make the presumption or take the position that the economy will be for ever inflated?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the point raised by my noble friend is an important one.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that when, some time ago, the Government changed the system for assessing the rise in the cost of living the intention was that it should be to the advantage of the Government but it did not turn out that way; there was much concern in the City and among chambers of commerce at this particular system, which was then described as being able to "massage the figures" to the advantage of the Government and not give a true picture in the interests of businessmen who desired it?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not recognise any of the allegations that the noble Lord makes, but that is perhaps not surprising.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, would the noble Lord be willing to reconsider this matter? There is no party issue involved. Is it not the case that public expenditure White Papers used to contain all the figures in both cash and constant prices? Is there any reason why perhaps two or three tables out of the totality should not be given in constant prices as well as in current ones, and all the rest only in cash terms?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we have, in fact, got there before the noble Lord, because this year's public expenditure White Paper contains two such tables for which he asks.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in so far as the Minister denied what had happened, would he help me in putting down an Unstarred Question so that we can have a thorough debate on this subject, not in the interests of one party or the other but simply in the interests of honesty?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the figures are set down fully and completely. The noble Lord will find a vast amount of information in all the Government's statistical returns. I hesitated to bore your Lordships by reading out dozens of examples which I have brought along with me. So far as debates are concerned, that is a matter for the usual channels and not for me.

Missile Tender and the Exchange Rate
2.44 p.m.
Lord Beswick: 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 on what evidence they base the view, expressed in their reply to the parliamentary Question of 1st February about the Sea Eagle (H.L. debates, col. 753), that an acceptance of a tender from a United Kingdom firm could adversely affect the exchange rate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I did not actually make the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, ascribes to me in his Question. The point I was seeking to emphasise during the short debate on 1st February was that accepting United Kingdom tenders which are internationally uncompetitive will give the taxpayer poor value for money.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. But is he aware that I normally go by Hansard when I decide what a noble Lord has said, and according to the Hansard report on 1st February he said that it would be possible, if a tender was uncompetitive, to affect adversely
"public sector borrowing, interest rates, rate of inflation or the exchange rate". [Official Report: col. 753.]
Would the noble Lord agree that a British order, placed in Britain with British currency, would have to be of a gargantuan size and hopelessly uncompetitive to have any effect of that kind?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the words which the noble Lord ascribed to me in the Question omitted the reference to the internationally uncompetitive tender, which the noble Lord, I must confess, did refer to when he read out the quotation just now. That was the important point which I was seeking to make: that an internationally uncompetitive tender would have the adverse effects to which I referred.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, if my noble friend is going to list the disadvantages of buying from America, would he also list the disadvantage to this country if we do not buy missiles which have been researched and developed and which are nearly ready for production in this country, in terms of jobs in a very high technology field? Does he recall that, as in the case of Trident, an adverse exchange rate between the dollar and the pound can make the purchase of overseas equipment very much more expensive than was originally envisaged?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the other considerations to which my noble friend referred are, of course, equally valid.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the comments of my noble friend Lord Beswick, regarding the report of his statement in Hansard, are correct? Also, will he have regard to the fact that there are other considerations, some of which he mentioned; notably, first, that British industry is competitive on most grounds with foreign competitors, and, secondly, that the loss of orders in this country could lead to the dispersal of design teams and manufacturing capacity, which means that British industry will not be able to compete for future orders? This would, of course, have

5
effects upon our financial position and would also have social and employment consequences. Will the Minister look at the matter in a comprehensive way, rather than in the monetarist way in which the Government seem to be proceeding?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must stand by the Answer I gave originally, which was that the noble Lord's quotation from what I said, as contained in his original Question, omitted some very relevant words. But the other considerations to which the noble Lord referred are certainly to be taken into account.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would it not have been better if, on 1st February, the noble Lord had emphasised the point that, as regards British equipment with a high labour content—in the case of Sea Eagle 60 per cent. goes in wages—20 or 30 per cent. of the cost of the equipment would be immediately returned to the Treasury by way of taxation? In those circumstances, if the British tender is anywhere near the international figure, it would be a better buy.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a perfectly respectable point of view, but it is one which the Government will have to examine carefully in this particular case.

Crime Rate
2.48 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm the recent announcement that crime in the capital fell by 4 per cent. in 1983.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I can confirm that the total number of notifiable offences recorded by the Metropolitan Police in 1983 was 4 per cent. less than in 1982.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that confirmation. Has he any information as to whether there has been any fall in the crimes where drugs are involved?
Lord Elton: My Lords. I do not think that, without notice. I can turn up the specific statistics for which my noble friend asks.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is very welcome news? But has he any comparable figures for the rest of the country, and can he say whether this fall in crime coincides with more policemen on foot on the beat, which many people think is the most effective deterrent to crime?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there has been an overall decline, we believe, of 1 per cent. over the police forces of the country, though the figures are subject to confirmation and may conceal areas where there have
6
been minor increases, as well as areas where there have been larger decreases. As to the noble Lord's second supplementary question, we see this fall as being a result of the new strategy introduced by the commissioner, but it is, as he himself has said, a little early to draw any final conclusions from the first batch of figures.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree, nevertheless, that the incidence of crime in the country as a whole, and in London also, is still very serious, especially juvenile crime? While this may not arise directly from the Question, could the noble Lord assist the House as to the rate of detection of crime, which has also been a disturbing feature of the criminal story?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the rate of offending is always a matter of concern, particularly when it is as high as it is at present. As to the rate of clear-up, I understand from the commissioner that the overall clear-up rate has increased from 16 to 17 per cent.: for offences of burglary, from 8 to 9 per cent.; for robbery and other violent theft, from 10 to 13 per cent.; and for sexual offences, from 44 to 51 per cent.

Recovery and Re-use of Implants
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether advice has been given to medical practitioners regarding the recovery and re-use of cardiac pacemakers and other devices from deceased patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): Yes, my Lords, health authorities were given guidance in March last year about the ownership of devices or prostheses implanted surgically in, and intended to remain within, the patient's body and about the removal of such implants, particularly cardiac pacemakers, after the patient's death. Advice was given in May 1978 on the resterilisation of cardiac pacemakers in the rare cases where they are re-used for another patient.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware that this information has not gone down to the general practitioners and that they spend a great deal of their time, when they are very busy, ringing the hospitals to see whether cardiac pacemakers are needed or wanted? Would not the Minister consider it to be advisable, as funeral directors are supposed to take out the devices, for general practitioners to know about this?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have to tell the noble Baroness that this is a peripheral matter for general practitioners; it is more for the cardiac departments who have a prime interest in it. It is they who fit the devices in the first place. Re-use is also a matter for them.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the life of a pacemaker is only about seven years, would much be saved by this proposal? Since every heart is different, would it not be far more profitable to support (a) the current bio-chip development, which checks the condition of a living heart and uses the information to control the pacemaker, and (b) the next generation of bio-chip which will make sure that the pacemaker is exactly matched to the heart's needs?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is certainly true that more sophisticated pacemakers, using the techniques which the noble Lord has described, are becoming available both here and in other countries. There is also a great deal to be said for fitting those who need them with the relatively simple devices in greater numbers than could possibly be afforded, using the more expensive techniques.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend see a ready market in used pacemakers?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords. That is the reason why I answered the Question as I did.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, why is it that in this country pacemaker insertion is less than in any other Western European country, and only one-fifth of that in the United States of America? Would not the Minister agree with me that for those who can benefit from the pacemaker it is most wonderful and gives them a new lease of life?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is essentially another question; but I can tell the noble Baroness that in the United Kingdom in 1982 20.000 pacemakers were in place.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is a long waiting list for cardiac pacemakers?
Lord Glenarthur: Not without notice, my Lords.

Fowl Pest Outbreaks
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer which is to be made in another place to a Private Notice Question on fowl pest outbreaks.

Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
Lord Elton: 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 Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Issue of warrant for transfer]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("under") and insert ("in accordance with")
The noble Lord said: In the unforeseen absence of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as I have my name to this amendment, may I beg to move it. The combined effect of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to which I speak, with the leave of the Committee, is to ensure that the terms of the warrant issued by the Secretary of State form part of the material agreed upon by both states before transfer.
Amendment No. 2: Page 1. line 13, after ("arrangements") insert ("and the terms of the warrant to be issued hereunder")
This should ensure the elimination of mistakes regarding the terms of the warrant, which obviously is a matter of great importance to the prisoner and to the furtherance of diplomatic considerations. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Our difficulty with these amendments is that they would introduce an unnecessary and possibly harmful complication into the repatriation arrangements. The point is that the information required by a state for the purpose of agreeing to a transfer is likely to vary to some extent from state to state. Moreover, it will be for each state to satisfy itself that it has all the information it needs in a particular case. This will vary according to whether the transfer is inward or outward. The information required will generally coincide only in part with the details contained in a warrant for transfer to the United Kingdom and will not include the kind of detail contained in a warrant for transfer from the United Kingdom. Warrants for inward transfer would provide, for example, the authority for custody of the prisoner in the course of transfer to the United Kingdom, for the delivery of the prisoner to a place of custody in the United Kingdom and for the sentence to be served in the United Kingdom.
Of these matters, the other state would probably be concerned to agree specifically only the sentence to be served in the United Kingdom. It would, of course, require a good deal more information which would not be contained in the warrant. This might vary according to the terms of the arrangements negotiated with different countries and in the light of the circumstances of any particular case. Generally, however, it would include authoritative confirmation that the prisoner was a British citizen, information about the type of custodial regime in which the prisoner would be detained and details of the remission and parole conditions which would apply to the sentence.
Warrants for outward transfer, on the other hand, would simply authorise the handing over of the prisoner into the custody of the authorities of the other state. This would probably not be part of the information which the other state would require. The information which would generally be needed would include full personal details of the prisoner, details of the offence committed, and of the nature and length of the sentence imposed and of the time already served, and confirmation of any remission already earned. In neither case, therefore—inward or outward transfer—

9
would the information required by the other state be confined to, or necessarily even include, the details contained in the United Kingdom warrant.
In our view, other states might well be reluctant to record their formal agreement to matters which are of no particular concern to them. It is accordingly not only unnecessary for the United Kingdom legislation to make the agreement of the other state to the terms of the warrant a precondition of the issue of a warrant; it would in fact be quite inappropriate and could jeopardise the chances of agreement to a particular transfer. It could even affect the negotiation of an agreement if another state felt particularly strongly about being expected to agree to matters in which it had no real interest at all.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the explanation that he has given of the procedure. I can well understand some of the difficulties involved. However, the fact is that there could well be an error in the warrant, or an error relating to the matters contained in the warrant. Therefore, I should like to have an opportunity to read very carefully what the noble Lord the Minister has said. In the meantime—
Lord Melchett: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but if he is about to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may intervene before he does so.
Lord Mishcon: I now withdraw in favour of my noble friend Lord Melchett.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to my noble friend for withdrawing in favour of me and for not withdrawing the amendment just yet. Perhaps we may press the Minister a little harder on this amendment now. I listened very carefully to what he said and was not entirely clear that he answered the principal worry in my mind when putting my name to this amendment. That worry was, that should there be a mistake of some kind in the warrant, very real problems could arise. This amendment seeks to overcome those problems together with Amendment No. 2, with which it should be taken.
Both amendments would ensure that the terms of the warrant issued by the Secretary of State form part of the material which has to be agreed by all the parties concerned before the transfer takes place. I accept what the noble Lord said concerning the difference between warrants for people coming into the country and warrants for people leaving the country. None the less, can he tell us what will happen to the prisoner in particular if there has been a mistake made in the warrant and there is an attempt subsequently to change it in some way which might be very detrimental to the prisoner concerned?
Lord Elton: The intention of the legislation is that there shall be an agreement between three parties—that is, the home Government, the foreign Government (whichever way around that might be) and the prisoner. My first observation is that the prisoner and the prisoner's advisers will be aware of what is in the warrant and will have agreed to that. The noble Lord is suggesting that a flaw might be revealed
10
in the warrant at some unspecified later date. The amendment is addressed to the need to see as far as possible that that does not happen. Perhaps I may pause to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to our discussions, which we have awaited with great eagerness.
I am not sure at what stage the flaw in a warrant might be discovered or by whom, because that is not apparent from anything that has yet been said. I would presume that since the change is putatively against the interests of the prisoner, it will not have been changed by the prisoner and that it will have been changed—or the mistake will have been discovered and addressed—by the Government issuing the warrant. I am not sure that I can get much further on this point with the noble Lord beyond undertaking to consider further the difficulty he has raised. It seems to me that there is provision in the Bill for approval by the prisoner and the prisoner's advisers; I doubt whether release would take place without the prisoner taking advice. It lies within his hands to detect anything unfavourable in the warrant.
I know that the noble Lord is positing the opposite discovery; that the warrant says the man shall be kept in for only three years when it should have been five years—I take it that is what he is after. But the terms of the sentence included in the warrant will of course be a matter of material interest to the country holding the foreign prisoner as well as to the country to which the foreign prisoner is returning. The basis of their agreement will be that the length of the sentence specified in the warrant satisfies the demands of their own justice. That is what makes me wonder whether there is a need for the precautions which the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Melchett: The reason why I must press the Minister, and why I believe it will be very helpful if he can reconsider this point, is that were we talking simply about a transfer between Rochester borstal and Maidstone gaol, then matters would be as the Minister envisages them. But in talking about the transfer of a prisoner from, let us say, the Far East—in Thailand, or somewhere else—the situation will not be like that at all. I very much doubt whether the prisoner will have access to any advice—and if he does do so, it may be bad advice and not good advice. Also, the prisoner may be very sick, and that may be one of the reasons why the transfer is being promoted.
A host of other factors enter into it—not least the difficulties of translation and of working in at least two different languages. There is the possibility of errors being present in the warrant—to which, certainly, the prisoner will have agreed—which are then subsequently discovered by, say, the country to which the prisoner has been transferred. That Government will then insist that Her Majesty's Government have made a mistake and must have known there was a mistake (in, for example, translation) which must be recognised by keeping the prisoner in jail an extra 10 years. As I understand it, as the warrant is not, so far as the Bill is concerned, clearly something that is included as part of the material to which everyone has agreed, there is a danger of that happening to the prisoner. The noble Lord the Minister may not be able to take this point very much further today but I hope

11
he will consider it again and write to us before Report stage.
Lord Mishcon: I believe that it will be with the consent of even my noble friend Lord Melchett that at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. In doing so, I should like to emphasise the points he has made so clearly and which I was trying hard to make during the course of my few remarks. My noble friend, with his usual care, has made those points more clearly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("prisoner") and insert ("transferee").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord the Minister for having been a few minutes late and not being in my place for the last amendment. It seemed to me from what I heard the Minister say in response to the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, that he does understand the points which have been made and, if there is any need for correction, the Minister will take an opportunity to consider that point before Report stage.
Amendment No. 3 and the rather large number of other amendments which depend upon it arises from a point I made towards the end of my remarks at Second Reading. I said then that the Government may want to consider whether the use of the word "prisoner" used throughout this Bill was altogether appropriate, given that the Bill applies not only to prisoners but also to persons detained in other institutions. They may, for example, be patients detained in special hospitals; that is the principal example that springs to mind. I suggested during the course of my remarks on Second Reading that the phrase "sentenced persons", which is used in the treaty, might be incorporated into the Bill.
When I came to look at this point again, I found that the word "prisoner" occurred in no fewer than 61 other places. I thought that it would perhaps be rather cumbersome to substitute the words "sentenced person" for the word "prisoner" wherever it occurred. With some diffidence. I therefore propose that we use the term "transferee". It is not a word that I like very much but I believe the meaning should be clearer and embrace not just prisoners but also other categories of persons—principally, patients—who will be covered by transfers under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I almost left a pause for the noble Lord to mention the list of amendments to which he was speaking with Amendment No. 3, but no doubt we can take them as read, because they are legion.
I appreciate the feelings of those of your Lordships who do not want the word "prisoner" to apply to certain patients in mental hospitals. I am particularly sensitive to this consideration because I recall very clearly indeed the importance attached to nomenclature when we were dealing with the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, as it was, which I took through your Lordships' House a year or two ago. The
12
Committee does therefore have my sympathetic concern in this matter—but I believe we ought first to recognise what is involved.
The task to which the noble Lords who have drafted this impressive array of amendments have addressed themselves is, as I expect they have discovered, very far from being an easy one. What they are looking for is a term that is easily understood, which embraces all the classes of persons appropriate to the effect of this Act, which is neither offensive nor misleading, and which therefore is not in common use to convey a different meaning.
Almost all the people who might benefit from this Bill are accurately and unmistakably described by the word at present used for that purpose in the Bill—which is the word "prisoner". They are prisoners and have no good reason to object to being called as much.
A few noble Lords believe—and in this belief they had the support at Second Reading of my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve—that some could have reason to object to that description. The people to whom I refer are persons detained in a mental hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 because they are subject to a hospital order or are treated as subject to one; that is, persons who have been found unfit to be tried or, in Scotland, found insane in bar of trial, or not guilty by reason of insanity. I do not include, however, patients who can legitimately be described as prisoners who are transferred to hospital from prison under the provisions of Section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983. I believe that draws up the parameters of the people we are talking about.
At this stage, I ought to repeat that the numbers of such people are likely to be few. By "few" I mean very few—so few that there are, so far as we are aware, none whatever at the present time to whom the Bill might apply. So, while I understand the anxiety of the noble Lords, I hope that they will understand why I am not anxious to take into the Bill such a very impressive array of amendments unless it will result in something that does not actually detract from it in some other way.
That brings me back to the chosen word: the word that is to substitute for "prisoner" almost everywhere that it appears in the Bill. I say "almost" because I think the noble Lord's count of 62 is not quite complete. What does matter is the fact that we are looking for, and have to find, a word that is not in common use to convey a different meaning. Sadly, "transferee" is not such a word. The word "transferee" is already in extensive use in English law and in that use it has a very specific meaning. That meaning is not "a transferred person". nor a person whose transfer has been agreed. It is fairly plainly and frequently "a person to whom property has been transferred". Therefore, I am afraid that the use that the noble Lords propose for this word, which seems to me to be merely a trifle quaint, would seem to others better versed in the law to be something of a malapropism. Given the very rare occasions on which it might be used in circumstances that could give offence, therefore. I do not think that its presence throughout the entire text of the Bill would be altogether welcome.
Your Lordships will forgive me if I continue for a moment. although I suspect that others will intervene

13
and perhaps I would be wiser to retain something further to say when they have done so, because people are never satisfied before they have said their piece and they are left with the difficulty of not knowing what to do if they have been persuaded by what has been said before. I hope I have explained why I do not much care for the word chosen by the noble Lords. If I have not made it clear. I must do so now. While I do not want to discourage the search for something to do the trick, I think it unlikely that it will succeed since we combed the field ourselves and found nothing. Nonetheless, they may be successful and wish to put something else before your Lordships.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Would the noble Lord consider "detainee"? Is there anything wrong with that word? I think there probably is, but I do not immediately see what.
Lord Elton: "Detainees" are usually detained in detention centres.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: No.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord says "No", but in common parlance a "detainee" is a person who is detained in a detention centre and a "prisoner" is a person who is kept in a prison. Perhaps this is just a matter of jargon. However, I do not want to exclude possibilities and I will certainly look at "detainees" and at anything else. What I do want to be certain of is that what we decide upon actually works better than what we have now.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: With respect, I think, that in ordinary English the word "detainee" means someone detained and has no reference to where. The reference to a detention centre, to many people in this country, would be meaningless because they do not know what a detention centre is.
Lord Elton: I am perfectly willing to accept that and I was perhaps rash to leap to a conclusion when the noble Lord made that suggestion. It does seem to me improbable that there was not an objection given that we have already looked at the lexicon, as it were, but we will go on looking.
Lord Somers: Without wishing to make a nuisance of myself, may I suggest that it would be possible in the list of definitions at the end of the Bill to say that "prisoner" includes, possibly, mental health patients or otherwise. No doubt the noble Lord can think of appropriate wording.
Lord Elton: It is not for me to argue the case for those noble Lords who are moving this amendment, but I think their purpose is to separate the term "prisoner" in the public mind from the people whose reputations they wish to preserve—few though they may be. If that can only be achieved by the general public reading the definition clause in the Bill I do not think that would be achieved.
I have another point, if noble Lords are to return to this, which I ought to put on record because of the implications raised by the major and longer amendment towards the end of the group. In removing
14
subsections 4 and 5 of Clause 1 and using their phraseology in the definition of "transferee" the amendment combines two concepts which the draftsmen took care to separate in the Bill. Subsections 4 and 5 of Clause I define the categories of person who may be the subject of transfer arrangements between the United Kingdom and other countries and do not use the term "prisoner". Subsection 1(b) of Clause 1, however, defines as the prisoner a particular person whose transfer has been agreed. The effect of the amendment is to give "transferee" the general meaning:
"a person who is, for the time being, detained in a prison, a hospital or other institution"
as well as the specific meaning in subsection 1(b) of the person whose transfer had been agreed. If noble Lords are returning to the charge perhaps they will look at that because I think they could alter their amendment so that it did not have that disadvantage.
I am reminded that the objection to "detainee" is that it covers people who are detained for trial but not yet sentenced and who are not, in fact, embraced by the Bill.
Lord Avebury: I think the trouble is that probably any word we chose would have had some other meaning in statute. With respect to the noble Lord, however that does not necessarily rule it out for all times, because there are cases where the same term has different meanings in different Acts. One that I always think of is "ordinary resident", which has a completely different meaning for the purposes of the income tax Acts than for the purpose of the immigration Acts, as the noble Lord will be aware because it crops up many times in the Home Office. The fact that the term "transferee" has a meaning in the law of property does not, ipso facto, rule it out for use in this context, particularly as the noble Lord has taken the trouble to go as far as Amendment No. 75 and sees that there is a definition of "transferee" which operates for the purposes of this Bill and does not attempt to extend it into any other area.
Therefore, I do not think there is likely to be any confusion by someone who is construing this Bill for the purpose of deciding who is to be transferred from Diyarbakir prison in Turkey to Long Lartin, with someone who is trying to buy a cottage in the village of Long Lartin. The two purposes are so very different and unlikely to overlap that the lawyers who have to deal with Acts of Parliament are not likely to suffer any disadvantage as a result.
I accept the point made by the Minister that in an ideal world it would be better if we could find a term not used in any other statutes. We will certainly continue to search between now and Report. We take on board the drafting point made by the Minister that we should have a way of referring to the particular individual who is to he transferred as distinct from the general body of people to whom the Bill might apply. We will give the matter further thought and hope to come hack on Report with a solution that is more acceptable to the Government. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 16, after ("given") insert ("in accordance with subsection (5) below").
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether with this amendment I can conveniently take Amendment No. 25.
Amendment No. 25: Page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) The Secretary of State shall use his best endeavours to ensure that prior to the prisoner giving his consent pursuant to subsection (1)(c) above, he is informed in writing in his native language of—

(a) the terms of the international arrangement in accordance with which the transfer is to take place;

(b) the meaning of the terms referred to in paragraph (a) above;

(c) the terms of the proposed warrant;

(d) the meaning of the said warrant including the longest period of imprisonment to which he is liable thereunder and the provisions governing remission and parole in respect thereof;

(e) the nature of any actual or possible further charges against him in the country to which he is to be transferred and the possible penalties; and

(f) the terms and meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.").

I should like to open my remarks with this observation. In my judgment, and in the judgment of those who have added their names to it, this is a very important amendment indeed. This Bill was introduced by the noble Lord the Minister in order to have proper arrangements for repatriation where the consent of the prisoner is a very vital factor.
At column 753 of the Official Report of this place for 21st December the Minister said:
"The consent of the prisoner is another fundamental requirement recommended by the working party and based on Canadian and American experience. It is an important feature of the Council of Europe Convention. Moreover, the Government's aim in introducing the legislation is purely humanitarian, and we therefore see the prisoner's consent to his transfer as essential".
I have quoted that as the background of the amendment. Your Lordships will see from it that in the Bill itself—which I imagine will be made the basis of any international agreement—we are asking that there should be firmly written in requisite conditions in order to see that the prisoner is in receipt of very proper information before he consents to repatriation.
I repeat that this proposal goes both ways. I am sure that we shall have in mind not only the question of prisoners transferred from here to the country of which they are normally subjects but also the question of our subjects, or people very much connected with this country, being transferred to this country.
There may be many in this country who are the subjects of another country and who, before giving their consent (obviously having been interviewed, probably in a language that is foreign to them), would require to know very much what they are doing if they are to be transferred back to their home country. That may be even more so, the Committee may think, in a case where the prisoner abroad is a British subject and is again interviewed by those who would speak to him in a foreign language. It would be imperative that he should know his position precisely.
I turn at once to Amendment No. 25. Your Lordships will see that the Secretary of State is asked to:
"use his best endeavours to ensure that prior to the prisoner giving his consent … he is informed in writing in his native language of',
16
the following six items. The first of them is:
"the terms of the international arrangement in accordance with which the transfer is to take place".
That is obviously a provision for him to know what the arrangement is only in broad terms. The second item is:
"the meaning of the terms referred to"
in the previous paragraph; namely, roughly what the whole question of the agreement to transfer means. The third item is:
"the terms of the proposed warrant".
That is essential from the prisoner's point of view. Item four is:
"the meaning of the … warrant including the longest period of imprisonment to which he is liable thereunder and the provisions governing remission and parole in respect thereof".
That is a very material matter before he gives his consent. Next:
"the nature of any actual or possible further charges against him in the country to which he is to be transferred and the possible penalties".
In other words, will he be worse off as a result of that transfer because of other charges that are known and are to be preferred against him? Lastly:
"the terms and meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974".
Your Lordships will obviously see the relevance of that provision from a British prisoner's point of view. The whole issue before us in this amendment is purely and simply to see that "consent" means consent.
It may be said that, while it is very easy for us to be able to legislate for what we can do in this country, it is extremely difficult to try to provide for what maybe done in a foreign country with which we have an international agreement. The European Convention is quite clear about that. It deals with the obvious possibility of consular representatives being able to fulfil these requirements. Quite naturally there should be no difficulty in seeing that our consular representative attends upon a British prisoner and explains to him exactly what these conditions and terms are before he signifies his consent, especially as the noble Lord the Minister has made very plain to us that these cases are rare.
I do not think that I can say any more, except that we regard this as being a vital provision and hope that the noble Lord the Minister will see his way clear to accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should certainly like to support this amendment. It is not clear from the Bill how much trouble will be taken to explain to the prisoner at either end. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is trying to provide for. We are often told that it is not necessary to put things in a Bill because they are implied, but in this case I do not think that implication is good enough. I do not think that I really need say very much more.
The difficulty of language is acute. We know that from dealing with prisoners in this country who are short of English. There is the difficulty of getting accurate translations. Secondly, there is room for confusion. A European Convention is one thing, but we visualise a situation where people who are not

17
signatories will have bilateral agreements, which will be different. The prisoner may become confused over that. I think a very strong case has been made for the amendment. I hope very much that without further elaboration from us the noble Lord the Minister will think it right to do something about this matter.
Lord Elton: We agree that a provision in the Bill relating to the prisoner being provided with information in writing in his own language would be reasonable. We have it in mind that in practice certain information should generally be provided to assist the prisoner to decide about transfer. The amendment proposed faces us with some difficulties. They are as much difficulties of practice as of principle, but they are real enough. I realise that what noble Lords are after is a principle and that it is not entirely fair to challenge an amendment in detail at the Committee stage. However, in order to put what I am about to say in perspective, I think that I ought to draw some of the difficulties to your Lordships' attention.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was good enough to point out that we are dealing with transfers in either direction, as it were. The words are, on the second line of page 2,
"into or out of the United Kingdom".
It would be very difficult, for example, to put together information in the prisoner's own language on the terms and meaning of the very complex Rehabilitation of Offenders Act if he was from Thailand. Perhaps that is not the best example, but if the prisoner came from a country which has a difficult language. That information is not in any case very relevant to the basic decision.
It would also be a considerable task to go into all the details of the relevant agreement. Moreover, it is far from clear how the Secretary of State, from the records at his disposal, could possibly forecast every conceivable further criminal charge against the person concerned. Furthermore, the references to the terms of the warrant suggest that the amendment is to apply only to transfers to the United Kingdom, whereas we think it is just as important to provide information for prisoners eligible for transfer from the United Kingdom. We would not wish them ignorantly to put themselves into some peril of which we could have informed them.
That said, we recognise the justice of the principle behind this amendment, and, what is more, we sympathise with it. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said, trouble should be taken to inform prisoners of the true situation. What I can hope to achieve will perhaps be of a slightly narrower scope than what is now before us for the reasons I have given. But if noble Lords would be kind enough to withdraw their amendment, I shall undertake to see whether we can prepare something which could be rather more easily achieved than what they now propose and which we could reasonably incorporate in the Bill to their satisfaction. If by any chance the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, or any of his noble friends, already has a view of what the essential elements are of the information to be given within the parameters which they have already drawn, or indeed outside them, that would be a helpful beginning. We
18
have our own views but I shall be interested in theirs, either in the House or possibly in writing.
Lord Melchett: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton. What he said is extremely welcome. As my noble friend said, this is really a very important point. The fact that the Government are prepared to meet at least some of it is a very welcome move. It does seem to me that it might be possible to specify rather more detailed information being given to people who are transferring to this country and who we would reasonably therefore expect to understand English and to whom the various things listed in the amendment, and in particular details of our domestic legislation, will be especially relevant. It seems to me not unreasonable for the Government to accept a rather more onerous duty in those circumstances than they would for example in explaining the domestic penal legislation in Thailand to a Thai citizen who is transferring from this country back to his own country. I wonder whether when the Minister is looking at this, he could consider that point, because although it would be in some ways undesirable to discriminate between people who we were transferring from this country and those coming here, I think it would be reasonable for the Government to take on rather more in terms of people who are coming to this country and indeed it would be quite practicable for them to do so. That seems to me to be something which will enable the noble Lord to go further to meet the details of the amendment than he might have thought up until now.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to the noble Lord both for his welcome for what I have said and for his helpful suggestion. I attempted to draw out the difficulties that would relate to outward transfers because I do not see how the Secretary of State can be expected to know the detailed implications of the criminal law of every other country which may subscribe to a convention or make unilateral arrangements. On the other hand, he can be expected to have a reasonable working knowledge of the criminal law of this country and to recognise an obligation to see that it is brought to the attention—in so far as that lies within his hand of a prisoner in a foreign country whom it is proposed to transfer inwards. I think I have got your Lordships' intentions clear in my mind. As I say, if there are detailed points which occur to your Lordships in the next day or two I should be very interested to hear them; but we will address our minds to this matter.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Although the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has indicated that the desirability—indeed the necessity—that the consent should be an informed consent, I confess that I am a little worried about the provisions in Amendment No. 25, paragraph (e);
"The nature of any actual or possible further charges against him in the country to which he is to be transferred and the possible penalties".
I was thinking—perhaps not in a very clear way—of the difference between what is proposed here and the basis of extradition transfers, where there is of course a positive obligation on the country seeking the extradition not to impose upon the extraditee—if that horrid word is permitted—any penalties or risks of punishment over and above that which he already

19
suffers. That is a key element in extradition cases: once he gets home, the person extradited must not suddenly find himself the subject of many more charges. So I do not at the moment feel very happy about paragraph (e). Perhaps that aspect needs rather more thought. There is need for more information to be given in order to identify and establish the need for the consent to be informed. The Minister has conceded that fundamental point and I too will await with interest and perhaps my noble friends on all sides will conspire to provide appropriate words between now and the next stage.
Lord Elton; I hope "conspiracy" will not be necessary in any conference. But as regards the substance of what the noble and learned Lord has said, of course I take it very much on board. I just wanted to sound a word of caution on close parallels between extradition and transfer. In particular, may I remind the noble and learned Lord and others who would have taken part in the conspiracy or the confabulation, that we are to some extent bound by the convention. In other words, we cannot offer to your Lordships anything which would fall outside the convention for fear of losing what we are trying to gain.
Lord Mishcon: There is one firm principle that one learns when dealing with a Committee stage in your Lordships' House, and that is that if a principle which one regards as an important principle is admitted by the Government, and there is an undertaking from so responsible a Minister as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, not only to look into it but even to come forward with something which is acceptable to the Government, then one immediately withdraws the amendment. The only thing I say in addition to that, if I may, is that I welcomed the noble Lord's very courteous offer to have an exchange of views in regard to this. I—and I am sure I am speaking for other noble Lords who have been associated with this amendment—would be very happy, if he thought that it was an appropriate course, to hold a meeting on this matter in the hope that something could come out of that meeting which might take rather less time than correspondence. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: May I just say that I have not actually taken on board the thought of a full-blown meeting with a sort of sub-committee of the Committee, as it were; but the offer is kindly taken. Whether it is accepted or whether we would rather deal with the matter by post, I hope the noble Lord will not think me discourteous if I take leave just to think about that. It may well be that he puts things on paper that we should like to discuss; but if I have something on paper first, this would be very helpful.
Lord Mishcon: I accept that completely.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Fowl Pest Outbreaks
3.37 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat the Answer which is being given to a Private Notice Question in another place on the recent outbreaks of fowl pest.
The Answer is as follows:
"Two outbreaks of Newcastle diseases in poultry have been confirmed. The first in Shropshire and the second near Thirsk, North Yorkshire. In accordance with the Governments' policy, the poultry in question have been or are being destroyed. Compensation is payable by the Minister which will be reimbursed under insurance arrangements made by the industry.
"All possible steps associated with the slaughter policies are being taken by the State Veterinary Service to prevent spread of the disease including declarations of infected areas, movement restrictions and tracings. It is not possible to determine the likely course of the disease."
My Lords, that concludes the Answer to the Private Notice Question asked in another place.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating here the Answer to the Question. It is rather disturbing that these two outbreaks were so very far apart. I wonder whether the Minister knows whether or not there is any connection between them. If there is not, I would say it is rather serious. We seem to have been shifting our policy on dealing with Newcastle disease, of fowl pest. over the years. I was a very humble member of the Plant Committee which reported in 1962, and I telephoned the Ministry to find out what had happened to our recommendations. I was rather put in my place and told that nobody knew anything about the Plant Report. The slaughter policy, I gather, was brought in in 1981. That was the policy brought in after the serious outbreaks at the end of the 1950s and in the early 1960s. I wonder whether the Ministry is satisfied with the slaughter policy. No doubt, they went back to it because the industry is financing its own insurance scheme. However, if we get more outbreaks, is the Minister still happy that the slaughter policy is the right one, and that we should not do as the Americans do, which is to vaccinate?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Question and to congratulate the Government on the steps that they have been taking. But is it not true to say that the risk of outbreaks of Newcastle disease and the damage that they can cause are much greater in conditions of intensive poultry keeping? Will the Government bear that in mind in their attitude when this subject comes up, for instance, in regard to the present draft directive of the European Community on standards for laying hens in battery cages? Do not the Government agree that one of the best methods of reducing this disease and ensuring against it lies in smaller intensification in poultry rearing?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for responding to the Answer to the

21
Private Notice Question being asked in another place. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me whether any connection had been established between the two outbreaks—one in Shropshire, and the other near Thirsk, in North Yorkshire. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked whether the Government thought there was some causal effect or connection between intensive poultry keeping and the disease. I have to say the same in reply to both points. The origin of this outbreak—the first since 1978—is currently under intense investigation, but at present no link between the two outbreaks has been found. Certainly I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that there is in some way a link between the intensive keeping of livestock and the outbreaks of this disease.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me whether the Government would adhere to their slaughter policy. As I say, we have been free of the disease since April 1978, and, if at all possible, we shall certainly maintain our slaughter policy. At the moment there are only two outbreaks. But I have to tell the House that there is a suspected case at Boston in Lincolnshire, involving turkeys. That is at present being investigated. There is in Buckinghamshire a case which has been under investigation for some time, and, as I understand it, so far the tests have most certainly proved negative. So we very much hope for the best, and we continue to work very hard on trying to find the origins and trying thereby to ensure that we can prevent the further spread of the disease.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the disease can be passed on to pheasants, pigeons, and those kind of birds?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, paramyxo virus has been found in pigeons. The noble Baroness will remember the cases reported involving racing pigeons. But it was a different strain of the disease. It was not the same as the strain which has now broken out among poultry.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether this type of disease is common in Europe at the moment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that I must write to my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas on that particular point. But, as he will very well know, we have been extremely anxious about the importation of the disease from Europe. It was as a result of that that we imposed controls. There was a case; and our import controls were established in November 1982, following a judgment in the European Court. So the answer to my noble friend is, yes, indeed, the disease is to be found. With regard to exactly how prevalent it is, I think that I must write to my noble friend to let him know.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend asked the noble Lord about vaccination. Will he say a few words about the Government's attitude to ring vaccination and tell us at what stage that might be activated? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that we were glad to hear about the compensation scheme, of which noble Lords are of course aware. But has the
22
possibility of a scheme for consequential loss been considered? For example, so far as I am aware, egg producers would not be covered by the present compensation scheme. One greatly hopes that the present outbreak will not extend beyond the present limits, but, if it did, egg producers could find themselves facing severe losses. Will the noble Lord be good enough to consider that point as well?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's point on vaccination, I think that I can only repeat what I said. Obviously vaccination is an option; it is an option which is followed in other countries. But we have now been free of the disease for six years, and we shall maintain the slaughter policy if it is at all possible. With regard to the possibility of extending the scheme to cover consequential loss, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made clear that he is of course aware of the way in which the present scheme works. It is a Government scheme to begin with, but then there is repayment to the Government through the British poultry health improvement scheme, which is an insurance scheme. Certainly I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to the suggestion which the noble Lord has made.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, further to the noble Lord's question about vaccination, is my noble friend aware that it is a very much less attractive solution than slaughter, because, once vaccination becomes at all general, it seriously confuses the issue in diagnosis, due to the effect that it has on the blood condition of the birds? Therefore, if slaughter can be prosecuted properly, it is far the most effective solution to this dangerous disease.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am indeed aware of what my noble friend has said and I am grateful to him for his intervention.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, á propos the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, does the noble Lord the Minister know whether the outbreak is in laying hens in batteries, or in broilers? The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was a part-time member of the Plant Committee, which recommended a dead vaccine, which I think solves the problem to which he was referring.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with regard to the numbers of birds affected, there are about 250,000 layers and growers in the Shropshire area and 78,000 broilers in the Thirsk outbreak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what are the symptoms of this particular strain?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is basically a respiratory disease.

Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
3.48 p.m.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 7 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 8.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 17, leave out from ("or,") to end of line 19 and insert—
("where the prisoner because of his mental or physical condition is unable to understand the meaning, purpose and likely effects on him of the proposed transfer, by a person authorised to act on the prisoner's behalf as provided for by those arrangements,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment very much reflects the concern of the National Association for Mental Health, an organisation which obviously has the respect of your Lordships. The organisation's concern is once again based on the question of consent. As your Lordships' Committee will see, under Clause 1(1)(c) of the Bill as it stands there is considerable vagueness as to who is entitled to give the consent. There is the question of whether someone is entitled to give consent regardless of whether the patient concerned can really understand,
"the nature and quality of his act",
(if I may use that phrase) and what is involved.
We are anxious to see that this question, which was referred to by the noble Lord the Minister in his Second Reading speech, is clarified under the Bill. So we seek to say very clearly that where, because of the patient's mental or physical condition, he is,
"unable to understand the meaning, purpose and likely effects on him of the proposed transfer",
then a person authorised to act on his behalf, as provided for in the international arrangements, can do so. The amendment spells out a position which I believe the draftsman of this Bill intended to protect, but I think there is vagueness at the moment and clarification is therefore sought. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I want to support what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, because I think that there are cases—the noble Lord the Minister will be aware of some of them—where foreign citizens in our psychiatric institutions will find it extremely difficult to act in an informed way over the choice that they have to make when this Bill becomes law. Certainly they will not be able to understand the provisions of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and it will be necessary—as is, indeed, envisaged—for somebody to exercise the power of choice on their behalf.
It is simply a question. I think, of spelling it out on the face of the Bill so that there cannot be any doubt. Having words of this kind there will mean that the person authorised to act on the prisoner's behalf can make that decision. There will not be any doubt as to whether, in those circumstances, the Minister has to look to that other person, or whether he has to depend on explanations being given to a patient which he may have great difficulty in comprehending.
24
I think that for the sake of clarity and definition, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says, it is better to have the words contained in the amendment spelt out in the Bill.
Lord Elton: We would indeed be content to make the second part of subsection 1(c) of Clause 1 more explicit. The way that noble Lords have sought to do this, unfortunately, is not entirely satisfactory, our main point being that the amendment does not refer to the possibility of consent being given on the prisoner's behalf because of his age. It is necessary to allow for the possibility of parents giving consent in the case of young children. This is provided for in the Council of Europe convention by reference to age as well as to physical and mental condition. So we will be happy to consider introducing an amendment at the next stage which meets the purpose of the noble Lord's proposed amendment and which also covers children. I hope that the Committee will find that satisfactory.
Lord Mishcon: Once again, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for having admitted the main principle of the amendment. In the circumstances, therefore, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Lord said: I approach this amendment with some sense of mystery as to the reason for the use of the word "may" instead of the word "shall". The word "may" presumably gives the right to the Sectretary of State—should he want to exercise it—to have some sort of secondary discretion, because under Clause 1(1)(b) he has to agree to a proposed transfer before it can take place. Having so agreed, it does seem extremely odd that he should not then proceed, in all the circumstances, to issue a warrant.
I am not given to being of a suspicious nature, but I did wonder—and others have wondered, too—whether the Secretary of State has given himself this secondary discretion because of another clause in the Bill which deals with the question of the payment of charges for the transferee. This is to be a humanitarian measure, and I quote the words of the noble Lord the Minister in so describing it. It would be quite dreadful if a power were given to the Secretary of State whereby, someone having gone through all the motions and given his consent, he had this hanging over his head because transfer charges had not been paid.
As I said, it may be that I and others have been unduly suspicious, and that the noble Lord the Minister and the Government have no such contingency in mind. If that be so, I am sure that they will agree to the amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to support the amendment. There is a great reluctance on the part of draftsmen to say "shall" to Secretaries of State, but I think we must try to get over that because the terms of Clause 1 are that three things should be agreed. One is that the Secretary of State shall agree.

25
Having agreed, I cannot see why he should have the option of disagreeing later. I am sure that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, regarding financial motive is beneath contempt and could not possibly be true of this Government. But, if they can give any other reason, we shall be interested. If not, it seems quite ridiculous that the Secretary of State should first of all have to agree before the thing can happen and then have to agree again. This cannot be right, and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to help us.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: I merely want to say that the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has also been expressed to me, and I should like to support what he said.
Lord Denning: "May" is often construed by the courts as meaning "shall". It just leaves room for the very exceptional case, and it would not be necessary to impose such a complete burden on the Secretary of State. I should have thought that "may" was perfectly all right.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for that intervention, although it may deny us one of those fascinating, periodic and ritual debates that we have in your Lordships' House at intervals of about six months on the difference between "may" and "shall".
All that is required of me, I think, is to say two things. One (which I can say) is that the provision is not so framed in this clause as to enable the Secretary of State to say, "Right, then you cannot come home", in connection with a later clause. We shall be discussing the principles of payment and recovery of costs later.
The second is that circumstances may arise when the Home Secretary not only can but ought to change his mind. Those circumstances will be rare, as the noble and learned Lord has said. But suppose that after everything is arranged—and these things do happen—the prisoner murders another prisoner or commits grievous bodily harm against a prison officer, or it is discovered that he was (and this has only just come to light) closely involved and perhaps guilty of a different and serious crime before his conviction for the present offence. I have drawn at random three instances where the Home Secretary may very well not wish to release a prisoner who at an earlier stage he had agreed should be released. In at least two of those circumstances, I should have thought your Lordships must agree, he should not be sent off scot-free to another country.
Lord Melchett: Can I say, first of all, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that I think that in this case there is a difference from some others that he may have in mind. As has been pointed out, the Government have, as it were, a double discretion: they already may or may not consent to a transfer in the first place: and then, when all the details are agreed—including their consent having been given under their own discretion—they have a second discretion about whether or not to go ahead with it. The noble Lord has given us some examples which he thinks might justify that being done. I must say that I have my doubts for a number of reasons.
26
It seems to me that all the parties to this agreement may have good grounds for second thoughts once it has been concluded. The prisoner may hear, two days after he has signed the documents agreeing to the transfer, of the likelihood that prisoners in the particular country where he is serving his sentence are to be given a free pardon. It may be in his interests to stay where he is for another week or two to get a free pardon and be released immediately rather than to come back to this country and serve the remainder of his sentence.
I just wonder whether the Government will allow the same discretion to everybody else that they are reserving to themselves; the second bite of discretion, as it were, in this case. If they are not going to give that same sort of discretion to anybody else to break off an agreement that has been concluded if it happens to suit them for some reason and after the Government have at their own discretion decided to enter into it, I am not sure the Government should retain that right.
Lord Mishcon: Before the Minister finally replies to the discussion, I should like to put the following matter to him. I can see—unlike, if he will forgive me, my noble friend Lord Melchett—the possibility of some intervening circumstance of a very weighty nature, such as the noble Lord the Minister has indicated. However, that does not really affect the main principle of my argument. although it does affect the way in which an amendment ought to be put.
According to the Minister's examples, the amendment ought to be phrased along the lines that, "unless there is some intervening material circumstance, he shall", and then it is mandatory. If in his reply the noble Lord the Minister could kindly indicate whether an amendment along those lines would at least receive his favourable attention, that would be enough of a hint to me to see that the appropriate wording goes down for the Report stage. I am perfectly prepared to concede the intervening circumstance.
In reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—and I always do this with the utmost deference—let me say that he has taught a very humble colleague a lesson which means that before the courts I will now be able to argue that "may" equals "shall", and "shall" equals "may".
Lord Denning: It does very often.
Lord Mishcon: Moreover, I shall be able to cite the noble and learned Lord as my authority for so saying!
Lord Denning: It is in the books, too.
Lord Avebury: The noble and learned Lord will have heard the Minister say that cases may well arise in which there is the commission of further offences by the individual in between the time the Secretary of State first agrees and the time the transfer is due to be exercised, in which case obviously the person will have to go through the process of trial, and so on. If that is the only case that the noble Lord wants to advance in which the Secretary of State would wish to use his discretion, I wonder whether that matter could be written into the Bill. Perhaps the wording might be

27
"shall, unless", and the Minister could then think of some words to describe the circumstances which he has outlined, where a further offence has been committed by the prisoner or the detained person in the intervening period between the agreement having been given and the transfer effected. It would not be difficult, would it, to write it into the Bill? In that way the area of discretion which is open to the Minister could be prescribed clearly on the face of the Bill instead of being left open-ended. I think that Parliament always prefers to do that. In spite of the admiration that it has for the present Minister, it does not like to give completely unfettered powers to all his successors. If the Minister has successfully outlined the circumstances in which the discretion would be used, I am sure that Parliament would like to see it written on to the face of the Bill.
Lord Elton: I always listen to flattery with close attention. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has entirely convinced me of my own ability to complete an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might properly exercise his discretion. Your Lordships will appreciate that I am now thinking on my feet. What about a prisoner who is going to go back to a country in which he expects to be received by a friendly regime, but that regime has been overthrown by one which has sworn to spill the blood of people like him on the streets? I should have thought that your Lordships would have every sympathy with a case like that. Of course, under those circumstances I can hastily assure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that it would be open to the prisoner to withdraw his consent. That is open to him at any stage until he is actually removed, and I dare say that that will be a matter of reassurance to the noble Lord.
However, I look forward with interest to any revised draft that noble Lords opposite may produce for the Report stage. If anything occurs to me to help them in the interim, I will certainly let them know. But, as your Lordships will appreciate in 30 seconds I have thought of another example and that makes me hesitate to commit the Government to putting on the face of the Bill a definitive list of the reasons why the issue of the warrant should not be mandatory on the Secretary of State. There might be danger in that, but I shall look closely at any ways round the danger that noble Lords may propose.
Lord Melchett: I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will do that, because as he knows I strongly support the degree of discretion which the Bill has incorporated in it. I accept the argument that the Government put forward on, I think, Second Reading, that there will be a very large variety of circumstances in which we need to be free to enter into bilateral arrangements with other countries and to meet their requirements to allow people to be transferred back to the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, there does rest upon the Government a particular responsibility because given the very wide discretion and the unusual circumstances to which the Bill gives rise of people being imprisoned in this country for offences committed abroad which would not have been offences if, for example, they had occurred in the
28
United Kingdom, the Government need to be certain that any discretion they do have in the Bill really is necessary.
As regards the second example which the noble Lord put forward, it is surely for the prisoner to make the decision as to whether or not he wants to proceed with the transfer, and I am grateful for the noble Lord's assurance that that is possible. So I do not think that that adds to his argument. I hope that he will look at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. If there is the particular problem of the prisoner committing a further offence, and if it is not possible for the prisoner, in the country in which he is held—whether this country or another country—to be arrested and charged with that offence and for that to negate the transfer agreement (which I would want to look at). then it may be that the best answer is to write the specific instance into the Bill and to remove any possibility that the "may" will in fact be interpreted by the courts as meaning what it says.
Viscount Hanworth: I have not listened to the whole of this debate, but it occurs to me that there might be a compromise by putting in the words, "unless new circumstances arise", which, although it does not define what they are, would at least show what one is trying to achieve.
Lord Mishcon: I am not quite sure whether the fact that a noble Lord is not present when I make a contribution to the Committee, however humble, necessarily means that it is a contribution to which that noble Lord would have listened even if he had been present. But I can only say that that was the contribution I endeavoured to make myself: in other words, putting some words into the amendment at the Report stage.
I feel, along with those who have spoken, that it is not just an obligation on Members of the Opposition, or on Members from whatever quarter they may come in your Lordships' Committee, to make a contribution which is acceptable by way of wording. It must he clear to the Minister that there is a feeling in the Committee that there should be some definite mandatory duty on the Secretary of State, having gone as far as this, to proceed with the issue of the warrant unless there is—and I put it this way—some material factor in the intervening period. I have put it that way because what I am fearful of—and it very often happens—is that one gets an indication in a debate that possibly it would be a good idea to put down an amendment for Report. and then when the Report stage comes the Government see some fault in the amendment—not that the noble Lord the Minister acts in this way—and it is all too late when it comes to Third Reading.
This is an important point, and perhaps the noble Lord the Minister, in his kindness, will at least think about the question of whether the Government would wish to import words into the Bill which will in some way fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State to change his mind in this period. If he were to do that, I personally would be very grateful. I am not asking him to promise to do it; I am merely asking him to consider doing it.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is always courteous and persuasive. I recognise the anxiety of noble Lords. Of

29
course we will consider further what they have said, and we will do so with the genuine intention of seeing if there is something we can bring forward to mitigate their anxieties. But I hope that noble Lords will not forget the contributions I made earlier in this short debate, and thus be lulled into a sense of false optimism or into feeling that I have in some way misled them if I do not actually succeed in coming forward with what will satisfy them. That, in its turn, may lead noble Lords to think about it themselves. But I will think about it.
Lord Mishcon: I intend to remain the optimist that I am, but I completely accept what the noble Lord the Minister has said, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
4.10 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 8, after ("to") insert ("all the circumstances including").
The noble Lord said: As this clause is presently drafted, it allows the Secretary of State to consider the transfer into the United Kingdom of a non-citizen only when that person has close ties with the United Kingdom. Although, of course, close ties would be a powerful element in consideration of a transfer, we suggest that the words "all the circumstances" should be inserted here and that the close ties should be associated with that phrase. If the Secretary of State has an absolute discretion in relation to all persons whose transfer he agrees, it is unnecessarily restrictive to limit his consideration of a particular individual in this way.
It may be that very few cases would arise where it is appropriate to accept a prisoner or patient who did not have close ties with Great Britain but, as the noble Lord has shown on previous amendments, it is always easy to construct particular examples showing how a power could be used and how everybody would think it ought to be used. In this case it may be easy to do so as well. Perhaps I may cite a couple of examples at random.
Let us suppose that we restore diplomatic relations with Argentina and that a resident of the Malvinas, visiting Buenos Aires, commits a serious offence there. Would it be quite out of the question for him to serve his sentence in Great Britain unless he had some close relatives here? If that person applied for a transfer to a cultural-social environment which was more familiar to him in the United Kingdom, although he is not a citizen of the United Kingdom—and the noble Lord will remember that in the Nationality Act we did not extend citizenship to persons living in the Falklands—would it be beyond the bounds of possibility for that person to return to the United Kingdom and serve his sentence here?
To take another example, there is the case of a person who lives in Jersey and who commits an offence in, say, Italy. That person is not a British citizen and may have no close ties or connections with the United Kingdom. Prior to committing the offence, he may have lived the whole of his existence in the
30
Channel Islands, and then he goes to Italy and commits a serious offence there and is imprisoned. Would it be beyond the bounds of reason that that person might apply to be transferred back to the United Kingdom to serve the completion of his sentence? The noble Lord will be aware that in the case of long sentence prisoners from the Channel Islands, there are no facilities for them in their own prisons. So, we have quite a few persons who hail from the Channel Islands serving life sentences in the United Kingdom.
A third example is the case of British overseas citizens. Of course, a British overseas citizen does not have a country to which he might be transferred, but the environment in the United Kingdom might be a great deal better for him than the environment in some dictatorship overseas where he happens to have committed an offence. Again, would it be outside the discretion of the Secretary of State to consider that that person might be acceptable within the prison system of the United Kingdom?
I cite those examples to illustrate the general point—and I do not say that it will happen very frequently; it might happen only once in a blue moon—that we would want to accept a person in our prisons who does not have close ties or connections with the United Kingdom. But I think that the Minister and the Government would be wise to have this discretion written into the Bill so that in those very exceptional cases it could be exercised. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his explanation of the thinking behind his amendment because it relieved me of misconception. I had expected him to be hoping that the Secretary of State would act as a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel, snatching Polish-speaking correspondents of the BBC World Service from other parts of Eastern Europe to serve their term in this country rather than that which their conduct had offended.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, cited three examples. The first was the Falkland Islands, and I am strongly of the opinion that the Falkland islanders now have the privileges which the noble Lord thinks they lack. I seem to remember that we had a debate of some historic importance on the matter and I would have thought that it would have given the noble Lord some memorable satisfaction, but there we are.
As to the Channel Islands, Clause 9(4) enables the provisions of the Bill to be extended by Order in Council to the Channel Islands, and that is the normal way in which provisions of legislation of this sort are extended. Your Lordships will be well aware that we are not in a position to legislate for the Channel Islands ourselves.
Perhaps I may give examples of cases in which the Secretary of State's discretionary power might be used. There is that of the foreign spouse of a British citizen or that of a person resident in the United Kingdom for many years whose only citizenship was still that of his country of origin. It might also be used, if the need should arise, in the case of Commonwealth citizens who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom because before the 1981 Act came into force they had either been born to a United Kingdom parent or had married a man who had the right of abode. People

31
other than British citizens and Commonwealth citizens with the right of abode would be subject to immigration control. A decision whether or not to repatriate them will include consideration of whether it would be in accordance with immigration policy to admit them.
The noble Lord had led me into ground which I was not expecting to cover. In replying, I daresay that I have given him information on which he would like to reflect. I wonder whether he would take the opportunity to do that between now and the Report stage?
Lord Avebury: Obviously, I shall consider very carefully what the Minister has said, but I think that the kernel of my remarks still remains, that although I gave particular illustrations with which the noble Lord has dealt, there may be others which could be produced. The whole nature of the amendment presupposes that the circumstances will be very unusual, that we cannot envisage them at this stage, otherwise we would be able to write them into the Bill, and that the Minister is not bound to use this discretion—he does so only if in all the circumstances, in spite of the fact that the person does not have the close ties or connections with the United Kingdom which the Minister briefly described at the end of his remarks, it would be appropriate to admit him.
I am not sure that between now and the Report stage it will be possible for us to think of all the cases that could arise, however carefully we apply our minds to this. Therefore, I still hope that in the end I might persuade the noble Lord that, even if no case could be produced which would justify his saying that that individual should be admitted, notwithstanding the fact that he is neither a citizen nor has the close ties or connections which are set out here, nevertheless it would be appropriate for him to be admitted. If he cannot think of that example, I would still hope that the Minister would agree to something like this when we return to it on Report. However, I shall certainly undertake—and this is the wrong way round, is it not?—to consider very carefully what the Minister has said.
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, perhaps I could put a question to the noble Lord the Minister. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the Government. In drafting this Bill, and in the approach that they have adopted, the Government have said that discretion is necessary because they cannot foresee all the many different circumstances that will arise. I believe that that is a basic proposition that the Committee has accepted.
In some other circumstances it seems to me to be a little disingenuous for the noble Lord to turn round on the rest of us and say. "You provide me with all the detailed cases which will arise in the future, during all the years when this Bill will be an Act of Parliament. with all the different countries with which we shall have dealings, and in all the strange individual circumstances in which we shall wish to transfer prisoners to the United Kingdom; and when you have done that, I will consider your amendment". For the Government to say (if this really is their view) that they
32
will be prepared to consider transferring people to this country, whatever the circumstances that may arise, only if those people meet the formula in the Bill—that is, that they have close ties with the United Kingdom—seems to be a proposition difficult to support.
I think that there might be circumstances in which some greater flexibility would be desirable. Bearing in mind the general approach which the Government have adopted to this problem, I hope that the noble Lord will at least be prepared to cast his mind over the possibility that there will be other circumstances. Of course, the Secretary of State will always have the veto; nobody is compelling the Government or any future Government to do anything. But when we make the law in the first place, I believe that we should leave the possibility open.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Elton: I quite see the force of the last thing that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, which was that whatever was decided it would be protected as to its limits by the operation of the Home Secretary's veto. But I do not think I am in such a difficulty as he imagines over the rest of what he proposes. As I understand it, it is perfectly right that the Bill should commit the Government to bringing back into this country people who, if they had committed no offence, would have a right to live in this country, and who, having offended, were detained by a government which agreed with our Government that they could properly be transferred to this country to serve the sentence, and that Government agreed with ours what the extent of that sentence should be on the face of the warrant, or however expressed, to which the prisoner himself agreed.
But what the noble Lord is actually seeking to do is to say that there may be circumstances in which anybody in the world might qualify for the charitable, as it were, occupancy of our prison cells who could not be admitted under ordinary immigration law. As I would describe the Secretary of State's discretion, it seems to me to extend to all the cases that we could properly commit him to consider, and I am driven back then by what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said to wonder whether in fact what they had in mind was some glamorous, Scarlet Pimpernel act by which this Government could snatch people from difficulty in another country. But that could not happen because the Government of the other country would, under the terms of the Bill itself and the convention, have to be a party to the agreement.
There is no question of rescuing people from an oppressive regime, even indeed if they are British citizens, without their consent. If they are not British citizens then their claim on the accommodation of this country's prison service, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, at least will agree, is heavily overloaded, is a questionable claim. Therefore, I cannot now offer quite such a friendly, interested view of the noble Lord's amendment when, as I suspect, he brings it back at Report stage, but he is adept at proving me wrong, usually by quoting my own arguments, so that it is always possible that he will succeed.
Lord Avebury: I certainly do not want to introduce all these people that the noble Lord described who are suffering under oppressive regimes overseas. It might be nice to be able to bring them all back here but that was not the intention of the amendment, as the noble Lord understands now. There certainly are going to be borderline cases. Without wishing to tempt providence by saying that the Home Office has been generous in its treatment of certain individuals, I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that certain Commonwealth citizens who had been admitted here as dependants but who had never acquired British nationality because they were not registered by their parents, and who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment overseas which have resulted in their absence from the United Kingdom for a period of over two years and who have thus not qualified to come here as returning residents under the immigration law as it stands, have nevertheless been readmitted by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his discretion.
That fits in with what the noble Lord has just said, and I was glad that he has put on the record that it would be the intention of the Government, once this Bill becomes law, to see that there is, if you like, a no detriment provision applying to the persons who have had an indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom. In other words, anybody who had indefinite leave to enter here, and then went abroad and committed an offence which resulted in a term of imprisonment, would qualify as having a close tie or connection with the United Kingdom within the meaning of this clause.
That is a valuable concession, for which I am grateful to the Minister. But it illustrates the fact that there are certain people who would not ordinarily be qualified to enter the United Kingdom and who depend on the goodwill of the Secretary of State on conclusion of their sentences now to come back here and who, after this Bill becomes law, would similarly depend on the goodwill of the Secretary of State to agree that their ties, or connections, with the United Kingdom are close enough to justify the application of this clause as it stands without the additional words which I sought to insert.
With the noble Lord's fairly broad interpretation I should probably be quite happy even though there may be wholly exceptional and far-fetched examples which I was not able to construct, and which none of us can imagine, where, after the Bill becomes law, the Secretary of State will say, "If only I had listened to this amendment then I should have been able to admit this person whose claims are so obviously tempting to our sympathy. But as the person does not have the close tie or connection which is provided for under the clause I am not able to do that". I hope that that will not arise but I fear that in one or two, or a small number, of cases it may unless we accept this amendment, or something like it. Does the Minister want to intervene?
Lord Elton: It may not have been clear from what I said, but I understand that in fact the Secretary of State's discretion would extend as far as his discretion to admit people outside the immigration rules. If that is the case I think that the noble Lord's anxiety is almost met, because that would be the effect of what
34
he is trying to put into the Bill. I think I ought to write to him in confirmation of that.
Lord Melchett: There is a case which has occurred to me as I have been listening to the debate. Perhaps it would be helpful if I put a suggestion, though it is off the top of my head and may not be sensible. Can the noble Lord tell me either today or at some future point whether this would fall within the definition? If, with widespread popular support from the people of Great Britain, somebody recruited a group of mercenaries from this country to go to fight against an evil regime and those mercenaries were caught and incarcerated for hundreds of years in prison and then were subject to a transfer and were going to come back to complete their sentences here when it was discovered that one of them was a stateless person who had no ties with the United Kingdom other than that he had been recruited along with a number of other United Kingdom citizens—he had never been to this country but had no other country in the world to which he could be transferred or which was prepared to take him—the Government would be faced with the prospect of half-a-dozen returning heroes, as it were, and one of their colleagues left languishing in jail. In those circumstances where the person had never been here, had no relatives here, and his only connection was the recruiting sergeant who had also recruited a number of people from this country, would his case be considered?
Lord Elton: The properly cautious reply to that is that every case would have to be considered on its merits.
Lord Melchett: Would the Act which the noble Lord is steering through this House allow the Government to consider the merits of that particular case, or would it be ruled out?
Lord Elton: Indeed, with only the knowledge that the noble Lord has given to us I would say that the Secretary of State would be able to consider it, but what I cannot tell him is what his conclusion would be, which is what I think is more germane.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his offer to write to me. We could save quite a lot of trouble if we do not have to take up individual cases of prisoners who serve sentences of more than two years overseas and are therefore dependent upon the discretion of the Secretary of State to agree to their return to the United Kingdom even though they were given indefinite leave to remain, for instance, as dependent children prior to the commission of that offence in some foreign country.
If we did not have to take up those cases individually with him but had a blanket assurance that they would be admitted having had indefinite leave to enter, this would be most valuable, and if that was then extended to the cases that could arise under this Bill where such persons were serving sentences overseas, and are deemed to have a close tie or connection with the United Kingdom by virtue of their having been admitted as the dependant of a person who is settled

35
here, then this would certainly be a step in the right direction.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just illustrated it is possible to think of further examples off the top of one's head. I was wrong in taking the Falklands, as the noble Lord the Minister pointed out. Perhaps I should have said Gibraltar, where I think the rule under the Nationality Act was that a person could apply for British citizenship but did not have it automatically. A citizen of Gibraltar who had not applied for British citizenship would be in the position that I postulated for the resident of the Malvinas who had committed an offence in Buenos Aires. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with the construction of further artificial examples, because that was not really the point. The point was that the circumstances were those that we could not foresee which required the words "all the circumstances" to be written in here.
We have had a good innings on this and we will consider it more carefully between now and Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("() Where the consent of the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (1)(b) above is refused, such refusal shall he in writing and accompanied by a statement of reasons.").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment on which the issue is perfectly clear. There is no right of appeal in the Bill against the refusal of the Secretary of State to agree to a transfer of this kind. It seems to me and to my noble friends that there should be an obligation in the Bill to give his reasons in those circumstances. The pressure varies a little with subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b). Where a person is a British citizen, it would be monstrous, if he agrees and the holding country agrees to the transfer, but the Secretary of State here does not agree to having him brought back, that he should not be given the reasons for the refusal. What those reasons could be, one does not know, but one can imagine the reasons of public policy, which we do not need to visualise. There would not be many such cases, I believe. However, it would be most unreasonable for a British citizen, once the Bill becomes an Act, to be refused the privilege, or almost the right, to be given reasons.
Under subsection (2)(b), it is easy for the Secretary of State to give reasons. All he has to say is that the ties are not close enough. That should not present any problems. Under paragraph (c) it is simply a question of transfer or retransfer and the situation does not arise. I do not think it is worth spending more time on this. It is an obvious point and I am interested to know what the Government have to say about it.
Lord Elton: It is indeed our intention that the Secretary of State's decisions on requests for transfer should be conveyed in writing. Indeed it is difficult to know how else that could be done because there would have to be written communication between the authorities concerned in this and the other state
36
involved. A statutory requirement to that effect would not seem necessary but that is not the heart of the matter to which the noble Lord has addressed himself. As I hope I made clear on Second Reading, where the requirements of the relevant international arrangements are met, the Secretary of State will not normally withhold consent to a transfer except for compelling reasons of public policy. On the rare occasions when a refusal may be necessary, however, it may not always be in the public interest for the reasons for refusal to be explained. From the way he is swaying his head I can see that the noble Lord will want an example. An example of the type of case in which it might be difficult to give full reasons for withholding consent for transfer would be, for instance, where information had come to light about a prisoner's involvement in other criminal activities which might lead to a further charge against him and others and where to reveal such information at that stage might prejudice the chances of apprehending, or collecting evidence about, those involved.
Another example might be where the reasons for withholding consent were concerned with terrorist activities and where considerations of national security might be involved; obviously reasons which revealed sources of confidential intelligence could not be revealed. The best I can do for the noble Lord is to say it is our honest intention—I know what I say cannot bind successor Governments—not unreasonably to withhold agreement to a transfer either of our own people into this country or of other prisoners out of this country on any occasion. We shall normally be perfectly open about why the decisions are taken. But the danger is that if we put a mandatory provision in the Bill for reasons to be given, I think I am right in saying that the reasonability of the reasons become justiciable and one then gets into an area where a door that ought to be kept closed is occasionally prised open. There is no sinister intention in what I am saying; it is a matter of prudence and experience.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I accept that there is no sinister intention, but there may be a sinister effect over the years. People's attitude to criminals vary and people here may say that they do not want some fearful criminal who has done something awful in another country back here and that we should allow that chap to stew in his own juice over there. This is the kind of thing which is not in the spirit of the Bill and which in my opinion would be absolutely unjust and should be protected against. Things change very fast and, under a Nazi government, I am quite sure we should have got a reply of that kind. I think the Bill should be strong enough to deal with it.
Over terrorism it might be a good answer to say, "I am not prepared to have this man back. I already have too many of his kind in my prisons". This is already true in this country with the IRA terrorists, though it does not apply to most of them because they come from within our jurisdiction. That would be a perfectly good answer and I cannot see why it should not be made. The idea that the criminal might be suspected of something else and therefore it would be unfortunate to interfere with the trial which the holding country were to put him under is not sound because the holding country would not agree to his removal.

