Lords Sitting of 17 February 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
The Earl of Stockton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

Lord Bramall
Field Marshall Sir Edwin Noel Westby Bramall, Knight, GCB, OBE, MC, having been created Baron Bramall, of Bushfield in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Carver and the Lord Lewin.

Prison Officers: Working Conditions
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the fresh start proposals for improving the working arrangements and practices of prison officers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, discussions with the Prison Officers' Association and the other prison service trade unions have largely been concluded and a reshaped offer is now in preparation. Agreement has been reached in principle about the proposals with the SCPS (Governors' Branch), which has given them its unanimous support.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Will he inform the House whether the Prison Governors' Association is in favour of the revised proposals under fresh start?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am happy to confirm to the House that at the annual general meeting last week the governors voted unanimously in support of the proposition.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on these Benches we are perfectly clear that some re-arrangement is absolutely essential in the staff of the prisons? Is he also aware that we very much hope that he will be successful in negotiating an agreement with the prison officers, who have had a difficult time for a long while and with whom I believe it will not be easy to deal?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support. However, we are negotiating not only with the Prison Officers' Association but also with the other unions involved.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, will the Minister tell us the advantages of fresh start and say why we are introducing the scheme?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the advantages of fresh start are essentially higher basic pay and a guaranteed level of earnings for a much reduced working week. There will also be other benefits, such as the opportunity to work in groups and more job continuity. We are introducing the proposition of fresh start because the present arrangements are iniquitous for the prison officer, for his family and for the service.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell us whether the Government intend to impose this arrangement if they fail to reach agreement with the Prison Officers' Association? If they intend to impose the arrangement, are they prepared to face the chaos which may result in our prisons?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is being very pessimistic. Negotiations have not concluded with the Prison Officers' Association; there is a further meeting tomorrow. The noble Lord's question is therefore hypothetical.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, whatever the outcome of the negotiations arising out of the document relating to fresh start, for most prison officers, particularly those working in local prisons, the root of the problem is the unrewarding, unsatisfactory and potentially dangerous nature of their work, particularly in view of the explosive overcrowding situation? Does he recall—I am sure that he does—that just the other day in his latest report the Chief Inspector of Prisons said:
"Substantial parts of the system are wholly pre-occupied with survival"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the fresh start proposals should be implemented regardless of whether there is overcrowding. As the noble Lord will be the first to admit, the present regimes in prisons are not satisfactory. Overcrowding is a different question, and I should be happy to answer a Question put down on that subject.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a fresh start is urgently needed for the sake of the prison officers and the inmates of prisons? Will he illustrate the situation by telling us what at present is the average take-home pay of a prison officer and how many hours' overtime are worked to achieve that pay?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend on his first point. With his experience he will know the importance of getting new regimes into the prison service. At the moment the average prison officer is working about 16 hours overtime per week and taking home some £15,500 per annum.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the Minister understand that much of the overcrowding is due to the fact that we have so many people on remand awaiting trial? This story has been told many times, not only in this House but elsewhere. Until the situation is relieved and people on remand are not kept in prison for such a long time, will we ever get rid of the overcrowding?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the prison service has lived with overcrowding for many years. The present percentage of overcrowding is about the same as in the previous two decades. It is entirely up to the judiciary whether a prisoner is held on remand, and it is the duty of the Home Secretary to provide a prison place.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the Minister will understand why it is that I have not intervened on the matter concerning terms and conditions of service. But so that the House knows the position, I should like to ask him to give the present prison population, and also give the limit to that population which has been set by the authorities as being a civilised limit?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this is a question which is wide of the Question on the Order Paper; but in view of the noble Lord's interest, I shall try to answer him. From memory I think the population is about 47,500 as opposed to a certified normal accommodation of 42,000. Such a proportion of overcrowding has remained fairly constant for the past 20 years.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that some of the overcrowding concerning people held on remand is due to inadequate places being available at bail hostels, and that more bail hostels would relieve this situation? Also, does he agree that the courts are not always aware of the availability of places in bail hostels?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should be very happy to answer that question from the noble Baroness, but it is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that the fresh start proposals apply only to England and Wales?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, indeed.

AIDS Information: Ethnic Minorities
2.53 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action has been taken to publish AIDS information leaflets in Asian languages, or to assist voluntary organisations to do so.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we are urgently considering how best to ensure that essential information about AIDS reaches people from ethnic minorities, particularly those who have difficulty reading and understanding English, in ways that are sensitive to the needs of each community. On 5th February, my honourable friend the Minister for Health attended a meeting with representatives of the ethnic press. The department will consider carefully all the views expressed in devising a strategy for carrying
992
forward this important aspect of its public information campaign.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, while much appreciating the fact that a meeting was held on 3rd February, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he accepts the fact that there are three quarters of a million people—immigrants and refugees—whose knowledge of English is slight? Can he explain why it is when the Government think that this is an extremely important matter, (as I know they do) that the provision of publications for these people in their own languages is only now being considered? Is the noble Lord aware that applications have been made by organisations representing immigrant groups, and so far there has been no response to such applications from the department.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will be aware, this is a sensitive subject. The reason for the meeting on 5th February was to establish the requirements and feelings of certain ethnic minorities. We have already started to consider certain aspects, and we are trying to make progress as fast as possible. The department is considering a request from the League of Chinese for funding to help them to produce and distribute an AIDS leaflet to 10,000 addresses throughout the country. At the meeting on 5th February other ideas were discussed which are being taken seriously and considered at this time.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of a report in the Observer on 8th February which revealed that a Newcastle hematologist is of the opinion that the AIDS virus can live outside the body for between seven and 15 days? If this fact is correct, should the Government be warning not only the Asian community but the whole country of the possible dangers of eating food or handling goods prepared by potential AIDS carriers?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am unable to answer the noble Lord's question on this occasion because I am unaware of the Newcastle hematologist; but I shall write to him.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether or not in this Question due account has been taken by the Government of the considerable extent of illiteracy in the country among English speaking people? Therefore, there is the probability that the leaflets will arrive in a number of households where they will not be read because the family are illiterate.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on television there has been a heavy emphasis on the subject for this very reason. At the present time the department is also looking at special groups of the disabled where there are problems such as those mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am for the fact that the Chinese leaflet may now be financed by means other than voluntary contributions made by the Chinese-speaking

993
population. Can the Minister say what other languages are now being considered? Does this situation not cover 15 to 20 languages which are important in Britain?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Lord for his thanks. Secondly, I cannot give him details of the precise number of languages, but there are a number of different languages under discussion. I am aware of this fact from a document which I read two days ago.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, would the noble Lord confirm a feeling that a number of noble Lords have: that much as these pamphlets are needed—and they are badly needed, that in so far as concerns the Asian population owing to the strength of their religion and other customs there is likely to be a rather less number of AIDS cases among them than among other people.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not an expert in the field in which the noble Lord has raised the point.

European Court Judgment
2.57 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given consideration to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case 93/85, sub nomine Commission of the European Communities v. United Kingdom; and whether they will make a statement on the constitutional and financial implications thereof.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government naturally accept the court's judgment on this case, which clarifies the position. The main consequence of the Court's conclusion that member states are legally obliged to meet justified requests for advances is that such advances will now come within the scope of the direct charging provisions of Section 2(3) of the European Communities Act 1972, and will therefore he paid in future direct from the Consolidated Fund rather than from Supply Estimates. The new arrangements do not have any effect on public expenditure totals, nor on the total own resources available to the Community.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will accept my thanks for his reply together with my commiserations for the circumstances which have evoked it. While sympathising with the Governments' wish to refuse the so-called invitation of the Commission to advance by a month the payment of the United Kingdom's contribution to the Community's own resources, may I ask this question? Was it not predictable that whatever a British court might have found (which has no jurisdiction in such a matter), the European Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction and from which there is no appeal, would
994
be inclined to have regard to the agreeable Community practice of cloaking its iron fist within a velvet glove and equating the invitation so-called, with an obligation which is, in fact, what it is?
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Broxbourne: This is a very important matter. It may not be within the comprehension of noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, first of all perhaps I may say that I am grateful to receive my noble friend's thanks. I will accept thanks from all quarters, and particularly from my noble friends. Secondly, the noble Lord must form his own view of the consequences of the difference in treatment between judgments of our own courts and those of the European courts.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, does this decision and others not possibly dissuade the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, from the rather unfortunate idea that he has that we should incorporate the European statute on human rights as part of our statute law—in other words, putting the European Court in charge of all our affairs? In fact, in my view the new doctrine of judical review that the judges have coughed up for themselves without any authority makes ministerial responsibility extremely difficult. If we were to have the European Court taking full charge of all our local courts we should be in great difficulty.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is not for me to speculate on what may be in my noble friend's mind.
Lord Denning: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that according to the plain interpretation of the English version of the regulation their interpretation was completely right and the interpretation put upon it by the European Court of Justice was completely wrong? In view of the fact that the Advocate-General was not from this country, and eight of the nine judges were not from this country is it not time concerning the interpretation of the English language that they underwent a course of instruction in plain English?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will surely accept that there are many of us in this world who have lived at a time when we thought that we understood quite clearly the interpretation of a piece of statute, only to find that the courts, in their own wisdom, would give a contrary interpretation. All of us are now learning to live with that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the bringing forward of payments alleged to be due from the United Kingdom, which was the cause of this action, arose from an overspending on the common agricultural policy for the year 1983? The first question I have to ask him is whether—
Noble Lords: One!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the question I have to ask the noble Lord is whether those price increases that gave rise to the excess were approved by Her Majesty's Government. May I also ask the noble Lord, in view of the constitutional importance of this matter, despite asides that may come from outside the House, whether the Government accept the view expressed at paragraph 22 of the court's judgment that,
"only the Commission can assess whether it is necessary to bring forward the entering of own resources since the Member States are responsible only for collecting the resources and making them available but not for their management; they are under a duty to bring forward the entry of own resources as requested without expressing their agreement or disagreement."
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord how much the interest has cost the taxpayers of the United Kingdom.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe I can do no more than to refer the noble Lord, and indeed all your Lordships, to my Answer that the new arrangements do not have any effect on the public expenditure totals, or on the total own resources available to the Community. We are talking about only when it is paid, not how much.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is it not correct that the judgment of the European Court binds every other member of the Community, and that there has been no kind of discrimination against this country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that actually that is the case.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, yes, but is my noble friend aware that there is considerable disquiet that matters as intricate as this have a judicial decision given (to which there is no appeal) outside the boundaries of our own judiciary?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, surely that is a matter for the whole arrangements with the European Community, and that I think is one to which we have all gladly acceded.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, as a matter of practice is there any other European Community country that pays any attention to this sort of decision when it does not fall in with its views?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord must form his own conclusion as to that.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, without wishing to trespass on the impatience of the House perhaps I may ask my noble friend to be good enough to clear up the misapprehension in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, as to the distinction between the European Court of Justice, the Community court at Luxembourg, and the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, with which my Bill in the last Session was concerned. Further, is it not a rather expensive way of getting a better knowledge of Community law to have to pay interest at over 20 per cent.?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should be happy to think that I was in a position to satisfy all your Lordships' as to the distinction between the two courts, but I am afraid it is rather wide of the Question, and we shall have to defer that to another time.

Mental Patients: Advocacy Scheme
3.6 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the outcome of the pilot advocacy project in three mental hospitals, mainly funded by the Department of Health and Social Security, with particular reference to the relation of the project to Sections 1–4 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultations and Representations) Act 1986.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, while the Advocacy Alliance has not published an evaluation of the project, I understand it considers that this small-scale project has successfully established the advocacy scheme in the three hospitals and has provided a model of good practice for elsewhere.
It is likely that some advocates might well make suitable representatives of mentally-handicapped people under the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 when those sections are brought into operation. However, the roles are not identical and experience of advocacy is too limited yet to indicate how far advocacy can be widely applied and how it will relate to the appointment of representatives under the 1986 Act. We see advocacy working alongside and in partnership with professional accountability, the continuing involvement of interested relatives and wider community involvement.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his full reply. Could he give the House some idea of the cost to the Government of these schemes and whether they are cost effective as compared with voluntary schemes which might do the same sort of job just as well?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his supplementary question. Advocacy Alliance has to date received agreement to grants totalling £70,000 from the Department of Health and Social Security. This, however, meets only part of the running costs of the organisation over the period in question, the balance of expenses, as with most voluntary organisations in receipt of government funds, coming from donations by a wide range of bodies and individuals. In the case of Advocacy Alliance, this has included contributions from other parts of the voluntary sector, including parent organisations such as Mencap.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in view of the fact that this seems to be the only part of this particular Act on

997
which there has been any noticeable movement, and since it is—I hope the noble Lord will agree—an important experiment, could the conclusions to which he has made brief reference be laid in the Library where they can be seen by Members of your Lordships' House?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, an independent evaluation of the project was undertaken by the Rowntree Trust. Publication of this evaluation is currently under consideration by the trust and Advocacy Alliance.
Lord Elton: My Lords, are we to take it that my noble friend's right honourable friend has not yet assessed the extent to which the scheme benefits the patients? If he has made an assessment does he see any linkage to his movement for care in the community as a means of assisting inmates of mental hospitals to become resident in the community with the assistance of their advocate?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, while the projects were strictly limited in location and in the numbers of hospital residents selected to be involved, and while there were difficulties in recruiting and retaining advocates, it is clear, following discussions between officials and representatives of Advocacy Alliance, that, given sufficient training of advocates and co-operation from the hospital authorities and staff, an advocate may make a significant contribution to improvement in the quality of a hospital resident's life.

Advocates' Widows and Orphans' Fund Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Chevening Estate Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): 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 commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received. In doing so, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I explain that although the amendments relating to serious fraud (that is to say, Amendments Nos 42 to 45 and 59 on the Marshalled List) were tabled last Thursday, at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, those
998
amendments will be taken formally today and considered more fully on re-commitment on Thursday 26th February before Third Reading.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I rise only to thank the noble Lord the Minister for agreeing that these amendments should be re-committed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Confiscation orders]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("person's drug trafficking") and insert ("offence of which he has been convicted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with an issue which I raised at Committee and it may be for the convenience of the House if I deal at the same time with Amendment No. 2. It remains my strong opinion that there is a serious risk that the provisions relating to drug trafficking offences will, if not amended, be found to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore the Bill, if enacted in this form, will prove to be somewhat of a damp squib.
I wish to make clear that there is, from this side of the House, no dispute whatever that people who engage in drug trafficking should be severely punished. I would have no objection, and I am sure most of your Lordships would have none, to a Bill which had the effect of depriving drug traffickers of their assets. If the Bill becomes an Act and someone goes to the European Court of Human Rights which holds that the Act offends against the convention, what would be the position? The confiscation that the court might have ordered would be quashed, as I understand the situation.
In my view there is no need for the Bill to run any such risk with the Covention on Human Rights. But the Bill as it is drafted does. I shall therefore try to say why I consider that it would be held to be in breach of the convention and then go on to suggest how it might be adapted to prevent that.
The Bill provides that in the event of a conviction for a drug trafficking offence, it is to be assumed that any property which has been received over the past six years is the proceeds of drug trafficking—not the proceeds of the drug traffic offence for which the man has been convicted but of other drug trafficking offences for which he has not been charged, let alone convicted.
In the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, much the same provisions were made. In the Scottish Current Law statutes edition of the Act, one has the comments of a Doctor Thomas:
"It appears to be implicit in the section that the prosecution may allege … that the defendant has committed or been concerned in offences which are not included in the indictment or formally taken into consideration … In normal circumstances, a court would not be entitled to impose a sentence on the assumption that the defendant is guilty of offences which have not been charged or taken into consideration".

999
That is precisely what this Bill and the Drug Trafficking Offences Act do. The court is to assume that the assets acquired over the last six years are the proceeds of drug trafficking for which the man, the accused, has not been charged. This offends against the Convention of Human Rights which preserves as an integral part of one's rights the presumption of innocence.
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. This has been a matter of English law for many centuries and of Scottish law. If I could quote Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1935], he refers to the presumption of innocence as the "golden thread always to be seen" and says that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt. This runs throughout the whole legal system which we enjoy. I have quoted at some length on the subject and I would only quote a word or two from Chief Justice Dickson in the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Oakes in 1986 where he says that the presumption of innocence is a hallowed principle lying at the very heart of criminal law.
The noble Lord the Minister, if I may say so with respect, did not in fact reply to my argument in Committee. He merely said, if I may paraphrase, that this had been gone through in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. Of course, the accused has to be convicted of a drug trafficking offence. But, in a normal situation, that means he has been caught with drugs in his possession and therefore makes little profit out of the offence. The normal, or very frequent, situation is that a person is caught with a sufficient quantity of a hard drug for the court to infer that his possession of it is possession to supply; in other words, a drug trafficking offence. That, of course is taken away from him and he has no profit from it.
However, this Bill allows the court to say, "Well, everything you have got for the previous six years is assumed to come from drug trafficking." It is not at all clear what happens, because there is an onus of proof on the accused to prove otherwise. What happens if the man says, "The £50,000 in my bank account did not come from drug trafficking; it came from a bank robbery"? Is he then going to be charged with bank robbery? Or will it be a privileged statement for which he cannot be charged?
I would suggest it is better to avoid the risk of any challenge in the Court of Human Rights and better to avoid the risk of any alteration to the principle of the presumption of innocence, because it is quite unnecessary. All that is necessary, I would suggest, is for the Bill to provide for an unlimited fine for drug trafficking offences in addition to whatever prison sentence is appropriate, and for a scheme such as we have in the Bill to discover, restrain and on conviction take away all or any part of the assets of the person convicted of drug trafficking. One does not need the presumption that the assets are due to drug trafficking. It does not really matter. If somebody is engaged in drug trafficking, does it really matter whether his assets in their thousands come from previous drug trafficking or from anything else? He should be punished substantially. If one approached the Bill, if the Bill were
1000
altered in that way, there would be no reason to have difficulty about the presumption of innocence.
It seems to me that the Bill as drafted will be difficult to work. It seems almost to have been drafted as an attempt to please the press rather than to be effective in dealing with drug trafficking. Possibly the much more sensible way would be, as I suggest, to give unlimited power to the court to put on an unlimited fine with the power to recover. It is on that basis that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morton, for again explaining the concern that lies behind the amendments. The effect of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would be to enable the High Court, in deciding the amount of a confiscation order, to take account only of the proceeds of the offence of which the accused had just been convicted. It would not be able to take his wider activities into account. Any such offender sentenced to a period of imprisonment for the offence would therefore have the proceeds of his drug trafficking, other than the proceeds of the particular offence, to look forward to on his release from prison.
At Committee stage I had assumed that this was an unintended effect of the noble Lord's amendment, to have the confiscation provisions widened to include profitable crime generally. But I think I now understand that this weakening of the Bill in a way was part of the noble Lord's aim, but rather differently from the way he addressed it when we last discussed this matter.
The noble Lord is concerned both at the provision to allow all assets acquired in the previous six years to be taken into account in deciding the amount of the confiscation order and at the provision which places the burden on the accused to prove that such assets were not the proceeds of drug trafficking. As I said in Committee, such a provision really is essential if the courts are to have the chance of depriving a convicted offender of the full proceeds of his crimes. In many cases it will simply not be possible for the prosecution to prove exactly how much of a wealthy trafficker's lifestyle was financed by his criminal activity. To insist on proof of what specific assets were acquired with the proceeds of drug trafficking would inevitably allow a good many traffickers to retain a large part of their illegal gains and that would frustrate the entire objective of the Bill.
On the other hand, the offender knows what his legitimate income has been and is therefore in the best position to show which of his assets were legitimately acquired. Therefore in my view it is quite proper that the onus should be placed on him to establish these facts to the satisfaction of the court.
The noble Lord, in seeking to justify his attempt to depart from the approach in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986—which as the noble Lord himself is aware was welcomed on all sides of your Lordships' House—referred to the procedure in England and Wales of having offences taken into consideration. That is a bit of a red herring. In deciding the amount of a confiscation order the Crown Court in England and Wales will be able to take into account activity much wider than that involved in any offences which

1001
might be taken into consideration, including drug trafficking abroad, which could not possibly be taken into consideration.
I note the point that the noble Lord makes about the European Court of Human Rights. The question of a possible contravention of the European Court of Human Rights was fully considered (as I imagine the noble Lord would have expected it to be) at the time of the passage of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act. The view was then taken that while this risk could not be ruled out, it was not substantial. It was agreed on all sides, as I have said, that the peculiar aspects of this horrible trade were such as to justify our proceeding on this basis.
I really cannot agree with the noble Lord that it will be difficult to work with the Bill framed as it is; nor, I assure the noble Lord, is this Bill one which is written, as he suggested, to please the press. That, as I think the noble Lord accepts, is very far from the truth. We are dealing, as I have said on more than one occasion from this Dispatch Box, with one of the most horrible crimes with which we have had to deal in recent times. That is why the Bill, and the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, were produced in the way they have been to deal with what is a thoroughly reprehensible activity.
I come back to an argument that I used at Committee and will attempt again to press upon the noble Lord. If these two amendments were accepted the Bill would be very much weaker than the 1986 Act. There is no way we can get away from that. We do not wish to encourage drug traffickers to move north of the Border because they think they will avoid confiscation of all their proceeds of drug trafficking. Even the noble Lord himself would not want that to happen. I hope that with that further explanation I have persuaded the noble Lord that what we propose is correct and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am a little worried about the reply that my noble friend has given. We are dealing with a matter on which we want to take extreme measures. No one here doubts that for one moment, but are we to do it in a manner which violates a principle that goes back a very long way—in fact to the origins of our law?
I personally do not care all that much about the European Court, to be perfectly frank, but we are now introducing the thin edge of a wedge which Parliament has a great way of quoting in the future: "We have done it once, we can do it again". I wonder whether it is worthwhile to do so.
There are two other points that I should like to make. If this were used in a certain way it might bring the Bill into disrespect, in spite of the subject with which it deals. My third point is that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has suggested a way out with an unlimited fine. That means that if someone is fined the court is fully entitled to look at the whole of his resources, whether in material, moveables or money, and say that in view of the fact he has committed this offence the fine is £2 million. That does not violate any principle whatever. It would hit this trade, if anything, harder. It is not true to say that this would make it more lenient. It is right in line with the principles of law that we have in this country.
1002
I wonder whether the noble Lord will consider this. I am not talking particularly about these amendments, which are verbal, but if anything is done which might bring the Bill into disrepute that would be wholly counter-productive. I ask my noble friend to look very hard at these points once again.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for, as usual, being extremely clear and to the point. I am using the amendment as a vehicle for suggesting that the Bill has been cast in a wrong frame altogether. What I am suggesting is not that the drug trafficker should be treated any more leniently but that the court should have more power. I am suggesting that there should be a power to take away all his assets. It does not matter a hoot whether he proves that they came from drug trafficking or from anywhere else. If he is convicted of a drug trafficking offence the court should have the power to take all his assets, if it considered that suitable.
It is in that frame that I am attempting with this amendment to try to persuade the Government, as I hope they will be persuaded, that perhaps the Bill could be redrafted, not to offend against the presumption of innocence or to run that risk but to enable this horrible crime to be even more severely punished. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I am sorry if my noble friend believes that this is the thin edge of the wedge. We dealt with the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 last year in your Lordships' House. Indeed, I am somewhat surprised that there is a lack of consistency from the Front Bench opposite in the light of the progress of that Bill. It was widely recognised that we were dealing with a matter which required an unusual and unorthodox approach and which hitherto had not been written into an English statute, as far as I am aware.
Nevertheless, it was generally agreed that this was the way it ought to proceed. I should particularly like to try to keep both aspects, the Scottish and the English, in line. I do not believe that that would bring the Bill into disrespect. I think it would bring both Bills into disrespect if we were to weaken this Bill in the way that the amendment inevitably would by allowing those who are in the South to proceed to the North and carry out their trade in that way.
So far as fines are concerned, as I understand it a fine can be imposed only to the extent of the assets that are owned by the person who might be fined at that moment. It could not go back the six years which this Bill proposes. But by far the most important aspect is that this is a unique situation so far as a horrifying crime is concerned—trafficking in drugs. That is a uniquely objectionable crime and it requires draconian measures.
I do not think I can add any more to what I have already said. I have repeated it from this Dispatch Box on many occasions, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I regret that the hope of the noble Lord is not to be fulfilled. I must press this amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that the law on each side of the Border between England and Scotland should be similar or different? It seems to me that this is a crucial aspect of the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I should not like to answer that question in general. If I were to say that it should always be the same, no doubt that would be quoted against me in some other argument. In respect to drugs, I suggest that there is no reason why the Scottish provision should not be slightly more severe than the English one, which is the basic principle for which I am trying to argue.
3.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 122.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kings Norton, L.

