Lords Sitting of 10 December 1985

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

Autumn Statement: Housing Prospects
Lord Dean of 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 what effect the Chancellor's Autumn Statement will have on public sector buildings and the building industry.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the annual review of spending provided the opportunity to reconsider priorities and the Statement allowed for additional finance in several areas of capital spending, especially housing renovation and roads. The wider economic policies will benefit the industry through encouraging business investment and private expenditure on housing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. However, is not the noble Lord aware that the people in the building industry who are involved at the sharp end, the people who are at the receiving end of the Chancellor's Statement, would contradict the Statement? They say that the capital building programme on housing has been cut by £185 million. They are using terms like, "We've been the victim of a confidence trick". Does the noble Lord know to whom they are referring? Would they be referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have not the least idea to whom they were referring, or indeed why. The industry has enjoyed 10 per cent. real growth since 1981. It stands to benefit with the rest of the economy from long-term success of the Government's policies. I should point out that we have made provision this year for an extra £220 million for housing, and for next year £200 million.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is it not the case that the constraints on their maintenance budgets are obliging health and local education authorities to adopt policies for maintaining hospitals and school buildings which are so inadequate that in the long run they will not be cost-effective?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I do not have the figures for education in front of me. However, I can tell the noble Lord that increased capital provisions from £750 million in 1985–86 to £765 million in 1986–87 have been made for hospitals and community health services. Of course, they are also allowed to spend such money as they receive from the sale of surplus property.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that throughout the country many educational buildings are not being repaired and that items which should be classed as repair items are now becoming capital items? Is he aware that one specific difficulty as regards the polytechnics—many of which are now bigger than many universities—is that the capital programme has to come out of the sponsoring local authority's capital programme? That system is completely outdated. Many polytechnics are literally falling to bits because they are unable to do their repairs.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I explained to the House yesterday, provision for pupils has never been higher in the education service generally, and if local education authorities study the recent report of the Audit Commission they will find that that report shows them exactly how they can make savings in order to carry out the type of programmes for which the noble Lord is asking.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that, even when one applies the figures which he has given to the building industry and considers the problem as highlighted in a succession of reports culminating in the latest one by the committee of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, they are only very faintly scratching the surface? I urge the noble Lord to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment to release some of the vast sums of money which they are holding and which really belong to the local authorities in respect of the sales of their capital assets.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no one believes that the problem identified by the report of the most reverend Primate happened overnight; nor that we can tackle it overnight. I point out that we are making £2·75 billion in all available in 1986–87 for housing.

Married Women Abroad: Pension Entitlement
2.42 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken, and when, to inform British retirement pensioners now living in Canada of any benefits to which some pensioners may be entitled following the abolition of the married women's "half-test."
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, British embassies, high commissions and consulates-general were informed of the abolition of the "half test" by the Central Office of Information during the period 21st October to 31st October this year. They were asked to make the information available to British expatriate retired women by whatever means they thought best. Additionally the information was carried in a number of women's magazines and a daily and Sunday

105
newspaper in the United Kingdom, copies of which are distributed abroad, including Canada. Most importantly, the Department of Health and Social Security has sent out over 600 invitations to claim to married women living abroad who were identified as a result of a check of computer records within the department.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. I can confirm that the British Consulate in Toronto received information in October this year. However, the deadline for claimants to apply for the pension was fixed at 22nd December this year, which is only a couple of weeks away. Everybody else received 12 months' notice of application for claim. Is the noble Baroness the Minister in a position to give the House an assurance that the period of claim will be extended to British pensioners in Canada so that they will have the 12 months' grace as well, and that any claim will be made retrospective to the original date of the award?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not in a position to give the noble Lord that assurance. The information available to women living abroad is exactly the same as that which has been available to women in this country. The department has been identifying from its records those people who are eligible to claim. In the event that they have changes of address, or changes of name, this has proved difficult, but the publicity campaign has been conducted in this country at the same time as the publicity campaign overseas.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what reports have been received from other countries, such as the United States, New Zealand and Australia, about the effectiveness of this information? In particular will she try to raise with her right honourable friend the possibility of extending this deadline? Although we appreciate the noble Baroness saying that the publicity campaign was equivalent to that in this country, it might have taken a little longer to have got to some of the Commonwealth countries.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly pass on the noble Baroness's concern to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, but in fact every effort has been made, most importantly through the department's own records, but also in every way. Canada is a country where the pensioners' association is particularly active and where writers of newspaper articles and the association itself have done their utmost to disseminate information. I do not have reports from the other countries to which the noble Baroness refers, but I feel sure that the equivalent associations there have been equally active.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to look at the four final words in my noble friend's Question? Those words are, "the married women's 'half-test'". What is a married woman's "half-test"?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the question is complicated and therefore I must be as careful as
106
possible about the answer. The married women's "half-test" was an additional contribution condition for married women which provided that a married woman not only had to have satisfied the normal conditions for award of a pension, but also had to have paid full-rate contributions in at least half the full contribution years between the date of her marriage and the date of her retirement. It did not apply to women marrying after 57 (and that age limit was reduced in 1975 to 55), but it was still possible for a woman who married late in life and was not aware of the condition to lose the benefit of many years' contributions. For this reason it was widely thought unfair, and was abolished from April 1979. However, the consequences of the test still applied to the pensions of women who reached 60 before then, and that is what this year's Act was about.

Part-Time Firemen
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken to increase the recruitment of part-time firemen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, part-time firemen form an important part of our fire-fighting force. In order to build up their numbers we launched in September new publicity literature about the part-time service to help fire authorities in local recruitment.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him how successful this campaign has been? Are both sexes allowed to apply? Are employers being helpful, because would my noble friend confirm that part-time firemen are in fact on call 24 hours a day for 365 days in the year?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think we shall have to await the results of the exercise first, and when the Chief Inspector's report is published we should be able to give figures on how successful it has been by the spring of next year. I can assure my noble friend that both men and women are eligible, though obviously they have to match up to the necessary requirements of strength and that sort of thing. The whole idea is to encourage employers to let their people take part. My noble friend is quite right when she points out that the availability of part-timers is far greater than that of the whole-time men.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister the shortfall of man/woman power in the fire service?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend is asking about part-timers or full-timers. I can tell her that the part-time firemen make up about one third, 16,144 as against 34,516 full-time

107
fire fighters, and it would be impossible to give a breakdown of the actual shortage because it depends so much on the individual authorities and their own particular needs.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I appreciate the importance of part-time firemen in many areas, but could the Minister say whether the increase in part-time firemen in some areas is due to the financial stringency of some of the fire authorities? Have any representations been made by fire authorities on the difficulty of keeping up their strength of fire cover? Have representations been made by the Fire Brigades Union on the same matter?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the rural areas do not necessarily require the same level of attendance as would be warranted by attendance of full-time firemen. Certainly representations are made on a variety of issues and are fully taken account of.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I asked that question because I was a member of the National Fire Service, and I am rather concerned that we should not have an increase in part-time firemen in areas where there ought to be an adequate full-time strength.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have to maintain a cost-effective fire service and there is no suggestion that part-time firemen are any less efficient than full-timers. The fact is that in rural areas there is no need to have full-time people employed for the length of period for which they are normally used. We have to bear in mind the needs of the service as a whole. I assure the noble Lord that there is no need for him to worry on safety on this score.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it would be a mistake to underestimate the need for part-time firemen in the rural areas, especially in summer time? Is he aware that fires occur throughout the rural areas of Great Britain in summer time and that the need for firemen at short notice is apparent to all who live in the rural areas?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, but the part-timers are able to respond within the four minutes that are required of full-timers.
Lord Somers: My Lords, are there any provisions for making sure that fires do not break out when part-timers are not on duty?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, should a fire break out, then the part-timers will cope with it adequately.

Nobel Peace Prize to IPPNW
2.52 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will join in recognising the achievement of the
108
IPPNW (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) which is today receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for its work in improving international understanding.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we strongly support all honest attempts to secure greater understanding on disarmament issues between East and West. The achievement of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, however, has been markedly one-sided, as the group has lent uncritical support to Soviet propaganda themes. The group is not in our judgment a genuine bridge-building organisation.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which was, I must say, predictable and rather disappointing. Is she aware that many of the members of this organisation, the IPPNW, are critical of the human rights record of the Soviet Union? Is she not aware, nevertheless, that this does not stop them supporting the main aims of this organisation, which is single-targeted upon the prevention of nuclear weapon build-up? Is she aware that the 135,000 members of this organisation, as health professionals who are responsible for the care of individuals and communities, feel that they should act on that first dictum of health care, namely, that prevention is better than cure, especially when there is no cure for the effects of nuclear war?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary, as I have already indicated we support all organisations which are honestly attempting to promote greater understanding between East and West. But in the case of this particular organisation it is significant that the World Peace Council has given prominent support to the IPPNW in its currrent programme of action. I also understand that the programme of the World Peace Council's sub-committee for scientists and doctors urges its members to co-operate with the IPPNW, and that organisation receives considerable publicity in World Peace Council publications.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister indicate whether, in direct contrast to the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord. Lord Rea, the Government are considering following the example of Chancellor Kohl in condemning Dr. Chazov's deplorable record in the persecution of Dr. Sakharov?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lady Cox, I confirm that a message was sent to the chairman of the Nobel Peace Committee in Oslo on behalf of the Conservative Party on the 6th December in terms similar to those sent by Chancellor Kohl.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is it not time that Her Majesty's Government dissociated themselves from the post-mortem pacifist activities of the inventor and promoter of dynamite?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that would be a noble gesture!
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, as a peace prize winner we have been frequently hearing Bishop Tutu on the wireless. Does the noble Baroness recommend the observations of that splendid man Laurens van der Post? The Bishop's signature tune always seems to be a plea for more violence.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think the noble Lord's question is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that if any organisation is created which seeks to improve international understanding it will gain the support of the Government and possibly be awarded the Nobel prize? If she did, and if any Member of your Lordships' House seeks to improve international understanding, according to the way they look at it, is there any likelihood of that Member of your Lordships' House being awarded the Nobel prize?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood what I said. I repeated what I said in the first part of the Answer to the Question; namely, that we support honest attempts to secure greater understanding on disarmament issues. That does not mean that everybody who supports these organisations qualifies for a Nobel prize.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it is most unfortunate that there should be many worthy doctors in the world who are misled by the Soviet disinformation services, particularly observing what my noble friend Lady Cox pointed out in her question?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have already indicated the Government's view about this organisation. It would be very regrettable if people were to believe that this organisation was other than what it is. The IPPNW is not a Soviet front organisation of the traditional kind, but since the World Peace Council's world congress in 1980 new international peace groups for particular professions (in this case doctors) have emerged, in most of which the Soviet hand is apparent.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this particular organisation was initiated in the United States and was proposed by the American doctor to the Soviet doctor? Is she not aware that, since peace must necessarily involve talking to one's adversaries, an organisation of this sort is very valuable? Does she not agree with me that the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to it, which is what it was, was well deserved?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I accept the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. As far as the award of the prize is concerned, this must ultimately be a decision for the committee that determines who should receive the prize. I think it is a very serious matter that one of the founders of this organisation, Dr. Chazov, directs the fourth chief administration of
110
the Soviet health ministry, has special responsibility for the health of Soviet leaders, and to that extent probably has working links with the KGB.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, according to the latest information, at the ceremony this morning the two joint recipients of this award used the occasion once again to state, and state only, the Soviet point of view on current international proceedings—a point of view which is very well known and on which their assistance is not required? Does this not again suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is totally mistaken in his view about the organisation which he wishes us to congratulate?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not have in front of me the speeches of the recipients of the Nobel prize. But I agree with the second observation that my noble friend has made.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this Professor Chazov has been a deputy Health Minister in the Soviet Union for 17 years and is a member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party? Is she aware that as such he shares direct responsibility for the war in Afghanistan and for the enormous build-up of Soviet superiority in nuclear weapons? Is that not a rather strange contribution to the peace of the world?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have already indicated in answering an earlier question, Dr. Chazov directs the fourth chief administration of the Soviet health ministry, and therefore is in a central and senior position within the Soviet Union. To that extent he must bear responsibility for Soviet Union policies. But of course the ultimate decision on who should receive the prize must be a decision for the Nobel prize committee.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the Nobel Peace Prize committee is not a highly reputable organisation? Are not some of the supplementaries that have arisen out of this Question to some extent implied criticisms of the decision of that body? Should we not be a little more careful than to turn the Question into a kind of unsubstantiated witch-hunt?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think that anything that has been said in the course of this exchange this afternoon has been intended to be a criticism of the Nobel prize committee. Their record is clear enough. However, I think one must make it quite clear that their members on this particular occasion may not have adequately considered all the factors involved before making their award and in making it they have therefore called into question their impartiality on a matter of this kind.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, but do they ever consider any other side?
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Baroness know of the remark attributed to Andrei Sakharov himself which is that when any rational being finds himself on

111
the edge of a precipice, on the brink of disaster, he first makes moves to distance himself from that brink and afterwards looks to the satisfaction of other needs? I think those other needs are human rights. Will the noble Baroness not agree that it is first important to get rid of this danger of total disaster, and then the human rights situation will see to itself?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am not quite clear that I understand the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. All I know is that people in this country and in many countries of the West have on many occasions called for the release of Dr. Sakharov and expressed their concern about his fate in the Soviet Union.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the noble Baroness the Minister confirm or deny the allegations which have been made about the conduct of this Nobel prize winner, particularly with regard to Dr. Sakharov? If they are true, surely criticism of the Nobel prize committee is in order and should be made. Perhaps this does not happen on all occasions, but on this occasion it would appear that the committee have awarded the prize, if it is true, to somebody who cannot possibly be worthy of it and I think the Government should not be ashamed to say so.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that in what I have said I have made it quite clear that these two particular recipients would not be our choice for this prize.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Elwyn-Jones to be taken after the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor on Thursday 12th December.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships will be aware that one of the functions of the two Law Commissions—that is, respectively, the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Law Commission for Scotland—is to promote,
"the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments, the reduction of the number of separate enactments and generally the simplification and modernisation of the law".
There have been a number of reports which they have presented to Parliament from time to time with these ends in view. This Bill arises out of the 12th such report of the series. The 11 previous reports resulted in the repeal of 2,300 enactments, including 1,086 whole
112
Acts. The present Bill proposes the repeal of 135 whole Acts or measures and the removal of redundant provisions from 240 others.
The Bill deals with a particular aspect of the work of modernising and improving the statute book, the other aspects being of course consolidation and substantive reform. I do not need to stress the importance which I attach to the task of bringing our statute law up to date. It is work that needs to be regularly done, and substantial progress has been made in recent years to reduce the backlog that had previously built up.
Your Lordships will see that in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Bill several provisions of the recently enacted County Courts Act 1984 are now proposed for repeal. That Act was a reconsolidation of Acts going back to 1846 and more recent research has shown that Section 141, which relates to the abolition of an old privilege as to venue, should have been repealed as long ago as 1888. That example—which is only one of many in the Bill—neatly illustrates the kind of problem that is apt to arise in consolidation and the need to identify and remove provisions that are obsolete or have served their purpose. The process of identifying redundant law often involves a considerable amount of research and attention to detail, and it is work that has to be done if we are to get the statute book right.
Your Lordships will recall that during the last Session two important consolidations of the law relating to companies and housing were passed. Because the necessary research and consultation had been done in time, it was found possible in both cases to remove a good deal of redundant material with a view to achieving a satisfactory consolidation of the current law. It is often more convenient to undertake the repeals in advance of the consolidation process, particularly in the case of legislation going some way back in time. In the present Bill there are, for instance, proposals relating to the Representation of the People Act 1948. These will pave the way for a satisfactory and simple consolidation of the law relating to parliamentary constituencies. There are also detailed proposals which would facilitate future consolidations of the law relating to Government stock, which was last consolidated in 1870, and that governing the administration of the Metropolitan Police Force—which has never been consolidated.
If this Bill is given a second reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining this obviously valuable piece of what is rather more than consolidation legislation, as the noble and learned Lord has said. The progress in this field has really been admirable, and of course the House has had its own part in it. It is highly desirable that the dross that still surrounds some of our laws should be removed and the size of the statute book should diminish. It is only regrettable that the volume of legislation sometimes catches up with the size of the statute book. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will bear in mind his earlier observation to that effect,

113
which he made before he occupied his present place and which perhaps is not honoured in the observance so fully as even he would have liked.
At any rate, regarding the immediate measure of consolidation and repeal, we naturally welcome it. I reflect with pleasure upon the fact that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner had such a part in it. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say that he is still well and I am sure he would have liked to have been here today.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may very briefly join in that welcome. This is a very important piece of pruning which improves the statute book and shortens it. My noble and learned friend and those who, within his responsibility, do this work deserve congratulations upon it.
I should like to make just two points. If my noble and learned friend is able to tell us by how many hundred, or possibly thousand, pages the statute book will be shortened by this work, it will be very interesting to have one's curiosity satisfied. The other point that I want to mention is with regard to the transitional provisions. We find increasingly and necessarily in fairly recent statutes over the years that the number of transitional provisions seems to grow; and of course they are necessarily, in the nature of things, of limited duration. I am wondering if my noble and learned friend can tell us to what extent there is now a conscious effort to cut out these transitional provisions as soon as they are spent.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and to my noble friend Lord Renton, who have welcomed this Bill. I fully acknowledge that my work of resisting all legislation, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred, is carried on now within the Government rather than from the Front Opposition Bench. So long as that is true, I cannot satisfy any curiosity on his part as to how far I have gone in that respect. But I do not think that I have changed my general views about the size of the statute book.
I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord very much for what he has said about the two law commissions, and I am happy to renew a tribute that I have often paid in the past to the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who was responsible for the institution of these two bodies.
That leads me rather to my noble friend Lord Renton. I am afraid that I cannot give him statistical information about pages. Unfortunately, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has pointed out and as I pointed out when I was sitting about where he is, although the number of statutes has been reduced considerably if one takes it statute by statute, the pages tend to catch up because we are passing, I am sorry to say, something like 3,000 pages of primary legislation a year in our worst years. This does not assist to the business of making the statute book a shorter thing in numbers of pages.
I do not think that without consideration I ought to answer my noble friend's question about transitional provisions. Statutes often require such provisions.
114
Obviously we deal with them as best we can by providing suitable commencement dates, and of course transitional provisions would not be introduced if they were not necessary from time to time. If my noble friend wants any further information on that point, I think that we had better communicate in some other forum. I am very grateful to both noble Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1985
3.13 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham)The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th November be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this order be now approved. The order requires parliamentary approval because one part of it—that covering labour-only subcontracting—involves a levy exceeding 1 per cent. of emoluments. Noble Lords will be aware of the importance of the construction industry, and there is a continuing need for the workforce to possess high-quality skills. It is important to ensure that all firms play their part in training, so that we are not hampered by skill shortages as in the past. That is why it is essential that this order should be approved so that money is available to the Construction Industry Training Board to enable necessary training within the industry.
The levy proposals are largely unchanged from those approved by both Houses last year, and are expected to raise about £47 million. The levy is made up of three parts. First, an occupational levy will apply to the main part of the industry. A set amount will be raised for each occupation, but this is subject to an overall limit of 1 per cent. of employers' wage bills. The rates vary according to the type of craftsman trained and reflect the training costs of each craft. Noble Lords will be pleased to learn that, with four exceptions, these rates are unchanged from last year.
Secondly, a levy of 2 per cent. will apply to payments made by firms which employ labour-only subcontractors and which often do not contribute to craft training. This measure has wide support in the industry. For the sectors covered by these two measures, companies with payrolls of £15,000 or less will not be required to pay levy, and this will exclude around 40 per cent. of all construction firms coming within the board's scope. Thirdly, for the smaller brick sector, a levy of 0.07 per cent. will apply—a reduction from last year. All brick manufacturers with a payroll of £100,000 or less will not be required to pay levy.
Noble Lords will know that the board has been retained as a statutory body because of strong support from employer organisations in the industry. Over the past year the board has seen a number of changes. A new chairman, Mr. Derek Gaulter, has been appointed. The entire board was reconstituted in July and the Government welcome the extra representation given at that time to the Federation of Master Builders,

115
an organisation which has an important role in contributing to the board's efforts in training. The board has done good work in the training field, and I wish to pay particular tribute to its youth training scheme, which has helped to give so many young people a sound start in skills training and employment in the industry. We are pleased that the board plans to play an equally important role in the expanded scheme due to begin next year. I am sure that Mr. Gaulter, his staff and all board members, will continue to justify the industry's support by building on these past successes.
Noble Lords will of course remember that at the time of last year's order the Federation of Master Builders expressed concern about the proposed method of calculating levy. At the same time, other employer organisations spoke equally strongly in favour of retention of the current system. Nevertheless, some noble Lords expressed concern that the federation's arguments should be given a fair hearing. I am sure all noble Lords will be pleased to learn that the board has set up a working party, which includes the federation and which has met several times. The Group is still considering the very important and complex issues raised but hopes to make recommendations to the board in April next year. I hope noble Lords will agree that this represents the sensible way to resolve this matter which, we have alway said, is for the industry to agree.
The proposals currently before Parliament are supported by the majority of employer organisations, including the Federation of Master Builders. I believe that the proposals therefore have the necessary level of consensus under the 1982 Industrial Training Act. I therefore recommend this order to your Lordships. The proposals have been adopted by the board without opposition. They have support from the majority of employer organisations in the industry, and have been approved by the Manpower Services Commission. I believe that they are necessary for the board to continue its vital work to sustain and enhance training in its industry, and to play a significant part in the Government's training initiatives. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th November be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, for explaining the order so succinctly. I have to say that the Labour Party has no reason to oppose this order. Indeed, we welcome it since it continues in operation an industrial training board which, as the noble Lord has said, is essential to the continued training of good craftsmen in the building and construction industry.
The Labour Party is committed to good training in industry and elsewhere and, as the noble Lord knows, we regret the destruction by the present Government of so many industrial training boards. I have to say that when the Labour Party is returned to office we may very well seek to restore those industrial training boards which have been abolished since 1979 by the present Government. It is true that what is needed is better training and more of it. It needs to be properly structured to take account of changing needs and
116
technology and to provide the skills in the quantity needed to keep British industry in the forefront of technological development in order that we can meet the growing challenge of our foreign competititors, not only in overseas markets but in our own market as well.
The scrapping of 16 training boards by the Government has hardly been conducive to providing these skills. That is borne out by the fact that there are many complaints from industry now that in the midst of mass unemployment there is a shortage of vital skills. I think that is altogether bad and, as I have just said, employers themselves are suffering from these skill shortages—many of them acute in some parts of the country. However, we must, I suppose, be thankful for small mercies, and, as I have already said, the Opposition welcomes this order.
Even so, I understand there have been some complaints, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, touched on this. There have been complaints, particularly from small builders, that the levy falls unduly harshly upon them. I sincerely hope that the working party which was mentioned will be able to deal with these complaints and ensure that there is satisfaction all round. If the noble Lord has any further comments to make, we from this side of the House would welcome them.
I should like to ask specifically whether the £15,000 annual payroll exemption limit is fair and reasonable. I do so because I am not quite clear just what the exemption means. Does the £15,000, for example, include the small builder's own salary or is it additional to any wages paid over and above his own remuneration? I hope the noble Lord will be able to clear up that matter for me. If it is one thing, it will not be too bad: if it is the other, then it will be unduly restrictive and will apply virtually only to the small builder and a mate. If the noble Lord can help on that point, I should be much obliged.
I should like to put one final question to the noble Lord. As regards apprenticeships in the building and construction industry, how will this order affect the recruitment of young people into apprenticeships, particularly at this time when the industry is going through a lean period, with 500,000 people unemployed? It has to be said that is due to government policies, especially in relation to the swingeing cuts they have made in the housing programme and the continuation of high interest rates.
As I said at the beginning, I thank the noble Lord for explaining the order and I hope he will be able to answer some of the questions I have raised.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Secretary of State for having explained this order to us. We too are firm believers in the importance of industrial training, but this afternoon I will confine my remarks to this particular order. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, came near to saying, I think, the main point of contention last year when an order similar to this was introduced was whether the levy for the Construction Industry Training Board should be on a per capita basis, as proposed by the training board, or changed to a payroll system, as advocated by the Federation of Master Builders.

