Lords Sitting of 28 February 1985

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Higher Education: Expenditure Estimates
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total estimated expenditure for higher education in 1984–85, and how this compares at current values with 1978–79.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, total capital and current expenditure on higher education in the United Kingdom in 1984–85 is estimated to be £3,285 million. Actual figures will not be available until next year. Capital and current expenditure for the financial year 1978–79 was £1,796 million. In cost terms, using a 1983–84 base, planned expenditure for 1984–85 was £3,136 million and for 1978–79 £3,050 million.
To provide figures for higher education only it has been necessary to estimate the proportion of expenditure on higher education incurred in local authority institutions. The figures do not include expenditure on student support other than on mandatory awards and on students' allowances in Scotland, or funds provided through the research councils for research in universities and for postgraduate awards. The figures reflect the withdrawal of the overseas student subsidy, and changes in the status of EC students and include expenditure on reducing staff numbers.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is satisfactory and will perhaps come as a surprise to many people in this country that so much extra in real terms has been found for higher education? Can he possibly tell the House whether the example set by Cambridge, and I think Salford and possibly other universities, whereby they gain by closer relationship with local industry, and perhaps gain some financial advantage at the same time, is being encouraged by the Government and followed by other universities?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords. The Government have made it clear that they wish to see links between higher education institutions and industry promoted and strengthened. The University Grants Committee has said that income earned from industry will not lead to any consequent reduction in recurrent grants. The Government and other public bodies have taken action in areas highlighted in the report by the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development, in collaboration with the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, entitled Improving Research Links between Higher Education and
1012
Industry. Such areas include moves towards increased selectivity and research funding, a research policy for public sector higher education, consideration of portable pensions and the establishment of a national data base of academic expertise and facilities.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be more appropriate to take the year 1980–81 as the base line for comparisons, as that was the first year when this Government had responsibility for setting the expenditure level? Will he also confirm that in real terms the universities' recurrent grant for the year 1980–81 was £1,155 million, and in the current year—1984–85—it is £1,074 million, thus showing a substantial reduction?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, what the noble Baroness has said highlights how difficult it is to make comparisons because factors are always changing. I do not think that 1980–81 would have been a particularly good year to have taken as a base year because in that year there was a very, very large pay rise. Indeed, I am sure that many noble Lords will remember that that was due to professor Clegg and his Standing Commission on Pay Comparability. Therefore, I do not think that 1980–81 would have been a very good year.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, although the report of the Visiting Committee of the Open University is very supportive of the Open University, nevertheless the indicated grants for 1986 and 1987 show a continuation of the downward trend in real terms which the university has suffered since 1980? Is it not the case that between 1980 and 1984 the Open University's grant was eroded in real terms by £2.5 million?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not have any figures available for any institutions, and I am afraid that that includes the Open University. However, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness with the information. I am sure that her figures are correct.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that, during the years 1981 to 1984, the universities have shed something like 7,900 staff, and that the drop in real terms is calculated by the Government, I believe, at 8 per cent., but the universities think that they are worse off by 14 per cent?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I would not disagree with the noble Lord's figures. The figures which I have show that they shed some 12.5 per cent. of their full-time academic staff between December 1979 and December 1984.

Airport Capacity: London
3.6 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 have studied the paper published by the Civil

1013
Aviation Authority, London Area Runway Capacity and Passengers (CAP 502); and what action they propose to take.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government have noted the publication of the CAA paper. The capacity of the London airports system will be one of the issues my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will be considering in the context of their planning decisions arising from the inspector's report on the airports inquiries 1981–83.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware of the fact that the Civil Aviation Authority takes the view that there will be a shortage of runway capacity in the Greater London area as soon as 1990? If the Government accept that expert view, does not that indicate the need for very urgent remedial action, given that in civil aviation terms five years is a very short time?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of my very considerable personal interest in these matters. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not say anything to anticipate the consideration being given to these matters by my right honourable and honourable friends.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that the CAA report was published on 28th January and that therefore many of us who took part in your Lordships' debate on the inspector's report on 11th February took the CAA report into full consideration when expressing our views? We have no reason now to change the views that we put forward on that occasion. Is it not the case that the capacity of the four London airports, as set out in this document, would meet the estimated demand in 1990 and, with slight adjustments at Luton and Stansted, they could meet demand in 1995, with some slight increase in the regional airports?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I fear that I can go no further than the answer which I gave to my noble friend a moment ago.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that this report excludes altogether any consideration of the noise and number index, and that if that factor is taken into consideration, then the argument in favour of a reduction, rather than an increase, in Heathrow movements becomes over-whelming?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I dislike being negative in answering your Lordships on this matter—a matter in which, as I said to my noble friend, I have some considerable interest. However, my right honourable and honourable friends are now acting in a quasi-judicial role in this matter. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not go further.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people who have studied this matter
1014
would regard the views expressed from the Front Bench opposite as wildly and irresponsibly optimistic? In view of the urgency of the matter, will he indicate that he will use his own great influence to secure an early decision, whatever that decision may be?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that I can go further than to say that my right honourable friend and my honourable friend will certainly want to reach conclusions on this matter as soon as possible.

Coal Strike: Working Miners
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley: 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 would approve of the National Coal Board rewarding working miners proportionately after the strike for the time they were at work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government very much appreciate the efforts of those miners who have continued to work during this sad and unnecessary dispute. They have received proper recompense for their work, while those who have been on strike since last March have each lost an average of nearly £9,000. The NCB has already paid to working miners an advance on account for the 5.2 per cent. increase in base rates offered from November 1983. When this pay award is finally agreed by the NUM, together with whatever is agreed for the current year, miners who have worked through the dispute will benefit further.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. May I ask him—and I am sure the majority of your Lordships will agree with this—to tell the National Coal Board that they have treated the miners very fairly?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords, I would indeed agree.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, does the noble Earl, Lord Avon, appreciate that, although one recognises the beneficial intentions of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, it would nevertheless be unwise to indulge in excessive discrimination? We must consider motives on both sides: the motives of those who refused to be dictated to by Mr. Scargill and some of his friends, and the motives of those who were inclined to support him. Motivation must be taken into account. If we want to develop a successful coalmining industry, in the interests, not of one side or the other but of the nation as a whole, the one thing we must avoid is any further bitterness.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord speaks words of wisdom, and perhaps rather appropriately in the very week when we have a 50–50 situation.

Grey Seals
3.12 p.m.
Lord Gridley: 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, in view of the concern already expressed by major organisations concerned with the protection of wildlife they will give an assurance that there will be no cull of grey seals in Scotland this year.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, the Natural Environment Research Council, commissioned by the Government, concluded a three-year programme of studies last year of the interaction between grey seals and fisheries. Their report was distributed to interested parties and copies were placed in the Library of the House.
The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is still discussing the findings with the conservation and fisheries organisations most directly concerned. I am not yet in a position to announce the Government's intentions.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. While we wait for this report is my noble friend in a position to give any assurance that no cull of grey seals in Scotland will take place until everything has been considered by Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Gray of Contin: Yes, my Lords, I can certainly give my noble friend that assurance. There is no question of a cull taking place while my right honourable friend is still considering the report.
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to bear in mind that this matter merits some urgency? At the present time there are a great many seals off the coasts of Northern England and Scotland, and in particular at the mouth of the river Tweed, and the degree of damage done by them is highly unacceptable. If we wait forever before we make up our minds, the salmon stocks may be irrevocably damaged.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I fully accept the point which my noble friend makes, and I can give him an assurance that there will be no undue delay in my right honourable friend reaching a conclusion on the report. Indeed, my right honourable friend hopes to make a Statement within a matter of weeks.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, referred in fact reached a different conclusion from that of the last speaker, and that the findings of the report were that the grey seals do not cause significant damage to fishery interests? Is the Minister aware of that? Is he further aware that man is taking care of the future of the grey seals because the habitat in which they breed is being so drastically reduced that in a very short time there will be no need to cull them?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the point which the noble Baroness has made will of course be taken into account before my right honourable friend reaches his conclusion. However, I would remind the noble Baroness that the regular studies undertaken by the sea mammal research unit of the Natural Environment Research Council show that the population of seals in the Scottish colonies has increased in recent years, and is still increasing.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, while there has been an increase in the Scottish colony of grey seals, the Scottish colony represents a fairly high proportion of the total world population of grey seals? Can the noble Lord tell us what has been happening to that population? Is it also increasing, and how does the Scottish colony relate to it—is it increasing proportionately?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, without checking my facts I should not like to go into detailed figures, but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that the increase in the Scottish colonies is significant.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that salmon are no less important a part of wildlife to be protected than are seals, and that it is just that seals can be easily seen and salmon cannot? If we do not deal with the seals, we shall have no salmon.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will of course give all these matters consideration before he reaches a conclusion.

Council of Agriculture Ministers
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment afer 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Swinton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 25th and 26th February.

Highland Region (Kinlochbervie) Order Confirmation Bill
3.17 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. —(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this is an important matter for the Highland Region, and I do not think that anyone would wish to delay to any great extent the passing of the Order Confirmation Bill. However, there is one matter that concerns me. The Highland Region requires all the financial help that it can get. I should like to know just exactly what the Government plan to do about it. At the front of the Bill we have a Financial Memorandum which says that:
The Highland Regional Council intend to apply for grant under the Fisheries Act 1955 to the Secretary of State".

1017
Can we by any chance be told how much the region will receive? I ask because the cost over the whole period is £3,952,000.
The other interesting point—and this is the real matter about which I am concerned—is what will happen in respect of grant from the EEC. Your Lordships will remember that about four or five days ago the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked a Question about EEC regional funds. I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Glenamara who asked the Minister whether anything coming from the regional funds would be in addition to what was given by the Government. The Minister gave a very short and definite answer: it was, "Yes". That being so, let me read the next part of this Financial Memorandum. It states:
"The Council would also intend to apply for grant to be financed out of the EEC Regional Development Fund for which the normal grant rate is currently 30 per cent.".
Then I come to the important point:
"If that application is acceded to it is understood that any grant under section 2 of the Act of 1955 would be reduced accordingly".
Therefore, we receive one answer from the Minister one day saying that it is additional money, and then we are told here by the Government—because the Secretary of State for Scotland is sponsoring this Bill—that if we get anything from the Regional Development Fund the Government grant will be reduced accordingly. Therefore, it is not additional money.
It may be unfair to ask the present Minister who has been handed this Bill to reply to it, but would he undertake for some Minister to tell us once and for all whether the funds we are getting from the EEC are additional, or are they just being used by the Government instead of the normal grant that they would pay under the various Acts?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the necessary information to hand, but I confirm to the House that I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, on the detailed points that he has raised. As the House will be aware, an application for grant cannot be submitted until the Bill has been enacted by Parliament, and for that reason I am unable to give the details that he requests.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister would not write only to my noble friend Lord Ross but would publish this in the Library so that we all know about it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord, although I am sure he does not need reminding, that all the letters are automatically put in the Library. I think that that is the agreed procedure.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Prosecution of Offences Bill [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [The Crown Prosecution Service]:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, after ("the") insert ("Chief").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I beg leave to speak also to a rather large but simple group of amendments numbering 3 to 19 inclusive, 23, 33, 34 and 35.
Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 12, leave out ("as a prosecuting officer") and insert ("for the purposes of this subsection, and any person so designated shall be known as a Crown Prosecutor").
Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 14, leave out ("prosecuting officer") and insert ("Crown Prosecutor").
Amendment No. 5: Page 2, line 15, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").
Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 16, after ("a") insert ("Chief").
Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 22, leave out ("prosecuting officer") and insert ("Crown Prosecutor"
Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 32, leave out ("prosecuting officer") and insert ("Crown Prosecutor").
Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 23, leave out ("Prosecuting officers") and insert ("Crown Prosecutors").
Amendment No. 10: Page 4, line 33, leave out ("prosecuting officers") and insert ("Crown Prosecutors").
Amendment No. 11: Page 4, line 35, leave out ("prosecuting officers") and insert ("Crown Prosecutors").
Amendment No. 12: Page 4, line 44, leave out ("prosecuting officers") and insert ("Crown Prosecutors").
Amendment No. 13: Page 5, line 6, leave out ("prosecuting officers") and insert ("Crown Prosecutors").
Amendment No. 14: Page 5, line 13, leave out ("prosecuting officer") and insert ("Crown Prosecutor").
Amendment No. 15: Clause 5, page 5, line 15, leave out ("prosecuting officer") and insert ("Crown Prosecutor").
Amendment No. 16: Page 5, line 22, leave out ("prosecuting officer") and insert ("Crown Prosecutor").
Amendment No. 17: Page 5, line 24, leave out ("prosecuting officer") and insert ("Crown Prosecutor").
Amendment No. 18: Clause 7, page 5, line 33, leave out ("prosecuting officer") and insert ("Crown Prosecutor").
Amendment No. 19: Page 6, line 4, leave out ("prosecuting officer") and insert ("Crown Prosecutor").
Amendment No. 23: Clause 14, page 12, leave out lines 11 to 13.
Amendment No. 33: Clause 26, page 27, line 12, leave out ("prosecuting officer") and insert ("Crown Prosecutor").
Amendment No. 34: Page 27, line 18, leave out ("prosecuting officer") and insert ("Crown Prosecutor")
Amendment No. 35: Schedule 1, page 29, leave out lines 7 to 11.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, gave us the opportunity to consider at Report stage whether we had chosen the right names for the officers of the new service. I said then that I was not entirely convinced that his alternative, the "Crown advocate", was altogether appropriate since advocacy was not the sole function of the people concerned, but that we were not irrevocably wedded to the term "prosecuting officer" provided we could be sure that any alternative title was a better one.
We have now had an opportunity to reflect, and it seems to us that the function and status we are looking at can both be aptly described in the term "Crown Prosecutor". As that title had already been earmarked for the chief prosecutor in a district, it follows that using it to describe what we now call his subordinates means giving hid a new title as well. Again the simple solution is to change his title to "Chief Crown

1019
Prosecutor". We believe that that title adequately reflects the role and status of the senior officer responsible to the Director of Public Prosecutions for the operation of the service in an area.
The status of this officer has properly been the concern of a number of your Lordships, and I think they will welcome, as I do, the fact that the new title corresponds directly with that of Chief Constable. We know that these new titles have been received favourably by the Prosecuting Solicitors' Society, and I hope they will be received equally favourably by your Lordships.
I ought to add that Amendments 23 and 35 to the definitions in Clause 14 and Schedule 1 are consequential. Your Lordships will see that their effect is to remove the definition of the term "prosecuting officer" in both places, and that they do not substitute definitions of the term "Crown Prosecutor". The reason is that the term "prosecuting officer" was merely descriptive and that its meaning had therefore to be fixed by definition in the Statute. The term "Crown Prosecutor" on the other hand is a title and is fixed by the terms of Amendment No. 3:
"any person so designated shall be known as a Crown Prosecutor".
These are all presentational changes but they reflect the importance we attach to the new service and to the morale of staff coming into it, and they may also affect the way in which the service is perceived in a fashion which I hope your Lordships will find beneficial. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in all parts of your Lordships' House there has been concern about the status of the prosecuting service and those in charge of it. We from these Benches have been endeavouring to play our part in securing that status. Nomenclature is sometimes important, as those of your Lordships who have been in the Army will probably remember. In those circumstances, obviously, we welcome the Government's decision to alter the nomeclature and to do it in the way they have done, and therefore we support these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert ("and in respect of any such appointments made for the discharge of his functions in Wales, the Director, for each specified area in Wales, shall appoint where practicable a sufficient number of staff who are able to conduct the business of the service in the Welsh language.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. In Committee we had no information about the number of cases which were being heard entirely in the Welsh language. Indeed some doubts were expressed as to whether any trial had been held in the Welsh language. Since then I have been doing my homework and I can tell the House that in the year 1981—and the year 1981 is not untypical at all—332 magistrates' court cases were heard entirely in Welsh; another 187 were heard mainly in Welsh; while 396 cases were heard partly in Welsh.
In Gwynedd—and that is probably the most intensely Welsh speaking area of Wales—the clerk to the magistrates' court in Pwllheli could say:
"The court at Pwllheli is fortunate in that all the solicitors practising in the court are Welsh speaking, and also the senior police officers."
1020
From his key position as clerk to the magistrates he went on to say most strongly:
"I find that by using the Welsh language in a purely Welsh area the parties and the witnesses are able to express themselves in a more coherent manner and much time is saved."
This indeed was the situation which I believe was envisaged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, when he recommended to the Lord Chancellor the provisions which ought to be implemented in Wales in order to give full effect to the Welsh Language Act 1967.
The object of this amendment is to safeguard the position as described by the clerk of the Pwllheli magistrates' court. We believe that it goes a long way to meet the existing need in those districts of Wales where Welsh is habitually spoken by the majority of the people. There are quite a number of such districts. In nine out of the 37 district councils in Wales, according to the 1981 census, Welsh is spoken by the majority of the population, and in another three it is spoken by between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the population.
Unless the Bill incorporates an amendment along these lines, it does not, in the view of many people in Wales, wholly come to terms with the administration of justice in the Welsh speaking districts of Wales. Of course nobody expects every prosecutor in Wales to be able to conduct proceedings in the Welsh language, but a Director and a Crown Prosecutor ought to be under a statutory duty—not merely an undertaking of the Minister, although we value his undertakings very much—to
"appoint where practicable"—
and these are new words which were not before the Committee—
"a sufficient number of staff"—
again new words—
"who are able to conduct the business of the service in the Welsh language.".
The concept of practicability was used in the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1938 in connection with the appointment of the chairman or deputy chairman of the Quarter Sessions. That concept worked very well indeed in practice. Therefore, that is the precedent in the amendment. What is practicable in the circumstances must obviously depend on a consideration of many factors within the limit of what is reasonable. The amendment would place a duty on the Crown Prosecutor to appoint a sufficient number of Welsh-speaking prosecutors. Provided that he has taken all practicable steps to provide such prosecutors, then he will have discharged his function under the Act. That is the amendment which we move. I think it meets many of the points raised by the Minister at the Committee Stage. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, I beg to support the amendment. It is in my personal experience highly desirable that there should be a provision of this measured nature introduced into the statute. I fully understand and am grateful for the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on a previous occasion in relation to this matter. So far from any hostility being