Blease, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blyton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Manchester, D.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Munster, E.

David, B. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Northfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Parry, L.

Denington, B.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Fitt, L.

Porritt, L.

Fletcher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Gregson, L.

Somers, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Willis, L.

Kearton, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Beloff, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Belstead, L.

Allerton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ampthill, L.

Blake, L.

Annandale and Hartfell, E.

Blyth, L.

Astor, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Auckland, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bathurst, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bauer, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Bellwin, L.

1004

Byron, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Layton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lonsdale, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Margadale, L.

Cowley, E.

Marley, L.

Craigton, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mersey, V.

De La Warr, E.

Middleton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Denning, L.

Molson, L.

Donegall, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dormer, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Dundee, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Effingham, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Faithfull, B.

Portland, D.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Reay, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rugby, L.

Fortescue, E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gormanston, V.

Sandford, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sandys, L.

Gridley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shannon, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Somerset, D.

Harvington, L.

Stockton, E.

Hesketh, L.

Strange, B.

Hives, L.

Sudeley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swansea, L.

Hood, V.

Swinton, E.

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Inglewood, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Vivian, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kimball, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kimberley, E.

Wise, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Wyatt, L.

Knollys, V.

Young, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.41 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
("(e) any offence involving dishonesty where the proceeds are at least £10,000.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment which was discussed but not voted upon at the Committee stage. I remain puzzled as to why for England a Bill should be going through another place to do what this amendment seeks to do but the Government have decided that they need to have the views of the Law Commission in Scotland before they make the decision on whether this is a good thing for Scotland.
I agree with what was put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson. It would be advisable for England and Scotland to march in step. I cannot see why one cannot have confiscation proceedings where the

1005
offence involves dishonesty and the proceeds are over 10,000. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not have much to add to what I said at Committee, which was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to refer the whole question of forfeiture to the Scottish Law Commission to enable the fullest consideration to be given to the complex issues involved.
I am conscious that this means we shall not be marching in step with England and Wales in this respect, which is contrary to what I have been arguing in relation to the two previous amendments. But we take the view that the fight against the evil drugs trade justifies our acting with speed, and that is why my right honourable friend suspended the reference to the Scottish Law Commission. But with crime generally, however serious, the same considerations do not apply. That is why we believe that the correct course is to allow the Scottish Law Commission to look at the complex issues involved. I hope that I have managed to resolve the noble Lord's puzzlement and that he will understand the proper reasons for our referring the matter in this way. I also hope that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I see no purpose in asking the opinion of the House again so shortly after the last Division. On that ground, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I remain baffled by the Government's reasoning.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Cases in which restraint orders may be made]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, line 44, at end insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Interdict of person not subject to restraint order]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur move Amendment No. 5:
Page 12, line 43, leave out second ("the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment simply corrects a printing error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Functions of administrators]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 14, line 16, after ("of") insert (", and if appointed (or empowered) under paragraph (b) of section 13(1) of this Act shall as soon as practicable take possession of,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment designed to ensure that, where an administrator is appointed or empowered to realise property—that is, once a confiscation order has been made—he is required to take possession of the property, since we are informed by the Accountant of
1006
Court that failure to do so could give rise to difficulties. For example, property could be disposed of in the interval before the administrator took possession of the property. The amendment does not affect administrators appointed to manage property affected by a restraint order. They are entitled, but not required, to take possession of the property. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Money received by administrator]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 16, line 2, after ("prescribed") insert ("by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 and, with the leave of the House, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 8. These two amendments are to provide that regulations made by the Secretary of State under Clause 15(2) are to be made by statutory instrument. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 16, line 3, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("statutory instrument").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Rules of court as regards accountant of court's supervision etc. of administrators
. Without prejudice to section 16(i) of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 (power, in relation to certain statutory powers and duties, to regulate procedure etc. by Act of Sederunt), provision may be made by rules of court as regards (or as regards any matter incidental to) the accountant of court's powers and duties under this Act in relation to the functions of administrators.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is designed simply to enable the Court of Session to make procedural rules with regard to the powers and duties of the Accountant of Court in supervising administrators appointed under Clause 13 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Exercise of powers by Court of Session or administrator]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 18, line 12, leave out ("power") and insert ("powers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, and indeed Amendment No. 11, are simply to correct printing errors. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 18, line 21, leave out ("power") and insert ("powers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Compensation]:
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Recognition and enforcement of orders under Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 20, line 44, leave out ("function") and insert ("functions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the next item on the Marshalled List is wrongly numbered Amendment No. 12. It should be Amendment No. 15.
Clause 28 [Enforcement of Northern Ireland orders]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment,No. 15:
Page 22, line 19, leave out ("include") and insert ("included").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is also a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Enforcement of other external orders]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 23, line 35, after ("country,") insert ("either—(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, in moving this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 17, 24 and 40.
Clause 29 of the Bill provides for Orders in Council to be made for the enforcement in Scotland of orders made by designated countries. Subsection (8) of Clause 29 enables the Court of Session to make restraint orders if it is satisfied that proceedings have been instituted in the designated country and those proceedings might result in the equivalent of a confiscation order.
Clause 8(1)(b) of the Bill enables restraint orders to be made where the Court of Session is satisfied that a procurator fiscal proposes to initiate proceedings within 28 days. But there is, however, no equivalent provision in Clause 29(8) enabling the Court of Session to restrain property before proceedings have been initiated in the designated country. Clause 29(8) is largely based on Section 26(8) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. That Act has been on the statute book since last summer, and the Home Office has already had discussions with some countries which it would hope to designate. Those discussions have led it, and us in Scotland, to the view that the absence of a provision for restraining property before proceedings are formally instituted in the designated country is likely to prove a severe impediment to the effectiveness of reciprocal confiscation procedures. It would not only prevent the Court of Session from acting on an external request for restraint until it was satisfied that proceedings had been instituted in the country concerned, but also in practice would be likely to prevent our requests for restraint from being recognised abroad until proceedings had been
1008
instituted here, since our partners in agreements are likely to seek reciprocity on this point.
The only people to gain from such an arrangement would be the drug traffickers themselves, who would be able to dispose of their assets in the interval between proceedings being instituted and restraint taking effect in the other country, and we believe it would therefore be wrong to leave the Bill as it is. This group of amendments will therefore allow the Court of Session to restrain property where it is satisfied either that proceedings have been instituted or that the institution of proceedings is imminent.
Amendment No. 40 to Clause 43 is to ensure that where designated countries are concerned, the list of circumstances in Clause 43(5) in which proceedings are deemed to be concluded is subject to the provisions of subsections (8) and (9) of Clause 29. This is because an Order in Council under Clause 29(9) may include provision as to the circumstances in which proceedings in the designated country are to be treated as concluded. I commend these amendments to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I have no objection to the amendment but, as I said in Committee in relation to the Government's amendments to Clause 6, it would be much easier surely, instead of having something like nine amendments to subsections (8) and (9) of Clause 29, to have one amendment rewriting the whole thing, so that we could look at it on the Marshalled List and see what the rewritten subsections were intended to say. I am very grateful to the Minister for having sent me the rewritten subsections (8) and (9). That makes matters very much clearer. But surely other Members of the House are also entitled to this and I suggest that it might be easier if these amendments came in that form in future.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I entirely take the noble Lord's point. I believe that it would be improper for me to go much further than to say that this is more a matter for the Procedure Committee than for me, but I certainly note his point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 24:
Page 23, line 38, after ("concluded") insert ("; or (b) that such institution is imminent,").
Page 23, line 40, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(i) where paragraph (a) above applies,").
Page 23, line 43, after ("concluded") insert ("and, where paragraph (b) above applies, as if the imminence of institution satisfied the Court of Session of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of the said section 8").
Page 23, line 44, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)").
Page 23, line 48, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(iii)").
Page 23, line 51, at end insert ("as Her Majesty considers expedient").
Page 24, line 3, after ("which") insert ("for those purposes—(i)").
Page 24, line 4, leave out from ("concluded") to end of line 6 and insert ("; or (ii) the institution of proceedings is to be treated as imminent or such circumstances as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 8(5) of this Act are to be treated as having occurred.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 30 [Sequestration of person holding realisable property]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 24, line 24, leave out ("and 23") and insert (", 23, 26 and 27").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I mention also Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 38, 39, 67 and 68. They arc all related and are minor drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Bankruptcy in England and Wales of person holding realisable property]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 25, line 51, leave out ("and 23") and insert (", 23, 26 and 27").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Winding up company holding realisable property]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 27, line 21, leave out ("and 23") and insert (", 23, 26 and 27").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 27, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of the application of Parts IV and V of the Insolvency Act 1986 (winding up of registered companies and winding up of unregistered companies) to a company which the Court or Session has jurisdiction to wind up, a person is not a creditor in so far as any sum due to him by the company is due in respect of a confiscation order (whether under this Act or under and within the meaning of section 1 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 or any corresponding provision in Northern Ireland).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment simply provides that a confiscation order cannot found a claim in liquidation. It applies equally to confiscation orders made under the Bill or under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, or under equivalent Northern Irish legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Disclosure of information held by government departments):
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 32, line 47, leave out first ("the").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple printing amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Offence of prejudicing investigation]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 33, line 14, after ("place,") insert ("deliberately").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is to add the word "deliberately" in Clause 38 so that it would read:
"suspecting that the investigation is taking place, deliberately does anything which is likely to prejudice".
This is a subsection where the Scottish law will be different, and in the Government's view should be different, from the English law, because the English provision is not "does anything" but "makes any disclosure". The suggested addition of the word "deliberately" is to make it quite clear—which is perhaps implicit from subsection (2)(a)—that there has to be the deliberate intention to interfere with the investigation before the offence is committed. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the reason for this amendment. As I said at Committee, we share his concern that this provision should not strike at a person who does something unintentionally that prejudices an investigation. But I have to say to the noble Lord that I think his amendment is unnecessary, first, because, as he well knows, the prosecution would have to prove mens rea (guilty mind), and, secondly, because Clause 38(2)(a) gives the accused a defence that he did not know or have reasonable grounds to suspect that by acting as he did he was likely to prejudice the investigation. There is the further factor which is of importance, that if the word "deliberately" were to be inserted it could cast doubt on the effect of other statutory offences where there is no such qualification. I hope that with those comments the noble Lord will agree that this amendment is unnecessary and will not press it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I shall take advantage of the second offer and I shall not press the amendment. With that comment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 33, line 21, leave out ("has") and insert ("had").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that this is a mere drafting amendment, though no doubt I shall be told I am wrong. But as the Bill reads, it means that at the time of the trial the person has lawful authority or reasonable excuse. It surely must be intended to mean that at the time of the offence he had lawful authority, and that is why I have suggested that there should be the word "had" rather than "has". I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. If he had not tabled the amendment, I would have done so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Minor amendments in relation to drug trafficking]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 36, line 7, after ("confiscation") insert (", or charging,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I shall also speak, if I may, to Amendments Nos. 33 to 36. Clause 41(5)(b) provides inter alia that a claim in respect of a confiscation order or a restraint order, whether made under this Bill or under the 1986 Act, should not be taken into account when calculating the constitution of apparent insolvency. We now take the view that the same considerations should also apply to charging orders made under Section 9 of the 1986 Act, and this group of amendments simply inserts references to and a definition of charging orders into the relevant section of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 36:
Page 36, line 10, at end insert (", or charging,")
Page 36, line 15, at end insert—
(" "charging order" has the meaning assigned by section 9(2) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986;")
Page 36, line 18, leave out ("Drug Trafficking Offences") and insert (said")
Page 36, line 18, after ("Act") insert ("of")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 36, line 43, after ("inserted") insert ("the words")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39.
Page 37, line 26, after ("words" ") insert ("11 (as applied by subsection (6) of that section),")
Page 37, line 27, after ("1987 (") insert ("inhibitions and arrestment of property affected by restraint order and")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 43 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments No. 40:
Page 38, line 34, after ("Act") insert ("(and subject to subsections (8) and (9) of section 29 of this Act)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords I spoke to this with Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4 p.m.
Clause 46 [Detention in connection with certain drug smuggling offences]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 41, line 44, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("the said subsection (2)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Lord Advocate's direction.
Investigation of serious or complex fraud
.—(1) Where it appears to the Lord Advocate—

(a) that a suspected offence may involve serious or complex fraud; and

(b) that, for the purpose of investigating the affairs or any aspect of the affairs of any person, there is good reason to do so,

he may give a direction under this section.
(2) Where a direction is given under this section, sections (Power of investigation), (Offences in relation to investigations under section (Power of investigation)) and (Disclosure of information) of this Act shall apply as regards the investigation of the offence; and any person nominated by the Lord Advocate either generally or in respect of a particular case (in those sections referred to as "a nominated officer") shall be entitled to exercise the powers and functions conferred by those sections.
(3) A direction under this section shall be signed by the Lord Advocate or one of his deputes.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at the commencement of Report my noble friend indicated that certain new clauses would be the subject of recommitment before Third Reading, These are the clauses contained in Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45 and 59. Since they will be the subject of recommitment, at this stage, with the leave of the House, I formally beg to move Amendment No. 42.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Does the noble and learned Lord wish to move the amendment now or is he going to withdraw it?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I move it now formally.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am not quite clear what is happening. Is it only Amendment No. 42 that is being moved or will Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45, as I hope, also be moved formally?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I think I made it quite clear that I would be moving the remaining amendments formally. Since it was only this amendment that was called, it was only in relation to that that I made the Motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Will the noble and learned Lord kindly make clear whether these amendments are now before the House or whether he is withdrawing them?
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, they are before the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 45:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Powers of investigation.
—(1) A nominated officer may by notice in writing require the person whose affairs are to be investigated ("the person under investigation") or any other person who he has reason to believe has relevant information to attend before a nominated officer at a specified time and place to answer questions or otherwise furnish information with respect to any matter relevant to the investigation.
(2) A nominated officer may by notice in writing require the person under investigation or any other person to produce at a

1013
specified time and place any specified documents which appear to a nominated officer to relate to any matter relevant to the investigation or any documents of a specified class which appear to him so to relate; and—

(a) if any such documents are produced, a nominated officer may—

(i) take copies or extracts from them;

(ii) require the person producing them to provide an explanation of any of them;

(b) if any such documents are not produced, a nominated officer may require the person who was required to produce them to state, to the best of his knowledge and belief, where they are.

(3) Where, on a petition presented by the procurator fiscal, the sheriff is satisfied, in relation to any documents, that there are reasonable grounds for believing—

(a) that—

(i) a person has failed to comply with an obligation under this section to produce them;

(ii) it is not practicable to serve a notice under subsection (2) above in relation to them; or

(iii) the service of such a notice in relation to them might seriously prejudice the investigation; and

(b) that they are on premises specified in the petition, he may issue such a warrant as is mentioned in subsection (4) below.

(4) The warrant referred to in subsection (3) above is a warrant authorising any constable—

(a) to enter (using such force as is reasonably necessary for the purpose) and search the premises; and

(b) to take possession of any documents appearing to be documents of the description specified in the petition or to take in relation to any documents so appearing any other steps which may appear to be necessary for preserving them and preventing interference with them.

(5) A statement by a person in compliance with a requirement imposed by virtue of this section may not be used in evidence against him.
(6) A person shall not under this section be required to disclose any information or produce any document which is an item subject to legal privilege within the meaning of section 36 of this Act; except that a lawyer may be required to furnish the name and address of his client.
(7) No person shall be bound to comply with any requirement imposed by a person exercising power by virtue of a nomination under section (Lord Advocate's direction) (2) of this Act unless he has, if required to do so, produced evidence of his authority.
(8) In this section—
"documents" includes information recorded in any form and, in relation to information recorded otherwise than in legible form, references to its production include references to producing a copy of the information in legible form; and "premises" has the same meaning as in section 36 of this Act.
(9) This section and sections (Lord Advocate's direction) and (Offences in relation to investigations under section (powers of investigation) of this Act shall apply to England and Wales and Northern Ireland; and for the purposes of such application any reference—

(a) to the sheriff shall be construed as a reference to a justice of the peace; and

(b) to a petition presented by the procurator fiscal shall be construed—

(i) in England and Wales as a reference to an information laid by a nominated officer;

(ii) in Northern Ireland as a reference to a complaint laid by a nominated officer.").

After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Offences in relation to investigations under section (Powers of investigation).
—(1) Where any person

(a) knows or suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect that an investigation under section (Powers of investigation) of this Act is being carried out or is likely to be carried out; and

(b) falsifies, conceals, destroys or otherwise disposes of, or causes or permits the falsification, concealment, destruction or disposal of documents which he knows or suspects or has reasonable grounds to suspect are or would be relevant to such an investigation,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence to prove—

(a) that he did not know or suspect that by acting as he did he was likely to prejudice the investigation; or

(b) that he had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for acting as he did.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to a fine or to both; and

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.

(4) Any person who fails to comply with a requirement imposed on him under the said section (Powers of investigation) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
(5) In proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for acting as he did.").
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure of information.
—(1) Where any information subject to an obligation of secrecy under the Taxes Management Act 1970 has been disclosed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or an officer of those Commissioners for the purposes of any prosecution of an offence relating to inland revenue, that information may be disclosed by the Lord Advocate for the purposes of any prosecution of which he has the conduct but not otherwise.
(2) Where an information is subject to an obligation of secrecy imposed by or under any enactment other than an enactment contained in the Taxes Management Act 1970, the obligation shall not have effect to prohibit the disclosure of that information to a nominated officer but any information disclosed by virtue of this subsection may only be disclosed by the Lord Advocate for the purpose of a prosecution in Scotland or elsewhere.
(3) Without prejudice to his power to enter into an agreement apart from this subsection, the Lord Advocate may enter into an agreement for the supply of information to or by him subject, in either case, to an obligation not to disclose the information concerned otherwise than for a specified purpose.
(4) Subject to subsections (1) and (2) above and to any provision of an agreement for the supply of information which restricts the disclosure of the information supplied, information obtained by a nominated officer may be disclosed—

(a) to any government department or other authority or body discharging its functions on behalf of the Crown;

(b) to any competent authority; and

(c) for the purposes of any investigation of an offence or prosecution in Scotland or elsewhere.

(5) The following are competent authorities for the purposes of subsection (4) above—

(a) an inspector appointed under Part XIV of the Companies Act 1985;

(b) the Official Receiver;

(c) any body having supervisory, regulatory or disciplinary functions in relation to any profession or any area of commercial activity; and

(d) any person or body having, under the law of any country or territory outside Great Britain, functions corresponding to any of the functions of any person or body mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Detention of children in summary proceedings. Detention of children
48A.—(1) For section 413 of the 1975 Act (committal for residential training) there shall be substituted the following new section—
413.—(1) Where a child appears before the sheriff in summary proceedings and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, an offence to which this section applies, the sheriff may order that he be detained in residential care by the appropriate local authority for such period, not exceeding one year, as the sheriff may determine

1015
in such place (in any part of the United Kingdom) as the local authority may, from time to time, consider appropriate.
(2) This section applies to any offence in respect of which it is competent to impose imprisonment on a person of the age of 21 years or more.
(3) in this section—
"the appropriate local authority" means—

(a) where the child usually resides in Scotland, the regional or islands council for the area in which he usually resides:

(b) in any other case, the regional or islands council for the area in which the offence was committed;

"care" shall be construed in accordance with section 32(3) of the 1968 Act, and the provisions of that Act specified in section 44(5) of that Act shall apply in respect of a child who is detained in residential care in pursuance of this section as they apply in respect of a child who is subject to a supervision requirement;
"the 1968 Act" means the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
(4) Where a child in respect of whom an order is made under this section is also subject to a supervision requirement within the meaning of the 1968 Act, the supervision requirement shall be of no effect during any period for which he is required to be detained under the order.
(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, make such provision as he considers necessary as regards the detention in secure accommodation (within the meaning of the 1968 Act) of children in respect of whom orders have been made under this section.
(6) Section 20A of the 1968 Act (review of children in care) shall apply to a child detained in residential care in pursuance of an order under this section as if the references to care in that section were references to care within the meaning of this section; and, without prejudice to their duty to do so by virtue of the said section 20A, the local authority may, at any time, review the case of such a child and may, in consequence of such a review and after having regard to the best interests of the child and the need to protect members of the public, release the child—

(a) for such period and on such conditions as they consider appropriate; or

(b) unconditionally.