117
These firms are affected adversely as small units, in the sense that if payments were levied on a payroll basis, which I believe is the case in all other training boards that remain in existence, it would result in savings to most members of the Federation of Master Builders while adding to the cost of many large firms in the Building Employers' Federation. In that situation last year I said that at first sight my sympathies lay with the smaller firms, because I suspected they would have less say than others in determining what was ultimately decided. However, I agree with other noble Lords that this problem is best left to the board itself to sort out rather than that people like ourselves, as politicians, should seek to do the job for them.
Since then, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said, a further seat on the Construction Industry Training Board has been allocated to the Federation of Master Builders and I believe also an additional place on its building committee. I think, too, that they may be represented on the working party to which the noble Lord referred, but perhaps he can confirm that. Under the present order, as I understand it, the levy is still to be assessed on a per capita basis but there are reasonable hopes that the working party's conclusion might be that a more generally acceptable method of assessing the levy for the future might soon be agreed and that it would be in operation in time for it to take effect when the 1986 order (if precedent is followed) eventually comes before us. In the hope and expectation of that happening, my noble friends and I are prepared to approve this order.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I think the Minister will be pleased and grateful for the reception this order has received from the House. He is entitled to be so. I certainly stand up and give a very warm welcome to the order. As the Minister will appreciate, we have had the benefit earlier of looking at the proceedings in another place. It was in another place, also, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, reminds us, that anxieties were expressed last year over certain aspects of the order.
I think the House should pay tribute to and acknowledge—I believe the Minister used the word "sensible"—what I would call the patient and understanding negotiations which have taken place over the last 12 months. Certainly it is quite clear that the Minister and his colleagues have listened to what my noble friend Lord Stoddart described 12 months ago as criticisms. "Criticisms" is not a dirty or inappropriate word to use, particularly when bodies like the Federation of Master Builders genuinely felt they had a grievance. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has said, with the establishment of the working party and, as the Minister has pointed out, with the additional membership of the board which has been given to the small builders, it is quite clear that patience will have its own reward. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was frank enough to anticipate the possible outcome of the working party negotiations. I am quite certain that if they turned out in that way they would be well received by the small builders.
I think the Minister ought to say a little word on the
118
point raised by my noble friend Lord Stoddart about the value of apprenticeships. It is clear that the Minister, and the Government indeed, recognise the crucial importance of a training board in this particular industry. Disasters can occur in the construction industry unless we have proper skills deployed to the best advantage: that is clear. There is no doubt from my experience and observation that the small and medium builders tend to be the ones who take on more apprentices and supply the industry with the kinds of people needed in order to make sure that the construction work that is called for is done to our satisfaction.
The Minister has responded very well and very fairly to the representations that have been made. The Federation of Master Builders quite clearly approves the continuation of the order. It, of course, lives in hope. It believes in the basis. As the Minister pointed out, there are three elements at the moment, and it lives in hope that they may change in line with previous views. I think that the Minister and his team are well aware of the anxieties in that quarter and in others and, for my part, I congratulate him on adopting what he considers a sensible approach to these matters. I look forward very much to finding out that progress has been made, and the order certainly has my support.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for his general support of this order. The noble Lord is a far-sighted man and looks forward to some day when there may be a return of another Government. I fear that I cannot look that far in the distance. But I recollect that, at the time when we looked at the industrial training boards, many were found somewhat wanting and the Government acted accordingly. The important point is that in those areas where training is required, we provide the training. I am happy to give the noble Lord opposite the assurance that the £15,000 payroll limit does not include the employer himself, and therefore the very small builder is excluded from this.
May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and perhaps at the same time the noble Lord, Lord Graham, about apprenticeships. I merely point out that under the youth training scheme the Government paid some £35,800,000 in 1984–85 towards the board's scheme and some 14,000 young people went through that scheme, of which over 90 per cent. have gone into employment, including apprenticeships. Although the number of apprentices has, it is true, declined since 1979–80, by about one-third, if you put the youth training scheme together with apprenticeships I think you will find that many more young people are going into the industry with some form of training, if not the fuller form of apprenticeship, than before.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for his support and I confirm to him that the Federation of Master Builders is part of the joint working party. I think it is wise to wait for the outcome, which will be in April, and I look forward with considerable interest to that. I hope that your Lordships' House will not be disappointed, because I for one greatly appreciated the approval by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, of our

119
actions. It is not always that noble Lords opposite approve of our actions, and therefore I shall endeavour not only to listen and exercise patience but perhaps even to secure their commendation on a future occasion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Atomic Energy Authority Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): 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 Gray of Contin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Commencing capital debt]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("debt") and insert ("liability").
The noble Lord said: I think it will be convenient if, with this amendment, we take Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12.
Amendment No. 2. Page 1, line 8, leave out ("debt").
Amendment No. 4: Page 1, line 12, leave out ("debt").
Amendment No. 5: Page 1, line 12, after ("Authority") insert ("shall consist of public dividend capital and").
Amendment No. 6: Page 1, line 14, leave out ("the amount of that debt") and insert ("that amount").
Amendment No. 7: Clause 2, page 1, line 17, after ("borrow") insert ("or receive as public dividend capital").
Amendment No. 8: Clause 3, page 2, line 29, leave out ("debt") and insert ("and subsequent issues of public dividend capital").
Amendment No. 12: Clause 4, page 3, line 37, at end insert ("and issue as public dividend capital any amount which they have power to receive.

(1A) The Authority shall pay a dividend on its public dividend capital to the Secretary of State not less than would have been payable should it have been treated as a loan under subsection (2) below.

(1B) The Secretary of State may set, after consulting the Authority, a financial target to be earned on net assets.

(1C) Section 4(2) of the Atomic Energy Act 1954 shall be repealed when this Act comes into force.").

In fact, I should have preferred that we take Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 as well, because that would have tied the whole thing together, since Nos. 13 and 15 are part of what I am seeking to do with this group of amendments.
I first take this opportunity, right at the beginning of our Committee stage, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for his extremely helpful letter of 3rd December, wherein he endeavoured to answer to our satisfaction many of the questions which were raised on Second Reading. That letter was extremely helpful and I thank him for the trouble that he took in dealing in detail with the points we raised.
The purpose of this group of amendments is to propose something rather different from that proposed by the Government. As noble Lords know, the Bill
120
provides for the Atomic Energy Authority to have a commencing capital debt which will be repayable. The objective of these amendments is to delete this requirement, but to provide instead an alternative framework which secures financial accountability.
There is widespread recognition that the financial structure of nationalised industries and Government trading funds is defective, and neglect of the problem has led to two other problems. First, the enterprise is required to repay the initial capital as well as servicing it. That is an obligation which is not placed upon private enterprise firms in respect of the initial equity investment. They are not required at any stage to repay that initial investment. They are required only—provided, of course, that they make profits—to pay a dividend to the shareholders. Secondly, some enterprises—and the electricity boards are now reaching this position—become debt free, having repaid all their initial capital back to the National Loans Fund. The result is that the formal financial relationship between the Exchequer and the enterprise is obscured and resort has then to be had to ad hoc devices. Indeed, over recent years we have seen several such ad hoc devices which in my view have led to imposing on the existing consumer increases in the prices of electricity and gas, in particular, and indeed water, that need not have been levied, but for the Government's desire to claw some money from the consumers in those industries.
Regarding problem one, there is a serious defect in the arrangements made under the Government's 1973 Act on trading funds. Because the UKAEA's employees are already outside the Civil Service, the Government are here using special purpose legislation to set up a trading fund outside the Civil Service. This is therefore an excellent opportunity to tackle an under-lying problem. Rather than the commencing capital debt being treated as a repayable loan from the National Loans Fund, it will be treated as a non-repayable public dividend capital issued from the National Loans Fund.
In the past, the Treasury has not had a clear idea of what it expected to achieve using public dividend capital. It ruled that it was only appropriate where an enterprise's business, such as British Airways and British Steel, suffered from cyclical fluctuations. Unfortunately, it began to be used as a form of soft finance, more like a non-repayable subsidy than an injection of equity, partly as a way of avoiding EC regulations on subsidy. In order to avoid such problems in future, this amendment to this Bill makes the stringent provision that the dividend return on public dividend capital will not be less than would have been payable had the finance taken the form of a loan. This provision protects the Exchequer interest while removing the nonsensical requirement that the initial injection of public funds is repayable. As I have already said, in private industry this does not apply, and to be fair to the public enterprises it ought not to apply in their case, either.
Associated with these changes it is necessary to repeal Section 4(2) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954, which gives the Treasury extraordinarily wide financial powers—powers which are no longer appropriate given the changes in financial arrangements made in the Bill. Section 4(2) at present reads:

121
"Any revenues of the Authority for any financial year, whether from Government departments or other persons and whether in respect of articles or property sold or services rendered or otherwise, shall be applied by the Authority in such manner as the Lord President of the Council may, with the approval of the Treasury, direct, and any such direction may require the whole or any part of those revenues to be paid into the Exchequer".
It is possible that the noble Lord opposite will argue that deletion is going too far. He may argue that there are technical reasons for maintaining some such clause. But it is self-evident that the present provision is cast ridiculously wide. The object of deleting it is to hinder Treasury raids on the authority.
As I have already remarked, the experience in some nationalised industries has not been very good. Indeed, the Notes on Clauses in relation to Clause 4 of the present Bill read as follows:
"This Clause provides that the Secretary of State can set the terms of any loans he makes to the AEA including the commencing capital debt. It also permits him to change them during the period of the loan subject to consultation with the AEA—for which see Clause 4(3)".
The Notes on Clauses go on to say:
"He is empowered to make changes to allow for the premature repayment of debt which might be appropriate if the authority were to be much more profitable than expected. The formula is also to be found in the Gas Act 1972 and the British Telecommunications Act 1981. It is not the intention to suddenly put the authority on notice to repay their outstanding debts instantly, which is why they have to be consulted before any change to the terms of the loan can be made".
The noble Lord also deals with this point in paragraph 3 of his kind letter to me of 3rd December. The noble Lord repeats, virtually, what is said in the Notes on Clauses.
As I have said, this is really what worries us. We have been particularly concerned that consumer prices in the gas and electricity industries have been forced up by imposing upon those industries what are known as negative EFLs. It is in fact a way of making the present generation pay unduly for the use that posterity will make of a particular undertaking.
3.45 p.m.
There must be a means of allowing the Secretary of State to set financial targets for the authority. Nobody would quarrel with that. The amendments therefore make explicit statutory provision for this. In summary, the objective of the amendments is to provide a more satisfactory and transparent financial relationship between the authority and the Exchequer and thereby to provide as strong guarantees as are practicable that its independence will be recognised and respected. It is perhaps a new departure for the Opposition in this Committee to raise the fundamental question of the financing of public industries but I certainly think it is worth discussing this method—a method which commends itself to people not only in the Labour Party but throughout the political spectrum. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will treat the amendment very seriously indeed. I shall welcome his remarks, naturally, and I shall await them with interest. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: This is an interesting series of amendments which at first blush might appear to be tautological but which are in actual fact very much
122
deeper. I ought to say at the outset that I am the happy recipient of a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, as a result of our Second Reading debate. The noble Lord made a number of points to me in reply which are not obviously available to your Lordships' Committee in the sense that they have not appeared in Hansard. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will not mind if I refer occasionally to his letter to me on subjects which I raised at Second Reading. In his letter to me of 3rd December, one of the important lines in answer to points which I raised at Second Reading is:
"The Government does not intend to use this method of financing the authority for a series of raids upon the authority's funds."
This is of course important, and is one of the points which worried myself and my colleagues. It seemed to us, in a way, to be one of the weaknesses of the Bill that there appeared to be an open-ended way of calling upon the Atomic Energy Authority for any payments that it might be felt were appropriate at any time, without let or hindrance.
It seems certainly to my noble friends on these Benches a much more businesslike way to set about financing the Atomic Energy Authority to have what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has described as "public dividend capital", rather than a starting debt. This, after all, is what any business has—an equity capital which it is not expected at any stage to repay but which represents its worth in the financial markets. This is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is trying to get us to come round to.
It will be most interesting to see what the noble Lord, Lord Gray, says to this suggestion. It is a much more acceptable way to turn the Atomic Energy Authority into a publicly accountable body than simply to say that it should start off with a debt made up of those bits of its plant and equipment which we think are worth capitalising and which it has eventually to repay out of future profits: not out of profits which were originally adumbrated when it first started, or, indeed, out of returns which it originally made while the plant and equipment was being amortised, but out of future profits from future contracts. It would be much more businesslike to set about it in this manner.
I, for one, look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, says to this in reply to the amendment and to seeing how he sets about allaying our fears, first, on the question of raids on the Atomic Energy Authority for funds, and, secondly, on a businesslike approach to the setting-up of the new trading basis.
Lord Ezra: I, too, should like to support the interesting series of amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Having had some experience of the financing of a public enterprise over some years, I believe that there are a number of anomalies which need to be ironed out in time. Here is an ideal opportunity to start on a workmanlike basis.
It seems to me wrong that the opening debt should be a fully repayable loan. After all, this represents the assets which the enterprise is taking over. I would have thought that the various provisions put forward by the

123
noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would give the Government every security they require. I remember that when I was trying to negotiate a part of the funding of the National Coal Board on a public dividend capital basis the main argument from the Treasury was that it would never receive a dividend. That is answered by the proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has put forward; namely, that there should be a dividend regularly paid which, as a minimum, would be equivalent to the interest payable on a loan.
However, what the noble Lord is proposing, which I fully support, is the spirit of the idea that this should be the first step in making the authority a commercial enterprise, which, as we understand it, is the Government's objective. In any new enterprise that is set up now the initial funding has to be on an equity basis. The shareholder has to share in the risk of the newly-started enterprise. Here is a way in which the Government can organise the funding of this enterprise in such a manner that they can be secure in getting a fair return—a minimum return equivalent to the interest otherwise payable—but at the same time introducing into the concept a commercial consideration that seems to be lacking in the Bill so far. I therefore hope, with my noble friend Lord Thurso, that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, when he replies, will give this proposal very serious consideration.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps I may first say how much I appreciate what the noble Viscount and the noble Lord have said about my efforts to amplify in my letters to them my comments when winding up the Second Reading debate on this Bill. I appreciate their remarks very much indeed.
I assure the noble Viscount and both noble Lords that we have taken this group of amendments very seriously and have looked carefully at what is intended in them. Noble Lords will not be all that surprised to hear that I cannot accept the amendments. In any event, I suspect that they are of a probing nature and that this occasion is being used so that we can explore the possibilities which the amendments might present. I shall try to explain as fairly as I can the reasons it is not possible for the Government to accept these proposals and why I believe that what is envisaged in the Bill is the best way to proceed.
First, the authority does not meet the Government's criteria for public dividend capital. Normally, public dividend capital is available only to those public sector bodies that are especially subject to cyclical fluctuations in their returns as a result of their trading conditions and the nature of their assets; for example, British Shipbuilders. That is not the case with the authority. By contrast, the Government have proposed a capital structure for the opening balance sheet of the trading fund which includes debt, reserves and provisions. We regard commencing debt of the order of about £80 million as an appropriate element in that structure within the context of the overall financial framework that I outlined on Second Reading.
The debt will amount to less than one-third of the likely opening capital employed. We consider that servicing a loan of that amount should not be an
124
unreasonable burden on the authority. In any case, equity is unnecessary. Section 4(2) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 would enable the Secretary of State to require the authority to make distributions in addition to interest payments, if that seemed appropriate, to ensure an adequate financial return to the Government.
It is also not clear from the amendments whether the noble Lord is proposing that the whole of the opening capital employed be made up of PDC. If so, that could mean a sum of around £250 million. To pay a dividend on that figure, which would be no less than the amount that would have been payable on a loan—and the noble Lord's amendment to Clause 4 would indicate that—would require the Atomic Energy Authority to make a financial return on assets of around 11 per cent. in order to break even. The trading fund would certainly not be viable on that basis.
Public dividend capital was created in the cases of the Royal Ordnance factories, now a public limited company, and the Royal Mint. HMSO and the Crown Suppliers do not have equity. There is thus no general rule with respect to trading funds. It depends on expected trading conditions. Furthermore, in the case of the authority Section 4(2) of the 1954 Act already enables the Secretary of State to require the authority to make payments in addition to interest payments if that seems desirable.
As to the question of there not being equity and of how the authority would ensure a reasonable rate of return to the Exchequer, the discipline of having to reach a financial target will ensure that the authority runs its business so as to achieve a particular rate of return on assets before interest. The authority recognises the need to ensure a reasonable rate of return to the Exchequer over the coming years in the light of its trading performance.
Section 4(2) of the 1954 Act allows the Government to direct that any sums received by the authority be surrendered to the consolidated fund. That provision will remain in force but will not be used for arbitrary raids on the AEA's earnings. This point was one that I highlighted in my letter to the noble Viscount. Discussions are taking place with the authority to define as far as possible the circumstances in which the power under Section 4 might be used.
The authority itself attaches great importance to the successful resolution of those discussions. It has emphasised the need—and we support the authority in this—to ensure that whatever mechanism is employed, it has an incentive to improve its performance and to apply at least part of any rewards from such improved performance to developing its business.
I now want to say a word about the point that was raised in respect of Amendment No. 12 to Clause 4 where it states, in subsection (1B), that:
"The Secretary of State may set, after consulting the Authority, a financial target to be earned on net assets".
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who referred to financial targets. Amendment No. 12 is unnecessary because, as the noble Lord is aware, the Government intend to set a financial target for the AEA as a trading fund—initially 5 per cent. on current

125
cost capital employed. Financial targets in the energy sector have been set by agreement between the Government and the boards of the industries. We believe that that responsible partnership is the sensible way to proceed in the authority's case. It is expected that the Secretary of State will write to the chairman of the authority formally conveying the financial target at the start of the trading fund. A statutory provision is also unnecessary because the Secretary of State has powers of direction under Section 3 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954.
4 p.m.
The final amendment in the group, Amendment No. 12, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also spoke, in new subsection (IC) deletes Section 4(2) of the Atomic Energy Act 1954. Indeed, the noble Lord suggested that it should be repealed altogether when this Bill comes into force. I am afraid that we certainly cannot accept that because it runs counter to the whole philosophy of the Bill. The Bill makes the minimum changes necessary to the existing statutory framework for the AEA to operate as a trading fund with borrowing powers. This section has been used quite extensively over the years to ensure that certain moneys received by the authority were paid into the Exchequer.
We accept, of course, that once the authority is operating on a trading fund basis all its income, except in special circumstances, will be regarded as contributing to its own internal funds. This power will, however, still be required in the special circumstances I referred to. These include ensuring that the dividends paid by NNC will continue to be paid into the Consolidated Fund and it will also cover payments in regard to royalty receipts where intellectual capital is derived from Government-funded R & D and any excess of superannuation receipts. There may also be other examples not quite so readily foreseen.
Furthermore, as I have already explained, the Government will be relying on Section 4(2) powers to ensure a reasonable return to the Exchequer in the light of the Atomic Energy Authority's trading performance.
I have tried to deal in some depth with the amendments because I know that noble Lords have been exploring an alternative method. That is why I asked my advisers to look very carefully at the potential which these might offer; but in view of the explanations which I have been able to give to your Lordships I trust that, in the circumstances, the noble Lords concerned might be prepared not to press the amendments.
Viscount Thurso: The noble Lord lost me at one point. Can he explain why the operations of the Ordnance factories and the Mint are cyclical and the operations of the Atomic Energy Authority are not? I cannot see that there is any great difference between them.
Lord Gray of Contin: The operations of the Ordnance factories and the Mint are a very differrent exercise from the operation of this authority—indeed, in a great many ways. The financial structure of those concerns are such that the requirements ultimately are
126
very different to what this authority would need. I have no doubt that when the decision was taken to set up those other organisations all the thoughts which we have had this afternoon were considered. However, the authority is the one under consideration; I merely gave those others as examples which operate differently. The suggestions put foward this afternoon by noble Lords concerning the operation of this authority have been carefully considered. In the case of this authority we do not consider that any of the suggestions would better those which we have proposed ourselves.
Viscount Thurso: We asked about the word "cyclical". Can the noble Lord explain what he means by "cyclical"?
Lord Gray of Contin: It is not really my role to act as an Oxford dictionary, but the way in which I use the word "cyclical" is that, for example, in the case of the Mint there are overseas earnings which can vary substantially. Again, in the Royal Dockyard that is a factor which can affect the amount of income and, indeed, the size of the profits ultimately made. Therefore, they can be cyclical, meaning that they will come not in an even form, but in cycles.
Viscount Thurso: I thank the noble Lord. This is most interesting. The Government are in the process of proposing that Dounreay, for instance, should operate a reprocessing plant for the processing not only of our own waste but also that of overseas countries. Surely that is very like the operations described by the noble Lord which are bound to be subject to forces which are not local and certainly cyclical in nature as the economies of those countries abroad rise and fall and the quantities of plutonium required to be processed rise and fall. It seems to me that the noble Lord is destroying his argument with his explanation.
Lord Gray of Contin: I cannot agree with the noble Viscount. I consider that I am establishing my argument rather than destroying it. Perhaps I am destroying his argument. As regards the cyclical effect and the Atomic Energy Authority, I do not consider that it applies, because in the case of Dounreay, which the noble Viscount mentioned, the authority has a much steadier series of contracts. It has contracts with the Central Electricity Generating Board, BNFL and the Department of Energy. It is not the same as the shipbuilding industry, which may fluctuate. When an authority has a series of customers such as those I have mentioned the flow of business is likely to be much more even than the up-and-down type of cyclical flow which is more likely in an industry such as shipbuilding.
Viscount Thurso: Surely the noble Lord is providing a Bill which he hopes will last into the future. The last Atomic Energy Authority Act lasted 30 years. We hope that this present Bill, when it becomes an Act, will go on well into the future. What the noble Lord will be looking for in the future at Dounreay will be the reprocessing of fuel elements from all over Europe, and perhaps from all over the world. Surely that will be just as cyclical as the business which he has described at the Royal Mint and the