1021
evinced or reluctance, there was a sympathetic reception of the notion.
While compiling the report, which I had the privilege of rendering as a result of a one-man inquiry at the request of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor some years ago, I learned the vital necessity of seeing that all links were forged, that any break in the link could bring about the result that people out of desire, and sometimes out of necessity, required that their trial be conducted in Welsh, and that there should be available the staff necessary to give recognition to that desire and right under the 1967 Act.
Accordingly, there is proper moderation introduced into the amendment by a reference to the practicability of the situation. Nevertheless, it is desirable that that measured amendment should find its reflection in the statute, otherwise lassitude can, and does, creep in and there can be a reluctance on the part of those who are not always sympathetic to the use of the Welsh language in the courts. I venture to submit that it is highly desirable that there should be evinced in the statute, in the measured way that is suggested, recognition of the high desirability of, wherever practicable, having available Welsh-speaking prosecutors. I beg to support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must confess that I have no Welsh blood in me so far as I know and I am not a member of the Welsh Circuit. But as a member of the English Bar I used frequently in the 1930s to appear in Wales—mostly in Traffic Commissioners' courts for the Great Western Railway, of blessed memory! There was one occasion when I was the only person in court who could not speak Welsh. A. T. James, who some noble and learned Lords may remember, was kind enough to translate the whole of the proceedings into English for my benefit. Therefore, if this amendment were to be effective—and bearing in mind what a wonderful way the Welsh have of living in both worlds—it should, where practicable and where necessary, refer to,
"conduct business of the service in the Welsh or English languages".
There could again be similar circumstances.
I was speaking of 50 years ago. We have heard two eloquent speeches from noble Lords with a real Welsh background pointing out the need for translation, presumably into the Welsh language. There is no doubt about it that 50 years ago many Welsh people did not speak a word of English or understand English. I came across them in North Wales perhaps much more than in South Wales; I went to North Wales, too. I would say that today pretty well every Welsh-speaking person in Wales under the age of 65 is bilingual. They may have a greater facility in Welsh than in English, but they have learned to live in the country of which we are all proud to be citizens. To say that these people are incapable of getting along in courts in which the official language is English is rather pessimistic.
I have another point to raise about this amendment. It is that the Director is required where practicable to appoint,
"a sufficient number of staff … able to conduct the business of the service in the Welsh language".
1022
But who is to be the judge of whether or not it is practicable? If it is found that it ought to have been done and has not been done, how is this provision to be enforced? I wonder whether the noble Lords who have tabled this amendment have thought that question through. I should be interested to know what the answer to it may be.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am a strict non-Welshman, and without consulting the colleagues on these Benches among whom Wales is well-distributed, I have not the slightest hesitation in supporting the amendment. It seems clear that the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has raised can easily be solved. The person who decides whether it is practicable or not to do anything at the time is the person who is told to do it. In this case that is the Director. I see no problem there. It is entirely desirable that we should do anything we can at any time to support the reality of this language, of which I do not understand a word but which I know to be a wonderful one from so many friends who do. I do not think I would be saying too much on behalf of my colleagues when I way that we support this amendment fully.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the spirit of this amendment. I totally agree that language is crucial and it is just no use saying that people can express themselves as well in English as in Welsh or other languages if that is not so. But I suggest that this could have been met by some form of undertaking without drafting it into the form of a statute. In a sense that is a steam roller to crack a walnut. I should have thought that an appropriate undertaking by the Government that they would ensure that the spirit of this amendment was faithfully carried out would have been sufficient in all the circumstances.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, there seems to me to be a fair amount of common sense and fairness in this amendment, but one aspect puzzles me. The laws themselves are not printed in Welsh and therefore if the laws are not printed in Welsh, the whole exercise seems to become impracticable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment makes what is at first sight a reasonable requirement in what are at first sight reasonable terms. All that the noble Lord wants is to ensure that there are enough Welsh-speaking staff to conduct the business of the service in Welsh. He does not, I am sure, mean that the business of the service shall be conducted only in Welsh, which could be inferred from the drafting of the amendment. But the noble Lord knows as well as any of us that the majority of Welsh men and women, even, do not have Welsh as their second language. Much of the business of the service therefore of necessity will have to be conducted in English, even in Wales. Nonetheless, the noble Lord and his supporters are anxious that, where it is appropriate for the Welsh language to be used, the service shall be able to use it.
With only one reservation, I am entirely in agreement with that objective, as is my noble friend, Lord Campbell of Alloway. My reservation is one which I am sure, on reflection, noble Lords opposite will share. It is simply this: that the principle of appointing Welsh speakers to the service shall operate

1023
only to the benefit and not to the detriment of the Welsh people as a whole. By that I mean that, when it comes to the appointment of staff, the ability to speak Welsh shall be seen as an important consideration but not as the overriding consideration. We must have a thoroughly efficient and competent staff, and I am sure that noble Lords opposite would not for a moment therefore wish us to appoint people who are efficient or competent simply because they are fluent in the musical tongue of their fathers.
I presume that it was with some such reservation as that in mind that the noble Lords tabled their amendment, and I am therefore happy to repeat the assurance that I gave on Report (when a different amendment on this general subject was tabled) that the ability to speak Welsh competently will be one of the characteristics considered and given importance in the recruitment of members to take up posts in the new service in Wales. I am also happy to repeat the assurance that I gave then that the Government stand by Sections 1 and 2 of the Welsh Language Act 1967, which ensure that any party to proceedings who wishes to speak Welsh in the course of them can do so; and, as the noble Lord himself has eloquently shown already, this does happen, at least, at Pwllelli.
As far as proceedings in court are concerned, I share the views of Theophilus Evans, which I shall attempt to reproduce by saying:
"Lle nid oes dim hawl dda, y mae yno yn wastad ofn.".
Some of your Lordships will already know that that means that where there is not a good trial there is always fear. The word "hawl" can be taken to mean "prosecution" as well as "trial", and I think that the quotation is aptly chosen to describe my position and that of noble Lords opposite.
But the amendment is not concerned only with the conduct of proceedings in court; it talks of the conduct of the business of the service. In the normal course of events, the service will stand at one remove from defendants or witnesses in a case, since it will be for the police, as it is now, to interview them and to take their statements. Having said that, however, I recognise that there may well be occasions—and I think that there will be occasions—in the course of the business of the service outside its court work when Welsh is used; and that will include correspondence. Where practicable, staff should be appointed who are able to meet that requirement, as the amendment says, and we are more than prepared to extend the assurances already given to cover that point, as well.
I think, with my noble friends and, indeed, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, when he spoke on a similar amendment at Committee stage, that it is more appropriate for this to be done by undertaking than by legislation; and if we were to proceed by legislation I would follow my noble friend Lord Renton into analysing the effects of the word "practicable" and also of the word "sufficient" in the context in which they are used. My fear is that the amendment is in fact ineffective, but that if it is effective it could, if wrongly interpreted, act to the disadvantage of the Welshmen whose cause has been so eloquently pleaded by their fellow countrymen in this Chamber.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I rise with a sense of inadequacy in place of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who sends apologies to the House for his absence. He has a very good excuse; he is sitting judicially. I am deeply disappointed by the response of the noble Lord, despite the fact that he quoted Theophilus Evans. If Theophilus Evans were here in your Lordships' House, he would make a far more effective speech than I can make in reply to the noble Lord, because, as the noble Lord probably knows, Theophilus Evans was one of the greatest advocates of the Welsh language in Welsh history.
We are extremely concerned about the substance of this amendment, for several reasons. I should like to refer in passing to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who has been a colleague of mine for many years. We have argued before in Committee in another place. But I am bound to say—and I know him to be a fair man—that I was disappointed by what he said. The fact is that this is a very reasonable amendment. What he must realise is that although most Welsh-speaking people understand English, they are bilingual; and it is greatly to their credit that they are. Although they understand English, and can speak it often much better than many an Englishman, nevertheless they prefer, especially in moments of stress, to express themselves in their own language. Furthermore, I am surprised that anyone should suggest that a Welshman has not the right in his own country to speak his own language. Surely, in this day and age entitlement to that right must be the civilised attitude to adopt.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I think that I must have expressed myself extremely badly. I was not denying the right of Welshmen to speak their own language in their own country; of course they should do so if they wish. The point that I was making is that because the education in Wales has now for so long been, in effect, bilingual, nearly all Welsh people understand English very well these days.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, that is to their credit, of course. But if we are to go into this matter in any detail, may I say this to the noble Lord? When I was at school, when my noble friend was at school, and when my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones was at school in Carmarthenshire, at that stage there was very little Welsh taught in the schools. Today Welsh is taught in the schools far more extensively than it was in those days. Therefore, among the Welsh-speaking population there is a far better grasp of grammatic Welsh today than there was even in those times. Welsh-speaking people are perfectly capable of giving evidence in the courts of Wales; or is the noble Lord saying that they are English courts in Wales? The fact is that they are Anglo-Welsh courts and that a Welshman has as much rights in the courts in Wales as an Englishman has in the courts of England. That is the reality of the situation as I see it. If it is different, I should be grateful if the noble Lord will let me know.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is not different, but as the noble Lord is addressing himself to the points made by

1025
my noble friend, I should remind him that the Government position is to recognise the great importance of the Welsh language for cultural and every other reason and that its position in the courts is already protected by Act of Parliament. There is nothing between the noble Lord opposite and myself on objectives—only on whether it ought to be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. That gives me some comfort because the Act which he supports is the Act which I had the privilege of piloting through Parliament. Nevertheless, let me make one or two points, in extension of what my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has said, on the facts. In North Wales, for example, there is cause for concern at the present time because of the 20 or so prosecuting officers appointed by the newly-formed Police Prosecuting Department, only three are Welsh-speaking; whereas up to now in Gwynedd almost every solicitor, and in Clwyd a fair number of the solicitors briefed to prosecute for the police were fluent Welsh speakers. So there, at the very start, there is a retrograde step.
Furthermore, the net result of what has taken place recently in Gwynedd is to make it more difficult for the Welsh language to be used freely by parties and witnesses in a magistrates' court there and by the court itself. It also makes it very much more difficult to hold all-Welsh hearings. All-Welsh hearings are perfectly reasonable and they are practical. I have sat throughout all-Welsh hearings where the magistrates were Welsh, where the prosecuting counsel or solicitors were Welsh, where the defending solicitors were Welsh, where the defendant—most important of all—was Welsh and where of course the witnesses were Welsh.
I read in yesterday's edition of the Liverpool Daily Post, which is a newspaper which circulates extensively in Wales, a report of a court case in Gwynedd—and that is the area where most Welsh-speaking people live—in which the court was considering adjourning a case so that an interpretor could be provided for the evidence of a Welsh-speaker. Everyone involved in the case, apart from the prosecuting solicitor (a recent appointment), was Welsh-speaking. That is the very point we have in mind. The effect of the offer of an adjournment was that the witness decided eventually to give his evidence in English, although he had indicated initially that he would feel far more at home giving his evidence in his own language. Surely, before a prosecuting solicitor is appointed to an area which has a high proportion of Welsh-speakers, his ability to conduct a case in that language must be an essential qualification.
The noble Lord has said, "Ah, let it be done administratively". What we are saying, and what we are insisting upon, is that the principle here is so important that it should be enshrined in the Bill itself. It is a simple matter. It is a matter of justice for the Welsh people; and I hope the Government will concede that in this case.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise, with the leave of your Lordships, because there is an expectant silence, from
1026
which I imagine the noble Lord expects me to change my position.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, that is what we are here for.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are not here for that: we are here to take a decision by your Lordships on a point of legislation. The noble Lord has said that in a particular case there was a prosecuting solicitor who could not speak Welsh in a court in North Wales. It does not follow from that that if this Bill were on the statute book with the noble Lord's amendment there would be a different prosecuting solicitor acting in the case. It may well be that the best man was appointed and that the best man, in this case, did not happen to speak Welsh. There are, I understand, four out of 11 Welsh-speaking prosecuting solicitors (and not three out of 20, as has been claimed) in North Wales. Every effort is made to appoint Welsh-speaking officers, consistent with the felt need to ensure that the best man gets the job.
The noble Lord has suggested that there is a wealth of Welsh-speaking solicitors to take this particular job. The advice I have is that the intention has been always to produce a Welsh-speaking solicitor where it is possible to do so without passing over the best man for the job. The noble Lord shakes his head. He shakes it about the present and the past: my understanding is binding upon us for the future, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether I am allowed to speak a second time. I understand that I am, and so perhaps I should say that we heard at Committee stage, and we have heard again today, that an insistence on the recruitment of prosecutors able and competent to conduct proceedings in the Welsh language would result in Wales having to put up with second best, as there would be a shortage of Welsh-speaking prosecutors of quality. All I wish to say is that I doubt very much whether that would be so.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed earlier: col. 1018.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 3 with Amendment No. 1. I now beg to move it formally and to give notice that I shall be seeking to move Amendments Nos. 4 to 19 en bloc for the same reason. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 19:
[Printed earlier: col. 1018.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 4 to 19 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 [Reports by Director to Attorney General]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 38, leave out ("in that year of his functions") and insert ("of his functions during the year ending with that date.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 9, as drafted, says that in any year, as soon as practicable after 4th April,
"the Director shall make to the Attorney General a report on the discharge in that year of his functions".
This could be taken to mean that the report should deal only with the discharge by the Director of his functions in the year in which the report is made; that is to say, to cover the period January to April. Clearly, what we intend to require of the report is that it should cover the preceding 12 months. This amendment ensures that the clause achieves that purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 41, at end insert—
(" ( ) A report under subsection (1) shall include a copy of any directions issued by the Director to Crown Prosecutors and prosecuting officers regarding the general criteria to be adopted in exercising the prosecutor's discretion in any of the following matters, that is to say:

(a) whether proceedings should or should not be instituted or continued;

(b) the selection of charges to be preferred;

(c) representations regarding mode of trial;

(d) whether pleas of guilty should be accepted.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I appreciate that the Government have moved on this matter, and have moved in the direction which the Opposition wanted—and, I believe, which Members in other parts of the House wanted, too. Your Lordships will doubtless remember that at the Report stage an amendment was moved which varied that which was put forward at Committee stage and which called for a mandatory inclusion in the report of various matters which, in their general nature, would cover those aspects which Parliament and the public would want to consider. The noble Lord the Minister was good enough to say, after listening to that debate, that he understood and, indeed, agreed with the spirit of the amendment as it was then put forward and debated, and that the Government were shifting their position—I use the word "shifting" in the nicest possible way—into one which would formulate an amendment at Third Reading which would accommodate the principle we are putting forward.
In the meantime, to enable that to be done, this amendment was put down again. But the Government, as one would expect when an undertaking is given by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, have met their obligation by setting down an amendment, No. 22. In all the circumstances I do not feel it would be right to persist in Amendment No. 21, although it is slightly different in its nature. Amendment No. 21 asks for inclusions in a report: Amendment No. 22 gives a direction to issue a code for Crown prosecutors giving guidance on the general principles to be applied, and then sets out what should be the matters to be dealt with in regard to the code for Crown prosecutors. Then it provides leave to alter; and then it says that the provisions should be set out in the Director's report.
Because Amendment No. 22 includes guidelines which have to be prepared by the Director and passed to the Crown prosecutors, and really covers in
1028
principle the point we were trying to make, I believe that the proper course for me to adopt is to withdraw this amendment on behalf of my noble friends—and I hope that would be the view of those on the Alliance Benches who were good enough to put their names down to the amendment but have obviously been prevented, I am sure for some good reason, from being present this afternoon. I think it would be proper, as I have said, to ask your Lordships' leave to move this amendment and then withdraw it, or indeed not move it, on the basis that Amendment No. 22 will be put. I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, possibly wishes to intervene before I sit down.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): Perhaps I may put the amendment, and then later it may be withdrawn, which would allow other speakers to speak. Amendment proposed: page 6, line 41, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
4 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord because I wished to speak before he formally withdrew this amendment. I am one of those who have been urging upon my noble friend that there should be some broad detail in the Bill as to what the Director's report should contain. On looking at Amendment No. 22, I was going to congratulate my noble friend, because that is exactly the kind of matter which I wanted to see and which I think an Attorney-General and a Director of Public Prosecutions would like to see and ought to have prepared for Parliament. Therefore, I am glad that the noble Lord has withdrawn his amendment, since I am wholly satisfied with that which we are going to discuss next. I congratulate my noble friend on responding to that which was urged upon him, that we should have a report of the kind which he is now going to give us.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am happy to continue my speech, but only briefly, by saying I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord expressed himself as he did. I think he put it in the past tense when he said that I had withdrawn this amendment. Only to adopt the proper procedure of this House, I am now about to do so. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause
("Guidelines for Crown Prosecutors.
.—(1) The Director shall issue a Code for Crown Prosecutors giving guidance on general principles to be applied by them—

(a) in determining, in any case—

(i) whether proceedings for an offence should be instituted or, where proceedings have been instituted, whether they should be discontinued; or

(ii) what charges should be preferred; and

(b) in considering, in any case, representations to be made by them to any magistrates' court about the mode of trial suitable for that case.

(2) The Director may from time to time make alterations in the Code.
(3) The provisions of the Code shall be set out in the Director's report under section 9 of this Act for the year in which the Code is issued; and any alteration in the Code shall be set out in his report under that section for the year in which the alteration is made".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships have clearly and courteously outlined the previous history, and indeed the first three paragraphs of my speech in moving Amendment No. 22, which I now do. So I shall be brief. The Government fully accept that general guidance issued by the Director to Crown Prosecutors should be published in the Director's annual report. At earlier stages, our reservations were two-fold: first, that it was unnecessary to require such publication on the face of the Bill; and, secondly, that any requirement to publish should make provision for those matters on which confidentiality must be preserved. But we accept the strength of feelings in your Lordships' House that such guidance should be required to be published and we feel that this should outweigh our own reservations over whether provision should be made on the face of the Bill to this effect. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson for welcoming that.
We also believe that our amendment meets our concern that the duty which is on the Director to publish should be so framed as to protect advice in sensitive matters, whose disclosure could be harmful to the public interest. There would, as I pointed out earlier, be great danger if it was necessary to publish advice that there was, say, a loophole in the law before the loophole could be closed.
There are two main differences between our amendment and that of noble Lords opposite which has now been withdrawn. Ours places a duty on the Director to issue a code to Crown prosecutors on the general principles to be applied to the decision whether to institute or continue proceedings and to the principal aspects of the conduct of the case. The new clause requires the code and subsequent alterations to it to be published in the Director's annual report to the Attorney-General. We believe that this will make it clear that the code is to cover general principles and that no risk arises of the duty to publish being held to apply to advice in particular cases which it would be against the public interest publish. There is nothing between us on that.
The second difference is that the Government amendment does not appear to cover decisions as to whether pleas of guilty should be accepted. The difference is one of appearance only. The cases which I believe noble Lords opposite have in mind are those in which a decision must be made whether to drop proceedings for a more serious offence where the defendant has said that he would plead guilty to a less serious offence. I believe that it is these criteria that they think should be published and we agree with that. But technically, and in law, the decision in question is not a decision to accept a plea of guilty to the lesser offence. It is a decision to drop proceedings in connection with the greater offence. That decision is covered by the requirement in subsection (1)(a)(i) of our amendment and there should therefore be nothing between us on that either. I hope that with that explanation all of your Lordships will be content with the effect of our amendment and be prepared to accept it. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Interpretation of Part 1]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 23.
[Printed earlier: col. 1018.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Clause 15 [Defence costs]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 13, line 27, leave out ("indictable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24, I should like first to say how much my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor regrets that he is not here to do it in person. I do it on his behalf. My noble and learned friend is, as I think your Lordships may know, suffering from a bout of influenza and I am sure that your Lordships will want me to wish him a speedy recovery. As I gather that he is already dealing briskly with a succession of red boxes at home, I am glad to say that that wish is likely to be fulfilled quite rapidly.
With your Lordships' leave, in moving Amendment No. 24 I shall also speak on the connected Amendments, Nos. 25, 29, and 36 to 39 inclusive.
Amendment No. 25: Page 13, line 32, leave out ("indictable").
Amendment No. 29: Leave out Clause 17.
Amendment No. 36: Page 31, line 4, leave out sub-paragraph (9).
Amendment No. 37: Page 31, line 8, leave out ("After") and insert ("For").
Amendment No. 38: Page 31, line 8, leave out from ("be") to ("where") in line 9 and insert ("substituted the following—"13.").
Amendment No. 39: Page 31, line 38, leave out ("sections 17 and") and insert ("section").
These amendments fulfil an undertaking given by my noble and learned friend at the Committee stage. Amendment No. 24 enables defendants acquitted in summary cases to recover their costs from central funds. The position regarding appeals in summary cases is dealt with by Amendment No. 26, to which I shall be speaking later. Amendment No. 29, which removes Clause 17 from the Bill, is to an extent consequential on the extension of central funds to summary cases, but it might help if I explained in a little more detail.
Clause 17 enables magistrates' courts to order the prosecutor to pay an acquitted defendant's costs in summary cases. It was included in the Bill because such a defendant would not be able to recover his costs from central funds. With the extension of Clause 15 to cover summary cases, it is no longer necessary to make separate provision for the prosecutor to pay the defendant's costs and Clause 17 can therefore be removed. Consequential amendments to Schedule 1 are also required on the removal of Clause 17. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this is a moment to be remembered and to be thankful for, because what is now proposed by the acceptance of the amendments which I had the privilege of moving at an earlier stage means that a serious error and fault—indeed, I would call it a fundamental injustice—in our legal system is