37
I do not think the noble Lord has satisfied me at all about this. It is a question of the British citizen, who has the full rights given—or perhaps one should say privileges rather than rights—under the Bill, and who in 20 years could be denied them for no good reason. I am not happy about this.
Lord Elton: I shall take these points seriatim. The only way I can see of dealing with this is to construct another hypothetical example. Let us say that in a British prison there is a person who is gaoled for four years for fraud and he is a Swiss financier. How he became Swiss is something that the story need not reveal. Weeks after a proposal that he should be returned has been made, there arrives on the Secretary of State's desk a dossier which shows that he is the Mr. Big whose activities before he was locked up resulted in a constant flow of vital information extracted from various other nefarious people and collected by him and sent abroad to an enemy of the State. If the Secretary of State were to be obliged to say anything even so general in publishing his reasons as that he had decided not to let him go on grounds of national security, all the people from whom Mr. Big was collecting information would be alerted to the fact that they were in danger and all the birds would have flown by the time the arrests were to be made.
That may seem rather fanciful but it illustrates a principle that there will be occasions on which the requirement to give reasons could not but have the effect that the national interest would be affected. I cannot say the extent to which it would be affected. The noble Lord cannot say the number of occasions on which it would be affected.
It seems to me that a Secretary of State of whatever government in this country is likely to be acting on principles which are at least as fair as and probably fairer than those of other countries. I do not think it is the function of a Government framing this sort of legislation to provide against the advent of a Nazi government in this country. If it was, I can tell your Lordships that if the legislation militated against the object of the Nazi government this building would be burnt to the ground as the Reichstag was.
Lord Melchett: I must say that the noble Lord has not convinced me, either. I can see there might be occasions when the grounds for refusing a transfer were national security of one sort or another and the Government would not want to have to go to court and reveal the source of the evidence on which they based that decision. I should have thought that that would be a comparatively simple matter to accommodate in an amendment, so as to ensure that was not something which could be looked at in detail in court and that the Government had to give their reasons unless national security was involved or something of that sort.
But the noble Lord then came back and said that even to reveal that there were grounds of national security might itself produce some disadvantage. He suggested that he might have been a little fanciful, and I think I would agree with him. There will come a point—and I hope the noble Lord will consider this—where the rights of a citizen being denied are so important that the small risk of something rather
38
fanciful occurring, as the noble Lord has suggested, is one which the Government must run. This does leave an enormous amount of discretion, as the Minister knows, in the hands of the Secretary of State—discretion which we should not dream of giving in any other circumstances. It is a discretion which is going to involve somebody possibly serving 50 years in jail or five, for example. It is an awesome power which is being given to an individual Minister in the Government.
Lord Elton: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I cannot think of who the people serving 50 years in jail in this country would be, and it would be those to whom the noble Lord's proposals would apply, in the circumstances which we have discussed, because, since we are dealing in hypothetical cases—and this is the difficulty that is always involved in so doing—we are talking about a threat to the security of this country and not of another country, and the Secretary of State is not going to refuse to have a British prisoner repatriated to Britain in order to protect British security unless he cannot imagine how he is going to keep him inside any jail. So it seems to me we are considering whether or not to let people go from this country and, if so, it seems to me that the noble Lord has overdrawn his case.
Lord Melchett: With respect, I do not think I have: and I can envisage plenty of circumstances in which Ministers might decide that they do not wish to have a British citizen repatriated to this country because of the threat he poses to this country's security. That seems to me much more likely than objecting to the transfer of someone out of this country. After all, the whole problem about posing a threat to national security is that it is not something the Government are prepared to stand up in court and prove. As the noble Lord knows from the position in Northern Ireland, this will be information from informers, and so on, which for one reason or another will not stand up in court or which the Government are not prepared to reveal in court.
One would have to be very naive to assume that the Government would not use such circumstances to refuse to have people brought hack to this country. In those circumstances, it could well be giving them the sort of power over a person's life that I have described. That is why I think this is a very important case in which the reasons, if they are not concerned with national security, must be produced in writing so that a person can contest them in court.
Lord Elton: At the risk of wearying your Lordships, I would just say that the debate we have been listening to must have put a number of ideas into the mind of the mover of this amendment, one of which emerged fairly late on: that we are in the habit of discussing the conditions of those on "outward tickets" and those on "inward tickets" as if the cases were the same. What the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said has made it clear that they are not. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, may wish to consider this further. Your Lordships know I always reflect on everything that is said between Committee and Report so far as I can, and that is probably where this ought to be left for the moment.
Lord Mishcon: I intervene only because I believe—I shall be reprimanded if I am wrong—that we are going a little astray. And, for once, I believe that the noble Lord the Minister is responsible for our going a little astray; and it is not like him at all. It looks as though the debate is taking place upon this amendment with the Minister concentrating not on those who may be transferred into this country but on those who may be transferred out of it. I would ask him to look at the clause to which this amendment refers. It is subsection (2) on page 2 and it provides specifically for the issue or non-issue of a warrant,
"providing for the transfer of any person into the United Kingdom".
Therefore, with great respect, when he carries the debate to cover those who are transferred out of the United Kingdom, he is not as consistent as he always is, either with his own text or with that of the Bill. If I may concentrate, therefore, on what the amendment intends—and it is transferring into the United Kingdom—we are quite obviously considering the case of a British subject who may be languishing in a gaol and it is not just a question of the term of the imprisonment but of the conditions of the imprisonment which are so often such as one would want to rescue him from.
Some civil servant recommends—and it may be that a very busy Minister may not have time to consider all the facts leading to the recommendation—in regard to a British subject languishing abroad that a warrant should not be issued for his transfer into the United Kingdom. If that occurs, quite obviously a grave injustice can be done. There is no right of redress at all and no right to make representations which are of any moment at all, because the prisoner does not even know the cause of the refusal and therefore what he ought to be concentrating on in regard to his representations.
In exactly the same way as my noble friend Lord Melchett said, there ought to be an exception for the rare case of public interest, if I may put it that way, because that is a wider term than "national security". I would not even mind saying that where the Minister or the Secretary of State certifies that a matter of public interest is involved, the reason need not be disclosed. I should be prepared to leave it at that. I know that is not the amendment which is before us at the moment but I am trying to get the principle clear at this stage. Then one would say immediately that reasons must be given so that the prisoner can correct what may be a misapprehension.
For example, it may very well be that at the Home Office somebody has confused this man with somebody else or has looked up the records and, in finding the name "John Smith", has in fact found two John Smiths and then said, "We don't want this man back here: look at that horrible sexual crime he committed some years ago." Or there may be a suggestion that John Smith is connected in some way with bank robbers or things of that kind, whereas they have got hold of the wrong person. John Smith could make his position clear if the reason for refusal were given, and there is nothing in the national interest which is disturbed by talking about a previous conviction and revealing that is the reason for refusal, or that he broke out of our jail and we would not want him to break out of jail again.
40
These are matters of sheer justice, and where you have not got a court of appeal and where you are anxious to go away from courts as much as you possibly can—that is recognised—I submit that you must act with justice. I repeat that we are dealing in this paragraph, as I see it—I stand to be corrected—purely with people to be transferred into our jurisdiction.
Lord Gifford: As I understand the amendment, it is contemplating the introduction of a new subsection which will fit between (2) and (3) of the Bill as it stands. The amendment refers us back to a consent of the Secretary of State pursuant to "Section 4(1)(b) below ". It does not talk in terms of consent but about the agreement of the Secretary of State and the appropriate authority of the other territory. It may be that. if the spirit of this amendment finally became incorporated, the word "consent" would not be quite appropriate. But clearly what is intended is to cover all agreements made by the Secretary of State and they, under subsection (1), cover—and I say it with great respect and deference to my noble friend Lord Mishcon—transfers into and out of the United Kingdom.
Having, I hope, started on the right basis, may I just support the spirit behind this amendment, whether it applies to transfers in or transfers out, or both? I ask noble Lords, and particularly the Minister, to bear in mind the predicament of the prisoner in whose case a transfer has been requested and who learns, either by direct communication or by the silence of the authorities, that nothing will be done in his case. The effect that that has on somebody who believes, rightly or wrongly, that he ought to be transferred can be quite cataclysmic. People in prison, above all, need to know the reasons why rights or privileges to which they believe they are entitled are not being afforded, and I thoroughly endorse the words of my noble friend Lord Mishcon when he talked about people who may want to supply further information to get round an objection which otherwise might be made. So I hope that a balance can be struck and that reasons can be given, even though in one or two fanciful cases, there may be reasons why the Secretary of State might not want to give them.
Lord Avebury: May I—
Lord Mishcon: I only want to correct myself, if I may. It is my normal habit, as it is with all your Lordships, to confess immediately when I find I am wrong, and I do that. I had read subsection (2)(b) instead of subsection (1)(a) and I am most grateful to my noble friend for pointing it out. It goes both ways and I apologise for wasting the time of the Committee with a bad point.
Lord Elton: On the contrary, it had the very salutary effect of making me examine very carefully my own reasoning, which is not a bad thing to do. But I think that the noble Lord is right in his retraction. Perhaps it would accelerate matters if I said that the number of occasions when an inward transfer would be refused seems to me to be extremely small. It really is quite possible that there might be no objection to conceding

41
this principle on inward transfers. The not altogether fanciful illustration which I gave revealed a principle which it is important to protect on outward transfers.
It seems to me that some of your Lordships regard the direction as immaterial to the importance of the amendment. I doubt whether I can satisfy them. But those who feel that they are concerned particularly about the inward transfer of prisoners may find that I am able to satisfy them at Report stage. But, without further thought, I could not undertake to bring forward what the noble Lord wants.
Lord Avebury: I only wanted to ask the noble Lord a very brief question about the outward-going prisoners. When he spoke about terrorists, I wondered whether—and it seemed to me possible from the way he expressed himself—the Minister was envisaging that the Secretary of State would refuse his consent to a transfer in the case of whole classes of persons convicted of certain types of offence. I do not know whether or not I was right in that. But, obviously, in the case of a security risk you could not send a prisoner back to the country from which he was sent as a spy to the United Kingdom. I can understand that. It would be a very good reason for not repatriating him. But, in the case of the terrorist, I do not see that any such general rule applies, and it would be unfortunate if we decided that anybody convicted of an offence which would prove rather difficult to define—if the Minister were to make a general rule—was to be excluded from the benefit of the Bill.
Lord Elton: That was very far from my intention. My intention was to say that the giving of reasons might prejudice an operation against terrorism or drug smuggling, which I regard as as great an evil, if not a greater one. Where that might happen, I should have thought your Lordships would wish the Secretary of State to stay his hand. As to categories of prisoner, I have said nothing and neither does the Bill.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I ask my noble friend this question? It has occurred to me that we are talking about the Secretary of State taking the initiative. Could it be that the prisoner himself—I am asking for guidance on this, because it is important —could ask to be transferred and put his reasons to the Secretary of State? I cannot find it in the Bill, but presumably it is there.
Lord Elton: The first circumstance, the sine qua non, is an agreement between the governments. The transfer has to take place under that umbrella. Once that umbrella is established, it is my understanding that anybody can take advantage of it, and the initiative can be taken by the prisoner, by the foreign government or by the British Government.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: We have had a useful discussion. I shall in due course withdraw this amendment, but I shall certainly come back on Report. We have had a clue as to the way in which we ought to go, which we shall have to examine very carefully. It may be that we should treat inward and outward cases differently. I am not quite convinced of this. But I should like to look at it very carefully and
42
I think that I should like to put down an amendment in due course on Report, on which I shall probably want to divide the House if we cannot get satisfaction, because this is an absolutely vital point. But, at the moment, I am very happy, as the noble Lord suggested, to take this away and look at it and see what we can do at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("() for the avoidance of doubt the provisions in subsection (1) above governing the issue of a warrant shall apply to such warrant for the transfer for the purpose of temporary return of the prisoner as is referred to in section 4(1) below.").
The noble Lord said: We should be able to deal with this amendment more quickly. It is a probing amendment and it is to satisfy us that the provisions of Clause 1(1) include the prisoner's consent to all transfers under, for example, Clause 4(1)(b) and he does not have to be asked again for a special consent. It is simply that we require to be assured that this is the case. If it is the case, I have no more to say. If it is not the case, I shall have to go away and think about it. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The doubt to which the noble Lord's amendment refers is, perhaps, more easily avoided than most, though there are always doubts in studying the drafting of Bills. There is only one clause in the Bill which provides for the issue of a warrant and that is Clause 1. All references in the Bill to warrants are references to warrants in Clause 1, because they are references to warrants "under this Act". It follows that they are references to warrants issued under Clause 1. Clause 4 does not create a power to issue a warrant. That power is created only under Clause 1. What it does do is to provide for a warrant for an inward transfer and a warrant for an outward transfer or vice versa to be combined in a single document where the transfer is for temporary purposes only. Such transfers will be necessary to enable appeals to be heard in, for instance, long running cases. I hope that that clears up the matter.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think that it does. I should like to read what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 14, after ("(3)") insert ("(a)")
The noble Lord said: I think that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take Amendment No. 18 with this one.
Amendment No. 18: Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("(b) For the purpose of paragraph (a) above, where notice of withdrawal of consent is received by the Secretary of State after the issue of the warrant but the withdrawal itself took place prior to the issue of the warrant, the warrant shall be treated as invalid.").
The Bill envisages that the detained prisoner has to give his consent to the transfer, as we have already

43
discussed, and as the treaty itself provides. It provides further that the consent may be withdrawn, but only up to the time when the warrant is issued by the Secretary of State in respect of the transfer. What we are saying in this amendment, and in No. 18, is that it would not be fair to make the right to withdrawal of consent by a British prisoner overseas dependent on the prison and the postal authorities there. We envisage that it might take a period of several weeks for the withdrawal of consent to get from, for example, the civil rights centre in Riyadh or the Liberdad prison—so Orwellian a name—in Montevideo to Queen Anne's Gate. It would be wrong if the prisoner were debarred from withdrawing his consent by reason of the delays imposed by the administrative machinery and the postal authorities between those places and London. It may be fettering the imagination to postulate that any person in one of those institutions might prefer it to the delightful régime which the Minister provides in Gartree or Albany, but if that person does have such a bizarre preference there is no reason why he should not be indulged. Clause 6 allows for the revocation of a warrant, and in those circumstances it would be appropriate if that power could be exercised, seldom though it might be wanted. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I hope I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. His concern is that the Secretary of State, by issuing a warrant, might cause a prisoner to be whisked back to his welcoming but vindictive land because he was unaware that the prisoner had changed his heart on the matter. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 does not refer to the timing of notification of the withdrawal of consent to the Secretary of State. The validity of the warrant will therefore depend, among other things, upon the chronology of events. If the prisoner withdrew his consent at a point in time which preceded the issue of the Secretary of State's warrant, the warrant would, as a matter of law, be invalid, because one of the requirements for the issue of the warrant would not have been met. Even if notification of the withdrawal of consent reached the Secretary of State several days after the issue of the warrant. this would not affect the position in law and the warrant would still be invalid, provided that it could be shown that consent was withdrawn before the time that the warrant was issued.
Lord Avebury: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. I shall assume that everybody else will interpret the Bill as he does and that there is no doubt, as there was in the minds of those who advised us, about the matter being entirely clear. However, I am very happy to accept the assurances which the noble Lord has given to the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 19 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 20 to 23.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 23, after ("required") insert ("against his will").
The noble Lord said: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take Amendments Nos. 20 to 24 together.
Amendment No. 21: Page 2, line 23, after ("in") insert ("or confined to").
Amendment No. 22: Page 2, line 24, leave out ("institution") and insert ("place").
Amendment No. 23: Page 2, line 24, leave out ("either").
Amendment No. 24: Page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (5).
I refer the Committee to the present reading of subsection (4). The Committee will find that it relates to the person to whom the Bill applies. That person is somebody who is required to be detained in a prison, a hospital or any other institution,
"(a) by virtue of an order made in the course of the exercise by a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom, or in any country or territory outside the British Islands, of its criminal jurisdiction.
I do not need to go any further in order to make clear the principle of this amendment. It has been said more than once that this is a humanitarian measure. Therefore we have to be very careful not to except from these provisions people whom we ought to have in mind.
I have made clear to your Lordships that the present reading of the Bill is limited to criminal jurisdiction by tribunals and courts. I am thinking of British subjects, those intimately connected with this country, who are in places of detention abroad and who may not at present come within the compass of subsection (4). In some countries, prison sentences can be imposed for ordinary civil matters—indeed, for civil debts—and one is limited at the moment to the criminal jurisdiction of courts. Secondly, in some countries an individual has the right to imprison. It would necessarily, therefore, be a court or a tribunal. Thirdly, some countries have a code which we would call a penal code but which they put forward as a matter of religious, not criminal law. We must have very closely in mind in relation to British subjects those countries which exercise religious jurisdiction under which, as I have already said, terms of imprisonment can be invoked without there being anything which relates to criminal law jurisdiction. It is with that in mind that this amendment is moved.
Lord Elton: The effect of these amendments would be to broaden the scope of the Bill—I am not trying to make a drafting point to the noble Lord, nor am I certain whether he intends this—to embrace anybody who was detained by anybody else, for whatever reason. I appreciate that the noble Lord's intention is to embrace persons imprisoned for civil debt and people imprisoned under penal codes based on religious laws. But the amendment goes further. I take it that that is not his intention?
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord is quite right.
Lord Elton: We have introduced this legislation because there is clearly a readiness now among many countries in the world to enter into arrangements for the repatriation of persons serving custodial sentences as a result of having been convicted of criminal offences. All international discussions of this issue

45
have been about people convicted of criminal offences. We have no information to suggest that any country would be willing to contemplate the repatriation of persons imprisoned for civil debt, for instance. Even if one country was willing, we, and I suspect most other countries, would obviously have great difficulty in agreeing to such arrangements because of the added problems of recovering a debt once the person had left the country. During the negotiations on the Council of Europe Convention, several countries made it quite clear that they could not even contemplate agreeing to the transfer of prisoners against whom fines or other financial debts were outstanding. I hope noble Lords understand, as they did earlier, that in this legislation we cannot go outside the bounds of the convention.
On debt, therefore, I am afraid that there is nothing we can do. On religion, on the other hand, I am glad to say that it seems to us that there is nothing which needs to be done. The reason I say that is this: noble Lords are concerned about countries where the penal code is based on religious law. At least I take it that that is the case. It is our view that there would be no difficulty about regarding such codes as criminal jurisdictions for the purposes of the Bill. They would therefore fall within the terms of Clause 1(4) and the persons detained under them after conviction would be covered by the provisions of the Bill.
To recapitulate, we are not empowered by the convention, and would see great difficulties in doing so anyway, to apply these arrangements to people imprisoned for debt or for the non-payment of fines. But on criminal matters we see no difficulties because that is the intention of the convention and the Bill, and our strong advice is that for those purposes the fact that jurisdiction is based on religious rather than on what we would think of as legalistic or juristic considerations would in no way put that jurisdiction outside the application of the Bill.
Lord Melchett: That assurance is helpful, although it would be more helpful if the Minister could tell us where in the Bill is his authority for saying what he has just said. A number of us looking at the Bill thought that it was restricted to people convicted of criminal offences by a court or tribunal. There was a worry that a country might announce that it had no criminal code or crime which people could transgress against, because it had adopted some other system, and that the Government might be precluded by the terms of the Bill from entering into a transfer arrangement with such a country.
While I am on my feet, may I take up with the Minister a point which he has made twice: that the Bill cannot go beyond the Council of Europe convention. That, surely, is incorrect. What I hope the Minister means is that we must not put anything into the Bill which will prevent Her Majesty's Government from ratifying or implementing the Council of Europe convention. I thought that the Government's whole case for the Bill was based on the idea that we must allow in this Bill for bilateral treaties and other conventions which do go beyond the Council of Europe convention and which incorporate different provisions and allow for different arrangements we need to make.
46
As I understand it, the argument is for maximum flexiblity in this Bill, and this amendment would import that much more flexibility. After all, the Minister says that other countries cannot at the moment contemplate transferring prisoners who are in prison for civil debt. But might that not be a possibility in the future? Is it a possibility that the Government really want to rule out completely in terms of legislation, when they are prepared to incorporate flexibility in so many other provisions?
Lord Elton: To take the noble Lord's second point first, he is absolutely right—my concern is that we should do nothing that will inhibit the operation of the convention. Indeed, a doubt flickered in my mind when I uttered those words a second time. I thought that I might merely confuse if I sought to qualify them—but the noble Lord has just done that for me, and I am grateful.
On the noble Lord's first point, the Bill does not define what is a criminal jurisdiction; I understand that would be a matter for the courts. The advice I have is that there would be no doubt in the mind of the court that the kind of code of conduct and punishment to which the noble Lord referred is in effect a criminal jurisdiction, whatever the people in whose country it is applied may choose to call it.
Lord Mishcon: I have listened with the greatest care to what the noble Lord the Minister has said, but I am in a state of some little confusion in respect of his remarks on religious institutions imposing a term of imprisonment as a result of religious law. I thought that I caught the Minister correctly in his very recent observation when he said that it would be a matter for interpretation by the courts. If we were thinking in terms of the English courts, I would be perfectly happy—but all the examples anyone can think of relate to British subjects abroad who would not be receiving the benefit of a ruling by an English court, and nor would the English court's ruling avail them.
In those circumstances, while I should very much like to consider with my noble friends with whose names this amendment is associated our position before we reach Report stage, having regard to the Minister's reply—and although I personally can see some weight in what he said about civil debt—what would comfort me very much indeed is if the Minister can at least say that it will be an undertaking of the Government that in any agreements which they reach with countries abroad it will be made perfectly clear that our understanding and their understanding of a criminal jurisdiction encompass religious jurisdiction where imprisonment might result.
If we can have an undertaking that such will be made abundantly clear in any agreements ever entered into with any of the countries, that would at least give us some solace on this side, even if it is not made clear in the Bill. But to say that our courts might give a certain interpretation in regard to criminal jurisdiction completely overlooks what other courts in other countries might decide.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord will recognise that neither I nor Her Majesty's Government can do anything to bind a foreign government. When I refer to the courts, I mean the courts in their supervision of the

47
conduct of our own Government and our own Home Secretary. Our own Home Secretary would be perfectly able to operate all the apparatus of this Bill—or Act, as it will be—in regard to a country operating what the noble Lord called a religious jurisdiction, free of the worry that a British court might find him ultra vires.
What no British court can do is to pronounce upon the vires of another government in another country. Plainly, I cannot undertake to specify what will be in an agreement with another country for precisely the same reason. I cannot bind foreign countries to agree that a specific area in which they seek to control the behaviour of their citizens is or is not relevant under the Act. All I can do is say that Her Majesty's Government will seek to find an agreement with other countries which gives the maximum benefit to the maximum number of British citizens who may wish later to avail themselves of the operation of the Act.
That implies that we shall do everything that we can, where it might prove necessary, to secure an explicit undertaking from the Government of a foreign country that they do indeed regard certain areas of conduct and punishment as being within the operation of their mirror of our Act for the purposes of either the bilateral arrangements we have or for the operation of the convention.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, follows me. I am trying to say, "Yes" to everything the noble Lord has asked me so far as it is possible. But I cannot say, "Yes" in respect of what other countries will determine in their courts as to their law.
Lord Mishcon: It was precisely because of that difficulty that I did not want the Committee, any more than the Minister would want the Committee, to be under the impression from the Minister's remarks that we can dismiss this amendment because, without any doubt at all, if ever we entered into an agreement with another country it would be obvious—and they would have to agree to this—that, because of the wording of this Bill, religious convictions and sentences came under the banner of criminal jurisdiction.
It is valuable that the Minister has taken on board that at all times when negotiating an agreement with a foreign country it should be our aim to have religious matters so covered. On that basis, and so that I may at least consider the position with my noble friends who have associated themselves with this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 not moved.]
5.18 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
(" (5A) In the case of a transfer into the United Kingdom pursuant to this section or section 4 below no criminal charges in respect of offences allegedly committed by the prisoner prior to his transfer into the United Kingdom shall be brought in the United Kingdom unless either:

(a) notice of liability to be so charged has been given to the prisoner pursuant to subsection (5)(c) above prior to his giving his consent to the transfer, or

48

(b) the alleged involvement of the prisoner in any offence with which he is charged after his transfer was not known to the Secretary of State prior to the said transfer.

(5B) Nothing in subsection (5A) above shall affect the right of a private citizen to bring proceedings of any sort against a prisoner.")
The noble Lord said: This, again, is rather a simple amendment. I shall probably be told that it is not necessary; still, I should like to be reassured on that point. We are trying to confirm the principle which the noble Lord himself laid down at Second Reading, when he said that it will be the prisoner who will be the ultimate judge. In other words, he said that the most important of the three decisions to be made is ultimately that of the prisoner. Before he can make up his mind, he must be sure that he understands the possibility of further charges when and if he is brought home.
This amendment suggests, in the simplest possible way, that a new subsection (5A) be inserted at the end of line 40 on page 2 of the Bill which simply writes this down. The exceptions are (a) and (b), which state that no charges will be brought in the United Kingdom unless:

"(a) notice of liability to be so charged has been given to the prisoner pursuant to subsection (5)(c) … or

(b) the alleged involvement of the prisoner in any offence with which he is charged after his transfer was not known to the Secretary of State".

In other words, anything that is known to the Secretary of State in the way of a charge or a further charge when he gets back must be disclosed to the prisoner. The new subsection (5B) maintains the right for civil cases to be brought against him without exception. He is, therefore, fully aware of that.
It is obviously very important that if a man is an habitual criminal and has committed an offence in a foreign country it is quite likely that there will be other charges which he would like to have taken into consideration at some stage or other. He must know what they are and must decide whether to come back and face them rather than stay where he is, where the charges cannot be brought against him. I do not think I can say anything more. It is a fairly clear issue. It is very desirable to put down in writing the obligation that this information should be given to the prisoner so that he can make up his mind properly. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment follows the lines of the speciality rule in extradition. I agree there is a need for such a rule in extradition arrangements where a country has asked for the extradition of a person to stand trial on specific charges, but the arrangements with which we are now concerned are very different. The prisoner will be seeking repatriation to this country for his own benefit, and that of his family, and his transfer will depend upon his consent. The prisoner himself should be well aware of any charges that could be brought against him for any past activities in this country. Therefore, there is no justification for placing an obligation on the Secretary of State to inform him of any outstanding charges. If any such charges did come to the notice of the Secretary of State when considering a repatriation request, I should add, in all fairness, that the prisoner would be informed. But to say that is not the same as to accept that there should

49
be an obligation to notify the prisoner of such charges or of such liability to be charged.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Is there the slightest difference in those two things? It seems to me that there is not. If anything which comes to the knowledge of the Secretary of State would be notified to the prisoner, what is the difference from saying that he has a duty to do so?
Lord Elton: I am anxious not to split hairs with the noble Lord, and I am always in danger of doing that. I think I should take advice on this, which I shall do. The principal difficulty may well prove to be what is meant in the Bill by the term "the Secretary of State". It may be that the Secretary of State is technically seized of information which is, for example, in the hands of a junior consular official or some outstation of the immigration department. It could be that the information does not come to hand in time to be of use. That would then put the Secretary of State in breach of the Act if the prisoner came back to this country and was charged, and it could be proved that the information was in the system but not in the head of my right honourable friend who has responsibility for these matters. I can see that the noble Lord is not much more satisfied with what I am saying than I am myself. I will look at this further.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: Although I wholly agree with the principle of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, which is based on British judgment and logic, I think we have to appreciate that so many times in other countries people are taken to prison and for months are not charged. They are sometimes held in appalling conditions and their one desire is to get home. We have evidence that time and again the Foreign Office has asked what charges have been laid against a person but has been given a negative reply. In those circumstances, would it not militate against a man who is desperate to get out of the appalling conditions in which he finds himself and to get home at any price, if necessary throwing himself on the mercy of British justice and not that of the country in which he is being held?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If I may reply to that across the Floor, this amendment is entirely concerned with charges which the prisoner will meet when he gets back to this country. It has nothing to do with the foreign country. If the foreign country has charges against him, presumably it will not agree to his transfer. It is simply the case of a man who has committed crimes in this country, and knows that he has because he has got away with some of them, and where other charges may be pending. He will want to know what will happen when he gets to this country and how many charges remain. In so far as the Secretary of State knows that, the noble Lord has already said that the Secretary of State will have a normal duty to inform the prisoner. In so far as he does not, the amendment, in (5A)(b), relieves him of any duty; so I think I am quite happy about that. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment. We seem to be agreeing in such a tremendous way that something ought to materialise in the end.
Lord Melchett: It is worth stressing that many prisoners, in having to decide on whether to accept a transfer, will have some very difficult choices to make. Although they may find themselves in much better conditions if they return here to serve the remainder of their sentence, they will also return to face a sentence of a length which they can be fairly certain of, although I agree there are some uncertainties about parole. Nevertheless, they will have a fairly clear idea of how long they will spend in prison. However, in many other countries where people will be serving sentences there are irregular amnesties and people may be let out on the whim of an individual, and so on, so they will have to gamble, as it were, on the likelihood of getting a fairly early release from very bad conditions against serving a slightly longer sentence in better conditions. Obviously one of the factors that will be important to them is to know not only whether they will, on return, have to serve the remainder of the sentence for the offence of which they have been convicted abroad but also whether they will face further, perhaps serious, charges. These may be charges connected with the offence of which they have been convicted abroad and for which they may feel they have already been sufficiently sentenced. There are a number of situations one can see in which it would be important for the prisoner to have access to such information.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I hope that the Government will be able to see some way of meeting this amendment. I accept the need to protect the Secretary of State—and the amendment was drafted with this very much in mind—from simply being in ignorance of some charges, resulting in the police being unable to proceed. That was not the intention of the amendment as drafted. It may not completely and effectively meet that point, but I do not believe that it would be beyond the wit of the advisers of the noble Lord to draft an amendment which would meet that problem.
Lord Elton: I will read with care what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said. I think that what he said went further than the amendment. The amendment is curtailed by (5A)(b). What the noble Lord seemed to want is for the Home Secretary to have to inquire of every police force in the United Kingdom whether the prisoner has a criminal record or is wanted for an unsolved crime, or whatever. That is something to which I could not commit him because it would be both extensive and expensive. I said some time ago that I would be looking at what has been said. I think I would be well advised to say nothing more and to do just that.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: On that I am grateful and quite content to withdraw the amendment. I hope that the near agreement—we seem to be very close—will produce something on which we can entirely agree at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 2 [Tranfers out of the United Kingdom]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 38 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: I am hoping that the noble Lord the Minister will be good enough at least to listen to the point that I wish to make on the Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill? It is of some concern to the National Association for Mental Health. I shall well understand it if he cannot give me a reply now but I would ask him whether he will, with his usual courtesy, write to me so that I can, in turn, assure the association that the matter has been given proper attention.
The point was raised on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Ennals. He mentioned Section 86 of the Mental Health Act 1983, where there was already a power vested in the Secretary of State to transfer abroad alien patients—I believe that is the term used in the section—including those under a hospital order. But before the Secretary of State could do that he had to have the approval of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
In exercising the power that will be given under this Bill in regard to those who are so afflicted, the Secretary of State does not have to obtain the consent of the patient. The concern is expressed in this way. Clarification is sought as to the type of advice the Home Secretary would require before exercising his powers under this Bill. Will independent advice as to the patient's current needs and state of health, of exactly the same sort as that which would be provided by the tribunal under the Mental Health Act 1983, be taken into consideration? The concern is obviously that the mental patient should not suffer as a result of the transfer. The evidence as to the suffering could be obtained only from some medical source. The anxiety relates to whether that guidance will be sought—and I am sure that it will—and the nature of it. Perhaps an assurance can be given now. If, however, I have caught the Minister unaware—and I have not given him any notice of this point—I shall well understand it and would appreciate a letter from him.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for bringing to my attention this concern, of which I was not, in fact, aware. He will recall that under his Amendment No. 7 we agreed that people who suffered from this sort of mental disability would need to be spoken for by somebody who did not so suffer and who could speak in their interest. As far as I am aware, that is the extent of the protection within the Bill.
The noble Lord has asked for an assurance that certain steps, which on the face of them would appear to be perfectly reasonable, should be undertaken. I think that I ought in common prudence to examine the question and take advice on it. It may be that something more, less or slightly different from what the noble Lord wants might be required; but I see that there is an anxiety there which should be addressed.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Transfer into the United Kingdom]:
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 43 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): The Question is, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: Again, I should like to raise a point on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? Clause 3 deals with transfers out of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord the Minister may remember the anxiety expressed in some quarters about what would happen if a terrorist was convicted and sentenced for terrorism in this country and we had entered into an agreement with a country which might favour the type of terrorism for which that person was responsible or the so-called cause of terrorism that that person advocated. The fear was that a sentence might prove absolutely nugatory because, on a transfer abroad, for all we know and in spite of provisions in the agreement there might be almost nursing-home treatment, if not a hero's welcome.
We have gone a long way in our legislation in regard to terrorism—some of which your Lordships' House is now considering—to make this a very serious matter. Before we leave Clause 3, I should like the noble Lord's assurance that what he said on Second Reading about the Secretary of State's attitude on matters of that kind can be taken in a very concrete form by this Committee. Otherwise, we might have to consider at Report stage putting in an exception in the case of convictions for terrorism. This is a matter that must be very present in our minds at the moment. I say that with the deepest of regret. But we should be lacking in our duty if we pass Clause 3 without having some kind of statement on this matter from the Secretary of State via the Minister.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the Minister replies, may I point out that we have an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on Clause 3 which I believe we should take before we discuss whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Unless prohibited by the international arrangement in accordance with which the prisoner is transferred, a provision contained in a warrant by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above—

(a) shall be no more severe than could have been contained in an order made as mentioned in paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above in respect of the type of conduct which resulted in the detention giving rise to the transfer; and

(b) shall make full allowance for the period already spent in custody by the prisoner (including time so spent prior to and during his trial) in respect of the conduct which resulted in the detention giving rise to transfer.")

