Lords Sitting of 5 April 1990

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.
Earl Sondes Earl Sondes— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be attending the ninth Commonwealth Law Conference in Auckland, New Zealand, from 9th April to 22nd April 1990. I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for that period.

Rural Unemployment
11.7 a.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to deal with rural unemployment, particularly in those areas where it is exceptionally high.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, all the national programmes run by the Department of Employment are available to those in rural areas. Other initiatives supported by the Government include the activities of the Rural Development Commission in England and the development agencies in Scotland and Wales.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that over 24, 000 jobs— about a fifth, I believe, of the total— have been lost in farming in the past five years? Is he further aware that there is no indication that the decline has been arrested? Can the Minister say what steps are planned to halt the advance of rural poverty in some of these areas which will be added to enormously by the burden of the poll tax?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in saying that there has been a steady decline in the number of jobs connected with agriculture. They declined by 19 per cent. between September 1979 and September 1989. That decline is likely to continue. More specifically, the employment service has a number of schemes aimed particularly at isolated rural areas. For example, jobs, instead of being advertised at Jobcentres, are advertised in local libraries, post offices, church halls and so forth. There is an outreach scheme to send officials who specialise in finding jobs for people to isolated communities in order to help the unemployed to find work. The provision of new technology is also important.
1510
The most successful travel to interview scheme finances people to go for interviews and occasionally to stay overnight. It was ingenious of the noble Baroness to bring the community charge into her question. I believe that people will be served considerably better in rural areas because the local authorities will be more accountable to their wishes.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the Minister provide some real figures? Can he say what was the unemployment position in rural areas, say 10 years ago, as compared with today?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, unemployment is now nearly at half the level that it was in July 1986, though it is marginally higher than in 1979. The noble Lord must know that since then three million new jobs have been created by the policies of this Government.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the success in creating jobs achieved by rural co-operatives, particularly in parts of Scotland, Ireland and Wales? Does the Minister not agree that that success has been achieved despite the difficulties which small co-operatives have in raising capital for their enterprises? Therefore, should not the Government be considering ways and means of providing capital for rural co-operatives in order to spread their effect throughout the United Kingdom?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there are several initiatives through which government departments have backed private and voluntary schemes. For example the Rural Development Commission provides a wide range of advice, financial help and training. The RDC also has a building programme for workshops especially in areas where the return on investment is too low to attract private sector investment. There is also a full range of Department of Trade and Industry services to help advise small businesses which are starting up so that they may maintain their impetus and therefore provide future solid employment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the important areas of rural employment in Scotland is forestry? Is he further aware that the target for UK forestry established by the Government is around 32, 000 hectares? The figures for last year reveal that the planting programme is now only 12, 000 hectares. Does the Minister not agree that this is a matter of considerable concern?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in dealing with employment we should not consider just the planting of trees but also their cutting down which provides an enormous amount of employment. In the course of the next 15 years we shall see tremendous growth in the harvesting of the product which will provide a large number of jobs.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that because of the depression in agriculture and the effects of cutting back, there are a great number of empty buildings? I must declare an

1511
interest here. If those buildings were more readily available to small industries, that would considerably help the situation. I wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, the former chairman of the Rural Development Commission. He has done a great deal to try to persuade county councils that they have to be more lenient.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure that I fully understand the point made by the noble Lord. The Rural Development Commission is there partly to deal with the problem and to provide the buildings and workshop space so that firms can carry out some kind of useful function.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, are the Government engaged in encouraging the development of small trading and industrial estates in rural areas where they can be of very great value and opportunity?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. Local offices of the Rural Development Commission, which are supported by private sector-led committees, are able to provide general advice, supported where necessary by expert advice on management, marketing and technical matters in order to assist small businesses to grow. Part of the key to that is also to provide the workshops— the small industrial areas— so that those businesses can continue to thrive.
Lord Walston: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that an improvement in rural transport would be of great assistance in reducing the seriousness of this problem? At present there are many people out of work in villages who do not have their own cars and who are therefore unable to get to places where there may be work for them. Public rural transport has diminished very greatly during the past 10 years or so.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on those comments to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, my understanding is that in recent years rural transport has begun to improve.

BSE Cows: Offspring
11.15 a.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the offspring of cows suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy are allowed to continue as members of milking herds.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that brief reply. However, if we accept that the disease is due to feeding from contaminated
1512
bonemeal and that some of this bonemeal has been exported, perhaps I may ask this question. Has this disease occurred in Europe? For example, is the disease that is described in Holland as mineral deficiency the same disease as BSE?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have kept other countries fully informed about the development of BSE in Britain and of the probable role of meat and bonemeal as the source of infection. In the light of that, it is for importing countries to decide whether to accept this material and, if so, under what conditions. For example, this material may be for use in pig and poultry rations which is permitted in this country. BSE has not been reported in the Netherlands. Research studies in this country show that the most likely cause of BSE is the feeding of ruminant-based rations containing protein material derived from sheep, some of which were infected with scrapie; but we have no further information.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that although we might not wish the offspring of spongiform animals— to give them a name— to enter milking herds, they might be almost impossible to trace?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are permitting breeding from some offspring. There is no evidence which points to a need for breeding to be prohibited; but farmers, as a matter of prudence, may wish to consider taking their own action.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the department still maintains close liaison with the British Veterinary Association on this and similar problems?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the Minister say whether her department still permits the delivery of calves by Caesarian section from cows suffering from BSE? If so, what is the justification for that policy in the light of present circumstances?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is permitted, and it is up to farmers to make their own decision.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, given the fact that it takes four or five years for this disease to develop in affected cows, what happens to the animals in the interval? Are they used for ordinary beef purposes?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are carrying out an enormous amount of research into this disease, which the noble Lord will appreciate is a very new disease. We have a project under way, which is costing £ 5 million, to ascertain whether the disease is transmissible from dam to calf. Over 300 offspring of affected cattle have been purchased, together with a similar number of control animals. All are being kept at Ministry experimental husbandry farms. The offspring of infected animals in this country are not being allowed to breed.

1513
However, we have imported 160 cows from New Zealand which have never been fed on the food that we think causes this disease. They will be implanted with embryos from BSE-infected cows. The reason for the importation is to see whether there is maternal or paternal transmission via the embryo. This is extremely important to our farmers who wish to export embryos.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, could there be any risk to bovine-type zoo animals and deer from BSE?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, five antelopes have died of a transmissible encephalopathy, probably as a result of consuming ruminant-based feed. The ruminant feed ban imposed in July 1988 applies to zoo animals as well as to livestock. Advice about BSE has been given to all zoos.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister will remember that when the scheme for compensation was first introduced, the Government were pressed extremely hard to pay compensation at 100 per cent. of the market value. Can she say what was the saving to public funds regarding paying compensation at the rate of 50 per cent.? Further, can she say what the increase has been in the number of reported cases since the compensation rate has been increased to 100 per cent.?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am unable to give the noble Lord the figure that he desires. However, I shall write to him on the matter. Up to 30th March, 11, 815 cases have been confirmed in Great Britain. There is no evidence to show that the availability of full compensation has made any difference to the numbers because we have been expecting them to increase in any event.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, further to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to which an answer was given relating to zoo animals, has the Ministry taken any steps to ensure that there is no danger of transmission into herds of deer for producing venison?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, to my knowledge— and if I am wrong I shall most certainly write to the noble Lord— there have been no such cases among deer.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the disease has affected antelopes, what is to stop it affecting deer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said, we are carrying out an enormous amount of research into the whole matter. Farmers with herds of deer will have been aware, as are farmers of cattle, of the dangers we believe to be inherent in the type of food which is now banned for cattle.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the Minister know whether any cases have been reported from an organic farm?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not know.
Lord Walston: My Lords, is there any likelihood that a test will be developed which will show whether cows are affected by BSE before they are showing signs of clinical disease? Given the long period of incubation, would it not be enormously important to be able to test animals before they have produced offspring, and before their milk has been consumed by human beings? That can only be done by tests in the pre-clinical stage.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the assumptions made by the noble Lord are correct. That is why we have a wide-ranging research programme which has been underway since the disease was first identified. More than £ 12 million has been allocated over the next three years to the programme.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to build up and isolate stocks of cattle which are known to be free of BSE?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is hard to tell which herds are free from BSE because the disease does not show itself immediately. It can occur in a cow in any period between about three years old up to a really old cow— that is, however old an old cow may be.

Jobs and Overseas Investment
11.26 a.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many jobs overseas investment has created or safeguarded in the United Kingdom since 1979.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, according to the latest figures available to the DTI's Invest in Britain Bureau, from 1979 to 1989 there have been 2, 839 inward investment decisions of various kinds to locate in the United Kingdom. The projects were expected to create about 225, 000 new jobs and since 1983, when records were started, to have safeguarded a further 127, 000.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very interesting Answer. Can he tell the House what proportion of those jobs are in the car industry? Further, bearing in mind that the export volume of the car industry in 1989 was in the region of £ 8–2 billion— more than either the oil or aerospace industries— can he say what effect the growth of the Japanese car industry will have on the UK balance of payments?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is certainly true that many of the enterprises to which I referred were involved in the manufacture of motor cars. They will certainly represent an important aspect of our export performance in the future. That is why it is so important that there should be free circulation within the European Community in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I welcome the figures which the noble Lord has just given us. However, can he explain what assumptions have been made as to the 225, 000 jobs which have apparently been created and the 127, 000 jobs which have apparently been safeguarded? It must have been an extremely difficult statistical calculation. Can he give us some of the background to those figures?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, these figures were announced by the promoters at the time that they launched their projects. They do not take account of changes which have taken place since that time, whether they were reductions or even increases.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not my noble friend's Answer particularly satisfactory inasmuch as it indicates the confidence which overseas investors have in the stability of the British economy and, indeed, in the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am certain that my noble friend is right. It is also a reflection of the improved industrial relations climate in this country which has resulted from the various pieces of legislation that have been brought in.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I give a general welcome to the scale of inward investment in this country. However, does the Minister agree that there are areas in manufacturing industry which do not particularly attract inward investment and whose needs are not being met by domestic investment? Is not that at least to some extent a criticism of what the Government are doing to encourage domestic investment? Should not something be done about the situation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I must point out to him that that is another question. In my view these are satisfactory figures, as my noble friend indicated. I agree that not every aspect of manufacturing industry has benefited from these inward investment decisions, but clearly major areas have benefited, including important areas of the United Kingdom.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I greatly welcome the benefits that stem from this inward investment which has been stimulated by the policies of Her Majesty's Government. However, does my noble friend agree that most of the research and development work upon which these activities are based has been carried out overseas? Does he further agree that it is important to do everything possible to stimulate and encourage British companies to invest more in new competitive products?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that my noble friend is wholly correct. There have been many important inward investment decisions relating to research and development establishments per se. I hope that he will also find that to be satisfactory.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that production plans of the three Japanese firms in this country indicate that they will produce about 500, 000 cars over the next five years? If that is to happen, is it not true that our balance of trade will be assisted to the tune of £ 13 billion and that it will greatly improve general confidence in this country and in our pound?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is certainly the case that the balance of payments deficit at present is almost wholly taken up by motor car imports of one kind or another from one country or another. That is why investment decisions such as those referred to by my noble friend are so important and why they will indeed have a very beneficial effect on the balance of payments, as he indicated.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, while the noble Lord is in such a self-congratulatory mood perhaps he will also extend his congratulations to his noble friend Lord Cockfield on the work he carried out towards the implementation of the single market when he was a Commissioner in Europe.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not in a particularly self-congratulatory mood. The figures speak for themselves; they need no help from me.