(7) Where a local authority considers it appropriate that a child in respect of whom an order has been made under subsection (1) above should be detained in a place in any part of the United Kingdom outside Scotland, the order shall be a like authority as in Scotland to the person in charge of the place to restrict the child's liberty to such an extent as that person may consider appropriate having regard to the terms of the order.".
(2) In section 463 of the 1975 Act—

(a) in subsection (1)(b) for the words "and 390" there shall be substituted the words ", 390 and 413"; and

(b) in subsection (1A) for the words "and 374" there shall be substituted the words ", 374 and 413";

(3) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of section 58A of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, any child who, before the commencement of this section, has been ordered to be detained pursuant to the directions of the Secretary of State under section 413 of the 1975 Act—

(a) shall, while so detained after such commencement, continue to be deemed to be in legal custody; and

(b) may at any time be released conditionally or unconditionally by the Secretary of State, and any such child conditionally released shall be liable to recall on the directions of the Secretary of State and if he fails to comply with any condition of his release he may be apprehended without warrant and taken to the place from which he was released.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 46 is one of a totally different group of amendments. With this amendment, with the leave of your Lordships' House, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 64.
New Clause 48A revises Section 413 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, which gives the sheriff court powers to impose residential training orders on children found guilty under summary proceedings of offences that would attract imprisonment for over 21 year-olds. In essence the new clause provides that such children should be committed to detention and residential care by local authorities rather than by the Secretary of State, as at present. It sets out a maximum period for such detention at one year, and spells out the duties and responsibilities of the local authorities in caring for the children involved.
The amendment is above all a recognition of profound changes that have occurred since Section 413 in its original form came into operation in 1971. At that time there was understandable concern that the new children's hearings and the local authorities might not be able to cope with all the youngsters referred to them. Provision was made therefore for the sheriff to impose a residential order for up to two years in the case of any children who required to be prosecuted for offences, and for the Secretary of State to place them in suitable establishments.
The past five years have thankfully seen a clear downward trend in the number of cases so dealt with: there were only 63 in 1985. We can see two main factors at work; first, the success of children's hearings in coping with the vast majority of youngsters referred as being in need of compulsory measures of care. Secondly, at the same time the local authority social work departments have shown themselves increasingly professional and capable in dealing with young people in trouble.
At the same time we have taken the opportunity in the amendment to exclude the possibility of children being under Section 413 orders even in exceptional circumstances in penal establishments. There is I think, widespread agreement that they are not the sort of places for children. All the evidence points to local authorities' success in making use of suitable secure provision for such children. I believe this to be a modest but significant step forward.
So much for the background to the amendment. It may be helpful if I summarise the key features of the new clause. Subsection (1) sets a maximum period of one year for a residential training order. The reduction from the existing two-year maximum is a recognition of the circumstances of the majority of children who are subject to Section 413 orders. They are normally over 15 years old at the time of sentence and are approaching the school-leaving age. It seems right that if local authorities are to prepare a programme of residential care and treatment for such young people, they should do so within the terms applicable to the great majority of young people with whom they deal.
The supervision requirement imposed by a children's hearing until a child is 16 years old or more may extend to a year unless it is reviewed or specifically extended. The reduced maximum is also justified by current trends of sentences under Section 413. In the past two years the average length of sentence was one year and the average length of order served by children, following the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers to order release, is now between eight and nine months.
Subsection (5) provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations for the detention of young people by the local authority under residential training orders in future. I think that the provision for regulations represents a reasonable safeguard and is consistent with the provision in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 for secure placements made on the decision of children's hearings. The regulations outlined in this subsection would ensure that the young person is clearly established as a persistent absconder and, without the use of secure accommodation, is liable to endanger himself or others; that the decison to place young people in secure accommodation lies clearly with the person in charge of the establishment with the agreement of the appropriate director of social work; that such a decision can be revoked at any time; and that in any event the decision to use secure accommodation should be reviewed by the director of social work and the person in charge of the establishment at least every three months. I feel that they are important safeguards.
Over the years Section 413 has attracted a good deal of public comment. The consultation that we have carried out shows a very strong body of opinion for its amendment to transfer the Secretary of State's powers to local authorities. Some interests, I know, would have wished that Section 413 be repealed altogether, but I think that that would have removed a really important safeguard. The new clause represents a balanced approach—continuing provision for children to be sentenced directly by the courts for more serious offences under summary procedure but at the same time allowing them to be cared for by local authorities along with other children who are committed to compulsory measures of care by children's hearings.
I commend the new clause to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for providing me with the background information and prior intimation of the amendment, something that unfortunately for some reason did not happen in regard to the previous amendments. Perhaps that was not entirely the Minister's fault.
Under the amendment a matter is raised that I wish to protest. The Government have already brought in an extension of the power of sheriffs by means of an amendment in Committee. Now we are asked to consider a fairly radical change in the law on Report.
It seems to me that there is no reason why this amendment should not have been part of the Bill from the start. I understand that the consultation document issued by the Social Work Services Group was issued in August of last year. The document asked for responses by the end of September, and no doubt they were received. That having been done and a view taken in October as to what the position should be, I fail to understand why this provision could not have been put forward in the Bill when it was originally presented.
In any event, as the noble Lord the Minister hinted, the local authorities, the reporters to children's hearings and social workers are generally of the view that this amendment to Section 413 of the 1975 Act
1018
does not go far enough. They would have preferred that Section 413 was repealed.
No doubt there was some reason for the section, perhaps because social work was a fairly new concept in 1975. But it is not my understanding that it deals with the more serious offences. The serious offences committed by children are those covered by Section 206 of the 1975 Act under the powers of the Lord Advocate to direct that such offences should be dealt with under that section. The Section 413 type of case tends to deal with the situation where there must be a summary trial, which is often of a person who is 16 or 17 years old or a child of 15 or 15½. It is because of this juncture of two persons, one over the age of 16 and one just under that age, that they are sent to the sheriff rather than to a children's hearing.
I do not understand, when we are dealing with a small number of children—I think that in 1985 63 children were dealt with under this section—why we really need the section at all. If the sheriff has the trial and refers disposal to the children's hearing, that would seem to be adequate, especially as the children's hearings now command greater confidence, having been in existence for 15 or 18 years.
In my view, there is little logic in taking the maximum sentence down to one year when the maximum sentence for a summary offence committed by a 16 or 17-year-old is six months. Why should the child who is a year younger have a period of detention of up to a year when that period cannot be put upon the older person (to whom I may not refer as a child although he is only six months older) who can only be sentenced to six months? There is considerable doubt, which I do not wish to press to a Division, as to whether this is the best way or whether the better way would not have been to abolish Section 413.
Another matter on which I wish clarification from the Government is costs. I gather that the transferred costs from central government to local authorities in general will be something of the order of £750,000 to £1 million pounds a year. Where will that come from? Will the Government increase the grants which local authorities get to meet that expense, or will they have to meet it out of their rate-capped provisions? I do not really welcome the amendment; it goes some way, although not far enough.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I can go into further detail about the matters of outright appeal cost and the logic of a one year sentence as opposed to six months.
As I indicated, our consultations showed a division of opinion. Substantial support was expressed for repeal, and, at the same time, strong arguments were advanced for retention, albeit in an altered form. Repeal would have meant that if a child was prosecuted before the court for an offence under summary procedure, the court would have no means of dealing with him directly and would have to remit the case to a children's hearing and rely on it to impose a supervision requirement. We concluded in favour of an amendment to Section 413 which balances both the interests of the child and the interests of the public. Inevitably, both those interests must be considered.

1019
We see three main reasons for preferring amendment. First, a residential training order under Section 413 as at present or under the new residential care order we propose, is the gravest disposal available to the courts under summary procedure for children. Where offences are sufficiently serious to warrant the prosecution of children who are guilty of offences which would attract imprisonment for the over 21-year-old in the courts, I think it is illogical to remove from the courts the most serious measure available for dealing with them.
Next, the public interest requires that justice be seen to be done where serious offences are committed. That would be frustrated if sheriffs were deprived of Section 413 disposals. After the procurator fiscal had brought a case to the court, it would be anomalous to oblige the court to refer the child to a children's hearing if the sheriff thought that a residential training disposal was appropriate. That would be particularly the case where the reporter suggested that the procurator fiscal take the case before the court because the children's hearings had dealt with the child on a number of previous occasions, apparently without success.
All the experience I have come across in my dealings with this matter, and the much more extensive experience of those dealing with it more regularly, shows that individual reporters, children's hearings and social workers recognise the merits and indeed the necessity of having the courts deal with the small number of children who commit particularly serious offences. I think that our amendment brings together proper roles for the courts in dealing with children who have committed serious offences and for the social work departments in arranging appropriate residential detention and care of those children.
The noble Lord suggested that there was some lack of logic in having a one year sentence for this particular aspect of the matter when perhaps six months, as is found in other cases, would be more appropriate or the norm, if I have understood the noble Lord.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, what I thought I said clearly was that the maximum sentence possible at summary trial for a 16 or 17-year-old person is six months. There is an illogicality in saying that if he is 15½ years old he can go away for a year for the same offence.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I understand it, the existing two-year maximum sentence for a residential training order is anachronistic. Following extensive consultations, we concluded that one year was the most appropriate maximum sentence to use in the future and that it was certainly preferable to six months. The reason we have so decided is that first, it is important to relate children who receive Section 413 orders to their peers who are dealt with by the children's hearing system. The supervision requirements decided by hearings are subject to review at stated frequencies and lapse after one year unless specifically renewed. It seems consistent to allow a maximum of one year for Section 413 orders and so provide a reasonable period of time for a child's progress and rehabilitation in care, whenever that is possible.
1020
For children receiving Section 413 orders, programmes of treatment will often have to be for a period of over six months to be effective. The average length of Section 413 orders in 1986 was just over a year, as I indicated earlier; that compares with 14 months in 1985. Powers for early release have been used extensively so that, on average, children now spend eight to nine months in residential training. Though the maximum period of detention applicable to young offenders with whom Section 413 children are often co-accused—which brings us to the nub of the noble Lord's point—is six months, the courts have regard to the need for equity and the differences between young offenders' institutions and the regimes available to local authorities (for example, in List D schools) in arranging residential training. All the evidence suggests that a one-year maximum sentence is about right both on grounds of equity and the need for scope to secure planned programmes of care and rehabilitation for the young people concerned.
The noble Lord raised the matter of cost for local authorities. Our proposals involve some added responsibilities for local authorities in looking after children in care. We intend to adjust the rate support grant appropriately to take account of the extra costs which will be met by authorities. Though it is not possible to say how much will be involved in such transfers, it will be comparatively modest. In 1985 only 63 children received Section 413 orders, and the trend is clearly downwards. Currently the administration of these arrangements costs the department less than £1 million per annum, as the noble Lord indicated. I hope that with those assurances he will feel better informed about what is proposed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Probation
. In the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, in section 58(1) (Compensation order against convicted person), in the proviso, in paragraph (a) insert "or" after the word "absolutely" and omit paragraph (b).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 48. The purpose of this amendment is one which I brought forward at the Committee stage; and clearly from the letter for which I have to thank the Minister who wrote to me after it, I did not make myself clear. What I am trying to do is to make it possible for a person to be subject to a probation order and a compensation order. At present one can have a probation order and a community service order. There seems to be no reason in logic why there should be a prohibition, as exists in the legislation, to say that if a judge, a sheriff or a district court judge decides that probation is appropriate for somebody who has broken a window he should be prohibited from making an order that the person should pay for the broken window.
In my view it has been clear over the past few years, and perhaps for much longer than that, that there is a need for the courts to have as much flexibility as possible in disposing of convicted people in non-custodial ways and in as many different ways as may be made available. The whole approach—rightly in my view—on this type of offence for which probation is talked of is that the person should be kept out of

1021
prison. I can see no logical reason why, if a community service order is thought to be appropriate to run along with a probation order, it is inappropriate in a proper case to have a compensation order. That is the purpose of the amendment.
There is some suggestion apparently that I was arguing that there should be a grouping of all three; in other words, that there should be a community service order, a compensation order and a probation order. I make no such suggestion. If that were to be proposed, I should be surprised if any sheriff made use of it. What I am suggesting is that if there is to be a probation order the judge should not be prevented from making a compensation order; and that is all. I beg to move.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, I hope that the Government will accept this amendment. It is surely entirely consistent with common sense. So far as I recall, this was frequently done by judges in the lower courts until there was a decision by the higher court—and I speak from recollection—that this was incompetent. There are many cases, especially in dealing with young people but also in dealing with adults, too, where a sensible course, depending on the circumstances of the case, is to impose both a probation order, which will keep the accused person under supervision over the years, and at the same time make a compensation order which will perhaps bring home to him a sense of responsibility and be a condition of his probation order.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, for their remarks. When the noble Lord, Lord Morton, raised his similar amendment in Committee I advised him that, while I was in sympathy with his intentions, for a number of reasons which I need not repeat again, I did not consider that the amendment as tabled was the best way to approach the issue. I also indicated at that time that we were engaged in examining the whole question of probation. I hope that both noble Lords will be pleased to learn that I have given further consideration to the arguments that were advanced in Committee.
Subject to favourable responses to consultations with the local authorities, which of course have the responsibility for probation supervision in Scotland, and other interested parties, it is the Government's intention to bring forward an amendment in another place which, unlike the tabled amendment, will enable both solemn and summary courts in Scotland to include within a probation order a condition in respect of compensation to the victim. This approach will ensure that failure, for whatever reason, to satisfy the compensation requirement will be treated as a breach of probation and not, as in the noble Lord's amendment, be dealt with in like manner to nonpayment of a fine, with the resultant custodial implications.
Perhaps I should emphasise to your Lordships that we shall continue to examine the possibilities which may enable us at a later date to consider other means whereby we may broaden and develop probation.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am delighted at the Government's response. I have never made any claim to be a draftsman. I am sure that the government draftsman will draft this much better than I should have drafted it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 49:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Accused and spouse.
—(1) Section 141 of the 1975 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) In the proviso, in sub-paragraph (f)(ii) there shall be added the word "general" before the word "character" where it appears for the third time.
(3) In the proviso, after sub-paragraph (f)(iii) there shall be added the words—
"(iv) for the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that it is not an attack on the general character of any witness for the prosecution to invite the court to disbelieve that witness's evidence in so far as he testifies in support of the indictment, even if to do so involved an inference that the witness is lying or has fabricated that evidence either by himself or with others."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment because at the Committee stage the Lord Advocate indicated that he might at the Report stage be in a position to say what his attitude was. Rather than repeat what I said at the Committee stage, I merely move the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I undertook to reflect on the amendments which the noble Lord tabled in Committee. Having done so, I have to advise him that I cannot suggest to the House that these amendments should be accepted. I do so on grounds of principle.
In Committee the noble Lord indicated that it was his intention to restate the law as he understood it to have been before the decison in Templeton—to put it in colloquial terms, to get back to O'Hara, which was an earlier Appeal Court decision. I have come to the view that there is no need for legislation to achieve that. The bench in the Templeton case did not quarrel with the law as expressed previously in the O'Hara judgment.
If there was any room for doubt this must have been removed by a decison just at the end of last year in Conner v. Lockhart. In that case the court emphasised the importance of the distinctions drawn in the O'Hara case. I take one citation from the judgments, from Lord Dunpark, who said:
"The issue in every one of these cases has to be decided by the court upon the distinction drawn by Lord Justice-Clerk Thomson in O'Hara".
He went on to quote the late Lord Justice-Clerk Thomson where he said:
"But it is one thing to attack the character of a witness generally and another to do so inferentially by asking questions which are relevant to the defence, and, indeed, without which the true facts cannot be ascertained".
I come to the view that it is thus clear that the courts will not regard it as an attack on the character of a prosecution witness for the defence to ask questions which are necessary for the proper establishment of the defence, even though such questions involve imputations as to the witness's character.

1023
I do not think that a legislative change of the kind the noble Lord proposes—I accept that the amendment was tabled because of what I said in Committee—would be of any assistance to the courts in making the necessary distinctions in individual cases. In my view, any problems which may arise are best dealt with by the court in particular cases exercising discretion against the background of the facts in the case and of course guided by the body of case law in Scotland on this complex issue which has now been built up.
I therefore concluded that legislative intervention of the nature suggested in the amendment would not be helpful. Indeed, I have to say that my advice is that it may lead to further difficulties of a kind which I do not believe the noble Lord, or indeed myself, wish to see in this realm. For those reasons I reached the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to amend the section of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act as suggested.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. He mentioned the case of Conner v. Lockhart, and he will recollect that I also referred to it in Committee. There is of course a difficulty in the Templeton case and that difficulty will remain, because it was a full bench decision. However, subject to the suggestion that what the noble and learned Lord said might be circulated in proper form to the sheriffs in Scotland, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Act and part guilt
. Section 216 of the 1975 Act shall be amended as follows—
"(1)" shall be inserted before ("A") at the beginning of the section and after the word ("only") shall be inserted the words—
"(2) Any person who, after this section is brought into force, aids, abets, counsels, procures or incites any other person to commit an offence against the provisions of any enactment shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction, unless the enactment requires, to the same punishment as might be imposed on conviction of the first mentioned offence.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the confident hope that either the noble and learned Lord or the noble Lord the Minister will move Amendment No. 53, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Aiding and abetting
50A.—(1) In each of sections 216 and 428 of the 1975 Act for the words "statute or order" there shall be substituted the word "enactment"; and each of those sections as so amended shall be subsection (1) of that section and in each of those sections there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above or to any express provision in any enactment having the like effect to this subsection, any person who aids, abets, counsels, procures or
1024
incites any other person to commit an offence against the provisions of any enactment shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction, unless the enactment otherwise requires, to the same punishment as might be imposed on conviction of the first-mentioned offence.".
(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to an offence committed before the commencement of this section.".)
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord has anticipated me. I gave an undertaking in Committee to consider further the drafting of an amendment which would give effect to the Scottish Law Commission's proposals to introduce a general provision in Scotland with regard to aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting a person to commit a statutory offence. As I made clear during that debate, my principal anxiety was to ensure that the existing law on art and part guilt of statutory offences should remain unaffected; otherwise the Government saw no real disadvantage in the introduction of such a general aiding and abetting provision.
I hope that in bringing forward this amendment it will satisfy the intentions of the noble Lord in tabling his earlier amendment. In view of what he said, I imagine that it does so. However, I should like to express the Government's gratitude to the continuing contribution made by the Scottish Law Commission to the overhaul of the law of Scotland. It was one of its reports which gave rise to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am happy about this amendment. I tried to bring in the Law Commission's report during the Committee stage. As I said earlier this afternoon, I am not a draftsman but I am happy with the Government's drafting of their amendment and that this should be accepted.
The only area about which I am not terribly happy is the wording of subsection (2) of the new clause, which read quickly seems to be that it is the existing subsection (1) of Section 216 that is not to come into force; but clearly that is not what is meant. It is a slightly difficulty clause to take in, but I welcome this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Penalties in respect of summary conviction for certain offences]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I should point out that the line numbering in the Bill is incorrect. The line numbering in the amendments is correct.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 45, line 33, leave out from ("worded") to ("a") in line 35 and insert (", contained in an Act passed before the commencement of section 51 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 56 resolve the discrepancy between the new subsections being put into Section 289G of the 1975 Act and new Section 289GA in their treatment of the use of the inflation-proofing terminology in subordinate legislation made under future Acts. It is not necessary specifically to allow the use of references to the standard scale in instruments made under future Acts, because the standard scale will apply to all offences and not just to those in

1025
primary legislation. The amendments therefore remove an unnecessary reference to future Acts in new subsection 289G(13) and bring it into line with new Section 289GA(1), which deals similarly with the statutory maximum, and make a related amendment to new Section 289GA(2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 45, line 44, leave out ("in") and insert ("under").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 46, line 4, after ("worded)") insert ("contained in an Act passed before the commencement of section 51 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 57 and 58:
Page 47, line 25, leave out ("section 51 of).
Page 47, line 28, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two amendments are simply drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 57 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 49, line 26, after ("Scotland;") insert ("sections (Lord Advocate's direction), (Powers of investigation), (Offences in relation to investigations under section (powers of investigation)) and (Detention of children in summary proceedings) extend to England and Wales and to Northern Ireland as well as to Scotland;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, again this is one of the clauses which will be covered by recommittal. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 50, line 10, at end insert—
("The road Traffic Act 1972 (c. 20)
In section 101 (endorsement of licences) for subsection (8) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(8) Notwithstanding sections 311(5) and 357(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (requirements as to notices of penalty and previous convictions), where a person is convicted in Scotland of an offence involving obligatory endorsement—

(a) where his licence is produced to the court, subsection (4A) above shall apply;

(b) where no such licence is produced, subject to subsection (8B) below, subsection (8A) below shall apply.

(8A) Where this subsection applies, it shall be competent for the court in determining what order to make in pursuance of such conviction as is mentioned in subsection (8) above to take into consideration particulars of
1026

(a) any previous conviction or disqualification pertaining to the person; and

(b) any penalty points ordered to be endorsed on any licence held by the person which have to be taken into account under section 19(3) of the Transport Act 1981,

specified in a document purporting to be a note of information contained in the driver licensing records maintained by the Secretary of State in connection with his functions under this Part of this Act.
(8B) Where the prosecutor decides to put before the court a document such as is mentioned in subsection (8A) above—

(a) if a plea of guilty is tendered, or if, after a plea of not guilty, the accused is convicted the prosecutor shall lay the document before the court and the court or the clerk of court shall ask the accused if he admits the accuracy of the particulars relating to him contained in the document and if such admission is made it shall be entered in the record of the proceedings;

(b) it shall not be necessary for the prosecutor to produce evidence of the particulars so admitted; and

(c) where the accused does not admit the accuracy of any such particular, the prosecutor unless he withdraws the particular shall adduce evidence in proof thereof either then or at any other diet.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I speak to Amendment No. 65 at the same time. Despite the length of this amendment it is relatively minor and straightforward but it secures a useful change. Its purpose is to allow a court when considering sentence for a person convicted of a driving offence to take into account any driving convictions, disqualifications and penalty points which courts may have previously imposed.
Doubts have arisen as to the circumstances in which the courts may take account of these particulars of a convicted person's driving history when they are recorded in a print-out from the driver licensing record; that is, the record which is held on computer by the DVLC in Swansea. The present provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1972 allow the court to take account of these particulars when they are recorded in a driving licence produced to the court. Situations arise, however, where no licence can be produced or indeed where the convicted person is not a licence holder. In these cases courts have not always felt able to use the DVLC print-out to provide the particulars in question. In such circumstances we wish the courts to be able to have placed before them an extract from the DVLC records containing the information that the courts have ordered should be endorsed on any licence which the motorist may hold. This is achieved by the present amendment. The amendment goes further, however, by allowing the convicted person the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of any of the particulars. In that case the prosecutor must either prove them in the usual way or else withdraw them.
The amendment would apply only to Scotland, since I am advised that the courts in England and Wales have not encountered similar difficulty in using the DVLC print-outs in the manner that we propose. I am confident that the courts will welcome the clarification of the status of these print-outs. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I have no wish to stop this procedure from happening. I merely comment that a lot of the difficulty that has occurred in proving and establishing whether or not people have previous convictions that are relevant to road traffic offences arises from the chief constables in Scotland

1027
having ceased to keep a record of convictions under the Road Traffic Act. This is a matter of practice and habit rather than legislation. It would be much better if they returned to the system under which all road traffic offences went on to the ordinary record of convictions. The difficulties that may arise when a person who is already disqualified is convicted but only after conviction is the disqualification brought to light would not then occur. Otherwise, I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 50, line 42, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 51, line 27, at end insert—
(" . In section 289B—

(a) in subsection (7) for the words "Subsection (4) above" there shall be substituted the words "Section 289GA(1) of this Act"; and

(b) in subsection (8) for the words "subsection (4) above" there shall be substituted the words "section 289GA(1) of this Act".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 66. These are both minor amendments, the effect of which is that Section 289B(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 is subsumed within the proposed new Section 289GA(1) and is therefore being repealed. However, subsection 289B(4) was subject to two qualifications in subsections (7) and (8) of Section 289B. The amendment to Schedule 1 merely ensures that those qualifications will continue to have effect on the new Section 289GA(1). With that simple explanation, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 52, line 21, at end insert—
(" (2) In that Schedule, in the entry relating to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, in column 3 (matters which may be certified) the word "and" shall be omitted and after the word "classification" there shall be inserted the words "purity, weight and description".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the provisions of routine evidence made in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. That Act implemented a recommendation of the Thomson Committee to extend the use of the procedure which allows routine or technical evidence about which there was no dispute to be put before the court in a certificate. The measure was intended both to speed up court procedure and to save the time of police and other officials in their attendance in court. In regard to various drugs offences, Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act allows evidence as to the type and
1028
classification of a substance to be given in a certificate by two analysts who have analysed the substance. This provision has in practice been found to be too restrictive and the need to provide further information of a routine and technical nature has led to an increase in court attendances by forensic scientists.
The amendment is intended to relieve some of this additional pressure on forensic science laboratories by expanding the matters to which the certificate may relate so as to include information as to a substance's purity, weight and description. These are matters of scientific fact which are not likely to be contested in most cases. There is of course provision in the 1980 Act to allow this and therefore they are perfectly appropriate for inclusion under this procedure. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 66:
Page 53, line 14, at end insert—

("1 Edw 8 and 1 Geo 6. c. 37.

The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

Section 58A.

1968 c. 49.

The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

Schedule 2, paragraph 16.").

Page 53, line 14, at end insert—

("1974 c. 50.

The Road Traffic Act 1974.

In Schedule 3, paragraph 10(4).")