The noble Lord said: I am always obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for his interventions. I sometimes find them helpful, but not always.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: It is always a pleasure for me.
Lord Mishcon: It is absolutely true that I have down a further amendment to Clause 3, and it is more suitable that I move it before raising the other matter. We have at least given the noble Lord the Minister an opportunity to consider what I have said when we come to consider whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill. I hope not to repeat it word for word.
I do not know whether your Lordships will remember, but I can well recollect an amused smile on the Minister's face as on Second Reading we came to Clause 3(2) of the Bill. I must confess that if ever I wanted to choose, out of fairly contemporary legislation, an example of words that are almost impossible to comprehend I should have a go at Clause 3(2). It reads:
Subject to section 4(2) and (3) below, a provision shall not be contained by virtue of subsection (1) (c) above in a warrant under this Act unless it is a provision for or with respect to the detention of a person in a prison, a hospital or any other institution which, at the time the warrant is issued, may be contained in an order made—

(a) in the course of the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, by a court in the part of the United Kingdom in which the prisoner is to be detained; or

(b) otherwise than by a court but for the purpose of giving effect to an order made as mentioned in paragraph (a) above".

The Opposition are prepared to award a prize—I shall not indicate what—to any noble Lord on the Government side of the Committee, including those on the Front Bench, who can take your Lordships through that and explain exactly what it means in five minutes flat! That is a bit of an unfair point for me to make. When the noble Lord the Minister came across this provision, he said:
"That is a passage in the Bill which I find difficult to follow, and I hope that those words are helpful".—(Official Report, 21/12/83; col. 754.]
"Those words" were the preceding words. I have read them and I understand them, which is something that I cannot say about the provision, but I must confess that I do not really find them very helpful.
I looked at the Notes on Clauses to this Bill, which, most courteously, have been supplied and which are very helpful. They indicate—and this is very serious—that this clause empowers the Secretary of State to imprison someone for a time in excess of the United Kingdom maximum if he finds it necessary. That is an extraordinary power to give. I think your Lordships' Committee is satisfied that one must unfortunately look with some amount of consent at the position that we will imprison here somebody who has been imprisoned abroad for an offence which is not known to our own criminal law. In other words, we have got to swallow the fact—because it may be for the good of a British subject—that if you are sentenced in Saudi Arabia, for example, to a long term of imprisonment because you have been found to be in possession of a bottle of whisky, if we had an agreement with Saudi Arabia, what we would have to do is precisely what is envisaged by this Bill and accept such a person into our prisons in order to finish that sentence. Some of us, I remember, debated the matter on Second Reading when we were looking at the possible agreement with South Africa and what that might mean. I can remember the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Lord the Minister convincing me against what I had said from this Front Bench, that this would be very probably in the interests of the
54
person concerned, and in those circumstances we would have to stomach it.
This I can swallow. If there is an international agreement which specifies that the balance of the sentence has to be served in accordance with the sentence of that other country, and that sentence happens to exceed the maximum laid down in our criminal law, your Lordships' Committee will have to swallow that one. But what I cannot swallow—and I hope the Committee will not swallow—is where that is not in the agreement, there is some power vested in the Secretary of State to increase the sentence or to impose a sentence in this country which exceeds the maximum sentence in this country which is imposed for that particular offence. If my interpretation—not of this subsection, which I cannot interpret for your Lordships—of the Notes on Clauses is right, then the first part of this amendment is quite obviously necessary.
It may very well be that I should have split these amendments into two; but if I may turn to paragraph (b) of this amendment, this merely makes statutory, puts into the Bill, the statement of intent which I have seen in the explanatory paragraph 2 of the schedule in the Notes on Clauses. It is vital because of the statement in the Bill and in the explanatory notes that the starting date for calculation of remission, and thus the earliest date of release, will be the date of delivery of the prisoner to a prison or other institution in the United Kingdom. I am making the full allowance for the time spent abroad. The Secretary of State should surely be mindful of the fact that under United Kingdom law every day actually served effectively counts as a day and a half as a diminution of the sentence imposed by reason of the arrangements for remission. In giving full effect to time spent abroad, obviously the Secretary of State should make similar allowance.
I believe that I can best bring this home to your Lordships by giving an example. Say that a person had been sentenced to 12 years abroad and is to be transferred to the United Kingdom after serving four years abroad. The calculation by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the warrant should surely be as follows: take the total sentence of 12 years; deduct the time already served—four years—you get a balance remaining to be served of eight years. Give the credit for remission and time served abroad—two years—take the two years from the eight years and you get the balance to be served in the United Kingdom, which is six years.
The net result of that would be to put such a prisoner in exactly the same position as a prisoner sentenced in the United Kingdom. Unless full allowance is made in this way, a prisoner could serve longer than is justifiable. The prisoner would have served four years abroad and have to serve a further five and a third years in the United Kingdom before becoming eligible for final release, which would mean a total of nine and a third years of a 12 year sentence instead of the eight year period which would be just.
The Home Office has stated that the system of release on parole will take care of such inequities and disparities. We cannot accept that a prisoners' fate should be left to a further exercise of discretion, and one has to have in mind some of the recent

55
pronouncements which have worried quite a few of us on the whole question of release on parole so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned. Prisoners transferred to the United Kingdom will be dealt with by the domestic system of parole. Many of them would suffer unduly from restrictions on it, and their burden would then be double. I beg to move.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: There is one thing which I think the noble Lord has not taken into account, which is that, in relation to by bilateral agreements, you have got to get the best bilateral agreement that you can, and if you are dealing, for example, with South Africa, I doubt very much whether they would agree that somebody who had committed what they call a racial crime and we call ordinary behaviour, should be released when they get here. Until you get a series of different bilateral agreements to consider, I do not think you ought to start laying down things in the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State taking advantage of such things. My own view is that this should be up to the prisoner to choose. Would he rather come here and serve a sentence under conditions he is aware of, which, in British law he would not be liable to, or would he rather go on serving it there? I think it is perfectly clear that he should be given that decision, and in most cases he would choose to come here to be decently treated.
Lord Mishcon: I said before that some interventions of my noble friend, Lord Donaldson, were most helpful. His previous one was, and this one quite obviously does not come within that description. I thought I had made it clear—and I apologise to your Lordships as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, if I did not make it clear: it must be my fault—that if an international arrangement made it obligatory upon the United Kingdom and therefore the Secretary of State to impose a balance of a sentence which would exceed the maximum in this country if the offence had been committed here, I immediately conceded that the Secretary of State would have no alternative. My complaint was that that was not a limitation that was put upon the Secretary of State's power, and the bare fact would appear to be—if the explanatory notes are right—that, irrespective of the international agreement making him do this, he could do it himself.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred to the problem of remission. This is extremely important because prisoners will want to know exactly where they stand before deciding whether to take advantage of the transfer arrangements. As I understand it, the period which a prisoner has served in a country overseas, if it is a party to the convention, will be governed by the remission arrangements in that country. In other words, to take Lord Mishcon's question about the person who was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and has served four years' imprisonment in an overseas country, then he will not necessarily attract the additional one third towards the sentence which would be appropriate in the case of a sentence being served in the United Kingdom. As I
56
understand it, it will depend entirely on what the remission arrangements are in France, Germany or wherever it is he happens to be serving his sentence. Then the balance of the sentence will have remission applied to it according to the United Kingdom rules once he has been transferred. Perhaps the Minister can correct me if that is wrong. I think that it is an important point that we should try to understand.
Similarly, if a person is transferred from the United Kingdom to a country overseas in the circumstances of the sentence which the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, postulates—he has been given 12 years and has done four here—then he will attract another two years towards the completion of his sentence by reason of the remission arrangements that apply in the United Kingdom, and those would have to be enforced in the receiving country to which he goes if it is a party to the Council of Europe Convention. As I also understand it, it would be the intention of the Government to see that wherever possible the bilateral arrangements that we enter into with other countries follow the same pattern, though that may not be feasible in every case.
I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says is perfectly true. One would never have read into subsection (2) the meaning which is ascribed to it, according to his description, and it is absolutely vital that we try to redraft the clause in a way which will make clear its meaning and certainly bring out the points about both the maximum sentence and the applicability of remission arrangements as between one country and another.
Lord Elton: I entirely understand the difficulty which noble Lords have in unravelling the provisions of Clause 3(2). I greatly wish that they were clearer, and the dissatisfaction of Members of your Lordships' Committee with the obscurity of what we have found necessary to insert is noted. But whether in fact it will prove as easy to improve the drafting as one always thinks it will is quite another matter and I shall not give an undertaking on that.
However, having said that. I also perfectly understand the anxiety of noble Lords who succeed in unravelling the provisions of Clause 3(2) and find the breadth of discretion which they give to the Secretary of State in drawing up the terms of a sentence contained in the warrant. The warrant is the vehicle in which the translation of the sentence awarded by a foreign court into British custodial terms is conveyed, and noble Lords have noted that the Secretary of State is not restricted as to how he may achieve that translation or the length of sentence that may result. That is a difficulty to which we have addressed ourselves, and in view of your Lordships' concern we are prepared to address ourselves to it further, if your Lordships give us the opportunity to do so.
However, I must point out that, while we may be able to improve on what we have at present, I very much doubt whether we shall attain 100 per cent. of what your Lordships and indeed Her Majesty's Government would like to see in its place. There are two reasons for this. One is that some British people may well wish to be transferred home to serve sentences for acts of which they have been convicted which would not have constituted offences at all if they had been committed at home. The noble Lord, Lord

57
Donaldson, has ably directed the Committee's attention to that point. Recently we have been discussing the applicability of the Bill to religious laws in foreign countries, and the Committee can well imagine the kind of thing that I mean. For that reason we cannot hope exactly to parallel the intention of subsection (2)(a) of the amendment.
We must also take care to remember that the transfers will not be automatic. The agreement of the foreign government will be required, and there is bound to be an element of negotiation involved. We must not create circumstances under which such a government would refuse to transfer on grounds of inadequacy of sentence, even if the aspiring transferee would have been quite happy to have settled for slightly more than would be normal in British jurisprudence in order that he might serve the sentence in a British, rather than a foreign, gaol. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has addressed himself to that point, too.
I ought also to say, I think, that I cannot see a British Home Secretary deliberately and unnecessarily awarding sentences above those which British courts would award under any circumstances, except where it was imperative to get a British subject out of a foreign penal system. Nonetheless, if the noble Lord will stay his hand, we will try to see whether we cannot reduce the discretion to recognisable bounds and to something which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, could swallow (to use his words).
I should now like to turn to the second leg of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right in saying that the terms for remission will vary according to the individual country and the individual agreement. But having said that, we will also consider what guidance, if any, we can effectively put into the Bill on matters of remission.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for what he has said in regard principally to the first leg of the amendment. As I indicated, the two legs of the amendment should have been separated, and I apologise to the Committee for that. I shall wait with great interest to see what the Government put forward as a result of this amendment being tabled. In regard to the second leg of the amendment, I am again certainly grateful to the noble Lord for the consideration that he proposes to give to it. Therefore in that respect, too, I await what he has to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.56 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I have been caught out, and rightly so, for having earlier made a speech that ought to be made at this stage. Having committed that sin, let me not commit the dual sin of repeating a speech and boring Members of your Lordships' Committee with it. I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister and the Members of the Committee listened to what I had to
58
say earlier. As your Lordships will remember, it concerned the question of terrorists who are convicted and sentenced here and what may happen in the circumstances which I previously adumbrated.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say—
Lord Elton: Having been addressed twice, I think I ought to reply at least once. On the general question, I was careful to say earlier that we were not proposing to create categories of offence, but to look at each case on its merits. I shall read with very great care what the noble Lord has said because it concerns a matter of great interest to myself and the Government, and indeed to all your Lordships—the question of the advisability or otherwise of returning people to a hero's welcome for deeds which we believe to be a crime against humanity—and I should expect to be able to reply to the noble Lord in reassuring terms.
There is one point in that context that I should in any case like to put on the record at this stage. Prisoner transfer arrangements which the United Kingdom enters into under the proposed legislation will provide for the repatriation of individual prisoners under the conditions provided in the arrangements. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, there is no question of these arrangements providing for the exchange of one prisoner for another. We must guard against the possibility that British nationals overseas might be unjustly arrested with a view to trading them for prisoners in the United Kingdom. British nationals could thus be put at risk if the United Kingdom were to contemplate exchanging prisoners. Therefore the British Government will accept the repatriation of individual prisoners only in accordance with the merits of each prisoner's case and the conditions provided in the relevant prisoner transfer arrangement with the country concerned.
That addresses a segment of the area of the noble Lord's concern, which, I recognise, goes wider. I should rather respond to it after reflection, if the noble Lord will be content in that regard, and I am sure that he can manufacture an opportunity for me to do so.
Lord Avebury: In answer to an earlier intervention of mine the Minister said that there was nothing in the Bill about the treatment of special categories of prisoner and that during the course of our proceedings he had said nothing about the singling out of special categories. But what he has now said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, makes me feel a little anxious, because in regard to terrorists he said that we must guard against those individuals being treated as though they were heroes when they were welcomed back to their countries of origin. That is of course an argument which applies to terrorists in general and means that one does not examine a particular prisoner. One says to oneself that if anyone who has committed an offence that falls into this class is sent back home it is possible that when he lands in Dublin, or Dun Laoghaire, there will be a large reception committee to cheer him on as he goes to the Irish prison, and that therefore this would render it undesirable that anybody who is an Irish citizen and

59
who has committed an offence of a particular kind should ever be repatriated to his country of origin. I think it is better that we should be clear exactly where we stand.
I hesitated to raise this point originally, but now that the Minister has mentioned it I think it is as well that we should know exactly where we stand. After all, as my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge pointed out, we do have quite a few people who are convicted of what are known as IRA types of offences in the prisons of Great Britain. Some consideration will have to be given as to whether those who were originally domiciled in the Republic of Ireland should be allowed to go back there. It has always been the policy of Her Majesty's Government—as the noble Lord the Minister will confirm—that we are not even prepared to allow them to go back to the Six Counties, let alone the Republic, even where there are very strong family ties in favour of them doing so, and possibly compassionate grounds. The noble Lord the Minister will remember one particular case where a prisoner's father was extremely ill and dying of cancer, and yet it was still not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to allow that person to go back and see his father before he died.
We shall have to address our minds to this. Are we to make a blanket rule which excludes these Irish prisoners in the United Kingdom from the possibility of benefiting under the terms of the Bill because of the danger that they might be received in the way that the noble Lord describes on their return to Ireland? Or do we consider the cases on their own merits, by disregarding the perception of the offences in the country of origin and the way in which the return of a particular individual on his repatriation, would be received? The two approaches are fundamentally contradictory. If you look at the man's offence and the terms of the Convention of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, you reach one conclusion. If you look at the PR effect, if you like, of the person's arrival back in the country of origin, then you may reach quite another. That is a consideration which does not find its way into the Bill. I hope, on reflection, that the noble Lord the Minister will exclude it from the consideration of cases on their own merits which he spoke about almost in the same breath.
It is very important, from my point of view, that we should clear this up as soon as possible, so that we can decide whether to do anything about it when we come to Report stage.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If I may comment on what my noble friend said, over Eire, the rule is perfectly simple: there is, or will be, an agreement that sentences would be served over there that would have been served here, and there is no way round that. If a certain number of people—who certainly would not be supported by the Irish Government—cheer, too bad. In relation to Northern Ireland, that is part of Great Britain, and the Home Secretary does what he likes.
Lord Mishcon: I was comforted by what the noble Lord the Minister said, and I would not interfere in any way at all with the reflection that he wishes to give to this matter. I was, of course, not limiting myself by
60
any manner of means to a consideration of terrorists coming from Ireland. This is, unfortunately, a modern scourge, and it is not just terrorists from Ireland who have committed crimes upon our soil. There is an ambassador of a certain country who will suffer for the rest of his life from a most dreadful injury as a result of a crime perpetrated over here. It was that general sort of consideration that I had in mind.
Lord Elton: If I can reply to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I did take care to say that I thought it was unwise to create categories of offence within the Bill, and I also took care to say that I was aware of the difficulties of, for instance—I may have left out the words "for instance"—returning somebody to a hero's welcome for something which we thought was a crime against humanity.
The Committee will recall that at Second Reading I did in fact go into this issue in some detail. In column 758 of Hansard. I said:
"Terrorists are criminals and are dealt with in the same way as other criminals in accordance with the seriousness of their crimes. I have already declared that the Secretary of State will not normally withhold his consent to the transfer of a particular prisoner unless he considers there are compelling reasons of public policy for so doing. Considerations of public policy might lead to a decision to refuse the transfer of any prisoner who had been convicted of particularly horrific crimes and who might be regarded as undeserving of any degree of public sympathy; for instance, in the case of a murderer, a particularly ruthless and unprincipled drug trafficker, or someone who had killed or maimed in the name of some political cause or committed other acts of a terrorist nature. Each case"—
I said, and I repeat—
"will be dealt with on its merits taking due account of all relevant facts, including the considerations I have mentioned". [Official Report, 21/12/83; col. 758.)
I do not think it is possible to be clearer or, indeed, to go any further than that.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Temporary return]:
[Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 not moved.]
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("may")
The noble Lord said: May I also speak to Amendments Nos. 52, 53. 54 and 56?
Amendment No. 52: Page 6, line 17, after ("(a)") insert ("may")
Amendment No. 53: Page 6, line 22, after ("(b) insert ("shall")
Amendment No. 54: Page 6, line 22, leave out ("for how") and insert ("that").
Amendment No. 56: Page 6, line 25, at end insert ("as part of the time served by the prisoner in detention in the United Kingdom.")
This is an elaborate way of altering Clause 4(2)(b) to read:
"shall provide that any period during which the prisoner is, by virtue of the later warrant, out of that part of the United Kingdom is to be treated for the purposes of the provisions contained in the earlier warrant as part of the time served by the prisoner in detention in the United Kingdom".
It is very near the point we were discussing before, that in so far as the prisoner is out of this country and detained, that period shall count towards his total sentence. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: As drafted, Clause 4(2) refers to warrants issued for the temporary transfer out of the

61
United Kingdom of prisoners previously brought into the United Kingdom under another warrant under this Bill. The part of the warrants to which it is addressed is that part described in Clause 3(1)(c) which specifies the terms or provisions under which the prisoner is to be held. Clause 4(2)(a) provides that this warrant can be drawn up so as to repeat the provision made in the original warrant or to provide for those provisions to revive on the prisoner's return.
The language used is made a little more elaborate by meeting the need to provide for cases where such a prisoner may first be held in one part of the United Kingdom and, after his temporary absence abroad, be held in another perhaps nearer his home. It could well be that he might be held in the first instance temporarily in England, and in the second, more permanently, in Scotland. The way the Bill is drafted makes it possible to accomplish his removal from one jurisdiction to another whilst not affecting the length of his sentence.
Clause 4(2)(b) makes it possible for the temporary transfer warrant also to specify the way in which detention abroad shall be treated as regards counting towards the earliest date of release and so on. Both Clauses 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) are drafted in permissive terms. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment is to leave 4(2)(a) permissive but to make 4(2)(b) mandatory, so the warrant must provide in all cases that the whole of the time the prisoner is out of this country shall count towards his release date. I am sorry for the long preamble. I found it entirely necessary to say that in order to get to the point I have reached, and I hope it, will be helpful to the Committee.
I can quite see the justice which the noble Lord is seeking to do; or rather the injustice which he is seeking to prevent. The earliest date of release clock should not be stopped while foreign judicial proceedings drag their weary way to completion. Her Majesty's Government have every intention that the clock should indeed continue to run while the prisoner is detained in custody on temporary transfer abroad, and I should like that duly noted. What the noble Lord has perhaps overlooked is that the offender in question may not spent all of his time abroad in custody under those arrangements. He may be bailed or conditionally released or he may simply have escaped. The noble Lord's amendment would then have the effect of keeping the clock running even while the prisoner was at liberty, and it would do so regardless of whether that liberty was lawful or not.
In such cases the Secretary of State must not be forced to reduce the effective length of sentence by the length of time spent at liberty, without any discretion as to the circumstances. I do not suppose that, on reflection, the noble Lord would actually wish to deny him that discretion, since it would seem to defeat justice entirely. Perhaps therefore he would be satisfied with my assurance that under the Bill it is intended that the clock shall run while the person is properly held under the arrangements made between the countries.
Lord Melchett: I do not think that that is good enough. Why cannot the Bill say that the time during which the prisoner is out of the country and in custody will count towards the period? That would meet the
62
noble Lord's point that if he is out of the country and bailed or escapes, it should not be counted as imprisonment. The great danger, of which I think the noble Lord is aware, is that if elements of discretion are left in the Bill, for which there are no discernable reasons whatever, people are bound to start worrying and imputing even rather bad motives to the Government. The noble Lord has made a perfectly simple point and it could be perfectly simply incorporated in the legislation.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think that it is covered at the beginning of subsection (2) where it says:
"Where the prisoner is required, when that warrant is issued, to be detained".
Does that not do it?
Lord Elton: I think that it does not, but for reasons which do not immediately spring to mind. In other words, I have more sympathy with what the noble Lord is now trying to achieve, which is slightly different fromwhat, on the face of the amendment, he was trying to achieve. If your Lordships will bear with me, I will probe the matter further. It may be that we can do something. I would not want your Lordships to leap to the conclusion that we will do something, but we are well disposed to looking at the matter.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am grateful and happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52, to 57 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Operation of warrant and retaking prisioners]:
[Amendments Nos. 58 to 65 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Revocation etc. of warrants]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 8, line 7, at end insert—
("Provided that nothing in this subsection shall empower the Secretary of State to issue a new warrant containing provisions less favourable than those in the original warrant unless—

(i) the terms of the original warrant expressly reserve the right so to do; and

(ii) the less favourable provisions are inserted to give effect to a specific requirement of the international arrangements in accordance with which the original transfer took place.")

The noble Lord said: This clause provides that the Secretary of State may revoke a warrant and reissue it with new provisions. One can understand that a power of this kind is necessary so that where the sentencing state, for instance, grants a free pardon, the prisoner is then released forthwith. But we should like to be assured that it could only be used to increase the length of time that a person spends in custody where this is specifically permitted by some clause in the international agreement in question, and where the original warrant allows for such an increase. That is what the amendment is designed to secure. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: There should be only very occasional need for the Secretary of State to issue a new warrant imposing a longer term of detention. We can therefore agree in principle with the aim of the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord is seized of what I am saying. I regret that one can never be absolutely satisfied with anybody else's drafting. The term "less favourable" in this case seems to us a little imprecise. If the noble Lord would consider withdrawing the amendment, I would undertake to consider how to introduce a Government amendment on similar lines at the next stage.
Lord Avebury: I am of course delighted to do so, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 8, line 26, at end insert ("except where such a defect relates to erroneous material information given to the prisoner prior to his consenting to the transfer.")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Let us suppose a person consents to a transfer on the basis that, having been sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment abroad and having served 16 years before the warrant, he is going to be detained then for another four years in the United Kingdom, but the authorities then discover that it should have been 14 years and that the four years specified in the warrant was a misprint: could they then reissue the warrant and, if so, does the noble Lord the Minister consider that that is entirely fair if the person has made up his mind to accept the transfer on the basis of that information that was given wrongly, although in good faith? I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord may be a little surprised to learn that, on the whole, we feel that an amendment on the general lines he proposes would be reasonable in view of the wide discretion which the Secretary of State will have to vary or revoke transfer warrants. We should prefer to consider the precise form further, and we would wish to consider it in conjunction with the amendment I have already undertaken to consider requiring particular information to be given prior to consent. Both objectives may perhaps be achieved with a single amendment.
Lord Avebury: Once again I am extraordinarily grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Expenses]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 8, line 31, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 68. and I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 69 and 71:
Amendment No. 69: Page 8, line 31, leave out ("either before or")
Amendment No. 71: Page 8, line 34, leave out ("or persons acting on his behalf')
These amendments concern the arrangements in Clause 7 by which the Secretary of State recovers the costs of repatriating British citizens from overseas prisons. We noted what the Minister said on Second Reading about the anomaly that would arise if the prisoners about whom we are concerned here were repatriated at public expense when tourists who are stranded overseas have to reimburse the cost which is incurred in meeting their fares.
However, the destitute tourist who is coming back here is returning to freedom and to at least the possibility of earning money out of which he could make the payments towards those transport costs. But the prisoner, about whom we are talking, is returning, by definition, to a further period of imprisonment —maybe several more years in custody—and during that time, as I understand it, the payment which is sought to be levied on him, if he is not able to meet it out of his capital, will be subject to interest at commercial rates, which will pile up during the remainder of the sentence.
We are not saying in this group of amendments that nobody should ever be asked to contribute anything towards the costs of repatriation, but it may be that some prisoners could afford to do so. However, we make this permissive. The Secretary of State is not obliged to recover the money from the prisoner or his relatives in every case, because after the word "arrangements" in this subsection, there appears in the Bill, as it stands, the qualifying phrase, "(if any)".
We think that there is not probably any real difference between us and the Minister on the need for the power, but it becomes clearer that the Secretary of State does have the option if the word "may" is used instead of the word "shall" at the beginning of the clause. I take the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, made earlier on this subject.
Secondly, we do not like the notion of using the issue of the warrant as a means of extracting the money from the prisoner or his relatives. I know that the noble Lord has given an assurance on an earlier amendment that that was not the intention, but it certainly appears to be the intention if we look at the clause as it stands. If the Secretary of State has the right to demand payment before the warrant is issued—as he does in the Bill as it stands—then he could, as it were, hold the prisoner, or patient or his relatives to ransom and say that he will not issue the warrant until the money is lodged with him for the purpose of paying the fare.
Thirdly, it seems to us wrong to let the Secretary of State exert pressure on the relatives to pay these costs, as the clause seems to envisage. We need to have a more thorough explanation than we have heard so far from the Minister of how that will work. If the transfer is not dependent on payment being received or promised—and I do not see how it could be as there is nothing in the treaty on this matter—then the payment will not be very easy to collect, because the relatives will be entitled to say that if the Council of Europe develops the repatriation scheme (and this was a matter of discussion extending over a great many years and there was never any question of a prisoner or his relatives being asked to pay at that time), then they are under no moral obligation to meet any request that the

65
Secretaryof State makes. As I see it, nor are they under any legal obligation, though no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
Therefore, I think that we need a pretty thorough explanation of how the demands will be levied on the prisoner or his relatives, and exactly what powers the Secretary of State has to compel them to make these payments, either before he issues the warrant or before the person is transferred back to this country. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Clause 7 deals with expenses incurred through the operation of the machinery set up by the Bill. Those expenses may be fairly considerable because they may involve somebody travelling halfway across the world to bring someone else back in conditions of security, and perhaps staying overnight in secure conditions on the way back. I ought to make it clear, as the Bill itself makes it clear, that the Secretary of State will not be in a position to recover the expenses of any escorts; he is concerned only with the expenses of the prisoner himself.
Clause 7(2) provides for the recovery of those expenses by the Secretary of State from the prisoner or those acting for him. Those arrangements can, under the Bill as drafted, be made either before or after the warrant is issued, and the amendment at which we are looking at the moment would mean that they could only be made after the issue of the warrant. However, the noble Lord has actually addressed a wider group of amendments than I expected him to take at this stage. I am quite seized of the noble Lord's anxiety. He does not wish British prisoners to languish in foreign gaols or, for that matter, foreign prisoners to be held in British gaols unnecessarily while negotiations are carried out about who shall pay for their journeys and how much they shall pay.
I can say that it is not our intention that they shall languish in foreign gaols merely because the prisoner cannot guarantee being able to repay the cost of his fare and has no relatives or friends willing to help him out. But we must take all reasonable steps to ensure that where the prisoner does have the means, or will have access to funds on his return, the fare is paid either by him or by somebody for him. To send somebody across Europe may be expensive, and I have to remind the noble Lord—it has already been mentioned once—that British citizens stranded innocently abroad with their families have to pay back, and have to undertake to pay back, any sums necessary to get them home. If the noble Lord's amendment sought simply to ensure that any convict with a reasonable case could get a free ticket home, then I think your Lordships would have little patience with it.
I understand that the noble Lord is seeking an assurance that the Secretary of State will not use these circumstances to leave people languishing abroad. That is an undertaking that I can give. It is very difficult to be more precise, because if the prisoner is genuinely broke and genuinely ought to come home under the arrangements, then we shall genuinely bring him back. What I cannot tell the noble Lord at this stage is precisely the means that we shall take to assure ourselves of the fact that he is broke. I can only say that they will be interpreted in a humane way, but a way
66
which would prevent the exploitation of the system which is proper for returning holidaymakers, so that the holidaymakers themselves do not suffer from it because they have to repay and the prisoner does not.
Lord Melchett: We are dealing with people who are in rather different circumstances than stranded holidaymakers. Some of these are being kept in quite appalling conditions, maybe at very great risk to their health or personal safety. I am sure that the noble Lord does not need reminding of the quite appalling problems which face some British citizens in prisons in some countries overseas. There is a very genuine concern at the combination of the Government's interest in recovering expenses with their very wide discretionary powers, not just at one stage but at two stages (and we have already discussed those powers in this connection); that is, as to whether they will agree to a transfer and then avoid carrying the transfer through even if it has been agreed to by all the parties. There is concern that that provision is there so that the Government can try to get the money from the prisoner, or from dependants of the prisoner in this country, before the transfer takes place.
The noble Lord has given a very clear undertaking that that will not be done. But, as he knows, that sort of undertaking, while given in Parliament, will not necessarily be carried into effect as transfers take place in increasing numbers over many years under successive Governments, Ministers, and so on. I should have thought that, if that is the Government's intention (as I am sure it is, and as the noble Lord has said), it would be possible to include in the Bill something to the effect that the inability of a prisoner or of a prisoner's relatives or advisers in this country to meet the costs will not be available as a reason for the Secretary of State to exercise the discretion to prevent the transfer going ahead. That would completely answer the worries which a number of us have on this point.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. The argument is fairly obvious and does not need infinite repetition. But when the prisoner is asked whether he agrees to be repatriated, we do not want him to be told that unless he can pay a certain percentage of the cost he will not be. That is what we do not want. What the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has added might deal with the matter. Most of us think that this is wrong as it stands, but there are a splendid couple of words in line 33 which say:
"shall … make such arrangements (if any)".
To some extent I think that that reduces the force of "must" to "may", anyway.
Lord Elton: I should have referred to those splendid words, as the noble Lord calls them, had I known that these amendments would be taken as a group, and not reserved some of my fire for a later stage. Let us be clear about what we are trying to do. We are trying to identify people who, under the terms of an international agreement or convention, qualify to be repatriated, in this case to this country. That is a quite separate exercise from discovering whether or not they can pay for their ticket.