Community Charge: Scotland
11.29 a.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What costs will be incurred by extending to Scotland retrospectively the new limits for community charge liability in England and Wales announced by the Chancellor in his Budget Statement.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, none. The Government are not extending to Scotland retrospectively the new limits for community charge liability in England and Wales announced by the Chancellor. My right honourable friend intends to set up a temporary scheme outside the social security system to provide for special payments to those in Scotland who came into entitlement to community charge benefit as a result of the change in the rules. Such a scheme will require financial provision of up to £ 4 million to cover the cost of payments and administration costs.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in his statement which dealt with this matter the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had forgotten all about Scotland? This has caused considerable resentment in Scotland. The Government's rating in the latest opinion poll has now dropped to 15 per cent.— not 50 per cent.— in Scotland. Can the Minister give an assurance that any further refinements or concessions on poll tax legislation in England and Wales will automatically

1517
apply to Scotland? That part of the country has suffered the imposition of the poll tax for more than a year.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the Government have taken account of the perceived injustice resulting from the fact that the community charge was introduced in Scotland a year earlier than in England and Wales. They have produced a generous scheme which should be widely welcomed. Incidentally, I recall the noble Lord saying that he disliked domestic rates as much as I did. As to local income tax which he wished to bring in, his friends on the Labour Benches do not seem to like that either.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind the large sums of money that have to be found for the Scottish Office and the various ways in which Scottish agriculture and the economy of Scotland benefit indirectly through the policy of the Government, is my noble friend aware that it is impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to forget Scotland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am glad to hear what my noble friend says about the affairs of Scotland. I too realise that £ 9–5billion is being spent in Scotland by the Government and the Scottish Office this year.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, we welcome the scheme for rebates to Scottish poll tax payers. However, does it not create an injustice to English ratepayers who were in receipt of rate rebates last year? Ought they not now also to receive a payment to put them in the same position as Scottish poll tax payers for the past year?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I understand the feelings in Scotland about arrangements for the community charge there. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the noble Lord—
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is the high increase in spending seen in the first year of the community charge in Scotland reflected in charges for the second year?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, local authorities plan to increase budget expenditure in 1991 by 9–6 per cent. The increase last year was of the order of 12–3 per cent. It is gratifying to know, however, that the high increase in spending in the first year of the community charge is planned to slacken off in 1991. This suggests at least that some authorities are responding to the discipline of the community charge to restrain their expenditure. Perhaps I may add that I emphasise "some authorities". The Lord Provost of Edinburgh refuses to pay the community charge. The city district of Edinburgh has an increase this year of 24 per cent.
1518
in its contribution to the community charge. That is where accountability ought to be recognised.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister gave an interesting reply to my noble friend Lord Glenamara. He said that the matter should be referred to his right honourable friend on behalf of English ratepayers. When that is done, will the Minister come back and tell the House what views and what action his right honourable friend intends to take on the question submitted by my noble friend?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, that is entirely another Question. If the noble Lord wishes to put down a Question on the subject he is perfectly free to do so.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I assume that I am in order at last! Can the noble Lord send a copy of the latest Scottish NFU report to his noble friend Lord Renton? I imagine it would give a different idea of how satisfied Scottish farmers are with what the Government spend on them.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord has hit on an area which is my responsibility in Scotland. I can tell him that I attended a meeting of the Scottish NFU at Oban. After one-and-a-quarter hours of questioning, I got the impression that the Scottish farmers are realistic about how the future lies. I am glad to see that they are now opening up good markets in Europe for the products which the noble Lord knows only too well come best from Scotland.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, as the community charge has been in operation in Scotland for just over a year, will my noble friend the Minister comment on the incidence of non-payment of the charge?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, regarding non-payment the figures we have to 1st March this year indicate that in some areas a high proportion of people have paid. In my own area of the Borders, 98 per cent. of charge payers have made some contribution. I should add that above 50 per cent. of those who have received summary warrants have taken action to cover their debts.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, do I understand from the answers given by the Minister that he considers that a great benefit was conferred on Scotland by the introduction of the charge a year earlier than in England?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, when we debated the matter in your Lordships' House under the Scottish Bill, the whole question was whether accountability would come through. As I instanced in regard to the Edinburgh city district, perhaps one of these days people will wake up to the fact that the 24 per cent. increase in that district this year is way above what it should be. Surely the councillors concerned should be accountable for that.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke recently of the Prime Minister falling into line "with his better judgment" on the poll tax. Can the noble Lord advise the House on any further improvements the Secretary of State for Scotland will suggest to the Prime Minister? For instance, can the Minister confirm whether his right honourable friend will advise her to introduce 100 per cent. rebates for the 75, 000 people in Scotland who live on income support and suffer real hardship?
Can the Minister also remind his right honourable friend that when the Bill was introduced in the House there was great euphoria on his side of the Chamber and the feeling that it would be a vote winner? As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe suggested, the Conservatives stand in the Scottish opinion poll at 15 per cent. Is there not something wrong? Is it not time now to rethink the tax?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am always grateful for the advice that the noble Lord might give to the Government on these matters. Of course I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend. As to how he advises my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that is a matter for him. I say to the noble Lord that it is well known now in Scotland that local income tax has been rejected by his own party. All I can find in the roof tax which the noble Lord's own party suggests as the alternative is a glorified version of the discredited and disliked rates system.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in replying to such questions in future will the Minister be less selective in the statistics he gives on non-payment? He referred to 98 per cent. payment in the Borders. There are more sheep in the Borders than people. Will he give the figures for the Strathclyde region? Does he accept that 20 per cent. of the population of Glasgow have so far not paid and that 400, 000 people in Scotland have either not paid or are at least six months in arrears?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord is usually very selective in the figures that he gives. Of course I realise that in Strathclyde many people have not paid the community charge. That is understood. Perhaps it has something to do with the level of the charge which is far too high.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I am a little confused. Can my noble friend the Minister inform me whether sheep have to pay a community charge?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said there were more sheep than people in the Borders. However, I can assure him that the people in the Borders are not sheep.

Manchester Prison: Violence
11.40 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat
1520
a Statement about the serious events at Manchester prison over the past few days which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Since I reported to the House last Monday prison staff have continued progressively to regain control of the buildings. During the same period a large number of prisoners have surrendered. But 12 prisoners can be seen inside the prison who have been identified by name. Pending a final check of our records I cannot say whether there might not be more.
"Negotiations are continuing in order to bring this appalling incident to a close and I know that the governor and his staff, who throughout have conducted themselves with great courage and professionalism, will continue to do so. I should also like to thank the police and the fire and ambulance services for the work they have done.
"I am very sorry to have to inform the House that a Manchester prison officer died in hospital this morning. He had been on duty on Sunday, 1st April, and although he suffered no injuries during the disturbance he was admitted to hospital later that day. I wish to express my deep sympathy to his family in their loss. The House will already be aware that a remand prisoner, Mr. Derek White, who suffered serious injuries in the course of the events of last Sunday and who was admitted to hospital on that day, died as a result of those injuries on 3rd April. Again I offer my sympathy to his relatives. During the past few days a number of prison officers have also been injured but all but one have now been discharged from hospital. The Greater Manchester police have opened a murder inquiry and other criminal investigations into the incident.
"A special telephone number for the use of relatives concerned as to the whereabouts of individual prisoners in Manchester prison at the start of the incident has been available since Sunday. It is 061–817–8178. All governors receiving prisoners from Manchester have also been asked to enable them to make a telephone call to a relative or friend without charge. Urgent consideration is also being given to the new arrangements which will need to be made to accommodate people committed from the courts in the Manchester area.
"I have already indicated my intention to set up an inquiry into this incident as soon as it has been resolved. It will be conducted by a Lord Justice of Appeal, Lord Justice Woolf. The terms of reference will be to inquire into the events leading up to the serious disturbance in Her Majesty's Prison Manchester and the action taken to bring it to a conclusion. I intend that the report, which will be separate from and will not conflict with the criminal investigation, should be published".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
11.42 a.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the very first words that one wishes to utter from these Benches is to echo

1521
the sympathy that has been expressed to the family of the prison officer who has died and to the family of the remand prisoner who has also died as a result of his injuries. Our next thoughts automatically go to the governor and the prison officers who have endured a most unforgettable and dreadful occurrence and whose courage, coolness and calmness in the face of all this have merited the full approval of their fellow citizens.
Having said that, we have heard that there will be an inquiry and that it will be headed by Lord Justice Woolf. The terms of reference of that inquiry are not very clear from the Statement. I believe they were that the inquiry would consider the events leading up to these dreadful occurrences. To be of any use, the terms of reference must include the condition of the prison, the adequate or inadequate staffing at the prison and the whole flexibility of the arrangements that can be made in an emergency. I wonder whether the terms of reference will include those criteria.
Noble Lords who were present on the occasion when the first Statement was made will remember that I ventured to tell the Minister that there appeared to be evidence that in the dead letter box where anonymous messages are left, sometimes obviously of impending danger, there was some kind of warning about a disturbance. I asked him whether that was true. The Minister made his usual courteous reply to the effect that according to present information some warning had been given. However, he added that such warnings were not infrequent and they could not always be considered. I deal with this matter as regards the terms of reference of the inquiry because my present information is that an officer had reported on the Saturday at 2247 hours that,
"a riot situation may occur in the Chapel",
the next day, which is the very thing that occurred. I am informed that only five prison officers were on duty to look after the 300 prisoners who were in the chapel that day.
I believe all your Lordships would wish the terms of reference to look into the question of flexibility and what happens as regards investigating warnings of this nature. This is a dreadful occurrence. It is possibly one that may remain unique. However, as I said from these Benches on the occasion of the previous Statement, my fear is that copycat episodes may occur in various prisons around the country. I hope that what I have ventured to say about flexibility and taking into account warnings and the possibility of copycat exercises, will result in adequate staffing arrangements being made to ensure that the dreadful events that have occurred recently do not occur elsewhere.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the Statement, I wish to pay tribute to the governor, Mr. O'Friel, and the prison officers at Manchester who have behaved with considerable heroism over the past few days. I also wish to associate myself and my noble friends with what the noble Earl said about the prison officer and the remand prisoner who have died.
1522
Is the noble Earl aware that copycat episodes have occurred since Sunday at a number of other prisons, including a particularly menacing incident at Durham? It is right that the House should recognise that sensible action taken by members of the prison service has prevented those incidents from getting out of hand, as the situation at Manchester did.
I should like to ask the noble Earl whether one of the matters which Lord Justice Woolf will look at will be the position of Rule 43 prisoners. Is he aware that some of us remain deeply alarmed about the fact, first of all, that there was a concentrated attack upon Rule 43 prisoners by some of the other inmates, and that there is an ever present risk of that situation developing at other Prison Department establishments where there are Rule 43 prisoners? Pending the result of the inquiry by Lord Justice Woolf, is the Home Office taking action specifically to deal with the possible threat to Rule 43 prisoners at other establishments? I do not think we can simply wait for the report. Some interim action is clearly called for.
All of us who know Lord Justice Woolf will welcome his appointment. However, will he be assisted by an assessor who has specialist knowledge of some of the issues involved and will Lord Justice Woolf sit in public?
Finally, does not the noble Earl recognise that as long as we have appalling conditions in our prisons where in hundreds and hundreds of cells in Prison Department establishments there are still three men to a cell, and as long as we have slopping out and the situation where large numbers of men are locked up for 22 or 23 hours a day, there is an ever present risk of incidents of this kind taking place?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for their remarks about the Statement, which was not a very pleasant one to have to make. Both noble Lords were concerned about the terms of reference which will be given to Lord Justice Woolf. I can best answer those questions by repeating that he will be asked to inquire into the events leading up to the serious disturbance in Her Majesty's Prison, Manchester, and the action taken to bring it to a conclusion. It will be up to Lord Justice Woolf to interpret those terms of reference in the way that he thinks fit.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether the inquiry would include the condition of prisons, the adequacy of staffing and arrangements for dealing with emergencies. My guess is that the terms of reference which Lord Justice Woolf has been given will cover all of those aspects should he consider it appropriate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will allow me to intervene. Does he really believe that we ought to leave the matter to a guess? That was the word that the Minister used. Ought it not to be made thoroughly clear what is within the terms of reference?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, uncharacteristically picks me up on a