1031
to be removed. This omission which we made, and which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepted by a promise in advance, was that where an innocent person has fought to establish his innocence it is indeed ironic that he should find himself condemned in costs, so far as his own legal expenses are concerned, if he is acquitted on a matter that came to the court not on his initiative, but entirely by the machinery or activities of other persons and authorities.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and I echo an observation that I made when we heard of the unhappy illness of the Lord Chancellor and extend our wishes on this side of the House for his speedy recovery—has now carried out what he undertook to do on the last occasion. We are grateful for it and I am sure that this improvement in our arrangements for those who come before the courts with inadequate resources will be welcomed throughout the country as a whole.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 25:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 14, line 3 leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(" (3) Where a person convicted of an offence by a magistrates' court appeals to the Crown Court under section 108 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (right of appeal against conviction or sentence) and, in consequence of the decision on appeal—

(a) his conviction is set aside; or

(b) a less severe punishment is awarded;

the Crown Court may make a defendant's costs order in favour of the accused.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26 I will, with your Lordships' leave, also speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 on the Marshalled List.
Amendment No. 27: Page 14, line 8, after ("Appeal") insert ("—(a)")
Amendment No. 28: Page 14, line 13, at end insert—
("or
(b) on an appeal under that Part against sentence, exercises its powers under section 11(3) of that Act (powers where the court considers that the appellant should be sentenced differently for an offence for which he was dealt with by the court below);").
These amendments also fulfil undertakings given by my noble and learned friend at the Report stage. Their effect is two-fold. First, they will extend the availability of awards of costs from central funds to appellants in summary cases. Secondly, they enable the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal to make an award of costs out of central funds to a defendant who, on appeal against sentence, has a less severe punishment substituted for the original sentence.
My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Mischon: My Lords, not only your Lordships' House but the Law Society—which campaigned in this matter and indeed on the last matter that we
1032
discussed—will be most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for having had second thoughts on this aspect. I suppose appreciation ought also to be expressed to the noble and learned Lord who, unfortunately, is not with us this afternoon. I have nothing more to say other than to express that gratitude and to say that the Government are so sensible to have accepted what was said from this side.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, the noble Lord is most kind. To be fair, I think some collective credit is always due to governments when they get things right; but in this case the noble Lord should direct all his gratitude at my noble and learned friend and not at myself. I shall see that his next red box is packed with laurels.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 27:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 28:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 29:
[Printed earlier: col. 1030.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Prosecution costs]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 17, line 22, after ("dismisses") insert ("—(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall, with your Lordships' leave, speak also to Amendment No. 31.
Amendment No. 31: Page 17, line 24, after ("1968") insert—
("or
(b) an application by the accused for leave to appeal to the House of Lords under Part II of that Act;").
Your Lordships will remember that my noble and learned friend moved amendments on Report which enabled the House in its judicial capacity to exercise its inherent jurisdiction with regard to the award of costs between parties without restriction. It has since transpired that those amendments in fact went wider than was necessary and inadvertently removed the power of the Court of Appeal to order the accused to pay costs under Clause 18 where that court had dismissed his application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. This amendment and Amendment No. 31 on the Marshalled List therefore restore the status quo. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 31:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will explain why it is deemed

1033
necessary to make this amendment. The amendment at page 17, line 24, empowers the Court of Appeal to make an order as to costs in respect of an application by the accused for leave to appeal to the House of Lords being rejected by the Court of Appeal. Is this really thought in all circumstances to be necessary? It runs against the kindly stream of goodwill that has been exhibited so far today. Will the noble Lord say why we should cast a cloud over the happy horizon that has previously existed?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are rather removing a cloud from the stream of goodwill because clouds tend to swell streams. As I understand it, the course that the stream was to run was clearly marked out at an earlier stage and the amendment enlarged upon the intention. The effect of the amendments now on the Marshalled List is to restore the stream of goodwill to its predicted course. I could with difficulty and coaching give the noble and learned Lord the detail of this rather complicated consideration but I am assured that the effect is merely to restore the status quo in an area in which there had not been an undertaking to alter it. If the noble and learned Lord would bear with me until I write, and if he is not content with my letter, he would then talk to his colleagues in another place or perhaps call me to task when the Bill comes back, I think that would expedite proceedings.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I shall certainly bear with that period of waiting; but having spent a happy day upstairs in another capacity, I would not encourage any interference with rights of appeal to your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Discontinuance of proceedings in magistrates' courts]:
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 25, line 13, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) Where proceedings are discontinued in respect of a charge against any person no court shall entertain any information against him in respect of that charge, except any information laid with leave of a magistrates' court and rules of that court shall provide that that person shall be entitled to be given notice of and to appear and be heard on any application for such leave.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wonder whether I could reawaken in your Lordships' minds memories of a very important amendment and a very important principle which we discussed at earlier stages of the Bill. At Committee stage we brought forward an amendment, which was quite widely discussed as I remember, that the opportunity should be taken with this new prosecution service to weed out those prosecutions which should not be continued in the view of the prosecuting service.
The difficulty with the present procedure is that one has to obtain the leave of the court in order to do that. Obtaining the leave of the court in turn necessitates a considerable amount of work; the preparation of it; with the appearance in court of learned counsel in some cases and of solicitors in others; and the attendance of the parties concerned. The Government felt that that was a sensible principle and came forward
1034
with an amendment at Report stage which was considered by your Lordships on 14th February. I quote from col. 371 of the Official Report for that day where the Minister said:
"My Lords, I undertook during our debate in Committee on the new clause proposed by the noble and learned Lords opposite to bring forward an amendment to empower the new service to drop charges without being required to seek leave of the magistrates' court. That is the purpose of this amendment".
We looked at that amendment. It is nobody's fault, but we did not have very much time to consider it. On behalf of my noble friends, I expressed gratitude for the step that the Government had taken towards us but gave notice, if I may put it in that way, at col. 373 in the following terms:
"My Lords, I wonder whether I may briefly express the appreciation of these Benches for the gracious way in which the noble Lord described our activities on the last occasion in regard to this amendment and for the action he has taken. In similar courtesy, perhaps I may tell him that we find this amendment acceptable, but I want to tell him also that between now and Third Reading we shall be considering the question of whether or not the leave of the court should have to be obtained before fresh proceedings are started after a discontinuance".
If your Lordships will look at the provision that is now in the Bill as a result of the amendment accepted at Report stage, you will find that a discontinuance notice can be served, the procedure carried out, and thereafter and without any leave having to be obtained from the court a fresh prosecution can be started upon the same facts; and it would be exactly the same offence charged by the prosecution.
One can readily imagine the feelings of an unknowing defendant who finds himself in that position at a later stage, having thought that the proceedings had been discontinued. One can also understand the feelings of a knowing defendant who appreciates that, although proceedings have been discontinued by notice, next week, next month—it could be next year—fresh proceedings can be started all over again. It may very well be at that stage, whether it be the knowing defendant or the unknowing defendant I have tried to describe to your Lordships, that a witness for the defence is no longer available or that evidence has been destroyed.
Those are matters which obviously ought to be considered by a court before fresh proceedings can be started, so that the court can decide whether it is just in all the circumstances and whether the defendant has been unduly prejudiced as a result of the prosecution, having served the notice originally, not proceeding with the charges but bringing them forward all over again at a later date. In my humble submission that must be right. It is surely a principle of jurisprudence that the court must be able to consider whether hardship has accrued and whether a defendant has been unduly prejudiced as a result of the prosecution's action and not his own.
As I intimated might be the case at Report stage, we are saying at Third Reading that the Government's amendment is perfectly in order but that before proceedings are re-instituted, having been discontinued under the provisions of the amendment—and they can be, and no doubt there will be some cases where they ought to be—the leave of the court must first be obtained. This means that the accused will be able, through his representative, one

1035
imagines, to explain to the court why in his view it would be wrong for proceedings to be re-instituted. Nevertheless, the court can decide, in a proper case, that yes, the proceedings should be re-instituted. It is this question of the leave of the court that is the sole point, but such an important point, of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, I should not have thought that this was a matter for the leave of the court. This is not like the ordinary situation where, for example, an indictment lies on the file, not to be proceeded with without leave of the court. This question concerns the instituting of proceedings which, although I appreciate that there is a fairly thin line, lies within the province of the prosecution and not within the province of the court.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the effect of this amendment would be to strike out subsection (8) in Clause 23 of the Bill and with it the unfettered right of the prosecutor to institute fresh proceedings in a case in which he has earlier discontinued proceedings. In place of that subsection the noble Lord proposes two provisions. First, there would be a requirement that such proceedings shall in future be initiated only with the leave of the magistrates' court. Secondly, they may be initiated only with the knowledge of the defendant, who must be able to resist the application in that court for leave to proceed.
The requirement that leave to proceed must be sought from the court is not a particularly dramatic departure because the leave of the justices is already required for the institution of any proceedings; and the proposal is to that extent superfluous. The substantive new feature proposed by the amendment is the requirement that the defendant should be apprised of the intention to bring new proceedings and enabled to appear at the hearing of the application. It is not clear from the amendment what courses would be open to the defendant appearing at the application. Is it to be open to him, for example, to submit that there is no case to answer? There are other and rather more appropriate opportunities for him to do that. Perhaps the sponsors of the amendment envisage that the defendant will be able to argue about the appropriateness of the bringing of proceedings—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the Minister. When he states that there will be other, more appropriate occasions for the defendant to submit that there is no case to answer, does he mean later?
Lord Elton: Yes, my Lords. As I was saying, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, intends that the defendant should be able to argue about the appropriateness of the bringing of proceedings. But apart from questions of jurisdiction and whether the information discloses an offence known to law, I understand that considerations of appropriateness play no part in the decision whether to grant process on the information. I do not suppose noble Lords are suggesting that the courts should be able to withhold access to the courts simply because, for instance, they disagree with the overall prosecution policy of the new service.
1036
That is one difficulty I see; but there is also a practical reason why this amendment is, in our view, undesirable. By requiring the defendant to be notified is there not a risk that if the information is for the purpose of seeking a warrant for his arrest, he could abscond? If the offence was a serious one, that could be very much against the public interest.
We believe that our provision as drafted adequately safeguards the defendant's position, and I shall briefly recapitulate the main points. The effect of subsection (6) is to enable the accused to nullify the discontinuation notice issued by the Crown Prosecution Service. It therefore ensures that no accused person need be any worse off as a result of the clause. When the accused issues his counter-notice, the case comes before the magistrates. At that stage they can decide—as they can in any case now, and after hearing any representations from the accused—whether the application to withdraw the information should be granted.
As now, it will be up to the prosecutor whether to seek leave to withdraw, or whether instead to offer no evidence. In the latter case—but not the former—there has been an adjudication by the courts which, as your Lordships will know, acts as a bar to future proceedings for the same offence. Obviously, it is also open to the prosecutor to continue the case, and the risk that it might be pursued to a conviction is one that the accused runs in issuing his counter-notice.
There are many reasons the prosecution service might have for wishing to re-start proceedings. It would be quite wrong to put the court generally in the position of determining, almost as a matter of public policy, which of those reasons are valid and which are not. It may be that at the time of the original proceedings the evidence was thought insufficient to sustain a conviction; or a witness who might have been intimidated subsequently proved willing to testify. The prosecution service might have discontinued the original proceedings on compassionate grounds; perhaps in, say, a shoplifting case where the shoplifter claimed to have been confused because of the effects of medication. The accused might re-offend, and it may then transpire that he or she was not under medication at all but lived by persistent and calculated theft from shops. In that case it might well be appropriate to reinstate the earlier charge if only to avoid the court being misled as to the uniqueness of the incident.
The approach in the clause as drafted strikes the right balance between proper protection for the accused and leaving the Crown Prosecution Service discretion to drop proceedings. We feel that the amendment would upset that balance. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will recognise that the Bill as drafted is preferable to the amendment, and that the noble Lord will leave it as it is.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wish that I could in fairness and in decency adopt any suggestion made so courteously by the noble Lord the Minister, but I cannot. If the Minister will forgive my saying so, he has given reasons for opposing this amendment which are weak when one compares them with the reasons for requiring that the leave of the court has to be obtained. I shall explain those latter reasons briefly, one by one.

1037
First, there is the point that before any proceedings are commenced the leave of the court has to be obtained in the sense, obviously, that information is laid. Anyone practising in the courts knows perfectly well that that is a mere formality—certainly in regard to the police prosecution. It would only be in an extraordinary case that the court, if advised by the clerk that there was some extraordinary matter to be considered, would decide that such a prosecution should not be permitted. So in regard to fresh proceedings—where leave would have to be obtained, if this amendment is accepted—they are very different from the normal formality. Indeed, most likely the court would not even know that it was a question of fresh proceedings where a notice of discontinuance had previously been served.
Secondly, the noble Lord the Minister says that from looking at this amendment nobody would know what other matters the court would have to consider on the application for leave and what it would be open to an accused person to argue—if he were to argue that it would be unjust and prejudicial for leave to be given for fresh proceedings to be instituted.
4.30 p.m.
We all know, if I may say so, that where leave to do something is asked of the court the only relevant factor is whether the leave should in fact be granted because of the reasons advanced by one side or the other as to the justice and prima facie nature of any such proceedings. Therefore, the answer to the noble Lord the Minister is obvious. The only question to be argued on leave is: would it be prejudical? No court is going to allow a defendant to go into the case and say that, in his view, no case lies against him. That will be for the court to decide subsequently. What he will be arguing is that there would be a complete hardship in his case if the proceedings were allowed to be recommenced after a notice of discontinuance.
The last reason given by the noble Lord the Minister—and he must really have reached for the bottom of the wastepaper basket to find it—is that an accused might abscond on being told that fresh proceedings are being started. Is one really going to take it for granted that proceedings are to be discontinued, with reasons given for it, except in an absolute minority of cases, where this sort of defendant would be the defendant to the proceedings—actually discontinued at the wish of the prosecution—and that here is a rogue and vagabond who might abscond, but who did not do it beforehand, on hearing that the proceedings are about to be recommenced? Are we to take that minority of cases and ignore the majority of cases where, on a discontinuance notice being served, a man is entitled to think that he does not have to go on preparing his case and watching his witnesses to make sure they do not forget? Is he to be put in that position, willy-nilly? Or is he to be able to go to a court of law and say, "Really, this period of time has elapsed: is it just?"
I ought to remind your Lordships of one thing before I conclude. My noble friends and I have agreed on this in the amendment. When a notice of discontinuance is served reasons have to be given by the prosecution, but the defendant is not entitled to
1038
know what those reasons are. The court will know because they will be on the court file. Therefore, the court will have the history, on any application for leave, as to why the discontinuance was permitted—I am sorry, not "permitted"; the court has no right to permit: why the notice of discontinuance was served on the last occasion. All those facts will be before the court, as to why the prosecution did it. Was it the merciful ground that the noble Lord mentioned? Was it because of the unreliability of a witness at that stage? Was it because a witness could not be found, but latterly a witness has turned up? All those matters will be on file. The poor defendant will not know what those reasons were, even at that stage. Is it not right that, before something which has been discontinued is recommenced, at least a fiat is given by the court, "Let it go forward: let it he done", and an opportunity given for the defendant to argue that he would be unduly prejudiced if that leave were granted?
I must tell the noble Lord the Minister that we on this side feel so firmly about this elementary justice, as we see it, in which there is not one iota of political thought or argument but purely the consideration of justice, that the opinion of your Lordships' House must be taken.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just said, and although I did not entirely agree with it, I concede it was a very persuasive speech and we should consider whether—
Lord Denham: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, I think that the noble Lord whose amendment it is has already replied and moved the Motion (is that not right?) in which case I am afraid my noble friend is a little too late to come in.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have not yet sat down.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have not previously spoken. Am I too late to come in, then?
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord whose amendment it is has replied to the debate, then it is a little too late to intervene.
4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 93.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

David, B. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Diamond, L.

Ampthill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ardwick, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Aylestone, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Banks, L.

Falkland, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Beswick, L.

Gallacher, L.

Birk, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Bottomley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brockway, L.

Gregson, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grimond, L.

Chitnis, L.

Hampton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hanworth, V.

1039

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Hooson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Reilly, L.

Hughes, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ilchester, E.

Roberthall, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Rugby, L.

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

Jeger, B.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shackleton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kaldor, L.

Shinwell, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Somers, L.

Listowel, E.

Stedman, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mais, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Underhill, L.

Melchett, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Molloy, L.

White, B.

Mulley, L.

Wigoder, L.

Nicol, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Oram, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Peart, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Alport, L.

Hood, V.

Auckland, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Avon, E.

Inglewood, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Boardman, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Lyell, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mar, C.

Cathcart, E.

Marley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Milverton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cox, B.

Moyne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Orkney, E.

Crathorne, L.

Pender, L.

Cross, V.

Porritt, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Portland, D.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Reigate, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Sandford, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Sandys, L.

Faithfull, B.

Savile, L.

Ferrier, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathspey, L.

Gainford, L.

Suffield, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swansea, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinton, E.

Glanusk, L.

Terrington, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Teviot, L.

Gowrie, E.

Teynham, L.

Gray, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Vickers, B.