127
Royal Ordnance factories. I cannot see any difference if one looks at the future. I am not speaking about the past, because the past is behind us. We are setting up something for now and the future and are not dealing with what has gone before.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Viscount is looking a very long way into the future of Dounreay. I think he may have forgotten that any initial plant at Dounreay will be a demonstration plant. Any commercial operation will follow much later. I referred to business not being cyclical and this is supported by the fact that there will be research contracts which will tend to keep the flow of work even. We are perhaps making a mountain out of a molehill. I do not think that the noble Viscount has a point on this issue and I cannot accept his argument.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for their support on this group of amendments. It is quite clear that the idea of public dividend capital has many friends. I think we must listen very closely to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, because he has been the head of a very large nationalised industry and has experienced, first-hand, the difficulties which arise under existing arrangements and the type of arrangements under which the AEA will be expected to work in the future. Since the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is supporting them, these ideas have to be taken seriously.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for the serious way in which he has tackled these amendments. Actually, I think we have started him thinking; and when it comes to Government Ministers it is always a good thing when one makes them think, because all too often they are so bowed down with departmental responsibilities that they do not have the time to think. They have these red dispatch boxes full of letters which they have to sign every night, far into the night, and they simply do not have the time—poor things!—to get down to the real job of politics, which is to think about policies not only for the present but also for the future. I think that this group of amendments has had a value in that it has clearly made the noble Lord think.
I do not agree with the noble Lord that public dividend capital could not apply to the AEA, because it usually applies in cases where there is cyclical activity. I really think that argument is a get-out. I see absolutely no reason why in the case of AEA, which as the noble Lord said has many long-term contracts, the system of public dividend capital would not apply ideally. In fact, it would apply in a far better way than it would in industries with a cyclical tendency. Indeed, it would help the Government as well as the authority to plan ahead rather than to continue the present arrangement where the authority is always—how can I put it?—fearful that if it does well, and if its work proceeds profitably, then the Treasury will suddenly come along and say, "Ah, we are in a bit of difficulty this year. We want some more money from you." That might be all right from the Treasury's point of view, but from the point of view of the organisation itself, which may in fact be planning to expand and improve its operations, it could be a disaster.
128
Therefore, I think that the noble Lord is not looking at this issue in the way that perhaps he could and should be looking at it. However, he is quite right: we did put this group of amendments down as a probing exercise and to obtain a discussion on it.
I think that probably it would be quite wrong of me to press the amendments this afternoon, but I hope that note will be taken of the discussions we have had here. Of course, it may very well be that our ideas are taken up in another place, which will have this Bill after we have dealt with it. It is not unusual for ideas from this House to be taken up by another place. We put some good ideas forward and are able to give good advice to another place and even to governments. Therefore, on that basis I think that it would be as well if I withdrew these amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, after ("amount") insert ("not exceeding open market value nor the depreciated value of the assets, whichever is the less.").
The noble Viscount said: When I put down this amendment of course I did not have the benefit of the letter dated 3rd December from the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. Perhaps I may once again quote from it. He says in his letter to me:
"It is expected that the commencing capital debt will be set at about £80 million. This figure has been arrived at after full and detailed consultations both about the size of the debt and the other elements of the financial framework with the AEA and the Treasury."
To a certain extent this amendment overlaps ground which we have already passed, but in a different sense. We are now accepting that we have to use the word "debt" and not the word "liability", that we are not having the benefit of a public dividend capital, and so forth. We want to make sure by this amendment that the debt does not become a millstone and that we have not put an unfair debt round the neck of the Atomic Energy Authority.
Certainly in moving this amendment that the debt should not exceed the open market value or the depreciated value of the assets, whichever is the less, I am seeking to ensure that the Atomic Energy Authority is not in any way being hamstrung at this stage of its existence, which is a transition from one method of accounting to another. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: The Government are opposed to this amendment on the grounds quite simply that it is unnecessary.
Clause 1(1) of the Bill, unamended, provides for the Secretary of State to specify, after consultation with the authority, a commencing capital debt in a notice in writing. As the noble Viscount knows, the Government expect that this debt will be about £80 million. It is likely to represent less than one-third of the value of the total capital employed on the opening balance sheet of the trading company when the assets are revalued on a current cost basis.
The noble Viscount is asking for a safeguard in the Bill to ensure that the commencing debt is not set

129
above open market value or the depreciated value of the assets, whichever is the less. Open market value is a difficult concept to apply, in practice, to the authority. It does, of course, have relevance to a number of the authority's individual assets, but unless we were to try to privatise the authority (which I have confirmed we have no intention of doing) there is no other obvious way of testing its open market value. It is not therefore clear what ceiling a reference in Clause 1(1) to open market value would put on the authority's commencing capital debt.
As to a reference to the depreciated value of the assets, I can perhaps reassure the noble Viscount if I tell him that a debt of about £80 million would in fact be close to the expected depreciated value of the AEA's fixed assets, valued on a historic cost basis. The Government believe that, given an opening debt of this size, the authority should be able to make a modest profit after payment of interest. I trust that, in the light of these assurances, the noble Viscount will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I also have two amendments in this group but, as I explained, they relate to my previous group of amendments on public dividend capital. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has a point, and I must say that I remain puzzled as to exactly what burden will be placed upon the authority.
At Second Reading I raised the question of the return on capital which would be expected and the sum upon which this would be levied, and I made reference to the accounts of the authority, which I think showed a current balance of assets of about £250 million. I calculated that a 5 per cent. return would mean that the authority would have to pay about £13 million per annum before its starting, as well as interest on the commencing capital debt.
From what the noble Lord says, it seems that that might be wrong, and that is not the case. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong; I really am seeking information. It seems from what he said that the 5 per cent return would be levied not on £250 million, but on £80 million. I do not know whether he takes that view. Perhaps it would be as well if at this stage I sat down and allowed him to put me right. If it is 5 per cent on £80 million, we are talking about £4 million a year and not £13 million. It makes all the difference. It is of great importance to the noble Viscount and his colleagues, to myself and my colleagues and to the AEA to have this matter cleared up once and for all.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord sat down a moment or two too soon! The point that he made is relevant. The answer is that the 5 per cent is not a surcharge; it is profit before interest. The AEA only has to pay interest out of that profit.
I shall ask for simplification for the noble Lord, but in the meantime let me take up an earlier point that he raised. He mentioned Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 which he would have liked to see taken with the first group of amendments. They would strike out a key feature of the financial framework which we are proposing for the AEA trading fund. I can see why he
130
would have preferred them to have been taken with the first group.
A commencing capital debt is a standard feature of trading funds. In the Government's view it is right for the AEA trading fund to have a commencing capital debt which has to be repaid over a number of years with interest to the National Loans Fund out of internally generated funds.
The noble Lord is concerned about the fairness of that and whether the debt will be an undue burden on the authority and affect the viability of the trading fund. I can assure him that those factors have been central to the debate which has taken place with the authority and the Treasury about the financial framework of the trading fund. Although the commencing debt is new it does not represent an additional burden on the authority compared with the present arrangements.
At present the grant in aid is equal to the net cash requirements of the authority after allowing for the AEA's profits from other customers to be appropriated in aid. In future those profits will be part of the authority's internally generated funds. In addition, the AEA will be including in its charges to the Department of Energy under programme letters an element for profit. Part of those profits will be applied to the authority to meet interest payments; and that is the point that we have been discussing. A reasonable level of commencing debt cannot therefore be determined in isolation. Many aspects of the financial framework are interrelated. If the requirement to repay a commencing debt with interest were to disappear, as would happen if the noble Lord's amendments were accepted, the coherence of the framework would be destroyed.
The target is 5 per cent. on £250 million before interest. The debt is £80 million. I do not think that I can go beyond that in my explanation to the noble Lord. I hope that that helps to clarify the matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Not quite. May I ask one question so that I am absolutely clear in my mind? The authority will be required to pay 5 per cent. on the £250 million, which is approximately £13 million a year, and then at, shall we say, 11 per cent., which I believe is the going rate on the National Loans Fund, it would pay that 11 per cent. on £80 million. Is that correct? In other words, it would be about £8·8 million in addition to the £13 million.
Lord Gray of Contin: No. A financial target of 5 per cent. return on average capital employed assessed on a current cost basis will be set for the first three years. The opening capital employed is likely to be £250 million.
Lord Ezra: Does the noble Lord not feel that that is an unduly complicated financial structure? Here was an opportunity for a financial reconstruction which had a commercial element in it. Had it been based on the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, earlier on, it would have been comprehensible to all concerned. I regret to say that the more the noble Lord has tried to explain what the system is, the more some of us have become confused. I can only hope that the financial director of the AEA is being

131
thoroughly schooled by the Treasury on that somewhat abstruse method of financing and paying its way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We must get this straight; otherwise the authority will find itself paying enormous sums. Will the authority be required to pay interest on the £250 million as well as on the £80 million, or is it £250 million in total; or does it have to earn a return of 5 per cent on £250 million and pay the going rate on £80 million of that? Is that what the noble Lord is saying? I rather think that it is. If only he would say it, we should understand. We simple mortals understand only arithmetic and not mathematics.
Viscount Thurso: The noble Lord the Minister is using the word "target". In using that word does he mean it in the sense that it can be missed, as most targets can be if one does not try hard enough?
Lord Gray of Contin: I shall answer that one right away. Target profit is what we have been talking about. As we would be told at school, I am sure that noble Lords are not doing their best to understand what is quite a simple philosophy. The problem may be that I am not a very good teacher. Let me put it this way. The object of the exercise is to earn 5 per cent on £250 million and pay NLF rate on £80 million. The authority does not have to pay the 5 per cent to anyone. That is just its target profit. Money to the Exchequer will come in the form of interest on the commencing debt and on new loans, and in any payments under Clause 4(2).
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank the noble Lord. That is the answer I was looking for. I now assume that if that target rate is met, it will be possible for the authority to plough the money back into its own operations. Is that correct?
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Good. That is what we wanted to know.
Viscount Thurso: This amendment has been worthwhile, because if nothing else, it has produced a lot of very interesting information. I think that your Lordships would not wish me to press it at this stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Borrowing Powers]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Limit on borrowing]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("£150 million") and insert ("£200 million").
The noble Lord said: It is my turn to get into difficulties now. In my view this amendment is relevant only if the Committee decides to pass my new clause in Amendment No. 20 which we shall not reach until almost the end of the Marshalled List. But clearly if that amendment is passed by the Committee, the amount of money available to the authority at £150 million, and not exceeding £200 million, will be insufficient. I am therefore in a quandary. It would be absurd of me to move an amendment which might prove not to be necessary if the Committee subsequently decides not to accept my new clause. I think that the best way I can overcome the problem is to crave the indulgence of your Lordships' Committee by suggesting that it would be wise for me at this stage to withdraw my amendments but not before the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has had a chance to move his. This is on the understanding that if, by some miracle, my new clause is later passed by the Committee, I shall be able to reintroduce these amendments at Third Reading, since we are not to have a Report stage. With those few words I shall sit down for the moment and so enable the noble Viscount to speak.
Viscount Thurso: I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon on this. I should certainly be willing to go along with his withdrawing this amendment and reserving his right to come back at Third Reading, since we are not to have a Report stage, and perhaps get another bite at the cherry then.
Lord Gray of Contin: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment in an effort to be helpful. So far as the Government are concerned, certainly if it were for the convenience of the Committee, we would have no objection whatever to discussing Amendment No. 20 now, if that would be helpful to the noble Lord. We could discuss Amendments Nos. 20 and 9, 10 and 11 grouped together. In other words, we could move up Amendment No. 20 to include it in the group comprising Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which we are discussing, if that would be helpful.
Viscount Thurso: With great respect to your Lordships' Committee, I think that Amendment No. 10 is slightly different from Amendment No. 9. I hardly think that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, would necessarily want to deal with Amendment No. 10 now in the same voice.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It would not work.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If we are to continue to debate this amendment, it should be formally moved, unless it is not to be moved by the noble Lord—whichever he prefers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I think that the best plan is not to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("not exceeding £200 million").
The noble Viscount said: This is slightly different from Amendment No. 9 and, indeed, from Amendment No. 20. We are here talking about the

133
maximum borrowing power which the Secretary of State is able by secondary legislation or subordinate legislation to offer to the Atomic Energy Authority. I am here looking at the length of time which the Atomic Energy Authority Act has lasted. It has lasted for 30-odd years without needing, or apparently needing, to be changed. Let us hope therefore that the Bill which we are now looking at is not simply a short-term measure but one which will last as long as the previous Act. If we do a good job, there is no reason why it should not.
We are here saying that at no time, without further legislation, shall the borrowing power of the Atomic Energy Authority exceed £200 million. I think that this is hubris. It is assuming that there will never be any inflation which will make this £200 million appear to be insufficient. What if inflation rockets up once again? We read in the papers today about the OPEC oil sheikhs thumping the table rather loudly and the effect that this is having on the value of the pound and the dollar, and perhaps on inflation. To put a £200 million ceiling on the figure which it would be reasonable to allow the Secretary of State to authorise the Atomic Energy Authority to borrow is totally wrong. I do not think that there should be no limit, but that the limit should not be so precisely defined as £200 million. The limit should be such as the Secretary of State finds himself able to approve and to suggest in subordinate legislation and so on.
My amendment therefore suggests that we simply delete the words "not exceeding £200 million". This allows a borrowing ceiling of £ 150 million to start with and then allows the Secretary of State to adopt the normal common-sense approach that we would hope any Secretary of State would employ at any time in relation to the value of money, the needs of the Atomic Energy Authority, the work which the authority is called upon to do, and so on.
We must also remember that if your Lordships accept that we are legislating for perhaps a quarter of a century hence, we shall be moving towards the magic era of the year 2,000, the end of the millennium. We are told that the demand for electricity will then be totally different, the needs for atomic power will be totally different, and therefore the need for atomic research will be totally different from what it is today. We can bump along comparatively quietly today, but in 25 or even 20 years' time we may have to look very differently at the volume of research being done by the Atomic Energy Authority on our behalf. Therefore it seems wrong to hamstring the Secretary of State at this stage with a limit of £200 million borrowing powers, when today it is considered reasonable to have a limit of £150 million. In other words, to give him in 20 years' time only a £50 million rise when we expect that there may be more demand and less value in the money seems to me wrong. That is why I have put down this amendment for your Lordships' consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: Clause 3 of the Bill sets an initial borrowing limit for the authority of £150 million. In setting this level we have taken account of the expected level of commencing debt of about £80 million and the need for new borrowing to finance
134
working capital, which could lead to a requirement for temporary borrowing up to a maximum of £30 million. We have added a contingency allowance to cover additional borrowing for capital investment and to cope with unforeseen events.
It is standard practice for nationalised industries to set an initial limit on their borrowing and to allow the Secretary of State to increase it by order, subject to parliamentary approval. If borrowing above that limit is judged necessary, Parliament expects the Secretary of State to return to the House with new legislation.
We think that it is also right to apply this framework in the case of the AEA trading fund, and the Government would regard it as appropriate to return to Parliament with amending legislation if it seemed likely that the AEA would need to borrow in excess of £200 million. That does not seem unreasonable to me. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will know very well from his experience, that is the normal practice. In my view it is a good practice. It is good that Parliament should have the right to determine an increase in borrowing requirement by a body of this type.
If the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, were accepted, Parliament would be denied what could prove to be a very important opportunity to deliberate on the financial affairs and the future development of the authority. For those reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment. I trust that, having heard my explanation, the noble Viscount may be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Thurso: Obviously the other place will have more to say about matters of this nature than we shall. However, I think it was right to raise the matter. It is very difficult to state at this stage what will be required, and when. I should not want to feel that any future Government were lumbered with having to produce legislation in order to get on with the work that needs to be done at some future date. I was trying to give flexibility, but in view of what the noble Lord has said, and in view of the fact that we have discussed this matter and that it will be considered in another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Loans from the Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Viscount said: This amendment is really concerned with the heavy hand of the Treasury upon the Secretary of State. In my view, to restrict the Secretary of State to giving loans only with the approval of the Treasury is to place undue control upon the Secretary of State. After all, the Secretary of State only has so much money, which he has won very hard from the Treasury. If he thinks that he needs to lend it to somebody, I should have thought that he would have made due provision and would have discussed it with the Treasury beforehand. I should not have thought it necessary that the Treasury should use

135
its atomic expertise—if it has any—to decide whether the Secretary of State was right in deciding to lend such money. The subsection gives power for undue interference by the Treasury in the normal decisions of the Secretary of State, and it is for that reason that I beg to move the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: It is standard practice to require Treasury approval of the terms and conditions of NLF loans. This is not an onerous procedure but a sensible safeguard for ensuring that the Treasury's expertise in these matters is available to the sponsoring department of the industry. It also enables the Government to take an over-view of the total resource requirements of the public sector. This is an important aspect of macro-economic policy, and the Government are therefore opposed to such an amendment.
If accepted, this amendment would also remove a safeguard for the authority in that the Secretary of State would not be obliged to consult the authority before changing the terms or conditions of a loan, and, of course, that would be unreasonable. For those reasons, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.
Viscount Thurso: Obviously this is very much more a matter for the other place rather than for your Lordships. Having made the point and having received the noble Lord's assurances on the matter, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Treasury guarantees]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Supervisory powers of Secretary of State]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 9, after ("Authority") insert (", after consultation with the recognised Trade Unions,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, which stands in my name. The object of the amendment is to bring the trade unions into the planning process, not only because under the new trading account regime the salaries, terms and conditions of service, the jobs and the safety of their members may be adversely affected through financial pressures, but also because they have a great deal to contribute towards the efficiency of the AEA and to ensuring that their members feel involved in and part of the authority.
Noble Lords will remember that we had a debate a week ago last Monday on the report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade. One of the major points which the committee made was that we needed people to be more involved; everybody had a responsibility—not just the Government, not just the employers, but everybody was involved in the process
136
of rebuilding Britain's trading base. The AEA is just as much part of that trading base as anything else. It is vital to research; it is vital to our continued progress in the field of atomic energy, in particular, and, of course, in many other fields, especially in renewable energy, matters of safety and so forth.
Therefore, we think it right and proper that at this stage we should seek through the Bill (since we are setting up a new organisation and a new trading fund) to involve the trade unions right from the start and to say to them, "Yes, you are important people. We want you involved in what we are doing. We want your interest. We want your ideas. We want your commitment".
But it has become clear to me since I became involved with this Bill that unfortunately the people who work for the AEA feel unsettled by the proposed change to a trading account status. That in fact does not make for involvement; it makes for worse. Indeed, I mentioned at Second Reading that the people who work for AEA feel that their jobs and conditions of service will be at risk from commercialisation, and if this amendment were accepted it would at least go some way to assuaging their understandable fears. As I have already said, we want people to be involved in what they are doing. We want them to feel part of the undertaking, and feel that they have an interest in that undertaking not merely as employees but as people who want the undertaking to succeed for their benefit, and for the benefit of the country as well.
In the case of AEA in particular, we have to bear in mind that the people there are highly intelligent, in general highly trained and expert, and as such have a lot to give to the organisation. It would therefore be sensible and productive for them to be involved through their trade union organisations, and to be properly represented at the planning stages in order that their advice and assistance could be given in a structured and ordered manner.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray, could not possibly disagree with any word that I have uttered this afternoon. I know from long experience of working with him that he is as concerned as I am to ensure that people working in industry are not only treated properly but are given the opportunity to contribute to their industry in the best possible manner. I hope, therefore, that when he speaks he will not give the normal response that is given by governments: "There are various organisations, national joint industrial councils, and what not", and fob us off with that kind of thing.
I should like to see from him this afternoon a reply which gives us some indication that the Government really believe that Britain is one nation—although, by God, they have split it over the past six or seven years—and that individual people count. Through supporting this amendment this afternoon they could give an earnest of their intention to ensure that people working in industry have a decent say in what is going on and the future of their lives. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has raised the important point of participation. I am sure that the Government's policy must be to encourage the maximum degree of effective participation in

137
enterprises throughout the country, whether publicly or privately owned, because it is only in that way that industry can move forward and thrive. If the Government are unable to accept this amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will nevertheless explain to us what steps are going to be taken, or are already being taken, within the AEA to encourage the necessary degree of participation.
Lord Gray of Contin: Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was correct when he suggested that I have a real concern to ensure that employees of the authority, and indeed employees of any other body in similar circumstances, are made to feel part of the whole unit and are consulted about their future. So far as the Government are concerned, this is paramount in our view on this matter as well. Perhaps I may tell your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has had no indication that authority employees are opposed to the proposed arrangements, although they have asked for reassurances on particular points. I am happy to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who was also concerned about this point, that they have received those assurances which they themselves sought.
The Government encourage consultation of this kind, which they believe is best settled as part of normal relations between management and employees without outside prescription. Through the Whitley Council and the National Joint Industrial Council the authority keep the staff/trade union side informed of major developments in finance and manpower. I know that the noble Lord mentioned the National Joint Industrial Council and suggested that he did not really want that as an answer, but he has to look at it objectively. I know that he has a deep interest in the trade union movement, but the Government take the view, I think rightly, that these matters are better settled and discussed by the official representatives who have a wealth of experience in these matters and whose good influence can often help to reassure people who might otherwise be unhappy.
Currently there are discussions taking place and consultation procedures are being employed, and they will be in use when the trading fund is in operation. We believe that it would be wrong for the Government to impose a particular form by dictating that certain documents should be handed over, such as is suggested. In view of my assurance that the Government are consulting and that the reassurances which were sought have been given to the employees of the authority, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the way we are proceeding is for the best, and that he might consider that his amendment is unnecessary and he prepared to withdraw it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am not satisfied with that reply, and I am not inclined to withdraw the amendment. It is quite true that employees at AEA are not opposed to the trading fund concept per se, provided they have proper safeguards written in. The employees at AEA are perfectly reasonable people who want to assist the Government in getting the best possible financial and working arrangements. I put
138
down this amendment because they are so co-operative, and because by this amendment they could become even more co-operative because they would be able to put more into the organisation.
It is true that the trade unions operate through their various joint councils. When I worked in the electricity supply industry I worked through the National Joint Council on negotiating business, but we also had consultative arrangements. Indeed, I took part in those consultative arrangements and was the secretary of a local committee. But those arrangements were not good enough. They enabled employers to brush employees off with all sorts of excuses, and there was never any real consultation. That is why I want to give the workers at the AEA statutory rights to be consulted about plans which will affect their livelihood, their industry, and indeed the country.
I do not conceive, and I am sure other noble Lords on this side of the Committee, and possibly some on the other side as well, do not conceive consultation as merely being handed a set of papers. That is not consultation; that is an insult. I have been through it myself and was duly insulted. What I am seeking is the statutory right of workers in this industry to be consulted about their industry on a real and ongoing basis.
5 p.m.
It is not good enough to brush this amendment off as calling for Papers. It is not calling for Papers. We do that when we have Unstarred Questions or Motions in your Lordships' House. I want to see the workers in this industry recognised for the intelligent human beings they are, ready to contribute, as the noble Lord has acknowledged, to the industry in which they work and which sustains them. I am therefore inclined to test the opinion of the Committee on this matter, because I and my colleagues feel so strongly that the time has come to make progress in this area of recognising the rights of working people to have real consultation, to be considered, to have their ideas and their views considered before plans are passed which affect their lives, their families, their working conditions and what have you.
Viscount Thurso: In view of the fact that so far the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has not shown any other way by which consultation might be written into the Bill, I feel that we must go along with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. But I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, may yet relent and give us some better idea of how consultation may be built into this Bill.
Lord Gray of Contin: I believe that I indicated—but I shall do so again—that the unions are currently having discussions about the consultation procedures they will use when the trading fund is in operation. In my view, it would be quite wrong for the Government to impose a particular form by dictating that certain documents should be handed over. I take the view that the authority regards the workforce as highly responsible. The relations between the workforce and management are extremely good. These people are having their own discussions at the moment. I cannot see that it is for the benefit of those discussions for the

139
Government to lay down specific objects or targets which they must achieve. I think it is very much better that this be left to those who are experienced and responsible for these matters. As I indicated a little earlier, through the Whitley Council and the National Joint Industrial Council the authority keeps the staff and the trade union side informed of major developments in both finance and manpower. It seems to me much more sensible that it is left to those people who are experienced and who know what they are about than that the Committee should decide to pass this amendment at this stage. I must ask your Lordships to resist the amendment.
Viscount Thurso: Does the noble Lord use his phrases advisedly? He spoke about keeping people informed of decisions, not about asking them to participate in the making of those decisions. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and I and my colleagues are trying to do. How are people to participate in decisions? Are they merely to be informed or are they to have another opportuntity to participate in the making of them?
Lord Gray of Contin: I am afraid the noble Viscount must realise that these discussions are taking place now. Therefore neither I nor anybody else can answer that question. They are having discussions as to how they should proceed. I believe it is a mistake for us to interfere at this stage in such matters. It is better to leave it to them to decide. The Bill is in its very early stages.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I hesitate to interfere at this late hour in the discussion, but the noble Lord the Minister is always a very reasonable man on these matters. I appreciate the difficulty that he is in, and also the difficulty that we are in, on this important matter. The Minister referred to handing over papers. I was not quite sure what he meant by that. Can he give some assurance to the Committee, even at this stage, that he will take this amendment back and think about it again? It is a fundamental matter, and co-operation with the trade unions is going on now, I understand.
If the noble Lord the Minister is saying that the Government know that the trade unions do not want to be consulted as suggested by this amendment, that is another matter. It would be helpful for the Minister to say that in the course of these consultations the trade unions are happy about the present position. Perhaps there might be a further development. Can the Minister say whether the trade unions have categorically said that they do not want to be consulted? I am sure the answer is that the trade unions have not said that. Will he therefore take back this amendment and think about it again so that we can consider the matter at a later stage, instead of taking up time now on what both sides of the Committee think are important matters?
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is, as always, persuasive, but I am afraid I am not prepared to accede to his request. I have explained as best I can that discussions are taking place between the authority and the trade unions involved. I have little doubt that they will be able to resolve this matter
140
perfectly well, and I think it would be a mistake for us to interfere at this stage. I have every confidence that they will resolve these matters themselves. I am afraid I cannot give any more information, because I have not been directly involved in this matter; but I repeat what I said earlier: that I trust your Lordships will resist this amendment, which I do not see as having merit.
5.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 111.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Attlee, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Aylestone, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Banks, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Blyton, L.