1523
matter of interpretation and the use of a word. I have told him the terms of the inquiry which Lord Justice Woolf will undertake. Those terms are for the interpretation of Lord Justice Woolf. They are wide enough. I said that it will be up to Lord Justice Woolf to use such inquiries as he thinks fit within those terms of reference. I said that my guess was that his inquiries would cover those points. I did not say that it would be up to Lord Justice Woolf to cover them. It will be up to him to interpret the terms of reference. I do not believe that there is any need for hesitation by the noble Lord on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked whether the inquiry would cover Rule 43 prisoners. Again, the terms of reference are wide enough to cover the point. It would not be for me to tell the judge how to interpret those terms of reference.
The noble Lord also referred to the fact that Rule 43 prisoners were subjected to a concentrated attack and were always at risk of such attacks. That is perfectly true. That is why they are Rule 43 prisoners. That is why they are given special housing in order to protect them as far as possible. This particular incident happened when 300 people were at chapel at the same time as a great many others were attending their dinner break. Therefore a large number of prisoners were out of their cells at one time.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred on a previous occasion to the dead letter box. I have made inquiries and have been unable to ascertain as yet that there was a note in the dead letter box. However, it is perfectly true that a conversation took place with a prison officer who from his home said that such a rumour abounded. As a result extra staff were posted near the chapel when people went in and when they came out. There were not five members of staff in the chapel. There was a senior prison officer plus nine other officers. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will realise that rumours of suspected outbreaks always abound in prisons. It is difficult to know when they are rumour and when they are fact. However, the noble Lord is correct. There was such a communication and action was taken as the governor thought appropriate.
11.54 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend convey to the prison officers concerned and to the Manchester police the gratitude of a great many of their fellow citizens for the fact that, despite those dreadful happenings inside the prison, it appears from my noble friend's Statement that none of those dangerous people escaped to become a menace to the public outside? Recognising that the events continued for some time and some very dangerous people were involved, that was obviously a very considerable achievement. I hope that my noble friend will feel that both the prison officers and the police are entitled to the warm gratitude and appreciation of their fellow citizens for protecting them from the risk of those people getting out.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for mentioning
1524
that point. In our concern about what happened inside the prison it is sometimes easy to forget what might have happened outside if adequate steps had not been taken. I shall certainly see that the remarks of my noble friend are passed on both to the police and to the prison officers. If they had not taken the action which they did conditions might have been even worse.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, following from the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is it not clear that our present penal system is producing conditions which are indefensible in an advanced society? Is it not further clear that those problems are fundamental and that the time has now arrived when there is a need, quite apart from this particular inquiry, for a fundamental review of penal policy in this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have just had a review of penal policy in this country. That is why it is the Government's intention and desire that a greater proportion of sentences should be served within the community as opposed to people going into prisons, for the very reason that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, stated. It has also been part of the Government's policy to ensure, as my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow suggested, that there should be a re-arrangement of prison sentences to ensure that they more accurately reflect the time that is served in prison.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that the Government are immensely concerned about the state of the prisons. A very great deal of money has been spent and is being spent on them. It is not something that can be done overnight. The trouble with this kind of disturbance is that the very overcrowding which caused the troubles will now be exacerbated in the other prisons to which prisoners from Manchester now have to go.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the situation in Manchester appears to have arisen from dangerous people being kept in dangerous conditions? Would it not be a good idea if Lord Justice Woolf were asked to look at the matter in two segments: the immediacy of the cause of the problems in Manchester, and the broader question which has given rise to the prospect of such outbreaks also taking place in other prisons? That is a very much broader question. Is it not right that Lord Justice Woolf should look at both aspects, the immediate problem and the background to it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is precisely what Lord Justice Woolf will look at. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to dangerous people and dangerous conditions. That may well be the case. However, it is up to Lord Justice Woolf to consider the background to what has happened. When he has done that in regard to Manchester it will be possible to see how such improvements or alterations as he may suggest may be applied throughout the system.
Lord Renton: My Lords, have all those prisoners known to have been in Strangeways now been accounted for or are any thought to be missing?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not clear exactly what the position is. Twelve people have been identified as still being in the prison. The chances are that the number is greater. However, I cannot tell my noble friend the exact position because it is not known.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether in the long term the Government will look at employing prisoners who have to be in prison on productive and useful work such as providing a laundry service for hospitals, which would save the National Health Service money? The frustration of being locked up for 22 to 23 hours a day leads to smouldering conditions, especially when prisoners have only one shower a week.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that suggestion. A great deal is being done to encourage prisoners to work, to make things— not just mailbags— and to operate in workshops. I gave some figures the other day to indicate how very much greater, certainly in Manchester, is the time that prisoners now spend out of their cells. The noble Baroness is perfectly correct to say that if we can encourage people— and we can only encourage them; we cannot make them do it— to learn trades and to operate successfully, that will be a great help from the point of view of their morale.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl will recall that I asked him, first, whether Lord Justice Woolf would sit in public and, secondly, whether he would have an assessor. Can the noble Earl help me with answers to those questions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will realise that the decision to set up an inquiry has only just been taken. I cannot as yet tell him whether it will sit in public because no such decision has been made, nor can I tell him whether he will have an assessor.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Earl informed us that there was some doubt as to how many prisoners remained in the prison. That must mean that there is some doubt as to whether anyone escaped. Will the Minister assure us that, in spite of that fact, that is known not to have happened?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that anyone has escaped. When the disturbances took place, a number of prisoners wanted to get out of the prison and to have no part in the disturbances. Over 1, 300 prisoners were removed during the night to other prisons. There are a number of other prisoners left and they have been coming out during the past few days. However, I am unable to tell the noble Lord how many are left inside.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that I shall have the indulgence of the House in returning to a topic which I regard as extremely important. I hope that the noble Earl will also forgive me. It was not a question of semantics. I asked something which in
1526
my view was fundamental regarding the terms of reference of the inquiry. One cannot be satisfied by guesswork or by leaving it to the interpretation of Lord Justice Woolf. He can only interpret the terms of reference that he is given. We want to see recommendations which the chairman of the inquiry or the person holding the inquiry may have to make. They should not be limited to the words in the Statement; namely:
"events leading up to the [serious] disturbance … and the action taken to bring it to a conclusion".
Those are terribly narrow confines in which Lord Justice Woolf is asked to conduct his inquiry and make his recommendations.
Will the noble Earl speak to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the terms of reference specifically include the questions that I mentioned which dealt with staffing, warnings, flexibility and recommendations along the lines mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Harris, on the conditions in the prison leading up to such events, not just on this occasion, but, Heaven forfend, on other occasions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I realise the seriousness with which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, takes that point. I discussed the question of the terms of reference with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary this morning. It was considered right for the Lord Justice to interpret those terms of reference as he thought appropriate. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is concerned. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend, but I reiterate what I said— I know that I cannot satisfy the noble Lord, however much I try to do so— namely, that if the Lord Justice felt that it was appropriate to inquire into those matters in order to seize himself of the position leading up to the disturbances, he would be entitled to do so. I realise that that does not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so I assure him that I shall ensure that my right honourable friend knows of his concern.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am sorry to speak once again, but I was not certain from what the noble Earl said whether all Rule 43 prisoners have been accounted for.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as far as I am able to tell the noble Lord, I think that they have all been accounted for.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
12.3 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hooper I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House to whom the National Health Service and Community Care Bill has been

1527
committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clause 26,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 27 and 28,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Clause 29,

Clause 5,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 6 to 11,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 30 to 32,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 12 and 13,

Clause 36,

Clauses 14 to 17,

Clause 33,

Clause 18,

Clause 34,

Clauses 19 and 20,

Schedule 4,

Clause 35,

Schedule 7,

Clause 21,

Clause 37,

Clause 22,

Clause 38,

Clause 23,

Clause 39,

Clauses 24 and 25,

Clause 40,

Clause 53,

Clause 41,

Clause 54,

Clauses 42 to 44,

Clause 49,

Clause 45,

Clause 52,

Clause 46,

Clause 50,

Clause 47,

Clause 48,

Clause 51,

Clauses 55 to 57,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 58 to 62,

Schedule 9,

Schedule 10,

Clause 63.— (Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning Bill [H.L.]
12.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 336 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the following Amendment:
Page 227, line 18, leave out from ("means") to end of line 24 and insert—
1528
(" (a) a charging authority, a precepting authority (except the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District), a combined police authority or a combined fire authority, as those expressions are defined in section 144 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988;
(b) a levying body within the meaning of section 74 of that Act; and
(c) a body as regards which section 75 of that Act applies; and includes any joint board or joint committee if all the constituent authorities are local authorities within paragraph (a), (b) or (c); ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to point out that the Marshalled List contains a misprint. The correct position of the amendment is at page 227.
This amendment gives effect in the Bill to amendments made to Section 290 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 by the Local Government Finance (Repeals, Savings and Consequential Amendments) Order 1990. The amendments made by the order are consequential upon the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and came into force on the 1st April 1990. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [H.L.]
12.5 p.m.
Report received.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
12.6 p.m.
Report received.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
12.7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill 74 as first printed for the Commons]
Clause 4, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
' (2A) Where it appears to the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Lord Advocate that the request relates to a fiscal offence in respect of which proceedings have not yet been instituted he shall not exercise his powers under subsection (2) above unless—

(a) the request is from a country or territory which is a member of the Commonwealth or is made pursuant to a treaty to which the United Kingdom is party; or

(b) he is satisfied that the conduct constituting the offence would constitute an offence of the same or a similar nature if it had occurred in the United Kingdom.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.

