Lords Sitting of 20 February 1986

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

British Aerospace: Collaborative Programme
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 will discuss with British Aerospace the possibility of collaboration with Aerospatiale and other interested companies in the development of an improved supersonic civil aircraft.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I understand that Aerospatiale, who were of course British Aerospace's partner in the development and production of the Concorde, have indicated an interest in seeking collaborative partners to conduct studies which would explore the technologies necessary to develop such an aircraft. Any decision to embark upon talks relating to a collaborative civil aircraft programme of this nature must be for the commercial judgment of British Aerospace.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he not aware of the fact that British Aerospace could not possibly go in for a project of this sort without substantial Government support, and that therefore the view of the Government is of great importance in this matter? Is my noble friend also aware that many of us would deeply regret it if the lead which this country established some years ago in the production of supersonic civil aircraft were to be lost to foreigners?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his two questions. He will, I am sure, appreciate that as part of our industrial policy we encourage collaborative arrangements such as my noble friend's Question suggests. It would be unfortunate were the lead we have in this area to be lost, but at the same time it is up to the company to undertake negotiations within their commercial judgment, and if at some later time any support is required from the Government, then of course the Government would be happy to give proper consideration to such support.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his statement of evident Government unconcern about this whole question is most alarming? Is the noble Lord really saying that this is a matter that must be left purely to market forces? Is the noble Lord aware that our competitors in these particular fields always have the close support of their own governments in any projects they put forward? Is not the attitude personified by the noble Lord's answers this afternoon thoroughly alarming?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not think that my response to my noble friend's supplementary question is at all alarming. In fact, on the contrary it is very supportive.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if the then Government had adopted this negative attitude we should never have had Concorde?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not think that my answers to my noble friend this afternoon have been negative in any way at all. In the first instance it is for the commercial judgment of a private sector company in aerospace. If that company, in their commercial wisdom, come to Government, I have said to my noble friend that Government will give sympathetic consideration to any support that may be necessary.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if I have it wrong I am sure that the Minister will correct me, but his answer to this Question does seem to imply a curious reluctance to develop European co-operation in aircraft.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it is for Aerospatiale, who are seeking collaborative partners to conduct certain studies. Any decision of the United Kingdom aerospace industry is for their commercial judgment, as to whether they want to enter into agreements, or collaborative arrangements, with Aerospatiale, or indeed any other European partner. If they decide that it is in their commercial best interests, and if they then come to Government and say, "But we shall need some support", as I have said, Government will sympathetically consider such an approach.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, if British Aerospace decided not to go ahead with Aerospatiale and they wanted to work with somebody like McDonnell Douglas or Boeing, would that also be given sympathetic consideration?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, collaborative arrangements in developments in aerospace and other industrial matters with any suitable partner is to be welcomed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to read unconcern into his earlier Answer strikes no chord with the rest of us who heard what seemed to me a very satisfactory answer? Is he also aware, referring to a reply to another noble Lord opposite, of the fact that the decision from which the building of Concorde flowed was that of the Government headed by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble friend for asking me both those questions, with which I am of course happy to agree.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say to what extent, and of what kind,

711
government support is being given to Aerospatiale in their desire for collaboration and co-operation with other countries for an improved version of Concorde?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I very much regret that I am not able to help my noble friend this afternoon.
Lord Briginshaw: My Lords, is the Minister surprised that the feeling of a number of us remains that his replies are definitely negative?

Sport: Role of the State
3.12 p.m.
Lord Bauer: 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 why they think it necessary to have a Minister for Sport, in view of their commitment to reduce the role of the state in everyday life.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, it is to reflect the Government's perception of the importance of sport, the degree of public interest in it, and the high level of public investment for which there must be parliamentary accountability. I must emphasise that the title Minister for Sport is a purely courtesy title. It does not give my honourable friend power to regulate either sport or sporting events.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. But is there not necessarily much state spending in many different directions? Also, is there not much public interest in a variety of matters including children, women, sex and television, among others? Do the Government propose to set up Ministries for these also?
Further, is it not the case that the functions of the Ministry for Sport fall readily within the purview of the Home Office or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so that this Ministry is redundant, and merely politicises sport—
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Speech!
Lord Bauer:—absorbs taxpayers' money and adds to the number of Ministers who have to vote with the Government of the day?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend asked me about the responsibilities for children, women and sex in the political sphere. These embrace the interests of my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Social Security and the Home Office. As to the number of Ministers, I can testify to the considerable load which they carry. I should point out that my honourable friend carries considerable burdens other than those represented by his honorific title. They extend to land use planning, regional policy, new towns, aspects of local government, the heritage and gypsies, and one should not belittle his ability.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to remind the House and millions outside that getting out of government has gone too far with this Government and that what we need is a Minister for Sport? Will the Minister also note that many of the less glamorous sports organisations, such as the British Judo Council, for example, require encouragement and support? Will he assure them and others outside that he intends to give encouragement to small organisations with small followings of people, as well as the large ones?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for all but the first part of his supplementary question. I can confirm that we are committed to supporting the efforts of sport through the Sports Council, an independent body set up by Royal Charter, which received from central government £30·6 million last year and will receive £37 million next year. The efforts of the Sports Council are directed in particular to small and not generally supported sports and it makes considerable and successful efforts to get them sponsorship.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is there still a separate Minister for Sport for Scotland? It used to be one of the Scottish Office Ministers. If so, will my noble friend convey to him warm congratulations on two matters: first, the success over the past five years of the ban in Scotland on liquor at football grounds, and, secondly, the high quality of the rugby football played by the Scottish XV in last Saturday's Calcutta Cup match, reflected in a score which has created a new record?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to the first part of my noble friend's question, I shall certainly pass on congratulations where they are due. As to the second, I think I had better kick for touch.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there is a vast field of activity for a Minister for Sport, or whatever we might call him, to undertake in working with and encouraging local authorities and other sports organisations to make their facilities, which have a limited use, available for the general public, particularly children?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is right to remind me that the proper place for this important post is in the Department of the Environment, because that is the sponsoring department for so many activities of local government.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will the Minister tell us exactly what is meant by "sport"? May we take it, for instance, that chess is sport?
Lord Elton: I should think marginally yes, my Lords.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that the so-called Minister for Sport will not use his position to influence individual citizens in their rights to play their sport whether the sport be rugby, football, judo, darts or anything else anywhere in the world where they may wish to do so?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the Gleneagles Agreement. The Government stand four-square behind it.
Lord Morris: My Lords, if the responsibilities of my noble friend's right honourable friend the Minister for Sport are so diverse, would he not consider calling him the Minister for Everything, not the Minister for Sport?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the list I have given is a small percentage of all the Government do, though it is a large percentage of my honourable and extremely active and able friend's workload.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, do your Lordships realise that the whole trouble with this Minister for Sport idea is that it brings competition into it? Bringing competition into sport has brought Britain a thoroughly bad name in sport throughout Europe. Fox-hunting is far and away the most popular and greatest British sport, precisely because there is no damned competition when one rides the country.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as to introducing competition, which we on this side of the House regard as a thoroughly healthy thing, I should tell your Lordships that the last Minister to discharge this function before the title was attributed was the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. As to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary, if the noble Lord is telling me that he does not exhibit any form of competition when he follows hounds, I am surprised to hear him say so.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that there is a very serious aspect to the original Question; namely, that in many parts of Britain, where people are aspiring to represent Britain in the Olympic Games, there are nothing like the facilities that are provided by other governments, by other countries, particularly in relation to swimming? Is the noble Minister aware that this is something that successive governments have ignored in that they have been unwilling to help and to provide the kinds of facilities which will enable our young Britons to prepare themselves when they take part in international games and particularly the world Olympics?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I accept that we have dealt with this Question at such length that the noble Lord may have forgotten the figures I gave earlier, which show that this Government in fact support sport extremely handsomely.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister accept that in asking my question I was not referring to the Gleneagles Agreement, which as he will know refers to representative teams and not to the activities of individuals? May I ask again if the Minister will give an assurance that pressures will not be brought to bear on individuals, as opposed to representative teams, to prevent them from playing their games and sports anywhere in the world where they may wish to do so?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have sought to make it very clear that the Sports Council, which exercises influence
714
over sport on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, is entirely independent of Her Majesty's Government. I do not recognise anything that the noble Lord has said as reflecting anything that it has done.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether all these questions and answers relate to outdoor sports or to indoor sports?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I think perhaps your Lordships may feel that we have had enough sport for one afternoon and that we should go on to the next Question.

Anti-Competitive Practices: Regulatory Machinery
3.22 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: 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, further to their Answer given on 2nd December 1985 (H.L. Debates, col. 1060), whether consideration has been given to rationalisation of institutions in the field of competition; and if so, what conclusions have been drawn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intends soon to begin a review of competition law and policy, which will, among other things, examine the institutional structure of competition law administration.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in this review to which my noble friend the Minister referred on 2nd December as an ongoing review, may consideration be given to a redefinition of the statutory concept of public interest as affecting mergers? May consideration be given to bringing the activities of the take-over panel within statutory regulations? May consideration be given also to the rationalisation of this plethora of institutions in the light of United Kingdom accession to the European Communities? Will any reasoned conclusions of the review be placed in the Library?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend will really expect me to pre-empt the scope of my right honourable friend's inquiry, but I should be quite happy to draw my noble friend's points to his attention.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us when the terms of reference of this review will be published and how long he expects this review to take?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, my right honourable friend intends soon to begin a review. Of course, upon the scope of the review will depend the length of time it is likely to take.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that the Question put by the noble Lord's noble friend, in which he requested some definition in connection with mergers of a national interest, is only echoing the nature of the reply given by the noble Lord himself on the last occasion on which this matter was raised, in which he indicated the power of the Secretary of State to make such representations concerning the national interest as he thought fit? Is it not the case that a very large number of the mergers and take-overs that are now taking place can hardly be ascribed to be in the national interest as such? Will the noble Lord give this matter more careful and further consideration and then come back to the House and reply fully to his noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am quite sure that if my noble friend is dissatisfied with my Answer he himself will raise that. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara set out the Government's mergers policy in a debate in your Lordships' House on 22nd January. I believe that that fully answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Lord be a little more informative about what we may hope for in regard to the scope of this inquiry? What one should like to feel is that a European perspective will be included in its scope.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I very much regret that I cannot add anything further. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Earl. I said in December that all the policies of the Government were kept under an ongoing review. My right honourable friend has thought fit to review competition policies. He will no doubt embrace a number of points that have been made from a number of sources. However, until the scope has been set down, I regret that I cannot pre-empt my right honourable friend's move in this direction.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the debate on 22nd January. May I ask him this? Is he aware that the views expressed by noble Lords in that debate, certainly as I see it, are totally at variance with the assurance he gave, or the statement he made, to the House on 2nd December that the machinery was working well, taking account of all developments in the market place?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not quite sure of the point that my noble friend is making here. We believe that the provisions in this area are working well. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara set out the Government's thinking in terms of merger policy and referral. The debate itself is public knowledge. My right honourable friend will no doubt take advantage of the views expressed in your Lordships' House in January when he comes to determine the scope of his inquiry.

Health Authorities: Community Medicine Specialists
3.28 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many district health authorities do not have a community medicine specialist on their staff.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the latest staffing figures available centrally are for 30th September 1985. At that time, six district health authorities did not have any community medicine specialists in post. We require that all health authorities should have community medicine advice available even if they do not have a specialist in their employ.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, recognising the inadequacy of the inoculation programme, particularly against measles and whooping cough, and the deep public concern about communicable disease, do the Government not agree that there should be a standing public health committee in each district, of which the community medicine specialist, the environmental health officer and the chairman of the public health laboratory are members, and that they should be responsible not only for public health but for the education of the public?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have set up an inquiry into the future of the public health function which we have asked to report to us by the end of December this year. We will not be taking any firm decisions before then. I will of course ensure that the inquiry team considers the noble Lord's helpful suggestion when it meets.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what is a community medicine specialist, what he or she does and whether it is necessary?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is necessary. The other name, which the noble Lord may know better, is district medical officer. Community medicine is a multi-faceted medical speciality capable of contributing at many points to the provision of effective health services and the improvement of the health of the whole population.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, do not the Answer which the noble Baroness has given and the supplementary questions which have been addressed to her really underline the importance of resurrecting and re-establishing the old medical officer of health, who did such a very important job?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is really a matter for local feeling as to the name of such a person.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, with respect, is not the real question not whether the community medicine specialists are on the staff but whether they are part of the management team? Is the noble Baroness not aware that there is great concern both among community physicians and even more so among nurses that they are not included among the management team? In view of the point made by the noble Lord about the importance of inoculation and communicable diseases, all of which are the responsibility of the community physician, is this not quite a serious matter?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, community physicians are well represented among the ranks of general managers. At least 25 have taken up such posts, 11 at regional and district level.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what, if anything, the Government are doing to help and encourage general practices to play a greater part in community medicine and, in particular, in relation to cervical cancer, which, I understand, is now assuming endemic proportions?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is a little wide of the original Question. If the noble Lord would like to ask me that question I should be delighted to answer it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the community medicine specialist is in fact the same as a medical officer of health, what was the point in changing the name?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, many health authorities have retained the title of chief or district medical officer. Where this is not the case, it is often to recognise the broader responsibilities that community physicians have been given under general management, such as director of planning.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many district health authorities have set up their own drugs advisory committees?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, did the noble Baroness say, "director of planning"? Planning what?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is a danger that by insisting on a particular title being used we may inhibit community physicians from taking on new and identified roles within their health authorities. Planning is one of the roles that they are fully capable of filling.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am so sorry to get up again, but in support of the supplementary question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, surely planning is not part of the responsibility of community physicians. Does the Minister not agree that planning is a totally different task? Perhaps she means family planning or some other type of planning, but certainly not the normal concept of planning within a health authority.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have already referred to the fact that it is often nowadays given to the community physicians to have broader responsibilities than in the past when they served under general management. I stick by what I said: such as directors of planning.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness has told us most helpfully that 25 of the (shall I say?) medical officers of health have taken senior managerial district jobs. Does she not agree that what is important to most of us in your Lordships' House is to find out how many community physicians are in fact part of the management team?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have a whole list of figures which I shall put in the Library. I shall send the noble Baroness a copy. I am sure the House would not wish to be wearied by long lists of figures at this stage of the afternoon.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while these questions of nomenclature are very fascinating, it is perhaps a case of "A rose by any other name"? Is it not a clear fact that the services rendered are valuable? Would it perhaps help this House if some well-intentioned noble Lord were to put down a Question for Written Answer to enable my noble friend to identify more specifically the duties and functions attaching thereto?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is hardly for me to answer that supplementary. It is somewhat rhetorical. The noble Lord is always full of good ideas.

Unemployment Figures
3.36 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now make a Statement on changes to unemployment figures.
I announced yesterday that at the request of our department's statisticians, and in order to ensure greater accuracy, I have agreed that the compilation and publication of the monthly unemployment statistics will take place some two weeks later than at present. This is not a major change in presentation, but the improved estimates will allow a more complete and accurate picture to be given of the latest labour market developments. I have placed further details in the Library.
My Lords, that is the Statement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his Statement, although I must note that this had to be forced from him by my honourable friend John Prescott, the shadow spokesman on employment matters who, it seems, the noble Lord was unwilling to meet in a face-to-face discussion on BBC "Breakfast Time" this morning. I think that that is altogether unfortunate.
However, why did not the noble Lord make a proper Statement in the first place, instead of

719
attempting to slip the matter through by means of a planted Question for Written Answer? Bearing in mind that we had a Question on employment yesterday, and also a debate in which were mentioned the unemployment figures, may I ask him why he did not give some indication to the House at that stage that this very important change was going to be made?
Such an action shows complete insensitivity, and it would seem that the Government have learned nothing from the Westland affair and BL, where their attempts at a cover-up have led to a lack of trust in them by the public and a catastrophic drop in their support in the country. Indeed, yes, the Paymaster General in the House of Commons said that he was not aware that No. 10 was going to brief the press on this document and, indeed, did not approve of it doing so. Did the noble Lord know that No. 10 was going to brief the press on this matter? If he did know, why did he not tell his deputy in the House of Commons? I think the House is entitled to have an answer to that.
In his Statement, the noble Lord said that this is not a major change; but clearly the Government see the laundering of serious unemployment figures as a means of hiding the grave unemployment crisis which faces the nation. This change is in fact another in a long line of changes in presentation. Perhaps the noble Lord can say whether it is 15, as stated in the Guardian, or eight which he himself admits. If the figures were calculated on the 1979 basis, when Labour left office, the unemployment figure would now be showing 3.8 million instead of 3.4 million, the latest catastrophic figure to be published.
In the document in the Library, which I hope everybody has seen and read, there is a reference to a revision of employment estimates. Can the noble Lord elaborate on this? Can he tell us what it means? What new data does he have in mind? What effect will the proposal to introduce an additional unemployment rate to express unemployment as a proportion of the total labour force, including the self-employed and the armed forces, have? What exactly does it mean and what effect will it have? Will the self-employed figure be a real one or an estimated one? Is the noble Lord aware that his means of calculation—
Several noble Lords: Come on!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Oh yes, my Lords, I am coming on. I have one or two more questions yet to ask. This is an important matter and if the noble Lord had come to the House in the first place and had made a Statement, I would not this afternoon have had to repeat my strictures. Is the noble Lord aware that the means of calculation are not in line with international statistics, as stated in the document, since the self-employed are not included in the unemployment statistics? In January 1985, a Tory Member of Parliament asked whether these new arrangements could not be made, and the reply was given that they could not be made because it would not be fair.
No doubt these changes are being made not really for statistical purposes but for political purposes, and indeed these laundered figures are part of the £1 million publicity campaign launched by the Government to brainwash the public into believing
720
that the unemployment crisis is less grave than it really is. What we want the noble Lord to do is to take measures and use his energy to get people back to work, not to produce phoney figures to fool the electorate in the run-up to the next general election.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches we would like to thank the Minister for making this brief Statement. I must say that the Secretary of State must be aware of the very great interest taken in this House on all questions concerned with unemployment. The number of Questions and debates that we have had on this subject should have left him in no doubt whatever about that. It therefore seems really extraordinary that he did not find an opportunity to make this Statement to your Lordships' House rather than leaving us to see it in the press. It is a matter of the position of both Houses of Parliament, and too frequently. This is yet another occasion on which the press outside has been given information which should come first to at least one House of Parliament.
Secondly, it seems extraordinary—given, as we know, that there is a highly competent section of statistics inside the Department of Employment—that so many changes have been made. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to tell us, in reply to the question that has already been raised, how frequently there have been changes. It cannot be regarded as good statistical practice that it is necessary so frequently to change the method on which the figures are presented. Is it not possible for the department's statisticians to devise a method for compiling the figures so as to be able to report them to all of us who need to have them?
In addition, this is particularly important because it is not only the absolute figures in which we are interested—appalling and interesting though they are—but it is, of course, the trends. Every time an alteration is made in the way in which figures are compiled, it makes it impossible for people studying these questions to understand what is happening to the trends. Is there any way in which, at least from time to time, the department can produce figures which enable those of us who want to see what has been happening over months and years to be able to trace the development through the figures, which we are now unable to do because of these frequent alterations of method?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I must confess that it is seldom I ever get angry in your Lordships' House, but I must refute each and every stricture which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made a few minutes ago. First, I would say to him that before he makes allegations about my right honourable friend the Paymaster General talking about leaks from No. 10, he should read the record. If he does so, he will find—and I stand open to correction, but I think I am right—that there was no such thing.
Secondly, since he referred to breakfast time television this morning, I have taken the trouble to bring with me a transcript of where, in the course of that programme, the honourable Member of another place, John Prescott, was asked: "If you were Secretary of State and your statisticians came to you, as happened in this case, and advised that it was proper

721
that a change be made, would you not implement this in Government, even though you are aghast about it in Opposition?" His reply was: "I think that is a reasonably justifiable point, and I am quite prepared to accept it."
3.45 p.m.
My Lords, what are we talking about? I think this is a very important point. If the House feels that I owe it an apology, I shall be glad to offer it, but since this was a matter raised by my statisticians and it was going to be the subject of a press release because it was a statistical change (which I will explain in more detail in a moment) and because of the great interest which this House and another place exhibit in unemployment matters, it was decided that perhaps the House should be informed by a Question for Written Answer. And since those who have far greater knowledge than I know it is the habit in both Houses that such business is timed for 3.30 p.m. in the afternoon, it was not possible for me to refer to it in the debate yesterday afternoon, because I had already sat down by that time: otherwise. I would gladly have dealt with it.
Let us examine the nature of the change. The statisticians came to me and said, "We have now decided there is clear evidence that we are over-recording the number of the unemployed, and statistically we wish to change the date." Why are they over-recording it? For the simple reason that the count is taken on a particular day. The books are closed seven days later. They said to me, "In our estimate, some 65,000 people who are still on our books as unemployed are people who went into jobs before the date of the count. They have not told us and if we wait two further weeks they will then have informed us. We think that, with this correction, the over-count will be running at about 10,000." They made the request in the interest of having proper statistics, and we went along with it. I must say that had they come along and said that we were under-recording and that that would have increased the figures, I would still have made the change, but with a heavy heart. I must confess to being human and I am not unhappy about the correct figure being lower than it has appeared.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, started to talk about the employment estimates and he asked what changes we are making. I must tell your Lordships that the only way in which we find out the number of those who are self-employed is by having an annual survey called the Labour Force Survey, which at the moment we are checking at quarterly intervals. When these figures come out, we intend to show, in addition to the normal line of estimate, the percentage of those unemployed against not just those in employment, but also the ever-increasing number of those who are self-employed and those in the armed forces. If we look at that figure—the percentage of those out of work as against those in work—then I suspect the percentage will come down to just under 12 per cent. This is not a substitution for the other figure: that is in addition to the other figure. But it will perhaps put the number of unemployed in perspective.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to a £1 million campaign launched by the Government. My Lords, it cannot be a very effective campaign, because I know of no campaign launched by
722
Government. We are contemplating ways in which we can bring better help to those who have been out of work for some time, but no campaign has yet been launched.
May I now deal with some of the questions put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. There are two types of alterations to the figures. This alteration is a statistical one, and the statisticians will change back the previous series of figures, so that it is perfectly possible to see them. Another type of change which has happened in the past—and not all the changes have been downwards: two of them have been in an upward direction—has referred to different categories of people who are not recorded as claiming benefit. For example, we included disabled people in benefit. That resulted in an increase. On another occasion, we decided that we would not include in benefit, as a claimant count, those over 60 who are not really intending to work, but who are signing to keep their stamp up-to-date. That second category of change is much more difficult when it comes to working out the trend, because it is a change in population. But I wish to assure your Lordships' House that our statisticians will make the adjustment as a result of this minor change.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I want clarification of the figures that the noble Lord gave. As I understand it, if you wait a fortnight you get a truer picture because people notify the fact that they have a job. Do they also notify the ones who have lost their job in that fortnight?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. Let us say, for example, that 1st February is the day on which the count takes place. Up to now we have closed on, say, 7th February. We will now close on 21st February. But it will only refer to those in work or not in work on 1st February. What happens is that people who get jobs some time towards the end of January start on 1st February and do not notify the benefit offices until a week or two later that they are back in work. That is why it does not affect the position. It is a statistical change.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that this is not merely a matter of the gruesome aspect of unemployment or of statistics? The gruesome truth is that it does not matter in what form the statistics are arrived at. What is beyond any doubt whatsoever is that, year in and year out under this Government, unemployment has increased. While the numbers themselves are increasing, and therefore the consequences for the economy are very serious, will the noble Lord the Minister be prepared to accept that for a family in which the breadwinner has been on the dole for a year or two, and for the youths in our cities who have never had a job, the one fundamental need is to reduce unemployment and not to calculate it with statistics? That is what the Government ought to apply their minds to in the interests of those who are unemployed, and of the economy of our nation.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, what I can assure your Lordships' House about is that the Government are taking all steps open to increase employment which will, in the fullness of time,