Page 53, line 28, at end insert ("and (4)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 67 and 68:
Page 53, line 37, column 3, leave out ("section") and insert ("each of sections")
Page 53, line 37, column 3, after ("13(1),") insert ("15(2), 16(2) and 17(2)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 have already been spoken to with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Debtors (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.45 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 16 [Articles exempt from poinding]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 14, line 23, leave out ("(including not more than one refrigerator)") and insert—
("( ) refrigerators;")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the very helpful debate in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Morton, suggested that the reference to a refrigerator in paragraph (k) of Clause 16 could give rise to some difficulties in view of the apparent limitation to the exemption of only one refrigerator. The noble Lord also mentioned the possibility of

1029
confusion between a refrigerator and a freezer, I think, in the context of champagne. I was grateful to him and to other noble Lords who joined in the debate about this important area of exemptions from poinding. I undertook to consider the matter and the amendment which I now commend to your Lordships seeks to clarify the position.
I mentioned during the debate in Committee that nowadays a refrigerator is regarded as an almost standard household item. I believe that it is right that the Bill should continue to allow a specific exemption for this item. The form of the amendment enables a debtor to seek to establish that at least one refrigerator and possibly more are exempt from poinding if they are reasonably required for the use of the household.
Your Lordships will recall that during the debate in Committee it was suggested that it might be argued that the term "refrigerator" included a freezer, thus limiting the exemption to only one refrigerator or only one freezer. I do not think that this is right. I suggest that the distinction between a refrigerator and a freezer is relatively clear. To remove any possible confusion over this matter the amendment makes it clear that the standard list of items exempt from poinding can be expected to include at least one refrigerator, provided that it is reasonably required. However, and subject to the same requirement, freezers may also be exempt from poinding under the general category of equipment used for storing food.
With that explanation, I beg to move this amendment. In doing so I should have said that I also speak to Amendment No. 11.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I should like to remind the noble and learned Lord—or perhaps correct him—that noble Lords who admitted at least to the experience of keeping champagne in their freezers were all on his side of the House. Possibly there were some from the Alliance Benches, but my recollection is that all of them were on his side of the House. No such admission came from these Benches. Certainly I have no experience of keeping champagne in the deep freeze and I do not think that I should want to try it.
Those of us who have known the noble and learned Lord for rather more years than he has graced this House are aware that he has a warm and sympathetic heart. Unfortunately the noble and learned Lord has had to encase himself in a cold carapace in order to say what he has to say on behalf of this cold and unfeeling Government. It is a very great pleasure to see that his natural warmth has burnt through to allow the debtor who reasonably requires both a fridge and a freezer to keep them. It is a notable victory for common sense and I welcome it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, having played a small part in the discussion at Committee stage, I should like to express appreciation to my noble and learned friend for having taken into account what was said. The public do not always realise that when noble Lords sit in this grand Chamber and consider sometimes very difficult legal issues we are discussing matters which affect human beings, very often at the most vulnerable moment in their lives. If one is subject to having one's possessions removed because of non-
1030
payment of a debt, the fact that the goods which are allowed to remain can include a fridge, a fridge/freezer that one may happen to have and also a deep-freezer is a matter for which in the future people will be extremely grateful.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I should also like to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, particularly in the knowledge that he now knows exactly what a fridge/freezer is.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 14, line 26, after ("storing") insert ("—(i)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, again, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 12, 13 and 14.
During the debate in Committee, the noble Lord opposite moved an amendment to provide for the exemption from poinding of furniture which is used for the storage of cooking and eating utensils. I am entirely satisfied that the Bill would be improved by amending it in the way that was suggested, though there were at that time certain technical defects about the amendment. That would provide more extensive and appropriate protection for the debtor. The Government are always willing to listen to good cases, and, where they are put forward, to accept them. This is, again, another of those occasions. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am very grateful. I am only disappointed that the good cases I so frequently put forward are not recognised more often.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 14, line 27, leave out ("or storing") and insert ("(ii)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 14, line 27, at end insert ("or (iii) utensils used for cooking or eating food:").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 14, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) tools used for maintenance or repair of the dwellinghouse or of household articles.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another of the few good cases which the noble Lord opposite brings forward which I was prepared to accept in principle in Committee.
The amendment now provides that tools which are reasonably required for the maintenance or repair of the dwellinghouse and articles in it should be exempt from poinding. I think that all noble Lords would agree that a debtor should be left with a sufficiently comprehensive tool-kit to enable him to keep his house and the articles within it in good repair. In

1031
moving this amendment, I should say that I am speaking also to Amendment No. 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Location of sale]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 25, line 36, leave out ("any one") and insert ("each").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 16. At Committee the noble Lord, Lord Morton, suggested that there might be some difficulty with the obtaining of consents where there was multiple occupation of premises in which goods were poinded. I undertook to look at the matter along the lines he suggested. I am persuaded that the consent of each occupier should be obtained. That would be consistent with the overall policy implemented in this part of the Bill that warrant sales should not take place in premises unless the debtor and the occupiers consented. The amendments deal with both ordinary poindings and summary warrant poindings.
I indicated a concern about the definition of the "occupier" at Committee. However, I am satisfied that the reference to "occupier" in the Bill is satisfactory since it will attract its ordinary dictionary meaning of a person who holds or is in possession of property. The provisions of the Bill do not require any specialised meaning to be given to "occupier". I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for taking this amendment, which although very small was very important in the circumstances.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [General effect of earnings arrestment]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 36, leave out lines 22 to 27.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 8.
Noble Lords may recollect that at Committee I did not move an amendment which was down in my name because I wished to give further consideration to the possibility of including in Clause 47 a reference to the requirement to serve a charge in Clause 90. The amendment which I now propose will remove Clause 47(2). That subsection essentially duplicated the provisions of Clause 90(1) which provide that an earnings arrestment must be preceded by the serving of a charge on the debtor.
I took the view, however, that it would be useful to anyone dealing with earnings arrestments to have their attention drawn to the necessity of serving a charge. For that reason the amendment goes on to insert a reference to Clause 90 so that an earnings arrestment does not come into effect unless a charge has been served. Noble Lords will have noticed that by virtue of Clause 90(2) this does not apply to earnings
1032
arrestments executed in pursuance of a summary warrant. This amendment achieves a useful tidying up of the Bill and also—and I think more importantly—provides a helpful onward reference to the requirement to serve a charge. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 36, line 28, leave out ("and 62") and insert ("(priority among arrestments), 62 (relationship of conjoined arrestment order with certain other arrestments) and 90 (provisions relating to charges for payment)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Recovery from debtor of expenses of certain diligences]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 70, leave out lines 22 to 27 and insert—
("( ) in effect immediately before the date of sequestration (within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985) of the debtor's estate;
( ) in effect immediately before the presentation of a petition for an administration order under Part II of the Insolvency Act 1986;
( ) in effect against property of the debtor immediately before a floating charge attaches to all or part of that property under section 53(7) or 54(6) of that Act;
( ) in effect immediately before the commencement of the winding up, under Part IV or V of that Act, of the debtor;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I speak also to Amendment No. 10. These are technical amendments. They provide a more accurate description of the various insolvency processes and the manner in which they affect a diligence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 70, line 39, leave out ("winding up, receivership") and insert ("administration order, receivership, winding up").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 have already been spoken to. With the permission of noble Lords I shall put the Question that these amendments be agreed to en bloc.
Schedule 5 [Poindings and sales in pursuance of summary warrants]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 16:
Page 89, line 10, leave out ("(including not more than one refrigerator)") and insert—
("( ) refrigerators;").
Page 89, line 13, after ("storing") insert ("—(i)").
Page 89, line 14, leave out ("or storing") and insert ("(ii)").
Page 89, line 14, at end insert ("or (iii) utensils used for cooking or eating food;").
Page 89, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) tools used for maintenance or repair of the dwellinghouse or of household articles.").

1033
Page 97, line 7, leave out ("any one") and insert ("each").
On Question, amendments agreed to.

EC Forestry Policy
4.58 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on EC Forestry Policy (24th Report, 1985–86, H.L. 259).
The noble Lord said. My Lords, in moving that note be taken of the report of the Select Committee on EC Forestry Policy, may I first express thanks to all organisations who gave evidence to the Select Committee, and to Members of the Sub-committee dealing with the environment some of whom sat in during preparation of the report. We look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, whose quality as a Member of our Subcommittee we have come to appreciate in recent days.
The report is concerned with two Commission documents, a discussion paper dealing with Community action in the forestry sector issued in 1985 and the complementary memorandum to that document issued in 1986. It is necessary to point out that there is no existing Community forestry policy. The Commission has urged the need for such a policy and the European Parliament is now preparing for this.
Community assistance towards forestry has until now consisted of isolated action. Between 1980 and 1984 some £290 million of Community funding was made available for this purpose. Member states as a whole are not yet convinced that a Community initiative is either necessary or superior to individual action. However, the persistence of agricultural surpluses under the common agricultural policy has resulted in a modification of views by member states.
I believe that caution is still necessary as regards Commission proposals because they do not contain financial provisions, especially concerning schemes to take land out of agricultural use for forestry. However. the Commission has signified its intention of making proposals for Community action in a programme for forestry following this discussion paper.
The discussion paper gives four reasons for a Community initiative: first, a reduction in agricultural surpluses in which forestry is seen as an alternative crop; secondly, the overall Community deficit in wood and wood products which gives scope for increased production within the Community; thirdly, the maintenance and expansion of activity and employment in rural areas which would flow from a Community policy; and fourthly, the need to stop the increasing destruction of European forests by atmospheric pollution and fire, the latter being of particular relevance in Mediterranean member states. In order to achieve those aims the Commission wants to extend the forest area by making better use of the existing woodland and protecting forests.
Dealing, first, with the extension of the forest area, it is pointed out that the Community has a very large trade deficit in wood. Half of its requirements are
1034
imported. And the value of those imports is given as £12 billion. In the United Kingdom alone the trade deficit in 1984–85 was £4½ billion. Ninety per cent. by volume of United Kingdom wood and wood products are imported. Since the establishment of the Forestry Commission in 1919, it has been policy in the United Kingdom to extend the forestry estate, and, certainly, Britain is a very large timber market in its own right. The director-general of the Forestry Commission believes that there is a good market for home-produced timber. However, forestry is a very long term business stretching over 50 to 100 years, and the possibility of new and alternative products during such a long time span cannot be entirely ruled out.
Until now United Kingdom afforestation has been mostly confined to poorer quality land. In the past five years 87 per cent. of planting has taken place in Scotland. By this token, it can be said that by comparison, England may be underforested. Yet, as we all know, there is very substantial overproduction of cereals in England.
Her Majesty's Government envisage new, normal planting of 33,000 hectares of forest a year, which is an increase of 3,000 hectares since the Select Committee deliberated. In addition, a new farm forestry programme has been announced of 36,000 hectares over the first three years with annual payments of up to £125 per hectare to cover the gap between planting and first income.
In both conventional and farm schemes, the Government have made it clear that they will especially encourage the growing of broadleaved trees. That will please conservationists. In the evidence that we took there was much emphasis in favour of broadleaf varieties. There is a general welcome in Britain for extending the forest area, but there is also some concern about where and how this extension should take place as well as its effect on habitat and wildlife.
If agricultural land is taken out of production, the question arises as to the type of land to be used for forestry. The National Farmers' Union favours bringing forestry "down the hill" on to better land: that is to say, lowland arable farms. This was also favoured by a number of environmental bodies with a strong preference for broadleaves on farmland where it is stated that better soil, plus more shelter, will equal faster growth plus more valuable timber. I turn to the question of making better use of existing forests. It may be said that in general Britain does a good job. The Forestry Commission manages 48 per cent. of the woodland area, the remainder being privately owned. Unproductive woodland in Britain amounts to 170,000 hectares. The director-general of the Forestry Commission gave us three ways of making better use of the existing forests: more productive species and tree-breeding for genetically improved stock; the use of fertilisers to improve growth; and positive management for unproductive woodland. The commission sees a role for forestry associations in making better use of existing forests. These associations are not found to any great extent in Britain.
Environmental considerations have caused the Forestry Commission to suggest a Community code of ecological conduct for forestry. In general, the

1035
evidence that we took expressed more concern about extending the forest estate than about the existing forest. The commission, in recognition of its environmental role, had additional duties imposed on it in 1985. It must now endeavour to achieve a reasonable balance between development, management, production and supply, enhancement of natural beauty and conservation of nature.
Some concern was expressed about protecting the forest, particularly against pollution damage, forest fires, damage by insects and pests, damage from gales—particularly windthrow in the west and north-west parts of the country—and from deer, with a distinction being drawn between red and roe deer in terms of damage caused. The document also mentions tropical forest in developing countries. The Commission accepts that action in respect of Community forest cannot be taken without having regard to the impact on the tropical forest.
Over-exploitation of tropical forests is said to be due to factors other than exports. The Timber Trade Federation told us that less than 10 per cent. of the felled crop of tropical forest timber goes to international trade. The main causes of over-exploitation are said to be expansion of agriculture, the use of wood as a fuel and poorly managed industrial logging. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds told us that a policy of broadleaf cultivation in the Community would help to alleviate problems arising from the loss of tropical forest.
Turning to the opinion of the Committee, we find the Commission's proposals consistent with the policy of Her Majesty's Government to extend the forest estate which now amounts to 9 per cent. of UK land surplus. We support expansion to produce marketable timber. We consider that once viable woodlands are producing timber, industries will develop to make use of that timber. I believe that all noble Lords will be gratified by the recent news of a new pulp and paper mill scheduled for development at Irvine in Scotland by a Finnish company. Others who have a closer acquaintance with Scottish affairs than I will undoubtedly give details of this major development. However, it is significant that Finland is a country which also aids small farmers to plant trees.
Although the Committee recognises forestry's potential use of better quality land and received much evidence in favour of this, we believe that planting better quality land in the lowlands should supplement existing upland planting. In the important matter of conservation, the Committee sees value in the proposals made to it by the Countryside Commission for Scotland. That commission wanted further control beyond the present voluntary system. It was suggested that a system of planting licences should be administered by the Forestry Commission, analogous to the well-tested felling licence system of the commission. The scheme envisages a licence being necessary, above an agreed minimum area, before a grant is given and before tax relief is agreed. Consultation with a wide range of bodies would be carried out with, where necessary, involvement of the regional advisory committees.
Both the National Farmers' Union and the Scottish National Farmers' Union thought that, if woodlands
1036
were to be established on farms, public interest would be served if agricultural departments of Her Majesty's Government and the Forestry Commission supervised the arrangements. The Scottish National Farmers' Union did not object to the licensing system for the planting of larger areas than those envisaged under its proposed scheme.
This submission by the Countryside Commission for Scotland led the Committee, in its report, to favour the voluntary system of consultation for extending the forest area rather than making it subject to the full rigours of the planning system. In passing, I should like to say that this was the course favoured by the majority of organisations which gave evidence to us.
Turning to the question of incentives and the ramifications of Schedules B and D of income tax law, we take the view that the present scheme of incentives should continue even though it is recognised that these are of value to persons of large income. If a farm forestry is to be encouraged it will be necessary to develop payment tax incentives to assist those with low incomes. It may be helpful to the House if the Minister is able to say something about this matter if not in detail at least in principle.
Taking substantial areas of agricultural lowland for forestry, that is to say, taking land out of cereals production, is possible. But it is expensive. Continuity of management of forestry is considered essential and, given the long term nature of the operation, the matter presents special problems. Various schemes were put forward to us for this purpose. Under the schemes, the average annual cost of agricultural support in terms of area was £150 per hectare. The Community must devise a method of paying to take unwanted agricultural land out of production and afforesting it in order that farmers will not be worse off as a consequence. The Committee recommend that the Community should bear some of the cost of the transfer.
Although small, unproductive woods are not a major United Kingdom problem, they do exist in the southern half of Britain. Such woods are often on good soil but have over-mature trees producing a low annual increment. In this situation, increased productivity should be preceded by felling and then marketing of low grade mature timber. If markets can be found for such timber the regeneration of small woods is possible with aid of the not insubstantial broadleaved woodland grant. We recommend examination of more and improved markets for low grade hard wood.
Advice to owners is also an important aspect particularly with new people—for example, farmers—entering the forestry industry. There are various options open to Government. The role can be taken over by the Forestry Commission or by the Agricultural Training Board which might have its remit extended. It is also possible that forestry associations could be formed in accordance with the commission's suggestion. And organisations like Silvanus in southwest England might be extended.
As regards transport, one might consider taking timber to the mill rather than the development of small mills. In its document the Commission states its wish to see an adequate network of forest roads. The problem is not so acute in Britain where forests are

1037
now fairly close to the highway. However, that situation may change; so the Committee recommend that in order to avoid undue damage to roads, new heavy timber lorries should have five axles as a requirement for operation.
With reference to the proposed ecological code, we accept the need for environmental protection in view of the landscape and habitat impact of new forests. But we do not see a Community code as being practical because of the different conditions in the 12 member states. The Committee believes that the consultation procedure which I have outlined is the key to environmental protection. On the other hand, we see scope for Community action as regards atmospheric pollution and plant health. In the 1983–84 Session, the Select Committee reported that at that time it had received no evidence of air pollution damage to forests other than from locally known sources. Even so, the risk from acid deposits is growing and this confirms our belief that a Community monitoring programme is essential.
It is important to ask what is the relevance of these matters to the United Kingdom? There are two questions to be asked and answered. First, is an action programme for the whole Community possible? If the answer to this question is yes, then the second question is whether or not there would be any benefits for the individual member states including the United Kingdom from such a programme. Conditions vary greatly, and therefore a single programme is difficult throughout the member states. The Committee takes the view therefore that three of the four reasons given by the Commission for its initiative are perhaps best left to member states. But the fourth reason is certainly relevant; that is to say, forestry as a potential use for agricultural land to reduce surpluses which have arisen from the failure to adjust the common agricultural policy over the years. It is important to press for Community funding for any proposals under this head.
It is possible that the two documents mentioned in our report can be criticised for the absence of financial details. But these are in the nature of discussion documents and the Committee believes that this degree of precision concerning finance is not possible so early in the formulation of a community policy.
We now move to a stage where financial details are required if there are to be Commission proposals. The question is one of some urgency, particularly in view of the Statement made in your Lordships' House on 9th February concerning the extension of farm forestry. The Statement was given a considerable welcome on all sides of the House. There are some dangers that if we jump the gun before the Commission has said how much funding it is prepared to make available, we may be paying totally for something for which Community assistance ought to be available. The Committee resisted the temptation to put forward its own financial proposals for farm forestry, although we were very interested in a number of the proposals made to us including the proposal for reversed mortgages made by the National Farmer Union. When the basis of Community funding is made clear, it should be possible to devise arrangements which are of considerable importance.
I have outlined briefly what is contained in our report. I hope that the number of speakers due to take part in this debate is indicative of the degree of interest which this subject has aroused. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on EC Forestry Policy (24th Report, 1985–86, H.L. 259).—(Lord Gallacher.)
5.15 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I have a strong reason for supporting the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, tonight, because as a member of the Select Committee on the European Communities I had the pleasure of serving on the sub-committee which produced this report, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord. I should also like to say how delighted I am that the noble Duke the Duke of Somerset will be speaking on this matter. He has recently joined the sub-committee of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, which now has the advantage of his practical knowledge of land management. We look forward to listening to his maiden speech.
The report of the Select Committee was published on 4th November 1986. One month later the National Audit Office produced a report which throws doubt upon our first and main conclusion, which was that the expansion of forestry, particularly in the United Kingdom, should be supported. I am delighted that in their statement last week the Government have accepted our view.
Forestry policy in Great Britain has been the subject of criticism for many years both on financial grounds and amenity grounds. On the other hand, many people say that to have to import 90 per cent. of our timber requirements at an annual balance of payments deficit running now at £4½billion is unacceptable, and therefore the United Kingdom forest industry should expand. The report of the audit office has added fuel to that debate and I do not wish to plunge too deeply into the arguments. However, because the committee's conclusion that the forest estate in the United Kingdom should be extended is such a crucial one upon which all our other recommendations must hang, perhaps I may mention the following points.
First, it has been the urgent need to reduce agricultural surpluses in the EC that has produced this call for action on forestry by the commission. The audit office report seems to have been compiled within the rather narrow ambit of a cost-benefit exercise in a United Kingdom context. The report ignores the wider European context altogether. The pressing need to relieve the taxpayer of the burden of supporting an unreformed CAP must surely override the much smaller worries raised by the auditor-general concerning the cost-effectiveness of a gradual build-up of a United Kingdom forest industry by means of state support.
Secondly, the auditor-general seems to pay insufficient regard to the peculiar nature of forestry as a business caused by the very long time-lag between initial outlay and the finished product. His report acknowledges, under the heading "Economic Aspects" on page 4, that:
"The heaviest costs in forestry are incurred in the early years."