Hemphill, L.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Council of Agriculture Ministers
4.44 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting in Brussels on 25th to 27th February. My honourable friend the Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom.
"The Council agreed to certain modifications to the milk supplementary levy regulations in order to ensure the implementation of quotas throughout the Community in 1984–85; two of these are particularly important to our industry.
"The first is a provision enabling producers who have two quotas, one wholesale and one for direct sale, to switch between the types of quota according to the marketing needs of their businesses.
"In order to avoid abuse, there will be strict administrative controls. This is a change for which I have been pressing at successive meetings. I am delighted that we have now obtained an agreement.
"The second important element for milk is a provision, for one year only, to permit unused quota to be switched between producers and between regions. Provided there is no abrupt change in levels of milk production, I would expect this to relieve all liability for levy on wholesale milk sales in the United Kingdom in 1984–85. This is of particular benefit to Northern Ireland. We would also expect liability for levy on direct sales to be substantially reduced, though it is not possible at this stage to say whether it would be eliminated.
"The package did not deal with a number of points which are of importance to some other member states, including the Irish request for an additional 58,000 tonnes of quota. This issue will be further discussed in the price fixing. It was made clear that subsequent decisions on this or other matters were in no way prejudiced by the decisions taken at this Council. I emphasised that we remain opposed to the Irish request.
"I am also pleased to announce that the Council agreed on a series of important measures to bring wine production under control. These implement the outline agreement reached by the European Council in Dublin last December.
"The new measures contain three main elements. The first element is an effective guarantee threshold so that surplus production will be removed by compulsory distillation at low prices, so as to dissuade producers from increasing output.
"The second element is a system of aids for producers who grub-up their vineyards and go out of production, thus leading to a permanent reduction of the Community's vineyard area.
"The third element is a commitment to a restrictive price policy for as long as a significant structural surplus remains. This is a crucial part of

1041
the agreement and was one of the Government's major objectives.
"During negotiations I was successful in reducing substantially the cost of the package to the Community without undermining its effectiveness. The Commission's original proposals would have cost over the next five years 740 mecu—about £460 million. But this has now been reduced to 435 mecu—about £270 million.
"Our calculations show that these decisions will lead to very significant savings for the Community budget by way of reduced distillation costs.
"The agreement of the Council will be put into legal form as soon as the European Parliament has given its opinion on a small element of the package, which has only been recently proposed by the Commission, to restructure some Greek vineyards. I made it clear that this element is still subject to scrutiny in this House.
"The Council also carried forward discussion on the more general agricultural structures regulations. The Commission formally proposed a new article authorising member states to introduce aids in environmentally sensitive areas. As the House knows, I have been pressing for such a provision. I am glad to say that it had a wide measure of support in the Council. I would expect discussion on the structures package to be resumed at the next Agriculture and Finance Councils, when I hope it will be possible to reach decisions.
"The Council adopted a regulation which allows the Commission to acknowledge applications submitted to it for aids for improvement in processing and marketing facilities. Without a prior acknowledgement from the Commission, work in hand is rendered ineligible for aid. This technical change was, therefore, needed in order to allow people to press ahead with investments. This is an important change for many British firms which wish to make improvements urgently.
"Finally, I raised the question of the preferential tariff for supplies of gas to the Dutch horticultural industry. The Commissioner told the Council that the Dutch Government have now been informed that this tariff is incompatible with the Community's state aid rules. The Dutch have one month to respond to the Commission communication. I emphasised that the Dutch growers had already benefited from reduced heating costs for most of the current season. I said that this was a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation and that the growers should be required to repay the aid. The Commissioner indicated that he would be giving further thought to this in the light of the Dutch response.
"This was a highly satisfactory Council for the United Kingdom. The wine decisions are the second major step, after milk, to bringing reality into the common agricultural policy. The modifications of the milk regime are of great importance, as is the proposal on conservation; and the Council has cleared the way to press ahead with the price fixing negotiations".
That concludes the Statement, my Lords.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we welcome the Statement from the other House and wish to thank the Minister for repeating it. On the question of the two quotas, I am perfectly certain that producer retailers will welcome this. As the Statement says, it is open to abuse. I am presuming that the policing of it will be done by the MMB. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether or not that is right.
On the question of the balancing of unused quotas, I wonder whether the Minister means as part of a quota that somebody does not use, or if somebody goes out of milk is that an unused quota as well? It is not clear whether that is the case. Of course this will be a great relief to people who have gone over their quota. But I think those who have been good and kept within their quota will be a little hurt at that point.
On the question of the 58,000 extra tonnes that the Irish are demanding, there is in today's Financial Times a report which I need not read. However, it says that the Irish Minister, Mr. Austin Deasy, insisted that if this was not included in the negotiations then he might veto the package. That would be a dreadful thing to happen if that should be the case. I wonder whether the Minister knows if he can do that. However, in the Statement it says that that is not so.
On the wine question, it does not, to any great extent, anyway, affect our wine producers. But the saving is of course an overall help to the common agricultural policy and is to be welcomed. There is a time factor here. It will take people a long time to decide whether to grub up their vines or not. I just wonder whether there will be any effect in time to satisfy the Spaniards and the Portugese in their efforts to come into the EEC. I made a calculation that the surplus was 11 litres per head per year, and I wondered whether, if we could all drink an extra 11 litres a year, which is only a litre a month, we should be able to soak up the surplus there. However, I understand that my noble kinsman will deal with wine and he has much greater experience of dealing with it, particularly on the consumption side.
On the environmental aids question, and the areas that might be affected by this grant, this would help the image that we in agriculture are trying to improve. I look forward to seeing how this will be operated. The technical change mentioned in the Statement—that you have not got to get the prior approval or the prior acknowledgment from the Commission—should help us in this country and it should help in all countries.
As we all know, our growers—such as those in the Lea Valley where I live—have always been very much against the Dutch receiving help with their gas fuel. If the Minister can do anything there or the Commission can do anything there—although in the Statement it says they will—it will do much to satisfy growers in this country.
I do not want to say any more about this Statement. However I should just like to say this. As the noble Lord the Minister knows, the quota system which was brought in about a year ago created a state almost of chaos in the milk industry. I hope that, if there are any future changes, particularly, for example, in the cereals situation, next time we shall be given plenty of time so we avoid the chaos that was created in the milk industry. For instance, I see that the French have been

1043
so upset by the quota system that they have not yet done anything. Because of this agreement they are looking forward to doing something within the next year, whereas we have done it all in this last year.
I think we should thank the Agriculture Minister for what he has done. He has a difficult job. However, he will make it very much easier if he will pay attention to what I have just said about any future alterations to the CAP.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which is a long and very important one. It covers two very important areas. Milk is certainly extremely important to us. Wine is certainly important to the Community and is one of the products which is very much in surplus and very expensive to support.
I should like to support my noble kinsman in a plea that, because there is no levy to be paid this year on producing over quota, that should not benefit those people who have gone on producing and sending the milk to the Milk Marketing Board while others have endeavoured to keep down to quota by, for example, restricting the feeding of cake and by feeding milk to cows. I hope that in any future fixing of individual levies, people who have tried to keep to quota will not be penalised. I think that this is an important point when you look at the amount of resentment caused by the way in which quotas have been introduced.
I assume that, when you say that this is expected to relieve all liability for levy on wholesale milk sales, this will also apply to producer retailers. I wholly agree with the statement from the Minister that we remain opposed to the Irish request for 60,000 extra tonnes of quota. I must say that to be allowed to keep the increase they had appeared to me to be most reasonable, in view of their economic position. But to ask for 60,000 tonnes extra does not appear reasonable with the surplus of enormous proportions that we already have.
The question of wine is important. I was very pleased with the compliment that my noble kinsman paid me. Anyone who drinks more of the wine variety than he is indeed doing noble work. However, when it comes to compulsory distillation, I hope the Minister will be able to reasure us that this does not apply to Chambertin, Lafite, Mouton Rothschild and Chateau Yquem and a number of other noble liquids which it would be an absolute scandal compulsorily to distil. However, I think the important element in this is the guarantee that compulsory distillation is applied at a low price which does not make it profitable. Of course, this has been the trouble today: the threshold was set at a figure which made it quite profitable to produce low-grade wines and to continue to expand production.
I hope the Minister will be able to give us an indication of what figure will be set for the price paid for this compulsory distillation. I hope also that he will be able to reassure us that the grubbing-up subsidy will be effective. There has been for a number of years a subsidy for grubbing-up vineyards. It has been totally ineffective and production has continued to rise. I think it is absolutely vital that a restrictive price policy is one which is genuinely restrictive. I say this as a farmer. I think it should apply to things that I grow as
1044
well as to wine. For years now the Commission have said that we must apply a prudent price policy, a restrictive price policy. A restrictive price policy which merely encourages producers to keep up their income by producing more is less than useless, with the enormously effective juggernaut we have in the encouragement to produce in all sorts of fields including cereals, milk and wine. I think it is necessary to be unkind in order at the end of the day to save the agricultural policy of the Community from destroying itself.
I do not think there is anything else that I particularly want to say. I could say a great deal more and, if further provoked, I might. In the meantime, I shall await the Minister's reply.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble brothers, if I may say so, for the way that they have received this Statement. I shall certainly make a point of conveying to my right honourable friend the congratulations that they have offered. They have asked me a number of questions. Both asked about quotas and said that we must not punish the "goodies". All of us, I am sure, would agree that they should certainly not be punished. The Commission reasonably took the view that, as this measure changes the impact of the levy system on individual producers in a significant way, it should be adopted only as a temporary amendment. Milk production has been cut back significantly in the Community. In this context, some easing of the financial impact of the quota system was acceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked about policing. The details will have to be worked out. But it is envisaged that the Milk Marketing Board will have a major part to play in the arrangements. Both noble Lords made a point of asking about the Irish demand for an extra 58,000 tonnes of milk. The Irish demand was resisted. The decision on this milk package does not include any increases in quota. The Irish Minister can, of course, reiterate his demand in the price-fixing, but my right honourable friend has made it abundantly clear that we would oppose it. This package has, in fact, been agreed. So there is no question of a veto being used at a later date. It is agreed and has gone through.
On the question of wine, I was delighted with the response of both noble Lords. The wine that is included is only the very lowest of the low quality. I can probably describe it as the plonkiest type of plonk. Were the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, to try drinking 11 litres of it, the Opposition might have to appoint a new Front Bench spokesman on agriculture. There is absolutely no question of the great growths of claret being turned into commercial alcohol, I am glad to say, in any distillation plants. Nor will there be any effect upon this country's wine producers, whose wine is of a better quality. I hope that I have answered all questions, but if I have missed any, I shall write to noble Lords.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister indicate what threshold price is envisaged for compulsory distillation?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord with that information.

Prosecution of Offences Bill [H.L.]
5.2 p.m.
Consideration of amendments after Third Reading, resumed.
Clause 26 [Consents to be admissible in evidence]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 35:
[Printed earlier: col. 1018.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I shall move Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 36 to 39:
[Printed earlier: col. 1030.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 39. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved. That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I was not sure whether my noble friend Lord Elton and the noble and learned Lord on the Opposition Front Bench had intended to speak straight away but perhaps they wish to fulfil their responsibilities after the common herd have spoken. I very much welcome the Bill, as, I think, do all noble Lords. It has long been my desire that there should be a service of this nature. During the time that I had responsibilities for prosecution policy, I should have much liked a service such as that to be established by the Bill. I should, however, like to say that it may impose on an Attorney-General considerably more parliamentary matters to deal with in another place. I wonder whether this has been thought about. I have perhaps exaggerated, but that is my feeling. He has the responsibility of appointing the director responsible for the service throughout the country. As a result, there may be more parliamentary work devolving upon the Attorney-General. I could be wrong, but it is perhaps a matter that should be borne in mind.
It is extraordinary, in my view, that we have in our system the criminal law as the responsibility of the Home Office while the civil law is the responsibility of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. No one could have conducted the progress of the Bill with greater efficiency and grace than my noble friend Lord Elton. But it is strange—is it not?—that we divide up matters of the law—the criminal law for the Home Office and civil law for the Lord Chancellor's Department. I have always wondered whether this was a sensible division. However, I digress in saying that from discussing the service provided for in the Bill.
It is important that the prosecuting service, the rules under which it is conducted and the fact that guidance is given to the prosecutors, should be clearly understood and appreciated. It is an important part of the administration of justice. That the service should remain independent is of great importance. It is also of immense importance that Ministers should not, in any
1046
shape or form, by any word unless asked for, give any comment or make any representation with regard to a prosecution. I read in The Times newspaper today that Ministers are saying that there is to be no prosecution in a particular case. Who are these Ministers? What right have they to say anything of the kind?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: It has been made perfectly clear to my satisfaction that in another case recently there was no political intervention whatever, and, as I have indicated publicly, no Director of Public Prosecutions with whom I have ever worked or whom I have known would have tolerated it for a moment. They would have resigned at once if there had been direct or indirect political intervention in a decision whether or not to prosecute.
We have to appreciate that this is an independent service, that it should be given the support of the general public, that there is a grave responsibility upon the prosecution and that it is in the interests of justice and the administration of justice that the guilty should be convicted just as much as that the innocent should be acquitted. Those prosecutions should be carried out fairly according to strict rules and according to the integrity of the service.
I believe that this service will—and, I hope, swiftly—gain a sense of morale and a sense of being a service so that it will be able to carry out its important functions independently bearing in mind always the supreme importance to the state of the proper administration of justice. I congratulate my noble friend on his excellent handling of the Bill, and I also congratulate the Government on introducing the measure.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, before we say farewell to the Bill I should like to join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, in thanking the Minister, Lord Elton, for his competence, care and courtesy in the conduct of the Bill. I was tempted to say that the Bill is like the curate's egg—good in parts. But that has been said so often about so many things that I wondered whether I should. There are certainly good elements in it. The most important of these—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson has already referred to it—is the reform of the prosecution service in England and Wales by the creation of an independent prosecution service. Concern was expresssed in some parts of the House at an earlier stage of the Bill about the danger of over-centralisation. We were assured and re-assured by the noble Lord the Minister stating that when the new service is established there will be not less delegation of decision-taking to local level, but more. He also announced the proposal to lay an amendment to the regulations to give greater flexibility in allowing cases to be left at the local level in the run-up to the introduction of the new service. I am sure that those considerations will be very important.
Another beneficial aspect of the Bill was the important commitment of the Government to the introduction of a system of time limits in criminal proceedings. Your Lordships will remember that

1047
Clause 23 is an enabling clause on time limits in relation to preliminary stages of criminal proceedings. We endeavoured to turn and transform the clause into an actual scheme but, no doubt for good reasons, that was not accepted. However, we await with interest this important development which we think should hasten the bringing of proceedings to a conclusion and shorten the waiting time between arrest or summons and trial. Today's decision, which the House has approved with enthusiasm, to extend the power to award costs out of central funds to summary offences, has been generally welcomed.
On the debit side, I confess that on the eve of St. David's Day I was sad that, in my absence, the Government felt unable to support the proposal in regard to the importance of an adequate supply of Welsh speaking prosecutors in the Principality. I noticed upstairs the Welsh translation of the oath or the affirmation that witneses may take in the Welsh language. I should have thought that there might be a slight risk—but I shall not labour the fact—of someone enjoying that opportunity to say things in the Welsh language not wholly consonant with the purpose of the taking of the oath, but I may be doing an injustice to my fellow countrymen.
I come to the final matter which I wish to mention. First, in retrospect, I recall the fear with which we met the suggestion but, in the event, it was successfully destroyed by a large majority in your Lordships' House. I am referring to the proposal to give to the Attorney-General power to refer too lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. I confess that I have been disturbed by reports—I cannot believe that there can be any word of truth in them—that it is the Government's intention to restore that monstrous provision in another place: a provision which is almost universally abhorred. I beg the Minister and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to use their considerable influence and not to embark upon such folly for a second time. Apart from that, I share approval of much of the Bill and regret some of its omissions.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to say that we regard this Bill as being of very considerable importance in the administration of our criminal law, and we do so primarily for two reasons. The first is that it serves to remove the police by one stage from the prosecution process and that can only enhance the confidence which the public feel, and ought to feel, about the independence and impartiality of the police. The second reason is that it will help to create a career structure in the prosecution service which will encourage people of real calibre to continue to come forward and support it.
There was only one matter of real controversy that arose during our proceedings; namely, the matter to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred—if one can refer to a matter as being controversial where one voice is raised in its favour and some 12 or 14 are raised against it. I suppose that if the voice is sufficiently stentorian then it does, indeed, become a matter of controversy.
I should like to add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said about it. Opinion in this
1048
House was almost unanimous. It was extremely strong and it is still very, very deeply held. If, unhappily, a proposal is brought forward in another place as regards such a non-political measure as this and it is sent back to us, then I have no doubt that opinion in this House will repeat itself in precisely the same way as on the first occasion. I would be sorry to think that there might be a conflict between the two Houses on an issue of this nature. If that conflict were to arise, it would not be the fault of your Lordships' House but the fault of those who chose to disregard a body of extremely well-informed opinion on a matter such as this.
Finally, I should like to say how grateful I am, as I know everyone else is, for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has played his part in steering this Bill through your Lordships' House with, if I may say so, conspicuous ability, great care and above all great courtesy. The noble Lord is perhaps not quite unique on the Government Front Bench. However, it is fair to say that if he says in the course of a debate that he will write to a noble Lord, in due course a letter comes and it is a full and careful letter. We are all very grateful to the noble Lord for the consideration he has shown to all of us during the passage of this Bill.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I ask your Lordships to permit a very brief intervention not just to welcome the Bill, which I do wholeheartedly, not just to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Elton for having an open mind, which I also do wholeheartedly, or to pay tribute to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor; but to point out that in the course of this debate a certain injustice was exposed but the view was taken by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that it ought not to be dealt with in this Bill. In deference to that view, the matter was not pursued beyond the Committee stage.
However, where orders banning publication of material are made under the Contempt of Court Act 1981—and this is a matter of considerable importance to the media—there is no practice direction as to the hearing of representations of those affected by the order, before the order is made: there is no appellate procedure; there is no judicial review: there is no power of the Crown Court judge to order costs. The hope is that these defects will not for ever remain overlooked. That was really the main reason that I sought to trespass upon your Lordships' indulgence.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for piloting this Bill through your Lordships' House. I am bound to say that I surveyed it with a certain amount of cynicism because it seemed to me that to put the right of prosecution into a separate department was putting power into something newly instituted which could not always operate in the way in which the layman might want it to operate.
While we are on the subject of majorities and minorities, I point out that I think I am in a minority compared with others of your Lordships who have spoken in the Bill. I say that because I am not a Law Lord or learned in matters of law in the same way as