723
decrease unemployment. We have to cope with two factors—an increasing workforce and the need to see real jobs arise in the economy—jobs that will last and jobs that will contribute to the wealth of the nation. On both of those points, I believe that the Government are making great progress.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Statement itself and the alternative criteria will bring no comfort whatsoever to those people who remain unemployed? If the calculations already announced mean that the figures will benefit by about 50,000 through moving back the period, why does he not move it still further back, when unemployment may disappear altogether statistically?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, this Statement was designed to bring not comfort to the unemployed, but light to the Opposition. It was designed to give the correct number of people who are claiming benefit. That is the sole purpose of the statistics. They are not mine. They are my statisticians'. It was at their request that a change was made in the interests of accuracy. I should have hoped that all sides of your Lordships' House would have welcomed the change and would not have tried to make points out of it.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there are many people, both in your Lordships' House and in the country, who are becoming somewhat tired of the instant adversarial politics in which any Statement by the Government is the subject of instant and Pavlovian hostility by the Opposition? Will he further accept that if it is indeed true that he declined an invitation to appear on breakfast television to discuss this problem, he is to be congratulated on declining to trivialise a problem which is of enormous importance and which, on that programme, would probably have declined into a punch-up with an Opposition spokesman?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I appeared on that programme. What I declined to do was to have an instant confrontation at that hour of the morning about a matter which, as the honourable gentleman admitted himself, is a point that he agreed with. I did not see the point of doing that. I think that unemployment is a serious enough matter. The causes and cures of it are a matter for debate and we should not trivialise it by discussing mere statistical changes in the figures.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the main reason for British unemployment figures being higher than they otherwise might be today is the policies of Governments thoughout the 'sixties and 'seventies, which allowed us to become ever less competitive, and that the steps the present Government are taking are showing some signs of at last getting us back to creating real gains in our market share at home and abroad?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful for the observations of my noble friend, with whom I entirely agree.
Lord Oram: My Lords, did I understand the Minister in a supplementary answer to say that for a period the figures will be given in parallel—that is, in two series—so that it will be possible, for a period, to make comparisons of the new figures with the old? That sort of thing, I recall, is done, for instance, in relation to cost of living indices. Did I understand the Minister to say that that is being done? If so, when the figures are announced month by month will we have equal publiciity given to the number of unemployed on the new list, as well as on the old list?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question, but in all sincerity I do not think it is my place to announce incorrect figures. The purpose of this change at the request of the statisticians was to reduce an over-recording of unemployment. The changes that I said will be announced in parallel are to show the percentage of those unemployed in the current series and also to include a separate figure—this will not happen until June or July this year onwards—including the self-employed and the armed forces, so that members of the public can have a better idea of the actual percentage of those unemployed compared to those in work.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question, just to clear my own sense of sanity? Did I understand him to say that he declined to appear on television, because if it was not him it was someone very much like him, who had to deal with the fact that he had used the word "entertainment" in relation to the figures?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I appeared on that programme this morning.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not remarkable that we have had changes in the statistical recording of figures, on this occasion and on previous occasions, only since there has been mounting unemployment under this Government? Is that not remarkable to the ordinary person? Should other statisticians be prepared to argue about the comments made by his own statisticians, would the noble Lord be prepared to discuss that matter?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I have not the slightest doubt that we have had statistical corrections to series of figures produced by Governments since they were first issued. It is not a habit indulged in just by this Government. If you look back at the record, you will find it has been done by all Governments. At a time when figures change for various reasons, and when the methodology changes, there are always corrections.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has just said, is he aware that there is in the country a general opinion, which is very unfortunate, and which will be increased by his Statement today, that the Government fiddle the figures when they do not like them? Therefore it is vital for those who want to understand what is really happening—which include the Government and ourselves—to be able to see the trend precisely, to be

725
able to go backwards over a sufficient period whenever there is a change, and not to have a change unless it is vital; but we cannot see at the moment that the present change is in that category. May I ask the noble Lord for clarification, because I am bound to admit that I have not fully understood the purpose of this change, and I dare say that that goes for some others of your Lordships. May I ask him whether he is saying that the level of unemployment in the third week of any month tends to be slightly less than the level of unemployment on the first of that month?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe my Statement to be absolutely clear and, if there is any feeling in the land that the Government are fiddling the figures, it is due far more to the smoke that was thrown up in the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and by many of the Opposition who have tried to read into this all sorts of disgraceful—if I may use that word—charges. There is no fiddle. If noble Lords do not think that it is vital—I use the word "vital" since that word has already been used—to have accurate statistics, then what comfort would they have from any figures issued by Government?
This is a pure statistical correction. It is a correction which our statisticians tell us will bring down the over-recording of unemployment on the day of the count to a figure nearer the correct one, but which will on most months still represent an over-recording. That is all it is. It is not that in the third week in any month the level is lower. I have no knowledge of what happens to unemployment at the third week of any month. We count it one day a month, and on that day it will now take us three weeks before we finally close the books in order to be sure that on that particular day we have a more accurate record of the count.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, are not the Government being perfectly reasonable in making a simple Statement to make clearer what the exact figure is? People are quicker to claim benefit than they are to say that they do not want it. It is easier to discover people claiming benefit than those who say, "No, we do not want it". Therefore the figures become more accurate; and it is accurate figures that we want in spite of false excitement by certain Members of the Peerage on the opposite side of the House.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I ask for clarification? I hope the House will accept that what I am seeking to do it to try to understand what the statisticians are proposing and the advice which has been accepted and therefore for which the Minister is responsible; and I am sure he understands himself. If there is a three-week wait, during that three-week period other people will be coming on to the register—perfectly obviously—and the figures will be increasing in the meantime.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord must not build up an incorrect picture of what I am trying to say. Perhaps I may read out a more formal statement, and I shall read it slowly:
"The unemployment count relates to a specified date each month. Over-recording occurs when claimants cease to be unemployed before that date, usually because they have a job, but do not
726
immediately tell the unemployment benefit office and are therefore still treated as unemployed. The current one week delay between the count date and the compilation of the statistics allows us to take into account some of the over-count but there is still more. Delaying the compilation a further two weeks means that many more of those back at work will be eliminated from the count."
That refers to the date of the count, not to the period afterwards.
"The size of the problem was only revealed after changes were made in the arrangements for the payment of unemployment benefit in July 1985. The information used to monitor over-recording improved and identified a major gap in previous estimates. The extent of the over-recording has not changed but our perception of it has. By compiling the figures two weeks later we have a more consistent and accurate measure of unemployment without undue delay to the statistics."
Lord Stallard: My Lords, as we accept the noble Lord's anger, will he accept that there is also anger on this side of the House, anger at these almost obsessive attempts by the present Minister since he took office to doctor the figures, to present the problem as being something less serious than it really is? Is he aware that his new presentational approach to every aspect of this situation has not added one single job? In fact the figures for unemployment are increasing. This latest presentational attempt is to take another 55,000 off the total figures, while at the same time the noble Lord intends to increase the figures of the total labour force at the other end by including the self-employed and the armed forces. Such tactics will fool no one outside his immediate environs, and certainly do nothing to enhance either his credibility or that of the Government.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord that I resent his charge that—I use the noble Lord's words—I "doctor the figures". "Doctor" was the word used—
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I will change it to "massage".
Lord Young of Graffham: Or "massage", either, my Lords.
The purpose of this change is simple. It is really to take out of the count an over-recording that exists at the moment, not brought in by any members of the Government but by the statistical service of the Department of Employment. What I resent is the imputation that we are not concerned about unemployment and are more concerned with doctoring or massaging the figures. Secondly, we are not changing the series which shows the percentage of employed against unemployed, but we are, in the interests of realism to bring home to people the true size of the picture, including the self-employed. If the noble Lord opposite is trying to say to me that the self-employed are not working, he is angering 2·6 million people in our country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, have we not gone on long enough with this Statement? Can my noble friend re-confirm that the whole purpose of the Statement was to elicit more accurate information and more accurate statistics, and that it has nothing to do with the state of employment or unemployment to which noble Lords opposite are referring? Will my noble friend not agree

727
that if the purpose of the Statement is to ensure that figures are more accurate than they have otherwise been, that is a good Statement to be made?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the purpose of this Statement is to throw light on the subject; it has in fact engendered a certain amount of heat. I hope that your Lordships' House can calm down and look at the figures and accept that what we are talking about is the truth.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I elicit some more accurate information from the noble Lord? Does he agree with his officials that the new system will under-estimate the unemployed in this country according to the criteria laid down by the International Labour Office? Does he agree with the estimate of the unemployment unit that these new figures will omit 500,000 people who are unemployed from the new figures, in contrast to the criteria that were used in 1982? If the noble Lord does agree, are those 500,000 people employed or unemployed? They are all people. Can he tell the House whether he agrees with that figure? Who are these 500,000 people? Are they employed or are they unemployed?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, no, and, no.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House just a little further? In the course of his replies he referred to 2,600,000 self-employed. In the interest of statistical research and accuracy, will he reveal the precise method of the statistical calculation from which that figure of 2.600,000 was derived?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, it is the annual Labour Force Survey, which is the only body we have at the moment, which is corrected from time to time by the census.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I thought it was right in the interests of the House, when there was anxiety particularly on one side of the House, to make sure that although it had gone on for a very long time it was proper to do so. But I really do think that 31 minutes is reasonable time. I would have hoped that the noble Lord who has had one go, and who is not noticeable for his silence in the House, would perhaps consider that on this occasion—in the interests of the whole House, and I am perhaps speaking for the whole House—we have continued for long enough.

Drug Trafficking Offences Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
4.9 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This small amendment to Standing Order 38 puts into effect a recommendation of the Procedure Committee to which your Lordships agreed on Monday of this week. It is only a very minor amendment but it makes it quite clear that on Wednesdays Motions have precedence over legislation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business he amended as follows:
Standing Order 38
After paragraph (4), insert the following new paragraph:
"(4A) On Wednesdays, notices of Motions shall have precedence over notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures and delegated legislation.".
Paragraph (5), line 1 leave out "paragraph (4)" and insert "paragraphs (4) and (4A)".
—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Continuance) Order 1986
4.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved. [10 th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which made no comment. It will be the second renewal of the Act, which is limited to a total life of not more than five years subject to renewal at intervals of 12 months. The draft order renews all the provisions of the Act, which I shall briefly describe.
The Act provides, in relation to terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, powers to proscribe terrorist organisations; to exclude terrorists from a part or the whole of the United Kingdom; and to detain for questioning persons suspected of

729
involvement in terrorism. The latter power is also available in relation to international terrorism. The Act also establishes offences of supporting proscribed organisations, breaching or helping to breach exclusion orders, contributing to acts of terrorism, and withholding information about terrorism. Finally, it provides an order-making power under which arrangements are made for security at ports and airports. The only sections of the Act that do not extend to Northern Ireland are Sections 1 and 2, dealing with proscribed organisations.
I need not remind your Lordships of the continuing grim struggle against terrorism in Northern Ireland. The 54 deaths last year, including 23 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is the highest annual total since the present troubles began, tell their own story. We can, however, be thankful that there has not been a major terrorist outrage in Great Britain since the bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton in 1984. In 1985 it was the police who had their success. I have in mind particularly the plan by the IRA to bomb a number of seaside towns last summer, which I reported in some detail to your Lordships at the time of its discovery. Only one bomb was planted but material was found that could have been used to carry out a widespread and devastating campaign of violence. The indiscriminate nature of those attacks would have been as horrific as the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974, which caused the introduction of the precursor to the 1984 Act.
Another incident of which your Lordships will hardly need to be reminded was the attempted bombing of Chelsea Barracks by the Irish National Liberation Army on 11th November. The bombs were fortunately discovered and made safe before they could explode. A number of arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act followed and two men have been charged with conspiracy to cause explosions. Only two weeks ago in Manchester, the trial of five people charged in connection with a planned bomb attack on a retired army officer was concluded. Two men who pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges were convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. A third was convicted of an offence of withholding information under Section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
As I have already mentioned, the Act deals with international terrorism as well as terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Last year, the most significant development was the growth of terrorist activity here connected with India. Since the storming of the Golden Temple at Amritsar and the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi in 1984, the tensions between some Sikhs and the Indian Government, and the polarisation of the Sikh community itself, have been reflected in this country. We are not concerned here with the legitimate expression of political opinion, which is not the province of the Act, but with acts of violence.
Since November last year, there have been several attacks on prominent members of the Sikh community apparently carried out by Sikh extremists. The most recent attack resulted in the death of the victim, Mr. Tarsem Singh Toor, who was well known as a moderate. One person who had been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been
730
charged with conspiracy to murder Mr. Toor and two other people. Last October, four Sikhs arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Leicester were charged with a conspiracy to murder the Indian Prime Minister during his visit here. International terrorism is not inhibited by national frontiers. The trail began this week of three Iraqis and another person in connection with the damage by explosives of a consignment of batteries at Eastleigh Airport. In September, a package of explosives and detonators was found and two Jordanians have been charged.
I hope I have said enough to demonstrate that we are still facing a substantial terrorist threat. We have again this year consulted the police in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who have confirmed that the prevention of terrorism legislation is of great assistance to them in preventing and countering terrorism and that they strongly support renewal of the Act. The Government have therefore decided to seek the renewal of the Act in its entirety.
In reaching that decision, we have had the benefit of Sir Cyril Philips' very thoughtful and thorough report on the operation of the Act in 1985. Sir Cyril was appointed to carry out a yearly survey of the Act's working in accordance with the undertaking we gave to your Lordships at the Bill's Report stage. The Act touches very closely the civil liberties of individual citizens and it is important not to forget that it provides exceptional powers. The annual survey by Sir Cyril is a valuable safeguard against abuse. He undertakes a strenuous programme of visits and discussions and is given very wide access to Home Office papers on particular cases, including any where a complaint has been made about the way in which the Act has operated. He brings to bear on the subject his wide experience as a former chairman of the Police Complaints Board and, before that, chairman of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. We are very grateful for his work this year.
Last year, some of your Lordships asked whether the report could be made available somewhat earlier to allow more time to consider it before the renewal date. I hope your Lordships will consider that we have got the timing right this year by placing copies of the report in the Library and the Printed Paper Office on 30th January.
This year, Sir Cyril Philips suggested that Parliament should pay special attention to the exclusion powers under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Those sections provide a power to exclude British citizens from either Great Britain or Northern Ireland if the appropriate Secretary of State is satisfied that they are concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. In another place yesterday my right honourable friend the Home Secretary explained why we consider it essential to retain that power in present crcumstances. There is no doubt that it is one of the most potent means at our disposal to restrict the movement of terrorists and to contain and prevent their activities.
Equally, there is no doubt that the exclusion power very considerably infringes normal civil liberties. We certainly would not quarrel with the view of Sir Cyril Philips that the power is objectionable in principle. We also take note of the views of the Standing Advisory

731
Commission on Human Rights in its 10th annual report, published last year, although we are not persuaded by its view that the exclusion power is inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. We accept many of the strictures against that power but we believe that in present circumstances it is essential to retain it to safeguard the lives of innocent people.
It is important to read carefully what Sir Cyril Philips has to say about the exclusion power. Some reports have suggested erroneously that he recommends that Sections 4 and 5 should not be renewed this year. That is not the case. He advises that it would be prudent to retain existing exclusion orders in force pending the completion of the current review of orders made under the predecessors to the 1984 Act. I am sure this is necessary because so far the review has identified many cases in which exclusion has had to be maintained to protect the public. Last year 58 orders were reviewed and exclusion was maintained in 25 of these cases. I very much hope that your Lordships will accept Sir Cyril Philips' advice and that the exclusion power will be retained in force this year; otherwise we would face the readmission of a large number of committed and active terrorists whose presence here would place the public unnecessarily at risk.
Sir Cyril Philips would like to see the review of exclusion orders as a stage on the way to phasing out the exclusion power altogether. Although we are now able to be rather more selective in the use of the exclusion powers than was once the case, we cannot yet accept Sir Cyril Philips' suggestion that the Government might undertake not to make new orders against persons who have not previously been excluded. Last year seven new exclusion orders were made, six of which are still in force. That was four more than in the previous year. There has certainly been a declining trend in the frequency of new orders since 1980, but this reflects partly the cumulative nature of the power and partly the more sparing use which is now made of the powers. I hope that it will be only a matter of time before we can take up Sir Cyril Philips' proposal, but I am afraid that that time has not yet arrived.
Before concluding, I should like to respond to a few of the other points raised in the report. In paragraph 22 Sir Cyril refers to a procedural difficulty which arose in the application for exclusion from the United Kingdom of a long-term prisoner who took part in bombing attacks in Great Britain in 1974. The order was revoked after the person who was subject to it had made representations to one of the Home Secretary's independent advisers. Sir Cyril suggested that difficulties which arose in the preparation of the application could have been avoided if the application had been made rather earlier. Arrangements have now been made to ensure better liaison within the Home Office, and between the Home Office and the police, in future cases of this kind.
In paragraph 25 Sir Cyril Philips refers to the report of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary on police port units. We have had to calculate the financial implications of some of the report's recommendations, and carry out consultations within
732
Government and outside on the response to this report. We expect to reach conclusions in the near future. But it is relevant to point out that the financial resources available to the police to carry out this work will be substantially increased as a result of my right honourable friend's decision to increase the police grant from 50 per cent. to 51 per cent.
In paragraph 38 Sir Cyril Philips refers to the difficulties which would arise if interviews with persons held under the prevention of terrorism legislation were tape recorded. We are discussing this problem with the police in the context of the current field trials for tape recording of police interviews with suspects. As your Lordships will know, my right honourable friend is under a duty to make an order requiring the tape recording of interviews with persons suspected of the commission of criminal offences, and to issue a code of practice. We would hope to reach conclusions before too long on whether any special provisions should be made for tape recording interviews with terrorist suspects.
This debate provides an opportunity for a careful examination of the continued need for these exceptional and indeed objectionable powers. Thanks to an invitation by your Lordships during the Act's passage through Parliament, the debate is informed by Sir Cyril Philips' careful review of it. Concerns about the Act should be thoroughly aired, and I shall at the end of the debate try to answer the points raised.
There are just two points I should like to emphasise in conclusion. First, the most exceptional power under this Act—more so even than extension of detention for five days—is the power of exclusion. In Northern Ireland that power is exercised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and in Great Britain it is exercised by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Successive holders of these offices have regarded those cases as among the most difficult they have to deal with. They are always considered personally and thoroughly by the Secretary of State. Those responsibilities are taken very seriously indeed and exclusion orders are made only on convincing grounds. Second, in what we say today let us consider the message we send to the terrorists. They made the first move, not us: this Act's predecessor was introduced after 21 innocent people were murdered in the Birmingham pub bombs. Just as soon as they stop their murderous activities, we shall be in a position to drop this Act. The evidence shows that they have not yet stopped.
This is an important order. It gives us an opportunity to strike further blows in the fight against the evil of terrorism, which is so much a scourge of the world we live in. I wholeheartedly commend the order to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
4.25 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the way in which he dealt with the order now before us. I imagine that there are three matters on which your Lordships will all be in agreement, in whichever seat your Lordships happen to sit. The first is that terrorism is the complete

733
plague of our era. Secondly, it is the duty of Government and those who hold responsible positions in your Lordships' House, and elsewhere, to recognise that the security of our citizens is left in our care and, furthermore, that those who are guilty of terrorism should be brought to justice, if that be possible, and that the powers-that-be should not be deprived of the necessary instruments to bring them to justice. Thirdly, and as importantly, is the duty of Parliament to maintain a tradition that we have had for centuries and that we value so much; that is, the tradition of the liberty of the subject, with the rights that that gives him in law and in practice.
Therefore, it is against the background of those three principles that we look with anxiety each year at the proposal to renew all the provisions of the Act which the House is now discussing. Because we were so concerned Parliament decided that, since there could be no practical committee review of all that was happening in pursuance of the powers of this Act, someone whom the whole nation would respect should monitor what happened each year and should report in good time to Parliament so that Parliament should properly be able to consider what to do when the question of annual renewal came up.
I readily thank the noble Lord the Minister for doing what we asked him to do last year, and not only from this side of the House. I remember support from the Cross-Benches in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I remember even getting some support—I say this in his absence, but since I am saying it as a compliment that does not matter—from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who said that I had a point in complaining about the lack of time between the report and discussion of it. We have had time to consider the report on this occasion, and I repeat my own personal gratitude to the noble Lord the Minister, and to his colleagues, for having made that possible.
However, there is no point in expressing that appreciation unless, of course, Parliament does carefully consider what the person in whom we repose this confidence has reported and recommended. Sir Cyril Philips, as the noble Lord the Minister rightly said, is very well versed in criminal matters. He is an eminent judge, was the chairman of a Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, and, as your Lordships have been reminded, he is the chairman of the Police Complaints Authority. He has made two preliminary statements in his report. The first, which is in paragraph 4, confirms that in the intensive preparation for this review he has:
"consulted well over six hundred files mainly on exclusion and detention orders, held meetings with over one hundred different individuals or associations and completed over three thousand five hundred miles of necessary travelling".
Your Lordships will know, as one would expect of Sir Cyril, that a very thorough job has been done by one who is well aware of the first two elements which I ventured to say to your Lordships would be present in your Lordships' minds throughout the debate: the need to defeat the scourge of terrorism and to bring terrorists to justice, and in that battle the need to preserve, where possible, the civil liberties of our community.
734
I shall turn immediately to one of the matters to which the noble Lord the Minister referred. This is such an important matter that if the Minister will forgive me and if your Lordships will be patient with me, I shall venture to quote more than I would normally do from Sir Cyril's report in regard to the policy of exclusion. I am looking at paragraphs 16 onwards of that report.
First, he reminds us of what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, recommended in his review of the operation of the Act of 1979, and I quote from Lord Jellicoe:
"The power to exclude should remain available to the Secretary of State in extreme cases … and the possibility of abolishing it should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers".
He goes on to say in paragraph 19:
"In the debates leading to the Act of 1984, Parliament accepted that the power to exclude was in many ways the most extreme of the powers in this Act, the most severe in its effect on civil liberties, the most divergent from the normal criminal process, and that it had aroused substantial resentment even among many, particularly in Northern Ireland, who may well support the aims and content of the remainder of the legislation".
He then deals in detail with the reasons why he makes a certain recommendation. He does not do it lightly; he does it with a very detailed, logical sequence of arguments as to why, in his view, something ought to be done now about the exclusion provisions in this Act. Before I recite those reasons, I should like to remind your Lordships of the letter accompanying this report where he says, without any doubts in his language, that he has had extensive consultations, as I told your Lordships. He also says in paragraph 1 of his report that after consultation this review:
"was seen as part of Parliament's annual review and intended to ensure that in future years the different parts of the Act should be capable of being considered separately and renewed if necessary, instead of the Act having to be taken as a whole and renewed en bloc"
With the leave of your Lordships I shall deal with some of the changes which he says have occurred which led him to make his recommendation. What a shame it is that the Government did not have enough faith in Parliament to be able to come forward in the light of the monitor's report and recommendation to say, "Well, we are going to give an opportunity to Parliament to see what it feels about Part II—which are the exclusion order provisions—in regard to this Act. If we can test the opinion of Parliament, then maybe the rest of this Act can go forward just as it was before." No such procedure is being adopted, and in your Lordships' House there is no power to amend because one either has to take the order or leave it. It is in these circumstances—since we have no power to amend the order, and indeed no power to adopt the suggestions of the monitor in this connection—that I shall advise my noble friends to abstain, if, indeed, there should be any vote upon the approval or otherwise of the order.
I turn now to the reasons which are advanced. I shall deal with this as my main item, though there are many other provisions of this report with which I should have liked to deal. However, there are other speakers and I shall not trespass upon your Lordships' time to a degree which will make me even more unpopular than I otherwise may be. He says at paragraph 20:
"(a) The making of new exclusion orders appears to have become less and less important as an effective means of preventing terrorism, and is now of diminished significance".