1039
Then, in a blinding glimpse of the obvious, he says:
"For existing Estates therefore it is generally financially worthwhile to maintain the plantation until it is matured and harvested."
That reinforces the view long held by many of us that it is better to wait until your crop is ready before you cut it.
There are in the auditor-general's report figures which show how young and immature the nation's forests are. Of the Forestry Commission's 900,000 hectares of woods, nearly 700,000 were planted post-World War II, so at least seven-ninths of the state forests are under 40 years old. The rapid increase in private sector planting has happened much more recently, so the majority of these too are immature. Any cost-benefit analysis of an industry before it comes into full production must be fraught with difficulties. How much more so when you try to assess an industry whose product takes between 40 and 150 years to finish.
This is perhaps a frivolous criticism, but I got the impression reading the Audit Office report that there was being committed a mistake that many of us made when we started gardening: that of pulling up the plant to see if it was growing; wondering if we were right to have planted it; wondering if we ought to go on watering it and feeding it; and possibly destroying it in the process.
The report casts doubt too on the cost benefit of providing employment through forestry work in the rural areas, and the question is posed; would it not be better to spend the money in the towns? But if, as is the case in many parts of Scotland, forestry is the only way to earn a living, must there not be a social benefit that is difficult to put a price on? Should you, by starving the only local industry of funds, and with the oil industry in decline, force the woodmen to join the urban unemployed? Finally, perhaps it is worth noting that the £2 billion at 1984–85 prices of funding from the Exchequer since 1945 in order to establish our national forest is the cost equivalent of just six months' timber imports.
I should now like to concentrate on the other key recommendation in our committee's report. Referring to our support for the expansion of forestry we say:
"This expansion should be carefully managed".
Despite the potential for trees providing an alternative crop to those now in surplus, we were sceptical about the prospect of much of this extension of woodlands taking place on cultivable land in the lowlands. It would be a complete reversal of that deforestation which has been taking place since axes were first invented. Even in the depressed 1930s I think that little if any arable farmland went back to trees, though admittedly there were none of the kind of incentives for tree planting that have recently been proposed by the Government.
Many of those who gave evidence would like to see more trees—particularly broadleaved trees, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, reminded us—in lowland Britain. We were in favour of financial support such as is now being given by the new broadleaved woodland grant scheme. We were clear that, without incentives either by means of direct grant or through the tax
1040
system, the maintenance of a timbered landscape in the lowlands could not continue. I can vouch for that as a woodland owner myself. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a recipient of many of those grants.
Even with greater financial encouragement such planting could, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has just said, only supplement planting at the level now suggested by the Government, which must surely continue to take place in the uplands, chiefly in Scotland. But where in the uplands, my Lords?
There is every economic reason—and this was made quite clear in the auditor-general's report—for growing trees on better-class land and for keeping them off the poorer land. But the committee took the view that in the context of curbing agricultural surpluses a more likely sequence of events—more likely, that is, than large areas of arable land being planted with trees—would be one where the trees move, as it were, downhill. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to this.
Lest this should sound too much like the closing scenes of "Macbeth", I should explain that we envisaged arable crop production becoming less viable economically on marginal land and being replaced by grass and livestock. In this process sheep farming on the poorer uplands would move downhill, or to wherever the grazing was better. This would release the poorer grazing land for forestry, but for trees it would provide a much better class of land than that previously available.
That is perhaps an over-simplification. The process might not be so clear-cut as that. After all, there is room for both trees and sheep in the uplands. Furthermore, hill farming subsidies might delay such a trend. Nevertheless, that broadly is how we saw some arable land going out of production and into stock and some grazing land going out of stock and into trees. This redirecting of new tree planting would be greatly helped by the new government initiative. The shift away from the hilltops and the peat bogs towards better land, which we envisaged, should be speeded up by means of the kind of incentives that have recently been proposed.
The reverse has been the case up to now because in Scotland the Department of Agriculture has, so we were told, been reluctant to release grazing land for tree planting. We recommended that the department take a more relaxed view, and indeed that is essential if the new government initiative is to succeed.
The government initiative which should help to direct planting away from the poorer land is welcome not only because it is economically more efficient to grow trees on better land but also because it will relieve the pressure on some land that is environmentally sensitive. The sub-committee was made aware of the conflict of interest on this type of land by several witnesses, and notably by the Nature Conservancy Council who supplied us with a well-presented and well-argued booklet entitled, Nature Conservation and Afforestation in Britain. This document sets out the scientific case for care in the selection of land to be planted while recognising the need for more trees.
We accepted the NCC advice by concluding, as we did, that:
"The Committee strongly believe that threatened wildlife species should be protected and existing habitats preserved. Wildlife

1041
considerations must be taken into account before planting takes place."
This form of management of the expansion of forestry will be helped by the Government's recent initiative, but a more direct control mechanism is required if sensitive areas are to be protected. As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, reminded us, we rejected the idea of bringing forestry into the planning system. I think that of the organisations that gave evidence only the Countryside Commission for England and the CPRE wanted that.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has referred to the fact that we saw merit in the Scottish Countryside Commission's suggestion that there should be a planting licensing system administered by the Forestry Commission, who would consult with the local authorities and bodies such as the NCC on proposals for new planting. If a planting scheme were not compatible with the interests of conservation, then the licence would be withheld, which would mean no planting grant and no eligibility for tax concessions. Such denial would, in our view, be a considerable constraint on extending the forestry area into environmentally sensitive country.
If such a suggestion proved acceptable to the Government and if it came into operation then I recognise that the Forestry Commission might, in the face of conflicting evidence from interested parties, at times have difficulty in identifying areas that should not be planted. It occurs to me that the environmentally sensitive area concept that the Government have already promoted might be useful in this situation. I note from last week's government statement that the number of these areas is to be increased.
As a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, I recently paid a visit to Scotland where members of the council were shown one of the four Scottish areas that were to be designated environmentally sensitive. I was a little surprised to learn that the Scottish Countryside Commission felt that the most important criterion for choosing these areas was that of visual amenity. I should have thought that conservation was just as important as preserving the landscape. If you can do both, so much the better, and I think that is also the view of the NCC.
The choice by owners and occupiers in an environmentally sensitive area of a system of land management beneficial to the environment is a voluntary one. Nevertheless the fact of an ESA designation would surely carry weight if a planting licensing system such as we recommend were in force. Designation and the reasons for it would surely be helpful for the consultation process which we envisage taking place where planting was controversial.
I raise this matter now as one of urgency because there is a very serious conflict of interest between forestry and conservation boiling up in what is called the "flow" country of Caithness and Sutherland. Much of that boggy and inhospitable area has already been planted with conifers, to the detriment, so the scientists say, of a special type of habitat which has probably never grown trees since the Ice Age and which in world terms is scarce and precious for the wildlife it sustains. The scientific interests of many more square miles in that sensitive area are threatened
1042
by afforestation. The scale of the problem would seem to make it one that could not appropriately be solved by means of the 1981 Countryside Act procedure.
It is in the interests of conservation and in the longterm interests of private forestry that some way of resolving this problem be found, and found quickly. I throw out the suggestion that an ESA-type designation for the flow country, plus the adoption of the kind of planting licensing system that we recommend, plus the financial incentives outlined in the new government proposals might together resolve it and might form an acceptable pattern of control for this kind of special case.
More trees are needed in the UK and wildlife habitats ought to be safeguarded. As the NCC pointed out to us, there is plenty of room for both. I believe that there is every reason to encourage private investment in forestry, especially in the disadvantaged parts of our countryside. But we have to devise a sensible means of control when controversial planting proposals are put forward. I hope the Government will give this particular urgent matter their consideration.
On their general policy for encouraging tree planting so recently announced, they are to be congratulated. The ideas of the Government and those of the Select Committee appear to be in harmony, and this is a happy situation.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too would like to congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, both for the way he introduced the report and for the work that he has done as chairman of Sub-committee D. I do not think he will object to a little flattery. He is one of the best chairmen of this sort of committee I have ever seen. He handles witnesses extraordinarily well. No matter what the evidence, they go away feeling that they have been taken extremely seriously and are happy. That is a very important factor in being a chairman of one of your Lordships' scrutiny committees.
The report simply sets the scene for the Government to take action, and that is what reports are supposed to do. I too look forward greatly to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and also the speech of the other noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, whose family is probably regarded by farmers as the most enlightened landlord in Scotland. We ought to have an extremely interesting debate.
Funnily enough, I read the report as well as looking at the conclusions, although I have only just become a member of that committee again. Looking at the conclusions, I think that the expansion should be carefully managed—that is absolutely right and proper—and it will need a great deal of management. It also needs to be courageous, because we have an enormous problem on our hands. The new factor in the report is the alternative use of agricultural land. We have this enormous agricultural surplus, which is still growing.
I saw a report on cereals. It said that, in spite of the good export potential to Spain because of the drought this year, the stock in this country—not intervention stocks of grain—was still growing and it is larger than last year. This situation obtains all over the

1043
Community. Various estimates are being made of the amount of land that needs to come out of agricultural production. The NFU is talking about nearly 4 million acres in this country and certainly something like 20 million acres in the Community overall. This is an incredible switch, an entirely new situation and one about which everyone is concerned.
A whole lot of solutions have been put forward, and forestry is one. It is the most significant and certainly the most obvious. We are dealing with an enormous deficit in timber production in this country. We have a lot of surplus acres. Therefore it seems certain that we should plant trees.
I too would like to join the noble Lord, Lore Middleton, in criticising the Auditor General's Report. One of the worst things about it was that it took the whole affair of timber production in this country at constant prices. Nearly all the experts giving evidence to the committee said that in their view there was to be a timber shortage in the near future and if there was no timber there would be an increase in expenses as the timber in Canada and the Scandinavian countries got further and further away from the centres. A new superstructure had to be put in before the timber could be got out. The FAO forestry committee has said in addition that it quite definitely envisages a shortage of timber in the next century. All of this seems to show that the simplest and best answer for our surplus acres is to put them into trees.
I think we can quantify the amount of money that is available from the saving in cereals production. It is very difficult to do that for milk, but we can do it reasonably easily for cereals. A number of estimate; were made of the cost of agricultural support, ranging, I think, from about £115 a hectare to the £300 a hectare mentioned by other witnesses. But on cereals if, as the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, suggested in the previous debate, you take the 35:2 tonnes an acre of land out of cereals, this year certainly they are paying an export restitution or subsidy—whatever you care to call it—of £80 to £100 a tonne, plus the cost of storage That gives a figure of more like £100 an acre, and it is still saving money.
The insistence of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher on the Community making this money available will save us all money and will certainly do something towards making the policy of turning over to trees possible and viable.
Again, the Government are talking about an increase in general planting of, I think, 37,000 hectares a year, which is quite a lot of trees. Then they are talking about farm planting going at 30,000 acres or thereabouts a year. I am not being nasty to the Government, but this is a drop in the bucket when you look at the land that has to come out of agricultural production. That is why I say we have to look hard at the farming scene—how one makes a farmer into a forester, how one allies the environmentalist with practical production, and, most importantly in any environment, how to keep people in the countryside, because nobody is interested in total wilderness acres.
Tax incentives are necessary for a great deal of planting. Some of the groups carrying out economic
1044
forestry have shown the way. Eskdale Muir, which I have seen, shows how one can ally mass planting with an improvement in the appearance of the countryside, in the wildlife and in other ways. The Government must also consider the Forestry Commission planting more; otherwise we shall not achieve the acreage under trees we require.
It is a curious anomaly that if we have the misfortune to have a Labour Government following a Conservative Government—which I also consider to be a misfortune—we should probably have more trees planted. The Labour Party believes in higher taxation of rich men, so that under a Labour Government a government scheme for private forestry may do better than under a Tory Government. God forbid, that we continue either. But it is necessary that the Forestry Commission plants more trees on its own.
The Forestry Commission will need a great deal of expansion in personnel. If we are to expand farm forestry, we shall need oversight and people who can train farmers. We shall need people who can plan and people who can also combine all the various interests. It probably can be best done from within the Forestry Commission. But the vital element is farm forestry.
A number of schemes have been put forward. All of them can work in their various ways. A number of different schemes could work, but the essential element in farm forestry, as the report and as every witness said, is that, first, the farmer recovers 100 per cent. of the cost of his planting and, secondly, that he has an income thereafter for as long as it takes to get into thinnings and or regular income from the blocks planted each year. Without that one cannot possibly persuade any farmer to plant. His income (particularly if one considers Scottish farm income over the last three or four years) will not be enough for him to put money into any improvement whatsoever. But if a scheme is produced that gives 100 per cent. of the establishment and an annual income thereafter, one has a chance of doing something. I should like the Government to confirm that.
I know that the pilot scheme announced recently states that how long the payment will last will be a matter for examination. It is certainly a matter for thought, But it is a matter of urgency and no farmer could plant unless he was guaranteed some form of annual income. There are many schemes for covering this, but if an annual income is to be paid, the Forestry Commission or another expert body must inspect the security in the form of the trees to see that they are being properly managed.
For all these reasons I believe that research will need to be speeded up, more money will need to be spent on it and the staffing of the Forestry Commission or the overseeing bodies needs to be considered. Also we need to study the co-operative schemes so that in an area where much farm forestry has been planted in smaller patches, be it 40 or 100 acres, at least there is a scheme for the marketing of the trees from the different farms.
The whole thing bristles, if that is the right word, with difficulties. All of us are agreed on the necessity and the fact that there is money to be saved by coming out of grain and into wood farming. The Government must be more courageous than they have been about

1045
forward planning. I hope that they regard the suggested plan as a pilot scheme and will bend every effort to persuade the CAP and the EC generally to produce a European or Community-wide scheme at the earliest possible moment.
The report has given the facts and pointed the way. I hope the Government will be able to respond. I should particularly like the Minister to tell me—if my figures are right on the amount that could be saved—how much could be saved by taking land out of cereals at the present time and not historically.
5.46 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' indulgence as I address you for the first time this evening. I should also like to declare an interest as a woodland owner.
The report we are discussing in its first statement comes straight to the point with the fact that the Community has no existing forestry policy bar a few specific measures. Two important reasons have prompted the consultation papers on which the report is based. It is on those two reasons that I should like to concentrate this evening. The first is the problem of agricultural surpluses and the second is the continuing reliance on imported timber and wood products currently costing the EC £12 billion per annum.
Those two points are also at the centre of the debate over British forestry policy. Some of the issues involved can be regulated on a Community basis but the others need to be resolved nationally. The EC embraces widely differing geographical and climatic extremes—to quote from the report—"from Athens to the Baltic". But agricultural over production is a problem in all these areas.
Can trees replace agricultural crops on enough land to make a difference? In the United Kingdom I believe the answers are, first, economic and then environmental. Economically one must examine broadleaves, softwoods or mixtures. Pure broadleaved timber production, with rotations of 120 years or so, and with the constant menace of the grey squirrel, is basically uneconomic. It would require an even larger and longer lasting grant than the £125 per hectare announced last week to be attractive to farmers as an agricultural alternative. The marketing of this type of timber is also most unsophisticated.
Softwoods however are viable. Production has been centred in the uplands and on rougher ground rejected for agriculture. Their rate of return, after taking into account grants and tax provisions, is competitive and has attracted outside money to the United Kingdom. If this planting could move down the hill on to better ground, growth rates would be improved. Environmentally conifers have attracted criticism. Some of this is due to past forest management mistakes, now acknowledged. But present day planting with regimes that are well thought out will lead to fine woods of mixed ages and species. These would be most attractive.
As the Countryside Commission for Scotland stated in the report, people do not like change in well loved landscapes, but they become used to it and often find it attractive in the long run. Likewise, contrary to what some people believe, conifers can encourage bird life.
1046
In Scotland where planting still accounts for only a very small percentage of the land area, the two different types of habitat have a distinct benefit to wildlife.
Trees provide shelter, roosting places and food. A pure conifer forest harbours three times the number of birds and a greater diversity of species than the grass or heath it replaces. Buzzards and red kites have particularly benefited. The compromise is to have mixtures. I particularly like the suggestion by the CLA in the Verney report of a mixed woodland grant scheme, varying with the species of tree. However, the fact remains that the more broadleaves that are grown the more expensive the operation is to the taxpayer.
Let me now turn to what may be done to encourage growth. The policy of the United Kingdom has remained constant for some time. With the benefit of the Forestry Commission, governments have encouraged an increase of forest area. That policy is consistent with the EC proposals.
There are two ways of increasing the acreage. As we have heard, one is farm forestry. That is linked to the falling fortunes of agriculture supported by grants and producing income to the farmer. The recently proposed £125 per hectare for tree growth on the best land compares with the annual public support for agriculture of about £150 per hectare. It is important though that that new money should not detract from the necessary improved new management of existing small parcels of woodland on farms. It has been demonstrated by the Dartington Amenity Research Trust that many of those can be brought lucratively back into production. Again, more research is needed on marketing techniques.
The second area of timber production to offset our large import bill is called mainstream forestry; that is, woodlands on a larger scale managed by the private sector and the Forestry Commission, with inherent advantages of economies of scale, better access, existing infrastructure and jobs. One of the main objectives is to attract investment into the processing sector, which in turn establishes markets from which small woodlands may profit. Production from Britain's forests is likely to double in the next 15 years, and substantial investment has been made over the last two years with that in mind. Seven new or improved mills are operating. Those investments rely on a constant long-term source of raw material. They are also proof that the policy of expansion, pursued for many years, is paying worthwhile dividends.
It would be disastrous to choke off future supply by removing either Schedule B or Schedule D tax arrangements, which are vital in the larger scale private estate. Present policy is for the bulk of new planting to be carried out by the private sector, which occupies 56 per cent. of the forest area. If Schedule B were removed, the marginal economic advantages of managing broadleaves would disappear; and without Schedule D offset, planting on any scale would have to stop.
It can be demonstrated that the existing economics of private forestry are fragile in that the annual planting target of 30,000 hectares is not being met. The rate of return is not high enough and the land is not being made available. The threat to future supplies

1047
will undoubtedly hit the expansion of the processing mills, thus leading to loss of markets and jobs.
I hope your Lordships will agree that, given the right support, forestry can not only enhance our countryside by occupying previous agricultural land but also substantially reduce our UK annual import bill of £4.5 billion.
5.55 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, congratulating Dukes on their maiden speeches is a very rare and privileged occurrence. The noble Duke's grasp of his subject was impressive and his advice to the Government was worth while.
There is one point which I should like to take up and emphasise. The noble Duke has said that more mills have come into production. Our energy prices for processing mills here are much higher than those in Scandinavia and in Canada, I understand. That is why large amounts of Scottish timber are exported to Scandinavian mills for processing. That is something which the Government can certainly look into.
The report is clear, well written and excellent. I find that I agree with a great deal of it. Perhaps that is why I think it is good, because one does not always think things are good when one does not agree with them. It has also emphasised that timber growing is extremely long term. Nelson's second-in-command at Trafalgar would always plant oak trees on those very rare occasions when he came back on leave, because he said that the Royal Navy would always need oak. Was it not lucky that one of his coppices or woods was felled to provide for the building of anti-magnetic minesweepers in the last war? That shows how the long-term requirements can be seriously planned.
It is essential that the common agricultural policy should pay for this. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, it is ridiculous to subsidise cheap grade feed wheat at £86 to £100 per tonne; and then there is storage to be considered. On two tonne per acre farm that means about £160 per acre. Instead, we should be thinking of planting on the three-and-a-half tonne to four tonne per acre farm, because that is where the surpluses are going to cease to be grown. It would be perfectly reasonable not to grow those for £50 an acre when it is possible to achieve very much more with four tonnes of feed grain.
I hope that my noble friend can clear up the confusion about shelter belts and hedges. Surely those should come into the grants which the Government intend to pay. I am referring to the parts of the report which I think are the most important and which seem to make sense. With regard to the unification of the grants system, tax reliefs and grants should be given only when the Forestry Commission or ADAS, but preferably the Forestry Commission, has said, "Yes, that is environmentally sensitive; yes, that is conservation-sensible; yes, that makes good timber growing policy as well". I believe that what has offended people very much are the straight lines on the Scottish hills, with furrows going down the hill which seem to be there for ever and which do not blend in naturally with the countryside.
1048
I am privileged to fish on Helmsdale. The Helmsdale strath is a very beautiful strath. In some parts of it quite large areas of pine forest have been planted. They look as though they have been there for ever, although they were planted only 20 or 30 years previously. They fit round the hills; they are not square, not regulated. Further up the strath there are some in blocks going down the hill; they bear no relationship to God or man, just a relationship to the straight lines of the fencing posts. That is what offends people most about block granting of single species conifers in the Highlands.
While I am on that, I have a friend who has a picture of Box Hill, painted in 1780. There is not a tree on Box Hill: it is used solely for sheep grazing. I am absolutely prepared to bet my bottom dollar that if the owner of Box Hill, which I believe is the National Trust, decided that they wanted to clear all the scrub off Box Hill and put down old-fashioned, long-term grass, every single conservationist within a radius of 15 or 20 miles would be screaming. So one has to be careful in recognising what one is actually conserving. Also, one must remember when one is conserving trees and looking at tree planting that it is an ever-growing, ever-changing, ever-transforming situation. That is something we must always take into account.
Paragraph 102 of the report, which is the one referring to new planting, is extremely important. I think that the report helps Her Majesty's Government and I sincerely hope that they will take it on board and will act upon it because it seems to me that it produces a consensus with which very few of us would disagree. In other words, it is taking seriously the conservation aspect. The report realises that we need more timber and that we can do something to get rid of these horrendous common agricultural grain mountains, which are ruining the world trade, impoverishing native third world agriculture and producing an unnecessary amount of friction between ourselves and our main ally. By planting some of these high-yielding lands with trees and making it worth while for people so to do we will then have contributed to something to which we all aspire.
6.2 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I should like briefly to add my congratulations to the noble Duke whose maiden speech we all so much enjoyed. Having seen something of his woodlands some years ago, I can assure your Lordships that he speaks from great expertise and knowledge and I hope that we shall hear him often.
It was a privilege to have served on the Committee and I consider the report among the best of the numerous publications on forestry which seem to be issued almost weekly at the moment. It is politically very difficult now, if not impossible, to pay farmers to grow nothing at all. So there must be a strong case for the expansion of forestry in this country. The Government also seem to have concluded last week that it is better to pay farmers to grow trees than to grow nothing whatever.
However, the Committee expresses some doubts, particularly in paragraph 103, which I believe to be very realistic. I should like to underline some of the reasons for scepticism. If there is to be a significant

1049
contribution towards reduced cereal crops, obviously there will need to be a large acreage planted in the drier counties of eastern England. That is where most of the corn surpluses are created. It would not be effective to plant more trees on the uplands. I live in a relatively dry eastern area myself, and so I have had some experience of the difficulties of establishing trees in such areas.
I tend to think that the report does not sufficiently emphasise the problems. Young trees can be very slow to grow in dry country. Every single animal in the countryside is bent on eating them—I exonerate only the fox in this respect—and such trees are very vulnerable to periods of drought. Establishment will be even slower in the case of broadleaved trees. It follows that the time which it takes to establish a plantation of any kind is very considerable and that the time to harvest can be very long indeed.
Financial incentives, if they are to do the trick, have to extend for very long periods. I remember some years ago felling a 120-year-old oak wood. The proceeds equalled exactly one year's crop of winter wheat. Those figures are of course out of date. But it puts the issue in some perspective. We shall have to see whether the recently-announced incentives will prove adequate.
No one can expect any return on a tree which he plants during his lifetime. Current yields barely pay the cost of replanting after filling. The value of thinning seldom covers the cost of extraction and, even if timber can be grown successfully, finding a market can be very difficult indeed and may always be so. Although we import over 90 per cent. of our timber requirements, there seems to me to be very little sign yet that home-grown timber can compete efficiently with imports at present prices. Therefore, planting trees of any kind is an act of faith, if ever there was one.
It is perhaps not sufficiently emphasised in the report how totally irreversible such processes can be. The planting of trees effectively means that this land is "tree" for ever and after. Removing stumps and replacing drains after even 40 years can be much more expensive than the total worth of the land. No farmer, given the choice, will plant his best land but only the poorer, wetter areas and the fields which have yielded less. So the reduction in cereal crops which we seek may be much less than we expect. To put it another way, we shall need an enormous expansion in forestry to have any significant effect on cereal surpluses.
I do not believe that the report mentions at all the landlord-tenant relationship. When one considers the complications for everyone involved in the ownership or otherwise of milk quotas, I think this is an omission. I ask the Government to treat that as an awful warning, to try to get it right and to give some guidance on the matter.
The control of forestry is I think mentioned in paragraphs 43 to 48. I agree strongly with the Committee's decision not to support planning control over forestry. That must be absolutely right, although I think a case could be made for an exception in national parks in England and Wales. It is much better to introduce the system of planting licences, which has been well argued in the report. What is important is that there should be not only no grant without such a licence but no tax relief either.
1050
For some people, grant (which is costing the nation, we believe, some £6 million a year) will be more useful than any amount of tax relief, costing, I believe some £10 million and most effective obviously for the wealthier. I like the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie's advocacy of more forestry under a Labour government. It seems a splendid price to pay.
Is it worth considering a system whereby you could either have grant or tax relief? That would allow much more generous grants to be given to smaller farmers and perhaps much more generous tax relief for the larger farmers—more effective incentives at no greater cost to the country.
Income tax relief—your Lordships will be well aware of it, so I shall not describe it—is extremely generous to forestry at the moment. It could hardly be more so; but capital taxation remains a major deterrent. The situation is in fact worse than it was under estate duty, because tax is now payable on the larger sums realised when timber is sold rather than being related to the value of timber when a death occurs. That point is touched on in paragraph 111 of the report, and I believe it is something which has to be looked at.
If it is national policy to increase timber and grow more forestry, then £10 million a year in tax relief seems to be a very cheap price to pay, especially as most of this is lost revenue. I doubt very much whether the Treasury would have got it anyway. There would be some other loophole through which it would disappear. It is probably much cheaper to do this than to pay the Forestry Commission to plant more trees.
An objection one frequently hears is that many barristers, pop stars and other wealthy people cash in on this tax relief. Some of them do not even know where their investment is sited. It is very difficult to distinguish between a genuine traditional owner and a new owner. I ask: does it matter, if the object is to have more trees?
Finally, your Lordships will remember that Lloyd George once said that a fully-equipped Duke costs as much as two Dreadnoughts to maintain. I do not think he was referring to either of the two noble Dukes taking part in this debate. However, one might perhaps paraphrase his remarks and bring them up to date by saying that a fully-equipped snooker champion now costs as much as a Chieftain tank.
6.10 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, first I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, on a really excellent maiden speech. Thanks to him, and to all the other noble Lords who have painted the canvas, I shall be able just to touch up in a few places. Next I must declare an interest as the owner of some small plantations, mainly for shelter, and as the wife of a more considerable forest owner.
The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has mentioned the National Audit Office's review of the Forestry Commission's objectives and achievements bemoaning the low returns from public investment in forestry, which followed hard upon the heels of the report that we are now debating. I have a sense of déjà vu. Ever since the end of World War I, the history of