1049
others who have spoken and who therefore, if I may say so, have as much a vested interest as the farmers who speak on an agriculture Bill.
In my view, we must consider the independent prosecution service in relation to the fact that the citizen must have preserved the right—and I am glad that this point has been left unsaid because I assume that it is still the case—to institute a private prosecution if he is not happy with the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service. That is a very important right which must remain in our British law.
As I have listened to the debates on this Bill and to the speeches made on various points—for example, provision as to costs in criminal cases, the imposition of time limits and so on—I have called to mind the various letters that have been sent to me following the speech which I made during the passage of the Bill. I have received letters from ordinary people who are concerned that the offender in our society receives far more consideration—whether it be in Parliament or in the courts—than the victim.
Perhaps I may cite one poor lady. She is a woman of 83 who had been burgled, and the burglar had stolen £100 worth of goods and money. He was caught, prosecuted and finally found guilty. However, apparently this lady has no right to claim anything back. She said to me: "What about restitution?" We have spoken—and no one would disclaim this—about the time factor that can hang over an offender; we have dealt with the fact that he may have to come back again; and the fact that there is a limit to the amount of costs, and so on. But let us not forget that there are two sides to every criminal case. There is the offender and the person who has suffered. I hope that some legislation may come before us which will deal with some of the inadequacies of the law which seem to affect the people who have suffered.
I wish the Bill a fair passage. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has mentioned the ratio of 1:14. It will not be the first time in my life that I have been in a minority of 1:14. I would only suggest that the clause be re-introduced in some form. I think there is a principle here that should be underlined. I just wanted to make these few remarks at this stage of the Bill.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness has underlined the fact that the Bill preserves the right of private prosecution. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who at this moment is attending a very important family christening elsewhere, has asked me to draw attention to some correspondence which he has had with my noble friend Lord Elton.
The position is that, although the right of private prosecution has been preserved by the Bill, it is a right which over the years has been steadily eroded by provisions made by Parliament that prosecution for this or that offence shall take place only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or sometimes with the consent of the Attorney-General. Indeed, there are cases in which not merely is consent required; as we well know, a very wide range of prosecutions are entirely in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
1050
The presence of Clause 6, which deals with this right of private prosecution in the Bill, draws our attention to the fact that perhaps the time has come for us to take stock of exactly how far that right has been eroded in the ways I have mentioned. At an earlier stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to the need for a review of that and suggested that it should take place when the new service has been in operation for, say, five years. I am very glad to say that my noble friend Lord Elton has not only agreed that there should be such a review, but in effect has said: why should we wait five years? It would be better to have it much sooner. The noble and learned Lord has asked me to thank my noble friend for that view, which perhaps he would briefly be so kind as to endorse. I too should like to congratulate my noble friend and the Government.
Happily, this Bill has not given rise to party conflict, and, thanks to the way in which it has been handled by my noble friend and others concerned with him, I think we can say that the Bill is now largely an agreed measure. That is partly due to the great advantage which we have in your Lordships' House of being fairly free to carry amendments on Third Reading. Indeed, the amendments which we have had today were Government amendments which enable the Government to carry into the Bill various proposals which had been moved earlier on one side of the House or another. That is a great advantage which we have in this House.
Perhaps I may make a brief reference to the Welsh language. I should hate to be misunderstood in Wales because, I have many Welsh friends and have had such pleasant times in Wales. I emphatically concede the right of Welsh people to speak Welsh in their own country. I wish there to be no doubt whatever about that. I was doubtful whether the amendment moved today was really necessary or would achieve quite the object that its movers had in mind. However, we have received suitable undertakings from my noble friend Lord Elton that people who speak Welsh will have their rights respected when it comes to the administration of criminal justice in Wales, and I do not think that we need ask for more, especially bearing in mind the provisions of the Welsh Language Act.
That is all that I wish to say. Like other Members of your Lordships' House, having been briefed for the prosecution—by the DPP, by county prosecuting solicitors, by the old-fashioned type of police prosecuting solicitor, who was generally in private practice—indeed by almost every kind of solicitor, the fact that we shall have a unified service and a service which will be set up in the manner proposed in the Bill, cannot but be a great advantage to the cause of justice.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I make two promises: first, to be brief, and, secondly, not to repeat the very useful observations that have been made by previous speakers. The only words that I shall repeat are my own words of gratitude to the noble Lord the Minister for the outstanding ability which he has shown in the conduct of this Bill through your Lordships' House.

1051
Before this Bill passes from our Chamber, perhaps just a few words of appreciation and memory may be expressed about Sir Cyril Philips and his Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. It happens to be almost precisely three years since that report was published and I should like to quote—I promise that it will be only a couple of sentences—the recommendation in that report in the chapter headed "The Commission's proposed prosecution on system". As we leave this Bill, at all events for the moment, as it goes to another place, I should like to quote this sentence to your Lordships:
"We want to secure that after a clearly defined point during the preparation of a case for trial and during its presentation at trial someone with legal qualifications makes the variety of decisions necessary to ensure that only properly selected, prepared and presented cases come before the court for disposal; and to do that without diminishing the quality of police investigation and preliminary case preparation and without increasing delays".
That is precisely the principle behind this Bill.
I wish to raise only two other matters before I sit down. In a way I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is not here to participate in this debate on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I only want to emphasise what we on these Benches were happy to say in support of the noble Baroness's plea for the special qualifications within this new prosecution service: that those who deal with juveniles should know something about juveniles and their problems. At the end of a debate, in answer to a question that I put to him from these Benches, the Minister was good enough to give an assurance that guidelines would be issued to the Director in order to ensure that staff with those qualifications would be employed so that the necessary care could be given to juvenile cases.
I turn to my very last point. In the course of our proceedings we have endeavoured to emphasise what the Bill is meant to do, which is to ensure that in the public eye there is a clear differentiation between the police with their powers of investigation and the prosecuting service that we are setting up. In order that the public should see that, we emphasised the need that the new service should not be located in police buildings. The noble Lord the Minister dealt frankly with the difficulty that there might be in implementing that policy immediately. From these Benches I would urge him to see that as soon as possible it is apparent that the new prosecution service will not be located in police buildings, and where they have to be for the moment they cease to be as soon as possible.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, anything of substance that I had to say has been, I understand, kindly said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. However, having escaped from the bawling in the Crypt to the quiet of your Lordships' Chamber, perhaps I may be allowed to pay a tribute to the way that the debates on this Bill have been conducted. It would obviously be invidious and presumptuous to single out all noble Lords who have contributed, not least because so many of them are personal friends and in many cases of very long standing. But I would wish to be allowed to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the way he has piloted this Bill through your Lordships' House.
1052
It was a predecessor of his at the Home Office who, on arriving there, called the staff together and said, "My task is to prevent your governing this country so well that an infuriated populace will hang you from the lamposts in Whitehall". The noble Lord, Lord Elton, such is his ease of manner, his mastery of the material and his invariable courtesy has always managed to get your Lordships—and, as I have pointed out before, your Lordships' House in its composition is the best reflection there is of political society at large—to accept the Home Office measures without any inclination to any lamposts. He has had your Lordships eating out of his hand, however unpalatable the fare might be.
I hope I may also mention my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. At Committee stage when we came to the late, unlamented Clause 22 I begged my noble and learned friend not to press it in view of the universal hostility that had arisen both professionally and among lay opinion. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord did not yield to my blandishment because otherwise your Lordships would have been deprived of what seems to me, with respect, to have been one of the greatest debating efforts in the whole of our political history. It must have put your Lordships in mind of what we read of Charles James Fox and the Elder Pitt. That the clause was nevertheless so condignly defeated was certainly not due to any lack of effort, energy, or intellectual power on the part of my noble and learned friend. All that remains for me to say is to wish this Bill well, and once again to express gratitude to the Ministers and to others of your Lordships.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, this Bill started its life in your Lordships' House, although the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, properly pointed out its more distant parentage and the great credit which that reflects on the Philips Commission. It also has some time to spend in Parliament yet, and I do not think therefore that it is a proper occasion for me to give a complete review of its intended virtues and of its fortunes so far.
I shall merely say that I believe it will lead to the more efficient management of the prosecution of offences: that, thanks to your Lordships' careful attention, it will achieve our aim of a good balance between national oversight and consistency and local direction; and that it will also ensure not only that there is a proper distance kept between those who investigate crime and apprehend criminals on the one hand, and those who prosecute them on the other, but also that this will be seen to be the case. That is, as noble Lords opposite have already pointed out, of great importance.
In matters like this the reality of what is done is of course of the greatest importance; but appearances are important too. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The changes which your Lordships have brought about in the nomenclature of the service are therefore also of more than superficial importance.
To the extent that it is the lay public which have to judge the effectiveness of these and other changes, the contributions of those of your Lordships who, like me, are laymen in matters of law have been a welcome and valuable element. Those who my noble and learned

1053
friend the Lord Chancellor earlier called "legal grandees", and of whom I, as a layman, am properly respectful, have also left their mark on the Bill. With some of their handiwork the Government are, I must make clear, a great deal less than content. However, the extent of that discontent, and any decisions which flow from it about the power of referral of apparently over-lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal, will be made clear when the Bill falls to be discussed in another place.
Having expressed those careful words, I would pick up the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and remind him that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, joined her powerful voice to that of my noble and learned friend who did not speak on his own on a matter which has the interest of lawyers and non-lawyers outside this House. Incidentally, may I be forgiven for not responding to each individual bouquet of compliments given to me during your Lordships' debate on the Bill do now pass. I do not think I deserve the degree of compliments I have been paid, and possibly I come furthest from deserving those paid by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am deeply honoured to have them for my mantelpiece, and I should like to say that I regard all your Lordships as having been constructive and helpful on all occasions—except when misled!—in the progress of this Bill through the House.
Reverting to my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson, who also made kind remarks, I am not sure which newspaper he reads, but the question of whether or not a prosecution is to be made in the case he refers to is for the Attorney-General, and I know that he would never be swayed by political considerations in the party-political sense of the word, and that is what matters.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, it was no reflection at all of course upon my right honourable friend the present Attorney-General. I was just saying that it is reported in The Times newspaper that Ministers were saying that there was going to be no prosecution. I was pointing out that it is not the business of Ministers to say that. It must have been a very foolish report, or it must have been some Ministers—and I do not think it could have been—who were not doing what they ought to do.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend and I are saying the same thing. The decision is for the Attorney-General, who will conduct himself entirely properly.
Noble and learned Lords and others have also been careful and constructive critics of the detailed drafting of the Bill and have helpfully directed our attention to a number of matters and the Bill has benefited from their close attention. Your Lordships obvious concerns have also enabled me to give explanations and undertakings about a number of matters touching the interests of those whose employment will be affected by the new legislation and our own intentions as to the way in which we expect the powers in the Bill, when enacted, to be employed as regards, for example, the treatment of juveniles to whom the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew attention.
1054
My noble friend Lord Renton referred to an undertaking which I gave to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I am happy to put it on the record that we accept the case for a review, once the new service has settled down, of the provisions requiring the consent of a Law Officer or the Director of Public Prosecutions to the bringing of proceedings for certain offences. My noble friend may slightly have misinterpreted what I said, because he implied that I undertook that we would have the review in fewer than five years: I hope we shall. What my undertaking was intended to do was to show that if the amendment which the noble and learned Lord had on the Marshalled List was incorporated in the Bill we should not be free to hold the review in less than five years. We hope and expect to have it in fewer than five years and the Bill in its present form will permit that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I was very remiss in not thanking the noble Lord for giving the assurance that he did, which he has repeated, quite correctly, in the form that he gave it. The letter is available if anyone wishes to see it. I can only express my gratitude.
Lord Elton: My Lords, there is nothing remiss in somebody who manages not only to attend the christening of a junior member of the family, but also to have his gratitude expressed indirectly and in person as well. I am most grateful.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to an exchange which he had with my noble and learned friend. I understand that my noble and learned friend has already written to him to assure him that all aspects of his concerns are receiving careful consideration at the present time. Many of your Lordships have contributed generously to all this work, not only the spokesmen fo the various parties but individuals in all parts of the House. I am most grateful for the good and constructive spirit in which those contributions have been made. I said at the beginning that I feel a slight frisson of apprehension when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in particular, refers to any Bill as not being a political Bill because I know the occasion is one when he feels himself freer than usual to woo the support of people who normally sit behind me and vote with me. I was not altogether mistaken in that apprehension on this occasion.
I honestly believe that we have made this Bill a better Bill as a result of the work of this House and that all sides and all levels of contribution have been constructive. There are many ways in which this Bill is now different, which it would not have been if it had not been for the initiative of Back-Benchers as well as Front-Benchers. I have spoken for far too long. That is partly because I am slightly overcome by the undeserved degree of gratitude and respect I have been paid and I am doing my best to return it as it is due. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Mineral Workings Bill
5.47 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Avon, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity briefly to thank the Minister for the very helpful letter which he sent in response to a number of questions which I asked at Committee stage, and to say to the House and to those noble Lords who have been taking an interest in the Bill that the reason why we have not pursued our amendments at this stage is because I understand that a meeting is taking place in Northampton on 6th March to try to overcome some of the problems which we raised at Committee stage. We are therefore holding our fire, if I may use the phrase, until we have the result of that meeting. We shall then consider what steps we need to take at Third Reading.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful for those few words of comfort from the noble Baroness. As she knows but the House does not, I promised to report as soon as practicable after the meeting on 6th March, which incidentally, is to be held in Northampton and not in London, as the noble Baroness will welcome. I hope to do this by the evening of the following day, but if I am fractionally late I hope that the noble Baroness will excuse me.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power to enter former mining land etc.]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 2: Page 5, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
The object of these two amendments is to limit the workings which arise when a local authority authorises persons to come on to land. The first part of the Bill is devoted to what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to as the problems in a specific area in the Midlands. The Bill, the first six clauses of which deal with specific problems, delineates where the problems are parish by parish, and then there are two general clauses giving powers of entry to land.
Under Clause 7 certain operations can take place. My object is to limit the scope of these workings, for this purpose. For some unknown reason—a reason I cannot understand—the Government refuse to allow an owner of land, or anybody with interests in the land, to claim compensation when a loss of value to the land arises as a result of the operations. In Clause 8, where other authorities can be given for entry into the land, an opportunity is given to the owner of the land, or anybody having an interest in the land, to claim compensation for loss of value or depreciation in the value of the land. What I cannot understand is why in Clause 7, when people come on to the land with
1056
large equipment to do boring and discover what is under the surface of the soil, the Government say that no loss of value can arise and therefore it is not necessary to put in that small section saying that the owner can claim compensation if there is loss of value. He would have to prove that there was loss of value before the necessary tribunals, if he were to go as far as that.
Clause 7 is a curiously worded clause giving general powers of entry on to land. Whenever there is a clause giving general powers of entry on to land one has to examine it with great care. The clause starts by saying that the works are confined to what is known as Section 89(2) of a delightful Act called the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Section 89(2) of that Act, which is the basis for most of the operations and developments arising from Clause 7, reads, under the heading "General Powers of Local Planning Authorities", as follows:
"For the purpose of restoring or improving the appearance of derelict land in their area which in the opinion of the authority is in any way unsightly, a local planning authority may (a) plant trees, or (b) carry out such work or do such other things as appear to them expedient for that purpose".
The rubric to this section is, "Planting of trees and treatment of derelict land". What could be more attractive to a landowner than that kind of thing should happen to him?—that people were coming on it to improve the land.
But when one looks at the further powers that are given to those entering on the land, they are far more extensive than merely to deal with "improving the appearance", and so forth. They can come on to the land or holding to discover what is underneath it, to discover whether there have been any mining operations on that land, whether people have dug underneath the land from adjoining land to take out limestone and therefore cause some difficulties to that land, for perhaps it may collapse.
Then the Bill before us says in Clause 7(9):
"A person duly authorised … to enter any land … may take with him on to the land such other persons and such equipment as may be necessary".
If the equipment is brought on to the land merely to plant trees or to improve the general beauty of the land, then that in my view is all right because the damage to the land cannot be very great, and in fact it might improve the value of the land. But in this case equipment is to be allowed to come on to the land, to dig, to bore holes and as many persons as necessary can come on to the land—and it is not said for how long. It may be for weeks or for months that this sometimes huge equipment will be on the land, near where buildings have been put on the land. And perhaps that land is vacant. There is no indication that this equipment and the people involved will be there just for survey and for monitoring the survey, as the Government now suggest.
Let us take the position of a small farmer who has a derelict piece of land nearby when suddenly these things descend upon him. This equipment comes on to the land. He may have been in the middle of negotiating the sale of that land; he may have the intention of selling the land later. What will be the view of the local people (let alone estate agents and other people far away from the land) and what will be

1057
their opinion as to the value of the land with all this equipment on it? They must surely say: "There is something very wrong about this land. We must be very careful as to how we deal with this land, in regard to whether or not we should buy it at the price quoted". It seems to me inevitable that psychologically a lot of people may be affected in what they consider to be the value of this land as put upon it by the owner.
Therefore as the Government have been so pleasant about this—they say that I am exaggerating the difficulties which this landowner or which anybody with interest in the land will suffer as a result of their operations—I say, "Limit the powers of entry to do such works as Section 89(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 says can be done: developing and looking at the land, surveying the land to improve its natural beauty". I say that they should not be allowed to enter on the land with large equipment, to dig holes in the ground, even though minerals have never been taken out of that land before. Perhaps minerals might have been taken out of adjoining land and they might have been worried that perhaps there may be underground passages dug out. In those circumstances, the object of my two amendments is to limit the nature of the work which can be done by persons authorised to enter on the land. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord has spoken to Amendment No. 4 as well as introducing Amendment No. 1 and is speaking also to Amendment No. 2. It strikes me that he might just as well have made the second part of his speech on Amendment No. 4 as on the first two.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to put my case as I think proper in the circumstances. There will inevitably be a certain amount of overlap. I have put my case in relation to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 because the Government will not include in the compensation clause a parameter dealing with loss of value of the land.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I stand corrected. Nonetheless, before saying what I have to say on the first two amendments I should point out two general facts. The first is that Clause 7 (and indeed Clause 8, which to some extent reflects on Clause 7 but not entirely) apply only to compulsory entry and compulsory undertaking of works. In other words, if they are freely undertaken with the agreement of the owner or occupier by the council, these two clauses in the Bill do not apply in any event. It follows from that that a land owner who lets the council on to his land by agreement would be well advised to have already come to terms with the council on the question of compensation including, if he thinks fit, possible depreciation. However, as I have said, we are not dealing with that at the moment.
What we are dealing with—and the noble Lord devoted part of his speech to it—is subsection (2) of Section 89 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. I had a little difficulty with this, especially with the term "relevant operations" in Clause 7(2) of the Bill. I looked up (as I am sure did the
1058
noble Lord) the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and I failed to find reference to it there. I then went back to the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and failed to find it there. Mercifully, I met an adviser who suggested that I should look in the Derelict Land Act 1982 and Section 3 thereof, which in fact completely revamps Section 89(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. In that revamping it is specifically provided that the replacement subsection applies to derelict, neglected or unsightly land or land which is not derelict, neglected or unsightly but is likely to become so.
So it is directly relevant to the Bill that we are considering at the moment. The effect of the amendments that the noble Lord has just moved and spoken to would be that the local authority would not be able to use the powers of compulsory entry on to land given by Clause 7 where they are considering whether to carry out remedial works under Section 89(2) of the 1949 Act and wish to survey the land for the general purposes of ascertaining the need for such works. Indeed, the second amendment would remove the express provision which will ensure that the power to survey land includes power to search or bore for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of its subsoil.
Where there is thought to be a risk of collapse in an area, it is right that a local authority should be able to undertake investigative operations compulsorily where consent to access is not freely given in order to be able to measure, for instance, the extent of mine workings and the risk and likely extent of collapse. It would be a nonsense if the power to enter compulsorily to undertake remedial works was in the Act but not the power to survey in order to measure the need for such works. Both these amendments concern investigatory surveying. Investigation and monitoring of sites necessarily involve the carrying out of operations such as the drilling of boreholes to ascertain the nature of the subsoil. While this is a natural concomitant of the power to survey, an express provision is needed to ensure that there is a clear power to carry out such works as are required for a proper survey. The inability of a local authority to undertake operations such as the drilling of boreholes is likely to hinder their capacity to ascertain the state of the ground, which may be in danger of collapse. That is why I cannot accept the second amendment.
6 p.m.
Going back briefly to the first amendment, I recognise that in most cases consent to enter to survey will be freely given. It is, after all, going to benefit the owner or occupier. But where consent is withheld, or even delayed, the inability of the local authority compulsorily to survey could result in the authority being unable to prevent a surface collapse, to the detriment of the landowner and perhaps of a neighbouring surface landowner. I regard this as an absolutely key part of the clause, which is why I must reject the two amendments.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I wonder whether I might briefly intervene. My noble friend referred to the Derelict Land Act 1982, and I think he said it was possibly more relevant to the 1949 Act. I am