Mais, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Meston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Chitnis, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Northfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dowding, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Raglan, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Richie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Shinwell, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grey, E.

Thurso, V.

Hampton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hanworth, V.

Walston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Heycock, L.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Willis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Allerton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Auckland, L.

Carthcart, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Beloff, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belstead, L.

Cowley, E.

Bessborough, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Blake, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Caccia, L.

Denning, L.

Caithness, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

141

Effingham, E.

Mersey, V.

Elgin and Kincardine, E.

Molson, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Faithfull, B.

Munster, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northesk, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Onslow, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Orkney, E.

Glanusk, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Portland, D.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Reay, L.

Renton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodney, L.

Harvington, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hayter, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sandford, L.

Henley, L.

Seebohm, L.

Holderness, L.

Selborne, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hooper, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Killearn, L.

Stamp, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Sudeley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Suffield, L.

Long, V.

Swinfen, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

McFadzean, L.

Terrington, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Teviot, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thurlow, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trenchard, V.

Margadale, L.

Tryon, L.

Marley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Vivian, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Wise, L.

Young, B.

Merrivale, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert ("who shall, after his approval has been given, lay a copy of the plan before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I think I can move this amendment very quickly. The amendment is self-explanatory and expresses the wish that Parliament should be kept informed of developments. There is an increasing feeling that Government policies are more and more removing Parliament from matters which concern them as the properly elected representatives of the public. There is a real and understandable concern that a whole range of matters which concern people are being removed from the control or influence of elected people and given to faceless, often unidentifiable, people or organisations.
In the field of nuclear energy, in particular, the public generally feels that it is ill-informed and suspects that information is deliberately being withheld from it. From the point of view of the Government themselves, and particularly of the atomic energy industry, it is vital that the greatest amount of information available is given to the public. The public, as noble Lords will know, is suspicious of nuclear energy. It does not understand it. If it believes
142
that information is being withheld from it, then support for nuclear energy programmes will wane. I think it is therefore essential that the information given, particularly to Parliament, is of the utmost.
This amendment, in my view, goes a little way to reverse the tendency to withhold information by giving Parliament the opportunity to examine, if not influence, the plans of the AEA. I hope it will be acceptable to the Committee, if not to the Government. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: I go along with what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says. I think that the public in general tends to be afraid of atomic energy because it is a subject about which the ordinary citizen knows comparatively little. This fear very rapidly subsides, as I know has happened in my part of the world, when more information is given and more openness is shown. For example, the success of the research establishment at Dounreay has been due to the way in which the Atomic Energy Authority has never sought to conceal anything from the people in that area, and, indeed, has sought to inform them. The more the authority seeks to inform and the less the Government or anybody else seek to conceal, the better in this particular field of endeavour. By this, I do not mean to say that they have to give away technical secrets; there is no question of that. It is merely a question of disclosing plans and intentions. I think this is good, both for the country and for the Atomic Energy Authority.
Lord Gray of Contin: I would agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has said, and also what the noble Viscount has said, about the desirability of making information available. Indeed, the example which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has given about the Dounreay project is an excellent one. However, of course, the vast amount of information which comes from Dounreay does not come from the kind of suggestion which is made here in this amendment. The information which comes from Dounreay comes very largely from Mr. Blumfield, the director, and his very efficient public relations staff, who keep the general public fully informed about everything which is going on at Dounreay. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and I may not have much in common politically, but we have a great deal in common in our admiration of the success story of Dounreay over the past 20 years.
I believe it would be wrong to lay down a general rule that all plans should automatically be laid before Parliament irrespective of their nature. The authority's corporate plan would be likely to contain sensitive information of a confidential character about its strategies and financial forecasts which would be of interest to the authority's competitors. The AEA's annual report and accounts, which will of course continue to be laid before Parliament, gives general information about its activities. In addition, there are many other ways in which the Government and the authority can inform Parliament and the public as necessary. And, of course, Parliament has its own procedures for asking such questions and seeking such information as it requires; so there is no reason to suppose that these arrangements will not continue to be fully effective.

143
For those reasons, I would suggest that the amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is not necessary and, indeed, is not desirable. I would ask that it be rejected.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to have had such a negative response from the noble Lord. I always try to be helpful to the Government. I note that mynoble friend is not here. I was told off by him for saying that I always try to be helpful to the Government; and here I am again trying to be helpful to the Government. All that we really want is to lay as much information before Parliament as we can. I said at the outset that some of us are concerned that people misunderstand the nuclear industry—what nuclear energy does, the dangers from it, and what-have-you. I should have thought that it could have been just a little gesture to the public for the Government to say, "We want to be as open as possible". I am sure that the AEA does. So why not lay this plan before Parliament so that people can examine it? After all, if they want to answer a question or two, why should they not? That is what Parliament is about.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, has been negative about this. He is not a negative man; he is a positive man. As I have said, I have known him for a long time and I have had a great deal of help from him. However, it is quite clear that he is not going to go with me this afternoon, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of s. 1 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954.
.—( ) The Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 shall be amended as follows.
( ) After section 1(5) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) A person shall be disqualified from being appointed or being a member or part-time member of the Authority so long as he holds an interest in any of the organisations which have contractual arrangements with the Authority.".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19. Noble Lords will recall that I raised the question of the composition of the board at Second Reading, and I made the point then that it was essential that the board should be seen to be completely independent and free of pressure from commercial interests. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, was good enough in his winding-up speech to deal with this aspect. In column 541 of the Hansard report of our Second Reading debate on 19th November, he is reported as saying:
"It is expected that there will no longer be part-time members holding executive responsibility in the CEGB, BNFL or the department."
So it would appear that we are in agreement on this issue. However, the noble Lord will understand that a statement in the House of Lords at Second Reading does not have the force of law. In order to assist the Government and to assist the noble Lord to make his assurance stick, I have tabled the amendment which is before us now.
Our main concern about the continuation of part-time board members with a direct commercial interest in the work of the authority is quite simply that their responsibilities within their own organisations could so easily conflict with their responsibilities for ensuring the essentially independent approach of the authority on all matters. The issue of safety is a case in point. It would be unfortunate, to say the least, if the CEGB, for example, were seen to be exerting a direct interest on decisions affecting long-term safety and public acceptability of nuclear programmes. No matter how high-minded and respectable the CEGB may be—and they are—the fact is that they are a commercial organisation in competition with other energy suppliers and, as such, are under pressure to cut their costs.
Furthermore, there is now widespread speculation —not convincingly denied, I am afraid, by the Government—that the electricity supply industry will follow gas into the private sector, if not in this Parliament then early in the next if the country is unfortunate enough to have a Conservative Government inflicted on it for another term of years. I look forward, therefore, in all those circumstances, to the acceptance of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, of this amendment in the spirit in which it is meant—a spirit of wanting to assist the noble Lord once again to get a better Bill. I commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for his efforts to be helpful to me. Indeed, it is very reassuring to know that at heart I have his support on this Bill, if not on anything else. May I say, however, that I am afraid that I am not able to accept his amendment.
The Government accept that it would not be right for representatives of the AEA's main customers to continue on the AEA board once the trading fund is in operation. From 1st April 1986, representatives of the Department of Energy, CEGB and BNFL will no longer sit on the AEA board, and the Secretary of State does not intend to appoint members of the AEA from the main customers or contractors of the authority. There is no need to make this a statutory requirement, however, given the Government's assurance on this point.
It is, of course, possible that some member of the AEA might have an interest in a company with which the authority wanted to enter into a contract. In such a case, the member would be expected to follow the rules in Schedule 1 to the 1954 Act concerning possible conflict of interest, whereby he would declare his interest but refrain from taking part in the board's discussions of the issue.
We do not believe it to be in the best interests to deal with this matter through this amendment. We think it is not necessary to write this into the legislation. The Government have given their assurance on this point and so far as this is concerned we just do not think it desirable actually to lay down in legislation the kind of detail the noble Lord has suggested here. For that reason, I am afraid I cannot accept his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What can I do except express surprise that the noble Lord is not prepared to

145
translate, through my amendment, his words on Second Reading into positive action? He was quite specific on Second Reading and indeed he has confirmed this afternoon that it would be undesirable for people with interests elsewhere to be serving on the board of the AEA. I simply cannot understand why he would not want to write this into legislation, because it would in fact give a greater safeguard to people and to the authority itself and would increase the confidence of the general public in the organisation. As we have already noted, public confidence is a very important element, and in these new arrangements it is more than ever important that the people who serve on the AEA are seen to be people who have only the interests of that organisation in mind and could not possibly have any other interests in mind when coming to decisions. I really hope the noble Lord will reconsider his attitude and I wonder whether he will just respond a little further before I decide whether to press this amendment to a vote.
Lord Gray of Contin: I do not think I can respond very much further. I have indicated to the noble Lord that I agree it is undesirable that members of companies which are principal customers or contractors should serve on the AEA board. Indeed, I have given him the assurance that the Secretary of State has absolutely no intention of appointing any such person. But we believe it would be wrong to write that so specifically in the Bill. It is conceivable at some future time that there might be a particular person with very special abilities who would be of great use as a member of the authority and who might have a conflict of interest at a later time. If such a person became involved, the procedure is clearly laid down in the 1954 Act that he would declare an interest and would take no part in the discussion on that particular issue.
I do not think I can go further than that. I have given the assurance both at Second Reading and again this afternoon, and no doubt in another place that assurance will be given again when the issue is discussed. But we feel it would be a mistake to write this firmly into legislation; and for that reason I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Naturally I am disappointed. Noble Lords will understand that, but in the light of the noble Lord's assurance—I take it as an assurance—that really the Government would wish to have somebody with a possible interest only in the most exceptional circumstances, I think the best thing I can do is not to proceed with the amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
("Amendment of s. 2 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954
—( ) The Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 shall be amended as follows.
( ) After section 2(2)(c) there shall be inserted—
"(ca) to undertake research and development into production of fuels and power sources and to promote the use of fuels and power sources having regard to the development of energy supply and to efficiency, economy, and safety of operation;
146
(cb) to provide for any person technical advice or assistance, including research services, as respects any matter in which the Authority has skill or experience;'.
( ) For section 2(2)(f) there shall be substituted—
"(f) to distribute and at the request of and by agreement with any person make available information relating to, and educate and train persons in matters connected with, atomic energy or radioactive substances and its activities undertaken under the terms of this Act, the Science and Technology Act 1965, the Radiological Protection Act 1970 and the Control of Pollution Act 1974, provided that information so released does not constitute an invasion of individual privacy, is not a trade secret, nor prejudicial to the interests of the nation.".").
The noble Lord said: The proposals contained in this new clause seek to widen the scope of the authority's activities in the field of energy research and the promotion of fuels and sources of power, to provide a wide range of technical advice and assistance and to make available to the public much more information about atomic energy and radioactive substances and the authority's activities relating to these matters than has been available hitherto. Naturally, in relation to information safeguards are written into the new clause in respect of individual privacy, trade secrets and the safety of the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, may very well protest that by this amendment we are seeking to widen the scope of the Bill in a way that alters it beyond all recognition; but that is not so, as I shall seek to show.
The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority already undertakes non-nuclear work and the Department of Energy has funded an energy support unit at Harwell for many years. However, as the noble Lord opposite knows, many of us in this Chamber have been concerned for some time that the Government have lost interest in renewable energy sources. I was myself particularly put out at the abandonment of the wave-energy programme just at a time when the Norwegians were able to apply wave technology pioneered by our own scientists. Indeed, I know the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has been concerned with this matter and has often raised questions of "renewables" in this Chamber. I hope he will join with me in supporting this aspect of the new clause.
That apart, however, the AEA does work over the whole of the energy technology field in conservation, wind power, passive solar heating, geothermal energy and biofuels, as well as work on the problems of acid rain and the safety of offshore oil and gas operations. After 30 years of operations, mainly in the field of developing nuclear power but also concerned with the other matters I have mentioned, it seems timely and indeed logical to put matters on a formal basis. This would serve to give the authority a new sense of direction and purpose and would enable it to work better with other energy producers to bring about improvements in the thermal efficiency of fuels, greater safety and reliability, reduced environmental pollution and the better conservation of existing stocks of fossil fuels, especially where that can be achieved by a more positive development of renewable sources.
There is of course no intention to encroach on the work of other energy industries but rather to get a co-ordinated approach to energy research and a properly funded programme towards that end. The AEA of course has specific scientific and engineering expertise as well as the proven ability to manage large

147
projects calling for a wide mix of skills. A properly funded renewable R & D programme of, say, £150 million could turn the AEA into a versatile energy authority with the ability to co-ordinate the activities of the various establishments, including the universities, the National Engineering Laboratory and others, to which much of the money would be allocated. And of course that was the additional money I wished to provide under earlier amendments, and, if this amendment were carried, might wish to provide by means of an amendment at Third Reading.
Giving the AEA this wider role would put Britain on a par with the United States of America, the Netherlands, Italy and Sweden, and would enable this country the better to discharge its energy responsibilities not only at home but in the wider international context, particularly in assisting third world countries with energy technology suitable to their own local needs and conditions.
With regard to freedom of information, which is mentioned in the new clause, it would be in the interests not only of the public but of the AEA itself to have a freer flow of information, within, of course, the parameters that I set in my opening remarks. There is no intention by this new clause to release the authority from the Official Secrets Act, but rather to place upon it the duty to release as much information as possible—we have already discussed the desirability of this—and to require the authority to justify the withholding of information if the failure to release it is thought to be unreasonable.
I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, will appreciate that the authority already feels constrained by the Official Secrets Act and is over-cautious about the amount of information released to the general public. But with commercialisation there could be a growth in secrecy, due to commercially, or so-called commercially, confidential material—which has already been mentioned this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Gray—increasingly seen as a further constraining influence in the matter of public information.
As we have already said, the public is suspicious about atomic energy and fearful of the dangers, perhaps unnecessarily so, because atomic energy itself is a mysterious force but made more mysterious and less well understood due to unnecessary secrecy. With those remarks, I hope that I have explained the reasons for the new clause. I sincerely hope that it will receive discussion and a favourable reply from the noble Lord, Lord Gray. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has raised an important issue in connection with research and development in energy. We need to mobilise all the resources at our disposal to promote this research. My experience of the work being done at Harwell, in my time at the NCB, was that indeed they were spilling over inevitably into other forms of energy research and doing some very valuable work in that connection. Therefore I hope that, with this important nucleus of technological skill that has been accumulated at the AEA, it will be enabled through this legislation to spread into other forms of research where it may make a valuable contribution.
148
There is no way in which one can precisely divide research in energy. One form spills off into another. The relationship of atomic energy with electrical generation is an obvious illustration. Connections with the coal industry were developed in my time and, indeed, connections with the gas industry also exist. It is this interconnection of energy research which will be facilitated and encouraged by the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, which I fully support.
Lord Gray of Contin: I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his submission and also to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who spoke in support of the new clause. But I am afraid that I must oppose this new clause, because to the extent that it does not simply duplicate existing powers it would lead to an undesirable increase in the authority's non-nuclear powers. This could be to the detriment of other energy bodies and of the private sector generally.
The first part of the new clause, paragraph (ca), is unnecessary in that the Secretary of State already has powers under the Science and Technology Act 1965 to require the authority to undertake research and development in specific non-nuclear areas, which could include the production of fuels and power sources. Indeed, a requirement of as long ago as 9th April 1974 already enables the authority:
"to undertake scientific research into the provision, distribution and use of energy resources and associated technology".
Substantial work is already undertaken by the authority for customers under this requirement. The authority also already has powers to distribute the results of its research and development under Section 2(2)(f) of the 1954 Act, which apply just as much to its research in non-nuclear areas as to its research in atomic energy, as a result of the 1965 Act.
5.45 p.m.
But a general power to promote the use of fuels and power sources implies something that is not, and should not be, the authority's job. It is the job of the energy industries, guided, in the case of the nationalised industries by the requirements of the statutes which already make reference to such matters as safety and efficiency. It has also been the Government's policy, by requiring proper pricing policies in the nationalised energy industries and by other measures, to ensure that consumers themselves are in a good position to choose the best fuel for their circumstances.
The second part of the new clause, paragraph (cb), may at first seem a harmless enough amendment, in that it relates to matters in which the authority "has skill or experience". But it is not restricted to requirements under the Science and Technology Act 1965; the authority can offer research services to any customer in areas covered by these. This amendment could allow the authority to go far beyond the research functions which are at the heart of its raison d'etre; "technical advice or assistance" is, of course, open to a very broad interpretation. The amendment would therefore run counter to this Government's policy of reducing, not expanding, the involvement of the public sector in the economy.

149
I want to turn to Section 2(2)(f). I am afraid that the part of the new clause which relates to this is also unnecessary. The power which the Atomic Energy Authority has under the 1954 Act allows it to distribute information and to educate and train people on matters connected with atomic energy and radioactive substances. This includes all its nuclear work, including that covered by the Radiological Protection Act and the Control of Pollution Act. The Science and Technology Act 1965 also gives it the same powers for work undertaken under the terms of that Act. Naturally, the authority exercises its powers in a reasonable way and does not give out information which is an invasion of individual privacy, a trade secret or prejudicial to the interests of the nation. Perhaps I may also say that the authority can of course already give information to people who request it. However, to require the authority to answer every question that people might choose to ask would be unreasonable.
I have dealt at some length with this new clause, because it was fairly wide-ranging in what it sought to achieve, but I think I have been able to explain to the Committee that most of what the noble Lord has suggested is in fact already available to the authority. It already has very wide-ranging powers and it seems to me that to accept this amendment would create duplication of an unnecessary nature. For the reasons which I have given, I hope that the noble Lord might consider withdrawing his amendment.
Viscount Thurso: May I fasten on certain words used by the noble Lord, Lord Gray? He talked about the raison d'être of the Atomic Energy Authority. Surely the raison d'être of the Atomic Energy Authority is to be one of the principal advice and research and, indeed, development sources for the Secretary of State and for the Government as a whole. Would it not be a very nice thing at this stage if the noble Lord were to say that he would have a look at this amendment?—because all that it is seeking to do is to make certain that in passing this new Bill we have updated every facet of the old Atomic Energy Act and that we have made certain that the raison d'être of the Atomic Energy Authority is being brought up to date as well as its finances. It would be very nice if the noble Lord could say that he would at least look into this between now and Third Reading and invite the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to withdraw on those grounds.
Lord Gray of Contin: No, I am afraid that I cannot accept that suggestion. I have gone to considerable lengths to try to explain to the Committee why this new clause is simply not necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, knows full well that if I did not see a genuine hope of incorporating his new clause I would not be likely to say that I would take it away and look at it. I think it is deceiving the Committee to suggest just for the sake of it being a nice thing to do, that one will take something away and look at it. If one suggests that one is going to take something away and look at it one genuinely should have in one's mind a desire to try to incorporate it. Practically all of what is being asked in this new clause is already available in existing legislation, and therefore I feel that it would be wasting the time of the Committee to suggest that I would take
150
it away with any serious purpose, and I do not want to do that. I hope the noble Viscount will understand; and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for their support for this amendment. I do not intend to press it—I will say that—because I think it would be unwise to press it at this stage. Nevertheless it is true—and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in particular knows this because we had the pleasure (and the work, incidentally) of serving together on the Select Committee for Overseas Trade, which I have already mentioned once.
One of the things which the noble Lord will agree we found was this lack of direction. All too often there was not a proper aim, and the objective of this amendment was in fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, properly pointed out, to bring the whole thing together. Here was an organisation which was going to be thrusting, which was going to bring itself and help other energy industries to bring themselves to the forefront of technological advance, as well as in matters of energy research, energy saving and the development of new sources. We need direction and we need thrust. That was the objective of the amendment.
I am sorry that the noble Lord should feel that this amendment runs counter to Government strategy. Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's own personality, if you like, of being a thrusting (some say overhearing) woman, I should have thought that the Government would have wanted to attach themselves to this forward-looking, thrusting idea. I am sorry that the noble Lord should feel that what we are suggesting in the interests of the authority and in the interests of the nation runs counter to Government strategy.
However, I shall not berate the noble Lord any more; he has had just about enough this afternoon. He has only one more amendment to come. We have had a good debate, and, therefore, under all the circumstances, and bearing in mind that he said that most of it is available anyway—we shall remember that; we shall remember that the AEA can exercise much wider powers than it has already exercised—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Restrictions on disposal of shares.
. Before either the Secretary of State or the Authority may dispose of any shares in subsidiaries of the Authority, under the powers confirmed and extended by section 1 of the Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1971, the Secretary of State shall make an order subject to affirmative resolution by each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The main doubts which have been expressed about the Atomic Energy Authority Bill relate not so much to the transition to trading fund status, although we have discussed that at length this afternoon, but to the suspicion, fuelled by the non-publication of the Manley Report—I referred to this on Second Reading—that the Government's ultimate objective is privatisation.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, did his best to provide reassurance at Second Reading, committing the present Government to no privatisation during the present Parliament but making the valid point nevertheless that Ministers could not bind future Governments. I think it is most unfortunate that the noble Lord could not have gone a little further to bind a future Conservative Government. I accept that he could not possibly bind a future Labour Government or any other kind of Government, but I think he could have gone a little further in binding the Conservative Party not to privatise the AEA or any part of it in the future.
What is causing concern is that below the level of the trading fund a number of wholly-owned subsidiaries may be set up to run the profitable activities of the UKAEA, and then these will be quietly sold. The gradual process of transfer of other activities—for example, Amersham International, which started life within the authority, then became a trading fund, then became a limited company and then was privatised—is a precedent which certainly causes the Opposition alarm, and I would hope that it would cause other noble Lords alarm as well. The Government have power to dispose of shares under Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act 1971 and under Section 1 of the Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1981; there is in fact no requirement for parliamentary approval. We think that is unfortunate. Therefore, we have tabled this modest amendment which builds upon the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that there are no plans for privatisation by building in the requirement that the disposal of shares in subsidiaries should be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
The advantage of this amendment is that ownership changes in an industry which must sustain public confidence if it is to prosper must be openly debated in Parliament and cannot be quietly slipped through. Bearing in mind the comments and assurances of the noble Lord, I hope he will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: I am afraid that I cannot accept this amendment, which is meant to refer to the Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1981, and not 1971. There is a misprint regarding that. I am sure it is the 1981 Act that is meant.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is correct.
Lord Gray of Contin: Let me say at the outset that the existing statutory provisions would not in practice permit the piecemeal privatisation of the Atomic Energy Authority. They certainly envisage the authority being able to hive off particular parts of their business, but not to the extent of undermining their ability to carry out their statutory functions. For example, it would not be possible for the Secretary of State to require the authority, by means of a Section 3 direction under the 1954 Act, to set up major subsidiaries with the express purpose of selling them off; for example, the Harwell Research Establishment. That would be an improper use of the Secretary of State's powers of direction. The scope of the existing powers is therefore limited.
152
The noble Lord can therefore rest assured that even if the Secretary of State so wished—which of course he does not—it would not be possible to use those powers to privatise the authority by stealth. The noble Lord would surely agree that the creation of subsidiaries for specialised purposes, with the Secretary of State's agreement, could be a sensible managerial decision even though the authority has no such subsidiaries at the moment. I hope the noble Lord will agree that no parliamentary procedures should be required for such action. If so, surely the same arguments ought to apply to the disposal of subsidiaries.
The present powers were fully considered and approved by a previous Parliament. To impose greater restrictions now would be quite contrary to the rationale of this Bill, which is to provide the authority with greater commercial opportunities and disciplines than is possible under the present grant in aid arrangements. I hope therefore that upon reflection and in the light of my comments and assurances the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: Before we conclude I should like to say that I find the Government's position a little anomalous in respect of some of the matters we have discussed today. On the one hand we are told that the intention is to make the authority a more commercial organisation, and yet the various very reasonable amendments put forward to do so rather more than would the Government have been rejected. We are told also that an amendment to safeguard the authority as a publicly-owned enterprise is equally undesirable. I had hoped that we could clarify rather more than we have done this afternoon the Government's real intentions in regard to this body. Perhaps we may pursue that discussion in the next phase.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We shall need to study what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, this afternoon. I believe the noble Lord went a little further than he did at Second Reading. I do not know for certain because it is difficult by just listening to what someone is saying to gather everything that they mean. I am sure that the noble Lord means well. Nevertheless, I shall want to read what he said because I believe that he has gone further with his assurances than he did at Second Reading. So as to enable me and other noble Lords to read Hansard very carefully and to decide on our strategy for a later stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment:
Report received.

Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (Variation of Fourth Schedule) Order 1985
6.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 19th November be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this order and, with the agreement of your Lordships, I will speak also to the Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 1985, as both relate to different areas of agricultural holdings legislation.
Very briefly, so far as the order is concerned, and as your Lordships may be aware, the Law Commission is currently in the process of consolidating the agricultural holdings legislation. During the course of that exercise the commission discovered three discrepancies in the fourth schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 that must be rectified before the consolidation Bill presented to the House last week can be considered by the joint committee. The order corrects those discrepancies. The order is entirely technical.
The regulations, however, are rather more substantive. Your Lordships may recall that Section 8 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984 provides for the transfer of the agriculture Ministers' responsibility for the appointment of agricultural arbitrators and persons to make records of holdings in England and Wales to the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. As your Lordships may remember, that provision was debated at considerable length during the passage of the legislation in 1984. However, the Government made it clear during those debates that the transfer of functions would not take place for at least a year after the enactment of the new legislation, in order that the industry should not be faced with too many changes at once. In the light of those assurances my right honourable friend announced on 18th December 1984 that the transfer would take effect from 1st January 1986. The necessary commencement order was made on 24th October 1985.
The 1984 Act states that each application for an appointment must be accompanied by the prescribed fee. The purpose of the second regulation is to set that fee at £70. Clearly, a fee of this nature should not be revised too frequently and your Lordships will I hope he pleased to know that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has given an undertaking that unless anything unforeseen occurs, that fee will be able to stand unamended for the next five years. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 19th November be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we do not need to delay the House over these two orders. As the Minister rightly pointed out, they are simply designed to correct matters. There is one rather amusing sentence in the first order, where it states that sheep,
"have developed an instinct not to stray".
If any animal tends to stray, it is a sheep, and I wonder how long it takes before a sheep gains that instinct. I believe that it will be only after most of its useful life before a sheep ever develops the instinct not to stray.
I note that paragraph 3(3)(a) states that there shall be substituted the words:
"In areas of the country where arable crops can be grown in an unbroken series of not less than six years, and it is reasonable that they should be grown on the holding or part thereof".
154
Is that to allow for the fact that arable crops are being grown on land where they have previously not been grown and have been found to be successful? What is the reason for that provision?
As to the second order, I would comment only that at one time a fee of £70 would have paid for an arbitrator instead of just for an application to an arbitrator. It seems a very high fee, but no doubt it is calculated on the basis of inflation. Apart from those small points, I believe that we can allow these orders to go through.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question concerning the six-year period is that the fourth schedule, which is the subject of the first order, rests on a relatively new concept, giving outgoing tenants in arable areas credit for improving the fertility within the soil by leaving more land under leys than normal farming practice in the area would dictate. That is the answer to the question that the noble Lord put to me.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 1985
6.10 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th November be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1985
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th November be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1985, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved. It has been considered by the joint committee, which did not feel that the special attention of the House should be drawn to it. The purpose of the order is to add a number of substances to the list of those controlled under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act and to remove one superfluous reference to a drug which is already covered elsewhere in the Act and will, of course, remain controlled. Section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act provides for amendments to be made in this way so that we can keep abreast of changing circumstances, and several such orders have come before the House since the passing of the Act. An explanatory memorandum has already been published describing the drugs concerned and how it is planned to control them; and I hope that those of your Lordships who have seen it have found this additional background information helpful.
Amendments to the list of controlled drugs come about in two ways. First, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, a statutory body set up under the 1971 Act to keep under continuous review the extent

155
of drug misuse in the United Kingdom, may advise that certain drugs should be controlled. Secondly, the Government may decide to extend the controls in the Act to particular drugs in order to meet an international obligation. The order which we are dealing with today comes into the latter category. The United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, on which the United Kingdom is represented, decides from time to time to control particular drugs either in accordance with the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 or the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971. We are already a party to the 1961 convention and, in line with our legal obligations, we currently control all substances covered by that convention.
We are not, at present, a party to the 1971 convention, under which the substances listed for consideration today are controlled, but it has nevertheless been the policy of successive governments to bring under our domestic controls the more harmful substances listed in that convention. In December 1983 the then Home Secretary announced that the United Kingdom intended to become a party to this convention and, in consequence, we have been working towards bringing the remaining 1971 convention substances within the scope of our Act and introducing new regulations under it which would provide the detailed regimes of control necessary for us to comply with the requirements of the convention.
It is our intention to ratify the 1971 convention early next year and this draft order and consequential regulations, which, when made, would be subject to the negative resolution procedure, will complete the process of bringing our Misuse of Drugs Act controls into line with our new obligations.
I do not think your Lordships will expect me to refer in detail to the specific drugs which are covered by this order, except to say that they each relate to one or other of the three classes of drugs with which the Misuse of Drugs Act is particularly concerned. I would, however, tell your Lordships that the group of 33 minor tranquillisers belonging to the benzodizepine family are to be made Class C because of reports of misuse in a number of countries, although there is little evidence yet of misuse in this country.
The proposed measures I have outlined today follow consultations with manufacturers and trade and professional organisations and fully accord with the subsequent recommendations of the advisory council. There are statutory procedures yet to be completed but, subject to these, those concerned with controlled drug manufacture, sale, prescription and dispensing will have the new controls explained to them to ensure that they are in a position to comply with them by the time of the proposed operative date of 1st April 1986.
None of the drugs named in this draft order poses a particularly grave or immediate threat in the United Kingdom, but we need to bring them within the range of our controls so that we can, in common with most other Western European countries and the United States of America, become a party to the 1971 convention and play an even fuller role in international efforts in fighting drug misuse. I therefore commend the changes proposed in the draft order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th November be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Davidson.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the order was well laid, has been well explained by the noble Viscount, and deserves to be approved by your Lordships.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his kind and warm support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Bill [H.L.]
6.16 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I do so fortuitously but perhaps appropriately on Human Rights Day. It would need somebody far more self-assured than I to address himself to the theme of human rights and fundamental freedom without a sense of diffidence and of my own personal inadequacy; conscious of the great difference, the contrast between the greatness of my theme and my own littleness; conscious too of the greatness of those who have made these things their concern over the ages.
These concepts have exercised the minds and fired the imagination of great men indeed. Rousseau said:
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
Jefferson defined the inalienable rights of man as,
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Two centuries later men are still seeking to strengthen these rights and freedoms, to proclaim their sanctity and guarantee their enjoyment. This Bill seeks to follow in that great tradition.
My speech today, like Caesar's Gaul, will be divided into three parts. First, I shall say something about the purpose and provenance of the Bill, then describe briefly its provisions and effect. Finally, I shall seek to deal with the doubts felt, criticisms expressed and misconceptions entertained in regard to the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is I think clear from the Long Title and the Explanatory Memorandum. I shall expound further though not, I trust, wearisomely in the next part of my trilogy. The Bill has its roots deep in history. Human rights have long commanded the attention and engaged the aspirations of mankind. I mentioned two great protagonists, but this is not a case of exclusio alterius. There are many more whom I could pray in aid if time allowed. However, I say only this. This Bill is an attempt humbly but, I hope,

157
faithfully to follow in the path set, and add to the edifice erected by, in the Tennysonian phrase,
"those simple great ones gone for ever and ever by."
Coming to its more recent provenance, in a sense the Bill derives from the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom adhered in 1952. That classic document was a manifestation of the aspirations for a better world which filled the minds and warmed the hearts of people in those years of hope and striving.
I should like to say a brief word about the previous considerations of these matters in your Lordships' House. When a Bill of Rights, which was introduced by Lord Wade, who is a highly respected figure and an old friend of mine from House of Commons' days was overtaken by Prorogation eight years ago, a select committee was set up to consider two questions: first, whether such a Bill was desirable; secondly, if so, what form it should take. On the first matter there was a division of opinion, six to five in favour; but on the second matter there was unanimity that if such a Bill were to be enacted, it should be based on the convention.
The committee was fortunate in the quality and authority of the evidence which it received. I should like to make particular mention of one witness, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who testified to that committee on the desirability of such a measure and who has remained constant in his advocacy. Though this Bill stands in my name, in fact it is a joint effort, so those who may find the voice of Jacob less than persuasive can take comfort from the hand of Esau—though I hasten to say that, contrary to scriptural precedent, I expect Esau to have a good speaking part in these proceedings. The noble and learned Lord is president of the Constitutional Reform Centre and I should like also to express my appreciation of the help given by that body and its eminent director Mr. Richard Holme. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, as a Lord of Appeal has no party political affiliation of course, while Mr. Holme is a leading Liberal and I received the Conservative Whip through 11 Parliaments in the House of Commons, as I receive it now in this House—which your Lordships may think says much for the forbearance and kindly disposition of the Conservative Whip's Office.
This non-party or perhaps all-party approach is reflected also in the House of Commons. Among those who support the concept are senior Conservatives and Privy Counsellors such as Geoffrey Rippon and Terence Higgins, who used to sit alongside me in the third Bench below the gangway in that House. Geoffrey Rippon started his professional life devilling for me, so your Lordships will readily appreciate the great quality and talent required to achieve so distinguished a career after so heavy an initial handicap. Of course there are many other supporters in the House of Commons: Mr. Maclennan, the respected Alliance Member, who in 1983 introduced a Bill, which was different perhaps from my Bill in emphasis but similar in purpose; Donald Anderson, who is a senior Labour Member; Sir Edward Gardner, who is the recently retired chairman of the Society of
158
Conservative Lawyers; and many more. In summary, therefore, there is a broad basis of all-party support.
I proceed to my brief description of the content of the Bill, whose purpose and effect are clear from the Long Title and Memorandum: the provision in the courts of the United Kingdom of protection for the human rights and fundamental freedoms specified in the convention. The Bill ensures that judicial remedies will be available within the United Kingdom for all persons within its jurisdiction who have suffered, and can establish, breaches of those rights, or any of them. The rights and freedoms protected by the Bill, for the infringement of which judicial remedies will be available, are defined in Clause 1(2). In substance they are the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the convention as set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
Clause 2 is a key provision enacting that the rights and freedoms as thus defined shall have the force of law in the United Kingdom.
Schedule 1 is of great importance. It sets out the key articles of the convention, which are Articles 2 to 14, together with Articles 1 to 3 of Protocol 1. The rights specified in the convention and set out in Schedule 1 are self-explanatory and, I would think, unexceptionable. Article 14 prescribes the principle of nondiscrimination in the enjoyment of these rights. The three articles in Protocol 1 are concerned respectively with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, the right to education and the obligation to hold free elections by secret ballot.
In regard to the educational provisions, Her Majesty's Government made a reservation at the time of signing the protocol and this is embodied in the schedule. The provisions of the first article are currently being tested on individual petition by Scottish Shipbuilders, and that is the sort of matter which, if this Bill becomes law, could and would be dealt with by the British courts.
Clause 3 prohibits breaches of fundamental rights and freedoms and makes such breaches actionable in the United Kingdom. Clause 4—perhaps like its namesake in another and better known context—is complex and important. Its aim is to ensure as nearly as possible, while respecting our constitutional doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, that the observance of human rights and the existence of indigenous remedies are securely based in British law. The Bill seeks to do this in two ways. Acts authorised before this Bill becomes law shall be subject to the limitation that they do not infringe any fundamental rights and freedoms. Subsequent legislation will be subject to the implication that nothing is required to be done which would infringe any fundamental rights and freedoms, unless the subsequent legislation expressly excludes this provision. Of course this is necessary to preserve our constitutional principle that Parliament cannot bind its successors, but the provision as drafted will guard against any inadvertent conflict with the rights and remedies prescribed in the Bill. There will of course be substantial political constraints against an express and proclaimed denial of such rights.
Clause 5 prescribes a limitation period which is subject to extension by a court in appropriate circumstances. Clause 6 is a technical provision

159
dealing with judicial notice. Clause 7 deals with procedural matters arising in "human rights issues", which term is defined as meaning questions arising under Clauses 2 to 4. The clause gives effect to Schedule 3, which ensures the right of Law Officers to take part in such proceedings and gives authority to the court to exclude frivolous or vexatious contentions. Clause 8 is technical—application of the Crown Proceedings Acts. Clause 9 gives a power of derogation by Order in Council in case of war or other public emergency.
I have already referred to the vitally important Schedule 1 which sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms which the Bill is designed to protect. They follow the articles of the convention and the Bill thereby gives effect to the unanimous view of the select committee that, if there were to be such a Bill, it should follow this pattern. The articles are self-explanatory and, whatever reservations some noble Lords may have as to the method, I cannot think that there can be any dissent from the importance of those rights and the desirability of protecting their enjoyment.
I turn therefore to the third and last part of my exposition. Of course there are misconceptions and of course there are criticisms, arising perhaps in the main from the misconceptions. The main criticisms, I would think, are three. The definition of rights, it is said, is too generalised and at variance with our normal jurisprudential practice. The Bill, in the view of some critics, constitutes a threat to or a derogation from our constitutional doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament. And some contend that the Bill would impose a European or continental pattern on our traditional practice and procedure. I can deal with these matters together, as they are interrelated.
Of course we in Parliament have a jealous regard for the sovereignty of Parliament. We, or at any rate the older among us, were brought up on Dicey, with his twin pillars of the constitution; but Dicey did not set up the sovereignty of Parliament as a lone pedestal. There were twin pillars, and the other was the rule of law. My submission to your Lordships is that this Bill strengthens the one without undermining the other and will thus be a valuable safeguard to our constitutional structure.
It would be surprising indeed if parliamentarians who put the European Communities Act on the statute book in 1972 were concerned at the alleged loss of sovereignty of Parliament in a projected human rights Act in 1985. It would surely be a classic case of straining at the gnat after swallowing the camel. After all, Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome says that the regulations of the Community are,
"binding in their entirety and directly applicable in the Member States".
That is a real and substantial diminution of parliamentary sovereignty, to which by our adherence to the treaty we are committed in law and in good faith.
Here let me correct another misconception, if I may. The European Convention on Human Rights is not an instrument of the EC. It is the product of a different body, the Council of Europe; and its court at Strasbourg is not to be confused with the European
160
Court of Justice at Luxembourg which exercises jurisdiction under the treaty.
I return then to the criticism that the approach is too generalised and imposes a European pattern on our procedures. The answer, I should think, is twofold. First, we are already bound to give effect to generalised rights by reason of their prescription in the Treaty of Rome; and these have the force of law in this country and must be applied by the courts. Secondly, we have to observe generalised rights in any event by reason of our adherence to the convention. The difference is that if this Bill becomes law, interpretation and adjudication will be a matter for British judges in British courts, instead of by the complex and cumbersome procedures of individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights and thence, but only on the initiative of the commission, to a multinational court at Strasbourg. If jurisdiction is given to British courts as proposed in this Bill, the individual petition to Strasbourg will, I think, in time fall into desuetude. If not, individual petition is here to stay, as evidenced by the recent five-year renewal of the right by Her Majesty's Government.
Subject to further points that may arise in Committee, what I have said must in the interests of time suffice on these matters. Before concluding, however, may I briefly anticipate a thought that may be in the minds of some noble Lords? Is not the time and emphasis wrong, they may ask. At the present time should we not be concerned more with the enforcement of law than the enjoyment of rights? I take the point and I certainly subscribe to the importance of the enforcement of law and order, particularly in the climate of the present time. But there is no conflict; indeed, the reverse. The problems of rights and of law enforcement are not opposed; they are related and complementary.
Ten years ago in Luxemburg, on the threshold of the last quarter of the 20th century, I referred to the relationship between those two concepts at a time when I was chairman of what we called the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, which was our translation into English of its official title, President de la Commission Juridique. I must say that for a little while I had to ovecome a tendency to turn round to see who was being addressed or referred to under that sonorous and grandiloquent title.
At that time and in that town I used these words:
"I believe that the objective and analytical eye of history will identify two related problems in the last quarter of the twentieth century. They are, first, this problem of the rights of the citizen vis-à-vis the State, a problem necessarily aggravated by the increasing centralisation and bureaucracy, which contemporary economic and social practice seem increasingly to demand; and, secondly, the problem of the recognition of the duty and responsibility owed by the individual to society. These problems are related because the growth of State power and State activity provokes a resentment and a reaction which feed and foster revolts against authority and impatience with the restraints and obligations of the rule of law.
"The resulting manifestations",
I concluded,
"are clear for all to see in the world today, including, alas, the countries of the Community. The ugly evidence is daily adduced in violence, aggression and in the invocation of force against the rule of law. Of course, the action which I am proposing in relation to the safeguarding of rights will not automatically solve the problem of irresponsibility and violence—and perhaps not even contribute directly to its solution. But, if I am right in my assessment of

161
history's diagnosis and these problems are related, then indirectly at any rate progress in the field of rights can contribute powerfully to a restoration of the sense of responsibility and the acceptance of the rule of law".
Can it be said that those words are less topical or less true now than then, 10 years ago? Are they not reinforced by the events of the intervening decade? What I said in Luxembourg in 1975 I say here at Westminster today; and on that I rest my case. In that faith, in that hope and in that conviction I commend this Bill to your Lordships and request its second reading at your hands.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Broxbourne.)
6.39 p.m.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, today is the 10th December. I am sure that all your Lordships know that 10th December is the day appointed by the United Nations organisation for celebration as Human Rights Day. I have no doubt that those who are responsible for the business of this House arranged for the Second Reading of this Bill to take place on so auspicious a day; and I am hoping that your Lordships' House, after hearing the full and eloquent exposition of the Bill by its mover, the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, will with due quietness and dignity celebrate Human Rights Day by giving it a Second Reading.
I shall be brief. My position is well known. I think that I have contributed in some measure to every debate there has been during the past seven or eight years in this House in which the possibility of enacting the European Convention on Human Rights has been discussed. I suppose that I should also declare an interest. I am, as some of your Lordships may know, a judge. It will no doubt be said by some that, as a judge, I together with my colleagues on the Bench, should be getting too much power if the European convention should be enacted.
Perhaps I may say a word or two about that. If our judges are not to be trusted then they are not to be trusted with their present responsibility, which is the enforcement, application and development by judicial decision of the rule of law. That would be so whether or not the European Convention is enacted. If they are to be trusted—as I am sure the British public trusts them—then the European Convention on Human Rights once enacted will not add any new dimension to the responsibilities already daily undertaken by our judges in the field of judicial review of the exercise of executive powers by public authority. The argument based upon too much power to the courts can be immediately dismissed as one based not on reason but on a certain superficial distrust of the rule of law.
As I see it, the merit of this Bill can be expressed very shortly indeed. Its merit is that if enacted, under this Bill any individual person present within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom will have immediate access—I emphasise the word "immediate"—within the United Kingdom to a British court if he claims that a public authority has violated a right guaranteed to him by the European convention.
The Bill, by providing the aggrieved citizen with a remedy in a national court, will at the same time ensure that the United Kingdom meets its
162
international obligations. There are in the European convention two articles neither of which finds place in the schedule to this Bill because they declare the international obligations of the United Kingdom. I shall refer to them briefly, because as soon as your Lordships see them you will appreciate that this Bill will be a valuable means of ensuring that the United Kingdom honours its international obligation. That international obligation arises of course from the signature to and ratification of the European convention.
The articles are these. Article 1 requires contracting states to ensure to everyone—again, notice that; it is not limited to citizens or to residents, but refers to everyone—within the jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the convention. That is an obligation of the United Kingdom on international law.
Article 13 indicates a way in which the United Kingdom undertakes to honour that international obligation. Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in the convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority. The European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg has interpreted Article 13 as imposing an obligation upon contracting states—including of course the United Kingdom—to ensure that there is an effective remedy available to anyone who claims that his rights have been violated.
The first merit of the Bill upon which I wish to place the greatest emphasis this evening, is that incorporating the European convention into our law will ensure that our Government meet those two obligations. By ensuring compliance with those obligations it provides to the aggieved individual immediate access to a British court to remedy the infringement to protect him against the threatened infringement of a violation of a right defined by the convention.
Perhaps I may first of all say a word or two about why the incorporation of the convention into our law has merit. Again, I mention just two points briefly. First, there is great value to the individual in immediate access to a court. He may not have it now. He may have to wait until he can get to Strasbourg, where his case will be considered first by the European Commission and, at a later stage, if the European Commission publishes a report, by the European Court of Human Rights—a court, I would add, where the aggrieved citizen has himself no right to be heard. If he can be heard it is only by courtesy of the European Commission itself.
But that is not the point I am on at the moment, although it is of some importance. The point I am making is this. If one is so fortunate as to get a decision from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that process takes on average anything between four and six years. It will not surprise your Lordships to know that the first prisoner to test whether or not he had suffered a violation of a right guaranteed by the convention when he could not as a prisoner consult a solicitor eventually secured a declaration that his right had been infringed, some four years after he had been discharged from prison. No doubt that is a triumph morally but it is not very useful to the citizen after so much delay.