1529
Some degree of anxiety has been caused by Clause 4 of the Bill, in particular about the possibility that it might endanger the confidentiality of our banking system. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, twice moved amendments to this clause and my right honourable friend the Minister of State recently met representatives of the British Bankers' Association, the Law Society and the Confederation of British Industry to discuss their anxieties. Their fear was that the ability which was created by Clause 4 to offer assistance to any country could pose a threat to the high reputation for confidentiality which our banking system rightly enjoys. I know that the noble Lord, Lard Mishcon, is concerned about that. When replying to him, I said that we did not believe that those fears were justified.
Nevertheless, we appreciated the strength of the concerns which the noble Lord and the bankers expressed. Our aim in drawing up this amendment has therefore been to seek to allay the fears of the financial community without weakening our ability to co-operate with other countries in the real fight against international crime. The amendment therefore states that where the Secretary of State or, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate receives a request from an overseas country relating to the investigation of a fiscal offence, assistance can only be granted on certain conditions.
The first of those conditions is that the request for assistance must come from a country with which we have formal, mutual, legal assistance treaty arrangements, or a member of the Commonwealth.
Therefore we shall automatically be able to help all the other Council of Europe states which are signatories to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance and any countries with which we have a bilateral treaty of this kind. The Commonwealth scheme of mutual assistance, which is similar to the European convention, does not have the status of a formal treaty but we feel that it is right to be able to co-operate to the fullest possible measure with our Commonwealth partners.
Where there is a request from a country which is not in one of the categories that I have just described, it may still be possible to respond to it but only if there is dual criminality; that is to say, only if the conduct which constituted the offence would also constitute an offence of the same or similar nature if it had happened in the United Kingdom.
These conditions only apply to cases which are still under investigation. In cases where proceedings have actually been instituted we will always be able to provide assistance where we judge that it is right to do so.
I hope I have been able to show the House that this amendment both meets the concerns which the banks and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, expressed and preserves our ability to co-operate fully with our international partners. I hope, therefore, that this amendment will be welcomed by the House, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whose views I always listen to with special care.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.— (Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like my immediate words to be words of gratitude to the noble Earl the Minister for the consideration that he gave to the arguments that were put forward in this House. I am sure that they were also considered in the other place when this amendment was made to the Bill. It is an important amendment.
I have only one question to put to the Minister. I hope that I do not take him by surprise. I should have given him warning of it. There is some anxiety, which I understand was expressed also in the other place, as to whether the words "fiscal offence" in fact cover an offence under the exchange control regulations of another country. I think I am right in saying that in the other place assurance was given that they would be so interpreted. However, to finish off the matter tidily in your Lordships' House, I wonder whether there could be confirmation of the fact that "fiscal offence" is deemed also to cover exchange control offences.
Because of the suddenness with which I have thrust this question upon the Minister, if he finds that he cannot answer me now I shall well understand it and await his reply. I know that the banks in fact regard this as a very important point.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the difficulty of defining the term "fiscal offence" was one of the factors which underlay the Government's reluctance earlier in the Bill's passage to accept a suggestion by the British Bankers Association which would have made the grant of assistance in all fiscal cases subject to a dual criminality test. I wrote to the noble and learned Lord about this. The comment that I then made was directed to a suggestion which would have left it to a court nominated by the Secretary of State to decide for itself whether the overseas offence was a fiscal one.
The government amendment that we have now tabled places a duty on the Secretary of State with regard to this question before nominating a court. In doing so the intention will be to apply the definition referred to in the Explanatory Report to the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance which states that fiscal offences are offences in connection with taxes, duties, Customs and exchange.
Since exchange control offences will therefore form part of the wider definition of the term "fiscal offence" which the Secretary of State will apply, I believe that there will be no need for them to be separately mentioned. I am sure that when the noble Lord absorbs this matter, as he always absorbs everything with astonishing rapidity, he will realise that his anxiety has been allayed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am deeply grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 7, page 7, line 36, after 'that' insert 'the conduct constituting'
3 Clause 8, page 8, leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert ' (b) that the conduct constituting that offence would constitute an offence punishable by imprisonment if it had occurred in Scotland, '
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 en bloc.
I do not think I need detain the House long over these amendments. Their purpose is simple. They are designed to bring Clause 7 (2) and Clause 8 fully into line with the approach of Clause 7 (1). Clause 7 (1) provides for the exercise of powers of search and seizure on behalf of another country in cases which in the United Kingdom would involve serious arrestable offences. In deciding whether to issue a warrant authorising the use of such powers the court in this country has to consider not the precise formulation of the overseas offence but the conduct which constitutes it. If the conduct by the person concerned would have amounted to a serious arrestable offence, it is possible for the court to issue a warrant.
On the other hand, both Clause 7 (2) and Clause 8 as they stood when the Bill left your Lordships' House would have restricted the court in other circumstances such that search and seizure powers would only be used if the formulation of the overseas offence and the United Kingdom offence corresponded exactly.
The amendments, therefore, prescribe that in considering whether to issue warrants under Clause 7 (2) and Clause 8 the courts should, as with Clause 7 (1), consider the conduct constituting the offence overseas rather than the precise wording of the offence.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that these are sensible changes.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 en bloc.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
12.15 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Increase in realisable property: Scotland

'(1) This section has effect where by virtue of section l (l) (b) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (insufficient realisable property) the amount which a person is ordered to pay by a confiscation order is less than the amount assessed to be the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking.

(2) If, on an application made in accordance with subsection (3) below the Court of Session is satisfied that the amount that might be realised in the case of the person in question is greater than the amount taken into account in making the confiscation order (whether it was greater than was thought when the order was made or has subsequently increased) the court shall issue a certificate to that effect, giving the court's reasons.

(3) An application under subsection (2) above may be made either by the prosecutor or by an administrator appointed under section 13 (1) of the said Act of 1987 in relation to the realisable property of the person in question.

(4) Where a certificate has been issued under subsection (2) above the prosecutor may apply to the High Court of Justiciary for an increase in the amount to be recovered under the confiscation order; and on that application the court may—

(a) substitute for that amount (not exceeding the amount assessed as the value referred to in subsection (1) above) as appears to the court to be appropriate having regard to the amount now shown to be realisable; and

1532

(b) increase the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the confiscation order under subsection (2) of section 396 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (imprisonment in default of payment) if the effect of the substitution is to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (1A) of section 407 of that Act.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. This new clause does no more than bring the position in Scotland into line with the position in England and Wales as it will be following the passage of Clause 16 of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 .— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Part HA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash

'(1) A customs officer or constable may seize and, in accordance with this section, detain any cash which is being imported into or exported from the United Kingdom if its amount is not less than the prescribed sum and he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that it directly or indirectly represents any person's proceeds of, or is intended by any person for use in, drug trafficking.

(2) Cash seized by virtue of this section shall not be detained for more than forty-eight hours unless its continued detention is authorised by an order made by a justice of the peace or in Scotland the sheriff; and no such order shall be made unless the justice or, as the case may be, the sheriff is satisfied—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion mentioned in subsection (1) above; and

(b) that continued detention of the cash is justified while its origin or derivation is further investigated or consideration is given to the institution (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) of criminal proceedings against any person for an offence with which the cash is connected.

(3) Any order under subsection (2) above shall authorise the continued detention of the cash to which it relates for such period, not exceeding three months beginning with the date of the order, as may be specified in the order; and a magistrates' court or in Scotland the sheriff, if satisfied as to the matters mentioned in that subsection, may thereafter from time to time by order authorise the further detention of the cash but so that—

(a) no period of detention specified in such an order shall exceed three months beginning with the date of the order; and

(b) the total period of detention shall not exceed two years from the date of the order under subsection (2) above.

(4) Any application for an order under subsection (2) or (3) above shall be made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or a constable if made to a justice or magistrates' court and by a procurator fiscal if made to the sheriff.

(5) At any time while cash is detained by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section—

(a) a magistrates' court or in Scotland the sheriff may direct its release if satisfied—

(i) on an application made by the person from whom it was seized or a person by or on whose behalf it was being imported or exported, that there are no, or are no longer, any such grounds for its detention as are mentioned in subsection (2) above; or

(ii) on an application made by any other person, that detention of the cash is not for that or any other reason justified; and

(b) a customs officer or constable, or in Scotland a procurator fiscal, may release the cash if satisfied that

1533
its detention is no longer justified but shall first notify the justice, magistrates' court or sheriff under whose order it is being detained.

(6) If at a time when any cash is being detained by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section—

(a) an application for its forfeiture is made under section (Forefeiture) below; or

(b) proceedings are instituted (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) against any person for an offence with which the cash is connected, the cash shall not be released until any proceedings pursuant to the application or, as the case may be, the proceedings for that offence have been concluded.'.

6 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Forfeiture

'(1) A magistrates' court or in Scotland the sheriff may order the forfeiture of any cash which has been seized under section (Part HA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash) above if satisfied, on an application made while the cash is detained under that section, that the cash directly or indirectly represents any person's proceeds of, or is intended by any person for use in, drug trafficking.

(2) Any application under this section to a magistrates' court shall be made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or a constable and to the sheriff by a procurator fiscal.

(3) The standard of proof in proceedings on an application under this section shall be that applicable to civil proceedings; and an order may be made under this section whether or not proceedings are brought against any person for an offence with which the cash in question is connected.'.

7 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Interest
'. Cash seized under this Part of this Act and detained for more than forty-eight hours shall, unless required as evidence of an offence, be held in an interest-bearing account and the interest accruing on any such cash shall be added to that cash on its forfeiture or release.'.
8 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Procedure
'(1) An order under section (Part HA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash) (2) above shall provide for notice to be given to persons affected by the order.
(2) Provision may be made by rules of court with respect to applications to any court under this Part of this Act, for the giving of notice of such applications to persons affected, for the joinder, or in Scotland sisting, of such persons as parties and generally with respect to the procedure under this Part of this Act before any court.
(3) Subsection (2) above is without prejudice to the generality of any existing power to make rule.'.
9 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Interpretation of Part IIA
' (1) In this Part of this Act—
"cash" includes coins and notes in any currency;
"customs officer" means an officer commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under section 6 (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979;
"drug trafficking" has the same meaning as in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 or, as respects Scotland, in Part I of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987;
"exported", in relation to any cash, includes its being brought to any place in the United Kingdom for the purpose of being exported;
"the proceeds of drug trafficking" has the same meaning as in the said Acts of 1986 and 1987 respectively and includes proceeds received by any person before as well as after the coming into force of this Part of this Act.
(2) In section (Part IIA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash) above "the prescribed sum" means such
1534
sum in sterling as may from time to time be prescribed for the purposes of that section by an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in determining under that section whether an amount of currency other than sterling is not less than the prescribed sum that amount shall be converted at the prevailing rate of exchange.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of the Isle of Man Act 1979 references in this Part of this Act to importation into or export from the United Kingdom include references to importation into the United Kingdom from the Isle of Man and exportation from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man.'.
10 Clause 24, page 17, line 43, at end insert:
' (2) Any money representing cash forfeited under Part IIA of this Act or accrued interest thereon shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 10 en bloc. I should like to speak at the same time to Commons Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. It may be for the convenience of noble Lords if I were to speak to all these amendments together as they form a consolidated package, as it were.
They will constitute a new part of the Bill and a significant extension of its effectiveness in countering drug trafficking. They were introduced in another place in the light of the report of the Home Affairs Committee and of the expression of concern at Second Reading in another place. They are designed to prevent the proceeds of drug trafficking, or money which is intended to be used for drug trafficking, to be imported to or exported from this country as cash. I hope, therefore, that the provisions will be also acceptable to your Lordships.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 gives our enforcement agencies and courts wide powers to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking. An important consequence of that Act has been that banks and other financial institutions have introduced systematic reporting of suspicious transactions to the National Drugs Intelligence Unit. I am glad to say that banks and other financial institutions have co-operated very fully with the enforcement agencies, and their help has been immensely valuable and led to the detection of both drugs money and drug traffickers. These are effective provisions, and £ 16 million worth of assets have already been ordered to be confiscated as a result. This is a very considerable success in a fairly short while.
However, if we are aware of the success of this legislation, so are the drug traffickers. If they feel that it is no longer safe to use the financial institutions to launder the proceeds of their evil trade, they will look elsewhere. Equally, if they can no longer use the banking system to bring money into this country to finance their activities they will find another way to get the money here. All of this highlights what I am afraid is a loophole in our current legislation, and that is that we have no power to detain large sums of actual cash which is suspected of being drugs money from being brought across our borders.