1059
wondering whether it should be put into the Bill as to why we have the 1949 Act, which has been superseded by the 1982 Act. It does seem a little nonsensical. My second point is that I think the burden of the noble Lord's amendments is basically the automatic right to compensation, which should not have to be proved by the landowner but which the local authority should automatically have a duty to deal with. It would seem that the most obvious point to cover is the schedule of condition of the land before the surveyors go in with their machinery, and I am wondering whether words of that sort could be put into the Bill which would probably cover the noble Lord's point and meet my noble friend's reply.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may be allowed to answer my noble friend. With regard to his first point on whether the Bill should refer to Section 33 of the Derelict Land Act 1982, my understanding is that the normal method of drafting in such cases is to refer to the original Act, in this case the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. So what we are in fact doing is employing standard words for a given situation. So far as my noble friend's other point is concerned. I have, I hope, a few minutes in which to consider it, and I should like to come back to the charge when we discuss Amendment No. 4.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, if I might intervene once more, with the leave of the House, may I suggest that although it may be normal to go back to these old Acts, it is in fact utter nonsense. We could go back to the 1862 Act, following that procedure. Really, to help people understand Bills passing through Parliament we should refer to the modern Act, which we have just been through, and assist people.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, perhaps I might add in a very small voice at this point that I, too, got into some difficulty this morning and had to ring the Minister's department, which helped me out. That is why I have not joined in the debate before now, but it does seem to me that we are approaching a state where some consolidation of these Acts would be a very good idea.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for their interventions. To come to these words, "relevant operations", it is very curious that if you look at Clause 7(2) of this Bill you see:
"In this section 'relevant operations' has the same meaning as in section 89(2) (underground mining operations other than for coal)".
If you then go to Section 89(2), you cannot find anything about "relevant operations" there. Then, if you have a little more time you go to the interpretation section, thinking that the definition will surely be there. So you look there, but you cannot find it. Then, to make matters even worse, the interpretation section refers you to an Act of 1947. You look there, and still you cannot find it. You have to find the definition in another Act, to which the noble Lord has referred.
Take the case of a poor Welsh farmer with a piece of derelict land. He goes to his solicitor, or to the county solicitor, for advice, and there they have to do that
1060
kind of search. It is not fair on the owner of land. I agree with the noble Earl and the noble Baroness that something should be put into the Bill to define more closely what is meant by "relevant operations", rather than one having to go through this rigmarole of looking through all the other Acts to find it.
The speech of the noble Lord the Minister makes it more difficult for me to understand why he agrees that all this work must go on and yet will not give any ground for compensation to the owner of the land. Having regard to the fact that I do not wish to refer to my Amendment No. 4 at this stage, I would only say this. The Minister has quite clearly indicated from his brief that very big operations may be necessary to deal with questions in relation to this land—equipment, boring and so on. Numbers of engineers may descend on the land: and he says that that is essential under the section which I wish to delete—that is to say, Clause 7(3)(c). In these circumstances, and having regard to the very helpful observations of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, as to what might be included in the Bill to overcome the difficulties which have arisen between myself and the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 14, after ("damage") insert ("or loss of value").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall try not to repeat myself. The noble Lord the Minister was quite right when he said that there was a certain amount of overlapping in my speeches. It is inevitable in a matter of this kind. Now we come to a very small but important amendment, to Clause 7(11) on page 6. That subsection gives grounds for an owner of the land or anybody interested in the land to claim compensation. The grounds are these:
"Where in consequence of an exercise of the power to enter land conferred by this section any damage is caused to land or chattels, or any loss occurs in relation to chattels, the local authority authorising the entry shall pay to every person interested in the land or chattels compensation in respect of the damage or loss".
All I am asking the Government to do is to include these four further words after the word "damage", so that the passage reads:
"any damage or loss of value caused to the land or chattels".
The entry on to the land may cause damage or loss of value to that land in the way I have indicated. It may cause damage to the chattels. I do not know what chattels the Government expect will be found on the land or in buildings, or anything of that sort. However, it may be that they will not be destroyed but that damage is caused to them and there is a loss of value. Perhaps the damage to chattels is covered but loss of the value of land is definitely not covered as a result of this complicated operation.
I thought that parts of the Minister's speech in relation to Clauses 1 and 2, when he departed from his brief, were very sympathetic to me, because he indicated that an owner of the land, knowing that the authority wanted to descend upon it, should try to get compensation settled with the authority before the people enter on the land. What compensation had he in mind? It cannot be for loss or damage in relation to

1061
chattels of any kind, because the people have not gained entry to the land and have not been messing about with the chattels—if that is the correct term. Therefore, what must be in mind is surely the loss in value of the land that might arise.
The noble Lord the Minister says that the owner of the land should endeavour to sort out what the loss would be; but the loss in value of the land may be paramount to the activities of the farmer who may have been trying to sell it. The price must go down, if it gets around the estate agents concerned with the selling that all this big machinery will descend on the land and will occupy it for goodness knows how long.
Therefore, I ask the Minister—I am sure that with his usual courtesy he will do so—to put himself in the position of the small landowner. There are patches of land all around the area of Dyfed which I know quite well, where this kind of situation may arise. I am not asking the Government to give any money to these persons who are on the land. However, after the machinery has departed from the land, after all the hosts of people have left the land, the person concerned, when making a claim for compensation in regard to damage to chattels, should be able to include a claim for loss of value of the land. He will have to prove that loss of value and it may be difficult for him to do so, but I am sure that the amounts involved would be quite small compared with the value of the land. I should have thought that, in many instances, losses of the order of £1,000 could be involved in transactions relating to land, onto which a local authority has sent its machinery and its engineers. Therefore, I beg to move that in subsection (11), which gives grounds for compensation, a further ground should be introduced; that is, the ground that there has been a loss of value of the land which the owner has to prove. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for explaining his amendment so clearly. I must say that he has raised this point consistently at every stage of the Bill, and also in correspondence, and I have obviously not yet been able to satisfy his concern. That concern is that in his view it is possible that such works as local authorities are permitted to undertake under Clause 7—and I have already explained, in answer to his previous amendments, that these are very small—could result in a loss of value being caused to the land.
The noble Lord knows my arguments as well as I do, and I do not think it would get us any further if I were to repeat them now. But he asked me to put myself in the position of a villager in Wales. I am going to return the compliment and suggest to him how I think that the operation of this clause will work, whether in Wales, Yorkshire, Northamptonshire or anywhere else.
6.15 p.m.
First, the local council has to be suspicious about the state of the land; secondly, it has to give at least 10 days' clear notice in writing to owners or occupiers of the land. Failing this, it has to justify its position to a justice of the peace. In any event, its officers will then enter the land. The noble Lord said that local people
1062
will say: "What's going on ere then?" The officer will either tell them or will not, as the case may be. Indeed, from everybody's point of view it would be far better to come clean and explain the position. Even the most suspicious person would like to have his fears either confirmed or proved wrong.
Let us concede the second of my suppositions and that the officers, the contractors of the local authority or whoever it happens to be, do not explain to the local populace what is going on. It just might be that in these circumstances a council enters onto land in an area which is underlain by underground mineral workings in order to survey and monitor. The act of entering may create suspicion as to the state of the area, in the unlikely event—which in country areas is very unlikely indeed—that it is not known by the local populace already, and thus might in exceptional circumstances lead to a temporary loss of value.
If, following a survey, the local authority has seen no need to proceed with remedial works, then its departure from the land should immediately restore confidence. Any loss of value that might have occurred in the meantime would be so temporary that in my view, it would be totally unprovable; and that is one of the points which the noble Lord made. If, however, the council sees a need to proceed with remedial works, then Clause 8 will bite and, as the noble Lord knows very well, compensation for depreciation of the value of the land is included under Clause 8 as a compensatable factor. It must always be borne in mind that the purposes of the operations under Clauses 7 and 8 are to remove any danger to life or property and to restore, not minimise, the value of land underlain by any underground mineral workings.
At this point, I think it would be courteous to answer the second question of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I am advised that it should not be necessary to have a schedule to the Bill wherein the phrase "relevant operations" is defined. The notice under subsection (6) must specify what the authority is preparing to do, which is a point that I would have made had the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, moved his Amendment No. 3. I am further advised that the Derelict Land Act 1982 inserts a new section into the 1949 Act and therefore reference must be made to the earlier Act. So that regarding drafting I was quite right in what I told my noble friend earlier.
To sum up on this amendment, the difference between Clause 7 and Clause 8 is that activities under the former would be most unlikely to lead to permanent depreciation, while if works are necessary using Clause 8 then they could be so considerable as to cause such depreciation, although the more likely result is, as I have said, that the works would lead to appreciation of the value of the land. This is why I am afraid that, yet again, I must say that I really do not like the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him this? He said that operations envisaged under Clause 7 will be of a temporary nature, but where is the word "temporary" in that clause? The works could go on for weeks and weeks, trying to find out what the subsoil is like, and so on. Also, the noble Lord said that they will be small operations, giving the

1063
idea that there will be only a couple of students coming along to survey the land. But under this Bill any persons entering on to land can bring any equipment they like, which may be huge tractors, huge excavators or huge drills. What is there in this Bill to justify the noble Lord saying that they will be small operations of a temporary nature?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not aware that I said that they would be small operations. The noble Lord refers to excavators, mine-filling equipment and goodness knows what else. However, we are not talking about Clause 8; we are not concerned with that here because the noble Lord's amendment is to Clause 7. What I said on Clause 7 was that it would be a temporary phenomenon—yes, he is quite right—because the only power that is given is to enter and survey.
My noble friend Lord Swinton had an interesting exchange at Question Time some time ago which went along the lines of "How soon is soon?". The noble Lord probably has a different view of the word "temporary" from mine, but I should have said that a month to six weeks would be temporary when compared with the length of time which, if it was necessary to operate the conditions of Clause 8, would actually be needed for carrying out the works.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to refer to a question I asked about the 1982 Act. I am glad that he was right in his answer, but I am sad at the answer he has given. I am sure the noble Baroness is right in saying that we must have a consolidation Bill ready to assist everyone in this unnecessarily complicated situation.
As regards this amendment, we are dealing with the very sensitive issue of compulsory powers of local authorities. My noble friend was kind enough to give a version of what could happen to a small landowner or a large landowner—it is more sensitive in the case of a small landowner. I must admit that I am not convinced myself that my noble friend is right in saying that there could not be an occasion when there was what would amount to a depreciation of the capital value of the land. The case I would cite would be that of a small owner, pushed by his bank to sell, who suddenly receives notice halfway through the preparation of the sale—10 days' notice to enter—and then on comes a lot of machinery. At that moment the weather becomes rough and the machinery has to stay there but cannot work. It could be on the land for at least three months. In the meantime, the sale proceeds because the bank has insisted. I cannot believe that my noble friend could not accept that under those extreme conditions there would be a capital depreciation of the value of the holding. I think it is probably that sort of case which the noble Lord who moved the amendment so ably has in mind.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I notice that the Minister does not care to reply to the graphic way in which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has indicated the difficulties. He indicates the case where a bank manager might be involved with the owner of the land. In fact, it may not get as near as that. The owner of the land may have a heavy overdraft and then this
1064
machinery descends upon the land. The bank manager says, knowing about this, "Hello, I must be careful; I must ask the owner of the land to do something about his overdraft and reduce the overdraft because this land is not as valuable as I thought it was when it became a support for the overdraft".
As the noble Lord the Minister went on explaining the position, I thought he was becoming more sensitive and more sympathetic, particularly to the small farmer, in this respect. I cannot understand why the Government say, "The compensation is really negligible; there will not be any compensation". They have decided that any local authority that sends people on to the land will increase the value of the land. In effect, what they are saying is that whatever a local authority does under Clause 7 it means that the value of the land will appreciate and not depreciate.
I once referred in this House to people working on and considering matters from rather dizzy heights and not having their feet on the ground in relation to practical matters such as this Bill raises. But in view of the somewhat dogmatic and unsympathetic view of the Government in relation to my amendment, and as I do not want to keep your Lordships here any longer because it is getting late, I should like to consider what has been said, particularly in the helpful observations of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and what the Government have said, and I reserve the right to raise these matters at the next stage. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme 1985
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme 1985 be approved. May I first explain that this order supersedes the 1971 scheme, which has been amended on four occasions and which now needs to be consolidated. The main purpose of the order is to introduce lower rates of grant for agricultural co-operatives. However, there are also several textual differences compared with the 1971 version.
Before I describe to your Lordships the various changes, perhaps it would be helpful if I explained briefly how and why this scheme operates. The scheme is designed to encourage co-operatives to invest in new buildings, plant and machinery and in so doing, to put themselves in a stronger position to respond to the demands of today's markets. The scheme also provides for non-capital grants which assist with the initial expenses of bringing a group of farmers together into a co-operative and then with the salaries or fees of key staff or marketing agents. By these means newly established co-operatives are encouraged to employ people of a sufficiently high calibre to get them off on a sound trading and financial footing. We are not altering the existing rates of non-capital grants.
The co-operative development division of Food from Britain considers all applications and makes recommendations on them to Ministers. The amount of grant paid to co-operatives has increased substan

1065
tially in recent years. The level of this demand can be seen in the recommendations made to Ministers by Food from Britain. In 1982–83 these virtually doubled compared with the two previous years; and in 1983–84 were close to £5 million, this increase being due mainly to a marked upsurge in the number of applications from the cereals sector. The estimated savings from the reductions proposed in this draft will amount to about £300,000 in a full year.
I should now like to explain the reductions in grant rates. When your Lordships' House debated the amendment to the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme on 24th January, my noble friend Lord Belstead said that reductions in the rates of grant for individual farmers would contribute towards the Government's objective of keeping down the level of public expenditure, although the savings which will result from lower co-operative grants will be comparatively modest. Nevertheless we think it equitable that the co-operative sector should bear its share of the amount to be given up.
In reaching the decision as to where any cuts in co-operative grant should fall, one must necessarily consider whether these should apply across the board or whether some sectors may be more deserving of Government financial support than others. We have taken the view that the horticulture industry has special needs at the present time and that the encouragement of horticultural co-operatives should be maintained at its present level. Such co-operatives are making a valuable contribution towards the improved marketing of our fruit and vegetables.
The reduction of 5 percentage points in the grant rate for buildings which is introduced by this order is therefore confined to co-operatives in the agricultural sector. There are no reductions in the rate of grant for plant and equipment. I am of course aware that there have been two previous reductions—both in 1983—which have affected rates of grant for cereals co-operatives, but it cannot be disputed that cereal growers have done well in recent years and that that sector has been particularly bouyant. We believe that cereals growers are thus in a better position to withstand the loss of grant. I should add that a lower level of support for the cereals sector is also fully consistent with the policy which the Minister has been pursuing in the annual price negotiations within the Community.
Perhaps I may now turn to the textual differences between this draft and the 1971 order. Your Lordships will see that paragraph 2 now contains a definition of "horticultural produce" for the purpose of distinguishing between the agricultural and horticultural rates of grant in column 2 of the schedule. This is the same definition as that laid down in the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme.
I should also draw your Lordships' attention to the new definition of "recognised group". We have for several years been making relatively small sums of grant to forage groups under the provisions of Article 11 of EEC Directive 75/268. We have now been advised that formal statutory authority for these payments should be included in the Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme, and reference to these grants has been inserted at Items 14 and 15 of the
1066
schedule. The rates of grant will be the same as at present—that is, 15 per cent. for tractors and 25 per cent. for other machinery. Up till now the scope of these grants has been restricted to the original Less Favoured Areas, and has not extended to the marginal land approved by the Council of Ministers last year. As my honourable friend the Minister of State announced in another place recently, this extension will apply similarly to proposals from forage groups received after this order comes into operation. I am assured that this will be welcomed by livestock farmers in the hill areas.
There is only one further change of substance from the 1971 scheme. Your Lordships will note that there is now no reference to a power which existed in the superseded scheme enabling Food from Britain to act through intermediaries in its dealings with applicants. I understand that this was a reserve power which has never been used. It would have permitted FFB, with ministerial approval, to appoint the central co-operative organisations as agents and to pay them for their services in sifting grant applications. The joint committee commented on the vires of this power in relation to the enabling legislation—the Agriculture Act 1967. In the circumstances, and with Food from Britain's agreement, we have decided to delete that power from the new scheme. I am assured that its deletion will not affect the present arrangements and, if they so wish, the co-operative associations may continue to act in an advisory consultancy capacity to applicant co-operatives. My Lords, I commend this scheme to the House.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 4th February be approved. [10th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Swinton.)
6.31 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I will first say that we on this side of the House welcome this scheme, although perhaps for reasons different from those advanced by the noble Earl in moving it. When the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation, as it then was, came under the wing of the newly-formed Food from Britain organisation, there was some concern that it would be dwarfed by what was essentially a marketing organisation—and a marketing organisation whose life is finite in the sense that it is to enjoy public funding for its marketing activities only for a specified number of years—after which, trade interests are supposed to step in and provide money.
The proposals before us this evening indicate clearly that although they will amend the 1971 scheme and will place agricultural co-operative schemes under the wing (as they are now) of Food from Britain, the Government envisage the continuance of support for agricultural co-operation. With that proposition, we are entirely in accord.
It is regrettable but understandable that certain grants are being reduced in line with reductions made in other schemes. We know that the total estimated savings as far as this particular sector is concerned will amount to some £300,000 per annum. Presumably that is a saving worth considering, but I cannot help observing the difference in standards of treatment, in that these are only the estimated savings so far as agricultural co-operative promotion is concerned,