163
Think, my Lords, for a moment about the case in which it was ruled by the European Court that suspects detained in Northern Ireland had been subjected to treatment in the course of interrogation which contravened the European convention. That declaration of infringement came years after the event. But had those suspects had an immediate right of access to a British court—in their case it would have been the admirable courts of Northern Ireland—with access to their solicitor, which is also ensured to them under this convention, they could have got there at once. They might even have reached there in time to stop the continuation of this unlawful interrogation. I mention those two cases—one could mention others—to indicate the enormous value of immediate access to a court within the jurisdiction where you are.
The other value which I wish to stress tonight is the value of involving our national courts in the interpretation and application of the convention. At present, by merely a self-denying ordinance, our judges have no part in the interpretation or application of the convention. We are almost alone in that among the 20 signatories to the European convention. Fourteen of them—I think that is the number—have incorporated the European convention one way or another in their internal law. Another four have substantially reproduced it. Only two have not done so: one is Sweden, which has a written constitution; and the other is the United Kingdom, which has neither a written constitution nor the European convention within its law. How valuable it would be for the skills and legal wisdom of our judges to be involved in interpreting and applying this convention where it takes effect within their jurisdiction.
Of course the convention does not only define rights; it also sets out restrictions and limitations upon the exercise of those rights. Those restrictions and limitations would apply within the United Kingdom if the convention were enacted. It would be valuable not only to the United Kingdom but also, I suspect, to the European Convention on Human Rights in Strasbourg, if we could have the views of the British judiciary upon the application of those restrictions within the United Kingdom. None of that is now possible because we have isolated ourselves from the mainstream of human rights jurisprudence in Europe.
I have already taken longer than my allotted time. Therefore, I should like to conclude with these few words. Quite apart from the positive advantages to aggrieved citizens in incorporating this convention into our law, if it were to become law it would immediately acquire a power to influence and to educate. Politicians, civil servants, Ministers and others concerned with the preparation of legislation would take account not only in the arcane chambers of Whitehall where these things are drafted but also in debate in the two Houses and in the national debate which often accompanies legislation as it passes through these two Houses. They would be astute to ensure that important detailed legislation—such as, for example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, now on the statute book, and the Public Order Bill, now on its way to the statute book—complied with our international obligations under the European convention. All the time, the judges, who are now very
164
experienced in the field of judicial review of the exercise of executive powers by public authorities, would be developing, explaining and applying this convention in a British context. I sincerely hope that on Human Rights Day every man of you and every woman of you will do his and her duty.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I rise with considerable trepidation to speak on this important legal question in the presence of so many distinguished lawyers. However, when we are discussing a matter of such basic fundamental importance as individual rights, it is perhaps appropriate that the voice of the ignorant layman should be heard, particularly if it is heard briefly.
Many Bills have been brought forward from these Benches designed to protect the freedom of the individual, from the late Lord Reading's Rights of the Subject Bill 1947 and the late Lord Samuel's Liberties of the Subject Bill 1950, to the four occasions on which my noble friend Lord Wade attempted to do just what the Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, seeks to do—that is, to provide that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms should be enforceable in British courts, thus making the convention part of our domestic law.
In those circumstances, it is not surprising that I should welcome the Bill most warmly on behalf of the Alliance parties and express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for introducing it and for explaining it to us tonight in the very clear way in which he has done so. Indeed, in their joint 1983 election manifesto, the Alliance parties pledged their support for just such a measure.
I should like also to express my appreciation of the defence of the Bill which has been presented to us tonight by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and of the way in which he has argued over the years for what the Bill contains.
There has been growing support in this country for a written constitution with entrenched rights. The old assumption that a citizen is free to do as he likes provided he does not commit a specific breach of the law is no longer felt to be sufficient for the protection of individual rights. There are obvious reasons for that. One reason is that, with the increasing volume of legislation (which now includes EC legislation) it is becoming increasingly difficult for the individual to know what the law is. There is also the complexity of that law. The individual may not know what it means, even if he knows what it says. The individual is increasingly at the mercy of officialdom. A United Kingdom Bill of Rights—which in effect is what this Bill would introduce—would go a long way to strengthen the citizen's hand against Government and public authorities.
When in this House on 25th March 1976 we had one of the Second Reading debates on the Bill of my noble friend Lord Wade, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, argued that British judges are already upholding individual freedom and individual liberties and it is not really necessary to refer to the convention. He gave at that time examples of particular rights which are mentioned in the convention and he

165
indicated how the judges were, in fact, upholding those rights.
We in this House of course pay very careful attention and respect to anything which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, may say on these matters, because of his great expertise and experience. Yet, when one looks back over the experience which we have had of petition to Strasbourg since 1966—which was when it first became possible—I am bound to say that it seems to me that there have been many occasions when individual rights would not have been upheld had there been no reference to Strasbourg and to the convention. For example, resort to Strasbourg has been necessary to protect a free press against an over-broad concept of contempt of court; to uphold the rights of prisoners to correspond with the outside world and to have access to the courts; to protect workers against abuse in the operation of trade unions' closed shop arrangements; to obtain equality without discrimination for United Kingdom citizens of East African Asian origin denied entry to their country of citizenship; to extend judicial remedies to mental patients detained at the discretion of the executive—and many more examples could be given.
Why should British citizens have to go to the expense and delay to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, referred of petition to Strasbourg? Why should they not be able to seek remedies in the British courts? It is argued against this that if they did in fact have the right to seek remedies in the British courts, this would give rise to a spate of litigation. There might conceivably initially, I suppose, be a trend in that direction, but I am quite sure that it would drop off quickly, and I am fortified by the thought that every other democratic country has either a Bill of Rights or a written constitution, or both, except I think New Zealand, where the present government are pledged to introduce a Bill of Rights and a draft is now being investigated by that country's Select Committee on Justice and Law Reform.
May I say in conclusion that I have considerable admiration for English law and, for that matter, considerable admiration for Scottish law, but even so I am bound to say that I think that the Lord Chancellor in the Gilbert and Sullivan opera "Iolanthe" goes too far when he claims:
"The law is the true embodiment of everything that is excellent; it has no kind of fault or flaw".
To take a rather more critical view of the law is not necessarily to endorse Mr. Bumble's view of it. Another character in that same Gilbert and Sullivan opera declares:
"If there is an institution in Great Britain which is not susceptible of any improvement at all, it is the House of Peers".
Well, that is a subject for debate on another day, but whatever may be true of your Lordships' House, I dare to believe that so far as the law is concerned it is susceptible of improvement, and that improvement is what the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Broxboume, would provide.
7.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, my support for this Bill starts from the belief that among the ordinary people of this country there is quite a wide-
166
spread fear that what are called in the Bill "human rights and fundamental freedoms" are gradually being eroded. This fear may be thought irrational and yet I find it entirely natural, for we live in a century when not only have there been wars and tyrannies on a terrifying scale but when the complexity of administrative power has come more and more to dominate the daily life of the citizen.
It has become increasingly difficult for him to know where to turn for redress, or indeed to know where he stands. Less sure himself in many cases about right and wrong than he used to be, he sees this uncertainty reflected in a society of plural values. Although recourse to the law is, I suppose, more frequent than ever, he often fears that such recourse may be both expensive and slow, and may not in the end express those rather simple principles of morality to which he still feels himself attached.
Fortunately, this threatening process of erosion has not had it all its own way. From time to time there has been a counter-attack, and one of the most effective was the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, born of the experiences of the war, and ratified first of all by this country which had played such a large part in framing it.
The language of the convention is simple; so simple that it can give occasion to some expert critics to say that is all too vague. But surely its simplicity is precisely the point. Here is language about human rights and freedoms that the ordinary person can be expected to understand, and which has proved itself able to cross a great many national frontiers and to find a response. That indeed is what has happened, as your Lordships are aware, both in democratic Europe and in the Commonwealth.
Who would have dared to prophesy in 1950 that British citizens would have thought of taking their grievances to a court in Strasbourg? Some of them would hardly have known whether Strasbourg was in Germany or in France, but yet today no state sends more individual petitions to the European court at Strasbourg than does the United Kingdom. Surely that is something of which the British Parliament and the British legal profession need to take serious note. This is why this Bill deserves to succeed where a number of earlier attempts to incorporate the convention into our law have failed.
I have the honour to be president of a modest ecumenical body called Christians for Europe, one of the organisations which supports a Bill of Rights. It is on both these counts that I wanted to take part in this debate. First, as a Christian, it may be argued that "human rights" is not a phrase natural to Christianity, which speaks rather of duties and of laying aside selfish claims, and says that it is God's service which is perfect freedom. There is certainly more to human life and character than is to be found in the articles of this, or any other, convention.
Yet I would argue that a great deal which is in those articles derives from biblical teaching which has been common to the whole of Christendom and of course to Judaism as well. It springs from the belief that each person is of intrinsic value and dignity and deserves to be treated with the respect due to a child of God, so that no authority, whether of a dictator or of a

167
bureaucracy, has the absolute right to treat that person as of little or no account.
It may be thought that traditionally in British society, as one branch of Christian civilisation, so to speak, such a principle was self-evident, but I believe that it would be either a very brave or a very complacent person who would claim that it is self-evident in our secularised society of today. I think that in modern terms we need a Bill of Rights not just as an adjunct to the law but also as some kind of protection against sin.
Then I should like to support the Bill as someone who values the European Community in a fairly wide sense of those words. I believe that the other democratic countries of Europe must find it rather strange that the United Kingdom, which was a pioneer in establishing the convention, should have taken so long to domesticate it on its own shores. They must surely wonder whether this is another manifestation of what they sometimes regard as our isolationism, and whether this is due to some false sense of superiority about the perfection of our own arrangements.
I say "false" because when they look at the number of petitions which have come from this country to the court at Strasbourg, and the number of judgments given in favour of the petitioners, they could hardly believe that any claim to perfection on our part was true. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said all that is required on that subject.
It does not do much for the reputation of the United Kingdom if we are apparently unwilling to adopt quite explicitly for our own courts the principles to which we subscribed over 30 years ago and to be prepared to deal ourselves with any infringements of those same principles. We are, after all, supposed to have been the inventors of the idea of fair play, and fair play is something that is very much in need of defence in the world of today.
I hope I shall not be accused of some godless philosophy—bishops have to be rather careful nowadays—if I say that it is especially to the humble, powerless, and disadvantaged members of our nation that a Bill of Rights seems to be of value. In the past 10 years or so the European court has come to the assistance of the mentally handicapped, immigrants, and prisoners—to mention just three of the categories I have so described. But not every such person is likely to find the court in Strasbourg easy of access or to be represented with enough skill and perseverance to gain a hearing and to obtain redress. Surely the right place for them to look for these things is in the courts of their own country and to look for them on the basis of a charter of rights and freedoms which they themselves can understand and which they know to be honoured by their own representatives in Parliament. To enable this to happen is in one way quite simple in terms of this Bill, yet in another respect it seems to me a big and important step for British justice to take. I very much hope that the passing of this Bill will enable us to take it.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the ultimate purpose of this Bill is to provide a remedy in our courts where the domestic law conflicts with the
168
convention—the immediate access of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, spoke. This immediate access may be achieved otherwise than by the machinery of incorporation enshrined in Clause 2, as indeed the noble and learned Lord would no doubt recognise. If the Bill is read a second time, amendments to Clauses 2 and 3 will be tabled to ensure that the convention and all relevant jurisprudence shall be taken into account on judicial revue, as mentioned but not advocated by the noble and learned Lord—but only on judicial revue and in the appropriate appellate processes therefrom; to enlarge the system of judicial revue; to afford reparation within the meaning of Article 50 of the convention; to carry in Clause 4 of the Bill as an aid to construction of the statutes, but only in this context and so remove from Clause 4 as it now stands the taint of unacceptable entrenchment; and to provide amendments to the rules of the Supreme Court to give effect to this concept and to bring the Act into effect only when those rules and those amendments to the existing rules shall have received affirmative approval in both Houses of Parliament.
The article in today's Times, on page 10, fails to recognise that without some such amendment as I have mentioned the Bill as it stands would create constitutional problems by affording to the judiciary instead of the legislature the facility to formulate legislation quite beyond the customary remit. I assure your Lordships that in this there is no question of any mistrust of the judges—none whatever. That is a red herring, a side point; there is nothing in it at all. Furthermore, not only that—the constitutional aspect—but it would induce delay, confusion, want of predictability in the law so as to render it unworkable and even perhaps reduce the administration of justice in our courts and tribunals throughout the land to a grinding halt.
With some such amendment as is proposed (which would meet the plea for immediate access of the noble and learned Lord and the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford) a remedy in our courts could be provided as envisaged by Article 50 of the convention and also within the remit of Article 13, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. Furthermore the conflict between our own law and the convention would be reduced to an acceptable degree. Furthermore the course of these adverse rulings at Strasbourg, adverted to by the right reverend Prelate, where in 12 out of 14 cases since 1975 Her Majesty's Government were defeated by the decision of the court, would be altered. Also if amendments along the lines proposed were accepted, the obligations under Article 53 of the treaty, which oblige Her Majesty's Government to carry in a series of piece-meal amendments to square our own law with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, would be reduced to reasonable proportions.
There is another aspect, too, which was adverted to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. The decisions of our own courts, right up to the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in the case of Fernandez, which was the ultimate decision, would be overuled. Those decisions preclude our courts from having any regard whatever to the provisions of the convention and to the relevant jurisprudence.

169
In Fernandez I was an advocate. The noble and learned Lord was sitting as a Law Lord. I tell your Lordships this because it is relevant to the debate. I had a hopeless case, because all I had to say was, "Reverse the Court of Appeal because their decision goes in the teeth of the European convention". The court, not unnaturally, was very hostile and said, "You know perfectly well you do not have a case and you know perfectly well that we shall not entertain this appeal". But I went on and I went on and eventually the noble and learned Lord said, very quietly, "He may not have a case in law, but he has a case in humanity". As a result of that curiously enough I lost the appeal, but my client remains in this country today. So there is a human side to all this academic argument.
I am grateful, and so would a lot of other people be, to the noble and learned Lord for his most courageous intervention. But if these amendments were accepted to relate this only to judicial review, we would provide an adequate means of immediate access. We should also eradicate largely, not wholly, the source of contention and conflict, and we should honour the spirit of obligations willingly undertaken since 1966 when Her Majesty's Government accepted the right of individual petition and also the jurisdiction of the court.
The present position, as my little anecdote alone would suffice to show, cannot be described as satisfactory or truly acceptable. But the case for incorporation as enshrined in Clause 2 of this Bill as it stands was considered by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House set up to consider Lord Wade's Bill. In this the committee found unanimously that there was no way—I quote from paragraph 43—
"in which the convention and its jurisprudence could be made binding in our courts".
Yet this is the very thing that this Bill seeks to do, and this I oppose, hook, line and sinker. So the crucial principle of the Bill I cannot accept, and it was not accepted by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
The argument on this issue of incorporation is in no way advanced by considerations of some new constitutional settlement in the form of a Bill of Rights as advocated by (I have forgotten its name, but I think it is the Constitutional Reform Society, of which the noble and learned Lord is president) the society mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. This question of incorporation is not advanced by considerations of entrenchment; by derogation from the sovereignty of Parliament, which stands, and must stand, as the central feature of our constitution, and which was expressly mentioned by your Lordships' Select Committee on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that the problem of entrenchment was insoluble: in other words, one should not seek to entrench.
Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has said (though not today) that the legislature should look at this concept of a new Bill of Rights as a canon of just legislation, perhaps it may be said that, if the Bill were enacted as it stands, the discharge of such a "cannon" could slight the security of the castle of common law precedent and, indeed, pepper the construction of legislation with the grapeshot of uncertainty.
170
The only viable approach to this is the approach of other countries, in which a remedy is provided in the form of an adminstrative court, where it is accepted that occasional conflict will be inevitable. If our treaty obligations demand no less, assuredly they demand no more. This principle of incorporation, as enshrined in Clause 2, is not accepted by any other signatory state. Wholesale incorporation as envisaged by Clause 2 is unworkable in practice in any legal system, irrespective of whether it is a Napoleonic Code system or a common law system. The loosely drafted provisions of this convention as interpreted by the relevant jurisprudence are not so easily assimilated or grafted on to any municipal law, least of all our own.
The Select Committee in this regard concluded—and it is right that your Lordships should advert to this—that the convention did not require wholesale incorporation as proposed by this Bill, but that our courts should have regard to the convention and the jurisprudence at Strasbourg, and that any Bill should make express provision as to remedies. Such is the only practical resolution of the problem of providing a remedy in our courts, and to provide this by the enlargement of judicial review. This in effect means the setting up of a kind of administrative court which is obliged to take the convention and the jurisprudence into account, and which, in the course of time, will establish its own body of precedent. It would not be practicable to accord to the convention and its jurisprudence the force of law in all courts and tribunals throughout the United Kingdom as proposed by Clause 2.
In conclusion, my support for a Second Reading is therefore obviously qualified by my inability to support the principle of the Bill as it stands. This, I stress, implies no mistrust of our judges. In my view, in the form of amendment which I shall table, the judges should be given a role, shall be given a role, but never the role proposed by this Bill.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, it has been my lot over the years to consider this proposal many times. I have been present at many of the debates on it in this House; I have written upon it; and I have heard cases in the courts in which people have raised this convention on human rights. I am afraid I do not think these clauses ought to be incorporated into our law, as part of our law. They are framed in the words of a treaty, vague and indefinite; and if they are brought before the courts of law those courts and, I am afraid, the European Court of Strasbourg, decide not by the words, as we do in our courts, but by the policy which they think underlies them.
This was strikingly illustrated when we had our debate about corporal punishment in schools. The court at Strasbourg decided, I think quite wrongly, on the words of a protocol, that it could only be done with the consent of the parents. Our English judge, Sir Vincent Evans, dissented, and I think quite rightly. They went on the policy that they thought the rule ought to be the same throughout Europe. When the matter came before your Lordships sitting legislatively, when the Government tried to put that

171
decision into operation, I am glad to say your Lordships rejected it because the ultimate word on the law of England is Parliament, and not the European Court at Strasbourg.
Perhaps I may say this at once. When I read Clause 4 of this Bill, it offends all our constitutional principles. What it says is that any statute already made by both Houses can be examined by the courts of law, and the courts of law can say that that statute is invalid because it offends against the constitution. That is in regard to past Acts. In regard to future Acts, it says, again, that anyone can ask for a declaration in the courts of law to say that the Acts of this Parliament are invalid because they offend against the European Convention.
This is such a fundamental principle of our constitution that I remind your Lordships of what Lord Reid said in the latest case of Pickin v. British Railways Board reported in 1974 Appeal cases at page 782:
"The idea that a court is entitled to disregard a provision of an Act of Parliament on any gound must seem strange and startling to anyone with any knowledge of the history and law of our constitition".
Then it goes on to say:
"In earlier times many learned writers seem to have believed that an Act of Parliament could be disregarded in so far as it was contrary to the law of God or to the law of nature or to natural justice, but since the supremacy of Parliament was finally demonstrated by the revolution of 1688 any such idea has become obsolete".
I will not allow any contention here that that clause should ever appear in any statute, because it is really subordinating our Acts of Parliament to a determination by the courts on the ground that it is said that they are contrary to the conventions. So on that simple ground I oppose any interference with our constitution by directing the courts in that way. That is a fundamental constitutional point.
Let me get on to the details, if I may. This convention is not drafted in the form of our ordinary statutes which we understand; it is drafted in the form of a treaty which the Continentals may understand, and the like. Just think of the troubles! I may say that when I have sat in the Court of Appeal, time after time counsel have said, "Well, look at the convention". And we have looked at it and we have said repeatedly—I do not know about that case of Fernandez; I am speaking about the Court of Appeal—that we will look at the convention, we will look at the principles in it and we will apply them so far as they are consistent with our law and with what we think is right and just.
We do look at them and we apply them so far as they are right and reasonable. Let me give your Lordships some illustrations of how it has arisen. A schoolteacher under the London Education Authority was a Moslem. He said, "I have got under the convention a freedom to manifest my religion as I think best. I want to have Fridays off to go to the mosque. It takes me an hour to get there and it takes me an hour to get back; but I want to have those Fridays off or Friday from midday off and not do my teaching". He claimed that before us. We did not have it. But if this Bill becomes enacted then that teacher could sue the local authority without anyone's
172
permission and make it actionable. "Oh," he would say, "You stopped me going to the mosque on that Friday". We could not have that.
Then we had the other case of a man who had come in in a little boat, without any authority, as people did, across the sea. He came into England without any authority. He was a man of 26. Naturally in due course a deportation order was made against him. He said, "I want to marry this young girl of 16; and under the convention the marriage is allowed. Men and women now have the right to marry". He said, "I have the right to marry under the convention". We did not allow that. He had to be deported. He was not going to marry a girl of 16.
If I may I will take a simple, modern illustration—the question of caning in schools. Some of our public schools have this punishment. I think that some have it and some do not. If a boy has behaved monstrously, injuring others or stealing and the like, some schools still think that caning is not a bad thing. They will have to be careful if this convention is part of our law. This schoolboy or his parents will say, "You have offended against the convention and it is actionable. This is inhuman or degrading punishment". That is what they have indicated before.
I give those illustrations to show your Lordships the effect of this Clause 4 (or whatever it is)—the clause that gives everyone in the country a right of action in the courts for anything which they allege to be an infringement of the convention. Just think—and I have given you some illustrations—of the myriad of cases that will come. There will be people—and I have had them—like the man we decided against in court. He said, "I'm off to the European Court". We said good luck to him. It is a very difficult matter for him to get there. He cannot get there so easily as this Bill would let him get to our courts. He has first to go to the Commission, which I believe is at Brussels, and there has to be an investigation and inquiry by them. They have to see whether or not the case is admissible. They turn down a great number of cases. If they think a case is admissible, it can go before the European Court at Strasbourg.
Then, at Strasbourg, it is not the person concerned who has any right to bring the case. The only people who can refer to that court are the Commission themselves or one of the high contracting parties. So the person has an awfully difficult journey before he gets to that European Court at Strasbourg. On the other hand, if this Bill becomes an Act, anyone, without any leave or anything of that kind, can start an action in our courts. They can say that it is actionable and that any breach of that duty is actionable in the United Kingdom.
As I say, my objection is fundamental. It is that you are going to have a myriad of cases by a lot of crackpots, and they will have to be turned out sooner or later. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway foresaw that and he saw a lot of trouble coming on. He would not have that clause as it stands at the moment. I would not have Clause 4. As I say, it offends against the constitution as I see it.
Then it is said that under Clause 6 judicial notice has got to be taken of all decisions at the European

173
Court. I do not want to be too critical of that court; but in quite a number of cases the British judge has dissented. Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice did so in several cases and Sir Vincent Evans did so in several cases. This is because they were interpreting the convention according to our English system; whereas those in Europe interpret treaties and suchlike differently from how we interpret them. Naturally enough, our British judges dissent. I do not want to criticise them but I must say that, viewing it at this distance, there is a good deal to be said for thinking that they have been wrong from time to time.
I know that the Sunday Times is terribly pleased with the case it took up there. But, mark you, it was only by eleven to nine—eleven to nine reversed the full House of Lords declaring our common law. And it was a very good common law, they stated. My Lords, is that right? I do not want to go on to the three railwaymen who went there about the trade unions. But at Strasbourg they declared that our legislation—and I know it was by a Labour Government, but perhaps that does not matter—with regard to trade unions and so forth was contrary to the convention and that it had to be reversed.
I do not like a court which overrules the decisions of the House of Lords, which overrules the legislation of your Lordships and of both Houses in this way. Yet as I read this, together with some of the articles, our courts would be bound by decisions of that European Court. It may be, as I have said, that many of us (and certainly I) disagree with quite a number of them. Yet we would be bound by them. There have been enough reasons, and I have set out my reasons from time to time. But the real truth is that this convention is not suitably phrased or suitably set out to be part of law or to set down legal principles to be interpreted in our courts. We can take them into account, as I have said, and apply them so far as we reasonably can. But do not make them part of an Act of Parliament. Therefore, I am against this Bill.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, in the expectation that we might have proposals of this kind during the current Session, I ventured to make some observations on this topic in the debate on the Address on 12th November at col. 195. I do not flatter myself that what I said has been widely read and digested but there it is on the record and I do not propose to repeat tonight what I said then.
However, there are one or two points which I should like to make this evening. Let me begin by saying that there are at any rate four issues on which I can readily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne. First, it seems to me clearly right that if we are going to legislate at all we should go for incorporating the European Convention. It is not a perfect document: its drafting is somewhat inelegant notwithstanding its provenance, and it does not deal with economic, social or cultural rights. But it is a convention to which we are a party, and to construct yet another code alongside it simply would not make sense. I recognise that in so far as the convention raises uncertainty about its impact on our existing law, that uncertainty exists to some extent already as regards cases going to
174
Strasbourg. That is a point which I should like to come back to in a moment.
Thirdly, I accept that if we do not embody the convention in our law we are only too likely to have the further embarrassment of having findings against us at Strasbourg which might have been avoided —though not necessarily so—if our courts were made the courts of first instance. Fourthly, I agree that in a number of cases where the decision has gone against us, this has been rightly so and gaps haw been disclosed in our provision for protecting human rights which we did not think existed when we signed the convention. But there are weighty arguments the other way which cannot just be swept aside as being misconceptions.
As I see it, the role of the Strasbourg court is essentially different from that which would fall to our judges under this Bill. What the Strasbourg court says, if it finds against us, is that we have not acted in accordance with the convention and we had better go away and think how to put things right. And in the course of time this is what we do, if necessary by new legislation. We do not always do it very well and we can take a very long time; but no matter. The essential feature is that it is Parliament that in the end decides, either by changing the law or by approving other actions such as a statutory instrument, falling short of legislation.
However, under this Bill it would fall to the judges there and then to say in a particular case what the relevant article meant in our law, since that article would override anything previously on the statute book, so that it would be for the courts and not the legislature to say just what was meant in our law by the rights to life, to freedom of thought, to freedom of expression and all the rest.
It seems to me that a number of consequences flow from this. For one thing, if these articles were part of our domestic law the element of uncertainty over a wide field would be rather different from that which exists at present. The relevant articles and the exceptions they provide for, as we have heard and as can be seen by looking at the Bill, are in the most general terms, quite contrary to our own traditions of legislating in a detailed and specific way. And it would be a very long time before anyone knew, on the accident of the cases coming before the courts, just what changes these sweeping generalisations had made to the previous statutes.
Moreover, I cannot see how the judges, in coming to these decisions, could avoid applying criteria which on any ordinary basis would be regarded as political. The United States Supreme Court is sometimes cited as an example of what could be achieved. One could say a great deal about the operation of that distinguished body—including the fact that it operates against a background of a written constitution—but there is one point that stands out, which is that that court is called upon from time to time to determine issues which here (hitherto at any rate) have been regarded as proper to the legislature.
It has been an inevitable consequence of that fact that appointments to the court have a political flavour. I think there would be universal agreement that that is not something we would wish to see applying to