1535
Suitcases full of banknotes can be brought into or taken from this country with impunity.
That was one of the points which was highlighted by the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place in its recent report on drug trafficking and related serious crime. It proposed urgent measures which would,
"allow Customs officers to detain money entering or leaving the country which they know or suspect arises from the proceeds of such crime".
We have therefore brought forward these amendments in order to close this loophole.
These new clauses seek to overcome the problem by enabling customs and police officers to detain money which is being imported or exported where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the money represents the proceeds of drug trafficking or is intended for use in drug trafficking. The power can be exercised only where the amount of cash in question is above a minimum figure which is to be prescribed by order. We have in mind that the first place to set that figure is £ 10, 000. Once the cash has been seized, its continued detention for up to three months may be authorised by a justice of the peace, and for three month periods thereafter, up to a minimum of two years, by a magistrates' court. During that period a magistrates' court may at any time order the release of the money if it is satisfied that its continued detention is no longer necessary; for example, if the person from whom it was seized is able to show that it was held legitimately. A magistrates' court, which is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities detained cash represents drugs money, may order for its permanent forfeiture. While the cash is being detained it will be held in an interest bearing account and interest earned will be added to the capital forfeited or returned, depending on the outcome of the case.
I know that it is unusual for the Government to seek to make quite such major additions to a Bill so late in its passage, especially when in order to do so makes it necessary to make changes to the scope of the Bill. Our view was that it was worth taking that step in order to get these important provisions on to the statute book. I am glad to say that we had support for this from all parts of the House in another place. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be equally good enough in your support for these measures which will form one more important weapon in our armoury against the international drugs trade.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 10 en bloc.— (Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from these Benches and from other parts of the House complaints are made when a whole host of government amendments are suddenly inserted into Bills. On this occasion there will be no complaint from these Benches. We welcome wholeheartedly the insertion of these clauses. We are extremely glad that the gap to which the noble Earl clearly referred has now been closed. If we have made it more difficult, even almost impossible, for the wretched drug traders to get hold
1536
of their ill-gotten gains the whole House will be delighted as will the country.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is well known that a substantial number of money launderers, have brought into this country suitcases packed with high denomination bank notes. The noble Earl does not need to apologise to the House for introducing the amendments at this stage. They are highly desirable and in accord with provisions of the United States Bank Secrecy Act. I welcome the fact that we are moving in that direction. I give an unreserved welcome to the amendments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. I had an idea that what is proposed would meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, because he has always been concerned about the matter. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would approve. Nevertheless, I anticipated being chivvied vigorously for introducing the matter so late in the day. Noble Lords have been kind enough to understand and appreciate the reasons. I hope that you will content yourselves with the thought that the Government always listen.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 26, page 18, line 25, leave out subsection (5).
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. It removes the privilege amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Schedule 4, page 22, line 26, at end insert:
'The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
In section 27 (1) after "1986" there shall be inserted the words "or an offence to which section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 relates".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. It is a technical Scottish amendment. Section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987, to which the amendment refers, makes similar provision for Scotland to that which is made for England and Wales by Section 28 (1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 which defines the term "drug trafficking offence". The forfeiture provisions for the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 were applied to drug trafficking offences in England and Wales by virtue of Section 70 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That provision did not apply to Scotland. Therefore the amendment achieves for Scotland what has already been achieved for England and Wales by Section 70 of the 1988 Act.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
13 In the Title, line 2, leave out second 'and' and insert '; to enable the United Kingdom'.
14 Line 5, at end insert '; and to provide for the seizure, detention and forfeiture of drug trafficking money imported or exported in cash'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 en bloc. I spoke to them when speaking to Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 en bloc.— {Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.

Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill [H.L.]
12.26 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Conventions to have force of law]:
Lord Wilberforce Lord Wilberforce moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 26, at end insert:
(" () This Act shall apply as between any parties to a contract who at the time of conclusion of the contract have their habitual residence, or in the case of bodies corporate or unincorporate, their central administration in a Contracting State.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is the same as that which I moved in a speech of inordinate length in Committee. Your Lordships will be glad to know that on this occasion I shall not indulge in a similar oration.
Noble Lords may remember that in Committee there was confusion about whether the United Kingdom had already ratified the Rome Convention of 1980, there being in existence a Command Paper which on its face stated that the United Kingdom had ratified but there being doubts about whether it had done so. There is no longer any confusion because it is now clear that we have not ratified the convention to date and that our hands are free to do so or not.
In Committee I took the position that to apply the convention outside the sphere of EC contracts would be damaging to our law because it would deter many potential litigants from coming to our commercial court. That argument was supported by other noble Lords on these Benches. It was not disputed that that might be the case but the best that could be said was that the convention could do no harm and that it would be useful to us in the European context. Secondly, I took the position that we are not bound to apply the convention outside the sphere of EC contracts to contracts generally and that we are free to limit it. The purpose of my amendment was to limit the convention.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took a different view but kindly said he would take further advice on the matter. He has now done so and I am grateful for the trouble that he has taken
1538
to obtain advice and communicate it to me at great length. However, I am in the unfortunate position of not being able to agree with that advice. I had hoped that the view that was expressed from these Benches, even though the Government took a different view, may have justified the conclusion that the convention is ambiguous. Therefore, we should be able to take the course least damaging to our own interests.
That is not the Government's position; they wish to apply the contract universally. Therefore, I am not in a position to press my amendment. I remain of the opinion, which may arise later, that if that is correct, and under the convention we should be obliged to extend it to all contracts irrespective or whether thay have any EC connection, we should not ratify the convention. That would certainly be my position when that stage is reached. However, at this point I beg formally to move the amendment, though I indicate to your Lordships that I shall not be pressing it to a Division.
12.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce for raising the matter again. Because the question of the extent of the convention is an important one, and because some questions have been raised about it by some of my noble and learned friends, I hope that it may be right and acceptable for me to give a fairly full explanation of the matter as I see it.
Article 1 (1) of the convention provides in the English text that:
"The rules of this Convention shall apply to contractual obligations in any situation involving a choice between the laws of different countries".
The other five language versions are in similarly general terms. The texts are identical in referring to "contractual obligations" at large and not, for example, to contractual obligations entered into by persons domiciled within the contracting states.
The remaining paragraphs of Article 1 limit the scope of the convention, but they do so purely by reference to the subject matter of the contract and not to the parties' country of residence or administration. I should, however, draw attention to Article 1 (3), which states that:
"The rules of this Convention do not apply to contracts of insurance which cover risks situated in the territories of the Member States of the European Economic Community".
This express exclusion to my mind clearly suggests that the words in Article 1 (1) are to be given a universal meaning.
As I have said before, had it been intended that the convention should apply only to European Community contracts, one would have expected to find such a limitation stated expressly. One obvious place for it would be the preamble. The preamble states that the contracting parties are,
"anxious to continue in the field of private international law the work of unification of law which has already been done",
and that they wish,
"to establish uniform rules concerning the law applicable to contractual obligations".

1539
I believe that these words make it clear that the primary concern of the convention is with the conflict of law rules of the member states, and not with contracts entered into by parties within the member states. The European Community states have agreed between themselves to apply certain uniform rules in a universal way; it does not follow from the limitation of the convention to such states that the subject matter to which the rules will be applied must be similarly limited.
The ordinary meaning of Article 1 (1) points to the application of the convention to all contracts, and there is nothing in the other provisions of the convention to suggest otherwise. The negotiating history of the convention bears this out entirely.
On page 8 of the Official Report of the Convention the authors, when considering the work of the working group which prepared the convention, say that,
"From the very beginning of its work the Group has professed itself to be in favour of uniform rules which would apply not only to the nationals of Member States and to persons domiciled or resident within the Community but also to the nationals of third States and to persons domiciled or resident therein. The provisions of Article 2 specify the universal application of the convention".
On page 13, when considering Article 2, the authors say that,
"This Article underlines the universal character of the uniform rules laid down in this convention. The Convention does not apply only in situations involving some form of connection with one or other of the Contracting States. It is of universal application in the sense that the choice of law which it lays down may result in the law of a State not party to the convention being applied. By way of example, under Article 3, parties to a contract may opt for the law of a third State, and in the absence of any choice, that same law may be applied to the. contract under Articles 4 and 5 if it is with that State that the contract has the closest links. In other words, the Convention is a uniform measure of private international law which will replace the rules of private international law in force in each of the Contracting States, with regard to the subject matter which it covers and subject to any other convention to which the Contracting States are party (see Article 21) ".
The leading English text-book writers have no doubt as to the universal nature of the Convention. In Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws, on page 1251, it is said that,
"The Convention requires the application of its rules even as regards contracts with a non-EEC element, and its rules will therefore apply to all contracts with a foreign element coming before the English courts".
Cheshire and North's Private International Law states on page 505 that,
"The Convention is world-wide in effect. In other words, it does not just provide choice of law rules for contracts with an EEC connection. It provides rules harmonising contract choice of law rules in all Member States. If implemented here, it would apply, in principle, to all international contracts coming before the courts in this country".
Finally Morris's The Conflict of Laws states on page 298 that,
"The Convention is world-wide in effect: it will apply to all contract cases having a foreign element, whether or not they have any connection with the EEC".
Lest it be thought unwise to rely solely on the interpretation of the convention as seen from this country, your Lordships may be interested to know that when the German Government introduced
1540
legislation to give effect to the convention its eplanatory memorandum to the Bundestag made it entirely plain that the convention would apply universally. I am not aware that any member state has sought to limit the convention to EC contracts, nor that any academic writer has taken the view that it is so limited.
The question arises whether we are entitled, if we so wish, to limit our application of the convention to EC contracts. I do not believe we are; if we ratify, we are bound to comply with the obligation under Article 1 (1), which means legislating to cover all contracts. Furthermore, the effect of legislation only partially giving effect to Article 1 (1) would require a reservation to that article. Article 22 indicates two reservations which may be made to the convention and it follows that no other reservations may be made.
Finally I must say that to introduce a limitation to EC contracts would go completely against the objective of the convention, which is to unify the choice of law rules of member states. A limitation would lead to considerable complication and introduce a distinction which does not exist at present in our conflicts rules for contracts nor, so far as I am aware, in those of any other member states.
I hope that this explanation has been clear and that there is now no doubt that it is neither possible nor right for this Bill to limit the scope of the Rome Convention as applied in the United Kingdom. I understand from what my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has said that he still has an opposite or different point of view. However, I have tried to canvass opinion as fully as I can, and I am now putting on record the results of that.
I should perhaps deal with one last matter. As my noble and learned friend said, at Committee stage he showed me the print of the text of the convention published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1982. That I thought at the time contained a misprint. I understand that a correction slip was issued shortly after publication to say that the convention has not been ratified by the United Kingdom. That remains the position.
To conclude the matter, I should add that we had conducted consultations at the time that this convention was being negotiated. My noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, with his great knowledge of this area of the law, was very naturally one of those who was consulted on the almost final text in June 1979, and then on the final text in August 1980, in order that the Government might take a view about the appropriate way forward. I understand from what I have been told that my noble and learned friend did not have any adverse observations to offer and did not respond on either of those occasions.
In the light of all these circumstances, I believe that the right way forward is for the convention to be ratified, and this legislation is put before the House in order to enable us to ratify it properly with the full approval of Parliament. My noble and learned friend said that having heard the explanation he did not intend to press the amendment.