1067
whereas when not so very long ago your Lordships were discussing a Bill to extend the life of the Co-operative Development Agency, the actual funding of that organisation was at the level of only £200,000.
It seems to this side of the House that there is a marked disparity between that and the Government's treatment of producer co-operation—and an agricultural society is of course a producer organisation, as is a workers' co-operative—and that this disparity ought to be examined at some time in the future. It behoves the Government, in their admirable support for the co-operative concept, to be as even-handed with that support as they possibly can.
We are particularly intrigued with the definition of a co-operative, other than one registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965, appearing in paragraph 2(b). We like it. Some of us have spent a lifetime trying to define a co-operative society, and now we discover that the Civil Service can do that for us in a couple of lines. I congratulate them on that particular aspect of the draft.
We are particularly pleased that the horticultural industry is not to suffer any disability under the proposals in the same way that cereals will. We accept that in the present climate of production and public opinion, there is justification for some reining-in of assistance to cereals and to cereal co-operative societies—in particular, in the case of the marketing schemes they are devising.
We are pleased also that non-capital grants are not to be altered because we recognise the importance of advice in the formation of agricultural societies. The Government are being helpful here.
Finally, we note the reference in the explanatory notes to the European Community. We hope that agricultural societies, under the guidance of Food from Britain, will continue to make maximum use of the guidance section of the FEOGA fund. Although the calls upon that fund are considerable and therefore the commissioners are somewhat selective about the schemes they choose to aid, nevertheless there is every indication that the European Community is particularly favourable to co-operatives. One hopes that Food from Britain will take full advantage of this, although it may be that a purely marketing organisation as the applicant may not be looked upon as favourably as would the old Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation.
We are also pleased, too, that the co-operative associations may continue to serve in a consultative capacity. We hope that they will take advantage of this opportunity because their knowledge and experience at the formative stage will undoubtedly be of assistance to the Food from Britain organisation. We welcome this scheme and wish the new organisation, under the wing of Food from Britain, continued success—although, as I have said, it is in some respects poorer as a result.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his comments. It would have been a great pleasure to be my noble friend Lord Belstead on this occasion and to hear this scheme welcomed, if not 100 per cent. then about 97·5
1068
per cent. by the Benches opposite. The noble Lord did not ask me any questions, so I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Occupational Pension Schemes: Taxation
6.37 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any intention of taxing occupational pension schemes or benefits from them.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. One may have to accept that, in spite of the revenue from North Sea oil, Britain's still shaky economy could require cutbacks and additional taxation in one form or another. The temptation to the Government is to try to obtain funds from areas where there will be fewest political objections, regardless of the damage which may result.
It appears that the taxation of occupational pensions is something the Government have in mind—no doubt with the vain hope that its unfortunate effects will not be immediately or too readily apparent. At present, occupational pension schemes which satisfy Section 24 of the Finance Act 1970 avoid tax on the employers' and the employees' contributions. Earnings and capital gains of the pension fund are tax free, and so are any lump sums paid on retirement up to one and one-half times the annual earnings of the employee.
There are three possible areas in which the Government might decide to levy a new tax. They are lump sum benefits, investment incomes, or contributions to the pension scheme. The present arrangements for tax relief have been in force for the past 60 years and encourage firms and individuals to provide for retirement. Moreover, they are a vital part of the foundations on which the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 was based. I cannot believe that the Government think that provision for retirement is more than adequate for most people. That being so, any taxation must directly or indirectly affect a potentially under-privileged section of our society—that is, unless industry makes a greater contribution, which would be hardly helpful to industry, with its need to recover and become more competitive.
Considering each of those three possible new taxation areas in turn, lump sum benefits have been a part of some pension schemes since 1909. They are the same kind of provision given in many insurance schemes. Many people rely on their lump sum benefit to pay off mortgages or other loans, for buying an annuity, settling into retirement, probably in a new location, or setting up a small business. That is something we all believe important in the national interest. Inevitably, if the Government are to gain by taxation in this way, the legislation could be classed as retrospective and the terms of pension schemes would have to be revised. Already some people are retiring early to avoid the possibility of their lump sum benefits being taxed. The gain to the Government by any means except by retrospective legislation would be small and only worthwhile in the long term.
The taxation of investment income or the capital gains of pension funds simply means that the employer or employee has to pay more to provide the same benefits. If one accepts—and I do not—the Government's ideas on employees making their own arrangements, a tax on their payments would be a great disincentive to their making adequate provision for retirement. It would be wholly anomalous to provide tax relief on such contributions and not on those paid into a pension fund. To tax the employer's contribution would simply be, as I said, virtually another tax on industry. It would be, in effect, a capitation tax and would further increase—or would be likely to increase—unemployment.
I have in this speech avoided dealing with the White Paper proposals for personal pensions and perhaps others will speak on this aspect. I will only say that it seems to me that the theory that people should be able to make their own arrangements for pensions, with no schemes to safeguard them, carries the Conservative principle of free choice too far. We include in our society the inadequates and the Micawbers of this world, and as a caring nation we cannot wholly let them reap the results of their earlier follies.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin by saying that, not for the first time, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has done this House a service by providing us with the opportunity of debating this topic, and even if it is not properly timed, the Minister and his colleagues should accept the challenge by making a response tonight. I am absolutely certain that the contributions to the debate will be made from experience and deep interest.
The noble Viscount presented the main burden of the concerns which have been expressed by millions of people, through their organisations, and it is right and proper that those of us with interests outside the House should take this opportunity to draw the Minister's attention to the anxieties which have been expressed to us. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, so rightly said, there are some superficially attractive options open to the Chancellor in considering the taxation of pension funds and contributions. After all, this is a Chancellor who said in his Budget Statement last year that he was set upon removing so-called fiscal distortions in the system. He is a Chancellor who is seeking to earn a reputation as a reforming Chancellor. But let us examine some of those superficially attractive options.
First, there is the case that has been made that there would be a substantial income to the Revenue by adopting these policies. Secondly, there is the opportunity to remove the distortions and to cut out some of the special reliefs and exemptions. Thirdly, and as the noble Viscount said, there is the possibility of encouraging people to invest directly in their own businesses. However, as the noble Viscount also said—and I do not intend to repeat his words—on all three counts if the rumoured moves come to fruition they will undoubtedly fail. If the employers' contributions are disallowed as a business expense, there is no question but that the wage bill would have to be increased. Organisations which have been in
1070
touch with all noble Lords in the House have told us that this could very well amount to between 7 per cent. and 11 per cent. It would certainly decrease the pension benefits to employees and we are told by some organisations that it could very well lead to a discontinuation of pension schemes.
If the Chancellor is looking at discontinuing tax relief on employees' contributions, that certainly could lead to changes in the schemes to a non-contributory basis. That would have a very serious effect. In looking at the possible taxation of investment income of pension funds, we are then into the big league as regards money. Various calculations have been made and I shall not bore the House with them. The Minister who is to reply, and who is fair in these matters, will be well aware that if pension funds are taxed at various rates it inevitably will mean not merely that the members of the fund will have to pay more but also that the retrospective element mentioned by the noble Viscount would come into existence. People have been in the business of providing for their future for many years. The pension business is a long-term business, carefully put together, and I remind the Minister that in the 1970s, with all-party agreement, a substantial movement came towards recognising that what we needed was stability, security and certainty in making these arrangements. I very much hope that the Minister will bear those points in mind.
The Minister will be aware that the reason for so much agitation and apprehension is the action of his honourable friend the Chancellor in his Budget last year. He brought in the measures to deal with life assurance premium relief and immediately a situation was disturbed that hitherto had been unchallenged for a long time. This caused people to ask, "I wonder what next?". The Minister will be aware of the very strong rumours that began to circulate on what the Chancellor might have in his mind. I do not believe that it is right and proper to use the analogy of what the Chancellor did on LAPR last year as indicating, ipso facto, that he is likely to do the kind of things we understand to have at least been thought of, or are Kites that have been flown, in the past few weeks. Those on this side of the House—I speak purely for myself at this stage—and those outside the House who have been in touch with me, view with horror anything remotely like the dramatic intervention into previously established arrangements that LAPR brought into the insurance world last year.
As is proper, I declare an interest in these matters. I have a continuing association with the co-operative movement and with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I also express an affinity with the friendly societies movement. I mention those three interests because the Minister and his colleagues would do well to take them on board, whether the Chancellor makes the moves that have been mooted or not, and it is well for the record to show what these individuals and organisations are saying.
Let me quote the words of a former colleague of mine, Brian Holden, who is the pension services manager of the Co-operative Union. He advises on pension schemes for some 100,000 employees of retail co-ops. Only last week he expressed his concern at reports that Mr. Norman Fowler, the Secretary of

1071
State for Social Services, planned to abolish the state earnings-related pension scheme. I shall come to an item in The Times today which runs counter to that rumour about Mr. Fowler.
What Mr. Brian Holden told me was that it had been suggested that SERPS be replaced by personal pensions. However, a closer examination of that suggestion makes SERPS extremely realistic, very practicable and economic to administer. In addition, with rumours that the Chancellor of the Exchequer plans to change the tax treatment of pension schemes in the Budget, how could all concerned with pension schemes plan effectively for the future if major changes were to be enforced at regular intervals by successive Administrations? If the required degree of co-operation was achieved, Mr. Holden tells me that he is convinced that it ought to lead to a lasting and successful partnership between state and occupational pensions.
I should also like to bring to the Minister's attention the words of the legal officer of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, Tony Heywood. He says that the present speculation is damaging to this consensus and any attempt to interfere with the present taxation provisions would not only be extremely damaging to the provisions made for retirement but could also have long-term damaging social and economic considerations. If, for example, the tax relief in respect of contributions or investment income were withdrawn, this would inevitably mean an increase in the cost of providing pensions which could be met only by either an increase in contributions or a reduction in pension benefits.
I draw these points to the Minister's attention because these are practical people who are acting on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people who could be affected in this matter. I want the Minister fully to understand that great care is required by his Treasury colleagues if they are to avoid some of the unfortunate consequences which may or may not be fully realised when taxation changes are made—and let me assure the Minister that I raise these matters to be helpful for the future, based on sad experiences from the past.
Let us take, for instance, the actions of the Chancellor in last year's Finance Bill. In their understandable zeal to curb tax avoidance the Government reduced the limits within which friendly societies operate from £2,000 to £750. The fact that the overwhelming number of these friendly societies are not embryonic insurance companies was ignored. These small societies are not commercial business operators. Their good work is not wholly reflected in accounts and balance sheets. They do not often make the national press. They are not big fish in the financial world; but they do an incredible amount of sound local community social work. I am told that that reduction from £2,000 to £750 will mean that many of them will not be able to survive.
The main theme of tonight's debate is the concern that disturbing hitherto laudable taxation arrangements can lead to undesirable consequences. I accept that, where tax laws are being taken advantage of in a way that was not intended, the Government must act to curb abuses; but surely they should be capable of doing that without losing sight of the value of a whole
1072
movement and throwing the baby out with the bath-water. I would hope that when these matters are looked at again—and there must surely be a continuing dialogue—consideration could be given to increasing the limit for friendly societies not operating on a commercial scale to a level which would allow them to survive.
In conclusion, this debate has been, and I believe will be, conducted in a civilised manner. I, for one, acknowledge the limitation of the Minister's brief, and I anticipate that what he has to say will be limited indeed. But despite the limited value of these exchanges, I believe that the record will be helpful in order for those outside the House to be clear beyond dispute that their deep concerns have been put to the Government by their friends and in order for the Government, via the always helpful and courteous Minister, both to dispel misunderstandings and to convey to his Treasury friends the gravamen of the worries that we have placed before him tonight.
6.55 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, the position was well outlined by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in his opening words to this debate. I, too, share the concerns of the union representatives which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. The points that I have to make will, I hope, serve to emphasise the very great concerns that have been expressed in this matter. But before I go into the main parts of my speech I should declare two interests. I am a potential beneficiary of my company's pension plan, and therefore have somewhat of a private interest in this matter; and, secondly, I have been a pensions consultant for the past 14 years.
It is extremely tempting for the Treasury, or for that matter any Government, to find a potential, rich source of increasing the annual tax take. Cash estimates of the potential tax that could be raised from pension funds have varied between £2 billion and £5 billion. I have no doubt that the Treasury's view is that, in contemplating the raising of taxes and looking at pension funds, it would prefer them not to be where they are at present; in other words, it would prefer not to be looking at funds which enjoy and have enjoyed since 1921 significant tax advantages when compared to other forms of saving. Your Lordships may be surprised to know that I have a certain sympathy with that view, but the problem is that, having arrived at where we are, any attempt to reform the tax treatment of pension funds will have detrimental ripple effects elsewhere.
There is very great concern among companies at the prospect of a major change in taxation for pension schemes without major and radical tax reforms elsewhere. Manufacturing industries are particularly worried because they are still in the process of regaining world competitiveness and need to resist vigorously any threats that could increase their unit labour costs. But, as we have seen and as has been pointed out tonight already, speculation on tax has centred on three key areas: the taxation of cash lump sums on retirement, the removal or reduction of tax reliefs on employer and employee contributions, and the taxation of investment returns or on capital gains.

1073
It has been stated in the other place that cash sums will not be taxed retrospectively. That means that the likely tax take on that benefit, which for most of those retiring will represent only about 25 per cent. of their total retirement benefit, will be negligible and, I suggest, not worth pursuing. It must be remembered that the revenue gain will be greatly delayed—for at least 20 years.
Taxation reliefs on employees' contributions are currently allowed up to quite modest limits on earnings for both occupational pension schemes and self-employed arrangements. A significant removal of those reliefs in occupational schemes will lead inevitably towards non-contributory arrangements and thus negate hopes of an additional tax take. It raises, in addition, the question of double taxation, since the bulk of retirement income is taxed on receipt. It also removes one area of self-help away from individuals, which helps them to become self-sufficient in retirement.
Employers' tax relief and the corporation tax arrangements are already progressively reducing. To remove tax reliefs totally from the employers' contributions will, the Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates, increase labour costs by about 6 per cent. if pension promises are maintained, or, as is more likely, reduce pension promises by about 36 per cent. Neither probability is a welcome prospect. The most fundamental tax, and perhaps the easiest to implement, would be a tax on investment returns or capital gains. Taxation on capital gains would lead investment managers to be unwilling to trade in stocks with low yields and high capital gains potential; and taxation on investment income would require the Government to rethink their strategy on raising cash through the markets.
Investment managers are already restructuring their portfolios out of high coupon gilts towards other forms of investments of an equity nature. Thus the indirect effect of taxation in this area will lead to a reduction in the rates of return because the investment managers' opportunities will have been reduced. This in turn will increase the costs of pre-funding pension promises. The effect of such a tax for employers will be very significant. It will increase the costs of the pension fund. I have seen figures that show a 17 per cent. reduction in benefit or a third increase in the employer's costs for a 10 per cent. tax on investment return.
In a mature fund—and there are many in this country—the effects will be worse. One mature fund that I have looked at shows a doubling of the employer's contribution on a 10 per cent. rate of tax. Even if actuaries were to use less conservative assumptions, we are still considering increases in costs for new funds in the region of 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. per annum.
Pension funds project liabilities forward from between 20 and 40 years. That is a very long period. The recent high rates of return from 1977–78 onwards, are not necessarily a guide to the future. Figures produced by the stock-brokers Philips and Drew show that between 1963 and 1983 average funds achieved a 10.9 per cent. rate of return against a wage rise of 11.6 per cent. That is a negative rate of return.
1074
I appreciate that you can produce statistics to make your point wherever you wish. Nonetheless, there were periods during the 1970s of negative returns, markedly in 1973 and 1974 when United Kingdom equities registered—28.8 per cent. and—54 per cent. as inflation raced away. Deficiency, not surplus, was the topic of my discussions at that time, and who among us today will confidently predict the future on investment rates of return when interest rates are showing the highest positive rate over inflation since the 1830s? Most of the funds for which I am responsible have been trying to remedy the effects of the high inflation experienced in the 1970s by distributing prudently the surplus to their pensioners.
Recent changes in legislation to improve the lot of early leavers, no matter how meritorious, will affect current solvency levels. Any change in taxation of pension funds in this area will also have an adverse effect in future years. In particular, any moves to tax pension funds on a once-off basis, as was done with bank profits recently, should be withstood because of the immediate impact such a move will have on solvency levels and the security of members' benefits. A real rate of return—and most actuaries adopt a 1 per cent. positive rate over the rate of salary increase—is vital if pension promises are to be maintained. An attack in this area will have the worst possible effects, by increasing company costs, or reducing defined benefit and final salary schemes, and, in the last resort, the abandonment of the pre-funded approach in favour of less prudent methods. It is also a fallacy to think that pensions funds are totally tax free. They are subject to tax. They pay development land tax, they pay stamp duty and in certain instances they have to meet VAT which cannot be reclaimed.
I now wish to turn briefly to the policy on portable pensions and the recent press publicity on the possible wind-up of the state earnings-related scheme, which started in 1978, so far as they are both relevant to the topic of taxation. It is clear that state benefits will become an ever-increasing burden on the working population. The Government are seeking, in my view quite correctly, ways to encourage individuals to make provision for old age, partially in order to reduce the state's future liabilities. Portable pensions will encourage those not in occupational pension schemes to make provision. But, if tax reliefs are removed, this encouragement will disappear.
Encouragement is required if we consider the following statistics. In 1981 £12 billion was consumed in beer drinking while only half a billion pounds was spent on pensions in self-employed markets. Incidentally, the same amount of half a billion pounds, was spent on bingo. A drive towards fiscal neutrality will not encourage provision for old age. Given those statistics, I think it is a key point to remember that we do not really provide for ourselves in our old age at the present moment.
I support totally the need to scrutinise and question areas that many may regard as sacrosanct. In the instance of taxation of pension funds, I see great drawbacks if a policy of fiscal neutrality is to be zealously pursued. Promises made within existing schemes will have to be curtailed or employment costs will be forced to rise if taxation at even quite modest levels is introduced. A policy of taxation in this area

1075
will not encourage self-help and the reliance on the state will increase and not decrease.
Pensions are a complex area and statistics will be produced ad nauseam to prove one case or the other. However, a significant raising of tax from pension funds where promises have already been made will be detrimental to the interest of those companies which run pension funds for their employees and indeed for those in pension funds, whether occupational or self-employed arrangements.
In conclusion, I cannot stress too strongly that, if it is the policy to ensure that reliance on the state is minimised, then removing tax reliefs or introducing tax on a greater scale than at present seems an odd way of achieving the success of any such policy.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Hanworth for asking this important Question this evening. I should like to support the general tenor of his remarks. The noble Earl and others have referred to the earnings-related pension. Although I feel that discussion about that is probably outside the scope of the Question, I cannot resist saying at the outset that I would abolish the earnings-related pension if I could and replace it with a greatly increased basic retirement pension.
Before I return to the taxation of pension funds, I should like to declare an interest. I am an insurance broker specialising in life assurance and pensions. For that very reason, I am aware of the very great anxiety which surrounds the Government's intentions in this field. Despite the assurances given by the Chancellor, people are retiring early, as my noble friend said, and they are doing so at the expense of some of the benefit which they might have expected in order to avoid being caught in the taxation net. I know of people who are retiring now rather than in August, though it means some small loss to them, in order to avoid what might be in the Budget.
It seems that there are two ways in which we can regard pensions. We can regard them as deferred wages, in which case the build-up would be tax free and they would be taxed when received. Broadly speaking, that is the method which we have at the moment. There is nothing of special privilege at all about that concept. The other way is to regard pensions as savings out of earned income in which case they should be taxed in the build-up and completely tax free in one large lump sum at retirement. It seems to me that there is no point in changing from the one system to the other. It would make no great difference to the Government in the long run which system was adopted, although there might be some immediate advantage.
Noble Lords have explained that there are the three reliefs enjoyed at the present time—on the contributions of employees and employers, on the investment income of the pension funds, and on the proportion of benefit that may be taken in lump sum under either occupational pension schemes or personal pension policies, self-employed retirement annuities. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, pointed out, as did the noble Earl, that if we end the tax relief on employees, then the likelihood
1076
is that schemes would simply become non-contributory. That would leave employers and employees in virtually the same position. There would be no gain for the Government.
If we end the tax relief on employers' contributions, that certainly seems unfair. What they pay out in contributions is surely a legitimate expense, particularly if pensions are regarded as deferred wages.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, pointed out that if, in fact, we ended the tax relief on employers' contributions, this would add something like 7 per cent. of payroll to the cost. This, in turn, might encourage companies to move to setting up internal reserves to meet future liabilities for pensions. If they did that, there would be no gain to the Government, unless of course the Government intended to tax reserves generally which would be a fundamental amendment of company tax law. It would mean that tax relief was not available on advance provision by a company against its specified future liabilities. That would clearly go wider than pension funds.
If we end the tax relief on the investment of funds, it is estimated that the cost would be between 5 per cent. and 11 per cent. of payroll extra, according to the rate of tax levied in the range between 10 per cent. and 25 per cent. This would mean either higher employers' costs—directly, it seems, against the Government's intention to keep down employers' costs in order to avoid, as they would argue, an increase in inflation—or lower pensions, lower benefits and, very likely, the closure of schemes at the margin. The noble Earl pointed out that there are already going to be higher costs for employers because of the provisions being made to deal with the position of early leavers—provisions that probably all of us present in the House would agree with. Nevertheless, we cannot overlook the fact that they already add extra costs.
My noble friend referred to the element of retrospection that would come in. It would be extremely difficult to sort out from the investment income that which related to contributions paid after the Budget and that which related to contributions paid before. The lump sum, that is to say, a proportion of benefit that may be taken in a tax free lump sum, may seem anomalous. It is, in fact, the only tax area where there is a real taxation advantage. However, this was looked at by the Committee on the Functioning of Institutions presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. Its report stated:
"If this view of pensions as deferred pay is accepted, the chief anomaly lies in the tax free nature of the lump sum. It is difficult to justify this on logical grounds. But it has become such an accepted part of the present arrangement that its removal could not be regarded as equitable in its effects".
Its removal, the Committee said, could not be regarded as equitable in its effects. To treat lump sum payments under pension arrangements any more harshly than golden handshakes, where £25,000 is tax free, would surely be unthinkable.
No doubt, we shall be told that the noble Lord who is to reply cannot anticipate the Budget statement of his right honourable friend. Nevertheless, without doing that, he can perhaps let us into his thinking in the matter and say how he feels about some of the points put tonight. They are not all directly related.