735
That is a finding to which he comes after seeing the police and after seeing all those files, dealing mainly with matters of exclusion and detention.
"(b) In the context of an increasing emphasis on the need for general and co-ordinated action against terrorism the strategy of transferring suspected terrorists from one part of the United Kingdom to another appears to have diminishing relevance and application.
"(c) As from the start of 1986 the police in England and Wales are for the first time enabled to exercise in full the powers made available to them under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;"—
I pause to say in parenthesis that this is a matter which was not dealt with in any way by the noble Lord the Minister, in spite of the fact that there is, of course, a new set of circumstances since we last dealt with this matter; namely, the provisions and the powers contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—
"and this radical change may reasonably be seen as offering an appropriate opportunity to scrutinise afresh the usefulness of exclusion.
"(d) Sections 4 and 5 can now be used only against persons who have not ordinarily resided in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, continuously since 1982. Exclusions which may have seemed necessary in earlier years when the police were less well equipped and informed have become more doubtful with the passage of time, a process indicated by the high level of revocations in the current, progressive review of orders now being undertaken under the 1984 Act".
He goes on:
"For these reasons the time would appear to be right for Parliament to take this opportuniity of considering afresh the need for sections 4 and 5".
I say with the deepest respect that the noble Lord the Minister did not quote those words. He merely said that Sir Cyril was not, in fact, recommending that these exclusion powers should cease but was merely seeing a way of phasing them out. The important matter is, as he says, that the time would appear to be right for Parliament to take the opportunity to consider afresh the need for Sections 4 and 5. It is perfectly true that almost by way of a compromise, as it were, he suggests the phasing out by something deliberate being done this year, with an undertaking that there should be no new exclusion orders.
I make the following points briefly. First, the Government in the light of the report should have tried to sound out Parliament and had enough confidence in Parliament to decide whether the recommendations should be followed. We have no such opportunity. We either swallow the whole order or vote against it, and I am not prepared to advise my noble friends to vote against it. That is the first thing that I say.
The second thing that I say is this. Surely the report deserved more consideration by the Secretary of State. It is dated 27th January, with an accompanying letter of that date. The reply of the Secretary of State turning it down in the most polite terms, but nevertheless turning it down, is dated 29th January, two days later. That is a rapidity with which I would hope to be faced in the future when matters are dealt with by that worthy government department. Within two days a two-page answer was all ready, saying "No, we do not intend to adopt your recommendation", and dealing with other things too.
That means one of two things. Either the Secretary of State reacted with too much speed or he had had—and I cannot tell whether that is so—discussions
736
with Sir Cyril previous to the report when the Secretary of State or his officials were given the idea that that was the sort of recommendation that he would be reporting. In those circumstances Sir Cyril would presumably have had the Government's reaction. If the alternative be right, it will be apparent to your Lordships that, in spite of what he might have been told about the Home Office reaction, he still issued the report on 27th January.
As I said, there is nothing that I can do other than to plead with the Government from this Dispatch Box to take the advice of Sir Cyril, with his great experience. He has examined files which your Lordships cannot see. We should have faith and say that as from now at all events, as the first phase, this business of issuing exclusion orders which he says has faded completely in importance should not occur, with the existing ones taking their normal course by way of review.
I shall raise only one other small matter. In sheer civilised behaviour I think that we should all be limited to a total of some 20 minutes. I wish to deal with one other recommendation. Your Lordships may think it a trivial one, but on humanitarian grounds I do not. It was not referred to when the noble Lord the Minister dealt with the various recommendations and the answers. I am endeavouring to find it, but while I am looking I can tell your Lordships what it is.
Sir Cyril draws attention to the fact that those who are released from an exclusion order, regardless of inquiries as to whether they have a home and where they are going, are handed the great total of £2.50, and they are left to it on that basis. He says in so many words that something ought to be done about that because it is terrible. The Secretary of State, possibly because he wanted to deal with the matter so promptly and had only 48 hours, does not mention that in his letter of 29th January; in dealing with the recommendations the Minister did not mention it, but I mention it and I ask what is to be done.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the order in the way that he did and particularly for bringing it before your Lordships' House some four weeks or so before it is due to take effect. As I understand it, and I know that I shall be corrected if I am wrong, that is in order that, if there were a sufficient weight of opinion on one or more than one aspect which required reconsideration by the Government, they could do that before the order came into force in the middle of next month. That is the cumbersome procedure that we devised last year so that we should not necessarily have either to take or to leave an order en bloc, but, if necessary, could try to persuade the Government to amend parts of it. I am grateful too to the Minister for arranging that the comments of Sir Cyril Philips, as monitor, should be made available to us in good time. That is a great help and a great advance on the unfortunate position that arose last year.
I wonder whether I may raise as helpfully as I can one comment about the timing of the debate. I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in his place on the Front Bench. It seems to me extremely inconvenient for Members of your Lordships' House to have to take part in a debate within some 18 hours

737
of the subject being debated in another place. I say that because Hansard is not available. When it came this morning from another place it had no report of the debate there. There was only a somewhat ill-printed, almost illegible proof copy which could be obtained with difficulty. Facts were given in another place about which in the ordinary way your Lordships would not be aware. That means that we may have to ask questions of the Minister that might easily have been avoided. I accept that where an order is urgently required it may be necessary for the two Houses to debate it in rapid succession. But where there is no such urgency, as in this case, it would be of great assistance if in future years we could be given the opportunity to read the debate in another place before participating in our own.
I come now to the principal issue raised by proceedings this year and by Sir Cyril in his report, the question of the exclusion orders. It is perfectly clear that they are the most drastic orders that can be made under the Act and they may have serious consequences for individuals and their families. It is of interest to note how rapidly the number of new orders has been declining in recent years. In 1984 there were three orders exluding people from Great Britain and in 1985 seven. If one takes the five years from 1981 to 1985 inclusive, the average number was only 10. That contrasts remarkably and encouragingly with the previous seven years, 1974 to 1980, when the average was 38. That means that the number is dwindling rapidly and markedly and the need for the power is becoming much less.
In Northern Ireland the situation is even more remarkable. There were no new exclusion orders made in 1985 and there have been only eight made altogether in the past four years.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord will forgive me. I interrupt him only for clarification. I saw the figure in that report but equally I saw above it, and it may well be a misprint, that two such exclusion orders were made in 1985. If one looks at the statistics there is a nil, and I therefore wonder whether the figure of two is a mistake, or the other way round.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I also noticed that there was an apparent contradiction between a 2 in one place and a nought in another place. I do not know, but I took it that the figures in the statistical column were correct. In either event, nought or 2 is a very small number. It is because the number of orders has now become so small that, clearly, serious consideration was given by Sir Cyril, and is being given by the Government, to the question of whether Sections 4 and 5 should remain in the Act or whether, as an alternative proposal, put forward by Sir Cyril, it might be possible at least for the Government, while keeping Sections 4 and 5, to undertake not to make any new exclusion orders in future.
One looks, of course, at the reply made by the Secretary of State—the very rapid response to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred—and one sees that the Secretary of State is unwilling at this stage to agree to any modification in the proposals for making exclusion orders. The Secretary of State refers, as the
738
noble Lord the Minister has done today, to the small, but nevertheless significant, number of terrorist offences that were planned in this country during 1985, and also to the fact that it was necessary to make some seven new orders during that year.
These are the matters that one has to weigh up. It is esssentially a matter of balance. I must confess that, personally, I find it a very difficult matter of balance. I think that, marginally, I come to a different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I think, marginally, I come to the view that the Secretary of State has made out a reasonable case for saying that, at this stage, he would not wish to review the procedure under Sections 4 and 5, or their continued operation, for a further 12 months. I am sure, however, that he recognises that, with the very rapidly diminishing number of orders being made, the time is not very far removed when it will be possible to adopt certainly Sir Cyril's second suggestion, and maybe also his first suggestion, and remove Sections 4 and 5 altogther from the Act.
I wish also to refer to the extended detention powers. Again, that is a matter in which it is self-evident that innocent people may suffer. So far as I can see from the report by Sir Cyril, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has, on occasion, declined applications by the police for extended detention orders. But it appears to me from the report that the Secretary of State here has never declined a single application. I note, too, as appears to be the case—the noble Lord the Minister will be able to confirm it—that last year the Secretary of State in this country did not refuse a single application for an exclusion order. I hope that the moral to be drawn from those somewhat remarkable facts is that the police are being extremely careful and erring on the cautious side before suggesting that there should be extended detention orders made or exclusion orders made, and that the other possible inference—that the Home Office is perhaps over-rapidly agreeing with any suggestion made to it—is not the accurate one.
The power of extended detention is a formidable one. I can find nothing in Sir Cyril's report providing figures to show how effective it has been during 1985. If I have read correctly the somewhat garbled accounts, which is all I have been able to obtain, of proceedings in another place, the figures appear to show that 94 orders for extended detention were made during the year, and that in 64 of those cases the person was in due course charged. If that is right—this is what the figures, so far as I am able to read them, appear to say—it unfortunately makes out the case for continuing the power of extended detention. It means that 30 innocent people, or 30 people, at any rate—it is not necessarily the same thing—were never charged but clearly suffered hardship. But if, in fact, 64 people were charged as a result, two-thirds of those detained, the power is clearly justifying itself.
One must, of course, bear in mind that under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act it is now possible to detain people on application for up to, I think, 96 hours. It might be of interest if the noble Lord the Minister were able to give any figures as to whether the extended detention periods in relation to the Prevention of Terrorism Act justified their value in the

739
period after the 96 hours that might have been available in any event under what is now the criminal law of this country.
The question has arisen whether, during those periods of detention, interviews should be tape recorded. This is perhaps a matter on which the Minister can help a little. I find it difficult to follow the Secretary of State's suggestion in his letter to Sir Cyril Philips that tape recording of interviews with terrorist suspects raises quite different issues from those in relation to ordinary suspects. I find it difficult to follow because the mere fact that something is tape recorded does not make it admissible in evidence, as the noble Lord the Minister knows perfectly well. If it is not tape recorded, it is no doubt going down in an officer's notebook in any event. Whether the contents are to be used at the trial is a matter for the judge in the light of all the circumstances. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could elaborate a little on the special considerations that make tape recording in itself an undesirable method of dealing with an interview with a suspected terrorist.
The last matter that I wish to raise is this. There is under Section 11 of the Act an offence created of withholding information. It has always seemed to some of us that this was really not a very sensible offence and not one that in any way strengthens the Act. It is unrealistic in terms of what human life is like when people happen to hear about a possible terrorist offence. Sir Cyril does not record any such prosecutions for that offence having been brought in 1985. Indeed, I do not think that they have been brought for most of the years that the Act has been in force. The noble Lord did refer to a case in Manchester a couple of weeks ago in which someone was convicted of that offence as part of a terrorist trial. I think that I am right in saying that, although convicted, nothing happened to him. That, if anything, rather supports those of us who contend that it is an artificial and unreal offence that serves no useful purpose and should not have been put into the Act at all.
On balance, looking at the whole of this order and the way that it has worked over the last year, my noble friends in the Alliance take the view that if we, as a House, and if the Government, were to amend this order or to withdraw any of the provisions at this stage, it might be a mistake and, if it were a mistake, the consequences might be truly appalling. Bearing that in mind, we take the view that it would not be responsible for us to oppose the making of the order for which the noble Lord the Minister asks today.
5 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, at the outset I should like to refer to the closing words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he referred to a paragraph in Sir Cyril's report which he could not find and which he paraphrased. I very much agree that this is something which should be brought out into the open and recorded in Hansard. If I may, therefore, I shall quote the relevant passage from Sir Cyril's report. He is drawing attention to the fact that somebody who is released after an exclusion order is provided with enough money to travel to his destination,
"with no more than £2.50 in his pocket".
740
After saying that this amount is the regulation payment to a deportee he says:
"Such a meagre provision in this instance seems calculated to push the person concerned back into the company of his former associates".
Those words are well worth having on the record, and I am sure that the whole House would wish the Government to look at that paragraph very carefully and not send people who have been released from exclusion orders away with only £2.50 in their pockets. They apparently do this whether or not they know that there are any relatives or friends that the man can go back to.
I should like to start, having referred to paragraph 23, with very sincere thanks to Sir Cyril Philips for the clarity of his report and the elegance of its writing. It is not often that one is able to say that of an official document of this sort. Not only is it clear and elegant, but it also gives confidence to the reader; and confidence in this matter is absolutely essential and of vital importance. I endorse the words of Sir Cyril from his report of last year, when he said,
"In a liberal and constitutionally governed society special powers call for exceptional scrutiny of safeguards for the suspect".
Not only that, but he referred to the practical consideration in containing terrorism—which is what we all want and what this Act is about—saying,
"the police need is not only special powers but also the support of the public".
In my view, Sir Cyril's report is invaluable to Parliament in its annual task of exceptional scrutiny of safeguards for the public. It is as well to remember that it was due to the efforts of this House, and the compliance of the Government with its wishes, that this annual report is made.
Secondly, I should thank Her Majesty's Government for this year's programme of debate and dealing with the report, as contrasted with last year. I think that it is just about right now although, as has been said, it cannot be very satisfactory that the Home Secretary replies two days after receiving the report of Sir Cyril. Perhaps I might say that last year—when things were not so good—the Home Secretary took five days to consider the report before he replied. There has this year been enough time between the receipt of the report by Parliament—together with the Home Secretary's reply—and the Motion for approval on the continuance order, and enough time between the approval of the continuance order and the date when it comes into operation. Next year I think that we must seriously consider—as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said—how Parliament can amend the Act, as it is enabled to do by the provisions of the Act itself.
I should like to ask the Minister one question in this context. Suppose, my Lords, that the Home Secretary came to the conclusion, for whatever reason or reasons, that it would be desirable to revoke Sections 4 or 5. Is he enabled to do so by order within the next year; or does he have to wait until this time next year when the order has to be renewed in any case? I believe the answer is, yes, he can; but I should like to know, because it gives that kind of flexibility so that he can judge exactly what is the right time to revoke these two sections which I think we should all like to see off the statute book. That repeal would give that extra degree

741
of confidence which the public need to show to those in authority when they are dealing with this very important and sensitive matter.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way for a moment? I ask this question because I am interested to know the answer. On what grounds does the noble Lord think that Sections 4 and 5 can be revoked by the Minister without the matter coming to Parliament?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not suggest that. If the Minister were to bring in an order within the year—that is, perhaps, next month or in six months' time—instead of waiting until this time next year, he could then bring the order for Parliament to pronounce on.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, how does the Minister have the power to bring in such an order? What enables him to do so?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I think if the noble Lord turns to the relevant provision of the Act, whose continuance we are discussing, he will find the power there.
In my submission there remains one complaint about publication still. I believe that Sir Cyril's report, and possibly the Home Secretary's reply, should be published as a Command Paper. At the moment we have a Question for Written Answer, and then the typescript of this report is put in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of the two Houses. That is good, but I do not think it is good enough. After all, what Erskine May says about Command Papers, in the 20th edition, is that they are,
"those papers"—
that is, Command Papers—
"which are considered to be of interest to Parliament but whose presentation is not required by Statute".
This falls squarely into that category. It is non-statutory because the undertaking was given right at the end of proceedings in the second House, no amendment was made, and it was accepted by Parliament, as all such undertakings are, as binding.
I believe that publication would be for the convenience of both Houses of Parliament because if they are published as a Command Paper they are bound up in a series and are readily available next year or the year after, when one might wish to refer to them. As it is, even if one has a super efficient filing system, one may well have lost last year's report—let alone that of the year before last. It therefore seems to me not just a nit-picking exercise but something of great importance.
Furthermore, I think not only Parliament but the country should be informed. If Sir Cyril's report is laid as a Command Paper then the debate in the country might be much wider than it is now. As it is, it is published in this rather hole-in-the-corner way and, excellent report though it is, it does not receive the publicity which I think is its due.
I am extremely grateful to Sir Cyril for his extended review of the exclusion procedure. These are most valuable paragraphs in his report and they have been
742
quoted from extensively by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I shall therefore not review those paragraphs, although they are well worth reading.
I think that Sir Cyril is giving the Government an opportunity to phase these orders out if they possibly can. He proposes that that should be done this year. In my view—although that proposal was only put forward as a first prudent step—this is something which the Government should consider doing continuously. They should not wait until next year, but should consider continuously the balance of advantage in having exclusion orders which they may think necessary for one or two people. I believe that there were something like seven last year. Against that they must consider the damage that exclusion orders do to the generality of public opinion. The Act would be much more acceptable if that important section of the Act was dispensed with.
I would go along with the Home Secretary in the thought that he cannot "in present circumstances"—those are his words—comply with Sir Cyril's suggestion, but would ask the Home Secretary to consider carefully the implementation of that suggestion at least by this time next year, and possibly within the months until this time next year. After all, I think that this time next year will be a better time to take this first prudent step—and this is the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—because the working of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act will have been evident. After all it only came into operation at the beginning of this year. By this time next year we shall have the advantage of one year's operation of that Act.
Another important pledge given by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons was that the operation of these procedures will be, as near as possible, equal to statutory procedures. We know that there are some areas which are slightly different. There is a difference of period for which you can be detained without the benefit of seeing people or being released. There is a difference of between 36 hours and 48 hours. That is something which should be watched carefully, too. There are other differences of that sort which I would recommend under that heading, which is no more than implementing an undertaking given by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons.
Apart from that I have only a few things I should like to say. The words of wisdom of Sir Cyril in paragraph 38 on tape recording have already been referred to. Frankly, in his paragraph 40 on complaints, I should have thought that it was important that the general public should know that the complaints have been about legislation and not about police behaviour. That is important, and the public should know of it. For the sake of police morale alone this is an observation by Sir Cyril which should be made known publicly. Of course there will be complaints about the Act. I think that the complaints will be far fewer if exclusion orders are removed. But to have it said by Sir Cyril that the complaints against the police behaviour are very few is most comforting.
Lastly, concerning terrorism with international connections—paragraphs 43 and 44—we are referred to comments made by Sir Cyril in paragraphs 44 to 46 of last year's review. I am quite prepared for Sir Cyril

743
to economise by referring us back to his report. Incidentally he does so on three occasions, and to something like 15 paragraphs. That is a considerable argument in itself, that his report of last year should be readily available in printed form so that we can turn up that report to see what he said.
In the case of terrorism with international connections, I had the curiosity to look up Sir Cyril's report, and I found there statistics of considerable value. This year he does no more than refer us back to those paragraphs of last year's report, and I would ask whether it would be possible for his statistics of a year ago to be updated.
With that, I should like to join in what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, that this is not the stage for any change to take place, but that I look forward to a flexible approach by the Home Secretary during the coming year.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, unlike previous speakers, I rise to oppose this renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. To explain my position and to persuade your Lordships to support my case, I shall endeavour to give some practical reasons and also present a constitutional argument which also has wider practical justification. One of the problems with which we are faced is some people's lack of appreciation of what the Prevention of Terrorism Act actually does. Of course this does not apply to your Lordships, but for those who are not so well informed and who are listening to the debate, or who will read the record in Hansard, I must quickly explain two features of the Act which particularly concern me.
First, the Act allows the police, with the consent of the Home Secretary, to arrest and detain people without charge for seven days. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows for an arrest and detention without charge, or the case being put to a court of law, for only one and a half days. Secondly, without recourse to a court of law or judicial review, the Home Secretary can make an exclusion order against a British citizen.
Such an order prevents that citizen from living in, or even visiting, some particular province or part of the United Kingdom. Even a judge sitting in court does not have the power to impose that penalty on a convicted criminal. For hundreds of years, since the abolition of feudalism and the freeing of the serfs, British citizens have had the right of free movement within the country.
Although opposition to this Act is Labour Party policy, this side of the House accepts the convention that the House does not divide on parliamentary orders. However, my opposition to this Act is not based on the acceptance of party policy, but on a deeply-held view that in practice the Act is counterproductive in the fight against terrorism, and offends the unwritten constitution of our country.
The practical effects of detention for long periods allowed under the Act and exclusion orders are, on the one hand, if the individual is of terrorist inclinations, to warn him that he is under surveillance; he is being
744
watched by the special branch, or whatever; and hence to make him more security conscious. If the individual is completely innocent of any terrorist inclinations, all that happens is that we reinforce the propaganda weapon that we have handed to the terrorists by using this Act; the propaganda that the British establishment is inhuman and unjust, and that therefore inhuman and unjust actions must be taken to combat it.
In fact the recent case before the courts in Manchester has demonstrated two things. First, that the police may be wrong—for example, in their recommendations to the Home Secretary about exclusion orders; in fact two of the five people charged were declared innocent of all crime—and that exclusion orders may prevent the arrest of guilty people. It was reported by a reputable newspaper that the mastermind behind that particular terrorist plot was subject to an exclusion order, and for that reason lived outside the United Kingdom and outside the reach of the police or the courts.
Two aspects of our constitution that I would emphasise today are, first, the relationship between the Government and the people and, secondly, the independence and fairness of the judicial system. To explain simply, our democratic system of Government allows the citizen who does not like the rules to change them if he can persuade enough of his fellow citizens to agree to this point of view. Our system of justice is based on the belief that the citizen who is suspected of a crime should be told what he is charged with and have the opportunity before the court to rebut those charges. We hold dear to us the belief that our citizens are innocent until proved guilty by a court of law. If we depart from these two aspects of the constitution, we are opening a Pandora's box of horror. There are myriads of different groups in society that hold views that are at odds with the establishment. Their actions are held in check only by their belief in these aspects of the constitution.
This Prevention of Terrorism Act threatens that belief. At a more mundane level, what of the children whose parents are subject to these exclusion orders? The Government do not even know how many are affected. These children will grow up and perhaps, in 10, 20 or 30 years, they may harbour a grudge against the British establishment that prevented them visiting their friends and relations as a family. Are we sowing the seeds for terrorism in the future by using these exclusion orders?
The reasons for opposing this Act are so imperative as to outweigh party allegiance or the custom and practice of this House. At the end of this debate, I shall press for a Division, and I ask for the support of all noble Lords who oppose terrorism to join me in the Lobby against this Act.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I do not propose to answer the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I can only say that I hope that he has read the reports of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and myself, and all the many debates that we have had on this subject. I remind him that part of our constitutional freedom is the freedom not to be destroyed by bombs or terrorists. The purpose of the Act, originally introduced by a Labour

745
Government, is still, for the same substantial reasons, being maintained. If I thought there was a danger of this order not being carried—I think there is no danger—my inclination would be to vote for it.
I have other arguments that I might use against the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Our voting on orders is not a party issue. I remember one occasion when the Conservative Opposition voted against the Labour Government when I was Leader. That was on the Rhodesian order. I remember it because there were more Bishops in the Lobby than there were on the Sunday Trading Bill. The Government were defeated by about seven votes. A month later, the order was re-introduced in a similar form. But the consequence was the end of the discussions on parliamentary reform and the House of Lords reform, which if carried through would have given this House the right and the power effectively to have voted against orders by sending them back to be considered again.
I feel this order is necessary, but this is not to say that I do not have some severe reservations. I should first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, because it was he who uniquely, with some others, was responsible for the introduction of the Sir Cyril Philips Report. The Government have got into a tangle on it. Last year they did not publish it in time, and this year there was a tremendous rush. Obviously, Sir Cyril Philips did not post his report to the Home Office, for they would not have had time between 27th and 29th. I conclude that the sensible thing that must have happened is that the Home Office had at official level an advanced sight of the report. Whether the Home Secretary has seen it, I do not know. It is curious; and I am sure they could have got their timing better. Sir Cyril had made clear that he was producing a snapshot. He set aside December and January for this purpose. He must have completed his snapshot and developed it quickly to get it in before the end of January.
However, I welcome the report, though I am not in agreement with those noble Lords who think that exclusion orders should be dropped at the moment. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that we might want a further opportunity, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Mishcon, to debate it separately. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will tell us whether it will be possible in another year to produce two new orders: one dealing with certain sections of the Act and another dealing with Sections 3, 4 and 5. Nevertheless, if they had done that this year, I should not have accepted it—on the judgment that Lord Jellicoe made and that I and others made having gone deeply into a consideration of this matter, and hateful though the exclusion orders are. We all accept that they are a gross interference with our historic freedom, with those lives at stake.
I do not say, however, that exclusion orders are not perhaps the most unpleasant of the powers in the Bill: they are. But I still state my personal dislike of Section 11. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, considered this and took the view that it probably was necessary. But it is an obnoxious provision. I should have liked to have dealt with it separately. I hope Sir Cyril Philips will give some consideration next year to the effectiveness of Section 11, which has an unsavoury ring about it
746
and one that strikes me as being objectionable from a constitutional point of view.
There are one or two items which the Minister, in the 24 hours in which he had to consider this matter, was unable to deal with. He said hardly anything about the points made in Sir Cyril Philips' report on the subject of better provision of facilities at the ports. He said:
"At the major sea-ports, at Stranraer and Fishguard, for example, the facilities within which the police at the control points have to operate appear to have improved little since Lord Shackleton in 1978 and Lord Jellicoe in 1983 reported adversely on them".
The Home Secretary said:
"I hope to reach conclusions in the near future (which will have a bearing on your comments in paragraph 27)".
That is seven years late, This was raised seven years ago. Insufficient reference is made to some of the other provisions about conditions under which people are kept. I hope that the Home Office will give some further thought to those conditions.
People are kept for seven days of detention virtually in solitary confinement, under not the most pleasant conditions. I should like to know whether facilities have been improved. We have heard that detainees have been given baked beans every day for seven days. That is not very civilised. During this period of detention, which is not a judicial procedure—it is important to make clear that many of these powers are not judicial—conditions should be ameliorated.
In Sir Cyril Philips' report and on the application of the Act in the face of international terrorism, undertakings were given in explicit terms by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that they would not be applied unless a charge was forthcoming. Is it true that some hunt saboteurs were detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act? This is reported by the National Council for Civil Liberties.
Incidentally, I hope the Minister will take account of some of the points made in the report. If he likes, I can go into this at length, but there is a suggestion that the superintendent in this particular case said that people were being detained. I am not defending the hunt saboteurs; I know how my noble friend Lord Paget would want to deal with them! However, a telephone inquiry to the superintendent from the National Council for Civil Liberties about the detention of 10 hunt saboteurs at Daventry police station received confirmation that they had been held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I find this almost incredible. Either it is true or it is not. If it is not true, it will be just as well to nail up this particular can.
Nonetheless, this problem of the application of the Act in relation to international terrorism continues to cause me worry. When we were debating the Bill, I moved several amendments, and indeed an amendment on Third Reading, to require the Government to incorporate in an order, if they could not do so on the face of the Bill, the instructions or the advice that would be given to police so that it would not be applied unless there was the prospect of a charge in the courts. The Government took the view, "Well, we cannot even really give guidance", although I notice that in a letter to Mr. Soley on a particular case, in another report, the Home Secretary talked about advising chief constables.