175
judicial appointments here. I must say that I doubt whether all members of the judiciary would go along with my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, or that all members of the Bar would go along with the views expressed in an article today in The Times by the Chairman of the Bar. It would not be right for me to quote from private conversations, but the views of the late Lord Diplock, for whom I had the highest possible personal regard, are on record. When we were debating an earlier Bill to incorporate the European Convention on the 29th November, 1978, at col. 1364, after recalling that he had some experience in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of dealing with appeals from countries with an entrenched Bill of Rights, he went on to say that the risk of bringing judges more and more into politics was the deciding factor in leading him to oppose the Bill then before the House.
I am afraid that it just will not do to dismiss these objections as being misconceptions or as superficial views based on distrust of the rule of law. I think we are in a very real dilemma with a choice between the two courses—embodying the convention or going on as we are—both of which, it seems to me, are open to very serious objections. My own choice is still for the second course, notwithstanding all the problems.
Before I conclude, let me raise a few points on the Bill itself. I notice that it does not embody the whole of the convention, although, as I recall, the Select Committee thought unanimously that provisions in the convention which did not confer rights as such might have a bearing on the true construction of those that did, and concluded that the whole convention should be included. Nor does it seem to me that Clause 6 of the present Bill is apt to fill this gap. I noticed with some interest, incidentally, that among the articles not reproduced in the Bill is Article 16, which reads:
"Nothing in Articles 10, 11 and 14"
(all of which are in the Bill)
"should be regarded as preventing the high contracting parties from imposing restrictions on the political activity of aliens.".
I suppose that that was not a fundamental right which appealed to Jefferson, or indeed to the noble Lord who introduced the Bill.
I also notice that the scope of the Bill is limited to public authorities, although I believe the definition of them is defective. But the convention is not itself in terms so limited and it might possibly in the end be found applicable to private bodies. I believe the argument about that is still going on.
There are one or two other points of detail of considerably less importance than the weighty points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his rather muted welcome to this Bill. But there is one other matter which he touched on, and which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning touched on, which is far from being one of detail; that is, the provision in Clause 4(2) which is aimed at some form of entrenchment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, explained that the effect of this provision would be that the Bill would apply to any future Act unless there was a specific provision in that Act overruling this clause. No Government in the future would put a provision in a future Bill specifically overriding a statute which gives effect to our
176
international obligations, so that the plain effect of Clause 4(2) is that it would bite on all future Acts of Parliament. It is my belief, as has already been said, that this is totally inconsistent with all accepted views of the sovereignty of Parliament, for the reasons given in the authoritative legal memorandum which the Select Committee received and which it discussed in its report.
I was very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, indicated that Section 2(4) of the European Communities Act of 1972 provided something of a precedent. That is a point disposed of in the Select Committee's report. I am sure that he has a copy of the memorandum since that is the first document in our minutes of evidence, the last being the transcript of the extremely interesting exchanges that we had with our last witness, my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman. I think that Clause 4(2) in its present form simply will not do.
I am sorry this evening to be differing from the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, when we spoke with such amity together only last week in the debate about the mentally disabled, but there it is. I am afraid that I cannot match his eloquence, or that of the other noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate who have spoken in favour of the Bill, but I fear that I remain a disbeliever.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I rise as a layman and very much a beginner in these complex matters. I shall try to be brief and I hope non-controversial. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for introducing this Bill tonight. Experience has, I think, shown that the European Convention on Human Rights provides better safeguards and remedies than some of the traditional British procedures in which we used to take justifiable pride. This is, I think, not surprising when we consider that we helped to draft the convention and were, I believe, the first country to ratify it in 1952.
Examples have already been given this evening of the advantages that have accrued to British citizens as a result of the convention, and I shall not go over them again. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, explained, I thought very clearly, the advantages of the Bill in providing immediate access to British courts and in avoiding the delays which have up till now been so extremely long in the Strasbourg procedure. Therefore, I submit that the Bill is of great importance in this country—that is, Great Britain—but I believe that it is of even greater importance in Northern Ireland, and that is the main reason why I speak tonight.
It is, I think, fairly well known that the Northern Irish political parties are in disagreement on a very great number of issues. Almost the only area in which they find themselves in agreement is on the desirability of a Bill of Rights, and the Bill that we are considering tonight gives the possibility of a Bill of Rights applying to Northern Ireland. I have reason to know this since 1980 when I was present at a conference in Somerset with members of most of the Northern Irish political parties, and, indeed, with some former paramilitaries who had already by then begun to take the political road. I believe that this Bill will be very much

177
welcomed in Northern Ireland, and welcomed precisely because Northern Ireland is at present such a divided society.
It is in the context of Northern Ireland that I trust that "judicial notice" will be taken of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 and, in particular, of Article 27 of that covenant. The article I mention is very much parallel to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and I should just like to quote briefly what Article 27 states. It states:
"In those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess their own religion or to use their own language".
In 1977 Mr. Capotorti, in his report to the United Nations sub-commission on the prevention of discrimination and the protection of minorities, which was adopted and printed by the UN in 1979, pointed out that collective interests were grounded in personal rights, to be enjoyed in common by whole groups. Mr. Capotorti recommended in page 103 of his report,
"that bilateral agreements dealing with minority rights be concluded between states where minorities live, and states from which they originate (especially between neighbouring states).
"It must be stressed, however, that co-operation with regard to the rights of members of minority groups should be based on mutual respect for the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states concerned and non-interference in their internal affairs".
What a prophetic description that was of the recent Anglo-Irish agreement! I trust that Unionists, in particular, of all shades will study those two sentences that I have just quoted from Mr. Capotorti and I believe that if they do, their understandable fears will be very considerably allayed.
I am delighted, from the point of view of the whole of the United Kingdom, to support the second reading of this Bill. In doing so, I find myself in good company with members of all parties and of none, and in agreement with the Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales and with the lay members of the Catholic Union.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, since 1970 your Lordships have, I think, had five bites at this particular cherry, beginning with the rather differently constituted Bill in favour of a Bill of Rights which was moved in 1970 by the then Lord Arran, taking into account, of course, the Select Committee which we had in. I think, 1976 which was presided over so admirably by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale and of which I had the honour to be a member.
But this has been a somewhat curious history because, in an odd sort of way, the controversy seems to have been confined almost entirely to your Lordships' House. The House of Commons, which is, after all, the democratically elected Chamber, appears to have taken no real interest in this matter. There has been no attempt to pick up any of the Bills which have been passed through your Lordships' hands and, indeed, there has not been the slightest trace of a popular clamour in favour of a measure of this kind,
178
though I must confess that in the last few days there have been signs of what one might call a mini-campaign on the part of certain individuals in the press, no doubt in anticipation of your Lordships' consideration of this Bill. But one cannot help wondering whether, in the light of this history of the matter, it is altogether sensible to press it further in your Lordships' House rather than waiting until such time as the democratically elected Chamber feels moved to become seized of it.
In a superficial way, the supporters of a Bill of this kind have a relatively easy task because, after all, they are seeking to strengthen human rights, they are proposing to put a nice little ready-made code into our law: and why should there be any objection to that? "It is done now in Strasbourg. Why can't we do it in the Strand?", as one member of the Select Committee sought to put the matter rather neatly. But one can have worthy aims while the means to be deployed can nevertheless be open to doubt.
Before I address myself to the main argument I should like to try to dispose if I can of two points which are often ventilated in this matter. First, there is the question of whether we fall short in the matter of human rights as against other countries. The answer to this surely is that, so far as human rights go, we are far better protected under our existing law than almost any other country of the world. The whole history of this country has been geared to human rights—Magna Carta, habeas corpus, trial by jury and so on. If one takes one modern example of how much better human rights are protected in this country, one has only to consider the enormous peril of trial by the media which occurs in all these other Continental countries, as well as in America, which enjoy the benefits of a so-called Bill of Rights. The newspapers are able to conduct a preliminary trial of somebody who is accused of a particularly disagreeable murder long before he has the opportunity to get into court. A fair trial is thereby prevented.
Under our system no such procedure can be adopted. Again one must remember that the European Convention establishes only minimum standards as a kind of long-stop to make sure that signatories do not fall below those minimum standards. In many respects our standards go far higher than the European Convention. Let us take for example the question of foreign immigrants. A great deal of play is made of the recent case about the right of a wife to bring in a foreign husband when she is herself an immigrant. Under our law immigrants enjoy vastly better rights than they do in other countries signatories which are to this convention. A child born in the United Kingdom to foreign parents becomes instantly and automatically a British citizen. No such provision will be found either in the Bill of Rights or in any of the Continental countries which deploy such documents.
The second point I shall try to dispose of is whether our track record in the Strasbourg court is worse than that of other countries. Here great play is made with the fact that since 1968 some 12 cases have been found against us. But when one compares this with other countries, countries much smaller than our own, one finds that nine cases have succeeded against the Belgians, six in the case of the Netherlands and five in

179
the case of Austria. France has accepted the right of individual petition only since 1982.
Perhaps I may now come to the main thrust of the argument. What is said in favour of incorporating a Bill of Rights is that our judges are prevented from dealing with the matters which arise under the convention, that the proper forum for such matters is in our own courts and that if they could deal directly this would save a great deal of time, trouble and expense. On the face of it that sounds a powerful argument. I do not suggest for a moment that there is not some force in the argument, but what one must not overlook is that there are two very strong arguments against such an introduction of the European Convention. In the first place it would effect a constitutional change of the first importance, as my noble and learned friend Lord Denning has already pointed out so eloquently. It would totally transform the role of the judiciary and can fairly be described as a judges' charter, for, under the guise of these very broad and generally expressed rights such as the right of association, the right to freedom of speech, the rights to life, peaceful enjoyment of possessions, privacy and so on, the judges would find themselves under the necessity of striking down existing law and introducing new swathes of judicial legislation.
Let us take for example the case of privacy. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, argues in the first instance that incorporation into our law will not really effect any radical change, but at the same time it will enable the judges to develop their own law of privacy as part of English law. This, I would venture to suggest, is pre-eminently a job for Parliament, and not for the judges. We had in 1972 the Younger Report which exhaustively examined the whole question of privacy. It came to the conclusion that it would not be to our advantage to introduce a general law of privacy, but the report made suggestions for amendments some of which have in fact since been implemented. I would remind your Lordships that in the much cited Malone case, where Vice-Chancellor Megarry decided that telephone tapping could not be treated as a wrong under English law, he in no way suggested that it would be desirable for the judges to have the power to develop the law of privacy. In fact his words were that,
"any regulation of so complex a matter as telephone tapping is essentially a matter for Parliament and not for the courts".
It is not our way or in accordance with our traditions to create freedoms by these broad general propositions. What our tradition has been is to have firm remedies rather than vague and resounding general rights. This is based on the fundamental proposition that we have a liberty in this country to do anything which is not specifically prohibited. It is on this basis that our fundamental freedoms are established. Without in any way depreciating our judiciary, who unquestionably enjoy an unparalleled reputation for their skill, legal learning and integrity, when one says that the judges under our system have neither the training nor the capacity to decide broad issues of policy, this does not, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said, indicate a lack of trust in the judges; it is a recognition that if we gave them this task we should be seeking to impose an unsuitable role
180
upon them. It is a role, I venture to suggest, that comparatively few judges in this country would be happy to assume.
I remind your Lordships of the wise words of a very distinguished judge, Lord Devlin, who wrote in this context that,
"If the judges were men endowed for such a task"—
that is, for deciding broad issues of policy—
"they would not truly be judges".
Moreover, if one considers that rights such as the right to privacy are to be developed by judges, it will mean that they will be developed in the course of litigation. Litigation, by its very nature, is random, and it is instant in its character. It is surely a most unsuitable way to develop, for instance, a law of privacy—by instant legislation of that kind.
Our method, which I believe is a far better one, is that if it becomes apparent that there is a serious gap in our law—and we are all aware that there are indeed many gaps—the proper course is to have the Law Commission or some equivalent body examine the issue, prepare a report, and then for Parliament to consider it and decide as a matter of policy whether the law should be developed or changed.
Then again there is the very considerable danger of politicising the judiciary. The experience of the United States is all too significant in that respect. A very distinguished American lawyer recently wrote that almost to a man American judges are creatures of politics. That is surely the last thing to which we would wish to expose our independent judiciary—the danger of judges being engaged in decisions that would be regarded as political.
Part of that political function is that to which this Bill points only too clearly, especially in view of the way in which Clause 4 is drafted—and I shall not spend any further time on that matter because it has been effectively dealt with by other noble Lords. I will quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in a previous contribution to one of these debates in your Lordships' House. He expressed this sentiment:
"If judges were given power to overthrow sections or Acts of Parliament they would become political … and the reputation of our Judiciary would suffer accordingly".—[Official Report, 25/3/76: col. 797.]
So far as I was able to judge, the noble and learned Lord has once again expressed that same sentiment with his characteristic robustness.
The fact that the real intention of a Bill of Rights of this kind is to affect parliamentary power is sufficiently testified by the phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, which admittedly he has not repeated in this debate, but to which, so far as I am aware, he still adheres, that:
"There is a need to curb the over-weening power of Parliament."
It may well be that Parliament's power does need curbing. I make no comment on that matter. But if one is to do that, surely the proper course is to have a new written constitution with checks and balances of a political character whereby Parliament can be controlled. But to do so through the back door by means of the judiciary would be a dangerous innovation.
Then the question is asked: why be so worried about the judges affecting the role of Parliament? After all,

181
that is what is already done in Strasbourg. The answer was given with devastating clarity by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale when he pointed out that such an argument misses a fundamental distinction. In Strasbourg they do not declare, and have no power to declare, what is English law. All they say is, "There has been a violation of the treaty. Go away and do what you think is appropriate to toe the line". We then go away and consider as a matter of policy, through the Government and Parliament, how the point can be met.
In so doing options arise. We have seen that happen in the case of immigrant wives and their foreign husbands and in the case of corporal punishment; Parliament debates the policy. Do we really want to impose upon our judges, in the course of random litigation, the task of deciding that English law, in the light of incorporation of the European convention on the question of corporal punishment, is such and such; that such should be the law; and that it should be binding on us all? That is surely not a proper task to be given to our judiciary.
I mention that there are two fundamental answers to the problem. I do not propose to describe the second of them in any detail because I am aware that I have already taken probably too much time and I do not wish to weary your Lordships. Briefly, the second answer is that such a provision would render virtually the whole of our law in a state of considerable uncertainty. Indeed, it would create a lawyers' paradise, a field day for lawyers. Any point of English law—common law, statute, or whatever it may be—could be challenged in any court or tribunal, however lowly, throughout the land.
There is a considerable danger in these days of militancy, of which we are so conscious, that such an opportunity would be largely exploited—at public expense of course. Such litigants would be given legal aid, because a constitutional issue would be raised and therefore legal aid could hardly be withheld. One sees already in the light of militancy a strong tendency in the present day for people, when they are dissatisfied about some ruling of a court or statute in English law, immediately to threaten to take their case to the court at Strasbourg. I will give two recent examples. There was the case concerning the noise created at Heathrow; and the introduction of a Channel tunnel has already prompted declarations by various people that they propose to threaten proceedings at Strasbourg.
But once such a change as that envisaged by this Bill has been effected, what would happen? Such people will first have a tremendous parade of litigation, no doubt right up to a judicial committee of your Lordships' House. Being dissatisfied with the decision there, they would probably then take their case to Strasbourg. We shall see enormous exploitation of that kind of issue. I suggest that that is altogether too high a price to pay for introducing into our law a provision that is at best of marginal advantage and which is so totally outweighed by serious detriments.
By way of conclusion I shall make two brief further comments. When things are not going too well economically there is a tendency for us to blame our institutions and argue that if they were changed,
182
everyone would be much better off. I believe that we should hesitate long to overthrow institutions which have served us so well in preserving democracy and freedom in this country.
My final point concerns the notion that having a Bill of Rights of this kind will in some way perform an educational role. I remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in giving evidence before our committee, said he would like to see human rights in the form of a catechism to be put on the walls of schools so that children would learn them, and that this would benefit humanity. For my part it seems to me that what we lack in this society of ours at the moment is not so much a sufficiency of rights as a sense that a free society entails duties and responsibilities. If we are to have a catechism on our school walls, the catechism I would prefer is one which exhorted the pupils to that sentiment rather than filled them with a notion of all the different rights that they possess and which can form the subject of litigation in our courts of law.
8.20 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I understand the reservations of the several noble Lords who have spoken criticising the Bill. Nevertheless, it gives me great pleasure to turn the scales and very warmly welcome this Bill and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, on his very eloquent introduction.
I shall deal with two very important, to my mind, aspects of this legislation: its impact on children and ethnic minorities. Of course, in a country like ours, which is highly civilised and highly industrialised, a Bill such as this should not be necessary. But it is a tragic fact that human rights violations are increasing, whether they be the grave kind, like murder and rape, already punishable under existing legislation, or the subtle kind less easy to detect and spelt out in the articles of this convention. This increase is surely part of a world-wide pattern. Is it not a fact that as man becomes cleverer and cleverer, so he also becomes crueller and crueller? As we become more and more adventurous, are we not perhaps at the same time growing less compassionate and less caring? We explore the mysteries of the moon and the marvels of Mars, and yet we fail miserably, in the words of the Scriptures, to "live peaceably one with another".
When I asked an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House on 20th July 1983 I quoted an Amnesty International report which listed grave violations of human rights in no less than 119 countries; and Great Britain was among that number. The same basic pattern prevails today and I am sorry to say that our country is still on the blacklist.
The abuse of children is perhaps one of the most terrifying aspects of this world-wide pattern. It is, of course, most serious in the third world, but is it not possible that some of the terrible things happening in the third world might spread—perhaps are already spreading—to this country, bearing in mind the powerful influence of television which so often portrays scenes of terror and torture, senseless slaughter, degradation and despair? In my speech on 20th July I described what was happening in various

183
parts of the third world. In India, for example, about 16 million children are living in slavery, or near slavery; in Iran and Turkey tiny girls, some as young as five, are forced to make carpets because their fingers are so nimble; in Turkey, too, boy soldiers are being conscripted into the army. There was a recent report on the BBC of a terrible scene in Bangkok where a little girl of three—yes, my Lords, three—was chained to the wall and forced to stuff heroin into sachets.
The sexual abuse of children and child prostitution is spreading at a terrifying rate. Indeed, so serious has this become that the World Health Organisation recently formed an international team to advise countries on this "universal problem". According to the WHO, over the past decade there has been an increase of 576 per cent.—yes, my Lords, 576 per cent.—in cases of sexual abuse of children world-wide. This, of course, covers only the cases known to the police. The real figure is probably very much higher. The main centre of child prostitution in Asia is Bangkok. Some of your Lordships will have heard about package tours arranged for businessmen to visit child prostitutes. According to a recent BBC report, girls of 15 are chained to their beds. Thailand, and the Philippines, where this is also happening, are considered reasonably advanced countries.
Your Lordships will say that surely this cannot happen here. Nevertheless, there are probably many violations of Articles 3 and 4 of the convention relating to inhuman and degrading treatment and forced labour. In many of our large cities children are forced to work for long hours in shops and other places. Here I refer to a most interesting report entitled Child Labour in London, produced by the Low Pay Unit in December 1982. Some children and young persons no doubt are actually in slavery. There was a recent report in the press about a Filipino woman keeping servants in what amounted to virtual slavery. In Saudi Arabia and, indeed, in other parts of the Arab world which I know well domestic slavery is still prevalent. I think it is possible that some Arabs in this country are keeping slaves.
What of child prostitution? Of course, it is on a very small scale here, but it is probably growing. What about those British businessmen who visit Bangkok? Might they not introduce some of their ideas here? One hates to think of it, but it is a possibility. A Swedish sociologist, working last year on prostitution in London, discovered a girls' brothel in Richmond, of all places. Two years ago there were reports of boys in the Piccadilly area being exploited for immoral purposes.
I now come to Article 5 of the convention. I think it is important to state that until 1983 children in care could be locked up in secure units, which were effectively prisons, for indefinite periods without any form of court hearing or appeal. By 1982 about 2,000 children a year—some as young as 10—were being locked up in over 500 government-approved secure places. However, as your Lordships know, we now have new legislation under which no child can be locked up in care for more than 72 hours without the juvenile court's permission, following a hearing at which the young person has the right to be present and to be represented. However, a single magistrate can
184
still authorise the detention of young people in a place of safety for up to 28 days; and that is surely a violation of the convention.
I turn now to Article 6 of the convention. Young people have no right to appeal against school suspension and expulsion. The parents' rights are very limited and certainly do no not satisfy this article. Children have no right to have their views represented when decisions about custody, access and maintenance are being made following separation and divorce. I have picked out just a few examples, and time does not permit my mentioning more; the beating of schoolchildren has of course been mentioned already.
I now turn to ethnic minorities, and I should like to deal first with Article 14 of the convention, which covers racial discrimination. The Race Relations Act of 1976 which rules against racial discrimination, is subservient to any other Act of Parliament or ministerial order—and if I am wrong, I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Denning will correct me. It seems that some Acts violate various articles of the convention in various ways, as do certain orders; I am thinking, for example, of the increase in fees for overseas students compared with those for national students.
Speaking of racist attacks in the context of Articles 2 and 8 of the convention, racial abuse, physical attacks and murders are rife. The Home Office revealed that about 7,000 racial attacks were reported last year in Britain, and this is probably the tip of the iceberg. At present there is no specific offence on the statute book which includes racial attacks.
Articles 5 and 6 of the convention deal with deprivation of liberty and the right to an independent hearing. A recent report entitled Last Among Equals: Immigration Act Prisoners and the Remand Population, which was published in August 1985 by the Prison Reform Trust and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, pointed out that most of the detainees held under the Immigration Act—about 1,000 in all in prison establishments—never have the opportunity of appearing before a court of law. Many of them never see information which deals with the authorisation of their detention, nor do they have any proper explanation of the reason for their arrest nor of how long they will be held.
I have covered some of these points and I shall not deal with any further aspects, except to draw your Lordships' attention to one very important document, which is both recent and relevant. It is entitled Racial Discrimination—17 years after the Act, and it was published by the Policy Studies Institute in September 1985, under their reference number 646.
I strongly commend this Bill to your Lordships, despite the obvious legal difficulties which it presents, and I inject one final thought: even if this legislation may not be necessary at present, is it not wise to have something on the statute book to safeguard what might happen in the future?
8.34 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, Robert Alexander, the Chairman of the Bar Council, but