1051
forestry in this country has been like a fairy tale without a happy ending and the Treasury has been the Bad Fairy. In 1919, a baby was conceived of the forestry sub-committee presided over by Mr. Francis Acland consisting of representatives of the various departments concerned, some experts and others. All signed their report without reservations, except Bad Fairy Treasury. The result was the Forestry Bill giving birth to the Forestry Commission which received Royal Assent on 19th August 1919.
The Second World War devasted for a second time the woodlands of this country, and between 1945 and 1972 the confidence of foresters and investors in our forest industry was built up by Good Fairy Government—and, largely, by Good Fairy Labour Government—with a system of grants and capital and income tax reliefs designed to take into account the unique nature of forestry, and to encourage owners to rehabilitate their woodlands under the dedication scheme with its planting and management grants.
Then, in June 1972, came the Government's Consultative Document on Forest Policy accompanied by Bad Fairy Treasury's cost-benefit study. Two years of argument followed and we were left with the Basis III Dedication Scheme with no management grant and lower basic planting grants. By 1976, the level of new planting had just about halved. Now, again, Bad Fairy Treasury is back weaving her nasty spells. I hope that the Government will not weaken this time in playing Good Fairy and telling Bad Fairy Treasury to get lost, by implementing the recommendations of this report with, I hope, financial assistance from the European Community.
I should like to see a return to the Basis II Dedication Scheme or something like it, with the addition of some kind of income support grants which might, or might not, be repayable on harvesting the crop, depending on whether capital gains tax was payable. For I have no doubt that in general—and there are exceptions to which I shall come—the most profitable way of growing timber is to persuade someone else to do it for you, even if you have to give him considerable financial inducement to do so. I hope that the Government have really taken on board the absolute necessity of growing more timber.
I should like, however, to draw your Lordships' attention to the CLA's reservations on page 175 of the report on the willingness and desirability of farmers doing their own planting. They say that the majority of farmers do not have the traditional interest in the growing and management of woodlands which landowners and owner-occupier farmers have and, are,
"at best uninterested in the woods on their farms or even regard them as a positive nuisance. Forestry is a skilled business and if healthy and productive woodlands are to thrive they must be properly managed."
I wonder whether it might not be better to devise some scheme by which the planting and management of individual farmer's woodlands should be done by either private forestry firms or even the Forestry Commission, so that the necessary expertise was available and so that a number of small plantations could be planted in accordance with some coherent scheme for the area and managed more economically.
1052
An interesting letter appeared in the Scotsman on 29th December, 1986 from the Director of the University of Edinburgh Centre for Human Ecology. He advocates what I think all foresters regard as the commercial ideal—sustained yield forestry. Put at its simplest, you plant a certain number of trees every year for the number of years it takes the trees to grow to maturity. By then your first year's trees are mature so you fell them and replant and so on every year, and by then you have a regular annual income for ever.
Of course, you need a fairly large area to make it viable and you have to allow for thinning, but that gives you some return before maturity. If you want to do it with mixed species all growing at different rates, it becomes quite complicated. It is quite an easy thing to achieve when you are felling the virgin forest, but difficult and costly in the early years to start again from scratch. But I wish that we could make a start and I suggest that this is something the Forestry Commission could do best. And I therefore very much hope that the Government will reconsider any plans they may have for divorcing the Forestry Commission from forest ownership.
It is true that we shall not be able to rely for much longer on cheap imported timber from the tropical rain forests and other foreign sources. This was foreseen right back in 1919. Lord Clinton, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Forestry Bill, said:
"We know that the main supply of the Empire in Canada, vast reserve as it is, is disappearing at a rate very much greater than its annual growth."—[Official Report.]
He added that we were mostly dependent for our own supplies on Russia to which the same applied.
In 1961, I was taken to see the timber operations in the virgin forest in Canada, north of Quebec City. When we had got to the farthest lumber camp, I asked what was being done about replanting. The answer was "Nothing, because it will never run out". Now it is running out and the Canadians are very worried; and it is the same story everywhere. So we must try to become more self-sufficient in our own timber requirements. I welcome this report most warmly. It is the best news that the forestry industry has had for a very long time.
6.16 p.m.
The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry: My Lords, first I declare an interest as one who is much involved in the growing of trees for commercial purposes, for aesthetic reasons and also for conservation. It is always a pleasure to listen to the lucid logic of my noble friend Lady Saltoun and to have the chance of saying so when I follow her. Let me also say what a pleasure it was to hear my noble friend the Duke of Somerset making his maiden speech. His knowledge and grasp of forestry came over very clearly and it is good to see someone in his age group with this interest.
I join with others in the applause for the work of the Select Committee, many of whose members are taking part in this debate and they leave little more to be said on the subject. Nevertheless, I believe that one point needs to be stressed. It is that it is advantageous that public opinion should see the merits of forestry

1053
expansion and that it deserves to be better informed than hitherto.
I am sure that all your Lordships who have a practical knowledge of forestry and a first-hand concern for the countryside will know every bit as well as I do the absurdity of the anti-forestry campaign, with all its hysterical exaggerations. Yet it is amazing how a handful of people who present themselves as Davids fighting Goliaths, seeking to save the last 10 per cent. of our landscape from total and irretrievable destruction, manage to trigger the imagination of editors and journalists. No doubt this is the stuff of which good stories are made, true or false.
Yet some 90 per cent. of the country is not afforested, and not even the most enthusiastic forester envisages more than about another 8 per cent. of tree coverage spread over the next decade or two, still leaving 80 per cent. of the country unafforested. Furthermore, a large part of the present 10 per cent. forestry cover is of a kind that is smiled upon by knowledgeable conservationists and landscape appreciators.
Of course there are examples of unattractive forests dating from the early days of the big schemes, before aesthetic lessons were learnt, and there are still occasional examples of bad plantations in conspicuous and sensitive areas, but even these are quite exceptional. Most of us who try to continue the tradition of integrating forestry with other interests, as was done by many generations before us, are most conscious of the fact that it was simply because of their achievement that the British landscape is as beautiful and as varied as it is today, which is what makes us all want to go on conserving it.
With 90 per cent. of our land surface still unafforested, surely there is little need for panic about a gradual increase of a mere 8 per cent., especially when it can mainly be done in such a way as to enhance rather than spoil the landscape for ramblers and conservationists. There are still vast open spaces that will seldom feel the foot of one rambler in a 1,000. Is it right to stifle desirable development of increasing economic importance nationally for the sake of the very occasional but sometimes noisy over-conservative reactionary who resists change, whether it is good or bad?
If forestry expansion is to enjoy more enthusiastic public support, it is important that the industry, and perhaps the Government should take more active steps to open the eyes of the general public and the media by means of fact-finding visits and demonstrations which refute much of the present distortion that goes on.
The EC's recognition of the future role of forestry is welcome, and it is right that all of us involved with the day-to-day management of the countryside should seek the best possible ways of translating sensible thinking into practicable action. Mercifully, we have an Administration who do not lack men of wisdom or the ability to listen to the voices of those groups and organisations that represent the grass roots and the tree roots.
The CLA's latest working party report, chaired by that most eminent forester-cum-conservationist, Sir Ralph Verney, poses many practical solutions to
1054
problems that would otherwise block progress. Another organisation that deserves mention is the Timber Growers' Organisation, which has already shown itself to be a powerhouse of constructive thought. At the same time I firmly believe that the role of the Forestry Commission will assume ever greater importance, rather than less, in influencing the right kind of afforestation and watching over the taxpayer's legitimate interest.
Finally, it always surprises me how little attempt seems to be made at high level in the EC or in government quarters to make long-range predictions about the future supply/demand situation for both foodstuffs and timber. It appears to be generally assumed that the present situation will continue more or less as it is for ever, yet casting our minds back over the last 100 years will confirm that cycles have come and gone. Is it too much to hope that someone will indulge in a little more long-range forecasting? Certainly on present expectation there is every reason to keep up pressure on the EC to back forestry in a big way.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am speaking in a more guarded way than some noble Lords who will be taking part in this debate, maybe because I have taken part in so many forestry committees throughout the whole of my adult life. In particular I remember in committees the Forestry Commission, the CLA and the timber growers' organisation when we faced the brave future; we knew that there would be problems, yet I do not think we realised how difficult it would be to work out a forestry policy, as indeed has proved to be the case.
Forestry policy is always difficult. There is the different geography, the different climate—there is difference of every sort. If it is difficult to work out a forestry policy for one country, how much more difficult it is to work out something for the Community!
Wherever one goes in Europe one finds that farmers are not national foresters. Something that we have discussed here from time to time is the potential advantages to farmers if they would transfer some of their land from normal agricultural crops to timber; but it does not work that way in practice and it costs the most enormous sums in subsidy.
There are further difficulties ahead of us. There is the geography, and there is the long-term scale. One says that it will take some time before a farmer understands the return that he will get. The chances are he will get it in the next generation or even further ahead. That is not really very attractive to him. To switch farming from land to forestry is very difficult in practice. All these interests about which we are speaking must have a reasonable economic outcome or there will be general disappointment.
There are on the other hand benefits and happy results that can arise from forestry. I shall mention—with no economic and financial interest—one thing only. Looking out of my bedroom window this morning, several hundred miles away from here, I saw not an ordinary common bird but a rough legged buzzard eating a pigeon, exactly 12 yards

1055
from the wall of the house. Beyond that there were three roe deer, one buck had a good head and beyond that something that would probably have given you the most pleasure of all—the red squirrel. Forestry has that side to it. There are the big things to think about as well as the smaller ones, and we have not to be too hopeful until we have solved the difficulties.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. It is heartening in this rather elderly assembly to hear such a valuable and knowledgeable speech from a young Member of the House, I calculate that he is at least 15 years younger than the average age of the new entry to this House which has recently been announced. I hope that your Lordships will hear him often, and not only on forestry.
It is seven years now since your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology published the first of its two reports on the scientific aspects of forestry. It pursued the subject and took further evidence, and published a supplementary report in July 1982.
As a result of these reports two specific steps were taken. The first was to set up, under the chairmanship of the Forestry Commission, the Forestry Research Co-ordination Committee, which has developed into an active body doing important work. The second was to set in motion the progress which has led to new schemes to encourage the planting and management of broadleaved woodlands. Later in 1984 the Select Committee undertook a short inquiry into the relationship between agricultural and environmental research, whch was prompted by its concern about integrated land use. This reinforced that Committee's opinion that integrating forestry, agriculture and other land uses is an important way of using land to the best advantage.
In these reports there is no mention of the European dimension. Forestry was not, I think, in the minds of the negotiators of the Treaty of Rome, and in 1980 the Commission had only a vestigal interest in it. It is really the glaring contrast between the European agricultural surpluses and the European timber deficit which has led the Commission to take the first tentative steps to involve itself in foresty policy and research. This involvement is, in my opinion, much to be welcomed, and the report before your Lordships is therefore timely.
Decisions on forestry policy, as the evidence to Lord Gallacher's sub-committee shows, must remain primarily in national hands if only because these decisions have to relate to the very different forestry circumstances of the member countries, but that there will be a role for the Commission in this area I have no doubt.
In the debates on forestry policy that have taken place in the House since the reports of the Science and Technology Committee, to which I have referred, the Government have endorsed the policy of encouraging the forestry industry and extending the area under forest. They have also emphasised the desirability of a greater role for the private sector both in planting and
1056
through purchase of forest and forestry land from the Forestry Commission.
But the carrying out of this policy has been continually influenced from two directions: from the Treasury and from the environmental lobbies, both national and local. I must declare an interest here as a mini-forester operating on a very small scale. The Treasury has, in my experience, hitherto regarded the support of the forest industry in this country as a misuse of resources and it mounts an attack on it from time to time, notwithstanding the declared intention of the Government to support the expansion of the industry. The latest assault comes, not directly from the Treasury, but from the National Audit Office which recently published a report which has since been strongly rebutted by the forestry industry. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and others have dealt with this and I need not pursue it further.
The pressures of environmentalism come from a wholly different direction. However, they reinforce what, for shorthand purposes, I shall term the Treasury case, by demanding restrictions on the type and extent of plantings which reduce the prospective economic returns. Therefore, the private forester, like the Forestry Commission itself, with its dual role as Authority and Forest Enterprise, and its multiple responsibilities under both heads, has found himself or herself squeezed between the hammer of Treasury control and the anvil of environmentalism.
Take the broadleaved scheme. This scheme was very much to be welcomed, but its attractions are reduced on the one hand by the level of grant available and on the other by the restrictions hedging it round—for example, the limitation on the proportion of conifers which may be planted as a nurse crop. That limitation reflects, as I understand it, a compromise between the Forestry Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. As a result, although the Forestry Commission told the Select Committee that it is reasonably satisfied with the progress of the scheme, I believe it would be more successful if it were more flexible. The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, spoke with great authority on that point.
More generally, some of the environmental lobbies and especially local objectors threatened to bring about a situation of stalemate in which it is hardly possible to cut down an old tree or to plant a new one. When I was thinking about what to say in this debate, I came across a headline in my local paper:
"Village Uproar as Tree gets the Chop".
The tree was of course on its last legs! When I read of the passionate opposition to various extensions of planting, especially of conifers, I am reminded of an 18th century epigram which may be familiar to some of your Lordships:
"Papillia, walking with her amorous spark
Says to her swain 'how charming is a park';
A park is purchased, but the fair he sees
Suffused in tears, 'Oh odious, odious trees'".
Such appeared to be the situation until last week, when the Government Statement on the alternative use of agricultural land opened new avenues for the development of the forestry enterprise. There has been a great fuss about the planning implications of the Statement, which are outside the scope of this debate. However, I believe that the forestry proposals can be

1057
wholeheartedly welcomed. We must now await the promised document and scrutinise the small print. But it certainly seems that the hammer of the Treasury may have been stayed, although the anvil of environmentalism is probably still in place.
I hope that the new document, if it does not itself contain them, will foreshadow the issue of precise guidelines so as to assist local authorities, landowners and farmers to apply the new policy of increasing the forest area, and that those guidelines will be flexible in their treatment of the levels of grant and the mix of trees.
The Science and Technology Report of 1980 proposed that there should be experiments in community forestry—that is, community with a small 'c' as opposed to the European Community. The idea was that a community would manage its own area of woodland for its own needs, for timber, firewood, and so on. The suggestion was not taken up in 1980. However, this is a lost tradition which could be revived with local authority support and with Forestry Commission advice. I understand that it is practised in other states of the European Community and there may be something which we can learn from them.
Moreover, the idea has now been taken up by the Woodland Trust, which has started schemes in Worcestershire and Hertfordshire. That is something which could be expanded and developed in collaboration with farmers in the planting of new woodland under community management. I suggest that the Government and the Forestry Commission should look at the proposal again. It could be a useful element in the development of new policies.
One further point concerns the planting of small woodlands and particularly hardwoods. Such planting is seriously handicapped in parts of England and certainly in the South by the ravages of deer—roe, fallow and muntjak. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to this point in his opening speech. This makes successful establishment of a small plantation both frustrating and expensive. Control is difficult, especially in the creeping suburbia of the South and the South-East. This is a problem to which I do not see an easy answer at the moment, and I wonder whether it has been considered in this context by the Government and the Forestry Commission.
Turning again to Europe, the essential fact is that it has a big timber deficit. Of all the European countries, the United Kingdom has the largest deficit, partly because it is still building up its forest stock and relatively little of that stock is mature. The case for strong encouragement of forestry expansion is admittedly long term. The involvement of the European Commission, if it cannot take direct action except to a limited extent, may at least have the effect of impressing on member governments the wider strategic issues involved in European forestry development. There may also well be advantages for forestry research.
I conclude by commending once more the three reports of the Select Committee on Science and Technology relating to forestry to the attention of the Government and of the House. The thrust of many of the recommendations is very much in line with the new policy announced last week.
6.37 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to start this evening by adding my congratulations to the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, on his maiden speech. I know that he has joined the European Communities Committee and I hope that he will be contributing to the reports of that committee and also to the debates in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has initiated this important debate on the reports on the EC forestry policy. It comes at a most opportune moment. The press is full of the debate on alternative uses for agricultural land. The Government have published a paper on their views of those alternative uses. The Minister of Agriculture outlined those views at the recent rather stormy annual general meeting of the NFU where he, in my opinion, rather unfairly received a vote of no confidence.
The report, from a committee of which I have the honour to be a member, touches on only one of those alternative uses, although its main terms of reference were to comment on the discussion paper on Community action in the forestry sector. Much has already been said today about various aspects of that report and I am going to confine my short remarks to three aspects of it.
First, I should like to comment on the support given by the committee to the expansion of forestry in the United Kingdom at paragraph 139 in the summary of conclusions and recommendations. The National Audit Office review mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton and others gives the Forestry Commission faint praise for achieving a strategic reserve of timber and comments more on the valuable recreational asset of the existing forestry estate. It ducks the environmental aspect altogether and concludes in paragraph V of its summary:
"There appear to be no significant economic benefits from new planting arising from balance of payment or strategic considerations".
It then goes on to make this rather unhelpful statement about the private sector in paragraph Y of the summary:
"In NAO's view it was not clear whether the costs to the Exchequer from the present grant and tax incentive regime were matched by commensurate benefits in national economic terms".
I think that this is an unnecessarilly gloomy approach and does not really address itself to the situation facing the Community at the present time.
Surpluses of milk, beef and cereals are very real, and are expensive to store and dispose of. A diversion of land from the growing of food to the growing of timber represents a viable alternative. Farming has gone up the hill in good times and come down the hill in bad times. This time it may be followed down the hill by forestry where the planting of trees on better quality land has much more chance of yielding a better economic return than on the poorer high land. Our committee is hopeful that the planting of trees in the better quality land will be done at the same time as the continued afforestation of the uplands. This should increase the rate of planting of new forests by this method.
My second point is a personal opinion and therefore I am straying to some extent from the conclusions of

1059
the report. I do not believe in my heart that farmers make good foresters, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would agree with me. It is unwise to go too far down the road of economic timber production from scattered woods on individual farms. Forestry is a long-term crop of some 40 years or more and needs different and varied skills for its management by more than one generation of farmer until its harvest. Farmers can learn these skills, of course, and many of them will plant trees and look after them well, but I feel that they will be exceptions to the rule.
It is my experience that it is only those interested in the sporting or amenity value of small woods who will have the incentive to look after them in a constructive way. This is a most important facet of our countryside and should not be overlooked from the income earning potential. I am aware of the uplift of sporting letting from the low level of about £1 per hectare for the sporting rights on, say, a mainly arable farm in the South of 500 hectares with a little cover, to £5 per hectare. For that rent the same farm would need about 10 one-hectare woods planted with a mixture of conifers and hardwoods to provide cover for game birds and managed with pheasants in mind.
The increase in the income attributable to the woods alone taken over a 30-year period would be more valuable than the timber itself. The cashflow would be greatly improved, let alone the provision of habitat for other animals and birds and the visual amenity. I have taken these figures from a letter to the Field of March 1987 written by the director of game conservancy at Fordingbridge. Many of the woods planted in the southern half of the country were originally planted in the latter half of the last century. They were planted for a variety of sporting and amenity reasons; for example, as shooting cover for pheasants and partridges and as good holding places for foxes.
There may be some value in the old art of coppicing for the production of biofuel from some of the smaller areas of lowland farms. This should be considered for possible grant aid. It should not be the policy of the Community to promote the production of low grade timber from scattered woodlands. A very good marketing operation is required and that cannot be justified economically in terms of import saving or rural employment.
The last point I should like to mention is the very great value of the incentives provided by the Government for the growing of marketable timber in the United Kingdom. It is not enough to have planting grants and maintenance grants because of the very long cycle of tree production. At best this stretches from one generation to the next, and in case of hardwoods even to the third or fourth generation before the felling and replanting takes place.
There is a need for favourable treatment by the Inland Revenue in regard to both income tax and capital taxes. The report makes a sensible suggestion in paragraph 111 when it recommends,
"exemption from Capital Gains Tax… of land which is marginally economic for use in agriculture and is sold for an approved change of land use".
I would go further and say that the land for growing woods should be exempted from capital gains tax
1060
when a sale or transfer is made. It is a pretty bogus form of valuation and is only a tax on inflation. The land is locked into the production cycle of the trees and without a heavy investment is not available for any other form of production, even when the trees have been felled and removed.
It may be seen that forestry is being singled out for special treatment from the Inland Revenue. But if we are being encouraged to turn a proportion of our land over to conservation areas and ESAs I think that they too will have to receive the same amount of special treatment for their survival. It may come in the form of grants but it will add up to the same thing in the end.
This report makes a great deal of sense in today's terms when the production of food from every available acre has been taken from the top of the list. In the search for alternatives more attention will be paid to forestry. I hope that this House will take note of this report.
6.47 p.m.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, I should like to join noble Lords on all sides of the House in congratulating the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, on his splendid maiden speech. All branches of the forestry industry and your Lordships' House on many subjects other than forestry will welcome what he has said today and look forward to what he has to say in the future.
I have the honour to represent the forestry industry in various ways; in particular through the Association of Professional Foresters, if I may declare this interest, whose members are expert and professional people; men and women up and down the country, whose livelihoods depend on forestry. On behalf of the whole industry I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on his splendid report, on the debate that he has instituted in your Lordships' House and perhaps above all on his brilliant summary of the report which he gave us earlier.
There has been much comment but I should like to mention just two points. Funnily enough, to my surprise, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, mentioned one of them. I refer to just about the last paragraph of the report, which refers to roads. This is an important question. Should there be Community assistance to minor roads or should there be a national contribution? I believe it is a minor point in this evening's debate but not to people on the ground, to the general public.
We are talking about a considerable public relations exercise. If people go holidaying in the Highlands, whether in Scotland or in Wales, or in lowland areas with minor roads, these huge timber trucks are a great difficulty. I have no doubt from what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic—in Sweden, Germany and France—that there will be more trucks which will be still bigger. It must be a difficulty for the county councils concerned. My noble friend Lord Ridley is not at present in the Chamber, but he is an expert on county council business. It would seem unfair that ratepayers should bear the cost of the forestry industry. Equally, the forestry industry would find it very difficult, as is made clear in the noble Lord's report, to finance the road work that is necessary. That is a serious problem.