747
There was the case of the European representative of SWAPO. He was detained at Heathrow. When he asked why, he was told that he was the representative of an international terrorist organisation. Yet at practically the same time Mr. Sam Nujona, who is the leader of SWAPO, was being received by the Government and very specific undertakings were given that this should not be applied in the case of, for instance, African national activities unless their terrorism was going to be applied in this country.
It is alleged—indeed, it was claimed in a letter by the Home Secretary to Mr. Soley, MP—that this detention took place under Section 13 of the Act and, in particular, the supplementary provisions of an order that passed through your Lordships' House at the time of the passing of the Act, which was two years ago. I knew nothing about it, and I have not found anybody else in your Lordships' House who knew that there was this order in existence. Ministers have never referred to it; it was a negative order only. This derives from the Act, and is revived again by the order that we are debating today.
I would ask the Minister whether he will look into this case and why it was that Mr. Kaukungua was detained. It is of course applicable to anyone who is suspected of terrorism which they might intend to bring into this country. However, this particular gentleman was well known, and had passed through the Customs many times. He was only kept for an hour and a half, but I think this is somethng to which rather more attention should be given.
I do not intend to take up much more of your Lordships' time. I think, regrettably, that this Act is a necessity. Everyone who has been involved in it, every Minister who has looked at it, in any party, has said how objectionable it is. Yet I think we should pass this order today. I hope my noble friend—because otherwise he will achieve no good for his purposes—will refrain from dividing the House on a matter on which it would be inappropriate to do so.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I wish to intervene for a few moments before the Minister replies, in view of the course the debate has taken. I should first like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for intervening during his remarks. He was perfectly right: under Section 17(2)(b), tucked away at the back where I had not seen it, there is a provision such as the one to which he referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the debate in another place last night and to the great difficulty and inconvenience that arises when a debate takes place so short a time before our debate. I too had great difficult in finding the corrected typescript of the debate that was obtained by the librarians, because the debate took place after Hansard had gone to press. The noble Lord quoted some figures that he found there. I have found others also relating to the number of people who are detained and then released, which were given by my right honourable friend Mr. Kaufman.
I have drawn attention on earlier occasions to these kinds of figures. I want to do so again because what
748
concerns me most about this Act, as I have said on three or four previous occasions, is the number of suspects or the number of people who are detained by the police and who then have no charges of any kind brought against them. The figure given by my right honourable friend showed that since the passing of the Act which preceded this one, the 1974 Act, until the end of 1985, of all those persons who were detained under the Act 92 per cent. were not charged; only 3 per cent. were charged with offences under this Act; and only 0.5 per cent. of those detained were found guilty of offences that attracted more than one year's imprisonment.
The 1984 Act states in Section 12 that a constable must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person he detains is guilty of an offence under the Act or that he has been involved in terrorism. As I have said before, if only 3 per cent. of those suspected on reasonable grounds of being guilty of offences under the Act are actually charged, the constables must be extremely suspicious people. As several of my honourable friends said in another place last night, there is a strong belief amounting to certainty that the Act is being used for the gathering of information about people from Ireland and with Irish names and so on, and that there is in many cases no justification whatever for detaining them.
My noble friend Lord Monkswell has spoken against this order today. I have always been opposed to it and I have also always said so. However, what surprises me is this, and I should like to draw attention to it. He was until now the only speaker on any of these Benches to speak against the order; and yet, less than 24 hours ago in another place, there was a combined attack from the Labour Benches on the renewal of the Act. There was a Division which by House of Commons standards was a close Division: 169 to 109. No Division list was available in the Library when this debate started so I cannot say how the Alliance voted in another place. But if the majority was only 60, it is quite clear that there must have been very great agreement among members of my party and I assume that they were accompanied by some members of the Alliance.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, probably I could answer for myself in view of the representative capacity that I suppose I have in speaking from the Dispatch Box. I expressed certain criticisms. I supported some recommendations of Sir Cyril. Therefore the speech of the noble Lord and that of my noble friend Lord Monkswell are not the only speeches in criticism of the Act. I explained to your Lordships, in terms that I think were clearly understood, the recommendation that I would make to my noble friends if there were a vote on this matter. I made my position abundantly clear.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive me if I indicated that to the best of my knowledge the Alliance as a whole did not vote in support of the Labour Party last night in opposing the Motion; although, as I understand it, it may be that there were the odd one or two who went into that Lobby.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. I tried to find out how the Alliance voted and I was unable to do so. I am surprised that most of the Alliance Members abstained. I am surprised that the majority was so relatively small. As far as my noble friend is concerned, I would only say that he indicated, I think, that if my noble friend Lord Monkswell succeeded in dividing the House he would not, I understood him to indicate, vote against the order. That would be taking a different line from that taken by all my honourable and right honourable friends in another place.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, the point that I think my noble friend does not understand is that this order has been passed by another place, which is a democratically elected Chamber. This House, which has a different composition and a distinguished composition, is a revising Chamber. We do not by tradition oppose orders which have already been passed by another place.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I say that that tradition does not go back very far? I have been in this House and actually voted with the Labour Party against an order; so that there is nothing very deep-rooted in that tradition.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, at the risk of turning this into a Committee stage, it was in fact the Ullswater order, which I think was about 30 years ago.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, actually it was not.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I remember having an argument something along these lines when last my noble friend Lord Monkswell tried to divide the House. I think it was on the same order, a year ago; but the years have gone very quickly. I must say that I do not see the logic about the position taken on not opposing orders. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi talks about another place being a democratic assembly, but of course we do not have any hesitation in voting against legislation—
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, amending legislation.
Lord Kilbracken: Well, my Lords, we amend legislation; we disagree with Commons Reasons for disagreeing with our amendments, and so on. But perhaps I am not the right person to lead a discussion on constitutional and procedural matters. I only want to say, no doubt to the relief of my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip, that if my noble friend Lord Monkswell were to succeed in dividing the House I would go into the Division Lobby against the renewal of this order, but I do not intend to act as a teller.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have listened to this debate with great care and great interest. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he said words to the effect that a topic such as this is of great concern to all of us. Of course it is. Nobody can be in any doubt about that, having listened to what has been said. I have to say also that there are no easy
750
answers to many of the problems which are raised. But I believe that there is a clear case for retaining the special powers which the Act provides to assist the police in fighting this scourge, this evil, which concerns us all. It is I think a matter of no more than common sense that the Act helps to prevent terrorism and, as I have said, we have seen this clearly demonstrated by the successes of the police last year.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, surely the contrary to the noble Lord's last statement is true. This Act or a similar one has been in existence for 11 years and it has not yet succeeded in preventing terrorism.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord gives expression to his ignorance of the facts in the case of the London bombing at the Rubens Hotel.
The necessity for renewing this legislation, as I have said, is regrettable. It is not only the continuing menace of terrorism which we deplore but the fact that the measures necessary in the fight against terrorism make inroads on ordinary civil liberties, which is also a matter of regret. This is an area in which a balanced judgment (to use the words which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, used) is necessary. We must consider both the seriousness of the threat and the impact which the special powers have on the rights of the individual. These are questions which must be addressed with particular care in relation to the exclusion orders, as this debate has reminded us.
The Government accept the view of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that exclusion should be the first power to go. But that time has not yet come. It would be courting disaster to discontinue the exclusion powers this year. It would immediately give free rein to over 200 excluded persons who have all been seriously involved in terrorism and many of whom are still committed and active. It would be quite unreasonable to expect the police to maintain vigilance over the activities of so many people.
I shall turn now and pick up some of the points which have been raised. Perhaps it might be appropriate if I start by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was quite right when he spotted what he thought was a mistake in the statistics: the fact that the text—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with some indignation may I say that it is only a sign, I hope, of the fact that I had read the report that I got up myself and made the point. Therefore I do not intend to allow the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to take any credit for it at all.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I humbly apologise to both noble Lords I wrote down one name on one piece of paper and then put down the wrong name on the next piece of paper. Of course it was the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and he was quite right. There is a mistake. The text does not tally with the chart. In Northern Ireland no exclusion orders were made in 1985. I apologise for this I will make sure that it is corrected in any other version.
On the question of the tables of statistics, to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, we will certainly draw the noble Lord's remarks to Sir Cyril's attention. It is up to him now to

751
approach his task, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, although we ensure that he has any assistance for which he may ask. I am sure he will be interested to note the noble Lord's remarks.
It seems that last year's debate and this debate have been filled to some extent with criticism about speed of response or the time that the document lay in front of your Lordships before it was debated. Perhaps I can say in response to both Sir Cyril's report to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the charges that perhaps not enough time had been given to consider the report, that I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that the most careful thought was properly given to all the issues involved. I assure your Lordships that the fact that it was only two days has not stinted our study of this most careful report, and I hope your Lordships will accept that in the spirit in which it is intended.
In regard to publishing the report as a command paper, which was again a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, the real problem here—and indeed it surrounds the whole question of the renewal of the Act—is the timetable for publishing. The timetable for publishing a command paper is so much longer than for putting it in the Library that the whole timetable for which your Lordships asked would be thrown out. Sir Cyril Philips' report would be out of date when Parliament saw it and it would not cover the full calendar year.
On the timing of this debate, following the debate in another place, perhaps I may be permitted to say that I have not seen a copy of Hansard either, and that has not been a particular help for me. However, it is a matter for the usual channels and, again, it is bound up with the whole problem of timing generally.
As to Parliament having the option of debating this before the order is laid—which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he took up that particular paragraph in the report—the Government must offer a draft order to which Parliament can react. There is no option for alternative in this particular case. In relation to the report, perhaps I may say that the Act must be renewed in good time before 22nd March each year. Sir Cyril's report should cover as much as possible of the period under review, as I have said, but it must be available to Parliament in good time. Therefore there are serious timing problems and I assure your Lordships that we have done what we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and said that I did not mention it. He asked whether the prevention of terrorist powers were still needed now that the extended detention provisions under Part IV of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act have come into force. Extended detention under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is available only for persons who have been arrested for a specific offence. The Prevention of Terrorism Act contains the power to detain a person on reasonable suspicion of being involved in terrorism, sometimes when an act of terrorism is being planned or prepared or at a stage when the police have not yet obtained sufficient information to bring charges referring to a specific
752
terrorist offence or where the information they have is too sensitive to be used in court.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Henderson, raised the question of the discharge grant. May I explain to them that the discharge grant is not a gratuity? It is an advance payment in lieu of social security benefits to which the released prisoner would in any case be entitled. For this reason, discharge grants are never payable to prisoners who do not proceed to an address in the United Kingdom after release. We do not believe it would be right to treat excluded persons more favourably in this respect than deportees. It is a fairly complicated provision and I do not think it would be appropriate to go into it in more detail now. I have just given your Lordships the main thrust of the point.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord the Minister, without wishing to detain the House, will he at least give an assurance that the point will be considered very carefully and that possibly a Question can be put down later? This is a recommendation by Sir Cyril, who would not have made it lightly, and of course the position of those excluded people is rather different from that of those who are refused immigration and who are asked to leave our shores. Some of them may of course be British subjects who have not resided for three years, as is statutorily required.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I realise that Sir Cyril would not have made that suggestion lightly. I will certainly look at it and perhaps correspond with the noble Lord and explain more fully in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, raised the question of tape recording. While it is clearly desirable that a person detained under this Act should, so far as possible, enjoy the same safeguards as anyone else in police custody, there are a number of particular difficulties. For example, a copy of the recorded tape is given to the defence. There is provision for it to be edited to remove sensitive material; but even an edited tape would suggest the extent of a terrorist's co-operation with the police and could lay him open to reprisals from his colleagues. There is a clear risk of deterring confessions and the giving of incriminating information.
It is also a fact that some terrorist groups train their members to resist interrogation, and a full record of police procedures and methods during extended questioning would clearly be helpful in that training. We are discussing these difficulties with the police in the context of the current tape recording field trials. We hope to reach conclusions before too long on whether any special provisions should be made for the tape recording of interviews with terrorist suspects when my right honourable friend brings forward the relevant order under Section 60 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Shackleton, referred particularly to Section 11. They suggested that perhaps it infringes a person's right to silence; and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, recommended that it be allowed to lapse. It has been argued that by removing in certain circumstances a

753
person's right to remain silent this section infringes civil liberties and that its value cannot be justified by the prosecution or conviction which may be obtained.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, paid particular attention to the use of this section. He concluded that it had been of value to the police and that it should remain, provided that there were adequate safeguards against its abuse. The 1984 Act implemented both his recommendations in this context. It made explicit the fact that a person is not required to incriminate himself, and the suspicion of an offence under this section is no longer grounds for an arrest under Section 12.
Guidance has been given to the police in paragraph 3 of Home Office Circular No. 26 of 1984 on interviewing relatives of terrorists. The police were advised of Lord Jellicoe's view that a threat of prosecution under Section 11 could be justified only in extreme cases where the withholding of information might lead to death, serious injury or the escape of a terrorist offender. We must keep in mind constantly the general point that the prevention of terrorism legislation is an exceptional measure, designed to deal with an exceptionally serious problem. I do not think anyone would deny that; and, if there is any infringement of a person's rights, we must accept that this is part of the price we must pay if we wish to protect society from the activities of violent and ruthless terrorists.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the fact that no applications for extension of detention or exclusion—
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, will the noble Lord say how many times Section 11 was used last year? I did ask him.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I will come to that in my next answer. The noble Lord mentioned the fact that no applications for extension of detention or exclusion were referred by the Secretary of State in Great Britain. Arrangements have been made by the police in England and Wales to channel applications for extended detention through a unit in New Scotland Yard. That procedure acts as a preliminary sift, and I think that may to some extent explain the phenomenon; but in any case extensions and exclusions most certainly are not rubber-stamped in any way at all. As it happens, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already this year refused two exclusion applications which were connected; that is, in 1986.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked whether the statistics given in another place yesterday were right. I believe that they are right. In 1985, 94 persons were detained for more than 48 hours and 64 were charged, deported or removed. As to the value of the extended period of detention, that is not strictly measurable but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State grants extensions only if a very clear case is made out that an extension is likely to be of value in the prevention of terrorism. As to the question of Section 11 usage, I do not have those figures. If the noble Lord will allow me to find out what they are and let him know, I shall be most grateful. I do not have them in front of me.
754
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, raised the question of whether or not Section 4 or Section 5 could be revoked during the year, and he thought that they could be. Certainly that is my understanding, too. If the noble Lord looks at Section 17(2) of the Act, he will see:
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide …
(b) that all or any of the said provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force".
I think that covers his point.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me a number of questions. As regards hunt saboteurs being arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, I am advised that the answer is: No, that is incorrect information. So I hope that that puts the noble Lord's mind at rest. So far as Mr. Kaukungua is concerned, on his arrival at Heathrow Airport Mr. Kaukungua was seen by an immigration officer and then examined under Article 4(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) Order 1984. I understand that his papers were examined by a special branch officer, who satisfied himself that Mr. Kaukungua did not appear to be a person who was, or who had been, concerned with terrorism within the terms of the 1984 order. Mr Kaukungua was allowed to leave Heathrow after an examination which lasted just over an hour.
I can repeat the assurance given in 1984, that there is no question of members of SWAPO living here being detained under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act because of their activities in Africa, unless, as was said then, there is a prospect of charges before a United Kingdom court or of deportation under the Immigration Act 1971. There must be some procedure for establishing whether there is a prospect of a charge or of deportation, and that is the procedure under Article 4. It can, I know, be a tiresome procedure, but it is applied to hundreds of innocent travellers each year and is an essential part of the counter-terrorist work of the police.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, has the noble Lord finished on that point? That is precisely the point that is worrying one. There has to be a basic suspicion to make use of Section 13 and these particular supplementary provisions. The Government have since argued that it does not apply to Section 13, and therefore the supplementary provisions; but it does. There is a slight inconsistency. I fully accept that the police and the immigration people must have the right to stop people of whom they are suspicious. But Mr. Kaukungua was well-known, and he was stopped because he was accused of being a member of a terrorist organisation. Perhaps the noble Lord could look a little further into it. I take his point, but it is not entirely satisfactory in a very awkward area.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I entirely accept the noble Lord's point of view. It is a little difficult to get into the realms of particular cases. But may I pursue that further and correspond with him? I note the point that he made.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, perhaps in that case the noble Lord will ask Sir Cyril Philips to look more closely. He made a reference to it and said he was

755
satisfied, but he also said that he did not look at individual cases. Perhaps he could look at some of these.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that Sir Cyril will look at the noble Lord's remarks.
Turning to the question of facilities at ports, which is another point that the noble Lord raised, because of the attention paid to port control by the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Jellicoe, the Home Secretary asked Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary in 1984 to carry out a review of staffing facilities and arrangements for co-ordination. The review was received early in 1985. It has taken some time to consider it, because we have had to calculate the costs of some of the recommendations and to carry out consultation with the police. But I assure the noble Lord that we expect to reach conclusions very soon, and I hope that that reassures him.
As to conditions of detention, guidance on the conditions of detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act was given in Home Office circulars in 1979 in response to the review of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and in 1984 in response to the review of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The attention of the police was drawn to recommendations that Prevention of Terrorism Act detainees should be supplied with clean bed-linen, mattresses, blankets and a pillow, and that they should be offered a varied diet. So I have no reason to suppose that those conditions are not being adhered to.
I have covered a number of points, and I will study what has been said. If there are any points that I have missed, I shall gladly come back in writing to those concerned. But I think the most important question in this debate has been whether or not to retain exclusion orders. The number of orders made recently has declined. That is a good thing. The Government readily acknowledge the objectionable nature of the power, and we will continue to do all we can to keep down the numbers of orders and to ensure that they are made only in the most serious cases.
But we bear a heavy burden of trying to protect innocent people from the murderous attacks of cunning and vicious terrorists. The Government are reluctantly, but very firmly, convinced that exclusion orders will remain at least for the next 12 months an essential instrument of protection. Parliament has a duty towards those innocent people—people like the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell—who may become the next victims of terrorism. There has been no reduction in the terrorist threat since this Act was last renewed. During that period powers of arrest and detention have been used to good effect, and the power to make exclusion orders, though it has been exercised sparingly, continues to be necessary. That is why I believe it is essential in the interests of the public that the Act should be renewed this year.
6.7 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"? … To the contrary, "Not-Content"? … I think the Contents have it.
Lord Monkswell: Not-Content!
The Deputy Speaker: Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
6.12 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The concept of legal aid and assistance in litigation in Scotland is of considerable antiquity; an Act of the year 1424 provided that where "onie pur creature for faulte of cunning, or expenses, cannot, nor may not follow his cause" the judge was to purwey—and I use the old Scots—a leill and a wise Advocate to follow sik pure creatures causes". In 1535 James V—the founder of the College of Justice—ordered the appointment of "a man of gud conscience" to be called advocatus pauperum to act for "our pur liegis" and further provided that he be paid !10 annually and that he could be deprived of his right to plead before the court if he failed to discharge his duty.
As the late Lord President Cooper pointed out in a fascinating historical discursus in the case of Graham v. Cuthbert, it was when the Court of Justiciary was set up with plenary powers under Charles II that the court began to require the attendance for poor prisoners of defending counsel, an obligation which Lord Cooper thought was voluntarily assumed by the Faculty of Advocates and the solicitors as a munus publicum, rather than forced upon them by the court. Such provisions over the centuries and more particularly in the earlier part of this century proved increasingly unsatisfactory, and radical reform was called for. Thus the parent of the legislation we consider today started life in November 1948 when the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Bill was given a First Reading in another place.
I am particularly glad to see today that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, is in his place in the House, since it was he, as the Lord Advocate of the day, who played a major part in the passage of that legislation. That Act when enacted initially applied to civil actions only and criminal legal aid was introduced following the passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963. In the succeeding two decades the legal aid code has been substantially reformed, extended and improved. Nonetheless it cannot be said today that the legal aid system has been perfected.
One of the prime objectives of this Bill is to improve the arrangements for making legal aid and legal advice and assistance available in Scotland. At the outset I should stress that the organisational changes proposed, including the establishment of a Scottish Legal Aid Board, take account of Scottish requirements. As the system has developed piecemeal over a period of 35 years, it is not surprising that there is considerable

757
scope for improvement. Indeed certain criticisms of the present system, to which I will refer later, have been made with increasing force in recent years in Scotland. I understand that the arrangements in England and Wales, which are in many respects different, also have been—and still are—under review. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on what the outcome there might be.
Since there have been these continuing criticisms of the present legal aid system, including those by the Royal Commission on Legal Services in Scotland in its report published in May 1980, the Government are satisfied that reforms are necessary. It is a great pleasure to see in his place today the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who was the chairman of the commission. We are particularly glad to see him back from his peregrinations.
Consideration of what these reforms should be has taken some time, and since our consultation paper was issued last March we have received most helpful comments from those consulted. I might mention in particular that the Law Society of Scotland, while it still has many reservations about the transfer of this function to the new board, has very generously indicated that it will co-operate with the implementation of the Bill if it meets with the approval of Parliament. While there may not be agreement on all the details of the Bill, I hope it is fair to say that there is wide support for its main objectives.
The Royal Commission supported the view that it was wrong in principle for the governing body of the legal profession to be responsible for supervising the payment of public funds to its own members. Furthermore most members of the Royal Commission considered that the management of the legal aid fund was not sufficiently independent of the Law Society of Scotland to assert effectively the interests of the public purse where those interests conflicted with those of the profession on a wider front than simply the scrutiny of individual accounts submitted for payment. The scope for conflict of interest was subsequently increased through the assumption by the Secretary of State under the Divorce Jurisdiction, Court Fees and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1983 of responsibility for determination of legal aid fees. This has resulted in direct negotiation on fees between the Scottish Home and Health Department and the Law Society, whereas previously these fees were determined by the High Court and Court of Session.
The members of the Royal Commission therefore recommended that the Law Society should cease to be responsible for the administration of legal aid, even although there had been no major complaints about the way in which they exercised their functions. While there was not the same unanimity on the most appropriate alternative to the Law Society, there was strong support for the view that the administration should be undertaken by a central authority. This is now provided for, through the establishment of a Scottish Legal Aid Board.
Another major criticism referred to by the Royal Commission was the inconsistency in the application of the various criteria for the award of legal aid, notably interests of justice and undue financial hardship in criminal cases. The Royal Commission was not alone in this judgment. It recorded the view of
758
the Scottish Legal Action Group that the means test involving financial assessment by the court was erratic and unreliable, producing wide variations in practice between different sheriffs, justices of the peace and stipendiary magistrates. In his book on Legal Aid in Scotland Dr. Stoddart notes that the interests of justice test has been the subject of continuous criticism since criminal legal aid was introduced in 1964.
In their most recent annual report on the Scottish legal aid scheme, the Law Society of Scotland itself suggested that the granting procedure for criminal legal aid should be altered in the interests of uniformity, justice and, possibly, economy. The transfer to the new board of responsibility for the determination of applications for criminal legal aid in summary causes, and the provision in the Bill for the prescription of factors to be taken into account in the consideration of the interests of justice criterion, are designed to meet those criticisms.
A third major and valid criticism of the legal aid arrangements is the difficulty of finding a way through the maze of primary and supporting legislation. Looking to a compendium of legal aid today, I counted three statutes and 32 pieces of subordinate legislation. As a one-time member of a working party established by the Scottish Home and Health Department to review the aid legislation referred to in paragraph 8.12 of the Royal Commission's report, I would fully endorse that criticism. That situation is in part being remedied through the pattern of the Bill. It deals separately with administration, with advice and assistance, civil legal aid, criminal legal aid and other forms of legal aid; and the consolidation of the primary legislation will also help to make it more intelligible. For example, the text of Section 1 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 has been amended in nine different ways since 1967; the Bill also provides for a reduction in the number of types of secondary legislation. While it provides for the making of regulations and rules of court, it abolishes schemes made by the Law Society which form a material part of the existing corpus of secondary legislation and were not subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
I have indicated briefly the major criticisms of the present system and how we intend to meet them. It may be helpful to noble Lords if I now outline the main new provisions in the Bill and how we envisage that the new arrangements might operate. Much of the Bill re-enacts existing legislation.
Clause 1 provides for the establishment of the Scottish Legal Aid Board. That will subsume the responsibilities of the Law Society and its Legal Aid Central Committee with its various local and other committees. Those responsibilities range from the initial consideration of applications for civil legal aid to the final payment of legal aid accounts. It will also take over from the Scottish Home and Health Department assessment of financial eligibility for civil legal aid. That will result in the same body considering applications with regard to both the merits and the financial criteria. The function of determining eligibility for legal aid in relation to summary criminal causes will be transferred to the board from the courts. We are confident that the combination of the various responsibilities for legal aid in one board will lead to significant improvements in the administration of

759
legal aid in Scotland. It is obviously in the interests of efficiency and consistency that overall responsibility should, where possible, not be split between a number of organisations.
The precise make-up of the board has still to be decided. However, in recognition of the strong legal element in the board's work, provision is made in Clause 1 for the inclusion of at least one advocate, one solicitor, and one other person with experience of the procedure and practice of the courts. The board also has an important administrative and financial role and will rely on computers and other information technology to assist in the efficient discharge of its business. It is accordingly desirable that persons with understanding and experience of such matters should also be on the board.
I would also like to stress that when the Secretary of State comes to make appointments, he will have regard to personal qualities and experience rather than to representation of particular interests. We envisage that the chairman and members will be appointed on a part-time basis. There may have to be a degree of flexibility since there will be different requirements during the period when the new arrangements are being brought into operation and when they are firmly established.
As to the staff of the board, a large proportion of the personnel at present engaged on legal aid work will transfer to the new board, and Schedule 1 to the Bill contains provisions setting out appropriate safeguards for them. Since it is not proposed that staff should be transferred from the courts, additional staff will be required to deal with applications in summary criminal cases. The remainder of Part I and Schedule 1 relate to the establishment functions and operation of the board, including its financial duties, and are broadly in line with the provisions for the establishment of other non-departmental public bodies.
Part II deals with advice and assistance, and Part III deals with civil legal aid. Apart from the transfer of supervisory responsibility to the board, there are few changes of substance. I now turn to Part IV, which deals with criminal legal aid. I should take the opportunity to explain how it is that we propose to introduce assistance by way of representation for certain criminal matters.
First, I should make clear that the arrangements for criminal legal aid in the more serious cases, which are dealt with in Scotland under solemn procedure, will remain essentially unchanged. The responsibility for considering applications under solemn procedure will continue to rest with the courts. As at present, the courts will have to consider the financial criterion of whether undue hardship will be caused to the accused or his dependants, but not whether the award of legal aid will be in the interests of justice.
As regards summary causes, there have been doubts ever since the introduction of criminal legal aid in 1964, as to whether the courts that try cases should also be involved in the award or refusal of legal aid on interests of justice grounds, especially where they might wish to consider the merits of the defence. There were, accordingly, good arguments for transferring responsibility from the courts, and indeed my
760
understanding is that that transfer will be welcomed by many sheriffs. The main reservation expressed about the transfer of responsibility to the board has been that it might result in delays in court business. That was on the basis that if applications had to be made to a body other than the court, there would in some instances be a delay in reaching a decision. Accordingly, in developing our proposals we are paying special attention to the need to reduce to a minimum the time taken for the submission and consideration of applications.
While the precise details will be for the board, we are now satisfied that it will be practicable for it to deal with urgent applications in a matter of days and other applications within a time scale that should not materially delay court proceedings. In cases where the accused is in custody and pleads guilty at the first diet, he will, as at present, continue to be entitled to automatic legal aid. In cases where the accused remains in custody after a not guilty plea at the first diet, he will be entitled to continue to receive legal aid from the time he submits an application until that application has been determined. That should help to avoid delay in the preparation of cases.
Where the accused is not in custody, the intention is that legal aid should in general be available only after he has pleaded not guilty at the first diet. However, as at present, solicitors will be able to provide advice and assistance to those charged with an offence. Moreover, we are proposing to introduce, by regulations made under Clause 9, assistance by way of representation where the accused pleads guilty at the first diet, if certain requirements are met. The intention is that the decision whether such assistance should be provided will rest, initially at least, with the solicitor. He will have to satisfy himself that its provision is justified in accordance with prescribed criteria. Those criteria are likely to be related to the factors taken into account in determining whether the interests of justice criterion is met, in so far as those factors are relevant in the case of a guilty plea. While the decision will rest with the individual solicitor, he will require to obtain the approval of the board in any case where he wishes to exceed the prescribed financial limit in the same way as is presently necessary with other advice and assistance cases.
Those accused who have pleaded not guilty at the first diet will, after necessary consultation with their solicitor, therefore make their applications to the board on a prescribed form which will in effect require the applicant to provide information designed to show that the relevant criteria, notably those relating to interests of justice and undue financial hardship, are met. Consideration of interests of justice where a legal opinion is required will be undertaken either by the board's legal staff or, more probably, referred to a reporter—a solicitor in private practice—for his view. The board will issue its decision in the light of any recommendation on interests of justice and of its own consideration of the financial and other factors.
While guidelines broadly based on the Widgery criteria which have been endorsed by successive Governments in relation to England and Wales have been issued to district courts in Scotland to assist them to determine whether the interest of justice criterion is met, in the sheriff's court the sheriffs took the view that