185
writing in The Times today in his personal capacity, has remarked in an article to which several references have already been made:
"The European Convention is a charter for the citizens".
It is for this reason that the Alliance wholeheartedly supports the Bill and is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for moving it so persuasively on this Second Reading. These Benches feel a special debt to all the lawyers, and most notably to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for the labours of several years which, by expounding one interpretation of the implications of the convention, have prepared public opinion for such a Bill. Their success may be measured by the increase in converts, which is slow no doubt but nevertheless very steady among all shades of opinion, even on the Left.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, discerns no popular clamour for the measure but there is certainly a considerable interest. A proposal such as that in the Bill appears centrally in the manifesto of the Alliance—but of course I appreciate that nobody would describe the manifesto of the Alliance as a "popular clamour". In the recent words of a legal commentator, Mr. Paul Sieghart, when he was surveying the remarkable development of human rights which took off in the aftermath of the Second World War, there has occurred,
"a change in international law so profound that it can properly be called a revolution. Today, for the first time in history, how a sovereign state treats its own citizens is no longer a matter for its own exclusive determination, but a matter of legitimate concern for all other states and their inhabitants".
That revolution, in which our own country played a very significant part, has issued in a code of international law which sets out the rights of individuals against the state. During the last 30 years or so, members of the Council of Europe have established a system for enforcing the rights guaranteed by the European Convention of 1952. The machinery for enforcement through a commission and a court was a striking innovation and has so far resulted in more than 10,000 complaints, mostly from individuals against their Governments, some 1,000 decisions by the commission on admissibility, and 96 cases referred to the court itself. Thus, member states have been compelled to rewrite some of their municipal law and change their administrative procedures when in conflict with the convention. What used to be unenforceable rights of 18th century rhetoric—what Bentham called "bawling on paper"—have been turned into creatures of law, at least for some citizens of the countries which signed the European Convention.
During the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, I had some difficulty in resisting the temptation to compose a reply by Tom Paine to his view of "rights". The convention is a staging-post on the European road of moral progress. It is a commonplace in the history of morals that it is not mankind's sense of duty to neighbours which has changed over centuries but the answers to the question. "Who is my neighbour?" In primitive morality, moral obligations were confined to members of very small groups. As the group widened and relationships were established among groups, so
186
the range of rights and duties extended and new meaning was given to the biblical injunction:
"Whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do you likewise unto them".
A formal legal extension of moral obligation which treats as one group the nearly 400 million inhabitants of the states which have adhered to the convention is indeed a turning point in the history of European freedom.
When the convention is seen alongside today's technical potentialities of the electronic media, the outlook for liberty and the enjoyment of rights may be brighter than many of us have feared. Authoritarian governments have been compelled these past 40 years to pay lip-service to human rights, and they will soon lose the power as a result of new technologies to restrict and control what their subjects may listen to and even what they see on their screens.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, explained how the Bill would give immediate access to a British court to an individual aggrieved by an act of a public authority. He could come to our own local courts where he would have access by entitlement to legal aid. An applicant from Strasbourg has no right to legal aid. He may get it from the Commission on a narrow and stringent basis and will retain it only if the Commission refers his case to the court. It would be interesting if we could learn how the British applicants to the Commission and the Court of Human Rights have financed themselves in the past.
We should remember also that the Commission is concerned not only with the preparation and investigation of cases and with the decision as to whether they are admissible; it has also established a conciliation proceedings under which cases may be discussed with member governments, and, indeed, a fair number of them have been settled in that way. The Bill, as I understood the explanations of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, will lay the basis for the enjoyment by British citizens of equality before the European law of human rights.
During this debate we have learnt that lawyers, equally learned, equally devoted to the public weal, disagree sharply on the implication of this Bill both for our constitution and for our law. I do not tremble at that revelation, but I conclude that it is high time the voice of the citizen be heard in the discussion, not of course in contribution to the legal disputes but in definition of the social ends which the legal techniques are required to achieve; and that I took to be the point of the eloquent speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
Rights under the convention can be secured by British citizens in Strasbourg. The Bill, as has been repeatedly said, makes them available here in our municipal courts. Two fundamental points seem to a layman to arise. They were dealt with clearly in the Richard O'Sullivan Lecture which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave in 1977 and submitted as a paper to the Select Committee to which much reference has been made. I select two very quick points from that lecture. The first quotation is:

187
"The pass has already been sold … By joining the Common Market we have put at risk both the administrative acts of Ministers and the provisions of Acts of Parliament".
The second is:
"Since the Bill proposes no more than that which European judges are already bound to decide if need be against the British Government and the Parliament of the United Kingdom — is it to be supposed that our own judges are so stupid or so biased that they are not to be allowed to decide these matters for themselves?".
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, posed the rhetorical question: why not in the Strand? My feeling was that he did not answer it fully. He said that among other things the convention dealt only with minimum standards. Nevertheless, it is to be said that 80 specific British laws or rules infringing individual liberties have required change or abolition as a result of application to Strasbourg. I am sure that he is correct in saying that the protection which a citizen may get for his liberties in the United Kingdom is probably as great as, if not greater than, that which he may secure in other countries which have signed the European convention. Nevertheless, British citizens aggrieved under these minimum standards secured redress. Why did they have to wait six years for that redress and work through the expensive and frustrating procedures of getting an adjudication from Strasbourg?
When I listen to those noble and learned Lords who fear for the position of judges—that they would be politicised; that they would be used for purposes fundamentally alien to our tradition—it seems to me that all we are discussing, though in highly emotive and prejudicial language, is our fears. Some of us fear the judges more than we fear Parliament, and others among us feel greater fear for the tyranny of a democratic majority. But, convention or no convention, what has to be done is to secure a balance between the decisions which are left to Parliament and those which are left to the courts.
Any young student of history could sit down and write an essay on the changing balance in those two areas. Neither I nor these Benches can see any substantial anxiety arising from legislation, the practical effect of which is to enable citizens to secure relief in our own courts before our own judges, which they can in any event secure in Strasbourg if they have grounds. It is for that reason that we welcome the Bill and are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for moving it.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I join in that congratulation of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and commend him for his skill in arranging for this to coincide with the celebration of Human Rights Day. Whether he contrived that or not, I know not.
It has been a facinating and a significant debate in which opinions have been divided among men of ability and goodwill on this very issue. So far as your Lordships are concerned, my knowledge of what goes on in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords suggests that there is division there also; and tonight we have seen notable division in your Lordships' House on this great question. What is not in dispute between us is the need to protect and advance human
188
rights both here and abroad. If I may say so, a large part of my own life in the law and in politics has been spent trying to do just that in many parts of the world. I was particularly happy to collaborate with my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner in ensuring the right of petition to the individual in this country to the human rights commission and court. I am on the side of human rights. The real question is whether incorporation of the convention will advance that maintenance of human rights or create such difficulties as to produce confusion in its place.
When one examines the Bill—and I certainly do not intend to challenge any of its principles or seek to undermine the human rights it declares—one finds that there are very few absolute rights set out in the convention without restriction. But the significant thing is that those which are set out as absolute rights are already part of our existing law; and I think that the right reverend Prelate should take a little comfort from that. Indeed, I think that we shall find when we look at the provisions of the convention that most of the relevant provisions are already part of our law. What we have to examine is not only the rights that are declared but the restrictions and conditions that the convention itself imposes on their enjoyment.
Those parts of the convention that declare absolute rights are set out conveniently in the schedules. Article 3 says:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
That is part of our law now; and anyone guilty of torture or inflicting inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment would be made subject to various provisions of the law. Indeed, we spent a good deal of time yesterday discussing the codes of practice which set out very detailed protections to the position of the detainee in detention.
When we come to Article 4, we find that it says:
"No one shall he held in slavery or servitude".
It is a very long time indeed since Lord Mansfield said in that famous case, in re Somersett,
"Let the black go free".
Slavery has been outlawed by our law ever since; so has servitude, which presumably is another word for slavery.
When one comes to consider what the article says in regard to the provision that
"No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour",
one comes to some of the many restrictions that the convention imposes upon these rights. Article 4(3) says:
"For the purpose of this Article the term 'forced or compulsory labour' shall not include"—
and then there are a number of things that it does not include. It ends with
"any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations".
That seems to me to be a very considerable qualification. One must not therefore imagine that all the great heaven of righteousness is open in every provision of this great convention. It has its limitations.

189
Article 5 relates to liberty and security of the person. It says:
"No one shall he deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law".
All the requirements from paragraphs (a) to (f) are already part of our law, and our citizens enjoy the procedures that are there described. Article 5(2) says:
"Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him".
We considered that yesterday. With regard to detention, the article says:
"Everyone arrested or detained … shall be brought promptly before a judge … Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial".
That is part of our day-by-day procedures.
Article 5(4) says:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful".
Habeas corpus has been part of our law for 300 years or thereabouts.
We then come to Article 6, which deals with the requisite provisions for a fair trial. We have been advancing in our country in the direction of improving the fairness of trials for a very long time indeed, certainly through most of my lifetime. There is still a long way to go. Access to justice is still not sufficiently equal. The law itself needs constant reform. But we have never had so many available agencies to achieve reform, such as the Law Commission, the other great bodies such as Justice and the National Council for Civil Liberties. Each party has its own reform body. There is a great tide of interest and concern that our law should be better; and it has been better. But there are defects. Of course there is need for improvement. But my basic view is that those remedies ought to be domestic and made in and through our law and through Parliament. That is my basic approach to this, but let the convention stand as a marker and a guide.
Article 7 attacks retrospective legislation, which of course we do. I had a little experience of that in the Burmah Oil case: it is still written on whatever part of my anatomy may be appropriate to remind me of it! Of course, retrospective legislation is against our law, and so there it is, rightly, in the convention.
However, we then come to the areas of greater dispute—Articles 8, 9, 10, and 11. As regards those articles we find a statement of the right involved. For example, Article 8(1) says:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
There then follow the "except" provisions—the restrictions. It says:
"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law".
Certainly a judge could decide that if the matter came as an issue before him. However, we then come to some immensely political observations. It says:
"except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety
190
or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others".
There is a whole catalogue of critically important political matters—political matters for which Parliament ought to accept responsibility outwith the domain of the judges.
As has been said many times in the course of this debate, there is no suggestion of a denigration of the judges as being incapable of deciding these issues. What is said is that these are essentially parliamentary and political issues for Parliament to decide. The same theme runs through all the other articles. Article 9 deals with the right to freedom of thought. Freedom to manifest one's religion is declared, not surprisingly, to be subject:
"to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order"—
and then there is another list of requirements.
Article 10 deals with freedom of expression, and there are the same limitations. It refers to such restrictions "as are … necessary in a democratic society", and there then follows a list including national security and territorial integrity. It becomes even more manifestly political as one reads on. Article 11 is very much the same.
Our fear and anxiety—at least, my fear and anxiety, because I cannot speak for the generality of my side of the House on this matter—was expressed so well (and it has been partly quoted by another noble Lord) in the observations of Lord Diplock, whose passing we regret. He said that he deplored the effect of the impact of incorporation and the decision-making which would fall on the judges if the convention became part of our law; and at col. 1367 of the Official Report for 29th November 1978 he said:
"The administration of justice in our country depends upon the respect which all people of all political views feel for the judges, and in my opinion that respect depends very much upon keeping judges out of politics. To pass this Bill of Rights cannot but have the tendency to bring judges more and more into politics. That seems to me to be a sufficient disadvantage, and so far as I am concerned, when it is put into the balance, it tips it down upon the side of not passing a Bill in the form of that which is proposed."
On another occasion, having quoted those words of Lord Diplock, I said:
"I am bound to say I greatly fear that this uncertainty and the broadness of the terms [of the convention] may well result in a great increase of litigation in our courts if these provisions become part of our law".—[Official Report, 8/11/79; col. 1011.]
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest (whose passing, again, we regret) said on 29th November 1978, at col. 1376:
"To enact this Bill would involve and introduce a parade of uncertainties".
Good old Celtic eloquence came into the picture at that point.
The time has come for me to conclude. I have indicated broadly what my views are, and we await with very great interest the reply of the noble Lord the Minister to this debate. We have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, on introducing the Bill as an individual Member of the House and on introducing it as a Private Bill. Many great changes in our law have been achieved by Private Bills. However,

191
this is a matter which touches fundamentally important parts of our constitution, and therefore we await with great interest the views of Her Majesty's Government upon it.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I think this debate has demonstrated, and as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, so clearly stated, the Bill before us is one with profound constitutional implications. No one respects more than I the wisdom and experience of my noble friend Lord Broxbourne and that of his supporters who have aided him with this measure—or, indeed, my noble friend's success in picking this day of all days upon which to debate this subject. No one who has pride in the history and heritage of this country, which has traditionally acted as a champion of human rights, could fail to consider seriously the concept embodied in the Bill.
It is, however, the constitutional implications that cause the Government concern—concern that if the Bill should be enacted we may seriously damage the delicate machinery of parliamentary democracy built up over the centuries. The Government accept the principles on which the European Convention of Human Rights is founded. The United Kingdom played a major role in drafting these principles into the convention. The United Kingdom reaffirmed support for it. The present Government recently announced their intention of renewing for a further period of five years the United Kingdom's acceptance of the right of individual petition and acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Government's reservations about this Bill are not reservations, therefore, about conforming to the principles of human rights laid down in the convention—principles of which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, gave many examples. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount that it is not the case that there is no law dealing with racial attacks. Section 5A of the Public Order Act 1936 makes it an offence to incite people to racial hatred, and of course living off immoral earnings, whether of children or adults, is a criminal offence too.
Your Lordships will recall, as my noble friend Lord Broxbourne said, the attempts by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, to promote a Bill of Rights, and the referral of the issue to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, in a speech of great clarity mentioned that he had raised the issue in the debate on the Address. I have to say to him that I owe him an apology in that he has not received a letter from me or from my noble friend Lord Elton on the issue he raised then. I hope he will find that what I have to say tonight broadly answers the points, but I shall follow this up in writing.
When that committee reported in 1978 they set out with great clarity the arguments for and against a Bill of Rights. As my noble friend said, they were unanimous that any such Bill should be based on the European convention. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, quoted the saying, "Who is my neighbour?" Lord Atkin, the famous judge, asked that
192
question and proceeded to answer it, I understand, by developing the modern tort of negligence. He did this under the common law unaided by a Bill of Rights, which is something which has been pressed so hard this evening.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if I may intervene, he called in aid also the parable of the Good Samaritan, did he not?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, before I stood up to speak I had the horrible feeling that if I quoted anything, somebody would come up with a counter-quote, and that is precisely what has happened.
As my noble friend Lord Broxbourne also pointed out, that committee were divided on the merits of incorporation. Six members of the committee were in favour and five members of the committee were against. I venture to suggest that this lack of consensus, which illustrated the concern of those who dissented about the constitutional issues, should cause us to reflect very seriously, and indeed this dissension has manifested itself again this evening, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has just pointed out.
If we are to embark on a road that could lead to profound changes in our constitutional procedures, is it not essential that we have agreement on such a course? It has been said that this Bill would not lead to profound changes. But there is no consensus on this. We cannot be sure, and if there is uncertainty and a significant division of opinion, one must consider whether it is wise to proceed. It would be odd, to say the least, if we embarked on a written constitution only to revert back to an unwritten constitution a short while later. And this could happen without consensus.
As I have mentioned, the Government are concerned to ensure not only that basic human rights are available, but that it is open to everyone to challenge what they see as a violation of those rights. That is why we support the principles of the European convention and why we have agreed to renew the right of individual petition. It is of course reasonable to ask then why should not greater provision be made to pursue violations in domestic courts.
It was suggested by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that our record in Strasbourg has not been particularly good. In fact about 150 applications against the United Kingdom are registered each year, which is more than against any other state, but not much higher than the figure for West Germany. Of these registered applications from all states only a small proportion, perhaps 3 per cent., are declared admissible by the commission, and only a small proportion of admissible applications result in a finding of violation by the court.
Up to the end of 1984, when about 11,000 applications had been registered at Strasbourg, only 46 violations had been found by the court, 11 against the United Kingdom, nine against Belgium, six against Italy, five against West Germany and the Netherlands, four against Austria, two against Sweden and Switzerland, and one against Ireland and Portugal.

193
If the right reverend Prelate was suggesting that had we incorporated the convention, we should have had many fewer violations found against us by the court, I have to say that it is of course a hypothetical argument. But it is a fact that of the 17 countries which have accepted the right of individual petitions, those six which have not incorporated the convention have had only 14 violations proved against them by the court, while the other 11 countries which have incorporated the convention have had 32 violations proved against them. This hardly supports the theory that incorporation is per se some sort of proof against being found in breach at Strasbourg.
The reason for the Government's opposition to incorporation is not because of any desire to inhibit the pursuit of human rights. Indeed, it has nothing to do with human rights as such. Our concern is that incorporation could cause a shift in the balance of our democratic system. Our machinery of government does not depend on a written constitution. Our statutes are specific in nature and set out measures that the Government of the day decide are necessary for our democratic society. If society does not approve of the Government's actions, the Government will not be re-elected.
My noble friend Lord Broxbourne suggested that if this Bill became law the provisions of the convention would be integrated and applied by British judges in British courts instead of by the members of the European commission and court. The only comment I should make on that is that people who did not succeed before our courts could go on to Strasbourg afterwards and, if the Strasbourg organs disagreed with our courts, they would have the last word and the United Kingdom Government would be obliged under the convention to give effect to their decision even if it conflicted with that of our courts.
Were we to incorporate the provision of the European Convention in accordance with the provisions of this Bill, we should have taken a major step towards a written constitution and we should have on the statute book a series of non-specific provisions with no precise definition. For example, Article 8 requires that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Who then will have to decide what is necessary for our democratic society within that article? Not the elected Government, not Parliament, but the judiciary. With all respect to the learned members of the judiciary, and with all due deference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who foreshadowed a little of what I have to say, I must ask whether it is right that they should be required to take such decisions, many of which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, suggested, will be politically charged, and that they should take those decisions with no requirement to answer to Parliament or to society itself.
One has to ask whether this is a role that would be welcome to the judiciary. Judging by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, he at least did not seem to think that they would welcome it.
194
Both the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, referred to the delays that occur before a case reaches the European Court. The fact is that few cases reach the court because the commission acts as a screen, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, suggests, particularly in rejecting cases that it considers not to be admissible. There appears to be no provision for such a screen in this Bill and there would be access to our courts for all those who could relate their cases, spuriously or otherwise, to one of the general articles of the convention. The only reservation that I can find refers to frivolous or vexatious proceedings, but this would cover only a tiny minority of cases.
Not only would there be this shift away from the determination of society's needs by its elected representatives to the determination of society's needs by a non-elected judiciary, but we should have the problems associated with the uncertain interpretation of the non-specific articles of the convention. If we were to enact the provisions of this Bill, could we be certain that the present statute book would not be open to challenge? If not, "so be it" is a not unreasonable answer. But can we be sure that the present statute book and the laws we pass after incorporation will not be struck down a few years later as the interpretation of the articles of the convention evolves either in this country or at Strasbourg. And evolve it no doubt will. Who would have thought when the convention was drafted that our laws bearing upon homosexuality, corporal punishment in schools and marriage in prison would be found to be defective?
Of course, the Bill makes provision in Clause 4, which has been referred to by many including my noble friend Lord Campbell, for Acts to contain a provision expressly excluding the application of the incorporated provisions. Presumably Parliament will be hesitant to apply this because it will, as now, frame legislation to conform with the current interpretation of the convention. But will Parliament be able to be confident about the future? I do not think it will be. An express provision would, of course, insure the Bill. But it seems to me that to do this would be to negate the effect of the Bill before us.
The Government's view is that we cannot readily predict what effect the enactment of this Bill would have on our constitutional heritage and what consequences would arise from the inevitable uncertainties which it would create. Were the Bill necessary to confer basic human rights on the individuals of our society, we should regard it differently. However, it is not necessary for this purpose and we consider the risks I have mentioned such that we should be taking a completely unjustifiable gamble were we to support the Bill. For those reasons, I have to tell your Lordships and my noble friend that the Government cannot support this measure.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, that, naturally, was a disappointing wind-up by my noble friend the Minister. Perhaps in the calm of the Christmas Recess he would like to think about this—I was going to say a little more clearly, but I mean closely—a little more closely so that he can see the merits of this proposition.

195
Perhaps he would like to seek a little advice from a colleague. I suggest that, away from the glare of these lights, he has a quiet word with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to see whether he can give him any guidance on this matter.
We have had Scriptural quotations. With two eminent right reverend Prelates present I hesitate at the end of the day to add mine. However, my noble friend may find it appropriate for the season, after this cogitation and consultation, to be reminded of the text:
"There is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth than in 99 just men who have no need of repentance".
I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a very few minutes. It would be a very poor return for the attendance here and the excellent speeches we have had if I did, more particularly as not all the noble Lords who were present at the beginning of the debate are now present. However, I should be remiss if I did not thank noble Lords for their very interesting contributions, with a very particular expression of appreciation for those who made kind and characteristically over-generous references to my exposition of the Bill in opening this debate.
On a head count I think we just about win. I see the noble and learned Lord confirms this. However, in addition to that, it has been said that the lawyers are split. Well, lawyers never agree with each other; that is the nature of the calling. Thus it is no surprise that the lawyers split more or less 50–50. What is significant is that when one goes beyond them one finds unanimous support in both the voice of the Church and the citizen. That surely must be of some account in your Lordships' House. Although it might not qualify quite for the criterion of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, of the popular clamour, at least it is a very respectable basis of support.
I think, with great respect, that those who have made criticisms to some extent have misdirected themselves in the language of the law. I could not help but think that some of the criticisms which were launched against the proposals of this Bill really more properly should have been launched against the convention itself, or at any rate against the right of individual petition. Some of these criticisms went far beyond the simple point which lies at the heart of this Bill and which I sought to explain in opening.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in a felicitous and persuasive speech which I admired and respected—as I did those speeches he made in earlier days in agreeable forensic contests—criticised
196
the incorporation in the schedule of the articles of the convention because some of them were already in English law. I should have thought that that was very much in their favour. How much more devastating his criticism would have been had he been able to say that all this runs counter to the principles of English law!
Then, for good measure the noble and learned Lord said, "Look at these restrictions and qualifications in the convention as incorporated in the schedule". But how much more critical he could have been, and no doubt would have been, if there had been no qualifications and restrictions. Would he not then, with that matchless eloquence, have denounced it and said that these are generalised concepts which have no place in the jurisprudential idiom of this country? He could have made a wonderful speech on those lines. He shakes his head, but I am sure that he would have done so.
I think that those criticisms show the moderation of the request which we are now making to your Lordships. This is not the time or place to comment on detailed criticisms, but I would mention very briefly just two. The first is Clause 4, because it has loomed so large in many speeches, including the persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Abbeydale—very temperate and balanced, as I would expect. I am sorry that he is not with me on this occasion. I hope that we can soon resume the agreeable co-operation to which he referred last week on the subject of mental handicap.
Clause 4 is not, as I sought to explain in opening, an assault upon the sovereignty of Parliament. On the contrary, Clause 4 is simply Parliament's direction as to the way in which statutes inconsistent with this statute are to be interpreted. That is what Clause 4 seeks to do; and subsection (2) of Clause 4 expressly retains the sovereignty of Parliament. The noble Lord shakes his head, but he is on a false point. It is a matter we can come to in Committee; we will talk about it then. Amendments are to be tabled, we understand. They will certainly be looked at and read with interest. If they improve the Bill, they will be accepted. If they are wrecking amendments designed to undo the principle and purpose of the Bill, then it will be our duty to invite your Lordships to reject them. I repeat my thanks to your Lordships and ask that the Bill be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past nine o'clock.