1061
I am certain, too, that the whole of the forestry industry will welcome the earlier statements made by the noble Lord. One of his first statements this evening was that this country must grow marketable timber. I cannot see any point in tying up land for perhaps 120 years with broadleaf trees—at the very minimum 40 years for a softwood to get the proper benefit. What is the good if public and private money is expended and in the end there is no marketable timber? What are the markets? I could not quite make out whether my noble friend Lord Onslow said it was his ancestors who had grown oak. It was chopped down and made into—
The Earl of Onslow: It was Nelson's second-incommand.
Earl Bathurst: I did not quite understand that from my noble friend. However, minesweepers were required to be made from this oak coppice. In the Second World War Mosquito aeroplanes and gliders were made from beech. I have no doubt that there will be still more uses for timber, mixed with chemicals of one sort or another, which will have a strategic requirement in the end. Timber is a marketable product. According to all the reports from Europe and the United States it will be a softwood that is needed for construction, for paper and for chemicals.
It is no good thinking that the wood will come from the third world, from the underdeveloped countries, which is a point made in the report. As development takes place in the third world, so there will be an enormous explosion in the requirements for their timber and timber-like products, quite apart from paper required for writing a letter or printing a novel.
Much has been said this evening on farm forestry or forestry on the farm. There are many problems, but I wonder whether we are not being just a little too pessimistic on the economic value of such a venture. It is not going to be a huge venture immediately. A field of 10 or 12 acres is fairly big. One farmer would be quite pressed to plant the whole of that in a year. Probably two years will be necessary. Where does the expertise come from? My noble friend Lord Ullswater suggested, as did other noble Lords, that perhaps farmers are not very good foresters. However, there are many expert foresters. Forestry advice is available from companies, from individuals and from cooperatives—which is another point—and it can be obtained by farmers. The problem is finding the cash to pay.
It is good to learn that Her Majesty's Government are putting £125 a hectare into the possibility of creating woodlands on farms. It will be interesting to see how far that will progress and how long it will last. I suggest that 20 years are necessary before a worthwhile return is obtained. It will be interesting to see.
If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, correctly, he suggested that there is an annual Common Market subsidy of £112 on every hectare of land which is used for growing food. That is a lot of money every year. It is perhaps a little less than the £125 that the Government are offering; but that £112 is every year going into something that is not required, whereas the £125 is going into a product which, whatever else we know, must be required in 40 years'
1062
time. Perhaps we do not know much of what we shall need to eat but I am certain that we do know that timber and timber-like products will be used.
I welcome the steps that Her Majesty's Government are taking to encourage forestry to come down the hill. We appreciate all the problems which have been so splendidly set out by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and his Select Committee. I would not say that they are resolved but at least they are put down for resolution. I am certain that all branches of the forestry industry will look forward to helping those projects to be put into operation, together with a strong, effective and operative Forestry Commission.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to begin what will be only a very short speech by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, our chairman, for the way in which he handles our committee. He makes a marvellous job of it. One need only read the report to see how much consultation we had before we even started to write the report. On page 43 there is a list of 32 witnesses and companies that have been consulted. Our report has been drawn from a wide selection of important opinions. That is due largely to the noble Lord, who was determined to get to the bottom of everything in the best possible way. I congratulate him.
I also congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. He is, so to speak, a new boy on the committee but he has already made a very good contribution and we all enormously enjoyed his maiden speech this evening. I hope he will continue to attend our committee and to give his opinions, which are extremely valuable.
Among all your Lordships I suppose I live in the middle of the largest forest area in Europe. It is a hill area. I have seen thousands and thousands of acres of hill land planted. I now see the same thousands of acres being clear felled. I do not object to that. It is part of a great industry and it is important. However, I am glad that in this report we refer to developing forest on lower ground.
To be quite honest, being a hill farmer I do not think there is an indefinite amount of hill land which can be taken for forest unless you do away with the sheep industry. However, the sheep industry is one of the few industries in agriculture where there is no surplus. Therefore, from that point of view it is important that we should look at the future increase of forestry, not only in the hills but in the lowland areas.
I also believe that we are absolutely right to look upon this as one of the methods of continuing production in this country of a product which is not in excess; that is, 90 per cent. of United Kingdom timber requirement is imported. There is room for a big increase in home production. Last year 87 per cent. of new forest planting was done in Scotland alone. That is why I am anxious that some of the planting should now go to the lower lands.
We have stated quite clearly, and I think the Government appreciate the point, that if farmers are to give up land for trees and timber, that land cannot produce crops for food and farmers cannot live from it. They must get some help from the Government or

1063
the EC in the way of subsidies—that has been made clear by all those who have spoken this evening—because there is no return on trees for 15 or 20 years. That is clearly stated at paragraph 111 of our report. Already vast areas of hill land have been afforested. If we want to keep the sheep industry and hill land we must look elsewhere in order to develop forestry and not take the only land on which sheep can be grazed.
There is another point to be made. If it is desired to keep the rural community intact and people living in hill areas such as the Highlands and the hill land of Wales, there must be farming in those areas, otherwise people will leave. If people are to be encouraged to stay in the hill land and in the rural communities, the land must be available for farming as well as for forestry.
I agree too with the observations in the report that some of the big companies should undertake the large expansions. As well as the Forestry Commission of course, the Economic Forestry and Tilhill Forestry are the companies which can best deal with a large increase in forest areas. I agree also with the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, that farmers are not really foresters. I plant a lot of trees that are shelter built but that can hardly be called afforestation. It is done only in order to care for the cattle and sheep that are on the hills. I think he is right—
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, perhaps I may just interrupt the noble Baroness. Would she be more enthusiastic if she were actually getting something for it? Would she be more enthusiastic about trees if she were getting money for planting them?
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: Yes, my Lords, to some extent, but I still think that there is a great deal to be said for preserving the community. If thousands of trees are planted, people cannot live there. People do not live in the forest but in villages around the forest. Foresters do not live in the rural areas as do hill farmers and other farmers. One has to hold a balance. I should not be prepared to give up a lot of land on which I had been grazing sheep unless I were given something in the nature of a subsidy in order that I should be able to live. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that that is one of the questions that must be considered.
One of my criticisms of the present forestry industry is that it does not have facilities on a large enough scale for dealing with trees when they have been cut down. In our border area we have to send the trees to North Wales for manufacture. Some of them even go to Sweden to be turned into pulp. Some of them are sent a hundred and more miles for manufacture. I think that the Commission or the Government should look at this question and ask whether or not it is advisable to have some proper equipment or manufacturing industry for trees in the areas where they are being grown so that they do not have to be transported for so many hundreds of miles, which is a very costly operation.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, that we have not given enough thought to the problem of roads and their cost. In my area the roads that are used for transporting timber are continually having to be widened and bridges rebuilt. They were never meant
1064
for the enormous double lorries that take away vast quantities of timber for manufacture. Roads are something at which the Government will have to look. It is becoming difficult to get about in certain areas. Roads represent a problem if one has to transport timber a long way and this matter is not being given sufficient attention.
As regards the market for timber, I ask why we have to send timber to Sweden to be turned into pulp. Surely if paper pulp is wanted it can be manufactured here. We are not very good at marketing and we ought to look more closely at the marketing of timber. We do not encourage enough variety in marketing in this country. The other day I was talking to a builder who told me that he never used home grown timber but always imported timber because home grown timber was not of the kind that he wanted. The market that he represents is one that we are not supplying. Perhaps we cannot do so, but I think that someone should look into this matter. Marketing is something which we ought to consider.
Finally, the summary of our recommendations makes very interesting reading. The key to forestry expansion lies in the amount of money that the Government and the EC are willing to give to those farmers—and I speak as a farmer—who are prepared to give up land from which they receive a return every year when they sell sheep, cattle or crops, to be used for something on which they will not get any return for something like 20 years.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too should like to offer congratulations to my ex-colleagues of Sub-Committee D which sat under the able leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. Your Lordships will find my name in Appendix 1 of this report, but I must confess that I did not take any part in the production of it. However, I am therefore in a good position to say how splendid it was.
In a way it is sad to come to the end of 10 years of happy service with my colleagues in Sub-Committee D, which I shall miss. I hope that my other commitments will allow me to creep back into the committee at a later date. In the meantime, the members are lucky to have instead the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. If he makes such a good contribution to the meetings of Sub-Committee D as he did to our debate when delivering his maiden speech tonight, he will be of great service.
I agree with the sense of most of the report. I first felt that forestry might be an answer to the surplus problems of the CAP when we had the good fortune to be taken by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough to Northern Ireland where they have their own particular problems. I particularly agree with the part of the report which states:
"encouraging appropriate expansion of woodland in appropriate places".
It is the word "appropriate" that matters. In the Isle of Wight, which is my part of the world, the experience with forestry has not been a happy one. About 60 years ago my father was appealed to as a patriot to allow the Forestry Commission to plant fir trees over large areas of downland. The land was beautiful in itself and we

1065
had some of the best views in the whole country. At that time the trees were said to be needed to ensure that in time of war we should not go short of pit props, as had been the worry during World War I. In the event the trees did not grow fast enough for use in World War II. In the late 1940s and 1950s they had started to ruin the beautiful views and encumber the downs, by which time pit props were no longer required. Indeed, the trees now cannot economically be disposed of from the Isle of Wight. It is the kind of situation of which my noble friend Lord Ridley was warning us.
In order to give back our views the trees could be cut and left to rot, but that would create an appalling eyesore such as I have seen only in New Zealand where they do not seem to mind about such things because they have an enormous space of beautiful downland to ruin. Therefore 60 years on from their planting most of the firs are an unnecessary and unmarketable encumbrance.
I should add that there was quite enough woodland, including conifers, to satisfy the wildlife enthusiasts before these firs were even planted. We should like to see our elms back. Dutch elm disease struck the Isle of Wight harder than any other part of the United Kingdom in terms of the number of trees in proportion to acreage. My burst pipes a month ago were a direct result of having to cut down the diseased elms to the north-east of my house some 10 or 12 years ago. However, paragraphs 124 to 126 of the report are not encouraging about replacing small copses with trees such as elms.
The theory of encouraging farmers to grow trees sounds all right, and my right honourable friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his recent Statement indicated that he is certainly taking active steps to provide financial backing to that encouragement. However, one worries about whether it will be possible to provide enough financial encouragement to compensate for having the farmland down to trees, as several noble Lords have questioned.
One also worries about whether the farmers will know the best trees to plant for use a couple of decades hence—notwithstanding the advice that my noble friend Lord Bathurst said they might get from experts—or about whether the disaster on Mottistone Down will be repeated in other parts of the country. I hope not.
7.12 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, as a Member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that dealt with forestry, and as a former Member of the European Communities Committee, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher and the Members of his Committee, upon this most interesting, useful and—as we have seen—very well received report. I would also congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. I only wish that we had more active Dukes in this House on his form.
A considerable amount of thought has gone into the search for alternative crops—including forestry—to assist in the reduction of agricultural surpluses within
1066
the European Community. I should like to think that, in accordance with paragraph 51(a), there will be an establishment grant at 90 per cent. of capital outlay and also, in accordance with paragraph 52, £1,150 per hectare at the time of planting and £75 per hectare for the next 24 years. This, I consider, would be reasonable. Like my noble friend Lord Middleton, I declare an interest as chairman of a charitable trust which owns forest and woodland. I agree also with paragraph 111 that current income tax reliefs should continue and that there should be exemption from capital gains tax.
If current annual public support for agriculture is on average about £150 per hectare and the farmer already receives this amount, it is difficult to believe that this will encourage the transfer of land out of farming especially if it is Grade I, II or III. In the event of some control being introduced to reduce the area of cereals being grown and the transfer of land becomes a real possibility, some form of dedication—as I think the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggested—may be required if only to safeguard newly planted areas being returned to agriculture.
Obviously, it is unlikely that all the organisations listed on page 45 will have their wishes and aspirations fulfilled. As the value of new trees after the payment of grant is likely to be worth about £7 each, the choice of species should be left to the Forestry Commission district officers—those concerned with private woodlands—after due consideration of soils and the general environment.
In the view of my own advisers in West Sussex, the breeding and producing of genetically improved stock may require wider initial tree spacing—say, five metres apart or 500 per hectare. The wide spacing on better soils should lead to new stock becoming more windfirm with unproductive thinning at about 20 years becoming unnecessary. This wider spacing would also permit more sunlight thus allowing a greater range of herbage to develop. This would generally assist in creating a favourable environment for insects and ground nesting birds. Moreover, the new wider spacing may well give the countryside the appearance of being well wooded as in pre-Dutch Elm disease days without becoming a dark impenetrable mass.
The European Community's trade deficit in wood and wood products can be relieved only by expansion and a willingness to change on the part of those responsible for establishing new woodlands. It would also require more tolerance on the part of the public and the organisations representing them as to what is sylviculturally necessary in order that the ultimate needs of Western Europe may be achieved. To maintain and expand economic activities and employment in rural areas will require more investigation into the wider uses of wood and wood products such as improved chipboard to allow existing smallwood and coppice to be utilised, and the possibility of converting woodchips into clean and easily packaged fuel blocks similar to those at present being manufactured from straw.
I was glad to read the announcement of my right honourable friend Mr. Jopling on 9th February regarding new policies for alternative land use,

1067
diversification, and the environment, important elements of which relate to forestry and farm woodland. I am certainly not one of those who would wish to knock my right honourable friend's declared policies and I am glad to see that the Government are taking new initiatives—I greatly welcome them—to encourage the development of farm woodlands, taking land out of agricultural production and building on existing forestry grant schemes.
I note, too, that provision will be made for annual payments to cover the gap between planting and the likely first income from most types of timber. I hope that the kind of grants which I mentioned earlier might be acceptable. However, I agree that payments are bound to vary area by area in recognition of the fact that the agricultural income foregone by planting trees instead of plants will be higher in some areas than in others. I think that that is the Government view. My noble friend Lord Belstead will no doubt further enlighten us.
I see that the maximum rate of aid proposed by the Government is to be £125 per hectare and that the aim is to plant up to 36,000 hectares over the next three years after which the scheme will be reviewed. I am glad to see that detailed arrangements will be the subject of consultation with interested parties prior to the introduction of legislation and that the scheme will incorporate provisions for the protection and enhancement of the environment including special encouragement for broadleaved trees.
I am also glad that the Government propose an expansion of the forestry programme with particular emphasis on the private sector and that as my noble friend Lady Elliot suggested, the planting of a higher proportion of trees on low ground will be encouraged by the release to forestry of better quality land.
I have already spoken—indeed, even from the pulpit of our cathedral—about environmentally-sensitive areas. I shall not go further into that subject. My noble friend Lord Middleton spoke very effectively upon it.
Above all, I believe that Western Europe, and especially Britain, must grow more home-grown timber so that in the long-term we do not have to import such massive quantities. In that connection, I agree wholly with the two letters in The Times today from Dr. Ian Brotherton of Sheffield University and Mr. Jeffrey Bartlett of the British Paper and Board Industry Federation.
Finally, I should like to have said a few words on forestry in developing countries, with reference to paragraph 134 of the report. I am sorry that the Committee was not able to go into that matter in greater detail. However, I agree strongly that attention should be paid to expertise in the regeneration of forests which have been exploited for timber, and also to the importance of schemes such as Tree 2000 to which I have already referred in our Lordships' House in order to help reclaim deserts. Last year, I was very glad to learn that the ODA was prepared to match pound for pound the donations of a charitable organisation involved in such valuable schemes. In particular, I have in mind Tree 2000 of which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is patron, and in
1068
which I declare an interest having the honour to be president.
I have been greatly interested in the most useful and well-received report of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and again I congratulate him.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome the report submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on behalf of his Committee. It is rather surprising that, despite the attachment of the Community to the common agricultural policy, any policy statement on other forms of land use seems to have escaped it. However, the fact that agricultural land is to be taken out of production and alternative use is to be found for that land requires the Community and the Government to look at the alternatives. In a sense, Lord Gallacher's Committee anticipated the Government Statement which was made last week. It endorses the use of better quality land for forestry purposes.
This has been an excellent debate and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and his Committee must be encouraged by the unanimous support which has been voiced from all parts of the House for his very sensible and informative report. The fact that, out of the 19 speakers in the list, there are only two speakers from the official Opposition and only two speakers from the Alliance, does not indicate any lack of enthusiasm or concern for this subject on these Benches.
However, I am concerned about one matter. When I was chairman of the Forestry Commission I always regarded it to be part of my responsibility to support and encourage private forestry alongside the Forestry Commission. We had a very healthy partnership in which both sides of the industry played a co-operative role. I am looking at the figures for new planting for 1979 as compared with those for 1986. In 1979 the Forestry Commission planted 11,800 hectares; the private sector planted over 8,000 hectares. The figures for 1986 showed that the Forestry Commission planting dropped from 11,800 hectares to 4,300 hectares and that the private sector increased from 8,000 hectares to 19,000 hectares. I am not against private forestry. I hope that it will be encouraged and I hope that it will expand. However, I see dangers in destroying the kind of balance and relationship which always existed to the advantage of this industry. It is not sufficient to regard the Forestry Commission simply as an agent which will conduct research which is available to the private sector and which will distribute the grants to the private sector. It is not a Civil Service department.
In order to discharge those responsibilities it must have contained involvement in forestry. Therefore, I should very much welcome a statement from the Minister giving an assurance for the future of the Forestry Commission. Recently in reply to a Question the Minister said that the selling off of Forestry Commission land was simply a tidying up process. Some tidying up, my Lords! I should very much welcome an assurance that the partnership which has been so good for forestry in this country will be restored.

1069
Without any reservation I support the recommendations contained in the report. As has been said by other noble Lords speaking in this debate, the report arrives at a very appropriate and welcome time. First, we have the National Audit Office. I shall not discuss that matter at length tonight because there is an excellent commentary on the National Audit Office report recently produced by the Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain which I commend to your Lordships. I take one phrase from the NAO statement, which I welcome. It says:
"A sound financial case appears to exist for forestry investment in better quality land".
That comment from the National Audit Office is certainly consistent with the contents and the recommendations of the report that is now before the House.
The second reason why the report is welcome is the reference which was made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, in dealing with the environmental lobby. There is no doubt that a very high-powered, public relations, well-supported, well-financed campaign is now being waged in order to frustrate further forestry expansion. It is based on a false premise, but nevertheless it is dangerous.
I was recently speaking to the editor of a newspaper because his paper had given widespread publicity to this particular campaign. At the time I was commenting on another newspaper. He said: "Tom, a newspaper has to have a cause". I said that I thought the purpose of a newspaper was to provide information. He said: "No, you must have a cause in the newspaper industry". Attacking forestry happens to be part of his obsession and his cause. Consequently, his readers are regularly served with distorted advice and biased reports in order to support the cause.
If one talks to the foresters in the forest, one discovers that they do not work in forestry in order to earn large sums of money. They work in the forests because they like the work and they enjoy the work, but they also love the countryside. We are not talking about vandals, although some of the environmentalists would suggest that foresters are despoiling the countryside. The noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, who I regret is not here today, was the chairman of the Red Deer Commission. His experiments at Fassfern demonstrate that it is possible to combine good woodland management with good environmental practice. This has been shown at the EFG plantations at Eskdalemuir.
At the weekend I was walking in Perthshire. It had been snowing there, and the conifers stood sharp and black in the countryside. They were not planted as armies in serried ranks. They were planted with a sensitivity to the whole environment. It has been said that trees should be planted like the shadows of passing clouds on the hills, and there is something to be said for that idea. Trees should have some form and shape and follow the contours in order to be attractive. Noble Lords who have been concerned with forestry are also concerned that these principles of environmental care should be respected.
Little has been said about the role of forestry in giving people access to the countryside. I shall not quote the figures, but the provision of picnic places
1070
and access for hill walkers are all part of sensible forestry planning. Such development opens up the countryside to people who wish to enjoy the quietness of a rural environment. I should like to support the provision in the recommendation that no change should be made in the tax structure. It is easy to say that certain pop singers and Terry Wogan, and snooker players have plantations in Scotland—good luck to them! If they are prepared to invest money in renewing a natural resource, they are to be welcomed.
I am also glad that the committee has resisted the pressure that has been on them recently to introduce planning into forestry. Local county council or district council planners are not the appropriate people to assess planning in forestry. I am attracted by the recommendation of the Countryside Commission for Scotland. How practical their evidence appeared to me. The commission suggested that in order to avoid a development of forestry without grant, when the Forestry Commission refuses an application for a grant, there should be prohibition on anyone planting without a grant. This situation has given rise to difficulties in certain sensitive areas in Scotland. We are attracted to the idea that the commission should have powers to license planting in the same way as they have powers to license felling. Such a planning constraint may encourage more sensible planting.
I should like to say to the environmentalists that in the past six years £500 million has been invested in downstream industries in forestry. Two weeks ago in Irvine a Finnish company decided to invest £200 million in a new pulp and paper plant. Unemployment in the Irvine valley is now running at 28 to 30 per cent. This investment has been made possible because for the past 30 to 50 years we have planted trees. I wish that the environmentalists who want to protect every square inch for the birds would talk to some of the workers in Irvine who welcome very much this form of investment.
At one time timber was imported freely into this country and it was then processed further. Now every country is exporting added-value timber. They do not export logs any more. Pulp is exported into this country. It is important that we should develop our own timber resources without having to maintain other people in other countries in employment. The committee did a first class job. The report arrived at a very appropriate moment and I hope that the Government will regard it as the basis of their future policy in relation to forestry.
7.35 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, along with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I was a member of Sub-Committee D, but I am now no longer. I took part in the early stages of the preparation of this report. Owing to certain circumstances I was not able to take part at the end. I had to make amendments by letter, and they were not too well accepted in some quarters. However, I welcome the report. There could be no better person to chair the committee and present it today than my noble friend Lord Gallacher. It is a pleasure to serve under him on any committee. What I say now is going to be a little disorganised. I have been sitting here scoring out points which I was going to raise but which have been covered by other noble Lords.