761
courts should have regard only to statutory criteria. In a situation where the new board is to assume responsibility for consideration of applications in summary criminal causes we regard it as important that they should have statutory guidelines. Accordingly, while the interests of justice criterion remains, provision is made in Clause 24(3) for prescribing factors to be taken into account in considering whether it is met. I cannot at this stage say precisely what these factors will be, but they may bear a broad resemblance to existing guidelines. As the regulations prescribing these factors are to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure the House will have the opportunity of debating them in due course and we shall certainly have due regard to any views expressed as to what these factors should be.
I now turn to Part V which deals with the employment of solicitors by the board. It is largely based on Part II of the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972, which has never been brought into operation. Neither is it the intention that these consolidated provisions should be brought into operation at an early stage, but it is desirable to retain this reserve power to supplement legal aid arrangements if this is required at some time in the future.
The miscellaneous provisions in Part VI are again largely based on those in existing legislation; for example, those covering the arrangements for legal aid in proceedings arising out of children's hearings and in contempt of court cases, setting out the responsibilities of solicitors and counsel, powers to regulate procedure, fees and other matters and restrictions on passing on information provided in connection with legal aid. I would, however, particularly draw your Lordships' attention to the provisions in Clause 31 dealing with discipline. These give the professional bodies power in proper cases to exclude any of their members from giving legal aid or advice and assistance. I have confidence in the will and capacity of the two sides of the profession to give effect to the intention of this part of the framework of legal aid which is an essential one for the proper administration of the scheme.
While I have not explained in detail all the provisions in the Bill, I trust that noble Lords will agree that it was right to concentrate on the major changes. I am confident that they will also agree that the main aims of these changes—namely, to achieve greater consistency in the award of legal aid, to increase efficiency, effectiveness and economy, and to eliminate abuse—are much required.
To summarise the proposed new arrangements, the new Scottish Legal Aid Board will take over the administration of most legal aid functions which are presently scattered among several different bodies. First, it will take over the responsibilities of the Law Society and its committees for the administration of the arrangements for legal aid and advice and assistance and the payment of accounts, and for considering the general merits of applications for civil legal aid. Second, it will assume the Scottish Home and Health Department's responsibility for assessing financial eligibility for civil legal aid. Third, it will take over responsibility of the courts for determining applications for legal aid in summary causes; though legal aid for cases under solemn procedures and some specialised causes will remain with the courts. The
762
Secretary of State will retain responsibility for the legislative framework of legal aid, which will now cover some matters currently delegated to Law Society schemes.
Although I have no doubt that some noble Lords will wish to examine some features of the arrangements during the later stages of the Bill, I very much hope that your Lordships will give general support to the measures in this Bill which are designed to improve legal aid arrangements in Scotland. I accordingly commend the Bill to the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.)
6.36 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if the Bill is to improve the provision of legal aid, those on this side of the House would fully welcome it. Legal aid is a very important means of ensuring that people have access to justice by providing that the services of lawyers are available when necessary. The Bill should be judged on whether it assists access to the courts by ordinary people as citizen consumers and I am very far from certain that it does.
According to the consultation paper which was published, the motive is to improve efficiency, effectiveness, economy and equity, eliminating the scope for abuse and securing that legal aid is available for those who need it. It would be far more convincing if we had some indication from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that there was inefficiency, that there was ineffectiveness, that there was lack of economy and lack of equity, and that there was abuse. We have had no such suggestion in the Royal Commission report, the consultation document, or anywhere else. It is far from clear how the proposed arrangements are to improve efficiency and effectiveness. I gather that the new board is to take over responsibility for all the various local committees and the central committee. It is to consist of not more than 15 people, and it is to have two lawyers. Are there people, who are to be part-time, to decide every legal aid application whether it is in Lerwick, Portree, Edinburgh or Glasgow? If not, who is?
Normally I should have thought that the basic issue of whether someone has a case to proceed with, or a charge against him to defend, is a matter of law, and legal advice is necessary to decide whether he should get legal aid. There is nothing in the Bill or in the consultation paper to suggest how the board is to work. Is it to have reporters? Who are they to be? How are they to be appointed? Is there to be a right of appeal against a reporter's refusal? Under the Bill it is the board that grants legal aid. If someone is dissatisfied because he has been refused legal aid, to whom does he appeal, and how? None of this is made clear.
The board is to be appointed because it is thought that there was a potential conflict of interests between the Law Society and the Law Society as the administrators of legal aid. There might have been a potential conflict of interest but the proposed new board is not to be an independent body such as the Royal Commission suggested. At paragraph 8.73 they said:
"Having reviewed the principles and practice of administration of legal aid by the Law Society, we recommend that legal aid should be administered by an independent authority in the form of the Legal Services Commission".

763
This board is to consist of people who are to be approved for their personal qualities by the Secretary of State. In no sense is it independent. It becomes a department of the state. It could be a very useful retirement home for civil servants from the Home and Health departments who want a part-time job when they retire. There is to be no advisory body such as exists in England and Wales in the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Aid and such as the Royal Commission suggested.
I suggest that if there is to be a new board it should be demonstrably independent of the Secretary of State and should have on it people nominated by bodies such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Scottish Consumers Council, the CBI, the TUC, the various police organisations, the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates. It seems totally unfortunate that the gentlemen or ladies who are to be chosen should be just picked out of the air because they happen perhaps to fit the Secretary of State's category of "being one of us". I think that this would lay the whole administration of legal aid open to a far greater criticism than the potential conflict of interest, which has in fact never been an actual one.
But it is also very unfortunate if the Secretary of State is to be the controlling influence on legal aid, because the Secetary of State is the representative of the state. The state is the prosecutor of crime. The Secretary of State is responsible for most of the areas where citizens come into conflict with the state and wish to sue to assert or defend their rights. It would seem very unfortunate that it is the state which decides whether they are to get legal aid to do so. I suggest that it is even more unfortunate when we look, for example, at Clause 14 on civil legal aid, that it is the Secretary of State who decides—and this is true throughout the Act—apparently without any advice from the board. The board just receives advice; it never gives it to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State makes regulations prescribing
"factors to be taken into account by the board in determining whether it is reasonable for a person to receive legal aid".
What sort of factors will the Secretary of State prescribe, for example, on issues of judicial review of administrative action by the Secretary of State? The board is to assume responsibility for deciding who gets legal aid in both civil and summary criminal matters. It is probably better that the decision whether somebody should get legal aid in criminal matters should be taken away from the sheriffs who will try the case, but how will the board do this? What factors will the board take into account? They do not appear in the section on criminal legal aid. It may be that they will be the same factors as the Widgery Committee suggested, but it does not appear in the Bill.
The consultation document is the only basis that we have for suggesting what is the thinking of the Government, and that document is not very helpful. Paragraph 27 suggests that legal aid might not be made available to somebody because he had persistently offended. It would be grossly unfair if somebody were not to receive legal aid because he had a criminal record. It would very quickly become obvious to sheriffs or judges that the reason someone was not getting legal aid was that he had a list of convictions.
764
It would seem to offend also against the principle of the presumption of innocence.
As regards the financial effects of the Bill, the explanatory and financial memorandum printed with the Bill suggests that,
"It is not possible to forecast what the effect will be on legal aid expenditure, which is demand led, but greater consistency in the award and refusal of legal aid, in particular criminal legal aid, may result in savings".
As I understand it, the situation of complaint is that certain sheriffs operate a blanket policy of refusing legal aid in every case. Is that to be the standard which the Secretary of State will suggest to the board as the basis, and if not how do the Government expect that this will result in saving?
On civil legal aid the consultation paper produces a very dangerous argument. Paragraph 4 says:
"There are misconceptions about the purpose of legal aid. In civil cases the aim is that legal aid should permit those of insufficient means the same opportunity to pursue or defend their rights as is available to those of moderate rather than abundant means. It should in general not be available in a case which would not be pursued by a person of moderate means".
Before legal aid existed and without legal aid no person of moderate means was ever willing to go to court about anything, because they were not able to afford it. It certainly was not the purpose of legal aid as defined in the title of the legal aid Act 1949, which was to make legal aid and assistance
"more readily available for persons of small or moderate means, to enable the cost of legal aid … for such persons to be defrayed wholly or partly out of moneys provided by Parliament."
Every response to the consultation paper has raised this issue, but the attitude of the Government has been far from clear. I understand that some months ago the dean of the Faculty of Advocates had a meeting with the then Secretary of State, who said that paragraph 4 was a misunderstanding and that the position of the Government was still that shown in the 1949 Act. However, this misunderstanding (if that is what it was) was apparently shared by the Under-Secretary of State, who said in the Scottish Grand Committee on 2nd July 1985 that paragraph 4 set out the Government's view of the present position.
Now that we have a new Secretary of State, what is the Government's present position? Do they consider that the title of the 1949 legal aid Act sets out the standard that is to be applied, or do they consider that paragraph 4 of the consultation document sets out the position? If it is the latter we are back very much to a poor law system. The recently reported decision to reduce the financial qualification limits in England suggests that perhaps the Under-Secretary of State was correct in the Grand Committee and the present Secretary of State was wrong.
That also seems to appear in the Bill itself. In Clause 9(2) of the Bill, paragraph (e) provides apparently that legal aid and assistance may be restricted by regulations to only those people who are receiving either supplementary benefit under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 or family income supplement. Is that really the standard on which the Government wish legal aid to be available?
If there is to be a new board to administer legal aid, it is unfortunate that it appears to have no function of advising the Secretary of State on reforms both in

765
relation to legal aid and to court procedures. That is what the Royal Commission envisaged in its legal services commission, and it is on reform of court procedures that work can and should be done to reduce the cost of court cases both for legally aided and for non-legally aided litigants. But the board is apparently to have no function of proposing any form of reform. The only way therefore that it can reduce costs is either to reduce fees for legal aid work or to reduce the number of people entitled to legal aid. As the noble and learned Lord is fully aware, there are many ways in which court procedure could be simplified. He has introduced some of them, such as the small claims procedures.
It is clear that since 1979 the costs of legal aid have dramatically increased, partly due to the increase in crime and partly to decisions by the Lord Advocate and his predecessors to prosecute certain types of offence in the High Court. But there are many ways on the criminal side in which the expense of legal aid could be reduced. One of the more obvious ones is to make available to the defence copies of statements taken by the police. That would reduce at a stroke a substantial element of the costs of legal aid.
There is starting in Scotland at the moment a trial of nine people in the High Court. I understand that there are 100 witnesses on the list. There are nine separate solicitors who get a list of over 100 witnesses, and that is all that they get. They therefore have to see each of them to find out whether he has any significance to the defence of their particular client. If the statements were available, the amount spent on seeing witnesses would be dramatically reduced. It is in those areas that a legal aid advisory committee could work in reducing the cost of litigation.
The Bill does nothing to improve legal aid in its administration, delivery and receipt by those who deserve to get it. If it were not for the conventions of the House, I should suggest to your Lordships that the Bill should be opposed.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I agree with much of the critical comment on the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has addressed to your Lordships, but I propose to approach the questions that it presents in a slightly different way. In every corner of human affairs there are those who regard a change for the better as a contradiction in terms. For that reason I have more than usual sympathy with the Government and the Lord Advocate in their approach to the problem. I say that because of course the Scottish legal profession, arguably at least, has its fair share of people who approach change in that way. As I say, for that reason and for a number of others to which with a little hit of luck I shall shortly come, I approach the question of whether these fundamental changes in our legal aid scheme now proposed in the Bill are for the better or are an unnecessary step in the wrong direction with sympathy for the Government and the Lord Advocate, because I sense so far that the Bill will be anathema to the profession,
The second factor from which my sympathy stems is that I can still vividly recall the reaction of my branch of the profession to the introduction of the
766
Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1949. I was one of a minority of, I think it was, three among practising advocates who greeted the Bill with unqualified enthusiasm at the first meeting of the Faculty of Advocates called to discuss it. With that recollection in mind, I share the pleasure of the Lord Advocate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, is in his place tonight to give us the benefit of his wisdom on this matter in whose origins he played such an historic part.
I say that I was in a minority of three who greeted the introduction with unqualified enthusiasm, because the irony of that to me, and the relevance to our debate, is that, but for legal aid, the Faculty of Advocates would not be the body that it is today and many would certainly be less prosperous; yet, from what I gather, and I hope that I do no one an injustice, I imagine that it will be protesting to the Government, along perhaps with the Law Society of Scotland, and crying in effect, "Hands off our legal aid system!".
The third reason for my sympathy with the Lord Advocate and the Government stems from the impression that the profession has brought the Bill on itself. It has only itself to blame. Let me make it quite clear that that impression derives solely from my knowledge and experience of the working of the criminal legal aid scheme which was introduced in Scotland in October 1964. So far as the arrangements for the civil legal aid scheme are concerned, nothing that I saw, whether as a practising advocate, a sheriff on the Bench of the Glasgow Sheriff Court or a Law Officer, would justify any serious criticism of that. Of course there were problems—problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, drew attention in the report of his Royal Commission. It is only from the working of the criminal legal aid scheme that I draw my impressions.
For centuries, of course, the profession, as the Lord Advocate said in presenting the Bill, accepted representation of the poor as a public duty—what was then called (it sounds so dated now) "The Poors Roll". The way it worked, as it had worked for centuries, may have been tolerable up to the eighteenth century or perhaps even into Victorian times. But in the twentieth century it was to most of us quite intolerable and uncivilised. Apart from the ultra-conservatives, to whom I referred in opening, we were all glad to see it go. However, since its going and with the introduction of legal aid, my impression is that the profession, as a whole, has not always kept in the forefront of its mind the primary objective of legal aid in criminal cases. That is, of course, to achieve a more effective and civilised administration of justice, reducing in the process avoidable delays in the working of the law, with due regard to the interests of those accused of crime balanced against the interests of society and the protection of the public. It was not to secure a livelihood for lawyers.
From what evidence do these impressions which I have formed in this context come? Much of the criticism stems from the circumstance that, at the outset, the fees payable under legal aid were far too high. They were fixed at a level that was higher than the profession normally expected from quite well-off persons accused of breaking the law. I have absolutely no doubt about this. Two unfortunate circumstances of importance to Scottish lawyers stem from it. The

767
first was that the morale of the Procurator-Fiscal service suffered seriously. Their earnings at that time lagged notoriously behind.
The second unfortunate consequence that flowed was that it had a corrupting effect on what I would call the black sheep of the profession—and, of course, there are black sheep everywhere. They did everything they could to maximise their earnings. There is no doubt about that. I should like to illustrate what happened in practice. Between 1965 and 1970 the Government saw the operation of the scheme grow very quickly. The cost of it increased rapidly right from the beginning. The Government reviewed the matter. One step that they took was to alter the regulation which provided for increased payments to solicitors and counsel in cases of unusual complexity, difficulty and so on. The power to award these additional fees was in the hands of the Law Society. The Government at that time reached the conclusion that this was as sensible as leaving in the hands of any industrial trade union the decision as to whether or not they should be given additional remuneration. The matter was put in the hands of the court. That seemed sensible at the time.
The result was a strike of Glasgow solicitors, the experience of which certainly confirmed my impression that among the black sheep of the profession there was a concern to maximise their earnings. Of course, that had nothing to do with the Law Society of Scotland. It was another group of solicitors in Glasgow who went on strike. Immediately after that, however, the Law Society began a campaign to amend the regulation that had put this power into the hands of the court. It persisted in that for quite a long time. It was eventually, I believe, successful.
My experience may be a little out of date. The profession may be treating its black sheep more vigorously than it was at that time. But my experience, both as a sheriff and a Law Officer, was that when I pursued these matters, being concerned about them in the course of my duties, the Law Society of Scotland was less than enthusiastic in co-operating with me. My experience, as I say, may be dated. Like everyone else, I am getting older. However, that was certainly my experience. That is why I say that I believe the profession, to some extent, had itself to blame. The Government were eventually bound to act.
I wish that I had more confidence that this Bill is the right measure to achieve the improvement and the better administration of our legal aid scheme. I share many of the criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, addressed to your Lordships. Of one thing I am certain. We shall have a long Committee stage. There are many points of detail that many of your Lordships will wish to discuss at that time.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Wheatley: My Lords, it is singularly unfortunate that on the first occasion that I have had the privilege of being involved in a discussion initiated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, I find myself in opposition to him. I have a great personal and professional regard for the Lord Advocate. He has had long experience of the operation of the legal aid system in Scotland as a member of
768
various committees in the discharge of that service. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to make reference to the fact that as Lord Advocate, an office that I demitted nearly 36 years ago, I introduced the first legal aid Bill in Scotland. I shall deal with the history of that in a moment.
I wish, however, to point out my difficulty in respect of the Bill now before the House. I feel that the criticisms that I have to advance against what the Lord Advocate said are more criticisms of the brief that he had than of his personal convictions. With the skill that he displayed as an advocate at the Bar when appearing before me, he highlighted what he considered to be the benefits of the new system proposed in the Bill and skated skilfully over the defects in the proposal. He highlighted the alleged defects of the existing system by reference to generalisations of a vague nature not specified and obviously not researched by those instructing him. That is not his fault. It is the fault of the people responsible for a Bill of this nature coming before the House.
He prayed in aid the recommendations of the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, but his references to the Royal Commission and its recommendations were very selective. He selected one and omitted many others which run in conflict with the proposals in this Bill. In respect of the very fundamental point, the Royal Commission certainly recommended that the operation of legal aid in Scotland should be taken away from the Law Society. But they recommended that in its place there should not be a body such as is proposed in this Bill, but that there should be an independent body which would be responsible among other things for the operation of legal aid. I think that there are quite a number of matters listed in addition to that, with which I shall not weary the House. However, the suggestions by the commission was that a legal service commission should be instituted and that it should be independent.
It is said that the Law Society is not independent. I shall come to that in due course. But can it be said that this board is independent, if one looks at it against the background of all the provisions and those to come, of which we know not? Most of this has to be supplemented by a series of regulations, the contents of which we do not know. These regulations can make fundamental changes to the operation of the legal aid scheme, some of which have been noted by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and others to which I may make reference myself. If we are not informed whether these regulations will be subject to the affirmative or the negative resolution it means that the worst possible form of legislation will pursue the passage of this Bill into the unknown future.
Having said that, may I make one or two other observations on how things have been skated over, as they have been in the consultative document. The point was made, and is made there, that the development of legal aid in Scotland has been piecemeal and that there have been continual criticisms of that. What were the major criticisms? And what were the major piecemeal reforms? One was the introduction of legal aid and advice at a subsequent date—I think that that was 1972—and in criminal matters in a 1973 Act. But these were matters

769
that were recommended and formed part of the original Bill on legal aid. They were brought in by the appropriate procedure and it was therefore merely a question of filling in what were regarded as inadequacies as a result of these provisions not being made in the original Bill.
May I say that I personally was very sorry indeed that the original Bill did not make provision for legal aid in criminal causes at that time because, in my considered opinion, with all due respect to the people who have civil claims, the need for a man to have professional assistance when he is faced with a criminal charge, with all that that could import both in relation to his freedom, his future and his family, was much more important than providing him with legal aid to pursue a civil claim for damages. That was merely a personal view, and manifestly it did not carry weight with my colleagues.
It is then said that there is this conflict of interest in the Law Society in that they will be paying money out of the fund to their own members. What is the money which they would be paying? They would be paying not only to their own members but to members of the Faculty of Advocates. It would be money out of the fund, and money that would be prescribed by the fees which would have been laid down. They could not therefore be manipulating the fees in order to feather the pockets and the nests of their members because they would be restricted, and the account would be subject to audit if there were any dispute.
This question therefore of their having this conflict of interest because they would be paying money to their own members is far from valid. In point of fact, under the provisions of this Bill quite the reverse will take place. The complete control of the financing operation will be in the hands of the Secretary of State through the proposed board, which no one who reads the contents of this Bill, and the composition of the proposed board, would ever regard as an independent body. Apart from the exclusion of interfering with the determination of legal aid applications there is provision in the Bill that the Secretary of State can give guidance to the board in all their affairs—and we know what guidance by a Minister means in modern terms.
Having said that by way of preamble, may I take a point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, took: that the major question here is not whether there are cracks in the existing system, but, on the basis that there are cracks, how these can best be dealt with. Can they best be dealt with by this root and branch proposal? Or can they best be dealt with simply by amending, under proper consultation and research, such cracks as are required to be cleared up in the existing system?
In so far as I was the person who introduced to Parliament the first legal aid Bill in Scotland I have been to this day, and still am, very anxious to see that legal aid is properly administered and carried out. I should be the first to criticise any fault which prevented that from being done. However, in approaching that question one gets to the point of determining what is the fundamental point in the legal aid system. It is the one which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, with reference to the Long Title of the 1949 Act. I shall not weary your Lordships by making reference to it other than that
770
it was clearly an Act to provide legal aid for people of necessitous or moderate means. That is always a relative term and requires careful determination. But it is certainly not the criterion which is set out in the consultative document; and—as I gather from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Morton—that was disclaimed by the then Secretary of State. I hope that that will be noted and recorded.
May I come to the question of the development of legal aid in Scotland. The whole basis of the introduction of legal aid in Scotland stemmed from the Rushcliffe Report in England, as developed and applied to Scotland in its recommendations by the Cameron Report—a report that I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would be prepared to accept with acclaim. There was a difficulty in Scotland which did not exist in England. The difficulty was that in England they had a Law Society to whom they could devolve the responsibility of setting up and operating the scheme for legal aid. In Scotland at that time there was no one body of solicitors who were in a position to carry out that function. There were a number of individual societies of lawyers in Scotland, but they all had their own particular interests, and manifestly a legal aid scheme could not be carried out in Scotland without a body—such as the Law Society in England—to operate it.
For many years a prominent solicitor in Edinburgh, Sir Ernest Wedderburn, had been trying to get a Law Society of Scotland formed through the requisite legislation. He induced a former Lord President of the Court of Session, who was then a Lord of Appeal, Lord Normand, to introduce a Private Member's Bill in your Lordships' House for the establishment of a Law Society in Scotland. Like most Private Member's Bills in those days, it just disappeared into thin air.
However, this presented an opportunity to get such a Bill passed as a Government measure when normally it would have had to be a Private Member's Bill, because it was essential for the operation of legal aid in Scotland. If anyone cares to look at the 1949 Act, they will find that it is in two parts. The first part is the institution of a legal aid scheme in Scotland, and the second part is the institution of a Law Society in Scotland.
To that Law Society, when it was instituted, there was delegated the task of preparing a scheme of legal aid—a scheme which had to be approved by the Secretary of State and accepted by the Treasury. It got that approval, and it got that acceptance. Any scheme that gets the acceptance of the Treasury is obviously one that would not be subject to much criticism. For the next 35 years the Law Society, in collaboration with the Faculty of Advocates, have carried it out. They have carried it out with satisfaction and acceptance.
Again I return to the Royal Commission and its recommendations. In the recommendations the Royal Commission paid tribute to the Law Society, and in suggesting the setting up of a Legal Services Commission they paid tribute to the solicitors' branch in particular and said that they had never tried to further their own interests, and that they could be trusted to form this new Legal Services Commission by their representation on that body.