1541
Therefore, I hope that he may feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the explanation that he has given of the advice that he has received. I do not propose to weary the House by answering it. However, there is an answer and there is a different view.
I was rather embarrassed by the reference to a consultation which the noble and learned Lord said took place in 1979. I have no recollection of that. I was not reminded of it in the course of the exchanges which have taken place with the noble and learned Lord. I can only say that at that time I must have taken the view which I now take, that the convention was not intended to have universal effect, and on that view thought that it was quite harmless.
In my case, the Brussels Protocol, which introduces very objectionable references to the European Court, did not exist. Having said that, I reiterate that I do not propose to renew the arguments. However, I wish to state as respectfully as I can that I maintain the view that I put to the Committee at length. I beg to move the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think my noble and learned friend wishes to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, no. I beg to move it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 3 [Interpretation of Conventions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("O.J. 1980 No. C282/1.
(3) Without prejudice to any practice of the courts as to the matters which may be considered apart from this subsection—

(a) the report on the Rome Convention by Professor Mario Giuliano and Professor Paul Lagarde which is reproduced in the Official Journal of the Communities of 31st October 1980 may be considered in ascertaining the meaning or effect of any provision of that Convention, and

(b) any report on the Brussels Protocol which is reproduced in the Official Journal of the Communities may be considered in ascertaining the meaning or effect of any provision of that Protocol.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment replaces the previous Clause 3 (3) which was in the Bill as drafted. It differs from the previous subsection in two ways. At Committee stage my noble and learned friend Lord Simon expressed concern that the effect of the subsection was that the courts would not be able to consider the works of English text book writers but only the report which is referred to in the subsection. I do not share his concern. To my mind there is an important difference between a report on a convention which has been specially prepared and which can be said to have some official status and the work of textbook writers.
I believe that it is helpful for the Bill to refer specifically to the official report but I do not agree that such a specific reference has the effect of preventing the courts from following their usual
1542
practice of looking at academic writings when it is desirable to do so. However, in order to put the matter beyond doubt, I offer this amendment which makes it clear that the courts' discretion to consider the official report is to be without prejudice to their practice in considering other matters.
The new subsection also provides that the courts may consider any report on the Brussels Protocol which is reproduced in the European Communities' Official Journal when interpreting that protocol. A report on that protocol is at present being drawn up, although I have to say that progress so far makes it unlikely that it will be published before the Bill completes its passage.
Your Lordships will recall, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has just mentioned, that the Brussels Protocol relates to the powers of the European Court of Justice to interpret the Rome Convention, about which misgivings have been expressed. I hope that the report on the convention will help to allay those misgivings. It will therefore be desirable for our courts to be able to consider the report. For that reason, and because the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 contains a similar provision, I commend this amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend and particularly for his allowing me to enter into correspondence on this matter which has its technical aspects and is more suitable to be resolved through correspondence than discussion.
Unfortunately, we did not see eye to eye on the law. I tried to ingratiate myself with my noble and learned friend by referring to the maxim in question as a brocard. Whether that softened him or whether it was the consideration of the possible legal implications of the clause as it stood unamended, my noble and learned friend kindly came up with this amendment with which I am entirely content.
I am also grateful that his department let me see the amendment in draft in a form in which I could let the co-signatories of the Committee amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who spoke in support of it also see in advance. I believe that they are content with it. I do not doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, probably thinks that it does not go far enough and would like a reference enjoining the court to consider specifically the leading textbook on intellectual property, preferably one written by himself. For myself, I am content with this and I reiterate my thanks to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was trying to guess before your Lordships what argument it was that led the noble and learned Lord to bring forward this amendment. I add a further guess and I think I am much nearer the mark. It was the weight of the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, which he put forward with such clarity. That will always weigh not only with this House but also with

1543
the noble and learned Lord. I am sure that that is what has led to this amendment.
I add only that it obviously gives clarity to a matter which worried us. One is grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendment with which I personally am satisfied. The pertinacity, quite apart from the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has won a victory.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am also satisfied with this amendment. I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the way in which he has presented his case. I have always been brought up strictly that one should not consider any book a matter of law or precedent unless the author is dead. If the author is dead, then it can be an authority. Therefore, I am very grateful for the reference which the noble and learned Lord made to at least one of the books on intellectual property which I had the privilege to edit. I have edited only two: one on trade marks and the other is the third edition of Halsbury's Law on Trademarks and Design. However, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right that it is the fact that my noble and learned friend felt that the Bill would be improved by an amendment along these lines, along with the support of the noble Lord and others, that made me think that it was wise to table such an amendment.
In reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said, I believe that the courts are now more ready than they were to look at the writings of textbook writers who have not yet been made authoritative by their demise. I have no doubt that that would be particularly so of the textbooks to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has referred.
I believe that the courts are able to look at those writings for whatever value they may have and that we are now more prepared to look at them for the value of the argument rather than the status of the author. Of course it is always possible for counsel to incorporate those views into their argument by reference in any case so that the value of the distinctions which may have been made hitherto is perhaps not particularly great. I believe— and I believe that many of my noble and learned friends who are here would share my view— that the decisions of the court are often greatly improved if the members of the court are given an opportunity closely to study academic writings relating to the subject matter where the authors are happily still with us and able to improve the texts with the passage of time.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Rome Convention]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert:
("The High Contracting Parties to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Anxious to continue in the field of private international law the work of unification of law which has already been done within the Community, in particular in the field of jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments,
Wishing to establish uniform rules concerning the law applicable to contractual obligations,
Have agreed as follows:").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is designed simply to incorporate the preamble into the context, as suggested at Committee stage. I agree that it is an improvement and that is what I have done.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4:
Line 8, after ("obligations, ") insert ("but not including contractual obligations or situations relating to intellectual property").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to move an amendment to the amendment of the Lord Chancellor. The purpose of my moving the amendment is to ascertain whether the Bill and its schedules, on their proper construction, establish that the rules set out in Schedule 1, Title I, entitled "Scope of the Convention", exclude matters and situations relating to intellectual property in the UK in addition to the eight subparagraphs (a) to (h).
My prime reason for raising the matter is that questions of intellectual property are well known to be complex. They have been referred to as labyrinthine. It is well known that they have very important industrial applications; therefore, Bills relating to intellectual property, as I have often said, should be simple in their exposition of the law. I submit that on the face of the Bill, with its schedules relating to the convention, it is clear that there has been an omission or error. For some reason matters relating to intellectual property have not been referred to.
If one looks at the list on page 4 of the matters to which the Rome Convention shall not apply, under UK law, it includes the status or legal capacity of natural persons, contractual obligations relating to wills and succession, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship and rights and duties arising out of a family relationship, obligations arising under bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes, and arbitration agreements and agreements on the choice of court.
Under subparagraph (e) there are a large number of exceptions to which the rules of the convention do not apply, including,
"questions governed by the law of companies and other bodies corporate or unincorporated
A number of illustrations appear. A very wide branch of corporate law is excluded from application under the convention. Subparagraph (g) excludes the application of,
"the constitution of trusts and the relationship between settlors, trustees and beneficiaries".
I understand that exception because the law of trusts is not known as clearly under UK law as in foreign countries. I therefore understand that the position of UK law relating to trusts should be excluded. The eighth exclusion is,
"evidence and procedure, without prejudice to Article 14".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to paragraph 3 which says that the convention does not apply to contracts of insurance and certain other risks which I need not read out. Clause 2 (2) of the Bill refers to two articles of the Rome Convention— I need not read them— which will not have the force of law in the United Kingdom. I and many of my noble friends find it very difficult to understand why intellectual property rights and situations were not included in the list of exceptions from the Rome Convention under UK law.
That raises the question of how one is to correct what I referred to as an error or omission on the face of the document? What do common sense or natural justice require should be done? In that regard I am in some difficulty. I have therefore sought to add words to the preamble. My reason for so doing is to illustrate to your Lordships the importance of an exception in relation to intellectual property rights.
In the construction of a patent specification the words must have their grammatical meanings. But we at the patent Bar always have great fun with judges of the Chancery Division when explaining to them that the patent specification is directed, in the jargon of the patent Bar, to those "skilled in the art". The numerous authorities say that a specification can be made its own dictionary to interpret what is the sta:e of technology at the date of the publication of the specification.
It has been the experience of many of us— I remember my own experience as a junior— to try to persuade a Chancery judge that he must put himself in the position of a person "skilled in the art" (a person who is aware of the scientific and technological situation at the date of publication) before he can construe that specification and deal with questions of infringement.
I heard one noble and learned Lord— who shall be nameless— recently say that in his experience Chancery judges of first instance in his time were almost carnivorous. I also found that difficulty. I am sorry the noble and learned Lord looks somewhat disturbed and horrified by that quotation from one of his learned brethren; nevertheless it was always difficult to make a Chancery judge understand how to construe a patent specification because it did not conform simply to the matters of construction which apply, say, to trusts or contracts.
There is then the question of the onus on a party. That differs in certain patent matters. It is quite different from the general law of onus in relation to other contracts. I cannot understand— it is entirely my fault— why no consideration was given to the position of patent rights. Why were patent rights not added to the list in Schedule 1, which outlines the scope of the convention, as one of the matters to which the convention shall not apply?
As your Lordships know, intellectual property rights cover not only patent matters but trademarks
1546
and passing off. I should have thought that the law of passing off should have been included in these series of exceptions to the Convention because that law is based on the common law rights of this country. So far as foreign countries are concerned, the common law rights are not accepted in the same way as they are in this country.
I am encouraged to suggest that UK copyright ought to have been excluded having regard to an extract of the report in The Times of the 17th February 1990. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I have not given notice of this case but it is the case of Tyburn Productions Limited v . Conan Doyle. The defendant in this case was Dame Jane Conan Doyle, the surviving child of the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It came before Mr. Justice Vinelott, and the report says this:
"English courts would not entertain claims relating to disputes involving foreign patent, copyrights, or trademark laws. Such disputes concerning intellectual property rights were properly to be considered as actions of a local nature".
I shall not go on to read the judgement, but that in my view, would support my contention that the law of copyright ought to have been one of the matters excluded from Schedule 1 to the Rome Convention. It is an interpretation about which I registered my protest and therefore it is difficult to see how properly one can get this across. I am slightly encouraged to know that since the Second Reading and Committee stages of this Bill the Foreign Ofice has been closely consulted. Therefore I wonder whether the amendment that I am suggesting to the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might have some further consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I should like to say just two words, if I may. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for proposing Amendment No. 3 in response to a comment which I made at Committee stage. I have no doubt that it is an improvement to the Bill.
As regards the amendment to that amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I have a great deal of sympathy with the substance of his observations. Any effective partial demolition of this convention would have my very sympathetic support. The difficult about it is that I cannot quite see how the noble Lord is in a position to amend the preamble, which is simply a preamble to this convention. If he were able to introduce something substantive into the body of the Bill it might be possible to proceed, but the noble Lord does not take that radical step, and in its absence I feel difficulty in supporting his amendment despite having a great deal of sympathy with everything he said about intellectual property, copyright and so on. I am very glad to welcome the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful for the observations of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. I do not know how far he would go along with some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lloyd of Kilgerran, with respect to the characteristics of judges of the Chancery Division,