1071
First and foremost I should like to say that the importance of this report is easily noted not only by the number of noble Lords taking part but, if I may say so, by the quality of the speeches. That comment applies very much to the maiden speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, who I am glad to see is a comparatively young man on this side of the House. Although the noble Duke is not on the Benches immediately behind me, we welcome the younger men here. Sometimes when I look around, with all due respect to certain Members over there, we are getting on in years, to put it mildly!
Although I agreed with much of what the noble Duke said, he will find later on that I do not agree with one point that he made. Some time ago we had a late night debate on an Unstarred Question. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, was speaking for the Government. After I had spoken he thanked me for replying to all the points which had required a reply. I hope that I am not going to take the wind out of the sails of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, because I should like to reply to one or two of the points which have been made by noble Lords, although I do not wish to add too much to what has already been said.
The report is wide-ranging. If one goes through it carefully it would be almost possible to write a Reith lecture and still have some information to spare, because there is a tremendous amount in it when it is read fully. Much of the evidence requires looking at again. The essential point about the report is that it supports the expansion of forestry in its own right.
Noble Lords have mentioned the world position of forestry. In particular the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned her experience in Canada. I had the same experience in the USA when I visited a big forest in the Rockies just after the war. Trees were being cut down at sawing height, which left a stump of almost five feet. I commented that this was a ridiculous waste of wood and the people there swept their arms round and said, "Look at it, thousands and thousands of acres". I have returned to Canada since then and find (as did the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun) that it is a different situation today. The world situation for wood has deteriorated tremendously. I understand that world forests are being cut down at the rate of 50 acres per minute, which is an appalling figure.
I have argued with many people the necessity of forestry, especially with regard to the amount of paper which is floating about today: for example, with newspapers. The counter argument is that the situation will sort itself out; that people will not read newspapers in the future but will rely on the radio and television. People in business will not read newspapers. They will use computers, all of which will save paper. I found it difficult to come up with an answer to that until I attended a lecture by Dr. David Bellamy concerning the spread of civilisation and its effect on the environment. Dr. Bellamy produced the slightly indelicate statistic that if following this civilisation—which has spread everywhere—everybody used toilet paper, there would not be a tree left. I do not know whether that is a good argument to use, but we cannot possibly say that trees will not be needed in the future.
1072
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, who mentioned first the audit report. I cannot see how any economist, however clever, can possibly look forward 50 years, and probably 150 years, and decide that he can tell us what to do with regard to planting trees today. That point was very well put, and it is one that we must look to, particularly as regards our balance of payments. The figure has been mentioned and I need not go into it again. We have a tremendous amount to save there.
Many noble Lords have given the figures for this growing industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has just said, these new plants for processing wood are being built because people see the raw material that they require growing up for the future. That is what they are looking to. The more trees we plant the more raw material we are likely to have. It is a pity they have to come from abroad. I cannot help thinking that we are falling behind there, but there it is, and they are welcome at the present time.
I should like to see forestry—and again I emphasise this—in its own right almost doubling its present day production. I am sorry that I use the measurement of acres. I have not yet got accustomed to hectares. We are planting about 60,000 acres; that is not including restocking. That is about 60,000 acres of new planting. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, gave the break-up between private and public forestry. I should like to see that 120,000 acres planted—it will take a bit of time to get up to that figure—half privately and half by the Forestry Commission.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has heard not only from the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, but from quite a lot of other people that it is essential to give the Forestry Commission its head and to go back to the situation where it is half and half with private forestry. We have the tremendous help that it is able to give to private forestry. We should get back to that position. Quite a few noble Lords mentioned that, and it is essential that it should be done.
If we could get to that figure we should reach 9 million to 10 million acres in about 40 years' time in this country, which would be a reasonable amount of trees spread over the country. Admittedly there will be a lot in the hills and so on, but that is the target I should like to see.
This planting is bound to be phased out as we reach the limit of what we think we need in this country, but restocking becomes greater as trees are cut down and that gives a balance in the labour situation. It is important that labour should see ahead that it is not just to be phased out when planting stops. The cutting down and restocking will stabilise the labour force in forestry, and that is important.
Quite a lot of argument goes on about whether forestry or farming uses the most labour. If you compare a hill farm where there is probably just a shepherd or, at the most, two depending on the size of the farm, forestry uses a lot more men. As you move down the hill and agriculture gets more intensive, the balance may be slightly different. On the whole the figures that I have seen are that forestry uses more labour than agriculture and in its ancillary industries it uses much more. That may change if you go right

1073
down to intensive farming, although I cannot see a lot of forestry going on to some of our intensive farms in this country.
Let me say a word about planning. I am glad that the committee came out against planning. There were only two witnesses for it. If we have the licensing that the Forestry Commission is anxious to bring in for felling and planting, and if the regional advisory committees are strengthened, that is all that is needed. In a meeting we had the other day somebody likened this to self-regulation. But I do not think that we should use that word too much now; it is not a very popular one in certain other places.
On the question of the environment there are strong feelings. Some are genuine and some, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, says, are worked up by the press and one thing and another. I think they go about it the wrong way. I should like to mention the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, who asked me to apologise for his not being here. He has had to go to Kenya to deal with some forestry affairs there. He has given an example second to none on his estate at Fassfern in Scotland, where forestry and sheep farming have gone together. He has gone to great lengths to plan it properly and look after the environmental side. Not only has he done that, but the farming side has prospered because of the shelter and what he has done to improve the pasture that is left. He is keeping far more sheep than he did before, and that is something that people should see.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, also has a farm which he arranged for me to see many years ago when I was in the Forestry Commission. He had planted a big proportion of it in trees and put in roads. The benefit to the farming was tremendous. It was a big area of forestry on a farm, and giving far better returns that it would otherwise. If the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, would go and look at some of her neighbours such as the noble Duke—and I can recommend others who have done this—perhaps she would have more trees on her estate and help the situation there. I am sure that it can be done. A lot of people are showing that.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, was hard on the environmentalists. I am not sure whether he was hitting them with the hammer or with the anvil, or whether it was the forestry that was being hit between the two, but I agree with him. I should like to make the point on the environmental question that the environmentalists— and not only the environmentalists, but the Government—should look at the situation in large-scale forestry. Today forestry land is very expensive, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and many others in the House tonight could tell.
If you pay a lot of money you cannot afford to leave great wide rides spaced alongside roads, streams and so on unless you are compensated for them. There is a strong case when a plan is put forward for private forestry or, for that matter, involving the Forestry Commission, that there should be compensation for the price of the land that is not producing anything but is essential to the environment, the wildlife and the flora and fauna. That is a point to which we do not pay enough attention.
1074
Let me make a point or two about farmers being bad foresters. I think they are bad foresters. There is an expression in Aberdeenshire that farmers should "Aye be sticking in a tree". That is exactly what they did. They just stuck in a tree and paid no attention to it afterwards. I should imagine that 50 per cent. of them did not survive.
If we have a sticking in a tree attitude, we are not going to get very good results from farm forestry. We have a lot to do in training farmers in forestry before trying to get them to plant too many trees. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, who emphasised this.
I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, was worried about game strips. I am not a great sporting farmer, but we have a few pheasants and partridges. I find that the cheapest thing is a bit of kale or to leave a bit of game strip every year rather than having expensive plots of forestry. I throw that out to the noble Viscount for what it is worth. We do not find shooting very profitable, although I was interested in the figures he gave on the subject.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, rightly pointed out the difficulty between landlord and tenant if the tenant, or the landlord for that matter, wanted to plant trees. That is something that would need to be looked at. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, knows, we had a meeting—he was at it—to discuss forestry. I should like to think that we will follow it up, as he suggested, and in some way have a parliamentary all-party group to counter the propaganda which everyone has emphasised should be countered. I think I have told the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, that she should visit some of these farms which I have mentioned and I am sure she will take my advice in due course.
I turn now to points that I wish to make very strongly. This report and the commission's plans are concerned with an increase in forestry. But running through the report is the odd suggestion that this will be an alternative crop for land coming out of farming in order to stop the production of surpluses, particularly grain. True, the committee does not emphasise the point. Nor are there any details of acreage. The furthest the report goes is to say in paragraph 121 that surpluses would be eased. That word "eased" in my opinion is too strong.
Taking this country alone, never mind the rest of Europe. it is estimated—and the figure has been quoted—that 2½ million acres will have to come out of production. This will increase as years go on, and we are told that the plant breeder, the scientist and other technological people will give us ever increasing yields. There is talk of all sorts of scientific help that will increase the yields of other produce besides crops.
It is obvious to anybody looking at the situation that something must be done at once about surpluses. I think my noble kinsman mentioned a figure which has not gone down in this country at all this year in spite of sizeable exports. Of course, we know about the cost which has also been emphasised by noble Lords.
Average new forestry planting in the last eight years has been about 60,000 acres. That does not include the restocking. But the land is out of agricultural production anyway. It is restocked land. The report

1075
says in paragraph 100 that it seems highly probable that the type of low quality land in the uplands which has been planted in the past will continue to form the main reserve of land which may be planted. I think that is only too right.
So how much of the 2½million acres of land which is producing this surplus will or, for that matter, could be taken up by forestry? When we had the socio-economic report in front of us from the EC, the director-general of the Forestry Commission was asked, point blank, "Would forestry have any effect on the surpluses?" He gave the point blank answer, "No", and I think he was quite right. After all, if you have 100,000 acres of forestry, and the Government have suggested 36,000 over three years, that is only one-twenty-fifth of the total. Even if you doubled the present acreage of 60,000 acres—and I checked this today—to begin with there are no tree plants that will do the job. It takes 1,200 an acre, and nurserymen will have to collect the seed and extend their nurseries. The plants would be ready at the earliest within three years, and it might be four. I discussed this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and I checked it with the Commission today; and that is the figure.
In the meantime, is it possible to persuade nurserymen that there will be this demand in that time? We are exaggerating what forestry can do in taking land out of production completely. It is simply not going to solve the surplus problem except in a very minimal way. We should go ahead, as the report says, and increase the forestry in this country in its own right. Forestry is a long-term business. We should push ahead and try to get the acreage figure that I mentioned earlier. It is true that some of this will come out of grade 3 and grade 4 land, and we may get some planting of deciduous trees on even better land. But the effect will be so small as not to make any difference at all. It will certainly make no difference in the short term and no difference in the medium term. Although it may, in the long term, have some effect, it will not be nearly enough.
I do not want to say any more except that I would emphasise at this point once again that forestry should be looked on, as the report said in the very beginning, as standing on its own feet and as something which this country needs and which will help us in every way. It can help us environmentally and in monetary terms by saving imports and so on. I support that part of the report but I am sorry to say that I do not support the idea that it may ease the surplus a little.
7.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate ending with two speeches from two former members of the Forestry Commission, the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Taylor of Gryfe. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and the Select Committee are to be congratulated on a report which is notable for its clarity and its good timing, because I think we are all looking to see what the commission will propose in its forthcoming forestry action programme.
1076
I very much enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. He has first-hand knowledge of forestry, and, if I may say so, showed his real knowledge of the subject in the speech which he made this evening. We all thoroughly enjoyed it and from what I have gathered this evening it is a subject which will very possibly recur in the foreseeable future and I very much hope that the noble Duke will be returning to join in any further discussions on this or indeed on other subjects.
The history of forestry in the Community was set out very clearly in the report. There have of course been a number of proposals over the years which we in the United Kingdom have not been prepared to accept coming out of the Community. In particular we have, along with some other member states, consistently opposed the idea of a common forestry policy. Our reason has been that the conditions under which forestry is carried out vary greatly throughout the Community. But there are common problems to be faced. As the committee pointed out, although the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, could not entirely go along with this view of the committee, forestry can now be seen as at any rate part of the answer in solving one of the most serious problems: that of mounting agricultural surpluses.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggested that the Government should make clear their genuine support for forestry expansion. I do that gladly. The Government welcome the firm recommendation by the committee that forestry in this country should continue to expand. Last week, as all your Lordships mentioned, the Government proposed an expansion of the forestry programme to a new level of 33,000 hectares a year, with particular emphasis on the private sector and a large proportion of planting down the hill, although, as the committee acknowledged, planting in the hills will continue to be important.
It was the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, who shrewdly put his finger on the point that although the Government may say that, the planting at the moment does not get up towards that level. This is a point which was repeated by other noble Lords during the debate. I think it is fair to say that the Government have always envisaged that it would take some years for new planting to rise from previously rather lower levels, certainly in the private sector. I am confident that planting levels will continue to rise significantly with the incentives now available and in prospect. The opportunity is being opened up by the need to find alternative uses for agricultural land, particularly down the hill and because of the relaxation in the criteria being followed by the agricultural departments in agreeing to the transfer of farm land to forestry.
Planting of the better land will bring benefits, not only by increasing timber production in the longer term but also for the environment. It will provide an alternative use for land now producing surpluses. It will contribute to jobs in rural areas and will allow the planting of more broadleaves and small woods, as already encouraged by existing grant schemes. All your Lordships have pointed to the fact that we are not sufficient in wood production either in this country or in the Community. As the noble Duke roundly said, it makes sound sense to use some of our surplus land for

1077
tree planting and we shall also be encouraging this on farms through our proposed farm woodland scheme.
What has to be recognised is that forestry is a long-term investment by any standards. The amount of planting that takes place depends critically on the confidence that landowners have in the long-term future of the industry and in the availability of appropriate incentives. The grant aiding of planting is one obvious incentive to which your Lordships have referred. We have in place the Forestry Commission's forestry grant scheme and the relatively new broadleaved woodland grant scheme, both of which are running successfully. I say in passing that the figures that the Forestry Commission has given me during this debate undoubtedly show that the results of the woodland grant scheme have been good; they have been better than the expectations. Indeed, the budget provision for the second year of the broadleaved grant scheme should be exceeded by 100 per cent.
The other incentive, to which many of your Lordships have referred briefly, is the question of tax incentives. The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, specifically asked me to say a word about this, and though I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, into his flights of fancy as to the political parties' different attitudes to forestry taxation, I should say that I know the taxation arrangements for forestry are subject to criticism by some people.
It was therefore with particular interest that I read the clear recommendation of the committee that the current income tax reliefs which apply to forestry in the United Kingdom ought to continue and that some further capital tax reliefs should be examined. If my noble friend Lord Ullswater will forgive me, I shall not follow him down the road of talking about more generous treatment for forestry under capital gains tax, but I shall certainly draw what my noble friend said and the other remarks about taxation on forestry to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Nor shall I say anything about the National Audit Office, dealt with trenchantly by my noble friend Lord Middleton. All I would say is that there will be a Public Accounts Committee report and the Government will be giving a response when that happens.
I shall directly answer the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, put to me about confidence in the future of the Forestry Commission. As the noble Lord very well knows, our policy on the disposal of Forestry Commission land remains as it was set out in another place by my right honourable friend, who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Younger, on 8th November 1984. In other words, my right honourable friend sketched out the Government's latest plans then for the rationalisation of the commission's estate in order to improve the efficiency and commercial effectiveness of the forestry enterprise. This programme is left to the Forestry Commission itself. Like all government policies this policy is kept under review, but we have no plans at present to change it.
Undoubtedly the expansion of forestry depends on confidence and the availability of the right incentives. But it also depends on the availability of suitable land. My noble friend Lord Middleton recorded in his
1078
speech that evidence had been given to the Select Committee that there had been a reluctance to clear land for planting by some of the agricultural departments. I would suggest that the agricultural departments in the United Kingdom are showing now a positive attitude towards approving the transfer of land to forestry, including better land. In particular, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recently announced a major relaxation in the criteria for such transfers in Scotland, following an earlier relaxation in England and Wales.
It is of interest that in the first six months during which the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland has followed its new criteria there has been a marked increase in the total area of land cleared. This is an example of how the interests of agriculture and forestry are moving closer together. Another example of this is the Government's plan announced last week to introduce a farm woodland scheme which will be run as a joint effort by the agriculture departments and the Forestry Commission. I am sure we can produce an attractive package that will produce a sensible balance among a number of objectives.
It has to be remembered that the scheme will be designed not only to provide farmers with the opportunity for an alternative source of income but to be effective in reducing agricultural surpluses and to represent a good investment in national economic terms. The scheme will include special encouragement for broadleaved trees and we look for significant environmental benefits from it in enriching the landscape and providing better wildlife habitats. My noble friends Lord Ullswater, Lord Bathurst and Lord Inglewood all referred to the need to have good management advice for farmers if this is to be a success. That is something we need to return to when the consultation document on this new scheme is issued next month.
I have one other comment to make in passing. I think my noble friend Lord Bessborough was absolutely right when he said that he assumed that woodland grants would vary according to area. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, made it quite clear that that was his assumption too. I should like to make it clear to the House that our new woodland scheme is primarily addressed to the more marginal holdings where beef and sheep are likely to be more important than cereals.
However, if cereals land is planted to trees we should expect savings to be in excess of the £125 per hectare per year which is being proposed as a maximum for the new scheme. This is why last year we put forward proposals for a cereals land diversion scheme on a community-wide basis and one of the land use options under that scheme would also be forestry. As your Lordships know, ideas are now under active consideration as part of the socio-structural package. I hope we shall be hearing more about that from Community sources in the near future.
I was particularly glad that the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, pointed to the environmental benefits of forestry and the care that foresters take to maintain and improve the forests and woodlands in their charge. As I have always understood, there are no better examples than those which are in the charge of the noble Duke.

1079
In 1985 the Government placed a statutory duty on the Forestry Commission to seek to achieve a reasonable balance between the needs of forestry and the environment. In doing so we recognised that for many years the commission has been taking increasing account of amenity and nature conservation. Since that new conservation duty was placed on it, the commission has issued a revised statement of its conservation policy based on the theme that the forest as a whole has conservation value.
This has been followed by a whole stream of initiatives, including consultations at national level with statutory and voluntary environmental organisations on the practical implementation of the policy, the drawing up of conservation plans for all the commission's forests, setting up local consultative panels to provide a forum for discussion and advice on environmental issues and agreeing a statement of intent with the Nature Conservancy Council about the management of the commission's 344 sites of special scientific interest.
As regards the Forestry Commission's oversight of private sector forestry, the comprehensive consultations that it carries out with other authorities before giving approval for planting and felling proposals I believe ensure that these are compatible with enviromental needs. Where there are conflicts of view the commission is required to go through a lengthy conciliation process including site meetings with the parties concerned and involvement of its regional advisory committees. There can be no question of the commission overriding objections of any of the authorities consulted without the endorsement of Ministers.
I was interested that both the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, were quite adamant about not wanting planning controls, and other noble Lords including my noble friend Lord Ridley spoke in the same vein. I welcome the views of the Committee that statutory planning control should not be extended to forestry. I do not think there is evidence that a bureaucratic system of planning controls would achieve anything that has not already been achieved through the present system of consultations to which I have just referred.
It is true that these consultations arise from applications for grant aid, and someone who is refused grant aid or who does not apply for it can go ahead and plant regardless. But I put it to the House that the vast majority of landowners follow the accepted rules and see it as being in their own interests that the standards applied to planting proposals should be high. Timber Growers U.K., the body representing the interests of private woodland owners, have also published a set of guidelines known as the Forestry and Woodland Code—a splendid publication designed to encourage the highest standards, including those for the environment in forest design and management. This has the support of the Nature Conservancy Council.
The idea of introducing planting licences, which has been supported by the Select Committee, and supported by some of your Lordships this evening, is an interesting one. For the reasons that I have just set out, the Government are not convinced that licensing
1080
is necessary, but I have taken careful note of the Committee's views on this subject and of the support of some of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and my noble friend Lord Middleton.
I am not suggesting that the present consultation arrangements could not be improved. For example, the Forestry Commission has been carrying out a review of the composition and procedures of its regional advisory committees. We hope to announce soon certain changes which will enable the voice of the public to be more readily heard when such cases come before the committees.
As we all know, there have been almost incessant calls for more broadleaved trees. I think your Lordships will be encouraged when I say that I understand almost a third of the woodlands accepted into the broadleaf woodlands scheme is classified as ancient seminatural woodland. What also may not be generally realised is that the Forestry Commission now requires, wherever it is sensible to do so, that planting schemes should contain at least 5 per cent. broadleaves—and that includes major coniferous planting schemes in the hills. The Commission itself is planting more broadleaves and has a number of regeneration projects in hand. The prospects for more forestry in the lowlands will also provide opportunities for a greater diversity of species including more broadleaves whether alone or in mixture with conifers.
One of the Select Committee's recommendations was that "co-operation, particularly in research, should be fostered within the Community over common environmental problems, such as atmospheric pollution and plant health regulations." I am pleased to be able to reassure the House that such co-operation already takes place freely and regularly.
Last year two Community regulations, providing for the added protection of forests against fire, and for the better monitoring of the effects of atmospheric pollution on forests, were adopted and are now part of Community law. The Government supported these regulations which were adopted during the UK Presidency.
Again, a revised Plant Health Directive covering, among other things, tree pests and diseases came into force at the turn of the year, and we shall he introducing the necessary domestic legislation within the next few months.
The Select Committee also gave weight to the need for research. I think we have a forestry research service—which is a division of the Forestry Commission—of which we can be proud and which I know has a high reputation internationally. We have built up a great reserve of knowledge over the whole range of forestry, and that knowledge is made widely available in published form. Your Lordships may be interested to know that the co-ordination of research over the whole range of forestry interests is being effectively implemented by the Forestry Research Coordination Committee, which was set up in 1982 in response to the report into Scientific Aspects of Forestry made by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield.
I have noted that the report we are debating today calls also for research into the use of coppice wood as

1081
fuel, and into the possibility of agro-forestry. Again, I am glad to say that the Forestry Commission is already taking part in a substantial research programme into the use of coppice wood as fuel and that a collaborative programme on agro-forestry has been undertaken by the Forestry Commission, the agricultural departments and universities, and is being strongly promoted in both upland and lowland situations.
The Committee also called for research to he undertaken with the aim of promoting more and better markets for low grade hardwood timber. The House will be interested to know that market research has in fact been undertaken by the Forestry Commission to identify potential users of low-grade hardwoods, and an inquiry is about to be launched, in co-operation with private growers, to establish the potential availability of hardwoods. Discussions are also taking place between the Forestry Commission and the Timber Research and Development Association to formulate the terms of reference for research into the potential for additional uses of low grade hardwoods. A great deal is already going on in this area.
We now have a productive forest estate in this country of over 2 million hectares, with rather more than half of it in private ownership. Linked with that we have seen major investments in the wood processing industry. The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, made the point in his speech that we have been providing for the future, and several of your Lordships made the point that still a great deal of our forest estate is young. But with the announcement that a major pulp and paper mill is to be built in the west of Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned, we are now in the happy position of having secure markets for all the available wood supplies from our forests over the next decade.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood that I understand that there are several major markets very near to Kilda, for example Thames Board Mills at Workington as well as at Hexham, and a saw mill in the forest itself. Exports of pulpwood to Scandinavia are virtually now at an end. This was a matter to which my noble friend the Earl of Onslow referred. Exports of pulpwood to Scandinavia are virtually at an end as domestic industries have expanded. We use a variety of woods, some of them from tropical countries which cannot he grown here, however.
I therefore suggest to the House that the position so far as wood use is concerned has become much stronger, and that timber growers and timber processors are working together to give us an industry which has much to offer this country in economic and social terms. This change of emphasis, if I may put it like that, was reflected in the recent setting up by the private sector of the Forestry Industry Committee of Great Britain. That is a committee which is intending to speak for the whole industry from nurserymen through to major industrial users of timber.
My noble friend the Earl of Onslow asked me one direct question about the differentiation between shelter belts and hedgegrows and the grant schemes at the smaller end by the Forestry Commission. My noble friend may know, but for the record the Forestry
1082
Commission grants are paid on a minimum area of a quarter of a hectare. Anything less could not be classed as forestry. Smaller amenity planting grants are available from the Countryside Commission, either directly or through local authorities. That can be of benefit for the planting of hedgerows, copses and spinneys.
The noble Lords, Lord Sherfield and Lord Gallacher, drew attention to the problems of red deer. I certainly agree that when deer populations are high trees need to be expensively protected by fencing or by tree shelters. The levels of grant available under the Forestry Commission's Broadleaved Woodland Grant Scheme and other grant schemes do however take account of that. The noble Lords, Lord Sherfield and Lord Gallacher, again particularly drew attention to a recommendation for community forestry projects. I hope I am not sounding dismissive when I say that there is no reason why any community or, indeed, a local authority should not create a community forest. Advice and grants are both readily available. The Forestry Commission's Broadleaved Woodland Grant Scheme could be appropriate here; and all of us are aware of occasions when conservation organisations may decide that what they want to do is to buy a particular area of woodland and, indeed, go for it in that particular way.
My Lords, I feel that is really all I ought to deal with, although I know that my noble friend Lord Middleton made some interesting points about environmentally sensitive areas. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Bessborough advocated the restoration of the dedication schemes, and my noble friend Lord Bessborough also made some extremely interesting technical points in his speech.
At this hour perhaps I may end by saying that there is no doubt at all that this debate has been of value to the Government. We are going to reach the stage where we have to take a view on the forthcoming Community proposals for forestry action in the Community. More than that, I think it has demonstrated that your Lordships recognise the increasingly valuable role which forestry can play. The challenge is to make sure that forestry develops in ways which are compatible with the needs of the environment, and I have tried this evening to go out of my way to acknowledge the Government's commitment to that.
Finally, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and the committee for the work they have done in producing this report. This has made a balanced and constructive contribution to the Government's thinking on a wide range of crucial forestry issues and in many aspects has provided a heartening endorsement of the Government's present policies.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, as almost all the speakers who have taken part in the debate have said complimentary things about the report, it would be churlish of me to attempt any kind of reply to those remarks, particularly in view of the comprehensive reply which the Minister has given to it.

1083
As the House has been in complimentary mood this evening, it may perhaps not be inappropriate if I were to express a word of appreciation to Mr. Stewart, who acted as specialist adviser to Sub-Committee D throughout this inquiry. I am sure my colleagues on that sub-committee will appreciate the reception given to its report, because the work of the sub-committee is not only on-going but occasionally, when we are against the clock, can be demanding. In that connection may I also mention the indefatigable Clerk to Sub-Committee D, Miss Tudor, not merely for being indefatigable but for her capacity to restrain the chairman in his wilder moments so firmly and yet so unobtrusively.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.