771
While there was this alleged conflict of interest in theory, it has never existed in practice. This Bill is proposing a root and branch change in the operation of legal aid in Scotland. The onus is manifestly on the Government to satisfy your Lordships' House that there is a requirement for this and that there is no reasonable and preferable alternative.
The first paragraph of the consultative document which has been circulated tells its own story, and tells the story of this Bill. It reads:
"The use and cost of the schemes have expanded significantly. The Secretary of State has accordingly decided that the arrangement should be reviewed and modified."
The review and modification are contained in this Bill. Why? Because "the use and cost of the schemes have expanded significantly."
What is the use? The use is giving legal aid in civil and criminal cases, and in legal aid and advice. Why has it expanded significantly? Well, again the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has made reference to some of the outstanding reasons. One glaring one is the proliferation of cases in the courts; both criminal and civil. The proliferation of cases in the criminal courts is mainly due to the proliferation of crime, and serious crime, which unfortunately exists at the present time. He also made reference to another factor, and that is the number of charges—and complicated charges—that one finds in an indictment, often with a large number of accused facing these charges. That inevitably results in long drawn-out trials.
It may well be that the circumstances of the offence require these long and complicated charges and a multiplicity of accused, but that is one of the facts of life, and if that is one of the reasons why the cost has expanded, then you have to face up to the question: are you prepared to limit the application of legal aid in necessitous cases in order to keep it within the confines of reasonable expenditure? Or are you going to follow out the principle of the original Bill and make legal aid available to all people who qualify and need it? That is the big issue. One of the frightening things, not only so far as the profession is concerned but so far as the public is concerned, is the extent to which legal aid may have to be cut down in order to meet the require-ments of finance, which will be restricting the operation of the scheme.
By the same token, we find that in the civil sphere there has been a great increase in the number of cases in court as a result of legislation passed by the Government. Various recent Acts such as the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1980, the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, and the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, are all producing more and more litigation. That is why the cost is mounting so rapidly. Within that the biggest factor is the fees paid to solicitors and counsel. The Secretary of State has taken over the determination of the fees to be paid. Therefore, he is going to have control over that. That would be the same whether the system is operated by the board or as it is at the present time; he will have control of the fees.
The consultative document goes on to say that the need for a change arises from government policy. What are the respects that are mentioned? One is
772
improving accountability. What does that mean? It is one of those vague and indefinite terms which sounds impressive, but what does it mean? In what respect is the present system falling short of accountability and who is responsible for it? We are not told.
The Secretary of State, under the proposal, has control over expenditure through the board which will be his handmaiden. It is a very selective board, as I have already said. How will he deal with the fees? Will the committee chaired by Lord Wylie, which operated until the Secretary of State took over, be retained or will the Secretary of State be proceeding merely on recommendations made by his department? Lord Wylie's committee was an independent body and dealt evenhandedly with claims made by the profession and the attitude of the Government through the Secretary of State.
The document goes on to say, again in sweeping generalisations, that the purpose is
to improve efficiency, effectiveness, economy, equity … and [give] value for money".
But nothing is said about how that will be achieved. If there is a deficiency, who is responsible? On the test of value of money, is it the value received by the Government or by the applicants? Has any research been done or has there been any study to find out whether these allegations are warranted? With all the duties and the responsibilities that the proposed board will be taking on, there will be a large degree of mounting costs. The committee will take on board not only the operation of legal aid generally in Scotland in the scheme but also the responsibility for administration and determining applications for legal aid in summary causes in the criminal court throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. That will result in a heavy body of work and will involve a great deal of additional expense. How will one make any impact on effectiveness and efficiency and make savings in expenditure in that situation?
I wonder how often the members of the board will have to sit. Not only the supreme court committee but all the district court committees will be dispensed with and all the work will fall back on to the board. It in turn, no doubt, will have to have a number of sub-committees, but I wonder to what extent they will have to sit more frequently than apparently is envisaged. In that situation are they likely to get, from the sparse number of professional people in the law who will be allowed to be in the body of that board, people who will be prepared to have that great intrusion into their practice merely for a sessional fee?
I am sorry to have taken up so much time, but I feel so strongly. I think that the proposal in the Bill is ill-conceived, ill-thought-out, ill-researched and its results badly prognosticated. If any alterations are required let us have them, but we do not require the new scheme to have them. They can be amended into the existing scheme. In so far as this may be necessary it has my full support. If the opportunity ever arises I should be only too happy to supply the noble and learned Lord Advocate with a number of proposals in that regard. However weak they may be and however much it may cost to remedy them, that should not be done at the expense of the people for whom legal aid was devised and intended.

773
It is frightening to think of the power being given to the Secretary of State under the Bill. What is even more frightening is the power that is being given through secondary legislation of an unknown nature, to which I have already referred. When that includes that in terms of the Bill by secondary legislation the Secretary of State could exclude legal aid in summary prosecutions simply by introducing the appropriate measure, we do not know whether that would be by affirmative or by negative resolution.
I am sorry to have delayed your Lordships. In Clause 31 the whole principle from the beginning was that under the legal aid system the applicant would have the same rights as the individual independent client to choose his own solicitor and counsel, but under that clause that principle of the applicant having the right to choose his own solicitor will be swept away.
If I may be pardoned for making this observation, when I was first making inquiries into the introduction of legal aid in Scotland prior to the 1949 Act, not only did we have the Rushcliffe and the Cameron Committee reports to guide us but I was having meetings with the various members of the legal profession. There was political opposition to this because it was said that by that Act we were trying to nationalise the legal profession. That was complete and utter nonsense. We were saying to the legal profession, "There's the money; you run the show". Anything further from that allegation is difficult to imagine. I always thought it was difficult to imagine until we came across Clause 31(9). That is the nearest approach to nationalisation of the profession that I have come across. It is ironical that it should come from this source.
The consultative document is highlighted, as was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, by the alleged conflict of interest on the part of the Law Society of Scotland. One wants to know what lies behind that criticism, because it is suggested that the advancement of the interests of members would conflict with the operation of the legal aid scheme. What does that mean? Does it mean that in that situation the Law Society would act as a disruptive influence in the proper carrying out of the scheme; that it would be knocking the balance out of the scheme and putting the interests of its members before the interests of the proper running of the scheme? That is an allegation that cannot be made, nor can it be sustained. It is one which already has been met by the reference I have made to the commendation made in the Royal Commission's report.
I am sorry that I have spoken so long. Perhaps I may say that the Bill has no friends in the broad legal profession in Scotland, from the head of the court right down to the rank and file members. This is not a question of the profession closing its ranks in its own interests. The history and the reputation of the voluntary supply of legal services given in Scotland by the legal profession for centuries prior to the introduction of this Bill is the answer to that. It is a record second to none and one of which we have always been very proud indeed.
Therefore this is not a question of closing the ranks. It is a realisation that this measure is not necessary and is not called for. The points raised by the Government
774
can be dealt with in other ways and there would be a great deal of dissatisfaction in Scotland if this measure introduced a system for which the legal profession, as a body, has no time.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, it may sometimes seem that legal aid is mainly of interest to lawyers and criminals. But I believe it is important to recognise that it is a vital public service which many ordinary people will have to call on at some point in their lives.
In my view, this Second Reading debate gives your Lordships' House an opportunity to focus attention on the difficulties ordinary folk have in seeking access to the law and access to justice. Obviously, one way of achieving this is to make the law itself more accessible, for example by producing simpler statutes—clearly more easily said by me than capable of accomplishment, as I know from experience of listening to Bills being debated in your Lordships' House—and of course by providing more information and education about people's legal rights.
The courts, too, could, and in my view should, be more accessible to everyone. This, so far as I can see, is far from the case at this present time, although it would be churlish not to acknowledge that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, has taken one or two, if I may say so, somewhat hesistant steps in this direction. Those are steps such as the new simplified divorce procedure and the new small claims procedure which we discussed last Session and which we hope to see available in the courts in the near future.
However, no matter how much progress is made in these directions, it will always be the case that people will at some point need expert legal advice on the meaning and implications of the law and expert help in putting their case in courts and before tribunals. It need hardly be said that expert advice and help costs money. If we live in a just society—and I hope we strive to that end—we must ensure that everyone can have access to the expert advice and help which is available, irrespective of their means. This, then, should be the major objective of the legal aid system. It should be to ensure that everyone who needs legal advice and help has access to it, irrespective of ability to pay.
This Bill, which provides for a new administrative framework for legal aid in Scotland and sets out the various legal aid schemes, is an ideal opportunity for us to consider how legal aid should operate in the public interest. The main provision in the Bill, the establishment of a new board to administer legal aid in Scotland, has of course a very respectable parentage. As the Royal Commission on Legal Services in Scotland pointed out, there is a clear appearance of a conflict of interest in the Law Society's role as administrator of the legal aid fund from which its members benefit directly, although I acknowledge that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, cast grave doubt upon that interpretation.
In my view, this is no criticism of the way in which the Law Society has administered the system up until now. Rather, it is a question of public confidence that the system is administered wholeheartedly in the public interest. However, as my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna has just been emphasising, there will

775
be concern to see that the new board is truly independent, not just of the Law Society but of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am bound to say that there is a terrible suspicion abroad in Scotland at the moment that, when this Bill is enacted, one more obedient creature of the Secretary of State will have been created.
Surely it is a matter of concern that, as presently drafted, the Bill gives the Secretary of State extensive powers by regulation to control the work of the board and to prescribe the scope and availability of legal aid—powers in some circumstances in fact to alter the provisions of this Bill as agreed by Parliament. Many of these powers are subject to affirmative resolution procedure, which of course will allow parliamentary scrutiny. However, many are subject only to negative resolution procedure. I hope that your Lordships will be concerned to see that, though the Secretary of State may have powers to give instructions to the new board, these do not lead to a radical reduction in the legal aid schemes. It seems to me that there must clearly be proper parliamentary scrutiny of any proposals which would restrict the scope or availability of legal aid.
I express the hope that the provisions in the Bill which set out the various schemes of legal aid will be seen as an opportunity to amend some of the existing anomalies and unfairnesses which exist in the schemes at present. One example of this is the current position where people who receive legal aid or legal advice must pay for it out of any money or property which is recovered. This can cause considerable injustice for someone who wins a case, has his legal rights vindicated, and then finds that a large part of or perhaps all the money he has been awarded disappears into the legal aid fund.
The Bill proposes to make changes to the criminal legal system. Here again, I hope we shall want to ensure that accused people have access to expert advice and help. Surely, it is a fundamental principle of our legal system that everyone prosecuted for an offence is entitled to a good defence.
More generally, I hope that this Bill will allow us to think about those purposes for which the law and the courts and lawyers exist. It is sometimes forgotten that laws and the courts should serve the public and not merely the needs of lawyers or administrators, which is the feeling that one sometimes has as one views the legal scene from outside. In my view, we must be careful to consider how the public interest can best be served. At subsequent stages of the Bill just such consideration will indeed be most necessary.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, nobody will regret it more than I that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has had to cry off and will not be speaking to the House in this debate. He told me that he had another engagement which he had to keep. I deplore it particularly, of course, because I think it leaves me the solitary Englishman who has had the temerity to take any part in this discussion.
I am reminded that the same thing happened to me some years ago. I sought on that occasion to make some small contribution to the debates on the
776
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, and I remember that I was regarded with some misgiving by the Scottish Peers in the House, I think particularly by the Scottish lawyers, who thought there was some kind of presumption on my part to be taking part in the discussion at all. However, I recall that the atmosphere got a little warmer when I was able to pray in aid on my own behalf the fact that my mother was Scottish born and bred, and on that account the Scottish Peers were at the time generous enough to take the view that, that being the case, the fact that my ancestry on my father's side was irremediably English was something that might be overlooked. My mother was indeed very proud of her Scottish heritage and her Scottish forbears, and I well remember how, when we were small children, she used to gather my brothers and sisters and myself around her knees in order to tell us of the trials and tribulations which had beset the Clan Mackintosh, and particularly of the awful treatment that they received from the unspeakable Campbells.
The reasons why I wish to take a very small part very briefly in this debate tonight are the same reasons as those that I had for taking part in the debates about the Scottish Criminal Justice Bill so many years ago. First, the subject itself is of intrinsic interest to somebody like me, who has been engaged all his professional life largely in the practice of the criminal law. The other reason is that it seemed to me at the time of the passage of that Bill that what was being done and the reforms and changes that were being introduced for Scotland in that Bill—and I have forgotten how many years ago it was; it was five or six years ago, I think—were likely to have important implications for English lawyers and for English law. And so it turned out to be, because when later on we introduced our own English criminal justice reform Bill many of the matters which had been threshed out and contained in the Scottish Bill found their way into the English legislation, and we had the advantage of the experience which had been derived from the Scottish measure. It is right to say that in that regard, as so often, it was the Scots who led the field and it was the Englishmen who brought up the rear.
It is those same considerations which have prompted me to make this short intervention tonight. I want to make only one point of substance. As I understand it, up till now, and indeed during the last 20 years or so, the legal aid schemes in Scotland and England have in the main been very largely the same, and the criteria for the granting of legal aid have been very largely the same. In both countries civil legal aid and assistance and advice have been administered by the Law Society in England and by the Scottish Law Society in Scotland. In both countries criminal legal aid has been the business of the courts and not the business of the law societies. In both countries, in civil legal aid cases the test of eligibility has also been the same; that is to say, the applicant must have an arguable case and it must be considered in the discretion of the (in this country) legal aid committee, and it must be reasonable, that legal aid should be given. My very firm belief is that it is of major consequence that that correspondence and that similarity between the procedures and the mechanism in England and in Scotland should remain and be retained.

777
It is legal aid, as has already been said more than once, which determines the citizen's right of equality in his access to justice. It would be, as I think, quite unacceptable if legal aid were to be less available or of less benefit and of less advantage to one group of citizens simply because they lived in different parts of the kingdom. I think that it is vitally important for the stability of the realm that in these fundamental matters, in these basic rights of access to the courts, there should be an equality of right as between all the citizens of the United Kingdom.
This Bill, as has already been pointed out more than once, makes most important changes in all three of the areas to which I have drawn attention. The major change is the substitution of the Legal Aid Board for the Scottish Law Society. As I understand it from the consultative document, the establishment of the board was unanimously recommended by the commission under the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. What I find very remarkable is to look and see what the Benson Commission advised and recommended on this score.
The Benson Commission was the commission which was charged with the duty of doing precisely what was done by the Scottish Commission on Legal Services in Scotland. It was to consider the whole question of the legal services in England and Wales. So far as I can see from the Benson Commission report, it never so much as entered their heads to consider that they should take the administration of civil legal aid out of the hands of the Law Society and put it in the hands of a board. Indeed, quite the contrary. If I may quote briefly from paragraph 11.18 in volume 1 of the Commission's report, they said:
"The evidence we have received shows a high level of confidence in the Law Society's administration of legal aid and in the manner in which it has discharged its stewardship since the inception of the scheme. It has combined humanity in the handling of individual cases with prudence in the control of public funds. It is right to place on record the significant contribution thus made in the provision of legal aid over a long period".
I was impressed, as no doubt were all noble Lords, to hear the way in which that commendation of the work of the Law Society here in England was endorsed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, when he was examining the pretensions of the Bill that is before us. That is one thing. What I am afraid of is that if we are now going to transfer the authority for dealing with civil legal aid and advice and assistance from the Scottish Law Society into the hands of the board, there is a grave danger that as time goes by there will be a growing divergence between the practice and methods of administration of legal aid between the board in Scotland and the Law Society in England. We can be sure of that, because nobody has recommended that there should be established any comparable board in England. If that were to be done it would be quite contrary to the recommendations made by the Benson Commission.
The second change which is being effected by the Bill is to transfer to the board the grant of legal aid in summary criminal proceedings. Here again we find an extraordinary contrast between what is being put forward in this Bill and the conclusion reached on the very same matter by the Benson Commission in England. The Benson Commission considered this matter in some detail and they finished off their paragraph about the organisation of legal aid in
778
England and Wales with these comments under the heading of the divison between civil and criminal aid. They said,
"It might be thought that there should be a single system of civil and criminal legal aid administered locally by one agency."
In effect, of course, that is what is now being recommended should be done by the board. They went on to say:
"This is not, however, possible because the two systems differ in nature. For civil purposes it is essential to conduct an investigation of the applicant's case in order to determine whether it is reasonable for him to be granted legal aid. To ensure that the grant or refusal of legal aid does not affect the outcome of the case in any way it is essential that this investigation be conducted by a body other than the court or tribunal that is to hear the case. In criminal cases, on the other hand, the applicant's eligibility is determined not by the merits of his case but by the seriousness of the charge brought against him. This can best be dealt with by the court before which the applicant appears. Separate systems of civil and criminal legal aid will therefore continue to be needed."
So there again the Benson Commission comes to a verdict which is in complete contrast with what is being recommended to us in this Bill.
My last example of the changes—and I hope I shall not detain the House for more than a couple of minutes—which the Bill effects is that in Clause 14 it purports to re-state the two criteria which must be satisfied before civil legal aid can be granted. That is to say, first, that the applicant has what is known in Scotland as probabilis causa litigandi and, secondly, that it is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case that he should receive legal aid.
As was pointed out, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, until now the question of whether it is reasonable for legal aid to be granted in any particular case has been left in England to the unfettered discretion of the legal aid committees. I understand that the same system has prevailed in Scotland. But now, under subsection (3) here, the Secretary of State can make regulations prescribing the factors to be taken into account by the board in determining what is reasonable. And of course the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, has again pointed out that there is no indication whatever as to what sort of factors will be put before the board to guide them in deciding the question of reasonableness.
Here again, as in the other instances, as I think, we are in very real danger of creating a gulf between the way in which legal aid is administered in Scotland and the way in which it is administered in England. We are in grave danger of having so different a system in the two countries that the people of Scotland, in all likelihood, are to be virtually second-class citizens so far as legal aid is concerned. That is the risk, as I see it, on which we are embarking in this legislation.
Finally, I think the Government may be getting themselves into a difficulty in regard to the European Convention. If it should turn out as I have suggested, that in the course of time there is a serious difference between the right to legal aid in Scotland and in England and Wales, would the Government not be in the position of being taken to Strasbourg under the European Convention, as being in violation of Article 6, which is the article which deals with a fair trial? It seems to me they would also be in breach of Article 14, which has to be read in conjunction with Article 6.

779
If I may, I should like just to quote the relevant sentences: first, from Article 6, which reads—
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights"—
and I go on to the one which is relevant—
"To defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require".
If that is read in conjunction with Article 14, we find that is the article which says this:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin",
and so on.
May it not be that there is going to be a gulf between the rights of Englishmen and Welshmen to legal aid and the rights of Scots to legal aid? And if there is a wide difference between them, may it not be that it will be possible for somebody in Scotland in the future to take the Government to Strasbourg, complaining that they are in violation of the Convention? Of course, the Government have been in trouble on that account several times in recent years. I hope they are not going to dig another hole for themselves over the observance of the Convention.
I was struck, as I have no doubt all your Lordships were, by the massive indictment of this Bill which came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley. It was a complete rejection of the Bill; and, of course, I am afraid it is significant that up to now in the course of this debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has not found a friend in the House. It is not a very happy prologue to the debates in which we are going to be involved.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords—
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I am looking forward very much to hearing him in a very short time. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said. There must be a basic similarity between England and Scotland in this field. I have very little qualification to speak on this subject, except that I was present when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, first explained to the Faculty of Advocates his proposals in regard to legal aid. It is very encouraging to hear the enthusiasm with which he still speaks and his objection to allowing this to become a semi-nationalised system, which is pretty near what we are doing.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, said that we have had legal aid in Scotland for 400 years. We of our generation have to carry on that tradition in the proper way. Are we doing that? That is the approach. Are we making the best use we can of the facilities that we have?
The first thing that I notice about this Bill is the astonishing number of regulations. In many ways, the consultative document, which does not have regulations, is more informative than this Bill, but what is in the regulations is absolutely fundamental to the way in which it is to work. So we do not even know what this body will do.
780
It is quite clear that the Government are very conscious of the fact that the new Scottish Legal Aid Board will be directly under the Secretary of State and they try to escape that criticism. But one must remember that the members are appointed by the Secretary of State, they are paid by the Secretary of State, they are regulated by the Secretary of State and yet in Schedule 1 there is the solemn statement,
"The Board is not an emanation of the Crown".
I do not know how that can be very well argued. If it is not, then it is a sort of hermaphrodite which is not the best organisation for anything remotely connected with government.
I do not quite understand the basis on which this change is to go through. There was talk of eliminating abuse, but the only abuse that I have heard mentioned is that there was a certain discrimination and that not all courts were being dealt with in the same manner in regard to legal aid. This may be a pity, but I do not think it is sufficient ground for the fundamental difference which is being introduced. I am afraid that almost anyone viewing the position objectively will feel that it is very substantially a question of money.
It is a funny question, but if this is not a Government department can a Member of Parliament be a member of the board? I see that the chairman cannot be a Member of Parliament, but that means that there is payment by the Crown. Am I right in saying that a Member of Parliament could be a member? I should have thought that that was wholly inappropriate.
I wonder whether I am going too far in asking this question. Are the Government really wise to accept the responsibility of this and throw themselves widely open to the parliamentary criticism which can be directed against them? I was a member of something called the General Board of Control, which dealt with mental illness before the war. At that time, it was a purely independent body. Then the Scottish Office brought it in for 25 years, right under the departmental organisation. It has now been taken out, and I think that the Scottish Office are glad to get rid of it. They are much happier that that organisation should be totally independent. I believe that they would be wise to take the same course here.
What liberty of action will this organisation have? Its money will be controlled, its regulation will be controlled and its members will be controlled. As the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said, the appointment of two lawyers on this essentially legal body is totally inadequate and we should certainly go into that aspect in very great detail.
I should like to draw attention to a couple more points. First, I am very glad to see that some arrangement is being made when there is assisted prosecution against an unassisted party. I should also like to draw attention to something which we were discussing indirectly when we considered women's rights in this House the other day. Clause 42(3) states that in the event of a man receiving aid,
"these resources of a person's spouse shall be treated for the purposes of this section as that person's own resources".
That means that a wife has to cough up, to some extent, if her husband is fined. I should have thought

781
it was unnecessary to put that in and contrary to the structure of the relationship between a husband and wife.
I should like to ask one more question. Why is it that the Scottish Land Court is written with initial capital letters and the sheriff court is not? Is that the normal procedure or is that an attempt to degrade the sheriff court? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will answer that question.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships in general, and to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, in particular, for the fact that my name does not appear on the list of speakers. He used the lovely phrase "returned from my peregrinations", which is difficult for me to say, so I shall not repeat it, but I was in Norway as part of a visit from the Western European Union, when we met the Ministers of Defence and Foreign Affairs and parliamentarians. When I went there, I was not certain whether I should be back yesterday or today, so I did not arrange for my name to be put down. I tried this morning to get my name added to the list through the usual channels, but on this occasion the channels must have been blocked somewhere so I have just come in as a blank speaker, unnamed.
It is tempting to start off by listing those of the recommendations of the Royal Commission that have been accepted and implemented by the Government and those that have not. But I shall refrain from that temptation and instead will deal with the Bill as it stands. But before I do so, I must make use of a note which I stuck on the front of my Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, did not arouse any objection from me when he started to speak, but he certainly did before he finished. I certainly object to and resent the suggestion that if we differ from what takes place in England, then what is happening in Scotland is second class.
It did not seem to enter his mind for one moment that if there was a difference between the two schemes, it would be somebody in England who would complain to Europe that he or she was not getting as good treatment as in Scotland. I do not know whether or not people would, but I, at least, accept that it is a possibility that we might be better than them, just as I accept the possibility that we might be worse than them. There will be no more reference to the noble Lord, Lord Foot.
There has been much said about why this Bill has been brought in and there has been reference to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. What the Bill proposes is not what the Royal Commission suggested; and I am not referring to the difference of title between "board" and "commission". That matters not in the slightest. But what we suggested was a legal services commission going much wider than just the administration of legal advice, assistance and aid. I should like to suggest that the Bill is not sufficiently different from what the Royal Commission suggested to be incapable of amendment along such lines. I do not remember who said that there will be a long Committee stage, but that comment was probably right.
Why did the Royal Commmission recommend that this function should be taken away from the Law
782
Society? We made various comments. No one knows better than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, that Royal Commissions do not pluck their recommendations out of the air. They arrive at them, as I know the noble and learned Lord's Royal Commission did, after much research, after listening to many people talking and after reading much written evidence. I have before me the volume of our recommendations but the evidence which acocmpanied it takes more than twice as much as this to put forward. It was from the consideration of all these items among others that this conclusion was arrived at. I want to make it perfectly clear that that does not imply that we considered that there was any malpractice indulged in by the Law Society of Scotland. We said on page 108 of our report:
"It has been put to us that it is wrong in principle for the governing body of the legal profession to be responsible for supervising the payment of public funds to its own members. No one has suggested that anything the Law Society has done is improper; nor have we found anything to suggest that. Rather the argument is that lawyers benefit financially from legal aid, and it is not proper that their professional organisation should be seen to be the body responsible for administering it. We think that the principle of this argument is sound".
We went on to say:
"Most of us came to the conclusion that the management of the legal aid fund is not sufficiently independent of the Law Society to assert effectively the interest of the public purse, where these interests conflict with those of the profession on a wider front than simply the scrutiny of the amount of individual accounts submitted for payment. We do not seek to blame the Law Society in any way. Their dual responsibility of simultaneously promoting the public interest and safeguarding the interests of their members is an unenviable one".
We say at paragraph 8.73:
"Having reviewed the principles and practice of administration of legal aid by the Law Society, we recommend that legal aid should be administered by an independent authority in the form of the Legal Services Commission which we propose in Chapter 20".
I think my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna asked about where the savings would come from. We did considerable research on this subject and in paragraph 8.44 we detailed savings which seemed to us to be possible. We are talking about the position some five or six years ago. The figures are applied then. We were persuaded that the savings which could be accomplished if our body was set up would be £1 million a year, which at the then costs was 10 per cent, of the cost of legal aid in Scotland. I have said that it does not matter whether it is called a board or a commission, but it does matter if it is not a services board or a services commission but a legal aid body.
I turn now to the Bill. In Clause 2(1) of the Bill the board is given wide powers. Clause 2(1) reads:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board may do anything—

(a) which it considers necessary or expedient for securing the provision of legal aid and of advice and assistance in accordance with this Act; or

(b) which is calculated to facilitate or is incidental to or conducive to the discharge of its functions".

I should like to turn now to the various recommendations at page 66 of our report. Recommendation 6.7 said:
"The Legal Services Commission should carry initial responsibility for securing the adequate provision of public information on legal rights and legal services in Scotland".