67
I am anxious not to tie the hands of the Secretary of State as to when the arrangements for making repayment. if there is to be repayment, should be embarked upon. One approach suggested in the group of amendments is that the Home Secretary should not seek to make those arrangements before the warrant had been agreed to. That would simply slow things up. I sympathise with what noble Lords are trying to do, and I shall look carefully at what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has suggested, because I think it slightly escaped me while he was delivering it.
However, we cannot say that nobody shall pay for their ticket home because that would evidently be unjust and would outrage many people who have had to pay back for honest journeys. Nor can we say that everybody will pay for their ticket home, because we may be dealing with people who have very large Swiss bank accounts or very wealthy uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, children or parents, or who have very large stables of horses waiting for them to gamble with when they come out. So as we cannot say "nobody" and as we cannot say "everybody", I suppose that we could say that "most" people should; but that is not legislative language and the difficulty is to express what we mean.
It is possible that I may have missed something in what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. said, which might get round that difficulty. Other noble Lords might find a way round that difficulty at a later stage. At present. I do not see a way round it. Therefore, I can go no further than say what it is we intend. If it were possible to express what we mean more clearly in statutory language, there would be no objection to doing it.
Lord Melchett: Let me put one thought in the noble Lord's mind. If anyone has stables full of horses or, indeed, any other considerable assets in this country, once he returns it should not be beyond the wit of the Government to recover the expenses from him. I do not regard that as a major difficulty. On the other hand, the worry is that some people who have very genuine difficulties in meeting the bill will be told that before they can be transferred they must meet it in some way. As there is the real risk that people will be threatened by the Government saying, "You find the money and then you will get transferred" we need it met in some way in the Bill.
Lord Elton: No Government. however ingenious, would be able to find the means of getting the money back if the power to do so is not in the Bill.
Lord Avebury: I am still none the wiser on the powers of the Minister. It says that the Minister may make such arrangements. It does not say how he is going to compel the prisoner, or these hypothetical uncles or aunts, to make the payments if they are not prepared to do so. The Minister has already said that he is not going to hold up the issue of the warrant, so that there is no bargaining power there if he goes to the prisoner and says, "You have these resources in the United Kingdom so you are well able to pay the cost." In those circumstances, everybody would agree that it is only reasonable that the prisoner should pay if he has these assets in the United Kingdom.
68
But what the Minister has said is first that there is no question of pressure being brought to bear on him before the issue of the warrant. Secondly, there has to be some kind of assessment of his ability to pay from an examination of assets at his disposal in the United Kingdom, or whatever, although I should think that there would be few people after several years in Bangkok or Montevideo who would be able to pay, as the Minister says, the substantial amount of money required to bring them back home.
Therefore, the Minister makes some sort of assessment of means and asks the person whether he voluntarily will agree to pay something which, if he had been a tourist, the Government would have had the power to compel him to pay. And the Government say, "Don't you think it is unreasonable that you should be brought back home at public expense when the tourist would have to pay, and would have been obliged to pay by law? Even though we have not got power to make you do this, won't you contribute to the Exchequer to see that there is not this unfair difference between you and the tourist?" The prisoner will obviously say. "Why should I if the Minister has no power to compel me?"
Similarly if you go to the rich uncles and aunts there would be even less inclination for them to stump up. I cannot see much point in having this clause in the Bill unless there is a power in the Secretary of State to compel an unwilling contributor to stump up towards his fare. Nothing the Minister said gave me any indication that such a power is in the Bill.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has put his finger on a difficulty to which I do not have an immediate answer. Everything he says suggested that I ought not to have made the restrained noises I did in reassuring your Lordships that nobody would ever be faced with staying abroad unless they paid for their ticket to come home. I shall certainly look at what I have said with a view to whether I have said the right thing at the same time as I look at the whole question that the noble Lord raised.
Lord Avebury: I thought that there must be something that I had spotted, although it was not immediately apparent on the face of Clause 7, that in the last resort the Minister would have the power to recover these charges. But I now see it is only a request which is going to be made to the prisoner and/or to the persons acting on his behalf, which the Minister has clarified could be his relatives. We have probably gone as far as we can in this discussion this evening. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 74 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Interpretation and certificates]:
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
6.35 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 9, line 8, leave out ("the criminal jurisdiction of a court or tribunal") and insert ("criminal jurisdiction, in relation to a court or tribunal in a country or territory outside the British Islands,").
The noble Lord said: This is my solitary appearance on the positive side, as it were. This is essentially a drafting amendment, the purpose of which is to remove any misunderstanding that might arise about the possible application of subsection (2) of Clause 8 to any jurisdiction in the United Kingdom. There is in fact no such jurisdiction to which it is intended to apply. The amendment makes it clear that the subsection applies only to any jurisdictions of the sort described which may exist outside the British islands. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Somers: I cannot see anywhere in the Bill where the Secretary of State is defined. I presume that it is the Home Secretary, but I wonder whether it ought to be put down in black and white in the Bill.
Lord Elton: For reasons which entirely escape me, apparently it never is. The noble Lord is right in supposing that it is the Home Secretary. Apparently those who come to legislation are gifted with insight which I do not always have and know who the Secretary of State referred to is. If we were to name him I think we should be in breach of a convention. It occurs to me that if the Secretary of State for the Home Office happened to be in bed with 'flu, or abroad, it would have to be another Secretary of State anyway, and that is probably the reason.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
(" Annual reports by the Secretary of State.
.The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament annually a report by him on the discharge by him during the preceding year of his responsibilities under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This is an obvious thing to ask for. This is an entirely new field. We have never done any of it before and Parliament should hear how it is going. Among other things, Parliament would like to know how much money is recovered, which we were discussing in the previous amendment. Without further argument I think that this is a desirable amendment to the Bill as a whole, and I hope it can he accepted.
Lord Elton: It is quite unusual to include in new legislation a permanent statutory requirement for the presentation of an annual report for the purposes of monitoring the operation of that legislation. Any necessary monitoring is usually facilitated by the maintenance of relevant statistics and in certain cases by monitoring a research study after a few years' operation. We certainly intend to record a fair amount of factual information about the operation of prisoner repatriation arrangements, and this will be available as necessary for the purpose of answering specific inquiries.
Given your Lordships' interest, those inquiries will doubtless be numerous and may well emanate from your Lordships in person. It seems to me that Members' questions directed at individual cases
70
together with annual statistics duly published provide a better means of monitoring the working of this Bill than what is now proposed, particularly as once we have cleared the initial backlog the traffic each year is likely to be small. I inquired as to the likely traffic and I understand it is expected to be two, three or four cases a year. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be content to write, or to get somebody else to write, on each occasion or at the end of each year. I would be happier with that than with setting up the machinery of an annual report.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If the noble Lord is correct in his estimate it would be ridiculous to ask for more; but I should like to ask that the question of expenditure recovered and all of the problems about that be included in these statistics, and I look forward to writing to the noble Lord year after year on this question.
Lord Melchett: I am not sure that this is something that can he dismissed quite as easily as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested. It may be a small number of cases, as the noble Lord suggests, but that will be after a considerable period of time. I do not know whether he would be prepared to give us an estimate of when he expects the backlog to be completed. My impression is that it is going to be a considerable number of years.
Even when that backlog has been cleared we are still dealing with the exercise of considerable ministerial discretion leading to people being placed in prison and deprived of their liberty in this country after a process which does not begin to resemble the trial, with the rules of natural justice applied, the publicity, and so on, which we expect in this country before somebody is incarcerated against their will. In those circumstances, it behoves the Government, and those of us who support the Bill, as I do very strongly, to see whether there are not ways to make the exercise of this enormous discretion and great power, without the normal checks and balances which our judicial system provides, more open and more subject to public scrutiny than will otherwise be the case. For the Secretary of State to have to report, even if only one case a year, to say how the discretion had been exercised, in what circumstances and with what consequences for the individual, does not seem to be too onerous a burden. I hope the Minister will pause and reflect on the great powers we are giving to Secretaries of State for many years to come. After all, a judge has to give a judgment in open court. Judges are subject to being reported by the press, to being criticised, to being appealed against; a number of safeguards, to say nothing of the other rules of natural justice which apply in those circumstances, all of which are completely swept aside by the Bill—for good reason, I accept: nevertheless, swept aside they are.
The noble Lord has gone a long way to meeting a number of the amendments this evening. If he can fulfil at Report stage the undertakings he has given, he will have gone a long way to improving the Bill. We are still left with enormous discretion in ministerial hands and in circumstances quite unknown previously in this country. I do not think that. in those circumstances, a brief annual report to Parliament is too much to ask for.
Lord Mishcon: I rise to make a few quick points on something which has been well ventilated. I promise to make them as fresh points.
The first is that quite obviously if the numbers are few the report could be a couple of pages and therefore will not cause any damage to anybody. The second point I make is rather more material. Parliament will have no way at all of finding out how this matter is working, not only in relation to the use of the discretion by the Secretary of State—which my noble friend Lord Melchett and others have already mentioned—but more particularly how it is working out from the point of view of mutuality among the various nations with whom we will have these agreements. That is tremendously important. We ought to know whether our treatment in regard to prisoners of other nations in this country—which I am sure we will carry out with great fairness under the Bill—is being properly reciprocated by other nations; whether difficulties are being encountered which Parliament would want to look in to, either by revising the Act or by some other means in relation to the convention that already exists.
It would be sensible if the noble Lord the Minister would consider this. I can see his point in saying that we have here an Act of Parliament which will be on the statute book for many years and that this will impose an obligation to do this every year. It could easily be done, but, because this is an innovative measure, it could be an annual report, for example, for the first five or 10 years of its operation and then could be renewable or otherwise by an order made in Parliament. I should have thought that that would be a way of overcoming the perpetuity rule, if I may put it that way, which might otherwise be in the Bill. We ought to be able to see the mutuality of this and how it is working out internationally and otherwise, quite apart from the statistics and the fees and charges that may have been collected.
Lord Avebury: We are not only talking about the cases, surely, where an applicant has successfully requested the Secretary of State to transfer him either to or from this country. We are talking about the total universe of applications made by individuals who are otherwise suitably qualified under the terms of the treaty. In other words, they have more than six months left to serve, they have exhausted their rights of appeal, and so on.
What one would like to know in an annual report of this kind is what is the total number of applications that have been made by suitably qualified persons, both in our prisons and in countries overseas where British citizens are held in custody and what was the fate of those applications in each of the countries. If one takes that as the subject of the annual report, which my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge is asking for, that must be a great deal more than two or three cases such as mentioned by the Minister. Speaking from memory, we have 3,600-odd citizens of foreign countries in the prisons of Great Britain. That comes from the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is good enough to give me on 30th April every year, so my figures relate to 1983.
Lord Elton: That reveals a very admirable process for checking how these things work.
Lord Avebury: Yes, that is an overall figure, which the noble Lord gives me of the number of persons who are citizens of Commonwealth and foreign countries respectively in our prisons as at that date, 30th April each year. I think the Minister said that there were about 800 British prisoners in overseas prisons at any one time. It is unbelievable that we could be thinking in terms of only two or three cases from that universe of applicants who are suitably qualified. I should have thought that the report would be a slightly more weighty document than the noble Lord originally had in mind.
Some of those people may turn out to be excluded for one reason or another and they will not all be transferred. What my noble friend and others would like to know is how many applications there are in any one year from foreigners of various nationalities in our prisons to be repatriated to their countries and from British prisoners in Thailand, Turkey or wherever to come back here. In the case of each country or each nationality in our prisons, what percentage or how many of those were successful? There will still be the individual cases that we take up with the noble Lord the Minister, or with the Foreign Office as the case may be, and we would continue to do that just as we do now.
It will be of interest to your Lordships and to the people of the country as a whole to know how these arrangements are working; whether on balance we have more British prisoners coming back to this country than foreigners going back to their homeland and in what circumstances refusals are meted out, if any. One would like to be able to monitor all sorts of questions of a statistical nature as well as being able to follow individual cases. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will agree that my noble friend's suggestion has some merit.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I do not propose to divide the Committee on this, but we have shown that we want to be told by the noble Lord the Minister, at the next stage or possibly in the final speech on the Question, That this Bill do now pass, what sort of statistics will be kept regularly, so that at least we know how to get hold of them. I should be content with that, rather than laying a report before Parliament if the amount of information is small. If, after a year or two, it becomes complicated, we shall ask for something more. As long as the noble Lord will make some sort of accurate response to what we can expect to know at the end of the first, second and third years about how this is working, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: I should be perfectly happy to come back with proposals about what to put in the annual statistics, and that seems to me to be quite reasonable.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
In the Schedule [Operation of certain enactments in relation to the prisoner]:
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 92 not moved.]
6.49 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 12, line 1, at end insert ("except where the offence is not an offence in the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where a person has been convicted overseas for conduct that is not an offence in the United Kingdom he would not have to suffer the additional indignity or disadvantage of having the period that he spent in custody here entered on his record. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment may be based on a misunderstanding of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the equivalent Northern Ireland order. As I understand it, the aim of the amendment is to ensure that a conviction overseas for behaviour which would not constitute a criminal offence in the United Kingdom is not included in the person's criminal record in this country.
Lord Avebury: But it is.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord assures us that that is so. In that case, I fear the amendment would not achieve the desired effect. It would however create confusion as to the appropriate rehabilitation period for the conviction in such a case. The rehabilitation of offenders legislation does not affect the maintenance of criminal records; it is concerned with a person's right in law to have convictions disregarded for most purposes after a period of time, which is governed by the sentence imposed.
The legislation does not apply to sentences of imprisonment exceeding 30 months. It does apply to convictions by or before courts outside the United Kingdom. Simply to avoid doubt as to whether it is, on the one hand, a sentence originally pronounced or, on the other, that part of it which remains to be served in the United Kingdom following the transfer—I regret that I have read out half a sentence which I had not intended to read out so if your Lordships feel a sense of similarity when I now start again, the first part of the sentence is the part that I did mean to read out. The purpose of paragraph 6 of the Schedule is to provide that the length of the term specified in the transfer warrant to be served in the United Kingdom following repatriation should not affect the operation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the Northern Irish Order of 1978. Those enactments both apply to convictions outside the United Kingdom and it would be wrong for repatriation under the provisions of this Bill to interfere with this normal operation. For example, a prisoner sentenced to three years' imprisonment in, say, France would not be eligible for rehabilitation under the 1974 Act or the 1978 order, which excludes from rehabilitation sentences in excess of 30 months. If he were repatriated to the United Kingdom after serving one year of his sentence, one of the relevant provisions in the warrant would be liability to serve a further term of two years. The effect of paragraph 6 in that case would be that for the
74
purposes of the rehabilitation legislation there could be no doubt but that the outstanding term of two years would be disregarded and the original sentence of three years would continue to be material. I do not doubt that the noble Lord will wish to read that, as I shall.
Lord Avebury: I am afraid that this is not the right place for me to be pressing the point on the Minister; but he correctly divined the purpose of the amendment, that whereas something is not an offence in the United Kingdom, it should not appear on the criminal record of the person being repatriated. It may well be that what is needed here is an amendment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. which could be dealt with in other legislation. I will obviously need to study the rather complicated remarks of the Minister and to think about how this can best be tackled before we come back to it on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved amendment No. 96:
Page 12, line 25, leave out ("the relevant provisions take effect") and insert ("he was convicted in the country from which he is being transferred.").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 7 of the schedule deals with the disqualification of a person from membership of another place, and says that for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act 1981 it is the date of the original sentence that matters and not the date on the transfer warrant. Paragraph 8, on the other hand, to which this amendment applies, dates the disqualification for possession of a firearm in Northern Ireland from the date of the transfer. It may well be that a period of disqualification from the date of conviction of more than eight years is justifiable. If that is so, however, it would apply to all persons convicted of serious offences either at home or abroad. In general, the effect of a sentence in an overseas country ought to be the same as a sentence in the United Kingdom whether for the purposes of the Representation of the People Act, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act or the firearms legislation in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: In supporting what my noble friend has just said, I should like to pay my tribute—and I imagine that others would want to join with me—to the fact that we have received a great deal of assistance from the National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad. They have raised many points and given us a lot of data, upon which we have brought amendments before your Lordships this afternoon.
Lord Elton: In congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the closeness with which he has read the provisions of this Bill, I have to say that the reason why the effective date for disqualification under the Northern Ireland Firearms Order is the effective date of the Secretary of State's warrant is because the Northern Ireland order does not apply to convictions outside the United Kingdom and therefore can only apply to a sentence served within the United Kingdom.
This differs with good reason from the approach in paragraph 7 of the schedule. In that case the date of

75
conviction in the sentencing state applies because Section I of the Representation of the People Act 1981 applies to persons convicted of offences in the United Kingdom or elsewhere: so there is no actual inconsistency of treatment here in the Bill. The difference is simply a reflection of differences of approach which were adopted in two completely different and unconnected existing statutes. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel that his amendment is not appropriate.
Lord Avebury: In thanking the Minister for that reply, may I also take the opportunity of echoing what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and paying my respects to the National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad, not only for the advice they have given us on this Bill but also for the invaluable work they have done over the years in trying to help prisoners abroad, in promoting the cause of prisoner transfer treaties and in looking after the interests of individuals who may have nobody else to assist them and who are serving very long sentences in harsh conditions in overseas countries. On a vestigial budget, they do a fantastic job and their work in advising your Lordships on this Bill has been an extremely good example of the effectiveness of a small pressure group. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks on this amendment and for the courteous and helpful way in which he has received the points we have made during the course of the Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Lord Elton: I always like to take a moment, appropriate or otherwise, to thank noble Lords for their patience and courtesy. I hope they will agree that the Government have been anything but inflexible on this. How well I shall perform when I come back with all my promised returns remains to be seen, but the effort will be genuine. I am grateful to noble Lords for the ideas they have given to Her Majesty's Government and also to the organisation standing behind them, which they have been kind enough to mention.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I say how agreeable it is for once to find myself agreeing very largely with the noble Lord on the Front Bench.
Lord Mishcon: May I merely say one sentence: I hope the reasonableness of the noble Lord the Minister is but a precedent for things to come.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Education (Grants and Awards) Bill
7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Education support grants]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 3, as No. 1 is simply a paving amendment for No. 3.
Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("; and
(c) shall, to the extent to which it has not at the end of a year been paid to local education authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section, be added to the aggregate amount of rate support grant determined by the Secretary of State as the amount available for grants for that year in accordance with section 54 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.").
At the Committee stage on 14th February, I moved an amendment, which was No. 9, designed to ensure that if funds made available for education support grants exceeded expenditure in this area, the residue should be returned to LEAs. This elicited from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, at cols. 170–171 of the Official Report on that day, a reply which required some study and I therefore withdrew the amendment in order to study his answer. I have to confess, however, that I am still not fully satisfied by what the noble Earl said.
If I may, I will quote the most significant passage. He said:
"We envisage that this process of making bids will be completed well in advance of the beginning of the financial year"—
I am leaving out the words in parenthesis—
"and before the RSG report for that year is laid before Parliament. Hence the estimates of the amount of education support grants made in the RSG report will be able to take account of whether the bids from LEAs are more or less than the figure originally proposed. If their applications fall short of the total originally envisaged by the Government, the estimate in the RSG report would reflect that. Therefore, if local authorities whose bids have been accepted spend at the level at which they had wanted to spend, the total grant set aside for ESGs would not be underspent."
I submit that this does not cover all the possible eventualities. Will any shortfall below the Government's intended figure simply be reincorporated in the RSG estimates? If that is the intention, the Bill does not make it plain.
There is another circumstance in which the amount determined under Clause 2 might not be fully spent, even when it has been awarded. As I understand it, LEA finances fall into three phases: first, the preliminary stage before the determination of a precise amount: secondly, the time during which the amount allocated is being spent: and, thirdly, the final reckoning up of the account which runs well past the year in question, as obviously it must, since expenditure is still taking place up to the last day of the financial year. It is therefore quite possible that the full amount for a scheme might have been allocated but not spent by the end of the year. The fact that it takes so long to close the books seems to me to make it desirable that Ministers should be obliged to return any money allocated but underspent to the RSG, so that it does not just leak out of the system, back into the Consolidated Fund or go somewhere else, and that is the purpose of these two amendments.
This is a complicated field and it is my purpose to be helpful. I am not convinced that the Government have thought through how this grant system is to work out on the ground, and I believe that what I am proposing will be an improvement on the Government's drafting of the Bill. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to

77
accept the helping hand which I am extending to him. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for offering a helping hand, but I think that the helping hand is unecessary. I shall once again try to explain to him just what the situation is, and I apologise for the fact that I was unable to satisfy him during the Committee stage that his amendment is unnecessary.
As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any money set aside by the Government for education support grants is actually paid to local authorities—paid either as education support grants or, if payments fall short of expectations, as part of rate support grants. I think that there is nothing between the noble Lord and myself so far. In fact, a significant shortfall is very unlikely. To explain why that is so, I must remind noble Lords of the wider arrangements for grant payments to local authorities.
The Bill sets an upper limit on the amount of expenditure which may be approved and on the rate at which grant may be paid on that expenditure. The effect is that, in 1983–84 terms, the maximum amount of education support grant payable in respect of that year would have been about £33 million. That compares with a total amount of grant to local authorities of £8,830 million. The figure of £33 million is a maximum. The total amount of education support grant would not necessarily reach that maximum. Indeed, in the first year or so of the scheme it will be significantly less than the maximum figure.
The amount of grant actually payable will depend principally upon two factors: first, how much expenditure within the upper limit of one-half of 1 per cent. the Government think it appropriate to support through education support grants in the year in question; and, secondly, how local authorities respond to the Government's initiative. They may decide not to apply on the scale envisaged for grants in the areas specified. In that case, the grant payable would fall short of the Government's original intention.
The point I want to emphasise to the noble Lord is that both these factors will be taken into account when the Government come to set aside part of the total local authority grant for payment as education support grants. This will be done in the annual rate support grant report in November or December, preceding the start of the financial year. The RSG report fixes the total of Exchequer grant for local authorities; it estimates the amount to be paid in specific grants and it determines how the remainder will be distributed to local authorities as rate support grants.
It is not the general practice to adjust the total of rate support grants to reflect the amounts actually paid in specific grants. If this were done, it would introduce additional uncertainty into local authorities' budgeting, because the total of rate support grants might go up or down. In practice, therefore, the amount determined for rate support grants is a cash figure and it is not adjusted. The effect of the amendment would be to require that if the estimate in the rate support grant report of the amount payable in education support grants proved too high, the balance would be added to the sum remaining for rate support grants.
78
As I have explained, this is unlikely to be a particular problem for education support grants. The estimate for these grants is not likely to prove significantly inaccurate, since it will be based on the amount of expenditure to be approved for the year in question. Under our timetable for education support grants, local authorities would have submitted their applications for grant and these would have been considered and approved before the estimate of total education support grant was made in the RSG report.
In other words, it will not be a case of deducting, say, £33 million from the total regardless of the amount actually likely to be paid. The sum deducted, particularly in the early years, is likely to be less than £33 million. It will be related to the amount which local authorities have indicated they wish to spend. Therefore, the estimate should be accurate. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord that the problem he envisages is, in practice, unlikely to arise and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask one or two questions. They will probably be stupid ones, because it is very much easier to ask questions after one has read what the noble Earl has said. Am I to understand that if f30 million has been taken out of the rate support grant, and there have been bids but all the money has not been spent, the remainder will then go back into the general rate support grant and be distributed to all local authorities, or will there be any method of carry-over? If authorities have bid but they have not been able to spend all of the money in one year and they wish to carry on with their schemes, will they be able to carry that money over to the second year? How will that be affected?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, yes, the noble Baroness's first point is quite true. If £33 million is put aside and only £20 million is put in for by the local authority, that will go back into the rate support grant in general and into the pool. As regards the carry-over, there is a distinction between the grant payable in respect of a year and the grant payable in that year. This is because we envisage that grants will be paid in arrears; for example, at the end of each quarter. This would mean, for example, that the final instalment of grant in respect of 1985–86 would be paid in the following financial year, but this will not affect the total amount of education support grant payable in respect of 1985–86.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his attempt to clarify our understanding of this part of the Bill. It seems to me that he is still very largely relying upon the unlikelihood of certain events taking place. These amendments are designed to plug the gap where something unlikely, in his terms, takes place. It seems to me to be important to establish the principle which the noble Baroness, Lady David, was getting at: that if only £20 million or £15 million are allocated in one year, this is the only amount which is deducted from the totality of the rate support grant. I take the noble Earl's point that this will build up, but eventually we shall presumably get to a period in which the whole of the £33 million, or whatever it may be, will be on offer.

79
The other point upon which the noble Earl has shed some light is the carry-over, a point which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. My amendment was also designed to take care of the carry-over. We are almost back to the situation we reached during the Committee stage. In other words. I shall have to read very carefully what the noble Earl has said. If I feel that it still does not meet my anxieties and still leaves me unsatisfied, it will not be improper, as the matter has already been aired and as I should not be introducing a new item at a late stage of the Bill, to return to it at Third Reading and possibly to divide upon it then. However, I beg leave now to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 8. leave out ("70") and insert ("75")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this, too, is a money amendment; much of the discussion on the Bill has related to money. The purpose of the amendment is simply to increase the maximum grant available under the Bill from 70 to 75 per cent. We discussed the matter briefly during the Committee stage. It was then a fall-back amendment in relation to the principal amendment, in which we asked the Committee to agree that 75 per cent. should be the minimum grant. We are coming back to the point and are asking the Minister to consider increasing the amount available to a maximum of 75 per cent.
It is a small amendment. Nevertheless, it would provide an extra 5 per cent., which might be an added incentive. The noble Earl said that in the first few years it is anticipated that we shall build up to the maximum grant available. In other words, he suggested that bids might be a little slow in coming forward. If there were the possibility of this extra 5 per cent., local authorities might be encouraged to come forward with their bids. The local authority associations support this amendment. They are of the opinion that the money, which we are told is being redeployed at the margins, lies within the discretion of the Secretary of State. Therefore, the view of the local authority associations is that all of this money should come from the Exchequer. If, however, that is not to be, our hope is that at least the maximum can be 75 per cent.
When we looked at the matter earlier it was pointed out that many local authorities, in particular many of the county authorities, are moving into the penalty area. Some of these authorities are spending on education at a level lower than that at which the Government themselves expect them to spend in order to provide the necessary services. This being so, the extra 5 per cent. from the Exchequer could help some of these authorities to keep out of the penalty area. It is a small concession for which we are asking, but it would be salutary for the local authorities.
I do not know whether the noble Earl has seen The Times Educational Supplement of 2nd March, whose editorial, headed "It Takes Two to Co-operate", refers to some of the issues which in recent months have been a matter of contention between the Government and the local authorities. It instances the education
80
support grant as one of the issues over which local authorities believe that the Government are taking unto themselves greater powers than hitherto—in recent years, at any rate. If the Government were to look sympathetically at the amendment, it could be a means of bridge-building between the Government and the local education authorities. The amendment is worthy of being given consideration by the Minister. I hope he will do so sympathetically. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I must begin by disagreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who said that this subject was touched on briefly at the Committee stage. I seem to remember that the rate at which the education support grant should be paid was discussed at length during the Committee stage. I stressed then that setting the rate involved striking a balance between different considerations. In the Government's view, an upper limit of 70 per cent. would strike the right balance. The noble Baroness may prefer a different figure, but at the end of the day the choice of an upper limit is a matter of judgment and is necessarily arbitrary.
Before I discuss the prospective merits of 70 per cent. and 75 per cent., I should like to remind noble Lords and noble Baronesses that these represent upper limits on the rate of grant. The actual rate of grant to be paid on particular activities will be specified in the regulations so that local authorities will know how much grant they will receive when they consider applying for grant for particular activities. But the possible activities supported by education support grants are likely to vary widely—more widely, I suspect, than the range of activities supported under the urban programme. The appropriate rate of grant may be different for different activities, though, as I have said before, I think it unlikely that the rate for any activity would be below 50 per cent.
As to whether the upper limit should be 70 per cent. or 75 per cent., it was suggested during the Committee stage that the analogy of the urban programme would suggest 75 per cent., yet the urban programme is only one of many specific grants paid to local authorities. The police grant is paid at 50 per cent., and the transport supplementary grant, in 1984–85, at approximately 55 per cent. No single rate is appropriate for every type of grant.
As I said earlier, it is a question of striking a balance. The grants are intended to encourage local authorities to redeploy their expenditure into areas to be specified in regulations approved both here and in another place. The rate of grant must be sufficiently attractive to encourage local authorities to participate. At the same time, the final decision about the deployment of expenditure will remain with local authorities themselves. The rate should not be so high as to eliminate the authority's own contribution.
One point which I made at the Committee stage and which I should like to repeat is that the balance of expenditure which is not met by an education support grant will attract block grant. Hence, if the rate of grant for an activity was 70 per cent., the 30 per cent. contributed by the authority would itself be supported by block grant, except for any authority which received no block grant. In fact, if some authorities redeploy their expenditure into activities supported by

81
education support grant, they may find themselves receiving more grant than they would otherwise have done. Taking all these considerations into account, an upper limit of 70 per cent. on the rate of grant seems to the Government to provide an appropriate balance. As I have said, I believe that this is a matter for judgment. The Government judge that 70 per cent. is the right sum, and that view was supported by your Lordships in Committee. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, we did not in fact vote on this particular amendment; we voted on 75 per cent. being both the maximum and the minimum. This amendment would give the Government greater flexibility, and I am therefore very surprised that they are not accepting it. I thought that the Government would be glad to have the extra room to manoeuvre. We cannot do anything if that is what the Government have decided, because we know that they have the voting power—or I imagine so. As my noble friend has said, this amendment would give local authorities a little more encouragement to make bids for these projects. I suppose that it is no use asking the Minister to think again, but this is an area where there could have been some flexibility on the part of the Government. There has been very little flexibility during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House so far.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady David I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to be more flexible. We all understand, as he has said, that we are talking about an upper limit of 70 per cent. The noble Earl has advised us on a number of occasions that he does not believe the lower limit is likely to go below 50 per cent. One would assume that the major projects which the Government want to encourage would carry the 70 per cent. grant. This amendment would have increased the grant to 75 per cent., thus making it more possible for some local authorities to move into areas of Government priority—because we are talking about Government priorities.
I am sorry that the Minister has taken the view that he has. I had hoped that he would give a little encouragement to local authorities on this occasion. But as he seems to be so intransigent on this point, I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
7.22 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 4.
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Financial provision for specified areas
In any year in which educational support grants are made there shall be included in the regulations provision for projects in the following areas:

(a) the integration into schools of pupils with special needs;

(b) nursery education;

(c) projects on environmental education;

(d) improving the standard of mathematics teaching in schools; and

(e) improving the standard of science teaching in schools.").