1547
which in the past my noble and learned friend would have been in a particularly strong position to comment upon.
So far as the amendment itself is concerned, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, what we are doing here is simply narrating, as a result of a suggestion from him at Committee stage, the preamble to the Rome Convention, which is an existing document. No ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, can alter that.
So far as the substance of the point is concerned, this Bill is intended to implement what has been agreed. During the negotiations so far as I know it was never suggested that the matters to which the noble Lord has referred should be excised from the scope of the convention. The Bill and the convention do not in any way seek to alter our substantive law in these areas. It is only the conflict rules concerning these areas which would be affected in this way.
If the noble Lord wishes to pursue the matter, the only way that seems to me possible is either to negotiate a separate convention altogether or seek to revise this convention in accordance with Article 26. The desire of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce to limit the scope of the convention would of course apply to any way in which its ambit could be restricted. However, as I say, I am not aware of any reservation on this line expressed during the negotiation of the convention. If there is concern now and if the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, cares to pursue that with me later, obviously the Foreign Office would be closely involved if we were to seek a modification of the convention. However, as at present advised, I do not see any real ground for seeking that, although I am open to further persuasion if the noble Lord wishes to raise the matter.
I hope that in the light of these explanations the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, may feel able to withdraw his amendment to my Amendment No. 3.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has just said. I do not propose to detain the House any longer and I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Luxembourg Convention]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 12, line 23, at end insert:
("The High Contracting Parties to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Considering that the Hellenic Republic, in becoming a Member of the Community, undertook to accede to the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19th June 1980,
Have decided to conclude this Convention, and to this end have designated as their plenipotentiaries:
(Designation of plenipotentiaries)
1548
Who, meeting within the Council, having exchange their full powers found in good and due form,
Have agreed as follows:").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment inserts the preamble to the Luxembourg Convention before the text of that convention, as set out in Schedule 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The Brussels Protocol]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 13, line 22, at end insert:
("The High Contracting Parties to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Joint Declaration annexed to the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19th June 1980,
Have decided to conclude a Protocol conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Justice of the European Communities to interpret that Convention, and to this end have designated as their Plenipotentiaries:
(Designation of plenipotentiaries)
Who, meeting within the Council of the European Communities, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form,
Have agreed as follows:").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment inserts the preamble to the Brussels Protocol before the text of the protocol, as set out in Schedule 3. This is in accordance with the spirit of a suggestion made at Committee stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Border Control of People: ECC Report
1.8 p.m.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton Lord Oliver of Aylmerton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on 1992: Border Control of People (22nd Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 90).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I think I should begin by saying a word or two about the background of the report which forms the subject matter of the Motion. The Single European Act introduced into the EEC Treaty a new Article 8A which required the Community to:
"adopt measures with the aim of progressively establishing the internal market over a period expiring on 31st December 1992".
The internal market is defined there as:
"an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, personal services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this treaty".
Systematic border control in the three Benelux countries had already ended in 1960. In 1985 they became parties, with France and West Germany, to what has become known as the Schengen Agreement, which provided for a long-term objective of the abolition of controls at common borders, a process which started with permitting vehicles to cross at reduced speed but without stopping and subject to spot checks. The process was intended to be

1549
completed by 1st January of this year by a rather elaborate system of further agreements on matters such as extradiction, joint law enforcement and police co-operation. That has not in fact been achieved, largely, I believe, as a result of the opening of the border with East Germany.
The matter was carried one stage further in 1988 at a meeting of the European Council in Rhodes which set up a group of co-ordinators who reported in 1989 to the Council in Madrid. The report has been christened the Palma Document. It sets out a list of desirable measures to be adopted and defined for discussion. That report has since been adopted and endorsed by the Council.
The starting point of the inquiry on which Sub-committee E had been engaged and which led to the present report was a communication of the Commission to the Council in which it is stated:
"The Single European Act sets an objective which goes beyond the mere easing of frontier controls. The concept of an 'area without frontiers' necessarily implies that internal frontier controls must also be abolished".
However, it has to be borne in mind that on the adoption of the Single European Act, the final act of the conference of the representatives of the governments of the member states declared specifically in relation to Articles 13 to 19 of the Act:
"Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries, and to combat terrorism, crime, the traffic in drugs and illegal trading in works of art and antiques".
Article 13 is the article which introduced the new Article 8A to which I have already referred. So the central problem is how to reconcile this general declaration with the stated object of the Commission in its communication.
Turning to the position of the United Kingdom, it may be said that we have lagged somewhat behind our European partners in the matter of easing frontier controls. But this country does enjoy the unique geographical distinction of having, with the exception of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, no land frontiers with other member states. We have a particular security problem which militates very strongly against rendering our external frontiers more porous.
In the debate in the other place on the control of intra-Community frontiers which took place in May of last year, the then Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, emphasised the Government's view that,
"frontier checks will continue to be useful, indeed an indispensable part of the protection afforded to our citizens against the evils of terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime, and also against illegal immigration".
In 1983 the Select Committee, in reporting on an earlier proposal to ease border controls, concluded that it was unable to endorse the abolition of systematic border controls. It will be seen from the present report that that position has not changed.
So much for the general background. What has now happened is that we are presented with sweeping proposals— they are at the moment only proposals— governing the free movement of persons, the regulation of the movement of weapons and the
1550
total abolition of frontier controls as such as opposed to what may be called normal policing in frontier areas. These are conjoined with proposals for the dismantling of checks on grounds of animal and plant health which form the subject matter of a separate report on which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, will shortly be addressing the House.
The text of the Commission's communication is in Appendix 4 which starts at page 40 of the committee's report. It proposes the total abolition of controls of people at intra-Community frontiers. That necessarily means abolition as regards all people, not merely Community citizens, because you cannot differentiate without imposing a control.
There are six corollaries. There has to be established a satisfactory control at all the external frontiers of the Community; co-ordination of visa policies with regard to persons entering from outside the Community; a significant strengthening both of cross-border police co-operation and of internal policing; a system in which confidence can be had for the prevention of international terrorism and drug trafficking; some co-ordination of control over the movement of weapons; and a reliable system of cross-border law enforcement and extradition. None of this necessary infrastructure is in place at present. The crucial question is whether these are objects which can be practically attained.
In commending the report of the committee on these proposals to the House, I should like to express gratitude to the Members of Sub-committee E and to the witnesses who gave evidence, both written and oral, on which the report is based. It will be seen that while the committee welcome the continuation of co-operative work between police and customs authorities, and attempts to harmonise criteria for the establishment of refugee status, it did not feel that the strengthening of the external boundary control, increased police co-operation and harmonisation of visa and drug enforcement policies, can offer, at any rate at the moment, an acceptable substitute for the present system of frontier controls on people entering the United Kingdom.
The report is a fairly lengthy one running to some 27 pages. It is not possible in the timescale of this debate to do much more than summarise its principal conclusions. When it came to be discussed in Sub-Committee E in its final form, I think there was a degree of unease that its conclusions were essentially negative and that it might be thought to display some psychological insularity. It is for that reason that I would like to draw the attention of the House to certain important aspects of the problem which I hope will explain how and why the committee came to express the conclusions that it did.
There are practical commercial advantages in the easing of controls in the form of the saving of time in crossing frontiers, the greater convenience of the travelling public and so forth. There are psychological advantages as well— the avoidance of the need to intrude into personal privacy and the increased sense of belonging to a single Community. But these have to be kept in proportion. In a recent article in the House Magazine, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, a Member of the European Parliament, was