783
On page 81 we make a number of recommendations. We said:
"The Legal Services Commission should study and experiment with the best use of law centres in Scotland, bearing in mind the principles stated in paragraph 7.15".
We also said:
"The Legal Services Commission should have power to provide financial assistance to firms of solicitors to establish offices in under-provided areas of the country".
To this we attach great importance, as there are quite a number of areas in Scotland where people who require legal advice have to travel substantial distances because there is no solicitor in the area in which they live; or, alternatively, there is only one and he is already acting for the other party. That is less objectionable where there is more than one partner in the firm but when it is a one-man business, which it is much more likely to be in such areas, it means that the man cannot get local assistance. We found people who would be willing to set up in practice in some of these areas if there was a chance of making a reasonable livelihood of it. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate this question. Will these wide powers which the board is to get enable it to carry out these functions? I give the noble and learned Lord notice that if it is not so I would wish to have amendments made which would give it the necessary powers to carry out these functions. I have quoted only some of the recommendations we have made there.
I turn now to Clause 4. With regard to Clause 4(2)(a) and (b), I want it to be quite certain that what is said in the Financial Memorandum is the case and that these two subparagraphs of the clause exclude any possibility of the Government imposing cash limits; also that in Clause 4(2)(c), where the Government take powers to pay to the board its expenses—the word "instalments" is not used, but that is the idea; it will be paid at different periods throughout the year—it is absolutely certain that the board will always have at its disposal sufficient powers to enable it to meet the on-demand requirement. It should not be like in some other areas. We have found it in local authorities—for example, in housing schemes, when a point in the year is reached where they say they can take no more applications because they have temporarily run out of funds. I want an assurance that that will not happen to this board.
I turn now to Part III of the Bill. On page 116 of our report, we stated our view of what legal advice, assistance and representation in civil matters should be. We said:
"Legal aid for advice and assistance and for representation in civil matters should only be available to help citizens to assert or protect their rights, and not to assist them in arranging their affairs for the benefit of themselves or others."
I venture to suggest that that was the objective which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, had in mind when the original Bill was presented—that no one should be prevented from asserting or protecting his rights because of lack of money. But when the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs was set up one of the things which was perfectly obvious in connection with legal aid was that the original purpose of the Bill was not being fulfilled, first, because of passage of time, and secondly, because of the effects of inflation.
784
It was being said—and I believe it was said with total truth—that when the commissions were set up only the very poor and the very rich could afford to undertake necessary litigation. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will assure me and your Lordships that the purpose of legal aid, and of advice and assistance, remains unchanged: to enable people to assert and protect their rights without being needlessly interfered with by their financial positions.
That point brings me to a part of the Bill with which I find myself in total disagreement. I regret that the Government continue to include in the Bill restrictions on the incomes or capital that decide whether or not a person is entitled to free or assisted legal aid or to advice and assistance. Our recommendation was that there should be no upper limit but that the public purse should be protected by a rising scale. We recommended also—and this would have startled many people—that references to capital should be ignored.
We took the view that, in the main, capital was reflected in a person's income. We went into the matter in great detail. We know of the difficulties if, for instance, a man has £1 million but it happens to be represented by what is hanging on the walls in his library or study. How that wealth is taken into account otherwise, I do not know. However, we felt that those of moderate means—and your Lordships may remember that that consideration was something included right at the beginning—would be better able to enter into litigation if they knew that the cost to them was likely to be within their capabilities.
A major defect of the Bill is that immediately one passes the free limit 25 per cent. of one's reckonable income will be taken into account. That 25 per cent. is taken from the point immediately above the free figure, right up to the cut-off point. I do not think that such is in accordance with the views that were repeatedly expressed to us in the Royal Commission. Certainly I should like to see some alteration made in that respect.
I compared the figures in the Bill with those for 1980, and that exercise was rather interesting. As to the income limit for the free point, in 1980 it was £1,700 a year whereas in the Bill it is £2,255—an increase of 33 per cent. The upper limit figure in 1980 was £4,075, and that becomes £5,415, which is again 33 per cent. more, give or take a percentage point or two. I am not sure whether that 33 per cent. represents the figure for inflation between 1980 and 1986.
When it comes to the capital figures—and I do not know what particular reason the Government have for this difference—the lower limit cut-off point for free aid in 1980 was £1,200, whereas in the Bill it has become £3,000. That is an increase of 150 per cent. Obviously the Government have taken some account of the fact that the capital consideration was the one most capable of being criticised, although on the upper limit they have not gone quite so far: the Government have increased the figure from £2,500 to £4,710, which is 88 per cent.
One of the points that emerged from the evidence we received, and one of the objections to the taking of capital about which we received the most represent-

785
ations, concerned comparatively poor people. The crofters' commission told us that, as the position existed in 1980, a crofter with one cow could not obtain legal aid because the value of his cow meant that he had too much capital to be allowed legal aid. Farming is supposed to have fallen by 43 per cent., but I do not know how that affects the value of a crofter's cow. Nevertheless, such figures are subject to considerable criticism.
I have one other point to make concerning Clause 26, in Part V of the Bill. My Lords, I miss having a desk in front of me—but that is not meant as a request! I would refer to Clause 26(1)(b). Subsection (1) states:
"This Part of this Act applies to the employment of solicitors by the Board for any of the following purposes",
and paragraph (b) then states:
"acting for persons receiving legal aid, either generally or in cases of any such description as may be prescribed".
Another of the commission's recommendations that the Government have not yet taken up is that there should be a trial period for the appointment of a public defender. Do we have here a sort of minor public defender, who could come in under Clause 26(1)(b)? If so, then I shall be very happy to regard that as a kind of mini trial.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, who is no longer in the Chamber, stated that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was in the position of not having anybody on his side. My noble friend Lord Kirkhill, in an aside to me, criticised that remark. My noble friend said that the noble and learned Lord had a half-friend in him. I must emphasise that although I am talking from my usual place in this Chamber, I find myself speaking much more as a former chairman of a Royal Commission than as a member of my political party.
It is for that reason that I hope to be able to enlist the support of even my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley. In Committee, we might turn this Bill into a legal services commission—and I have not converted the noble and learned Lord yet because I observe a slight shaking of his head! However, the criticism of both noble and noble and learned Lords was as to the independence of the board. I do not accept that criticism. In my time, I have for 12 years been chairman of a regional hospital board. For a number of years I was a member of the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board—the first chairmanship for which I was paid. Then I was chairman of the new town of Glenrothes for four years. Subsequently, I was chairman of East Kilbride new town for seven years.
In every one of those cases I was appointed by the Secretary of State. Naturally, it was not the same Secretary of State. My colleagues on each of those boards were similarly appointed by him. However, we never regarded ourselves as the creatures totally of the Secretary of State who appointed us. There were many occasions, in every one of those bodies, when the Secretary of State was placed in the position of being told, "If you want us to do that which we do not wish to do, then give us a direction". The Secretary of State never gave such a direction.
I must admit that that situation has changed under the present Government. We know what happened in the case of gas prices and to a water undertaking when
786
those responsible did not want to do something and the Government compelled them to do it. That may have influenced what has been said today. But when we made our recommendation in the Royal Commission for a legal services commission, we obviously took it for granted that it would be appointed by somebody.
If our other recommendation to set up a legal services department of the Government had been accepted it could have come from that department, but in the absence of the creation of such a department the obvious person to appoint it is either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Lord Advocate. Clearly from what has been said by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna it would be improved if there were rights of nomination to membership of such a board by outside bodies. I know, for example, that the consumer organisations would very much welcome the right to name people for such a board.
For all those reasons I find myself increasing the Lord Advocate's supporters on this Bill from one-half to one.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been a thoughtful debate which I found most constructive. I detected perhaps a form of muted welcome for the Bill and also that certain of the comments were more relevant to regulations which will be made under the Bill than to the Bill itself. Obviously these are matters of which my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State will take particular account when considering secondary legislation.
Your Lordships will perhaps forgive me if I do not cover all the points which have been raised by noble Lords, but I shall try to deal with as many as I can. The first, and I think the most substantial matter which concerned your Lordships, was why have a board at all. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley—who I think almost took a plea of relevancy and lack of specification against me and argued in favour of it—opposed that particular point. He has had the answer, an authoritative answer, from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
The point that I wish to get across to the House is that we must look at the public perception. It was particularly that, I suggest, which the Royal Commission had in mind when acceding to the argument which the noble Lord cited from a passage in the Royal Commission's report. It would be only right to say that any one of us who has gone around would be conscious of just that particular flavour, unjustified I suggest in very many cases, of feathering of the nest. It is unfair to put an albatross of that kind round the Law Society, however well it may have been responsible for the running of the legal aid fund in the past 30, and now coming up to 40, years.
I say only this. So far as the justification for the board is concerned, in my submission that is plainly made out on the very basic arguments which were presented in the Royal Commission's report which have been accepted by the Government. I think it was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that one would have to show more. I suggest that is not

787
necessary, though I am bound to say that coming from the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, as a member of faculty I find it slightly strange that he did not use words such as "inefficiency" which have been on the lips—it may well be unjustifiable—of fellow members in regard to legal aid so far as it affects the faculty. I do not found upon that; I am merely pointing out that that is the kind of comment which can be destructive of the Law Society's role in the administration of legal aid and I suggest that is one very good reason why there should be this change.
Another, again pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is that by combining the assessment and determination role in applications—that is, the roles which are currently carried out by the Law Society and also by the Scottish Home Health Department, succeeding to the Department of Health and Social Security—one there achieves an administrative saving. There again I suggest that the case has again found some further corroboration.
I come to another point which exercised many of your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley. I refer to the question of independence. There again I need only point to the very formidable remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. It is perfectly true that this board will be appointed by the Secretary of State since he is responsible to Parliament for the board's expenditure, efficiency and effectiveness. But the members of most non-departmental public bodies are so appointed for similar reasons and I have not seen any lack of independent expression of views coming from such bodies. I would not expect this board to be an exception.
Obviously in Committee we will consider the kind of points as to its constitution that have been mentioned by noble Lords; those are very much Committee matters. However, I suggest that there is no real justification for suggesting that it will not be independent if it is appointed by the Secretary of State; nor indeed if it is in any way to work within a regulatory framework of regulations which are approved by Parliament since, again, the Secretary of State is here required to account to Parliament for what he proposes. Perhaps I may briefly deal with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley. Provision is made in Clause 37 for the manner in which regulations are to be placed before Parliament.
There was some concern about the matter of guidance. Again, I take comfort from the practical experience of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, having particular regard to what is set out in Clause 3(4). It is to be made abundantly plain that the guidance which may be given under that clause is only guidance to which the board shall have regard. It is not binding and in any event—and this is most important for those who will be the real gainers from this Bill—it will not affect the consideration or disposal of applications for legal aid or advice and assistance; that is, it cannot affect the matter upon which the board will be wholly independent.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was also concerned about whether persons are
788
likely to be any better off or worse off under the new system. I make it quite clear that the basic criteria for the award of legal aid, which relates, inter alia, to the availability of means and to having a good case, remain precisely the same under this Bill as they are under present legislation. Indeed, if your Lordships were to compare the criteria as they are set out in this Bill, I think it will be found that they are in almost exactly the same terms as under the present legislation. In some instances—for example in the "interests of justice" criterion in summary criminal cases—it is proposed to clarify the position by regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedure, and this will mean that there will be an opportunity to debate the relevant factors.
Before I pass from that point, perhaps I may say that it is important to bear in mind that we are seeking consistency, which can be obtained much more easily in this realm—and I am talking particularly of the summary criminal case—than is presently the position. As regards sheriff courts, the most recent report of the Law Society under the Scottish legal aid Acts shows that there is a very wide variation in the proportion of applications granted between one sheriff court and another. It varies from something like 99 per cent. in one court to 58 per cent. in the other. I feel that with such a wide divergence there must be a suggestion that some people are not receiving what they might otherwise obtain elsewhere.
In the district courts, of which there are 54, over the year the variation in the proportion of applications granted ranges from something just below 100 per cent. (in fact it is 99.8 per cent.) to just over 60 per cent. in other courts. That again suggests a degree of inconsistency which can only imply that somewhere there has been injustice.
It is because of that in particular that within this Bill the Government have decided, for summary criminal cases, to take the granting of legal aid from the courts and place that responsibility with the new board. As I have said already, I understand that this measure is something which has been welcomed by many sheriffs, which surely speaks for itself. I so entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, that it is absolutely essential, particularly where a person is charged with a serious offence, that he should have the ability to obtain legal aid when he requires it.
I should again like to make it quite clear, as I thought I had done in opening, that the Government do not make any change whatsoever in the provision of legal aid for cases involving solemn procedure, that is, the serious cases. In those cases it is the courts which grant legal aid, and they grant it upon precisely the same criterion, that is, undue hardship, as presently is the case.
So I could say that this Bill and what it proposes for criminal legal aid has not demonstrably been shown to be to the disadvantage of those who very properly look for assistance when coming into conflict with the criminal law. In my submission, what is proposed is in fact in every sense better and fairer. It is fairer both to the individual, as is only right, and to the public purse.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I must say that it is no doubt the case, and it

789
must be the case, that the state is the paymaster, but I wish to make it abundantly plain to your Lordships that there can be no suggestion that, merely because the state is the paymaster, this fact in any sense impinges upon the constitutional duty of the Lord Advocate as the Crown Prosecutor to carry out his duties in an entirely independent and impartial way. I would demur from any such suggestion that may appear to have been made on that aspect in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
I should like now to turn to the question of civil legal aid. Again I wish to make it clear that these measures will remain basically unchanged. An applicant will receive legal aid if he is financially eligible, and that matter will be determined upon the same financial criteria which extend throughout the United Kingdom. Concerning the question of how it will be dealt with within the board, I think it is only right to remind your Lordships that of course the board has the power to set up its own committees and that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has it in mind that the procedures for appeals in this area will remain very much the same as they are at present; though it must be said that he remains of the view that there is considerable scope for further improvement and rationalisation within the general administration of legal aid and that this will be more easily achieved under the new arrangements.
Indeed, it is partly for this reason that my right honourable friend is commissioning an independent study which will involve consideration of the existing arrangements and future requirements to assist the new board to determine the management, organisation and the administrative procedures which are best suited to the effective discharge of its statutory duties. The study is at the tender stage and my right honourable friend hopes that the contract will be let in March.
Perhaps I may again make it abundantly plain that as regards decisions on applications (I think this was a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna), while the probability is that local committees may not continue in existence, the intention is that the existing reporter system should continue broadly in its present form and, as I indicated in opening, this system will be comprised of lawyers acting locally.
Concern was voiced not only by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, but also by other noble Lords, about the question of restrictions on certain individuals or types of proceedings. I think a reference was made to certain fears in this respect. The Bill makes no change to the present position which concerns the Secretary of State's power to make regulations which cover the inclusion or exclusion of proceedings for which legal aid may be given, except to the extent that it makes clear the stage of proceedings which can be covered.
The 1967 Act, by Section 1(3), allows the Secretary of State by regulation to include or exclude proceedings, both civil and criminal, for legal aid purposes. That can be done by reference to the court or the tribunal, to the issues involved and to the capacity in which the person requiring legal aid is concerned, or otherwise. This Bill makes no difference whatsoever to the Secretary of State's powers. I desire
790
to assure your Lordships that there is nothing sinister in the powers provided for the Secretary of State in the Bill. They are derived from the existing legislation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, gave measured support for the Bill, although he allied himself with certain criticisms voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Morton. His anecdotal evidence illustrates, perhaps more in the criminal sphere, the concern of the public generally that public money should be spent well and wisely. Again, that is one of the Government's concerns. It is not a question of trying to restrict the legal aid fund, because legal aid remains a demand-led service which is not subject to cash limits except in relation to its administraton. But, as with other demand-led services met from public funds, the Government have a duty to ensure that the resources are deployed as effectively as possible.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, raised a number of points, some of which I have already dealt with. There was a point in regard to Clause 31 which was of some concern to him. The reason for what appears there is to enable the board to bring into existence the duty solicitor scheme for criminal legal aid which is an essential part of that scheme. I made it clear in opening, and I think that in some sense this is the response that I would give to him, that the basis upon which assessment of parties' means for civil legal aid is made will remain precisely the same as at present; and that of course is upon a United Kingdom basis. So far as concerns the charge that this was a root and branch change, I hope that I have at least stilled his fears, particularly so far as the criminal system is concerned. I fully understand his anxiety.
So far as concerns matters that would be dealt with by solemn procedure, the situation will remain unchanged. It is only within the limited context of the summary criminal procedure, along the lines which I indicated in my opening speech, that there will be a change, but it will only be to the extent that the scheme provides for assistance, but without representation up to the point where a plea of not guilty is tendered; and at that point it will continue up to the point when an application has been dealt with by the board for the remaining procedure. I hasten to add that the appeal procedures will remain virtually unchanged. Again, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the Bill makes no root and branch change whatsoever.
The noble and learned Lord was also concerned about the issue of fees. The Secretary of State has taken the powers and responsibilities for fixing fees for legal aid work. I would only assure the noble and learned Lord that the advisory committee, chaired by Lord Wylie, will continue to advise the Lord President on fees for non-legal aid work which are laid down in Acts of sederunt by the Court of Session.
The noble and learned Lord was also concerned about the purpose of Clause 31(9), and suggested that it might be a new clause for nationalising the legal profession. That is certainly not the intention. It is no more than a re-enactment of Section 6(3)(a) of the 1967 Act. I assure your Lordships that there is no sinister motive in including that subsection in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, made some helpful general remarks. He was the first of your Lordships to speak as a layman. If I may say so, he underlined the

791
need to have public confidence in the administration of legal aid. It was that which was behind the Royal Commission's whole recommendation. We have here just such a change which, properly regarded, can be looked at by the public as one which secures for them the very matters that they as individuals desire and which at the same time secures for them the proper administration and husbanding of public funds. Of course, as the noble Lord pointed out, there is extensive use of regulation to set up the framework of the scheme. That is to be found even in the existing legislation. The framework has been provided over the years by regulation. If one looks at the statutes in isolation, they provide only the very essentials that we find within this Bill. Thereafter, it was regulation that set up the framework.
It is always a pleasure to have even a solitary Englishman joining our debates. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for what he said. His views about the emergence of a board as opposed to the Law Society were countered so far as I was concerned by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I do not always suggest that Scottish procedures are as good for England as they are for Scotland. I notice that at times your Lordships have been persuaded to follow Scottish procedures. On the other hand, I would say that we in Scotland have our own system of law and our own system of procedure. It is necessary therefore that the provision of legal aid should take particular account of that.
While I am not familiar with the arrangements in detail in England and Wales, I am advised that there are some very considerable differences in the way in which legal aid is dealt with and provided. One significant difference in relation to criminal legal aid which does not apply in Scotland is the contributory scheme. There is none such in Scotland and none such is in mind. Nor, indeed, is the duty solicitor in Scotland carrying out the same form and kind of duties as the duty solicitor in England. It is therefore perhaps too easy to suggest that there is a similarity. The differences are great. There is no reason for not allowing Scotland to pursue its own course. We were perfectly content to allow England to pursue its own course in what it deems to be its best interests.
I take account of what the noble Lord says so far as the European human rights convention is concerned. I would simply say this. There is no reason to think that there is anything in the Bill that might be held to be in breach of the convention. But, obviously, the criteria that will be prescribed will require to be scrutinised to ensure that there is no likelihood of a breach. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for bringing that matter to my attention and to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked me in particular about the reason for change. I believe that I have dealt with that to his satisfaction. At least, I trust so. I cannot answer his question about the issue of a Member of Parliament sitting as a member of the board. That might be something to be raised at Committee stage. By then I might possibly have a response. I would only say that I note what he says about the spelling of the Scottish Land Court as
792
opposed to the sheriff court. I shall take advice on the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made, as I have indicated, a very helpful speech on the main principles of the Bill. It is only right that I should try to give some response to one or two of the questions that he put to me about the Bill. I have dealt with the general issue of cash limits. I would, however, point out on this issue that Clause 40(1) provides that the Secretary of State shall pay the sums that are required to meet payments. That is, of course, an absolute obligation. Subsection (2), to which he made particular reference, merely relates to the mechanism for that payment.
But the noble Lord did raise another and, I think, important issue, regarding the use of law centres and in particular the provision of solicitor assistance in certain areas. I can assure the noble Lord that the board's power to employ solicitors to provide legal services to individuals or local organisations continues in this Bill a provision that is in the existing legislation. I think it is right to say, as I think the noble Lord knows, that existing provision has not been brought into operation and I should say that there is at present no intention of extending the use of such law centres under the provisions in this Bill. However, the powers are there and I think that would be something which the noble Lord would be particularly concerned to know.
Some of your Lordships have expressed fears that this is a measure which is designed to curtail the scope of legal aid and its availability. But I trust that from what I have said, and in particular what has been said within the House this evening, your Lordships are now in a position to appreciate that this is not the intention. The primary aims are to improve the administration of legal aid in Scotland by bringing together under the control of the board the various functions which are at the moment scattered over several bodies and thereby to increase consistency in the award of legal aid and to clarify the legal aid legislation of Scotland. The Government hope very much that these measures which they are taking to improve efficiency, to achieve greater accountability and to limit further the scope for abuse will result in securing value for money and enable the available resources to be put to better use.
I am confident that noble Lords will fully support those objectives. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to your Lordships as a useful means of helping to achieve those objectives and thus fully deserving of your support. I look forward to the Committee stage. I take note of what has been said about its length, but I do not fear that.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Museum of London Bill
9.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The main object of this short Bill is to give to the Government and to the Corporation of the City of London equal shares in responsibility for funding the

793
Museum of London and in the appointment of members of the board of governors. At present, the Government, the City and the GLC each contribute one-third of the funding of the museum and each appoints one-third of the members of the board.
The Bill deals with the situation after the abolition of the Greater London Council. During the last Session, the Government announced during the passage of the Local Government Act 1985 that it was their intention to divide the GLC's share of responsibilities equally between the other two partners after abolition. It was not possible to give effect to those arrangements in the Local Government Act itself. This was partly because the Government wanted to make one or two other amendments to the existing Museum of London Act 1965 and to effect other repeals, neither of which could be done under the terms of that Act. Therefore as an interim measure—and it was made clear at the time that it was an interim measure—the Local Government Act 1985 provided for the transfer from 1st April of this year of the whole of the GLC's share to the Government.
The Bill before your Lordships now supersedes the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 1985 before they come into effect and amends the earlier 1965 Act governing the Museum of London.
This year the museum is celebrating its tenth anniversary but its real history goes back much further than that would suggest. The museum, as we know it today, has its origins in two long-established institutions: the Guildhall Museum, primarily concerned with the square mile of London, and the London Museum, concerned with a broader survey of Greater London. The two museums were merged into one organisation on 1st June 1975 when the Museum of London Act 1965 came into effect, and the present splendid purpose-built building in London Wall was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in December 1976. The museum has had a tremendous success in bringing to life for thousands of visitors the rich and varied history of London from its earliest beginnings as a prehistoric settlement to the great capital city which we know today.
I should like to pay tribute to the present board of governors under the chairmanship of Mr. Michael Robbins and to the museum director, Mr. Max Hebditch, who have made the museum a model for what a capital city's museum can and should be. I also pay tribute to the sound support which has been given to the museum both by the City Corporation and, over the past 10 years, by the Greater London Council. We must now build on these past achievements. The purpose of this Bill is to establish the statutory basis for the museum's development in the years ahead.
The Bill has the support of both the museum and the City. They welcome the 50–50 sharing arrangement and the clarification of the board's powers which the Bill contains. The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that under the new arrangements the Museum of London shall have a secure future. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts has already announced that the Government's contribution to the running costs of the museum in 1986 to 1987 will be £2¼ million, and the City has
794
announced that it will provide an identical sum. The museum's main grant next year will therefore amount to £4½ million.
This represents a 10½ per cent. increase in cash terms on the budget for the current year. This substantial increase is in recognition of the special needs of the museum as identified in their bid to the Government and the City, including maintenance and refurbishment of the building fabric, additions to storage accommodation, and modernisation of the original displays, which are now some 10 years old. That is a clear measure of the Government's commitment to this excellent museum.
Let me say a brief word about the clauses. Clause 1 is concerned with the appointment of members of the board of governors of the museum. It provides that the Prime Minister and the City each appoint nine in place of the six currently appointed by each of the Prime Minister, the City and the GLC; so the total number will remain the same, 18. There are transitional provisions to stagger the terms of office of the new appointees to bring them into line with the existing arrangements, which have worked well; and Clause I will supersede the relevant provisions in the Local Government Act 1985.
Clause 2 includes a fuller definition of the board's powers, including its powers over property. It makes explicit the London-wide nature of the museum's interests. I know that this has been a point of concern in some quarters, and the Bill is quite clear about this. The clause also specifically empowers the board to undertake archaeological investigations and research, and to publish the results of that research. All this is done by substituting new sections in place of the existing Sections 3 and 8 of the Museum of London Act 1965.
Clause 3 deals with finance and provides that the Government and City of London Corporation shall, in future, have an equal share in the main funding of the museum in place of the current one-third shares of the Government, City and GLC. It will supersede the corresponding provision of the Local Government Act 1985.
Clause 4 gives powers to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission to make grants to the museum to allow it to provide an archaeological service for Greater London. This is a separate arrangement from the main funding of the museum and will ensure that the Greater London archaeological service, currently funded by the GLC, will continue uninterrupted. Clauses 5 and 6 and the schedule cover expenses, the Short Title, commencement date and repeals.
May I add a word or two more about the archaeological service for London provided by the museum? Our capital city must be one of the richest in the world in terms of the archaeological heritage beneath our streets and buildings. A particularly heartening development of recent decades is that an interest in archaeology and a recognition of its importance is no longer confined to the expert view but is an interest shared by many people, and for the past three years or so London has been particularly well served by the activities of the Greater London archaeological service based at the Museum of

795
London. It has done important work, and it has earned a high reputation. The Greater London Council, to its credit, has provided the necessary funds to allow the service to be provided, and has also undertaken the important task of grant-aiding individual rescue archaeology projects.
The Government gave a commitment during the passage of the Local Government Act last year that we would make provision for these services to continue. The Bill before your Lordships meets the commitment by giving to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission the power to grant-aid this archaeological work, and the commission's annual grant from the next financial year onwards will reflect these additional responsibilities.
The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, or English Heritage, is well equipped to take over the GLC's involvement and commitment to the task. It not only spends some £3½ million a year in support of rescue archaeology projects throughout the country, but also spends some £2 million on the work of its own excavation unit and contracts to museums and universities for scientific and conservation work.
The commission will be allocated an additional £7.75 million in the next financial year to cover additional responsibilities after the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, and the funds for the Greater London archaeological service will come from this additional allocation. The precise sum will be a matter for discussion between the commission and the museum, but the Government have made their commitment clear (and I now repeat it) that there should be no diminution in the amount of public funding required to maintain this important service at an appropriate level.
This is a short Bill and is relatively straightforward. I believe it will provide a firm statutory basis for the future of this excellent museum. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Belstead.)
9.27 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his clear explanation and description of the Bill. We were also pleased to see that two minor amendments were accepted by the Government in another place: one which is in the Bill, while the other—on the reporting of the findings, on the archaeological service and on what the museum has been doing—will be moved in Committee here. So far so good.
If it had not been for the abolition of the GLC it would not be necessary for us all to be staying as late as we are tonight to consider this further piece of legislation. I do not intend to go over all we discussed last year, but in many ways the Bill symbolises the unfortunate spin-off of abolition and all the other alternative arrangements that have to be made.
The most recent annual report of the Museum of London, an attractively produced piece of work, points out the main points that the board of governors
796
made to the Government. The main points made were:

"(a) as the abolition of the GLC will sever the formal link we enjoy with the whole of Greater London another way must be found to protect that status;

"(b) the funds available from the public sector must at least maintain and, if possible, increase our level of service to the public;

"(c) our role in field and rescue archaeology throughout Greater London must be maintained and another sponsor found to take over and continue the funding granted by the GLC for this purpose".