The noble Baroness said: At Committee stage we had a number of amendments suggesting that a certain percentage of the education support grant money should be put aside for various different provisions. That caused a certain amount of criticism. Sums were done by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who added together 20 and 20 and 20 and 20, and made the result 100. So we thought we ought to try to find a different method of tackling the problem at Report stage. That explains the form which Amendment No.4 takes. I will introduce this amendment and speak to (a),
"the integration into schools of pupils with special needs",
and (c),
"projects on environmental education".
Some of my noble friends will then speak on other aspects.
We had quite a discussion at Committee stage about integrating pupils who had been in special schools into ordinary schools. There was a good deal of support all round the Committee for that being one of the projects. As I said then, so far only 11 per cent. of children with special needs are in maintained ordinary schools. Already, 42 special schools have been closed. No applications have so far been rejected, so it is likely that there will be a considerable move over. No doubt there will be problems, and a great many matters to be considered and things to be done.
It is accepted, I believe, that it is very expensive to integrate children with special needs. Since Committee stage I have received a guess of what it will cost to implement the 1981 Act if it is to be done properly. This estimate came from the Leeds City Council. The estimates were made in a note from the officers to the chairman of the education committee. I shall read a little of the note and give some of the estimates that the officers made:
"The real problem … is that the financial commitment in implementing this Act really has no limit and in the end, local authorities will simply do what they feel they can afford. The following, nevertheless, is based on what we might realistically be expected to do if the terms of the Act are taken seriously".
There then follows a list of the items on which the local authority ought to spend money if it is going to integrate the pupils properly:
"Each school should have a co-ordinator of special needs and each person given this responsibility is likely to need a course of training".
It is reckoned that that might cost £300,000. Then:
"Secondly, it is important that all teachers should have some training in the meeting of special needs as defined and recognised by the Act. If this were to be done with due care, it could involve a one-week residential course for every teacher in an ordinary school. In Leeds, therefore, we could be talking about a bill for £480,000….
"If special schools are to be centres of excellence, they are bound to need extra resources in addition to staffing resources; even at £1,000 per school per year, this is £26,000.
"Similarly, the need for the reinforcement of the non-teaching support in ordinary schools is likely to grow as more handicapped pupils stay in the ordinary schools".
The estimate for that was £60,000.
In addition, there will of course be central administrative costs. These are already arising in getting the estimates prepared and all that this involves. A figure of £36,000 was estimated for that item. I have added all those up, and they total £1,112,000. It will be very difficult for any local authority to raise anywhere near that sum of money. So it would seem that a project

83
from the education support grant would be a very sensible thing to do, so far as these particular children are concerned. There will be a lot of experimentation and a lot of expense. I hope very much that the Minister will think this is a good cause to support.
The other project I wish to talk about is that concerning environmental education. This was not moved in Committee because we appeared then to be in a rush towards the end and it seemed better not to discuss it at that stage. In the Second Reading debate I asked that environmental education should be an activity supported by the new grants, and I shall elaborate on that theme now. People in general are beginning to appreciate how much the quality of human society depends on that of the natural environment, and how easy it is to destroy, by the carelessness of pollution or by the greed of short-term exploitation, the natural resources without which humanity's future will be nasty, brutish and short. For the most part, people are still only superficially informed, and there exists a great gap between education and public understanding. The process of education in environmental issues cannot start too soon in a child's life; it should certainly permeate the primary school.
Such education is surely fundamental, particularly in modern conditions. Its purpose, as defined in Environmental Education: A Review, published by the DES in 1981, is to help people understand something of the processes of the physical world and to gain a basic knowledge of ecological principles and relationships; to understand something of the economic, technological, planning and political processes which affect man's use of the environment; to develop insights into other people's environments, life styles and problems; to understand something of the interdependence of peoples; and to develop a concern both for their own environment and for the environment of others.
We are now, it appears, in a period of unprecedented change in the educational provision for the 12 to 18 age group. An opportunity exists for extending and consolidating environmental education and so correcting the mismatch between the curriculum of schools and public understanding. The young, whose future world we older people have already shaped and in some part already destroyed, are entitled to an education which will help them to see further and more clearly ahead than we have done. The curriculum needs for environmental education have been detailed over the past two decades, nationally and internationally, through government and non-government conferences and seminars. The knowledge of what needs to be done is there. What is lacking is the will and, consequently, the finance.
Members of the present Government have, in the past, emphasised the crucial role that education has to play. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, then a Minister in the DES, wrote in 1981,
"of a new urgency in our concern for the state of the environment and the condition of life within it—a concern which recent disturbing events in our towns and cities have done nothing to diminish.".
The noble Baroness said that at the time of the Liverpool riots. Mr. Michael Heseltine, on Second Reading of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, said:
84
"We believe that for the countryside in general the best practical way forward is a positive policy of environmental education, discussions and debate.".
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who I had hoped might be here, has recently retired as President of the Council for Environmental Education. Miss Sheila Browne, now the principal of Newnham College, but lately the chief HMI. has taken his place as president of that council. So I hope that that shows there is enthusiasm in the DES for this project. She has shown a great deal of interest in it.
There are a number of other noble Lords who have been very involved: the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who is chairman of the all-party conservation group; the noble Earl. Lord Cranbrook, chairman of the EC Sub-Committee on the Environment; my noble friend Lady White, whose name was down to my amendment in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Melchett who we all know is very concerned. So I think there would be, if only they were here, a good deal of support round the House for this amendment—perhaps they intended to be here and found it was rather late. A lot of work has been done but it certainly needs a good push. I hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers in their innovations and experiments with the curriculum (which, after all, are the raison d'etre for this Bill) will be willing to make environmental education one of the activities which they decide to support.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I support my noble friend in this new clause—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Question has not yet been put.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): The Question is that this clause be inserted.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am sorry, my Lords. To start again, I support my noble friend in this amendment and will speak particularly on how it relates to nursery education. First, I should like to remind your Lordships that it is now 10 years since the Plowden Report and White Paper set out the Government's aim regarding nursery provision. That aim was that nursery education should become available, without charge within the limits estimated by Plowden, to those three and four year-olds whose parents wished them to benefit from it. Plowden estimated that provision would be needed for 90 per cent. of four year-olds and 50 per cent. of three year-olds. However, the sad truth today is that, those 10 years having elapsed, there are in fact places available for only just over 40 per cent. of all three and four year-olds put together. Therefore, there is no doubt that there has been only minuscule progress made in the direction that the Prime Minister, who was at that time Secretary of State for Education, had hoped for.
The purpose of this new clause is to prevent the numbers from slipping even further. We believe that the educational support grants should be used in various different ways. First, they should be used to encourage the conversion of surplus primary school accommodation into nursery schools or classes;

85
secondly, they should be used to encourage local education authorities with a poor record of provision: and, thirdly they should be used to encourage the establishment of nursery centres. As the Minister will know, these centres are established to meet the needs of parents and children on a flexible basis throughout the normal working day, and they provide children with a very caring environment which also meets some educational need.
There can be no doubt that nursery education provides both an educational and a social advantage. I am governor of a small ILEA nursery school in Chelsea and I am constantly amazed at the real educational value to these small children—a fact, of course, which has been proved by educationists. Certainly, from the point of view of nursery schools in the more deprived areas, they are there to counter the pressures at home which are particularly felt in one-parent families and in households where the mother is working—in fact, in those households which have been most hit by the present economic climate. Furthermore, the need to safeguard nursery provision will become even more critical if the rate capping legislation goes through, when non-statutory provision will be seriously threatened.
Finally, it is a fact that the spread of nursery schools over the country is very uneven and it seems extremely unfair that some parents and their children should be penalised purely through the accident of where they live. Therefore, the new clause would do a great deal to ensure that resources are made available to develop nursery education throughout all parts of the country and in this way help those children who are at present deprived. I hope that the Minister will look at this favourably and in the light in which I have tried to present it.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I appreciate that this amendment is a composite version of several previous separate amendments and as such succeeds in avoiding some of the logical and practical difficulties previously encountered. I have very great sympathy for the areas recommended for special consideration. I very much hope that pupils with special needs will be helped in the ways indicated and that there will be more provision of nursery education, the need for which I wholeheartedly respect and recognise. I also hope that standards of teaching in science and mathematics will be improved. For example, I have on a previous occasion drawn the attention of your Lordships to the sober fact shown in recent research that British schoolchildren are two years behind their German counterparts in mathematical attainment. That is an inexcusable situation and surely merits urgent attention.
However, I am afraid that I cannot accept the basic principle of the amendment, which in effect earmarks certain portions of money available for the education support grants. It is unacceptable for three reasons concerned with freedom, flexibility and fragmentation. First, it is unacceptable because the whole purpose of this legislataion is to give the Secretary of State the freedom to decide on educational priorities. This amendment would reduce that autonomy which the Bill is designed to ensure. Secondly, the identification in advace of categories for special
86
provision on a year-by-year basis reduces the flexibility which is an important feature of the whole education support grant idea—that grants should be available for projects as they meet changing educational priorities. Thirdly, there is a danger that a predetermined commitment to an excessive number of projects will lead to a fragmentation of funding, with insufficient money to do justice to all the projects deemed appropriate for financial support.
Indeed, perhaps some of the examples of the use for which money is required for children with special needs which were enumerated by the noble Baroness, Lady David, make that point precisely. Although I do not wish to indicate any lack of support for the areas mentioned, I suggest that the amendment is incompatible with both the spirit and the logic of the Bill.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment. As my noble friend Lady David said, it is different in form from the various amendments that we had at the Committee stage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, indicated, in its present form it is perhaps more acceptable, although I am sorry that she did not find it sufficiently acceptable to give it her support. The amendment enables us to see more clearly the different and competing demands on the education system—competing certainly in terms of finance but very often complementary in terms of educational needs, as I think both my noble friends Lady David and Lady Ewart-Biggs have indicated.
One of the problems of piecemeal legislation such as we have before us today and such as we have had in some of the initiatives that the Government have taken—for example, the TVEI initiative—is that the education system tends to get a bit out of phase. For example, let me refer again to The Times Educational Supplement of 2nd March. It says:
"Already it is being quietly hinted that when the time comes for the MSC to hand over responsibility for TVEI to the DES, Parliament will be asked to increase the funds available for Education Support Grants from a half of one per cent. of RSG to 5 or 10 per cent. or whatever sum by then reflects the ambitions and appetites of the DES".
That may be a problem that we shall have to face in the future.
One of the problems that we face at the moment in relation to TVEI is that the new batch of schemes that have recently been approved are likely to cause a shortage of technical teachers. In fact, I think it is true to say that the first batch of TVEI schemes poached on some of the technical teachers in the existing educational system. I think that this is particularly so as the TVEI posts often mean appointments at a higher grade.
While we on this side of the House very much accept that innovation and pilot projects are necessary, we believe that it is important to ensure that we are not creating problems bigger than the ones that we are trying to solve. That could perhaps have been said of the way we put forward the amendments in Committee. On this occasion, by putting forward a group of five subjects we are able to see how some of them interrelate.
I want to refer, in particular, to two of the subjects mentioned in the amendment; namely, the standard of

87
mathematics teaching and the standard of science teaching. I talked about the standard of mathematics teaching at Committee stage. The two subjects have much in common. In the first place, the basic ingredient of economic competitiveness in this country will depend on an increasing number of people being trained in mathematics and science. We should take that very seriously indeed. Secondly, there is a shortage of competent teachers in both subjects. In both areas, we are beginning to make an inroad. I understand that the Department of Education and Science has earmarked in the next financial year a small sum of money for in-service training for science teachers, but largely in the area of primary schools and management for heads of department. It is a small beginning. Perhaps the Minister will be able to encourage us by saying that it will be something that will be built on.
At the Committee stage the Minister reminded us that, as part of the new in-service training grant, £2·1 million had been set aside for mathematics in-service training and that another small amount of money had been set aside for research and development projects in the field of mathematics for low attainers. This is all very welcome, but, again, we have to ask whether it is enough. Incidentally, will it be as much as the training programme for technical teachers which the MSC is said to be about to launch? I am not hitting at that training project. If it comes off, it will be very welcome indeed in view of the growing shortage of technical teachers. But, as I said at the beginning, the fact is that by looking at things piecemeal, we tend to get them out of gear.
The third similarity between mathematics and science is that both are regarded as male subjects. I come back to this problem. I have referred to it before. It is a problem that will not go away. No matter how much the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, talks about the need for flexibility, this is a problem that will be with us for some time. I feel that encouraging more girls to take mathematics or science subjects at university level would be an effective way of increasing the number of teachers in these subjects, since a higher proportion of girls go into teaching than into industry. If more of them were coming through the universities, a greater proportion, I believe, would go into teaching. I add, though, that I am not advocating that as a long-term pattern. I should like to see more women in industry and more with technical qualifications going into industry. In the short term, that would have the added advantage of providing not only more teachers but also more role models for girls in the schools in these subjects. That, in turn, might again attract more girls into the subject.
This whole area requires a great deal of thought and attention. In looking at the improvement in teaching mathematics and science, I hope that this matter will not be overlooked by the Minister and his colleagues. By focusing on a wider perspective, I had hoped that the amendment would have brought forward more support from the Government Benches.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at the Committee stage we had five new clauses which each proposed that 20 per cent. of the expenditure should be
88
earmarked for a particular activity. I think that all the noble Baronesses who have spoken mentioned this. It was of course open to the criticism that all of the expenditure was therefore earmarked. However, I should like to congratulate the noble Baronesses opposite on their ingenuity in devising an alternative procedure which would not involve earmarking 100 per cent. of the expenditure supported by ESGs. I think, however, that it would be inappropriate to build the proposed new clause into the Bill, and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. I believe that fundamental difficulties remain in specifying the purposes of the grants in this way.
In opposing the amendment, I do not wish to suggest that the Government are in any way unsympathetic to the areas of education that it specifies. I should however like to say a few words about each of these areas. Two of them, of course, are included in the preliminary list of activities for support in 1985–86 which my right honourable friend has proposed for discussion with the local authority associations.
First of all, children with special needs. The importance of moving towards the integration where possible of pupils with special needs into ordinary schools was discussed during the Committee stage. This is an area of education which I know attracts strong sympathy and support from all parts of the House. My right honourable friend is well aware of the useful contribution which education support grants could make in the area of assisting to meet special educational needs. His initial list of possibilities includes two which would assist in meeting special educational needs. The first was grants to assist in the establishment of resource centres in ordinary schools. The second possibility was assistance in the provision of microelectronic aids for handicapped children. I know that my right hnourable friend will consider carefully the views expressed in this debate and any views expressed by the local authority associations on the most appropriate way of using ESGs to assist in the implementation of the 1981 Act.
Support for the teaching of mathematics has also been mentioned. The Government attaches a high priority to action in this area in the light of the report of the committee chaired by Professor Cockcroft. For example as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, the Government set aside over £2 million within the new scheme for in-service training grants to support attendance by mathematics teachers on in-service courses, and my right honourable friend has mentioned this as a possible area for education support grants. One possibility which my right honourable friend wishes to discuss with the associations is the appointment of additional teachers to act as advisers and to support development work within schools.
The Government share the view of parents and educationalists and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, about the value of nursery education. We already have in the urban programme a source of selective funding for those areas most in need of provision for the under fives. Some £10 million to £15 million of expenditure was supported in this way in 1981–82. I think, it is interesting that this compares with a potential maximum of about £45 million to £50 million for education support grants as a whole.

89
Within limited resources, successive Governments have judged that the priorities for new nursery provision should be the handicapped and those from socially disadvantaged areas. As a result, some 70 per cent. of existing nursery provision is already made in areas of special social need. Participation in those areas is of course much higher than the national average.
I accept that there is a growing demand for the provision of nursery education. But this is not an area for the kind of pump-priming and innovative work which ESGs are particularly intended to support. Rather it is a matter of making progress within the constraints of what the country, and therefore individual LEAs, can afford. Therefore we do not envisage nursery education as an area to be supported through ESGs.
Next, environmental education. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has argued that we should specify that the mechanism of education support grants should be used to support work to promote environmental education. The noble Baroness has a special interest in environmental education, since she chaired the education review group which helped to prepare a response to the world conservation strategy last year.
Environmental education is provided already in a wide variety of ways, not least as an aspect of the teaching of many different subjects in the curriculum. However, I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that it would be appropriate to use education support grants in this specific area. There are many different aspects of the school curriculum for which persuasive claims could be made. Difficult choices must be made between them and I think the noble Baroness, Lady David, made out such a strong case for the integration of children with handicaps into normal schools that one could almost be convinced that that should have most of the money in the first few years. Given the need to define only a small number of priorities if the limited resources available are to he used to maximum effect, we are not persuaded that the claims of environmental education are so strong that it would be right to make special provision for it in the Bill. Finally, I turn to science education. The Government have made it plain that we believe that all pupils should receive a broad programme of science education, beginning in the primary schools and continuing throughout the period of compulsory secondary education.
There is a need to restrict the number of areas of the education service which might receive assistance through education support grants, if we are to make the most cost-effective use possible of the limited resources available. Hence my right honourable friend did not include science education among the possible areas for support. But there are already significant efforts under way through other mechanisms. There is currently a major programme of curriculum development—the secondary science curriculum review—in the majority of local education authorities in England and Wales, under the auspices of the new school curriculum development committee and of the association for science education. Science teaching is also to be added from 1984–85 to the scheme by which grants are paid to local education authorities for
90
the in-service training of teachers in certain areas of the curriculum; and later this year the Government will publish a statement of national policy on science education in schools, which will seek to define objectives for all of those involved.
What the noble Baronesses are envisaging is that the five areas should be specified in this primary legislation. But in 10 years' time the priorities for initiatives may well have changed, and it could well be that such a list is entirely inappropriate. Our aim when drafting the Bill was to provide for a wide general power with the activities for support being set out in regulations. This preserves maximum flexibility to respond to changing needs and circumstances against the checks and balances already in the Bill, of a limit on the overall expenditure which can be supported through ESGs and the requirement for consultation.
There have been extensive debates both here and in another place regarding the activities which might be supported by the grants. My right honourable friend hopes to discuss with the associations the activities which might be supported in 1985–86 when, as I hope, the Bill is enacted. The introduction of this Bill has helped to stimulate a general public debate about education priorities, and that is to be welcomed. My right honourable friend will consider carefully the views which have been expressed in this House and elsewhere before making his proposals to Parliament.
This Bill has promoted lively debate on activities which might be supported, and its drafting allows the purposes of the grants to be changed in response to changing circumstances. Priorities within the education service are likely to change. New ones may emerge while other objectives, with the help of the new grants, are achieved.
I was accused earlier of being inflexible. I should like to be Lord Access, the friend of the noble Baronesses opposite. At least on this I have proved to be two-fifths —if my mathematics is right—in support of these objectives, and I hope that with that the noble Baronesses will withdraw their amendment.
Baroness David: I am not at all surprised at the response which we have had to this amendment; but equally I have no apologies at all for putting it forward because I think that it is good that the Secretary of State should know the views of a great many of us who are very interested in caring about education on matters which we feel are extremely important, and particularly as apparently he has changed his mind considerably between the appearance at the first consultation document and Second Reading debate in another place.
I am of course personally disappointed that environmental education has pretty well been turned down outright; but I hope that maybe it will be considered in time. Nursery education did not really get to do very much better. We shall have the Swann report on multi-racial education and the successor to the Rampton report very soon. There may well be reommendations there, I should have thought, which would have called for experimentation in nursery education; but maybe there will be second thoughts. I am very glad to hear what was said about special

91
education, special children with special needs. I think I have no alternative but to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham Lord Stewart of Fulham moved Amendment No. 5:
Insert the following new Clause:
("Restriction on expenditure.
No money provided under this Act shall be used in any school where admission is based on selective examination or sets of tests of ability.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the last decades we have seen a considerable change in the structure of secondary education: a change to comprehensive secondary education from what I think I may describe as the former separatist system of education. Recently, we have seen one or two attempts to put the clock back to try to restore and encourage the separatist system and we put down this amendment as we do not believe it would be right for the Government to give encouragement in any form to a tendency of that kind.
Why do we say this? What is and has been all the time, at issue between the comprehensive and the separatist views of secondary education? The nature of the comprehensive school as its name implies, was that it would provide a wide range of courses suitable for different kinds of children, and that as a child grows up it can be decided by discussion between its parents and its teachers what course of study each child could most profitably pursue. But the mere fact that it entered the school at 11 did not restrict its subsequent choice of courses of study. That is the comprehensive approach.
The separatist approach envisaged from the start different kinds of secondary schools—different in the range of course of studies that they offered. It was sometimes called the tripartite system, envisaging grammar schools, modern schools (as they were called), and technical schools, but in the great majority of authorities the choice was not a tripartite one, but a double one between grammar schools and secondary modern schools.
In effect the kind of education available at the grammar school was the kind that could lead on to the more academic studies, to rather better paid jobs and, in particular, to the opportunities of further and higher education, whereas the education provided in the secondary modern school was not intended to do that. That is to say, the separatist system was based on the assumption that when a child is about 10½ years of age there can be made a decision that will determine thereafter what kind and quality of education it is to receive and what kinds of occupations it may be fitted for in later life. I said 10½ because though the test provided was commonly called the 11-plus, the children usually underwent it when they were a little under, rather than over, 11.
It had a further result as regards the age of the children. While the system existed parents were, very naturally, anxious to get their children into a grammar school if they could. Primary schools which had a reputation for producing successes at the 11-plus examination were much sought after. Therefore primary schools began to turn their efforts to preparing
92
their children for success in the 11-plus examination and to concentrating attention on those of their children who were most likely to be successful. That is to say, what had begun as an 11-plus, or 10½ exam resulted in the primary school in a choice being made when the children were between eight and nine.
The proposition that a decision of this importance about a child's future education and occupation can be made at this early age is certainly not self-evident. The defenders of the separatist system used to say, "Oh, yes, but if we find we have made a mistake, you can always transfer the children from one kind of a school to another later on". That was said, but how very rarely indeed did it happen! Nor was there any clear idea as to the principle on which the separation of the children to the different kinds of school should be made. Some authorities believed in the old-fashioned, and now largely discredited, intelligence test principle. Some believed in a system of reports stretching over a period of years. But there was no clear belief as to how, and on what principle, the important choice should be made.
When one looked over the map of the country, one found also that the proportion of children who went to grammar school varied from 50 per cent. in the case of some authorities to 20 per cent. in others. There was no possible way of defending that. It meant that a child's opportunity depended simply on the county or the local education authority area into which it had been born.
It was also found that the proportion of children who were considered fit for grammar school education used to vary considerably and unaccountably from year to year, so that it was a haphazard business altogether. It was found, too, that the proportion of boys considered fit for grammar school education was markedly greater than the proportion of girls, and though in those days there were people who would try to defend that postition, there are few who would defend it today.
At the time that the controversy began I was a Labour Party spokesman for educational affairs and up and down the country I engaged in an immense number of arguments about comprehensive education. I found that the defenders of the separatist system were not in the least interested in putting right any of the anomalies: the anomalies between one county and another, and between one year and another, and the anomaly of the advantage of being a boy rather than a girl. Those who defended the separatist system did not bother themselves with those problems at all: they were anxious to maintain separatism in itself.
I think that I should add one further point. That arrangement was not only academically and intellectually nonsensical; it also had a bad effect on the general tone of education. It encouraged children at that early age to concentrate on differences of intellect that divided them, rather than on the common humanity that could have united them. One of the advantages of the comprehensive school was that it gave an opportunity for children with different gifts and interests to know more about one another, and that meant that that kind of school provided a better preparation for life in what one hoped would be one, united nation.
What has happened since? There have been a number of arguments about the merits and results of comprehensive secondary education. A number of different surveys have been made and the great majority of them have pointed to the view that the comprehensive system was giving better educational results than was the separatist system. I agree that that was not the universal view, but it was the outcome of most of the surveys that were conducted. Furthermore, not long ago we had an admission that if one looks at the examination records of all children—in both O-levels and, though less markedly, Alevels—one sees that there has been a steady improvement in standards during the years in which comprehensive secondary education has advanced.
Academic success is not the whole be-all and end-all of education. But so far as it is important, the charge that comprehensive secondary education has been damaging academic success cannot be made out; and fairly recently we have had a somewhat grudging, but undoubted, statement from the Secretary of State for Education that over the years we have seen a steady educational advance.
We have also seen among parents an increasing enthusiasm for the comprehensive system of education. It has been particularly gratifying and interesting to notice events in Richmond and in Solihull, where political attempts to go back to the separatist system have been emphatically rejected by the parents. I stress that point because it was sometimes argued that if one did not have grammar schools, one would be interfering with the freedom of parents. But of course parents did not have a choice as to whether or not their children went to grammar school. That choice was made on the basis of whatever theory governed the method of 11-plus selection prevailing in one county or another. The comprehensive system kept the choice as to the child's education open beyond 11 and capable of being adapted to meet the child's needs as they became better known.
A number of opinion polls on this question have been held. Parents have been asked: Would you prefer in your local education authority's area to have grammar schools and secondary modern schools, or would you prefer to have comprehensive schools? It should be apparent that by itself that question will get one nowhere. The real question that one must ask is: would you like a system of grammar schools and secondary modern schools on the assumption that your child will be going to one of the secondary modern schools? If that question is asked, it will be found that enthusiasm for the separatist system of education is by no means as great as some of its supporters have tried to represent, for the secondary modern school has always been of course the school that somebody else's child goes to.
I want to make one final point: since this argument began some two decades ago the size of the recent immigrant population in this country has increased. An immigrant is necessarily at a disadvantage at an early age so far as sheer measurable educational attainment is concerned. The child may come from a country whose language is different from ours. It is very unlikely—whatever the child's real gifts—that it will do as well in an examination in the English language at the age of 11 as somebody whose mother
94
tongue is English. It is not only a question of language but the whole difference of culture.
To go back now towards a separatist system of education is to tilt the balance against the immigrant population. I am sorry to say that in the course of the controversy as I knew it, one met some people who avowedly wanted to preserve the grammar school and not have the comprehensive system because they thought there was a good chance of keeping the grammar schools much freer of immigrants than the secondary modern schools. I hope that those who advocate a return to separatism are not inclined to think in those terms today. But whatever the motives may be, there is the real danger of the result that a return to separatism will mean a heavy bias against the recent immigrant population.
It is for these reasons that I believe it would be profoundly wrong to try to reverse the trend towards comprehensive secondary education. We feel therefore that it is right to put an amendment into this Bill to make sure that none of the education support grants goes to schools which are based on that principle, and that we continue to believe in the principle of comprehensive secondary education which is both intellectually better and more likely to provide each child with the kind of education it needs but is also more appropriate for those who want to see a happy and united nation. I beg to move.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I feel that my noble friend Lord Stewart has covered most of the ground which I was going to cover and there is very little that I can say. The only thing I feel very strongly about is that when we went through the debates on reorganisation of secondary education with various local authorities we tried to persuade private direct grant schools to come in with the local authority schemes which they submitted to the Secretary of State. I feel that it is wrong for the State to provide monies for the schools which have not co-operated with local authorities. Therefore, I support the new clause on these grounds alone.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, may I say I am deeply perturbed by this amendment because it seems to me to be hitting at local democracy. Local authorities surely have a right to decide the kind of schools they provide, and presumably these reflect the wishes of parents in their areas. I cannot see why—if they wish to operate a system where some schools select by ability—they should be ruled out of court for consideration for education support grants because some members of this House do not look with favour on that type of scheme.
If I may, I will just refer briefly to some of the points in the exposition we have just heard on the relative merits as between the comprehensive system and the selective system. Recent research by many different researchers has shown that there is considerable cause for concern in the attainment and performance of the comprehensive system as compared with the selective system.
I think it was a socialist sociologist some years ago who said that comprehensive schooling is a gigantic experiment with the life chances of millions of

95
children. If we care about the life chances of millions of children-now well over 90 per cent. of our young people who are in the state system of secondary education—we must care about what is happening to those children as they go through that comprehensive system. Research has shown that in terms of formal academic attainment the comprehensive system does not compare very favourably with the selective system, and that even the secondary modern schools which have been maligned by so many people in many respects perform extremely well and sometimes do better for their pupils than their counterparts in the comprehensive system.
Research by the National Children's Bureau has also shown that on the other aspects which are very important in evaluating education—parental satisfaction and factors such as behaviour and truancy—the comprehensive system compares unfavourably with the selective system and unfavourably with secondary modern schools as compared with comprehensive schools. So I think the case for the comprehensive system is by no means proven and if, as I say, we really care about the future of our children we cannot afford to have closed minds. In fact, we must be prepared to look at it as an experiment and to re-think if it does not seem to be working as well as it might. That is not to say there are not some good comprehensive schools; but I hope very much that the message which goes from this House is not one which would seem to condemn a whole sector of our educations system as being inappropriate for receipt of educational support grant.
May I say that the words of the Bill as it has been put before us, suggest that the case for education support grants must be made in terms of their own individual merits and the extent to which they serve—in the words of the Bill:
"the interests of education in England and Wales".
I hope that no type of school will be excluded purely on partisan and prima facie grounds.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I had intended to put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, but by some oversight it was not done. I think the important point here is that this is not new money: it is taken out of the common pot which is used for comprehensive education up and down the country and therefore it would be quite wrong to apply it to schemes in which selective examination is used.
If I may say so, the short answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is that there is already via and through the assisted places scheme a great deal of money being spent on a selective system; I think I am right in saying that the amount is 16 million this year, and I believe it is projected to rise to £40 million. So the Government are already spending money—which is new money—on the encouragement of a selective approach to education. It therefore seems to me to be quite wrong—if we are going to be even-handed about this money which, as I say, is taken out of the common pot (out of the RSG)—that it, or part of it, should be added to the very large sum already being devoted to the selective approach. On those grounds, for my part, I and my colleagues would support the noble Lord,
96
Lord Stewart of Fulham, if he wants to press this to a Division.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am not going to be drawn tonight into an argument either pro or against comprehensive or selective education, because I think that is really—with due respect to noble Lords opposite—pretty well irrelevant to this particular amendment. But I should like to remind noble Lords that it is neither immoral nor illegal for an authority to have a selective system of secondary education. It is for local educational authorities, in conjunction with the governors of Voluntary Aided and special agreement schools, to take a view on the form and pattern of secondary education best suited to local circumstances and the preferences of parents. If they wish to propose any of the steps set out in Sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980, they must publish proposals and go through the relevant statutory procedures. Subject to certain exceptions those proposals are decided by my right honourable friend. In other words, the LEA proposes and my right honourable friend decides. His is a purely reactive role.
The Labour Government deprived LEAs of that freedom in their 1976 Act and we restored it. We believe that there should be variety in the provision made for secondary education in accordance with local circumstances and the wishes of parents. Local education authorities are free to consider patterns of school organisation which include grammar schools. If an authority publishes proposals to reintroduce grammar schools, my right honourable friend will decide those proposals on their merits and in the interests of all the children concerned. Incidentally, there are no current proposals for the reintroduction of grammar schools.
The Government's record shows that we look at proposals on their individual merits. Since 1979 we have approved 22 sets of proposals to end selection; one to establish a grammar school and five to amalgamate grammar schools. As for rejections, seven were to end selection; two were for new grammar schools; and one was for an amalgamation.
In consideration of this Bill both here and in the other place, it was made abundantly clear that the use of education support grants to set up new grammar schools was not in the list of possible activities to be supported by ESGs which my right honourable friend wishes to discuss in due course with representatives of the AMA and ACC. I must really stress that none of the money is going to be made available to reintroduce grammar schools. I can give the noble Lord. Lord Stewart of Fulham, that undertaking. But this amendment, if it were carried, concerns something different and, indeed, pernicious—namely, to prevent local education authorities from using education support grants for any purpose whatever in selective schools. I must re-emphasise that.
It is laid down in the amendment that:
"No money provided under this Act shall be used in any school where admission is based on selective examination or sets of tests of ability".
I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, are both fair and reasonable men, but I really must put it to them: is this a fair and reasonable

97
amendment? What happens—and admittedly I take a far-fetched example, but not too far-fetched, I believe—to a physically disabled child who, in order to be integrated into her local secondary school, finds herself in a grammar school? She may not be good at mathematics. She may need some help—just the type of help which under the education support grants she might get. But that wretched child, through no fault of her own but because she happens to be in a grammar school, would, under this amendment, be deprived of that aid. I do not think that that is fair; I do not think that it is reasonable and I suggest that if the noble Lord considers that situation, he may decide not to press the amendment.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Earl has said, and I realise that he wants to be reasonable about this matter. But I want to make it clear that I have not suggested that it is illegal or immoral for a local education authority to try to restore the separatist system. What I have suggested is that it is wrong: it is a profound error; and an error to which we ought not to give support. The Government, therefore, should not in this Bill help local authotrities who are engaged in that type of activity.
I draw the noble Earl's attention also to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock; namely, that this is money taken from schools all over the country, the great majority of which are comprehensive, and it ought not to be used to assist those who are trying to prop up what is left of the separatist system, and the more so in view of what has already been done with regard to special places.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, would the noble Lord also agree that we should not help those children who are in those schools if they are in need of the money?—because that is what the amendment proposes.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, local authorities can of course deal with that situation by not creating schools of this kind. The effect of the amendment would be that local authorities would give up the attempt to restore separatist education and I believe that that would be a desirable result. That is the case that I have made and I repeat it. I feel, therefore, that we should test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
8.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 31.

DIVISION NO 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Beaumont of Whiteley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Birk B.

Graham of Edmonton, L

Bishopston, L.

Hale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

David, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

98

Jeger, B.

Rhodes, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stedman, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bellwin, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Cox, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sandford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinton, E.