1077
The noble Lord could talk about them for some time without necessarily saying precisely what his right honourable friend intends to do. We look forward to instruction from the noble Lord in that respect. If he can give some amplification of the Chancellor's reassurance, that would be welcome, as would an assurance that the Chancellor will consider carefully all that is said in the House tonight and all the representations that have been advanced to him by persons and bodies with intimate knowledge of the pensions field.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount who asked this Unstarred Question. Although I am not a insurance broker and not as specialised as those noble Lords who have spoken, it has been my good or bad fortune to be responsible for a number of pension schemes in industry, some bad and some rather good. I suppose that since everyone is declaring an interest, I should declare my own interest as a pensioner who has been responsible for a pension scheme in one of our largest international companies. I am amazed that the Government should seriously contemplate interfering with a pension scheme. I know that we have a radical Government, and I know that they do barmy things. However, I know of nothing more calculated to infuriate their supporters and industry. I have never known quite such a unanimous reaction from industry, which which I have been actively involved for a number of years, as has arisen over this matter.
Although the noble Lord who is to reply will probably not be able to say very much, he will not mind our saying that we not only wish to educate him—or, if not him, because he perhaps knows it all, his advisers: one can sometimes argue that the real value of our debates is not the Minister's reply but the influence on his department—but also to express disbelief that serious civil servants can favour this sort of proposal. I was responsible when Minister in charge of the Civil Service Department for Civil Service pensions. I warn the Civil Service that the next stage is that there will be another go at their inflation-proofing. The Prime Minister has been stopped twice on that. If you are taxing lump sums in the private sector, what will happen to lump sums in the public sector? The case has been put strongly. I hope that, in the end, the Government do nothing about this.
There has been reference, I believe, to the LAPR scheme. That was an example of how not to do it. It really does show a degree of irresponsibility. The Conservative Party always says that it provides good, sensible government. It does not. There is a doctrinaire spirit and a determination to get money. I am not saying this to be nasty to the Conservatives: I am trying to save the Government from an act of folly that may lose them the next election. This is not in the interests of my party, but it is in the interests of potential pensioners.
I do not know what the Government intend to do. The view has been expressed that pension schemes are currently in good heart and can obsorb 10 per cent. tax without difficulty, and that in the interests of fiscal neutrality—I shall say more about this—pension schemes should not continue to enjoy completely tax-
1078
free status. Of course, they do not enjoy a completely tax-free status. That has already been explained.
Although it is true that pension schemes have enjoyed real rates of return in recent years—and there was a time when they did not do so, when companies had to pump a great deal of money into their schemes to make them actuarially sound—any actuarial surplus must result in a reduction of company contributions unless applied towards an increase in benefits for members or better protection for current or deferred pensioners. The reason is simply that the Inland Revenue police regularly each scheme and will not allow an excessive surplus to be maintained. Other things being equal, reduced contributions will increase profits which are taxed. Therefore, this is a very complex area.
When we passed the 1975 Act there was agreement between the parties. Successive Governments—first the Labour Government and then the Conservative Government—came forward with their schemes. For goodness sake, please let us leave them alone! The most important aspect—and this has been referred to by my noble friend and other noble Lords—is the fact that pension schemes are funded on long-term assumptions, and any alteration in the taxation position would destroy, literally at a stroke, the whole foundation. It is vital that funding assumptions are not made subject to annual Budget manipulation. Therefore, if there is to be a change of treatment, it is essential that the matter be properly debated and properly discussed and that no step is taken just to meet a particular Budget situation.
There has recently been legislation. Those of us who have been interested in occupational schemes have wanted those schemes to be improved. One of the more objectionable aspects of certain types of deferred pension has been that they did not benefit from the value of the money that was invested, as it were, for that particular pension, which would actually go to help those who had pensions later on and who were having their pensions uprated.
The Government had to intervene, and legislation has been passed relating to the uprating of deferred pensions and the abolition of "franking". Those measures have imposed additional costs on many schemes, and it is virtually certain that they could not absorb the additional costs of a tax on their income. The costs would vary, but it has been estimated that if there were a 10 per cent. tax it would mean a 33 per cent. rise in contributions or a reduction in benefits of the order of 17 per cent.
The occupational pension schemes in this country are very varied and very unequal. Those of us who sought within industry to improve and bring them up from eightieths to sixtieths and to make some of the disability and long-term benefits available will be discouraged from presenting and pressing on with this. The best of industry has set an example, and its pensions are practically up to the standard of the Civil Service pensions. The argument about fiscal neutrality is very doubtful. Indeed, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is a very worthwhile body—and some of my friends have been involved in it—point out that:
"With the exception of the tax-free status of lump sum benefits, the existing tax regime for pensions is broadly consistent with that objective";

1079
that is, fiscal neutrality. That may be arguable against the lump sum, but the lump sum has a special social significance. I really do beg the Government not to press too heavily.
There are quite a number of other points which could be made, but the case has been very strongly expressed already. Let me give another example which arises if they start taxing assets. There are some closed-off companies for which nobody is responsible. They are finished, but the pension funds exist. If those assets are reduced there is no way in which they can be increased by the injection of new funds from a benevolent employing company. That, again, would inflict further hardship.
There is no doubt that any change in the tax position will result in a reassessment by companies of the way in which pension obligations are funded. It is just conceivable that there could be a switch from advance funding towards a pay-as-you-go and/or a ceasing to contract out of the state earnings-related scheme. Either course would have serious implications for the capital market, on which the Government rely for funds.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will be exceedingly careful in this area. It is very difficult to make comparisons with other countries. Incidentally, recently in Australia it was possible to take the whole of the funded amount as a single sum and not just merely a proportion, which is what we allow. Some people would take 300,000 or even 400,000 dollars. I beg the Government to leave the lump sum alone. I beg them to think again and not to endanger their future electoral prospects.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on asking this Unstarred Question tonight and for initiating the very well-informed debate that we have so far had on this important subject; namely, taxing pension schemes and contributions. I should also like to thank him for his excellent explanation of the present position of pension schemes and his excellent exposition of the case against taxing them.
I, too, I suppose, ought to declare an interest because I happen to be a member of two pension funds neither of which, I am afraid, will give me a living wage at the end of my working life. Nevertheless, I declare the interest just the same. I should also like to say that the timing of the Question is quite interesting, and the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will no doubt be intriguing, bearing in mind that the Budget is less than three weeks away. We are all of us awaiting his reply with bated breath to see whether he can give us a glimpse of the Chancellor's thinking on the subject at the present time. I hope that he will respond to the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, to let us into the secrets of the Treasury at this time.
However, I have to say that I was somewhat surprised that the Chancellor should be thought—even thought—to be considering extending taxation on pension schemes. I was even more surprised that he should have arranged to leak his thoughts so far in advance of the Budget. I trust, in the light of recent
1080
happenings, that he sought and obtained immunity for himself and his civil servants from prosecution under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
Like my noble friend Lord Shackleton, I am no less surprised that there should be even consideration of raising additional tax by a method eminently designed to alienate the maximum number of Conservative voters and, at the same time, cause confusion and dismay to employers, employees, the pensions industry itself and the City, not to mention Conservative Members of Parliament. You could not worry and offend a much more influential bunch of people than that. I am most surprised that the Chancellor should have taken such risks.
However, having let the cat out of the bag, the Chancellor must now deal with the storm of protest that has engulfed him and make his Budget dispositions accordingly. What I do learn—and I warn the noble Lord and the Chancellor now—is that if he goes ahead with the proposals so far mooted, the storm of protest will become a tempest that may very well sweep him out of office. Of course, some of us would think that that would be a good thing.
Before I go on to deal with the proposals themselves, or at least the rumoured proposals, I want to refer to a point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. My noble friend raised the very important matter relating to the state pension scheme, and the rumours apparently emanating from the Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Security, that the earnings-related element of the state pension scheme might be abandoned. If that happens—and I sincerely trust that it will not, and I hope that we can have an assurance tonight that it will not happen—it would be tantamount to a huge fraud. Any insurance company which treated its pension policyholders in that way would be hauled before the courts and given long gaol sentences for fraud on its policyholders. My right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Norman Willis, the General Secretary of the TUC, have today condemned the proposal out of hand. It will be resisted by every possible lawful means if it should be brought forward by the Government. I make that statement from this Dispatch Box tonight.
We have had a good discussion about what these rumours or proposals mean. As has already been mentioned, the proposals fall into three distinct compartments: first, the ending of the tax relief on employers' and employees' contributions; secondly, the taxation of lump sum payments; and, thirdly, the taxation of investment income and gains of pension funds. If all three proposals were implemented, pension funds would be devastated and the benefits of their members savagely reduced. It is quite beyond belief that the Chancellor would introduce all these measures in one fell swoop. But the fact is that any single one of them would be damaging to pensions, and would have serious implications for savings.
If it was decided to remove, for example, tax relief on employees' contributions, this would not only amount to double taxation since pensions are already taxed; it would also significantly increase the cost of pension contributions to the employee and make him less willing to make his own provision for retirement. That is specifically what the present Government have

1081
been asking him to do; that is Government policy. Yet if it was proposed to tax the employee's contribution, the employee would be discouraged from doing so. For an employee on average earnings of around £9,000 per annum, paying 6 per cent. of salary in pension contributions, the effect of removing tax relief would amount to £162 per annum, roughly £3 per week, a significant amount by any standards, which of course employees would seek to make up by higher wage and salary demands. Again, that would militate against the Government's own policy of limiting wage rises.
Similarly, if employers' contributions ceased to be tax deductible, employers would be very reluctant to promote private pension provision, and some may very well discontinue existing schemes. In any event, where schemes continued employers, already faced with additional costs of indexation of pensions, would have to increase prices of goods and services to meet the added tax burden. This would of course be a damaging blow for the Government's counter-inflation policy. Therefore, on those two issues alone the Government would be working against themselves if they proposed taxes of that sort.
To tax lump sums would be extremely unpopular, since the lump sum probably represents the only opportunity that most people ever have of amassing a significant capital sum. In recent weeks we have had an indication of just how unpopular this would be and how fearful people are of the Chancellor's proposals by the number of premature retirements, often of very experienced and intellectual people. In any event, the Chancellor's assurance that existing employees have nothing to fear means that additional revenue to the Exchequer from this source would in the short term be very small indeed, and would amount to a mere £25 million in 1985–86. But, as has already been mentioned, it would be intolerable if worse treatment were given to lump sum pension payments than to severance payments, which are tax-free up to £25,000. If this was accepted, tax revenue would be even further depressed.
So, lastly, we come to the possible taxation of investment income and gains of pension funds. The general view seems to be that this is the Chancellor's chosen method for taxing pension schemes. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph of 18th February, the Charterhouse Investment Group forecast that income tax will be levied at 13 per cent. or 15 per cent. on the currently tax-free income of pension funds in next month's Budget. That is their forecast. The Institute for Fiscal Studies takes a similar view in its Budget briefing published on Wednesday of last week.
Of course, from the Government's point of view this is the most politically acceptable method of milking pension funds since it will have no immediately discernible impact on either employees or employers. But, in fact, it would be political sleight of hand, for the impact on both employers and employees would be very great indeed and damaging, in that eventually either contributions would have to rise or benefits be reduced. The noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, gave the House detailed figures which show in the starkest terms the enormous damage to pension funds if this method of taxing them were adopted by the Government.
1082
The Opposition's view on these matters has already been made known to the pensions industry by the right honourable Roy Hattersley. He has made it clear that proposals to remove tax advantages to employers and employees would be resisted. Nor is it the Opposition's view that investment income and gains should be taxed, although on lump sum payments we would examine closely any proposal to limit exemption from tax to the first £25,000.
However, basically, the Opposition believes that the Chancellor is playing with fire in proposing any tax changes for pension funds at this stage. The short- and long-term consequences are likely to be serious, not only for individuals and firms but also for the whole economy, especially in relation to investment in industry, which is so important at the present time.
Discussion of such profound issues should not revolve around a shabby little Treasury leak, but be on the basis of a full, expert and informed inquiry where every proposal and every implication can be examined in the light of its impact on our national life and our overall economy. The narrow approach of the Chancellor simply will not do and I trust that, in the light of our debate tonight, which has been an excellent and an informed one, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who is to reply, will—backed up, I hope, by the Leader of the House—tell the Chancellor so in no uncertain terms.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government are of course well aware of recent speculation, which I can assure the House did not emanate from Treasury Ministers, that they intend to make changes in the tax treatment of pensions. As I am sure your Lordships appreciate, it is not normally the practice to comment on speculation of this type, and I do not intend to do so now, especially so soon before the Budget which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce in another place.
However, we are concerned that the recent rumours about the question of pension lump sums may have led some people to consider premature retirement, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, mentioned. That is why my right honourable friend has given an assurance in another place that there is no reason for anyone to retire early on account of such rumours: he made it clear that there would be no retrospective taxation of pension lump sums. But, my Lords, I cannot go any further than this.
It would be wrong for me or other Ministers to be pressurised, by unconfirmed speculation, into premature announcements about what may or may not be included in a future Budget. I should like to assure your Lordships that the Government are aware of the value that many people place on the existing tax treatment of pension provisions. Before any changes were contemplated, we should naturally give very careful consideration to all the factors involved.
The Government's proposals for personal pensions were set out in a consultative document published in July 1984. Comments were invited by 30th November and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is currently giving careful consideration to the many replies received. The Government

1083
believe that personal pensions provided quite independently of the employer will give individual employees a greater flexibility and freedom to invest for their old age in the way they choose. It will give them a real sense of involvement in their own pension savings and remove another barrier to job mobility, We regard measures to encourage job mobility as a vital plank to our programme for economic recovery.
The arrangements for personal pensions are being developed in the light of the many and helpful responses to the consultative document and in the broader context of the social security review. We shall, of course, also be considering the implications for personal pensions of the new system of regulation proposed in the recently published White Paper on United Kingdom Financial Services. We hope to announce any proposals for change on the social security front following the social security review in the next few months. Meanwhile, I trust noble Lords will appreciate that I can do no more than assure them of the Government's firm intention to protect both potential and actual personal pension holders by adequate consumer safeguards.
I must, however, comment on the noble Viscount's reference to people "with no schemes to safeguard them". The Government's intention is for personal pensions to sit alongside existing employers' schemes, not to threaten them. We are concerned that we must help to maintain the vital role of occupational schemes for a great many employees. But we must also take heed of those who for so long have been demanding a greater say in how and where their pension savings should be invested.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the future of the state earnings-related pension scheme, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, most forcefully. I would say that concern about the future cost of the state earnings-related pension scheme was of course one of the reasons why the Secretary of State for Social Services set up the social security review. Obviously the review has been considering those costs and the relationship between state and occupational pension provisions.
However, I am sure that noble Lords will understand that I cannot comment on speculation about pension arrangements which have appeared recently in the press. The Government's conclusions on the whole of social security will be published as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned friendly societies. With the withdrawal of tax relief on life assurance, logic would have pointed to complete withdrawal of the tax exemption for friendly societies. But the Government recognise the valuable social role played by friendly societies over the years, and in recognition of this decided last year to fix the limit at the lower level, which we hope will be sufficient to cover funeral and other essential expenditures on death, which I believe was why the friendly societies were originally set up.
I must tell the noble Lord that I am a member of a large motoring organisation which must have many millions of members. I remember well a few years ago that they invited me to become a member of their friendly society with a limit of £2,000. I cannot believe that that is the sort of friendly society to which the noble Lord would refer.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for being able to comment on the specific point. The Minister is right; the kinds of small friendly society which have made representations to me are those which originated to carry on the function of looking after the burial arrangements of their members. With the reduction from £2,000 to £750 the amount of business that they are able to transact is insufficient for them to be able to run their organisations, which is not merely for the provision of their benefits but for a wide range of community-related benefits, too.
There are more than 2 million members of friendly societies. When the Government take their action can they, besides looking at matters in strict fiscal and taxation terms, also appreciate that there are social considerations as well?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I quite take the noble Lord's point, but I think he would agree that the system was being abused by certain organisations.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes, my Lords, I agree. Where abuse, and real abuse, can be proved I am no party to wanting that abuse to continue, or any evasion. It is the small friendly societies which in my view are being punished severely. They are the ones I am concerned about, and I simply ask the noble Lord and his colleagues to bear their future in mind.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Certainly, my Lords. It is inevitable at this time of year that there should be considerable speculation about what might, or might not, be in the Budget, and comment from various interested parties on what ought, or ought not, to be in it. It would be wrong for me to comment on any speculation, even if I could. I know no more of the contents of the Budget than does any of your Lordships present.
However, we have had an interesting debate. I have certainly listened carefully, and I shall draw the remarks of noble Lords to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eight o'clock.