It appears that the museum is quite well pleased at the moment with the financial arrangements that the Minister has explained to us, this £4½ million in the coming year. Later I shall deal with the point about archaeology. Our first priority in considering the Bill is that the Museum of London caters for the whole of London but, as the Minister explained, following abolition there will only be representatives from the City of London (which is the smallest local authority in London, with a population of about 6,000) plus representatives of the nation as a whole in the shape and form of the Prime Minister's nominees. There is nothing in between; no representation of the wider interests of London and of Greater London, although the Bill defines:
"In this section 'London' includes all Greater London and the surrounding region".
It seems to me that there is room for some essential amendment. A number of possibilities have been explored and the Government have found none of them acceptable. I do not think any were viable, so I do not propose to go over that ground again. I welcome the Government's intention to bear in mind the wider interests of London and Greater London in making their appointments, but this is not quite good enough. It seems to me and to many other people who are concerned about the museum that some sort of statutory arrangement is necessary.
What I want to propose has not, so far as I know, been proposed in this form before. It is, that the six places on the museum's board, currently filled by nominees of the Greater London Council, should be taken by people who have been nominated by the London boroughs. Each London borough could be invited, but not of course compelled, to submit nominations to be considered by the two funding bodies, one of them being the Government. Talking in very wide terms at the moment, this could be done through the Minister for the Arts and the Office of Arts and Libraries. The other party to this matter would be the corporation of the City.
Should the boroughs fail to nominate board members, the Government and the corporation could then select the six board members, bearing in mind the need for Londonwide representation. There is no suggestion that they should be tied to select any particular person or persons, but that they should have this idea before them.
It may very well be that the boroughs may wish to propose to the board former GLC members who have performed their duties as board members so ably in the past. Indeed, in another place, the Minister for the Arts mentioned that there was no reason why former GLC members should not take their place on the board. This would allow for extra board members to come from a wide spectrum, covering both geographi

797
cal and political factors, and also having regard to the particular interests which are required by the museum at any particular time. This would therefore go some way towards representing that wider interest that the abolition of the GLC removes from the board.
I feel that this solution is also in the Government's own interests. Certainly it need not necessarily be in the form in which I have mentioned it, because at the moment it is not a question of drafting. Although I told the Minister very late in the day that I would raise this point on representation, I should be very much happier, not only because of the lateness of the hour but because the Minister really has not at all had the opportunity to consider it, if it was considered and perhaps he and I, with others, could have a word between now and Committee stage.
I have discussed representation with the chairman of the board of governors, who himself feels very strongly and tells me that the board are also still very concerned, about the question. I believe representation should not only be given to people in London and, going wider, out of London, but should also be seen to be so given. The Minister here and the Minister in another place may give undertakings, which I am sure are completely well meant and will find their way into Hansard. However, that is not at all the same as having them on the face of the Bill, where they will not only be intended but be seen to be intended and be seen to be going to happen. I hope the Minister will take that very much on board. We shall return to the matter at Committee stage.
I should like now just for a moment to turn to the Greater London Archaeology Service. As noble Lords know, and as the Minister pointed out, the service was set up by the GLC and funded by the GLC's Historic Buildings Division, the Museum of London taking care of rescue archaeology in 27 of the London boroughs, with the Passmore-Edwards Museum running the service in North-East London, covering the boroughs of Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Havering, Newham and Barking. As is generally recognised, the GLC had a very high reputation in rescue archaeology which, if it is to be able to do its job, requires immediate action.
First, I should like to say in this connection how glad I am that English Heritage has been able to take over the GLC's funding role: that is clearly the right answer. Also, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, is in his place tonight and is going to speak in this debate. However, I should still like some assurances from the Minister: first, that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission will continue to be adequately funded by the Government in order to carry out archaeological services. This is one of the services where it is no good saying, "We can't do anything this year but in a couple of years come back again" because what you are trying to deal with, to treat and to save can by then have been destroyed and finished for ever.
Secondly, there appears to be some uncertainty about the position of the Passmore-Edwards Museum. Clause 4 refers specifically to the Museum of London and, although the same clause provides for English Heritage to impose conditions on the funds that it passes to the Museum of London, there is no specific protection in the Bill for the funding of rescue
798
archaeology in North-East London. Until now, the Passmore-Edwards has had equal status with the Museum of London for archaeological services under the GLC. I see no reason why this should not continue under English Heritage, funding each service separately.
I should like to point out to the Minister that this is not just a view taken within London but is a view held by a number of much respected academics in archaeology in different parts of the country. In case the Minister is going to refer to the fact that if you bring in one museum you have to bring in others as well, I think that in another place the Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit was mentioned. But the position for the Passmore-Edwards is quite different because the Kent unit provides a rescue archaeology service on an agency basis for the Museum of South-East London. The Passmore-Edwards responsibilities are entirely separate from the Museum of London.
I moved an amendment on this particular point on 2nd May last year (col. 436) during the passage of the Local Government Bill. The Minister at the time, Lord Elton, said:
"As for the arrangements between the Museum of London and the Passmore-Edwards museum, it is the intention, I understand, of the commission to continue to work with the Museum of London on rescue archaeology in London. The GLC does provide considerable financial support for the provision of permanent staff and organisation for carrying out the … work".
He then refers to his noble friend Lord Montagu and what the commission is taking on. This took place rather late at night and the question of the Passmore-Edwards museum was never adequately dealt with.
It seems to me that the two museums' archaeological services ought to continue to enjoy equal status under English Heritage. An amendment like that is very small. It really only means making grant under Clause 4 to the Board of Governors of the Museum of London and Passmore-Edwards rather than just relying on subsection (2), which states:
"A grant under this section may be made subject to such conditions as the Commission think fit to impose".
It would seem to make the matter much clearer and the Passmore-Edwards is the only other museum that is involved. I should be very surprised if the chairman of English Heritage, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, registered any objection to this.
This House is the appropriate place to amend this Bill with considerable care and to ensure as far as possible that neither the museum nor the archaeological services suffer as a result of the abolition of the GLC. It is particularly to our advantage, I repeat, that the chairman of English Heritage, will, I hope, be here and will be able to participate throughout the passage of the Bill.
The Museum of London is a small but very important museum. It concentrates on our capital city and around half a million people visit it in a year. It lays stress on the educational side of the museum service, organising school and college trips, seminars, history workshops and eductional publications, as well as preserving examples of London life in the past for the people of London in the present to visit and to learn from. It is therefore crucial that the Museum of London remains accessible to all those wishing to benefit from it.

799
At present no entrance charge is levied, although there is a fee on occasion for special exhibitions, with which I have no quarrel. While supporting the encouragement of voluntary contributions by visitors (but without pressurising them) and the development of additional services such as the sale of publications and catering facilities—all of which I think a museum should conduct in a very businesslike manner—I should want to see that the museum can be assured of never being forced into a position of having to introduce, or being enabled to introduce, entrance charges. I know that is also the view of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, who is also speaking in this debate.
Although this is a small Bill, it is important for a number of reasons that I have given, and probably for others that I have not given, that we should get the details right. I therefore look forward to the forthcoming stages of the Bill, during which we shall have an opportunity to investigate further its implications and an opportunity also to bring forward amendments to improve it.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. I do so especially as chairman of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, in which of course I must declare an interest. I should like to remind the House that under the Local Government Act which abolishes the GLC my commission will, on 1st April next, assume many responsibilities with regard to historic buildings and archaeology in the Greater London area, and in particular the responsibility for ensuring the continuation of the excellent work hitherto done by the GLC's historic buildings division. In that respect I can confirm that the commission will be offering jobs to all those in that historic buildings division who wish to join us.
In recent years an important part of that work has been the support of the Greater London archaeological service provided by the Museum of London and the Passmore-Edwards Museum. As with the other aspects of the former GLC work for which we are taking responsibility, we are determined to maintain the standards which have earned such high praise in the past and if possible to improve on them. We shall naturally have to relate these activities to our other responsibilities, and our performance will inevitably be constrained by the resources allocated to us by government by way of our grant-in-aid.
At present, my commission does not have the power to pay the museums to continue their general archaeological service for London. Our powers are confined to the support of individual archaeological projects and investigations. Thus I welcome this Bill, which will enable us to make the payments to the two museums which are necessary for the continuation of the Greater London archaeological service, with the payments to the Passmore-Edwards Museum which will be channelled directly through the Museum of London.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has raised a question about the Passmore-Edwards Museum. As it has been arranged at the moment, after consultation
800
with the two bodies concerned that museum will make its separate bid in negotiation with ourselves and the Museum of London. It has been accepted that if that bid is in any way disputed the Passmore-Edwards Museum will have the right to negotiate directly with us. I can foresee no actual problem, though if the Government are prepared to accept an emendment to hand funds direct to the Passmore-Edwards Museum we should be delighted to carry that out. I am sure, however, that these provisions will be essential in ensuring a smooth changeover as from 1st April.
I think it would be helpful to the House if I took a minute or two to make a few points about the way in which my commission intends to discharge its new responsibilities towards London and especially the archaeological service. The funding for those extra responsibilities will form part of the commission's grant-in-aid from the Government, but it will be separately distinguished, as in the case of other major categories of expenditure in the corporate plan which we submit annually to the Secretary of State. As far as London is concerned, we shall rely heavily on the advice received from our new London advisory committee. I am glad to tell the House tonight that Robert Vigars, ex-chairman of the GLC who has had a long and distinguished career with the GLC, and who has recently been appointed as one of my commissioners, has accepted my invitation to chair that commitee.
In maintaining the Greater London archaeological service, the commission will naturally contribute all its considerable expertise in archaeology, including rescue archaeology. We already manage the national rescue programme of over £5 million a year grant-aid, some of which goes to London projects. For instance, we are at the moment helping to fund an important excavation of the Roman forum in Leadenhall to the sum of £150,000.
Many of our staff are active in archaeological investigations, as part of our central excavation unit, in liaison with independent units all over the country which we grant aid, in excavations at monuments in our care or in our laboratory dealing with finds from all sorts of sources. I have no doubt that we can further develop the close working relationship which already exists between the London and Passmore-Edwards Museum and ourselves. We are very conscious that we need to make special efforts to act as the curator of the London regional interest in all matters pertaining to our new responsibilities, as well as maintaining our national role. The new London advisory committee, which I have already mentioned, will have members who, I am sure, will keep a very close eye on those regional responsibilities.
In order to increase further the representation of London I have recently appointed Michael Robbins, chairman of the Museum of London, to our ancient monuments advisory committee, where I am sure that, together with Ian Robertson, director of the Passmore-Edwards Museum, they will ensure that proper weight is given by my commission to the interests of archaeology in London. We are all very conscious of the uncertainties and problems of the people who work in the service, and of the need for continuity, and that the valuable work which they do

801
should continue. So I hope very much that your Lordships will give this Bill a speedy passage so that it may become law as quickly as possible.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the speech that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Montague, is indeed reassuring. Many of us have felt grave anxiety about this subject, but what he has said helps to put that to rest. Whether it is entirely capable of doing so is another question, and I was glad to hear that he raised no difficulty about the question of making the Government's present good intentions more specific in the legislation. That, I think, is a helpful attitude, and I hope the Government may follow along those lines, because in legislation one not only expresses one's current good intentions but one expresses something which is binding upon the future, and no one can guarantee that current good intentions will be carried out in years to come. Therefore, it will be much better for everybody—for the Government, for the commission, for the museum and certainly more satisfactory for the Opposition, as my noble friend has indicated—if those things which the noble Lord has indicated it is the Government's intention to do are made more specific. This is one example, which will be very welcome.
As my noble friend indicated, this Bill is one of the many minor disasters which are following in the wake of the major disaster of abolishing the Greater London Council. When I listened to the tributes of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, to the Greater London Council, I began to wonder why it was that the Government had decided to get rid of it, if indeed he is inheriting the work of so splendid a body. The more one looks at the Greater London Council, the more one begins to discount the newspaper taradiddle which we have seen about things which some people would regard as minor peccadilloes, and the more one realises the splendid volume of wonderful work which has been carried out all over London by this great body of which the Government are so mistakenly disposing.
A Labour Government will restore elected government in the capital city. This Bill seeks to fill in one of the gaps as best it can on behalf of the Museum of London. The governors who are at present GLC nominees have been dropped on purely political considerations. They include some of the best of the governors as no one would deny, and the museum will be the poorer for their loss. I was therefore glad to hear from the Minister that there is at least a possibility—perhaps even a strong possibility—of their reappointment, wearing a slightly different hat.
The Bill wipes out any suggestion of democratic control of appointments and of the museum itself on behalf of the people of London. The museum has more than 8 million constituents, and probably more than that if one considers the area in which people live who are concerned and who benefit from it. The City of London has 5,000 residents—certainly not more than 6,000 residents—most of whom have no say in the matter, direct or indirect. The Bill is therefore a step on the authoritarian and anti-democratic path which the Government seem to be determined to tread against the very interest, I suggest, of the people who elected them. No wonder they have, apparently, dropped to third place in the opinion polls
802
In this Bill they are robbing the people of London of any real sense of control over their own museum, or at least of any real sense of influence upon the fate of their own museum. All we can try to do with the Bill is to ensure, as my noble friend has suggested, that free access to their own treasures—for the most part, they are their own treasures—is maintained as it has been throughout the 10 years of life of the museum. The Bill does not even provide for that. I think it likely, as my noble friend has indicated, that we may be moving an amendment which I hope will be widely supported in an endeavour to ensure that Londoners now deprived of the influence upon the affairs of this great institution to which I have referred shall at least be guaranteed their existing ability to see what is mostly their own without having to pay extra for the privilege—that is to say, on top of their rates and taxes, which should surely cover museum access, with the library service, which is one of our prides, and rightly so, and, for that matter, our still much admired health service. All these things come from rates and taxes, The national museums and the great City museum, which in my view is entitled to think of itself as a national institution and not only as a London institution, should surely be in that category. If the Government decide to go ahead and allow charges to be imposed I think that they will regret it. I think that it will be a mistake.
Perhaps I may return to the question of the removal of elected influence on the conduct of the museum and thus the destruction of its accountability to the citizens it is primarily there to serve. But before I go on perhaps I may say this. I see nothing to blame and everything to praise in the establishment of private museums by stout-hearted people who take their life in their hands by opening their historic houses and quite properly charging people for access. Otherwise it could not be done. Therefore I have no ideological objection to the charging for admission as such. What I think is totally wrong—and in this I believe I am supported by the majority of people who are interested in museums—is the charging of entrance fees to our national collections, of which, for this purpose, this museum must be regarded as one. I have considered whether we should seek to re-establish accountability by requiring the appointment of trustees nominated by the London boroughs in place of those hitherto nominated by the GLC. However, as my noble friend has indicated, there are problems.
In another place, Sir David Price, a Conservative, was fully aware of the sad consequences of the ideological control that has now taken over in his party, he demonstrated what I have no doubt was absolutely genuine concern for the future of this splendid museum, which I had some hand in encouraging when I was Minister for the Arts. It opened when I enjoyed that position. I recall attending the opening and confessing that one of the first actions that I took when I entered Parliament in 1964 was to move a Bill for the abolition of the City of London Corporation. I said that I thought the museum was one of the first signs I had seen that I might conceivably have been wrong in my earlier view.
Unfortunately, the corporation has not persisted entirely in its well-doing, and the Government have gone in the opposite direction. They have preserved the dignity of the government of London but are now

803
seeking to abolish, or at least to damage, the democratic part of it. That cannot be regarded as a good thing.
Sir David Price seemed to be advocating the appointment of trustees nominated by the boroughs. As my noble friend has said, we must look at the problem here. I hope that the Minister will accept our suggestion that there should be discussions. There are several ways in which the problem might be tackled. Some of them perhaps fall rather short of direct appointment. Some would require consultation by the Minister with nominated bodies before making such appointments. We could go into the legislation. I myself hope that some means will be found of providing much more direct representation of the people concerned in the government of London—particularly elected persons—so that we shall not lose entirely the strand that connects the museum with the people it seeks to serve. If there is a difficulty, and I believe that there is, then ways around that difficulty can be found.
There is then the funding of the London Archaeology Service. As I said earlier, our fears have been put to rest to some considerable degree by the noble Lord. The valuable work concerned is carried out by the staff of the GLC within the museum. The important statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, that jobs will not be lost in that connection, and that there will be employment for the people at present engaged in that work, is most welcome. I personally was very glad to hear it.
On the question of money, I ask: what about future years? We could do with more assurances in the Bill. I know that some people have fears that may have been partially alleviated—relieved, but possibly not entirely relieved—that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, being a national body, may find itself in difficulty in future if it were to get into financial trouble. It seems to me that almost everybody in the museum business gets into financial difficulties. If we are to believe what is said in The House Magazine by Sir Roy Strong, then the V & A is in a very bad way. We cannot imagine that the Museum of London will always have enough money to do all the things that it wants to do. It may become short of money. Neither can we imagine that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission will always have enough money to do all the things it would like to do.
The assurance we have been given is that there is no danger of the commission as a national body being tempted to shift money away from London to, say, Manchester, or to shift money in the opposite direction if the other situation were to arise. It is important that such a thing should never occur. The commission's specific obligations to London might well be spelt out in greater detail in the Bill itself.
In a recent Written Answer in another place the Minister announced his decision to change the financing arrangements for the nine major national collections. The proposed changes might be viewed optimistically by those who think they will mean that the museums and galleries will have more money, and pessimistically by those who, like myself, think that
804
they might be used as a means of forcing the institutions to charge for admission, whether or not they wanted to. Can the noble Lord reassure us on that?
Can the noble Lord also say that, although the Museum of London is national in some ways, it is not intended to add it to those nine institutions which are to enjoy the benefits or disadvantages, as the case may be, of the new method of funding? The Government have become what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, before he became a supporter of it, used to call "an elected dictatorship". As the right honourable gentleman the chairman of the Conservative Party, Mr. Tebbit, put it:
"The GLC is typical of this new, modern, divisive version of socialism. It must be defeated. So we shall abolish the GLC."
In other words, "The electorate has chosen people we do no like so we shall abolish the power of the electors." That is the bay of the dictator. By our amendments to this small Bill we must try to take perhaps a tiny step to mitigate the consequences of this move towards authoritarianism in the Government. The larger step, of course, to put an end to that can only come when the people of this country make their decision upon it, as they will before long.
The Minister who is to reply to the debate has, of course, nothing but good intent, and therefore we shall listen to his reply with close concern in the belief that he wishes to do his best for the Bill with which he has been entrusted; and we, in turn, will do our best to ensure that it achieves all that he hopes for it.
10.2 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we have had a useful debate this evening and it is certainly good to have heard support for the work of the Museum of London from all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for recognising the amendment which was made in another place about publication of the results of our archaeological research and the undertaking given for a further amendment which will be brought forward in your Lordships' House about reporting the work of the Museum of London as a statutory obligation.
As I said at the beginning of this debate, this is a short Bill and a relatively straightforward one. It deals with the situation after the abolition of the GLC in a simple and logical manner by dividing the present one-third responsibilities equally between the other two funding authorities. I was not sure whether we should get through the debate without a noble Lord wondering why the GLC is being abolished, but the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, made sure that would happen by expressing that view. I remind your Lordships that rationalisation through the removal of an unnecessary layer of government and the elimination of duplication of functions among the GLC and the boroughs is, in fact, going to save money for ratepayers. As I and other people are ratepayers in Greater London, unlike the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite, I do not laugh at that—I rejoice.
This is a Bill which makes sensible provisions for the future of the Museum of London in terms of appointments and in terms of funding. I just repeat that additional funds are being made available for the purpose to the tune of a more than 10 per cent.

805
increase in cash terms for the budget of the museum for next year compared with the current year.
I realise that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, have in different ways expressed concern that, without the contribution of the GLC, the London-wide nature of the museum will be overlooked. The museum has been and will continue to be a museum for all London. This is quite specifically spelled out in the Bill in Clauses 2 and 4 in relation to the funding of the archaeological service. I repeat the very clear commitment, which was given in the earlier stages of the passage of this Bill, that both the Prime Minister and the City will take full account of the London-wide nature of the museum when making appointments to the board under the Bill, and I welcome the opportunity to emphasise this again.
Of course I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the proposal which has been put forward by the noble Baroness for nominations of board members from the London boroughs; but I simply make the point that, while promising to draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this suggestion, I believe that we do have in the Bill a sensible and practicable way forward. There is this absolutely explicit undertaking, or rather explicit acknowledgment, of the London-wide nature of the museum which is set out on the face of the Bill.
If I may say so, I think it was extremely helpful to have had the intervention of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. Under his chairmanship the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is committed to continuing the work of the archaeological service, which is based at the museum and serves all of London. It is taking over a number of heritage linked functions of the GLC. I think there are only two problems. The first was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who asked for an assurance about funding. I should like to repeat the commitment that the commission's grant from Government will take full account of the additional responsibilities that it is undertaking. In the next financial year the additional sum for post-abolition activities is to be £7¾ million.
I know that the commission is in discussion with the Museum of London about the future programme of work, and having heard my noble friend's speech I have every confidence that next year will see just as active and enterprising a programme as in this and previous years. The Bill empowers the museum to provide and the commission to fund the London-wide rescue archaeological service. I should like to emphasise that this Bill gives the service a statutory basis for the first time.
I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said about the Passmore-Edwards Museum. Of course, mention of that museum is not included specifically on the face of the Bill. The archaeological services provided by the Museum of London include those services and they are for the north-eastern boroughs of London, as for other areas. Those services will be funded by the Museum of London. The Bill does not list the separate components of the service. It seeks to ensure a single organisational and practical entity to co-ordinate archaeological services London-wide. I repeat that for the first time it is put on a statutory basis, which I think is a great encouragement for the future.
806
Of course I shall look carefully at what the noble Baroness has said, and see whether the noble Baroness wishes to return to this matter at the Committee stage of the Bill. However, I ask the noble Baroness just to bear in mind what we have not said so far, which is that the Bill represents a step forward not only for the service but for those who are part of the service, like the Passmore-Edwards Museum.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I appreciate that that is now a statutory function. I gained the impression that the Minister may have thought that there could be a number of other institutions or museums that should be included if one included the Passmore-Edwards, but that is not so. Just the two museums are responsible for rescue archaeology in London: as I said, one with the five and the other with the 27. I should like him to bear that very much in mind when he is considering the point. It is a simple drafting point but very important archaeologically.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I promised, we shall look at what the noble Baroness said.
If the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will forgive me, he made an extraordinary assertion about the advantages that have been offered to the nine national museums and galleries by my right honourable friend in regard to the use they can make of money they gather from any charge they happen to make and the advantage that will have in the sense that it will not be netted off against grant-in-aid. There are great advantages contained in the Statement made by my right honourable friend about a fortnight ago. I was genuinely surprised that the noble Lord questioned that. He went on to ask whether I would give an assurance that the Museum of London would not join the nine national museums and galleries in those advantages. That is a matter which we ought perhaps to come back to on Report. If he will forgive me saying so, he and I are not starting off from the same basis in discussing that aspect.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it was stated that as a consequence of the decision, in future the money raised by the museum will be able to be used by it for its own purposes and will no longer be automatically deducted. I was not so much expressing my fear but the fear held in museum circles that an end consequence may be that museums, in endeavouring to maximise their income, and possibly accompanied by a reduction in government contributions, may find themselves forced in the direction of admission charges. I am glad to hear the Minister is doing what he can to reassure us that those fears are unworthy and can be set at rest. I am sure that that is a genuine assurance from him, and I hope that it is correct.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, those fears are unworthy. I do not think that there is anything in my right honourable friend's Statement that could possibly have given rise to such fears.
That leads me finally to the question of charges. It is not a question of the Government instituting charges. As the noble Lord knows, although the Museum of London does not charge for entry, it nonetheless has powers to do so if the board of governors so decides.

807
The Government believe that it is right that decisions on whether to raise charges should be for the trustees, and in this case the board of governors and directors of each individual institution. They are best placed to judge what is most appropriate for their institution. It is no part of government policy to impose admission charges, but nor would we wish to discourage let alone forbid that.
I hope that I have been able to clarify some of the points raised. I believe that the Bill provides the Museum of London with a good basis from which to move forward and to develop.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

George Donald Evans and Deborah Jane Evans (Marriage Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
Keith Owen and June Veronica Owen (Marriage Enabling) Bill [H. L.]
John Ernest Rolfe and Florence Iveen Rolfe (Marriage Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
Bills, in the form approved by the Personal Bills Committee, presented and read a first time.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.