Greenway, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.33 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 6:
Insert the following new Clause:
("Advisory board.
—(1) There shall be established an advisory board for education support grants.
(2) The advisory board shall include representatives of local authorities, parents, teachers' organisations and industry.
(3) It shall be the duty of the advisory board to advise the Secretary of State on the payment of education support grants.
(4) The advisory board shall produce an annual report of the progress of projects funded by education support grants.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are bringing forward a similar amendment to the amendments which we and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, proposed last time, asking for an advisory board because we were not convinced by the arguments either of the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, at the Committee stage. I do not think that informal meetings between the Secretary of State and the chairmen of the two associations' committees and possibly an officer are enough, which is all that might take place if something is not written into the Bill.
We want to know what exactly the Secretary of State intends to do about the consultation which is promised in Clause 3(5). With what bodies does he think it appropriate to consult? We have tabled this amendment in the hope of receiving some clarification and some further information. We are not suggesting a quango, but a group of perhaps 10 people. The Government have been so keen on parental involvement and industrial involvement that we should have thought the suggestions to include these people would have been welcomed by them. Monitoring surely is acceptable and even the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said that she thought these schemes should be monitored. The facts about what is

99
supported are easily available and it is not asking a lot to ask for that little bit more. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I have given considerable thought to this whole issue since the discussion last time. I regret that I am still not convinced that such an advisory board is necessary, because it seems to me that the two objectives which it is designed to serve —to secure advice from representatives of relevant interest groups and to evaluate the progress of projects—are both better secured by other means.
On the question of seeking advice, I think that the Secretary of State is already committed, and has already shown himself to be committed, to widespread consultation. What worries me about a formal advisory group is that it would not only be superfluous but could also be cumbersome and could lead to indecision and delay. The whole issue with regard to consultation and timing is that these education support grants are meant to be flexible and that this extra tier of advisory board consultation could actually delay the timetable and put the whole scheme out of joint.
However, more important is the question of evaluation and the inappropriateness of such an advisory board to serve that function adequately. I do not see how any one body such as that described in the amendment could satisfactorily serve the purpose of assessing and reporting on the progress of all the projects which are likely to be funded. These projects are likely to be very diverse and will require extremely careful evaluation to ensure that the money is being spent not only for the purposes for which it was allocated but that it is being used wisely and well within each project.
As I think I said before, with a certain amount of experience of research and of evaluation of projects of diverse kinds, that kind of systematic and rigorous evaluation would be better met if the mechanisms for evaluation were specified in the terms of reference agreed for each grant as it is awarded. Therefore, although I wholeheartedly support the commitment to the principles of consultation and accountability, I do not think that the proposed advisory board should be used to serve the purposes of the former or could effectively fulfil the requirements of the latter.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, in our view the noble Baroness's new clause is an improvement on the Bill. In Clause 3(5) the Bill reads:
"Before making any regulations under this Part of this Act the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies representing local education authorities as appear to him to be appropriate."
The noble Baroness's new clause, which I support, adds:
"parents, teachers' organisations and industry",
which seems to me to be a better and a wider forum for consultation. It is already apparent that there will be considerable disagreement. There may be many candidates in this field. On 24th March 1983 the Government issued a consultative document on this and they came up with several proposals of their own, including the curricular changes in mathematics, a more practical slant to the final years of compulsory
100
education and various other favourites of their own. But it was quite clear from the consultative paper that the choice of the five areas which they had tentatively selected was not by any means either final or certain.
It seems to me that some kind of sifting mechanism will certainly be necessary, and the sifting mechanism proposed by the Government in the Bill is inadequate. Therefore, on those grounds we on this Bench, or I on behalf of my SDP colleagues, certainly support this amendment and if the noble Baroness wants to press it, we are with her.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's amendment. During the course of this Bill we have discussed two principles. One has been the discretion of the Secretary of State in the use of the money which is being withdrawn from the local authority in order to provide the educational support grants, and the other has been the consultation which the noble Lord the Minister has told us on a number of occasions that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State wishes to conduct.
I referred earlier to the relationships between local education authorities and the Government which, to say the least, are not in a very happy state at the present time. If we could write into this primary legislation not only, as we do, that there shall be consultation but also the kind of consultation—that there shall be an advisory body—then the local authorities would be more happy about the discretion which the Secretary of State is taking along with the money that he is taking from them. Again, I would suggest that it would be one of the bridge-building activities that the Government could engage in if they were to accept this amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as I said when this new clause was debated in Committee, I understand the intention behind the amendment, which I take to be the desire to make education support grants as effective as possible by involving all interested parties in the administration. But I do not believe that an advisory body is necessary or desirable. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me how the Government intend to find out what people want. I can give her an assurance that the Government will listen to all those who have responsibilities within education.
My right honourable friend will consider carefully the views of local authority representatives and others about the implementation of this legislation. In preparing the Bill itself, the Government have responded to concerns expressed by the local authority associations, for example, by putting an upper limit on the amount of expenditure which can be supported through education support grants. The Bill also provides that the Secretary of State shall consult the local authority associations before laying any regulations. My right honourable friend has already held several meetings with the associations and he looks forward to a further meeting when, as I hope, the Bill has been enacted.
The Government welcome views from other bodies as well as the local authority associations about the activities that might be supported by the grants, and these comments are most welcome. During the Committee stage I repeated an undertaking that my

101
right honourable friend would issue a statement prior to the laying of draft regulations, setting out, in more detail, the activities which it was proposed should be supported and the reasons behind the proposals. All this adds up to a considerable commitment to consult and to publicise the Government's proposals regarding the activities which the grant would support. The amendment would go further than this, however. It would establish an advisory body
"To advise … on the payment of education support grants",
and to,
"produce an annual report of the progress of projects".
The procedures for actually administering and paying the grants will be determined in the regulations and an accompanying circular, on which my right honourable friend will seek the views of the local authority associations. So far as the monitoring and evaluating of projects is concerned, I should like to remind noble Lords and Baronesses of the remarks of my noble friend Lady Cox during the Committee stage on 14th Februatry at col. 197 that,
"a better way of approaching evaluation and accountability would be to build in mechanisms for evaluation within the terms of reference of projects as they are established and funded".
I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend is mindful of the need to evaluate grant-aided activities properly; but the appropriate means are likely to vary, and this question is best considered in the context of each activity.
The noble Baronesses have suggested that the advisory board would have a role in choosing between applications for support by different authorities. On this point, I should like to recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, who remarked on 14th February at col. 197 that,
"If you are going to have a consultative body including local authorities, teachers, employers and a few other people, the idea that you are leaving any discretion to the Secretary of State seems to me nonsense".
Although there will be full consultation about the activities to be supported, and the circular sent to authorities will set out the criteria which will be used in selecting between bids, the choice between bids must he a matter for my right honourable friend himself.
The final decision about the approval of expenditure will rest with my right honourable friend. He will, I am sure, be receptive to suggestions about the appropriate criteria for selecting applications in different activities, and about the appropriate arrangements for monitoring and evaluation. I imagine that these points will arise naturally during the consultations. But it would be completely unjustifiable for a formal advisory committee to be established to administer what, I should remind noble Lords, remains in local government terms a modest grant.
I think that some noble Baronesses and noble Lords opposite are getting the scale of these grants out of proportion. I should remind noble Lords that we are talking about grants totalling, in 1983–84 terms, no more than about £33 million. This compares with grant on, for example, the urban programme of £150 milllion. In earlier debates we have heard a great deal about the analogy between the urban programme and the new grants. But none of the safeguards which are
102
included in the present Bill were included in the legislation introduced by the then Labour Government in 1969 to set up the urban programme. There is no provision for an upper limit on approved expenditure. There is no requirement for consultation with local authority associations. There is no requirement that the operation of the grants should be conducted in accordance with regulations. This does not mean, of course, that the urban programme does not perform a useful function. On the contrary, much valuable work is supported under the urban programme. I really do not see why an advisory board would be useful in the present instance when the urban programme is administered perfectly satisfactorily without one. I hope that the noble Baroness, having heard that, will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I say that I do not think he has turned his attention to subsection (4) of the proposed new clause. That is,
"The advisory board shall produce an annual report of the progress of projects funded by education support grants."
That is one of the most useful things which this clause does. A report coming out regularly produced by an independent body on the various projects being put forward would be extremely valuable. I am sure that the noble Earl the Minister must have a Government reaction to that. Perhaps he could add to what he has said.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as I said in Committee, evaluation will be an ongoing concern with much depending on the projects. It will be built into the mechanism and that that will take care of itself.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Will it be for publication?
The Earl of Swinton: That will depend on the various projects and in what way the evaluation takes place and whether it will be through research, at a university, or by a local authority. I am speaking again of some £33 million. It is not a vast amount of public money. The accounts will be there for all to see, and I would have thought that it was hardly necessary to produce further details in order to cover the points that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, makes.
Baroness David: My Lords, we have had a great many words from the Minister opposite, and I think some of the same words we had last time, although we did not have the suggestion that this advisory body would soon be spawning large numbers of subgroups and creating unnecessary and undesirable bureaucracy.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness complaining because I did not say that?
Baroness David: My Lords, I think that the Minister has rather missed one of the points of the amendment, which is that it would go a long way to make the local authorities very much happier about this Bill if they felt they were going to be firmly in on the discussions and the evaluation. That is an important matter. We

103
know on what bad terms the local authorities are with the Secretary of State and his department at the moment after publication of the White Paper Training for Jobs. I should have thought it would have been a good idea, in view of the claims for partnership and so on that have been made that there should be this conciliatory gesture. I shall yet again read what the Minister has said, but it is extremely likely that we shall come back with either this amendment or a similar one at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Road Traffic (Driving Instruction) Bill
8.49 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Private Member's Bill which was initiated in another place by my honourable friend Mrs. Peacock and moved at Second Reading by my honourable friend Mr. Bottomley. The Bill had an unimpeded passage through another place. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the law relating to driving instruction contained in Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1972. The present provisions make it necessary for anyone who gives instruction in the driving of motor cars for payment or reward to be registered as an approved driving instructor or licensed as a trainee instructor.
There are currently some 27,000 approved driving instructors and about 2,500 trainee driving instructors. Approved driving instructors must pass a qualifying examination before being approved and registered. The examination comprises a written test of theoretical knowledge of driving matters, a driving test in which the candidate is required to drive to a much higher standard than the L-test and a practical test of ability to give instruction. The object of the examination is to ensure a satisfactory standard of driving instruction.
The system of trainee licensing enables a new instructor to gain practical experience in giving instruction for a limited period of six or 12 months prior to qualification as an approved instructor. The present requirements for licensed trainees is to have held a driving licence for four out of the last six years; not to have been disqualified in the past four years, and to be of good character. A licensed trainee is not tested under current legislation. During the six or 12 months they will be improving skills, but, as newcomers, naturally much tuition will be substandard. This is borne out by pass rates for trainees taking the qualifying examination in 1983, in which only 50 per cent. passed the written test of theoretical knowledge and only 43 per cent. passed the practical test of driving and ability to instruct.
One of the most important points about this new Bill is that it tries to increase the quality of all training. The figures I have read give the basic reason why this is so necessary. However, the scheme is sometimes abused by those seeking casual employment with no serious intention of qualifying and making a career of driving instruction. The weaknesses of the scheme have attracted much adverse comment from the
104
public. I have examples of articles both from papers and from magazines over the past three years which demonstrate this. The scheme is also objected to by the approved drinving instructors, who, quite naturally, see their skills being debased because—I shall turn to this later—nobody can tell at the moment which is which, an approved driving instructor or a trainee instructor. Finally. I think I should add that, quite bluntly, it is dangerous. We have an enormous number of motor cars on the road and an enormously increasing number of people of all ages wishing to pass the test. It is important that they be properly trained to reduce the number of accidents, which is still seriously and alarmingly high.
The change in the trainee instructor scheme proposed in the Bill would require trainees to pass a written and driving test part of the qualifying exam for approval before the grant of a licence, but, at that stage, it would not include the test of ability to instruct. This would ensure that trainee instructors are partly qualified before giving tuition for payment, and it provides a framework on which the newcomer can build and become a satisfactory professional instructor and, indeed, able to pass the test of ability to instruct.
The Department of Transport has had full consultations with the driving instructors' organisations and other interested bodies, and the proposals have been generally welcome. There are some who would prefer that the trainee licensing scheme was abolished entirely. However, the department considers, and I agree, that it would be too drastic a step and would severely limit the means of entry to driving instruction as a career. I accept that, and I think we should seek the undoubted benefits which the proposed tightening up of the scheme has to offer.
The Bill also provides, in Clause 1, for the compulsory display of driving instructors' official identification documents in motor cars used for giving driving instruction for payment. At the moment, in the publicity material that is sent to all new drivers with the first provisional driving licence the department urges them to take professional driving instruction and to ask to see their instructors' official documents. However, it is most doubtful whether many pupils do the latter, and they are probably most reluctant to ask for official proof. The proposal in Clause I will help pupils to avoid unauthorised instructors who have not been tested or approved. They will also know whether they have a qualified driving instructor or a licensed trainee. The enforcement of the law on illegal instruction—that is, tuition given for payment by an unauthorised instructor—is a difficult task, and all the more so because of the present lack of ready identification. The proposal for compulsory identification will help the police and others in dealing with the problem.
I have said that Clause 1 deals with this point. Clause 2 deals with subsidiary matters. Clause 3 is the main one for introducing new qualifications and the new examinations for the licensed trainees; and Clause 4 provides for consequential amendments.
In conclusion, careful and considerate driving is essential to road safety. Driving instruction plays an important part in promoting this. Drivers should be correctly taught from the beginning and given a proper

105
foundation for a lifetime of driving. The proposals in the Bill will make the driving instructor registration scheme more effective, and thus make a significant contribution to road safety. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—[Lord Mottistone.]
8.57 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is to be thanked for bringing forward this Bill and for explaining its provisions. When I sought to find what the other place said about it, to my amazement I found that on 26th January it went through Second Reading and all the other stages without any explanation whatever. Therefore, we are grateful for the explanation given to us this evening.
In the view of myself and my noble friends, it is a Bill to benefit the customer; that is, the person wishing to take driving instruction. The provisions as outlined can only be beneficial for those who wish to take driving instruction: and I was also pleased to hear the noble Lord say that it is an extra aid towards road safety, which is very important. The display of a certificate and/or of a licence, as the case may be, is an extremely valuable provision. There is always the problem of enforcement of any provisions of this kind, and of existing provisions. This should be an aid towards that.
The driving instruction service is a growing and valuable service. Noble Lords will have noted the up-to-date figures which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone,
106
gave of the numbers of approved driving instructors and registered trainee instructors at present. Noble Lords cannot fail to be impressed by the figures which the noble Lord mentioned of those who failed to pass the existing test: in one case just over 50 per cent. and, in the other, just under. The numbers who apply each year run into some thousands—4,500 to 6,000 per year, according to the year. The failure rate in the practical part of the existing examination is important because applicants cannot take that unless they have passed the written part. Therefore, the over 50 per cent. failure rate is of those who have already passed the written part of the present test.
I am pleased that the noble Lord has outlined the changes that there are in the Bill, particularly those for the registration of trainee instructors. This seems to be a clear anomaly in the present provision, and I am certain this is something that will be generally welcomed.
As I see the Bill, it is one that will avoid—I will not use the word "undesirable"—persons who are not properly qualified persons undertaking training. We want this to be a good service industry. There is the danger of undesirable persons coming in. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred to those seeking casual employment. There is nothing wrong in casual employment, provided that they are really well suited to do the job they wish to do. Therefore, from these Benches we give full support to this Bill. We would hope that the Government would not only accept it but that they will assist its passage through your Lordship's House. I have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for introducing this Bill to the House. The ability of driving instructors to produce better drivers on the road is something we would all welcome, and there are clearly problems in the present legislation to which the noble Lord has pointed.
I was most interested in the figures that he gave us on the pass rate. They underline that there is already some control, and this Bill introduces a greater degree of control. As I shall try to show in a few moments, there are one or two questions that I should like to put and perhaps at a later stage we may suggest some modifications which will tighten it up even further.
I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I deal with the Bill section by section and if I take a little more time than the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. As he says, it was not discussed in another place and I think it is incumbent upon this House to subject this legislation to rather more detailed scrutiny. Clause 1 seems to be a very sensible provision, for the exhibition of the licence on the windscreen is a very useful check on mavericks, as the noble Lord said. The timid trainee-driver, frankly, is not going to challenge the instructor whom he has to live with for his future lessons, but outside agencies may well be prepared to check whether the licence is exhibited in the car. Presumably, there is a role for the police in this and I am sure that they will welcome many aspects of the Bill.
Clause 2 is also welcome. I think the spelling out of the three phases of training is an improvement on the Act that exists now. We are in a slightly complex situation here: we have the Bill before us today, with the 1972 Act and the 1977 statutory instrument, all of which interlock. There is the division into three sections of a written examination, a practical test of ability to drive above the level one normally expects from the average driver on the road and also the test of the ability and fitness to instruct, which is a very useful definition.
Clause 2(1)(b) is a reasonable provision to overcome the problems of a broken period of licence holding without diluting the original provision of a minimum period of four years' driving experience. Clause 2(2): it seems wise to define the relevant experience as driving "motor cars" rather than "motor vehicles", and we welcome that provision in the Bill.
However, when we come to Clause 3(1), we have some questions. First, this clause refers to Section 131 of the 1972 Act, the intention of which is to allow the registrar to issue a licence to allow an applicant to gain practical experience before he takes phase three of the examination in order to undergo the practical test of his ability to instruct. It is on the question of the ability to instruct that I wish to put some points on the Bill which is before your Lordships today.
It says that the licence will be issued only if the applicant has passed the first two phases: that is to say, the written examination and the test of practical ability and fitness to drive. This is a step forward but it is only useful in assessing the competence of the person to drive a motor car above perhaps the average
108
standard that one expects from a learner driver who has just passed his first test. What it does not do is to ensure the suitability of the applicant for the licence to instruct other people, and this is where I have some doubts about whether the Bill goes far enough.
Nowhere is there any insistence in the Bill on training courses to train the trainer. We have to bear in mind that the Statutory Instrument No. 1043 of 1947, Part 5(2)(iii) only prescribes that there should be supervision of the licensee for a minimum of 20 per cent. of the time he is actually on the road instructing people. He has to be supervised for one-fifth of his time and for the other 80 per cent. of his time he can go out with new drivers and behave as though he were a fully-qualified instructor. Accepting that he does need the practical experience to do that, it seems to be a loophole in the earlier Act and also a similar one in this Bill.
What we would like to see is that whoever embarks on this course is in fact rather more skilled than the legislation at present requires. It is a vital matter that people who are instructing should be really capable of doing so, because after all, people's future driving ability may well depend on the first few lessons they get. I speak from my own experience of having been taught by an amateur and of knowing that it took me many, many years to unlearn the bad mistakes that I was making. It was not until many years later when I was fortunate enough to go on an advanced training course run by the City of Manchester Police that I realised the had mistakes that I had been making. I covered them up by a certain youthful reaction time, but had I not been on that course I would even today have been making the same sort of mistakes in terms of rather aggressive driving. It was only when I went through that course that I realised that, in certain circumstances, I was a menace on the road. So it is very important that the people who are instructing should know how to instruct, as well as themselves having an innate ability to drive.
I hope that at a later stage of the Bill we can insert some provision, so that people who will be on their own for 80 per cent. of the time instructing people shall have had some training themselves, not in driving, not in the written examination, but in how to teach other people to drive. With that qualification, I should like to support this Bill.
9.9 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Mottistone for bringing this Bill to the House. I was very impressed to hear that it passed all its stages in the House of Commons on 26th January. That shows that the Government feel that this Bill is long overdue. I am a driver of considerable years, and perhaps I may also say of experience, and I have felt for a very long time that the younger people who are now on our roads need a better quality of tuition than they have had in the past. That is not to say that the instruction by most of the driving schools in this country is below standard. On the other hand, there is so much traffic on the roads and people are driving so fast that, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, quite rightly said, the quality needs to be heightened as much as possible and the whole law needs to be tightened up.

109
We all know about the cowboy instructors. It is perfectly possible for a man to put a notice on the top of his car stating that he has a driving school. He can then go out on the road and I do not think that he can be stopped, although he is supposed to have passed examinations. I am afraid that we shall still have loopholes, and the parents who teach their children or the brothers who teach their younger sisters to drive are the people who need to he got at somehow by this Bill, because in no way is the standard of that kind of instruction good enough for the roads of this country. Therefore, I feel that much more could and should be done to encourage all the learners to go to a good school which is staffed by highly qualified instructors.
But, however much legislation is passed by Governments, nobody can legislate for good manners on the road. As I drive many thousand of miles, and see the numbers of near misses and the bad examples of driving which are entirely due to bad manners, I realise that that, almost more than anything else, is the reason for crashes. But, as I said, it is very difficult to legislate for good manners, so it must be stressed to the driving schools that good manners should be taught almost as much as anything else.
I notice that the Bill confines itself to motor cars and I wonder about HGV licence. Who teaches the people who will apply for HGV licences?—because driving of that sort must be taught by well qualified and highly trained people. I think my noble friend touched on the fact that an instructor had to have held a clean licence for four years. I am not quite certain whether that is long enough. Perhaps it depends on the reason for someone's licence being endorsed. But if an endorsement were for any of the normal offences, such as drinking, speeding or driving without due care, then six years might be more appropriate. May I also suggest that when a licence is exhibited there should also be a photograph of the driving instructor? That could easily be changed if an instructor had a different car.
I certainly welcome this Bill and, as other noble Lords have done, I hope that in the end it will lead to more careful driving and less speedy driving, although I am not one who thinks that speed causes accidents; I believe that slowness causes more accidents. But, with any luck, I feel that thousands of people who go out on our roads will be taught by instructors who are even better qualified than they have been in the past, and I certainly wish this Bill a speedy run through this House.
9.14 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I do not believe that the Bill goes far enough. However, I welcome the Bill because at least it is a step in the right direction and goes some way towards keeping cowboys off the roads. To my mind, the worst thing about cowboys—a point that has been mentioned already—is that because they are not trained and because they are not experts they pass on to the people they are pretending to teach to drive the bad habits they have picked up and have been using for years. One of the worst habits—one sees it every
110
day—is that of jumping the amber light at traffic lights, whether on the "stop" or on the "go". Why there are not more accidents at traffic lights I honestly do not know.
In particular, I am very pleased to see Clause 3. There is no doubt that there has been a slackening of standards. According to the Driving Instructors' Association, every year in the region of 1,200 instructors get on to the register of approved driving instructors. The majority of these driving instructors are learning their trade at the expense of the general public. When one considers that the general public are paying £8 or more per hour to be instructed, one realises that they are actually paying someone to learn their job. This seems to me to be crazy, and I am very glad that it is to be stopped.
I do not know whether it is generally accepted that one and a half hours of tuition are needed for every year of a person's life. If, therefore, somebody is 18 years old he needs about 27 hours of instruction; if he is 30 years old he needs about 45 hours of instruction. At £8 or more per hour, these people are investing a very great deal of money. I hope your Lordships will be pleased to hear that the statistics show there is no difference between the length of time it takes males and females to learn to drive.
I am sure that noble Lords who have passed their driving test will agree with me that the present test is too easy. Having said that, I have to admit that I have never taken the Department of Transport driving test. By the time they reintroduced the driving test after the war I had already held a licence for sufficiently long. I felt slightly guilty about this, so I took the Institute of Advanced Motorists' test, which I am glad to say I passed first time.
In conclusion, if there is to be a significant reduction in the number of people killed and maimed on the roads, and if there is also to be a significant reduction in the number of accidents in which, although nobody may be injured, a great deal of damage is done to very expensive motor cars, with the result that premiums go up year by year, that reduction will be achieved only when the majority of people are trained by qualified driving instructors. Therefore I welcome the Bill.
9.18 p.m.
The Earl of Enniskillen: My Lords, I had not meant to speak but I should like to make one point which I notice has not been referred to; namely, refresher courses which keep driving instructors up to standard. Perhaps that is a point we ought to consider. If one obtains a driving instructor's licence there ought to be, as with an airman's licence, periodic tests. I believe that this would be advantageous.
I should like to join all those who have spoken in commending the Bill. It has long been required in order to strengthen one of the prime factors with which, when we were driving under perhaps easier conditions than exist today, we were imbued when we began to drive: that anybody can consider himself to be a good driver, but his passenger will soon let him know if he is not.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I shall be even more brief. My noble friend Lord Tordoff asked: how does one teach an instructor to instruct? I should have thought it might be a good idea to provide that every trainee instructor should spend so many hours sitting on the back seat watching a qualified instructor instructing his pupil.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for introducing this Bill and for explaining its purpose to us. I believe he, too, should be most grateful that every noble Lord who has spoken this evening has given support. Perhaps it would be as well if at this point I told my noble friend' and your Lordships that the Government give their support to this Bill.
The department has recently reviewed the driving instructor registration scheme to see whether it might be made more effective. As a result we have decided to make a number of changes to improve the quality of tuition that is given to learner drivers. Higher standards have since been introduced for the entrance examinations which new entrants have to pass before being registered by the department as approved driving instructors. The department also re-tests registered instructors from time to time to ensure that they maintain a satisfactory standard of tuition. My noble friend Lord Enniskillen may be reassured to learn that, while not having a refresher course, the department does examine instructors from time to time—in most cases, at least once every two years. If an instructor is failing in a major way, he may lose his registration. If he is failing in a minor way, he will most certainly be encouraged to take further instruction or practice. These checks have been made considerably more strict in recent times to match the higher standards we now expect from new entrants.
The changes in the system of trainee driving instructors' licensing which is contained in the Bill are a very necessary part of the package which I have just outlined to your Lordships. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, there are certainly some who may wish to abolish trainee licensing altogether. But the scheme does provide a useful means of entry to a career in driving instruction, and the Government do not wish to minimise that opportunity. It provides the newcomer with an opportunity to gain practical experience of giving instruction before taking the qualifying examination for approval and registration.
However, trainees should have a good theoretical knowledge of driving matters and be able to drive more skilfully than the average driver. The Bill therefore provides for trainees to first pass the written part of the entrance examination and the test of their own driving before the grant of a licence enabling them to instruct learner drivers for payment or reward. The effect of this change will be to raise the standard of new entrants, thus generally improving the quality of good tuition which learner drivers receive.
Good instruction is essential for those learning to drive. It makes an important contribution to road safety, an aspect of which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made particular mention in his remarks.
112
The department urges all new drivers to take professional instruction. The provision in the Bill for the compulsory display of a driving instructor's official identification documents will help pupils in this matter. I will return to that point in a moment. It will also help the enforcement of the law on driving instruction. I will return to that point, too, in just a moment.
My noble friend may find it helpful if I give the Government's views' on a number of points which have been raised. The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, spoke about enforcement. Publicity will be given to the introduction of the requirement for display and the new forms of documents. Pupils will be advised to look for them. The incidence of pupils unwittingly engaging unauthorised instructors will therefore be much reduced: but, as one noble Lord said, it can be offputting to make the challenge, and people could quite easily be taught by other than qualified instructors.
Although the format and method of display of the official identification documents has yet to be determined, we intend that they should be readily recognisable by enforcement authorities from the outside of the car as well as from the inside of the car in which instruction is being given. I can assure my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve that her suggestion with regard to a more positive form of identification, such as a photograph, will be considered. Obviously I cannot pre-empt what the decision might be because consultations will have to take place. Those consultations certainly will be with the police and other enforcement officers and those who are engaged in this business of instruction.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that there was something lacking in the Bill. I think he asked the question, "How do we train the trainers?" He referred to the 1977 regulations. In fact, he referred to Part V, Regulation 11, paragraph 3, which, as he rightly said, provides:
"In the case of any licence other than the second of two licences issued in respect of consecutive periods the holder thereof shall, while giving instruction"—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the question of the second of two licences does not now arise because it is dealt with in the new Bill. There is no question of the second of two licences as we are talking about one licence. Therefore, that part of the instruction will be amended by the Bill.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for pointing that out. Yes, before the Bill becomes operative there may well have to be consequential amendments to take care of anything that the Bill may contain. To continue with the quote:
"while giving instruction in the driving of a motor car, receive direct personal supervision from a person whose name is in the register for at least one-fifth of the total time the holder spends giving such instruction."
The noble Lord made the point rather later in his speech that that means that for 80 per cent. of his time he will not be under any supervision. However, he

113
failed to read the last line of that paragraph. This reads:
"during the first three months for which the licence is in force."
Therefore, although there may not be two periods but only one of six months as the Bill proposes, it is only during the first three months that he has to be supervised and records kept.
It would surely not be unreasonable to suggest that if the registered instructor under whom the trainee is serving (shall I call it?) a three months' traineeship fails to find that trainee suitable, he will not be able to continue. But even if he is able to continue, which I very much doubt, he will have to take this other test, which may or may not disqualify him. The Government believe that the Bill brings forward, or anticipates bringing forward, a higher quality of trainee; or, at the very worst, by virtue of having to take the first two parts of the test it will sift out those who perhaps might not be suitable even after the first three months.
I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, eventually passed his test—
Noble Lords: First time!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I was unkind, my Lords, in saying "eventually". After many years of driving he passed his test first time, which is a nicer way of putting it. I am sure the noble Earl realises that I meant no offence. He spoke about this compulsory training of instructors. We really do not think that compulsory training of instructors by means of a formal training course is at this time justified. We certainly encourage instructors to seek formal training, but there are many who do not respond to intensive training, and it may be far better if they take their training instruction from a registered instructor over a longer period. I suspect that that would mean that the National Joint Council of Approved Driving Instructor Organisations would have to have some say in the approval of the instructor training establishments.
Approval of courses could not be restricted to the council; the department would have to set the course, the standards, and so on. I do not think that this would be practicable, nor of great benefit when one considers the cost involved. I should perhaps say here that the department is increasing the number of examiners to carry out inspections and tests of the existing registered driving instructors. I think that that also probably takes care of the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve spoke about the cowboy instructor—that is, somebody who is not on the register. They can in fact be prosecuted for giving tuition for payment or reward. The boyfriend or girlfriend who is receiving payment—in the regulations it says "in cash or in kind"—can be prosecuted if he or she can be caught. That is the reason for the certificate having to be displayed.
I do not think that I can help my noble friend Lord Mottistone further, although I might perhaps add that research has shown that pass rates were highest for those who took 10 hours or less of formal instruction. That may be because those people have a sharper or
114
more easily teachable mentality. Research also shows that drivers who are male or young, or who have had motorcycle experience, also have a higher than average pass rate. But that is perhaps by the way.
I am pleased to have the opportunity that the Bill provides for making these necessary changes in driving instructor registration schemes in order to make the system more effective and, by improving the quality of instruction, to enable it to make a greater contribution to road safety. It is a small but very important Bill. I fully endorse the proposals that it contains, and I hope that it receives the Second Reading that it so rightly deserves.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, may I intervene before the noble Lord sits down? I accept that we shall come back to the training of the the trainers at a later stage in the Bill but, as the noble Lord rightly says, the statutory instrument refers to the first three months of the licence. That is the point at which the trainee is at his most vulnerable and inexperienced. The fact that at a later stage he may have greater supervision is slightly irrelevant to the point that I was making. It is in the first three months that the apprentice instructor needs the greatest degree of supervision.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that is quite right. That is why at least one-fifth of the time that the trainee instructor spends in giving instruction has to be supervised. But it does not mean to say that it is only one-fifth. Very much depends on the ability of the supervising instructor to determine how much time. One-fifth is just the minimum. Certainly from my experience I can say that the majority of instructors taking trainees have found it necessary, and certainly desirable, to supervise for rather more than one-fifth of the time.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to all noble Lords who, with a few qualifications, have supported the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for saying that the Government welcome the Bill, and for answering many of the points raised by other noble Lords. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his unqualified support from the main Opposition Front Bench. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for supporting most of what is in the Bill from the Liberal Benches.
What is in the Bill? I would not say to him but it seemed to me that he was saying that we really needed to include the quality of instructional technique within the basic qualifications. He is getting very close to making the final test for approved driving instructor the one for the trainee licensee, and that would then of course come to the point of effectively abolishing the trainee licensees which I and the Department of Transport agree is going too fast and too sweeping. I am a great believer in some sort of apprenticeship system in this, and I should like to see it left in, in more or less the way it is there.
The othe point I would make to all the noble Lords who kindly took part in the debate—and I think I must

115
be practical here—is that the fate of this Bill very much depends on its going through this House unamended. If we amend it, it goes back to another place and, in the nature of their business, it is almost bound to die. This was put to me in the last Parliament on another Bill when I was taking the line of wanting to amend it and I had to accept it. I have taken two Private Members' Bills through this House, before in the past 15 years, and I am afraid that this is a fact. But it does not mean to say that we should not have a jolly good Committee stage in order to air points, and I saw a way through this in what my noble friend, Lord Lucas, said: that perhaps the sorts of amendments that the noble Lord. Lord Tordoff, is after could be in an amended version of the statutory instrument to which both noble Lords referred, rather than in this Bill. Perhaps my noble friend would care to study that because if he could give us that understanding when we come to Committee, that would help to preserve the Bill from almost certain death if it goes back to another place.
I should quickly like to take up two points that my noble friend Lady Macleod raised, which I do not think my noble friend Lord Lucas made. One is about heavy goods licences. They are in a totally different legislation and are not affected by this at all; and, indeed, they are very heavily both trained for and examined in at a level which is out of all connection with this.
She also spoke about bad manners, which I think is very important. It sounds almost frivolous to say it but one of my daughters who had to take two tests, I think failed the first time because it was not that her driving instructor had had manners but he had had breath. This is true! She could not concentrate on what was required of her because she was so put off by this, and each time she went to take her course she had the same man and the same terrible smell; it was frightful. But it is important that things like good manners—and personal hygiene, if you like—should somehow be put across to these people by somebody at some stage when they are doing their training or examining. So I take very strongly the point that my noble friend Lady Macleod, made and thoroughly support her: good manners is the basis for good roadmanship.
I was delighted to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, had to say about not actually having taken a test until he did his advanced test: I think that is good stuff. I did something similar, but I will not bore your Lordships with that as time is moving on, and other people want to move to the next debate. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Rate Levels and the Law
9.39 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take if Liverpool City Council, or any other local authority, decides to fix its level of rates substantially below the level needed to finance its projected expenditure, in contravention of the law.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled this Question following the well publicised statements made by Mr. Derek Hatton, the deputy leader of the Labour majority on Liverpool council, and a number of his colleagues, that they are contemplating fixing a rate substantially below their projected level of expenditure. As many of us know, rather over a week ago Mr. Hatton and his colleagues met the Secretary of State for the Environment to ask for £30 million extra of Government grant, which it was suggested would avoid the necessity of their taking such action. As we know, Mr. Jenkin told them that he was not prepared to make such money available to the authority.
If I may, I propose to deal first with what I believe the law to be—and I shall wait with interest to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, agrees with me on that—and then with the character of the situation that has arisen in Liverpool. First, I think it only fair to say that the amount of case law on this issue is fairly limited, because very few local authorities have been prepared even to contemplate taking action of this kind, whatever may have been their feelings about the government of the day.
However, notwithstanding that fact, I do not think that there can be much argument about what is the law. Under the General Rate Act 1967, as amended by the Local Government (Finance) Act 1982, every rating authority is obliged to make such a rate as will be sufficient to provide its total estimated expenditure, including sums payable under a county council precept. Various other statutes empower the relevant Secretaries of State to issue direct directions through commissioners if a local authority fails to carry out its statutory responsibilities. I believe that there is not much doubt that a Secretary of State could apply for judicial review in advance of actual detriment to the services arising, and of course any refusal to obey an order from the court would be a clear case of contempt.
There is also the position of creditors. Creditors could. I believe, apply to the courts if there was a danger of the authority having no money to pay its bills. It also seems fairly clear that members of an authority involving themselves in conduct of this character would be liable to personal surcharges for any losses arising and ultimately to disqualification.
So much for the law. I now turn, if I may, to the character of the situation that we all know has arisen in Liverpool. The Labour Party in Liverpool has an overall majority of three on the city council. Mr. Hatton and a majority of his colleagues are associated with Militant Tendency, an extremist Marxist organisation, which controls a number of the constituency Labour parties in the city. As we all know. Militant Tendency is an organisation which is contemptuous of Parliament, the judiciary and the rule of law. It is of course unlikely to take the slightest notice of an N thing said in this House this evening.
However, notwithstanding that, I believe it is right that we should debate this situation tonight, for the position of Militant Tendency in no way represents the majority of those people who live in Liverpool, or those who work in the public service there. At the last elections, for instance, the majority of those who voted

117
cast their votes against the present Left-wing majority on the city council. As for those who work in the public service in Liverpool, there have I think been two very important developments in the past few weeks. First, the district committee of the National Union of Public Employees has announced that it has no confidence in a policy that brings the council into conflict with the law. Secondly, members of the National Union of Teachers in Liverpool have voted not to support the one-day strike which is being called by the joint shop stewards' committee for 29th March, which is the day of the council's rate-fixing meeting. The National Union of Public Employees, too, has decided not to support that strike.
It is also right to say that concern about the policy of Mr. Hatton and his colleagues has been expressed by a small minority of Labour councillors in Liverpool. It is only fair to say that Mr. Kinnock has, as I understand it, made very clear his anxieties and his opposition to the course which is being proposed; though it is also right to say that a local Labour Member of Parliament on television last Thursday denied that Mr. Kinnock had done any such thing.
It appears, however, that, notwithstanding the very serious concern which has been expressed in Liverpool —and certainly outside it—Mr. Hatton and his colleagues will be in no way deterred from the course of action which they are thinking of following through. Labour councillors who are believed to be hesitant about supporting him are being threatened by their constituency Labour parties with being removed from the council. There is thus a real risk that on 29th March the council will decide to fix an unlawful rate and set in hand a chain of events for which there is no precedent in the history of English local government.
I must say at the outset that I do not propose today to discuss in any detail the policies of the present Government in relation to the inner cities. My noble friends and I have made it clear on a number of occasions that we believe that many of these policies have been profoundly mistaken and the Government have failed to recognise the serious situation which has developed in many of those inner city areas. There are undeniably grievous problems in Liverpool. There is poor housing (a great deal of it post-war public housing); there are serious educational problems; there is the grave situation with inner city dereliction: and there is, as we all know, an appalling unemployment situation, and it is particularly grave so far as younger people are concerned.
I believe that, given the gravity of this situation in Liverpool, we are going to see problems of this kind resolved only if there is a joint and effective partnership between central government and the city council, and I find it deeply depressing that Mr. Hatton and his friends clearly have not the slightest interest in developing such a relationship. In any event, having touched on this central question of the very serious problems that exist in Liverpool, we have to recognise that this is not the central issue which is before us this evening: it is whether a local authority can be permitted to pursue a course of blatant illegality. I am sure that we shall be told by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that the Government will not allow Mr.
118
Hatton and his colleagues to escape the consequences of any unlawful behaviour on their part. That, in my view, will not be enough.
What I believe the House will expect is that those consequences will be spelled out publicly now well before the council's rate fixing meeting. What precisely do the Government intend to do if the council fixes an unlawful rate? What, for instance, do the government consider are the responsibilities of the council's chief officers in these circumstances, and particularly the council's chief finance officer? Could he attempt to levy a rate which he knew to be unlawful? Would the Government in those circumstances think it right themselves to initiate immediate action in the courts to deal with this situation? If not—to take only one illustration—what would be the position of those who have lent substantial sums of money to the city of Liverpool? What do the Government believe would happen to the market in local government loans if a major local authority were to default?—clearly if Liverpool had simply no resources after 1st April of this year it would be in just such a situation. I hope we shall hear some answers to these questions this evening from the noble Lord the Minister. I think that the public interest requires that he should give those answers and I believe, too, that the people of Liverpool deserve that they should be clear answers, as do those who work in the public service there, who are fearful that from the beginning of next month they may be cut off without receiving any pay whatever.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will be able to meet some of those anxieties this evening and also those of that devoted group of men and women who are working so hard to encourage the development of new business in Liverpool, and who are deeply concerned at the growing risks to future job prospects there because of the antics of Mr. Hatton and his friends. They have, I believe, already succeeded in doing great damage to the reputation of their city, although I believe they are clearly indifferent about their responsibilities there and to their own employees. I hope that the Minister will indicate tonight in the clearest terms what will be the direct consequences to them if an act of gross illegality takes place on 29th March. That. I am sure, is what the House will expect from him and what I believe the people of Liverpool deserve.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he refer again to the point made in his speech about the majority of Derek Hatton's colleagues?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am not quite sure of the point that the noble Lord is making. I mentioned Mr Hatton and his colleagues, yes.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the word "majority" in relation to Militant Tendency.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, rather than indulge in question and answer now, I should be glad to hear what the noble Lord says on that particular point. But it seems quite clear to me that Mr Hatton does have an overwhelming majority of support in the Labour group in Liverpool.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise to the House, but I did not quite understand what the noble Lord said about how many Militant Tendency members there were in Liverpool City Council. As his speech is already written down no doubt he will be able to refer to it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not wish to persist in this cross-examination. The noble Lord has not troubled to put his name down to speak. The fact is that I have made my position quite clear on what Mr Hatton stands for and the degree of support he has in the Labour group in Liverpool. I do not think that it is appropriate to say any more.
9.53 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has asked a completely hypothetical Question—what I would call in more informal language an "ify" question. I cannot believe that, as he put it, public interest requires an answer to such a hypothetical Question. I do not think that it is the Government's job—and I hope the Minister will agree—to answer questions of this hypothetical nature.
At the present time there are 411 principal authorities in this country which are all in the process of fixing their rates or precepts. The interest in Liverpool and the focus on its council and their day-to-day doings, have, as we know, created a great deal of publicity. But it is beyond me why we should be debating this matter tonight at this time. I had always understood that the Alliance parties were in favour of the local decision-making process. But the noble Lord seems more intent on giving publicity to the very busy Mr Hatton The difficulties inherited last May when the Labour majority came into power were appalling, and this was acknowledged by the Secretary of State who in February said that the problems of Liverpool were of a very special kind. The incoming Government had inherited a Tory-Liberal budget cut of £6 million which was not allocated to any service areas and it was not indicated in March 1983 where the cuts should fall. I find that quite understandable. I am not particularly criticising them for it because they had inherited it, but they had also, unfortunately, under-budgeted the year previously.
The incoming Administration were committed to the maintenance of services and, as the noble Lord has pointed out, to no increase in unemployment, which is running at 20 per cent. in Liverpool, and to improving and increasing housing, which, as is generally acknowledged, is appallingly bad in that area. They could not levy a supplementary rate. They have suffered enormous losses in grant since the Government came to office. For example, if they were to increase the 1984–85 budget by only 5 per cent. over that for 1983–84, allowing for inflation, in cash terms there would be an £11 million increase for 1984–85, which would incur penalties in the order of £21 million. Even to sustain the Tory-Liberal budget would incur enormous penalties. They would have had to cut services drastically in this deprived and in many ways wretched area.
120
As I pointed out, the Secretary of State was fair enough to recognise this. The areas of deprivation and high spending in this country are practically all inner city ones which have the most gigantic problems. I think I am right in saying that originally the noble Lord tabled his Question with just a reference to Liverpool and that he has now included other local authority areas.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may put the noble Baroness right. The form of the Question has in no way changed since I first put it down.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. He is right, because it is not unique, but it is also not on any of the Government's hit lists of high spenders. The council is locally elected and is locally accountable. At the present time a constant debate is taking place in the council. It is going on between members of the council, between the council's employees, between the council and the Government and, as the noble Lord pointed out, NUPE and the NUT have dissociated themselves from any illegal action.
The shadow environment secretary is currently involved in discussions with Liverpool and also with other local authorities which have suffered in the same way in the inner areas. I should have thought that these are the ways in which to try to solve some of these problems. On these Benches and in this party we do not support unlawful action. It does not help the problem but only exacerbates it when the noble Lord raises a Question in this way. I could hardly believe he wants to do this. Does he really want to do it? I should not have thought he would. Is he trying to throw down a further challenge to Liverpool before decisions are made? I must confess that it seems such an extraordinary thing to do. There are times when public speeches of this sort are inflammatory and counterproductive. I believe that much more can be accomplished more quietly behind the scenes. Confrontation does not produce conciliation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Birk: My Lords, no, I shall not; I am just coming to the end of my speech. It is no good the noble Lord laughing about this; he knows as well as I do that this sort of thing and this type of publicity only acts as an incentive to those people who probably take a very much more extreme view than many other people. Confrontation does not produce conciliation, and hypothetical questions are dangerous and irresponsible. I am very sorry that someone who was once a member of my party should table such a hypothetical Question. I am not talking about his political views now, for everyone has the right to change; but I am talking about his sense of timing and, if I may say so, his common sense in doing something like this.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, at this moment the position in the City of Liverpool is extremely serious and unless certain members of the Labour

121
Party have the courage to vote against the Marxist leadership of that party, I am afraid that it can only become more serious. It is apposite for my noble friend to raise the subject this evening. There are one or two points that I should like to clear up. In fact, I fear that my speech may be largely a question of rebutting certain ideas that have been promoted by the Labour Party about the activities of the Liberals in the City of Liverpool. For instance, and first of all, there has never been a Liberal-Conservative coalition in Liverpool. Perhaps there ought to have been one. Perhaps there ought to have been a Liberal-Labour coalition. Perhaps there ought to have been a recognition that people should co-operate in various parties to look after the benefits of the city.
I apologise for bringing this subject up because I know it is a dirty phrase to members of the Labour Party and the Government; but if we had a PR system we would have had to accept a system of co-operation and support. But there is this constant belief that under the first-past-the-post system sooner or later the Liberals would go away, and then they could go back to their old Tory-Labour rows and run the city as badly as it was run in the earlier part of this century and the earlier part of the last decade. I believe therefore that there is a strong case for co-operation; but since no co-operation exists, I must underline the fact that there has never been a Liberal-Conservative coalition. The Conservative party is a small rump, and I take great pleasure in your Lordships' House in pointing this out, because it is not a small rump in this House although possibly a rather unruly party.
Secondly, I feel that the present Labour-controlled council is not in a position—and I suggest that the noble Baroness is not herself in a position—to talk about approaching this matter in an atmosphere of coolness and quietness, when the deputy leader of the city council is talking about rioting in the streets, and threatening, as I understand it, the Secretary of State and indeed the Labour party's own spokesman who fails to agree with him—I must not mention his name here; the Labour party spokesman on the environment in another place—with violence, or something of that nature, because he takes a more moderate view, as the noble Baroness does, about the activities of the council. Therefore, I do not think we are in a position where we can dismiss the concept of the violence being substituted for debate in the City of Liverpool. I am sorry and regretful, as a Merseysider, that I should have to say that.
I could spend some time giving your Lordships a history of the past few years in Liverpool, but I shall try to do it in the form of brief references. The facts are that the Labour party refused, though they were the largest party, to take office in Liverpool in 1980. After a period when nobody would take office, and Liverpool was described as "Toy Town", the Liberals took over though they were a minority party. They found a budget £10 million in deficit left to them by the previous Labour administration, yet by the end of that financial year they had a healthy outturn and a position where there was no problem about a deficit. They did this without massive cuts. They did it without massive sackings. They did it by reducing the administrative burden on the city, but developing the caring services, the social and welfare services.
122
We should recognise that, in spite of some years of Liberal administration, in spite of the alleged Liberal destruction of the services, Liverpool still has more council employees than almost any other authority. It has 10 per cent. more than the socialist republic of Sheffield. It is the need to remove unnecessary jobs—and I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will agree with me here because this is what he did in Leeds—in the bureaucracy which will prevent rocketing rates and will also therefore prevent loss of jobs in the private sector. This is what the various Liberal administrations in the city of Liverpool tried to do, and tried to do it against a background of cutbacks by governments since 1979 with the rate support grant of about £120 million. In spite of this and in spite of having no overall majority, the Liberals kept rate rises in Liverpool to a minimum and pursued progressive policies.
A number of Labour Party apologists—I am not including the noble Baroness—have suggested that Liverpool deprived the less well-off, the poorer, of benefits, but in fact during the period of Liberal administration in Liverpool we increased the money spent on social services; we increased the money spent on home helps—we are one of the few authorities which provide a free home help service—and several small council estates were built . Indeed, 1,200 houses to rent were built in the last year of Liberal administration and £11 million would have been spent this year if the Liberals had been in control.
I apologise for going into some detail on this, but we have been subjected in Liverpool to a policy of harassment, half truths and lies by our political opponents suggesting that we have behaved in an extremely Right-Wing and unsympathetic way. More than anything else we have primarily spent money in Liverpool on improving older houses. Over 50,000 houses have been improved in eight years through Liberal activity. This is the biggest improvement in the private sector of rented houses that has ever been carried out by any local authority.
Since the Labour party took office it has put a brake on this. It is reluctant to tell anyone, be they members of Parliament or councillors, why it has refused over 800 improvement grants in the last few months. This is not open government. It has refused to explain why 800 applications for improvement grants have been refused and why it has stopped the promotion of housing co-operatives and building for sale.
I could, but your Lordships will be delighted to hear that I will not, go on for a long time about the virtues of Liberal administration in the past in Liverpool. But briefly I must say that, quite frankly, the present administration in Liverpool, which I do not believe is in the normal run of traditional Labour policies, is hell bent on destroying the kind of society in which we live. Having destroyed it it is trying to promote a saving of it by saying, "This is the way our Marxist policies would put the whole thing together again". That is classic Marxism. It is an extremely dangerous matter.
With great respect to the noble Baroness, it is untrue that the Liberals underbudgeted. They budgeted for £2½ million more than Government guidelines in their last year in office. They left their Labour successors

123
with £27 million of capital receipts. It seems to me that unless we hear evidence to the contrary—I am glad to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, is to speak in this debate as a late entrant—why the Labour government of the City of Liverpool appears to have involved itself in deliberate incompetence. I cannot believe that the incompetence was not deliberate because it was so extreme. Why have they involved themselves in the classic Marxist policy of destroying the present system and then claiming that they would save the city?
Over the years Liverpool has slimmed down quite a number of jobs, but not nearly as many jobs in the public sector as some other authorities. Your Lordships are entitled to ask what, if there had been a Liberal administration, we would have done in the present difficult circumstances that are provoked by present Government policy. I think we can say that in the City of Liverpool we would have produced a budget that was solely in line with inflation, provided—and this is very important—that the unions agreed to change their restrictive practices, agreed to amend their bonus schemes and in certain cases agreed to the provision of early retirement for some union members. There would then he no need for compulsory redundancies or a cut in services, and the increased cost could be funded by the selling off of the very, very large number of freeholds retained by the city council to get over the short-term problem presented by the Government's policies.
I should like to know whether the noble Lord the Minister can confirm whether approaches have been made to any persons to see whether they would be willing to be a commissioner if the Labour-controlled council persists in its proposal to go £70 million over its budgeted income.
I think that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to confirm that there is some disagreement between barristers and counsel as to what the results would be if the council were not able to meet its commitments. I do not think a local council can go bankrupt but it can fail to pay its bills, which amounts to the same thing in the end and will create unhappiness and disaffection in the city. I believe it can default, but it cannot go bankrupt. Also, I should like to know whether a court decision would quash an illegal budget or whether that budget would still remain in operation. Again, I gather that there are advices which go either way.
I apologise for having spoken at such length so late in the evening but I am proud, and always have been, of being a Merseysider. I have worked all my professional life in Liverpool and I hate the idea of Liverpool being seen to be a city in decline: but I do tell the House with the greatest possible sincerity that, if the present Labour administration are allowed to continue with the massive proposed increases and bankruptcies that have been threatened, they will not increase the number of jobs available for the people of Liverpool but will grossly decrease them, and create a city which is even more seriously in trouble than it is at present. As a Liverpudlian, I should find that a matter of great sadness.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name down on the list of Speakers and thereby causing some people to think that the debate would be shorter than it will in fact be. I have no intention of apologising if I take longer than any of the other speakers. Let me first clear up the point about the majority of Derek Hatton's colleagues. I understood the noble Lord to say that the majority of his colleagues (I assume on the city council) were in fact members of Militant Tendency. Let me refute that right away and say that is completely untrue. However, perhaps when his speech is printed in Hansard and he sees it there he may take steps to correct it—or he may not.
I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, up to the ninth minute before I realised what was the intention of the Question. I thought that in a moment of adulation for the Liberals' ideal of freedom and democracy he was perhaps trying to help out in a terribly difficult situation. It is ironic, because the last time I had a conversation with the noble Lord was when he was a junior Minister in the Labour Government and accepted completely from me at that time that the economic and social situation in Liverpool was so bad that the Home Office should alter their planned budget and bring forward the building of a police station. Does the noble Lord think that the situation in Liverpool is any better now?
When the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said that he would want to draw our attention to the situation in Liverpool and how serious it was, I thought that was what he was about to do; and nobody could be more disappointed or regretful than I am that he did not do any such thing. What he did was to carry on the calculated piece of mischief-making that was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in order to try to demonstrate that the Liberal Party were above reproach in Liverpool and that the only people to blame were the Labour Party. The noble Lord nods his head. That is what he intended to do. I have not been long in this House, but I know that, if it has a tradition, it has a tradition that it is not parochially minded; it does not bring domestic squabbles into a place of this kind and, when it is talking about serious problems, it discusses them in a statesmanlike manner and seeks to get to the root cause of the trouble.
So there are some extremists in Liverpool. It is beyond belief to me that the situation in Liverpool has not thrown up extremism to such an extent that there is a danger to democracy. But there is not. It has not yet arrived. I do not believe it will arrive, and I urge the Minister not to fall for this claptrap that we have heard from the SDP and Liberal Benches, and not to respond now by saying what dire threats and punishments will be meted out to Liverpool if it transgresses the law. But will that help Liverpool, will that help Merseyside, and will that help the north of England? Of course it will not. It will exacerbate the situation, and it will drive people who are normally very moderate into the militant camp.
The voice your Lordships are hearing from Liverpool is not just the voice of Derek Hatton, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, knows it. If your

125
Lordships will read what was said by the Archbishop of Liverpool you will see the despair that is coming to the ordinary people of Liverpool. What are we to do? Since the last war, we have had a continous period of rundown in Merseyside that has not been matched anywhere else in the country and yet not once did I hear that referred to by the noble Lords.
What is the real problem of Merseyside and Liverpool? It is not just a question of what rate will be levied this year; or what the Liberals did when they robbed the building maintenance fund until there was nothing in it in order to meet their budget aims, to get cheap popularity and to get votes; or what happened when they robbed the book fund until it was completely empty at the time the Labour Party went in. Those are the answers to the statements that we have heard tonight, and there are many more But I shall not burden the House with them, because there is a more important task to be done.
There are not many noble Lords here, and some, including the Minister, have heard me say this dozens of times before. Twenty-five years ago, a generation ago, the leader of the Liverpool City Council and the leader of the Labour Party made representations to central government that it was no use giving us grants for industry; that it was no use giving us industrial assistance only, and we needed something more. We had to transform the economic life of Liverpool. The reason for the existence of the economic life of Merseyside and Liverpool had gone. It was founded upon the national lines of communications between one continent and another, and the need for that had ceased to exist. But nobody listened.
We pleaded with the Government to give us grants for service industries. We pleaded with them to bring in those jobs from the South-East of England that should be in Merseyside. We asked them to reduce the competition in London for the office space, the secretaries and the clerks, which has mounted to such an extent that the rates of pay and the payments to keep offices manned in London have now reached the stage where they will even drive them out of London, perhaps to the continent. We were saying this a generation ago. The people who were being born then have now reached adult life. They have gone through the whole of their lives, and see no hope in front of them. Good, moderate, working-class folk are being driven into a situation in which everybody calls them extremists. Of course, the Archbishop is right; we do not want extremism. But those who mouth their oaths against extremism should ask themselves this question.
During the past four years, 200,000 jobs in the private sector have disappeared. In addition, 5,000 jobs in local government have disappeared. Those who now shout about the extremists, expressing the despair of ordinary people in Merseyside, ought to ask themselves whether we ought now to sack another 5,000 people. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, said that if Liverpool's budget went forward just on the basis of inflation, this is what would happen. The budget for 1983–84 was £218 million. The rate support grant amounted to £117 million. These are simplified figures. Just to stand still, with no increase in services, which is not an unreasonable attitude to adopt, and allowing 5 per cent. for inflation, would
126
require a budget of £228 million and a rate support grant of £122 million. In fact, it will be £27 million. Is it any wonder that those who were elected to the city council on the basis of an electoral promise that the situation in Liverpool would not be allowed to deteriorate any further now voice despair because they have not received encouragement from those who ought to have given it to them to stand up to some people who say some very unwise things in an infantile way? Of course it is not, if anybody appreciates and understands the problems of Liverpool.
Nobody could have been more sorry than I when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, speak in the way that he did tonight. Nobody should speak to me about extremism and about obeying the law. When I was the leader of Liverpool City Council I had to stand up and say that although we had fought the battle against the Government's attitude over rents, the Finance Act had been passed and therefore we should obey the law. I meant that I was almost crucified. It is one of those things which has got to happen. I was involved in the battle of getting justice for Liverpool until the Finance Act became law. I was not harried and harassed by people like the SDP and the Liberals. They kept quiet in those days because they believed that what was happening to Liverpool was unjust. One senses, although they would deny that there is Liberal-Tory coalition in Liverpool, that there is a coalition here now. All they want is somebody to stand up and say, "Liverpool, you will obey the law, or else".
What is needed in Liverpool? What do we need in Merseyside? As I have already said, the fundamental problem of Merseyside is that nobody down here understands what is wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with the people. The people of Liverpool laid down their lives in the war. The dockers of Liverpool laid down their lives in order to keep the flow of goods and material from the United States to fight the war. There is no difference between the people of Liverpool and the people down here. It is just that the inexorable force of economics means that they are gripped in a siutuation in which the reason for the existence of Liverpool's economy has now ceased. The Tory leader of Liverpool council did not ask for money 25 years ago. We did not go to the Government and ask for a larger grant. We organised an exhibition when Heath was the Prime Minister. We pointed out in that London exhibition that all Liverpool was asking for was a redistribution of the resources on an equitable and just basis.
That is all. If the Government—and I am not referring to a Tory Government, because I had this argument with a Labour Government—will realise that something has to he done about the maldistribution of resources in this country and will direct some of the resources to Merseyside and other places, then we shall be on the road to recovery. If only they would say now to the people of Liverpool, "We are not just going to tell you arrogantly that you must abide by the law. We are prepared to enter into a dialogue and are prepared to talk about the problems. We are even prepared to talk once again about restoring to Merseyside 3,500 Civil Service jobs". Those jobs were snatched away by this Government in

127
an instant in the same way that they decided to abolish county councils, because some foolish politician made a pledge to destroy the rating system and had to substitute something else. The Government snatched 3,500 Civil Service jobs away from Merseyside within the first few short months of entering government. What a difference it would have made to Liverpool if those 1500 Civil Service jobs were now sited on the Albert Docks.
In the late 1960s we had a not in Liverpool. Everybody has forgotten that. Remember the Brixton riots? Remember the Toxteth riots? But everyone forgets the riots in 1964. I have not done so because I was the leader of the council. At that time I was saying to central government, "Unless you realise the fundamental problems of Merseyside, this will happen again". It happened again, but this time there is a new approach. I am not disguising the fact that I welcome the Merseyside Development Corporation to Merseyside, and I am boasting about the fact that I was the first person to propose a Merseyside Development Corporation to central government—albeit a Labour Government, and they did not take it up.
I am not disputing the necessity for that liaison between Merseyside and central government. What did we get this time? Fundamentally, we got a rose garden. It is going to be a fine thing and I hope that everyone goes to the exhibition next week or the week after. I hope that the International Garden Festival will be a success but I hope that the Government do not allow it to cover up what is still the fundamental problem of Merseyside; you cannot bury that under a bunch of roses.
When it gets worse, as it will, the problem will arise again. There is talk about people who are incited to riot, but there is no such thing. After all, a young person living within the inner area of Liverpool knows that eight out of 10 young people have no job and practically 10 out of 10 have no prospects of a decent life. The Government cannot forever imagine that these people will go on being content with their lot in life. Of course they will not be content. Of course the problems will arise again and again and again.
Are we asking for much? In the period of real trouble in the last decade, one should have looked at the city of London. There is a Home Office occupied by civil servants. If one walks down Victoria Street, one sees a new building on the left side occupied by the Department of Industry. Of all things, the Department of Employment occupies another massive building in Tothill Street. What are they doing there? There is no necessity for them to be there. In these days of modern communications it would be much easier and cheaper to have them sited in Liverpool. Movement between one office and another office in London is already too expensive.
Let me give an example. When I was Chairman of the North-West Economic Planning Council, central government and the region issued leaflets. We had ours out in two days to all the customers. It took the Government seven days because it takes them that long to get through the welter of offices there are down here. If they had given us the job we could have done it quicker. What would be the consequence of moving
128
that amount of work out of London for the private sector? We have never disguised the fact that we did not want branches in Merseyside because one of the major problems is that the parent companies snatch them back in times of trouble, as they did with British Leyland. We did not want that. If that Government activity were to be moved from London to Merseyside the consequences to the private sector in London would be very great indeed. The problem here is: how do you reconcile the demands of the people of London for better and cheaper housing and a better environment with the almost insatiable demand to build office after office after office?
Mr Heseltine, the Minister of State for the Environment as he then was, was talking about an international festival in Liverpool at the same time as he was granting planning permission for offices in London which would only add to the number of offices already here that the people of London did not want, with all the consequences to the traffic, and so on.
I said I should not apologise if I spoke for some time. I do not often keep this House up. I do not often speak in the place, partly because I almost sense that if you come from north of the Wash it is no use opening your mouth. I thought that tonight I would have another try at convincing people down here that there is a life north of Watford Gap; that it is worth living; that people there do not have horns; that they are not all wicked and not all militants. Just a few of them have been granted the opportunity to take power in a good democratic movement. They have been granted their opportunity not by wicked people but by good men who decided to do something about a fundamental problem that affects not only Merseyside but the whole of the nation.
For God's sake, if not for the people of Liverpool, will somebody down here—particularly, if I may address these Benches—stop the petty squabbling and seeking to gain capital for political parties, which are not important? That is all they ever did in Liverpool and all they ever do down here. Will they concentrate and join with me? Will the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, join me in leading a deputation once again to central government to persuade them that in Liverpool we have some valuable people and that the vast majority of Liverpudlians—quite apart from their football skill—are good people who are worth fighting for? For God's sake, stop this mischief-making and get down to finding a real solution to the problems in Merseyside.
10.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, as another who lives north of the Wash, may I first of all say that I am sorry that this subject has had to be raised at all? Whether this is an appropriate time and in an appropriate form is for your Lordships to decide. For myself, I am saddened that we should even be considering a situation of this kind.
Let me say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, with whom I have discussed, and do from time to time discuss, the situation in Liverpool, that whatever I may say I am not without some knowledge of the problems. I shall not use the word "sympathy"

129
as that would sound much too patronising and I do not intend to be that. I frequently go to Liverpool, probably more than anyone in your Lordships' House who does not live there, and I am aware of the problems possibly much better than most as well.
There is a Question on the Order Paper which has to be answered. I intend to say nothing at all to exacerbate what I know is a sensitive situation. At the same time I think it is only right that I should at least put the record straight on a few facts and statistics. That will do no harm at all to the situation.
Your Lordships may not be familiar with the city council Labour group's line of argument. In fairness, I should like to say exactly what it is. The group claims that the Government have turned their back on the problems of Liverpool and withdrawn grant indiscriminately. It claims a mandate from the May 1983 local elections to reduce rents, create jobs, as it says, and increase expenditure. It claims that the budget for 1983–84 which it inherited from the Liberals was impossible to balance. It concludes that the city must receive £30 million in extra grant from the Government—though it does not mention the tree on which this cash is growing. It says that the alternative is to face either a 200 per cent. rate increase or job losses of 5,000. It says that it will accept neither of these alternatives and is left—and I put it that way deliberately—only with the option of rating illegally in 1984–85. That is not what I say; it is what the Labour group says. I hope that noble Lords will agree that I am presenting the position fairly.
I have to confess that the logic of this escapes me, but I imagine that the Labour councillors believe that if they repeat their story often enough somebody will believe it. Let us look at it closely. I say again that I have no intention at all of exacerbating the situation. I think that it is right that I should take your Lordships through those arguments point by point and let the facts speak for themselves.
In his very impassioned and I thought in many ways very splendid speech, the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, said that we should direct some of the resources to Liverpool. Speaking for the Government, I am entitled to say, first, that they most definitely have not turned their back on Liverpool. The evidence of our very considerable efforts to ease the social and economic problems of the city is there for all to see. The situation involves more than money, and I shall come back to that. But money is not without relevance.
The fact is that over the past three years, from 1981–82 to 1983–84, capital expenditure on Merseyside—I accept that that is a greater area than just Liverpool—under the Department of the Environment's main programme has reached £650 million. This includes about £140 million specifically for Liverpool through the urban programme and the Merseyside Development Corporation. The Department of Trade and Industry have given an average £110 million a year in the last three years to companies within the Merseyside special development area. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has received a total of £134 million in financial assistance and the Manpower Services Commission is expected to spend £90 million in Merseyside this financial year.
130
On top of all this, Merseyside is the only area of the country which has a special departmental task force assigned to it.
Secondly, Liverpool has not been singled out for specially tough treatment under the rate support grant system. Distribution of grant is made on principles which apply to all authorities. For 1984–85, Liverpool's expenditure target implies a relatively small reduction in spending. Other authorities face a much higher reduction.
Thirdly, while the Liverpool Labour group gained an overall majority of three at the 1983 local elections, no council can claim a mandate to spend money which it just does not have. I am sure that the Labour group cannot be seriously suggesting that it has a mandate to undermine the finances and services of the city of Liverpool. Fourthly, the group may or may not have inherited a tight budget which required savings to balance the books. I make no comment as to that. But they were elected to take such decisions, that is the point: you have to take decisions. If you want the responsibility and control, then you have got to make the decisions. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, knows or not, but the fact is that during 1983–84 they have done nothing to help themselves. They have not only failed to find any savings but they admit to having increased expenditure, and over £1 million pounds, £16 per council tenant, went as a decoration allowance, a veiled method of reducing rents. Finally, on this, the group certainly does not need to increase its rates by 200 per cent. or make 5,000 people redundant to balance its books in 1984–85. We invited the deputation that came, to send in the detailed particulars of exactly how they came by this figure. We are two weeks on, and so far it has not arrived. I live in hopes that it will.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, made the point—and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, must acknowledge this—that the one thing which has not been mentioned by them at all, but which to me is the crux of so many of the problems in local government, is that they have a total unwillingness—one might almost say a pathological determination—to seek in any way to provide the services, not at a lower level but at a lower cost. Not one single suggestion did they ever make about, "Maybe we could do this better. Maybe we could provide the service in another way." There is no dialogue of any kind on that. If a local authority, coming and claiming that it needs help and assistance, is not willing, itself, to contemplate ways of doing things better, I know the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, would not justify that at all, nor would anyone else who is seriously talking about this, as a problem that needs to be resolved, to help make people's lives better without having, if you like, to add on the extra costs of what rate increases mean.
I do not want, as I say, to utter things that it is very tempting to say; this is not the time nor the occasion to do it. I read things that are said by Councillor Hatton, about going bankrupt, and all the rest of it. I prefer not to go into that at all. They may or they may not. If they do, then clearly the Government have to look at situations as they then arise but to anticipate is not for us. I feel this is not the way at all. I think this also should go on the record and I take this opportunity tonight, I think it is fair for someone to tell

131
the people in Liverpool to realise just what the consequences will be. The fact is that what should be said, however: is that it is not a question of saving 5,000 jobs or making them redundant. The fact is that in the event that these things take place, dreadful things will happen to Liverpool and those who feel for the city, as has been said earlier on, must feel as I do; that it is almost beyond contemplation, not least for the work force itself, the people who are working within the authority. This is no way. If you need it, you do what the noble Lord. Lord Sefton, says; you sit down and have a dialogue about ways and means. He expressed some interesting thoughts which I have heard from him before, so they are not new to me. I do not know whether they are starters or not; maybe they are not, but certainly one can talk and that is what I would respectfully suggest has to be done.
There is great concern about what is happening to Liverpool itself. I happen to believe that the only answer lies not in just what the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, said though that may well be a factor. If you do not find a way to bring into the city on a permanent basis the people who will provide the jobs, the private sector, which is the only way—if you look at the public sector there is a contribution, of course, and maybe the one that the noble Lord says—and if you do not have the confidence of the people who will come in, where will the jobs come from? It is true there has been this whole change in the emphasis of what was and what will be Liverpool; but if you do not recognise that fact, then we are living in a nonsensical pipe dream. Here we have to say—and I am not, if you like, clobbering the people there—although I was at the meeting when my right honourable friend was there, I was the only other Minister present, but I am not going to say anything about that tonight.
What worries me much more is what the council do to the confidence of people they want to attract to the city; or do they want to attract them there? Do they really want to attract them? I ask that because, if one wants to attract private industry, one does not close down the development agency, which is there solely to attract the private sector. One does not talk about being bankrupt. My goodness me, the last thing one says when trying to attract people who will provide support is that one might be bankrupt. One does not do that. One tells them how good one is and what great prospects there can be. That is what one does. But that is not what these people do, and that must be a cause for concern to the noble Lord, to whom I am addressing so many of my remarks, since I felt that his speech was very much on the subject and to the point.
I do not want to speak for much longer, and if the noble Lord. Lord Harris, will bear with me, I shall conclude in the following way. The noble Lord asked me some specific questions. He wanted to know what would be the Government's action in certain circumstances. The Question on the Order Paper refers to "any other local authority". First of all, I know of no other authority that is talking of such action. Secondly, I repeat that it is not for the Government to say how they would react to a hypothetical situation. It is the city council which has to make the decisions. It has to take the responsibility. It is its duty to raise a sufficient amount of revenue to
132
meet its budget. I maintain that it has scope to produce a lawful budget and rate. However, I am not going to rise to the bait and I ask the noble Lord not to feel that this is in any way a shortcoming. I hope, and I believe, that he has tabled the Question because he, too, is concerned about what will happen in the future. He is concerned about the implications. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, and other noble Lords, spoke about Liverpool specifically, while the noble Lord Lord Harris, spoke about the implications of the issue: that was his concern.
I have given the Government' response. We do not want to enter into a discussion on a situation which we hope we shall not reach. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, I have confidence that in Liverpool there are enough people who are not so extreme as to want to see these dreadful things happen, and who are concerned about the future of their city. If we do not have overnight solutions to the problem—if they were there, they would have been used long ago—let us at least talk constructively about how we might develop the various arms that are now spread out there to help. I think that that is the way to go about it and I feel that that must be the only response that the Government can make tonight to this Question.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.