1551
able to say that the average time required to check a Community passport was of the order of four seconds. As regards customs control of persons, the evidence was that some 95 per cent. of people walk or drive through the green channel without stopping.
The psychological advantages have to be weighed against the substantial practical advantages which border control confer on the states which impose them. To begin with, a system of efficient border checks tends to reduce the opportunity for international crime. The committee received some very valuable evidence from Professor Schermers, of Leiden University, from which it emerged that since the lessening of border controls under the Schengen Agreement, there has been a significant increase in international crime, an increase which he thought would get worse when border controls were lifted entirely. Particular aspects of this are drugs and weapons.
Evidence from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise indicated, first, that substantial seizures of drugs are made at points of entry and that, secondly, a very substantial part of the drugs imported from abroad arrive either from or through other member states. For instance, in 1987, 40 per cent. of the drugs seized by customs came from or via another Community country. It was and is the view of the customs that to rely simply on spot checks based on intelligence would mean the loss of a major deterrent to drug importation.
As regards weapons a draft directive of 1987 proposed the establishment of an elaborate system of registration which would make way for the free movement of weapons. That was heavily criticised and fresh proposals have now been made.
In principle, however, the free movement of weapons and any relaxation of the provisions of the Firearms Act 1988 for the sake of harmonisation of weapon control was strongly opposed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and by the Home Office. It is interesting that Professor Stein of Heidelberg University and of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law saw no alternative to systematic border controls unless and until it becomes possible to harmonise the weapons laws of the various member states and to impose a strict and uniform system of control on their acquisition and possession. The problem is not insignificant. Between March 1988 and March 1989, for example, 681 weapons were seized in frontier checks in this country.
Reference to control of weapons naturally prompts consideraton of another important aspect— the prevention and control of terrorist activity. The Commission's view is that international collaboration and intelligence can be an acceptable, and possibly even a more effective, substitute for border checks. That view is strongly dissented from by the Metropolitan Police Special Branch, which testified to many instances of terrorists or their associates being identified and arrested at ports. The tables on pages 174 and 175 of the evidence show the very sharp decline in the number of terrorist
1552
incidents in mainland United Kingdom since the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 first gave the police powers to carry out examinations at ports. It would be quite impossible to enforce the exclusion provisions of that Act without port controls.
A further important area of course is the control of immigration. Any relaxation of the internal controls necessarily postulates the establishment of an effective control at external borders and the adoption of some form of common visa policy. Apprehension was expressed by those concerned with the welfare of immigrants; first, that the dismantling of border controls might lead, of necessity, to the introduction of a system of compulsory identity cards and, secondly, that a common policy for the issue of visas would be likely to lead to the adoption of the standards of the least liberal member states of the Community. Similar fears were expressed by organisations concerned with the welfare of refugees. I am afraid that we have to recognise, whether or not justified, that there is a very real suspicion harboured by members of immigrant groups that increased internal controls may lead to police harassment.
The view was also expressed that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 put a substantial obstacle in the path of anyone seeking refugee status. That may be right, but it should be balanced against the statistics contained in the table on page 103 of the evidence which shows a sharp rise in the number of applications for refugee status in this country last year.
Finally, I should refer to the very formidable logistical difficulties involved in the reorganisation of, specifically, airports to cater for three streams of passenger traffic— domestic, intra-Community and extra-Community— and particularly baggage. The difficulties are particularly acute in relation to transit passengers— some of whom may be going on to destinations outside the Community— and to the segregation of passengers and baggage on international flights. The British Airports Authority is currently planning its investment strategy on the basis of there being no significant change in the method of processing passengers and their baggage; but if major restructuring is rendered necessary by the abolition of internal controls as regards Community passengers, they estimate capital costs running into many millions of pounds, all of which would ultimately have to be recovered, I suppose, by increased landing fees, which in turn would lead to increased fares. In addition, the process of restructuring would be a very lengthy one. The Association of European airlines estimated this to be a minimum period of five years.
In the end, the committee was compelled— I think that I can say it was reluctantly compelled— to the conclusion which is reflected in the report that checks for drugs and weapons would have to remain, and that systematic passport controls will continue to be necessary both to establish community citizenship and to prevent illegal immigation.
It is important to note that the Single European Act does not impose a legal obligation to abolish national frontier controls, though it is of course

1553
highly desirable that such controls should be carried out with the minimum of delay and intrusion. While therefore the Committee wishes to see every encouragement given to co-operation between member states as objectives desirable in themselves, it does not consider that the framework exists at present, or is likely to exist in the foreseeable future, for lifting restrictions entirely.
In his evidence to the committee Professor Stein observed:
"The decision completely to abolish all border controls"—
I have eliminated the split infinitive in that sentence—
"thus appears to be a political decision which one may welcome or not, but not a decision which is indicated by Community law as it stands".
If that is right, as I believe it is, I am sure I would be expressing the view of the whole committee if I say that it is a political decision that should be taken only if and when it is clear that the disadvantages of abolition referred to in the evidence before the committee can effectively be overcome. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on 1992: Border Control of People (22nd Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 90).— (Lord Oliver of Aylmerton.)
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I rise to speak to the Motion, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on 1992: Health Controls and the Internal Market (9th Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 47) and of the response from Her Majesty's Government (Cmnd. 815).
The concept of a Europe without internal frontiers is fundamental to the creation of the single market. The Commission is therefore seeking to do away with frontier controls. There are obvious difficulties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, in presenting the report of Sub-Committee E on the Commission's proposals for relaxing border controls on people has reminded the House that where people and goods are able to move freely, so can undesirable people such as terrorists and undesirable goods such as drugs.
Sub-Committee D examined the Commission's proposals to relax the border controls on the passage of live animals and animal products and similar controls regarding the passage of plants and plant products. Where such goods can be moved freely, so can animal diseases and plant pests.
It is now nearly 11 months since my committee's report was completed. At this stage I should like to acknowledge our gratitude for the help given to the committee by our two specialist advisers, Dr. Andrews of the Royal Veterinary College and Dr. Maude of the Institute of Horticultural Research.
The Government responded to the report in October last, agreeing substantially with our conclusions and recommendations. Since that time new proposals affecting animals and animal products, as well as plants and plant products, have
1554
been put forward by the Commission and more are to come. Therefore, I propose to deal as briefly as possible with our 1989 report because the situation is changing all the time. It is on these newer developments and on what scope there may be for further improvements to the Commission's ideas about how to establish common animal and plant health standards throughout the Community that I shall listen with great interest when my noble friend replies for the Government.
First, however, I summarise the original proposals and my committee's reactions to them. The directive dealing with the veterinary checks proposed as a first step that existing checks on animals and animal products at the internal frontiers should be discontinued. Quarantine would be permitted but not as in the United Kingdom at the ports but only at the farm or place of destination. Thereafter, in order to prevent the introduction of disease, rules for veterinary checks will be established under Community legislation. A system of documentation would be established and the Commission would take on additional powers of control and inspection. There were similar proposals relating to plants and plant health.
Members of the committee were aware that the United Kingdom is free from serious animal diseases such as foot-and-mouth, swine fever, Newcastle disease of chickens and, above all, rabies. We are also aware of our own system of controls involving Customs and Excise, port health authorities and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinarians and plant health inspectors which has been effective in protecting the high health status of the United Kingdom in respect of both animals and plants. The particular geographical characteristics inherent in our island status are a major factor in this respect.
The committee was wholly in sympathy with the chief veterinary officer of MAFF. He told us that the proposals as regards checks on animal products was, to use his word, "premature". He said that,
"the thrust should be to achieve harmonised, high health standards and then, having achieved that, you can consider the movement controls".
He continued,
"All we are going to do by introducing these measures without introduction of harmonised standards is to produce more and more complications, more and more bureaucracy and introduce new systems when in fact the old systems have been perfectly effective in preventing importations when they should not occur".
In regard to plants, we were told in evidence that the control of plant pests and diseases was more complex than the control of animal diseases. While the longer-term strategy for plant health outlined by the Commission commanded a degree of support in principle, it must be borne in mind that the process of establishing uniform Community standards over the control and prevention of plant diseases is at a far less developed stage than it is for animals and animal products.
In such circumstances the approach adopted by the Community for removing border controls before establishing common standards of control and testing throughout members states was, we were told, misguided. We agreed. Our report was sharply

1555
critical of the Commission, which we said was being irresponsible in appearing to sacrifice practical realities to the ideology of the single market. As I said, the concern expressed in the report was shared by the Government in their response.
Perhaps I may refer to the more recent proposals by the Commission. I shall deal first with animal health. The central proposal on veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to completion of the internal market has been amended and adopted in part as a directive. But it covers only animal products and it applies only until the end of 1992. Until then member states will be able to check meat and meat products for compliance with regulations on foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever, which are two particular concerns of the United Kingdom. Moreover, over this period the United Kingdom would be allowed to maintain checks on animals products at all ports and airports.
The Council of Ministers has now produced revised proposals on the more contentious issue of live animals. Although presented as transitional measures reviewable before the end of 1992, these proposals appear to represent a first step towards the establishment of uniform veterinary measures within the single market. However, I understand that the likely impact of these proposals is by no means clear and that the working group of the Council of Ministers has already narrowed the scope somewhat. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be able to enlighten the House on that point.
In our report we emphasised that establishing common health standards and fair and effective methods of dealing with disease outbreaks remains the most urgent priority. We also considered that no arbitrary date could be set for allowing completely free movement of animals and animal products throughout the Community. Therefore, the following questions must be asked: first, whether the assumption by the Commission that by 1992 disease eradication programmes will be successful throughout the Community and common health standards established may not be very optimistic; secondly, what action member states would be able to take in the single market in order to protect their animal health status in the event of a serious outbreak elsewhere in the Community.
The Commission's proposal to prohibit vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease and to adopt a slaughter policy in line with that in the United Kingdom is a major step towards eradicating FMD throughout the Community. The Commission is to be congratulated. Intra-Community trade would, however, be allowed for vaccinated animals and birds, notably horses and poultry. Therefore, it may be asked how far the Government are pressing the Commission to undertake proper evaluations of the economics, the efficacy and indeed the safety of vaccination against serious diseases before coming forward with proposals for legislation.
There are other proposals now before the Council of Ministers concerning trade in horses, trade in rodents, trade in meat, meat products and poultry meat, trade in game (which could present
1556
considerable practical difficulties), trade in fish and milk, treatment of animal waste and other matters to which noble Lords may wish to refer. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has strong views about the proposed regulations affecting trade in game and deer but, unfortunately, he is not able to be here today.
The sheer weight of the task before the Council of Ministers in coming to decisions on all of these areas should not be underestimated. The issue which strikes me, therefore, is the glaring need to establish priorities for action in this field. It seems common sense to concentrate first on establishing uniform, Community-wide standards for those products or animals which are most extensively traded between member states.
However, in recent weeks Sub-Committee D has been confronted with numerous proposals. One dealt with a wide range of creatures, including buffaloes, monkeys, bees and parrots. If that proposal were adopted it could cause immense animal health problems. This at a time when common standards are still to be laid down for the trade in live sheep and when little progress has been made on the vital issue of deciding, and agreeing with our trading partners, what kind of uniform standards the Community should enforce at its own frontiers for livestock and genetic material.
Finally, in connection with animal health, all the proposals emanating from Brussels imply much greater demands being placed on vets. I know that the Government recently accepted proposals to expand the available university places for that profession. However, the worry is that in the short term there will be too few trained vets. Although we were given to understand that the supply of vets may be less of a problem in some other member states, it appears to be a serious potential obstacle to the establishment of harmonised conditions throughout the Community.
I turn now to plant health controls. The Commission has established a Plant Health Inspectorate and has put forward further proposals which provide a legislative framework for the implementation of the plant health strategy which we examined in our report. The proposal to establish health zones is in line with the recommendations in the report. The idea that once issued with a plant passport a plant should not be susceptible to further inspection has also been dropped. This is also in line with our recommendation, as are other proposals regarding plant passports.
So far, so good. It should, however, first be asked what progress has been made in establishing the Plant Health Inspectorate; secondly, what the timescale is for setting up harmonised standards and conditions and whether the Commission still thinks that this can be done by 1993. As recently as last week we were told that the Commission has now withdrawn its original proposal that border plant health checks should be phased out by 1992. Such checks will now continue until the measures proposed to implement plant health strategy have been agreed and implemented. This makes sense.

1557
As I have indicated, there is movement on the part of the Commission in regard to the modification of its original proposals for animal and plant health and the relaxation of border controls. What part our 1989 report played in this continuing process I do not know— perhaps some, perhaps none. At any rate, there was a good deal of room for improvement. In my view that is still the case. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say.
1.40 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, first perhaps your Lordships will permit an apology, then a tribute, then an explanation. The apology is that unfortunately I shall have to leave shortly after the welcome stage has been reached of my sitting down, as a result of an urgent professional engagement. The tribute is to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, not only for their chairmanship of the two committees— I include in that tribute obviously the members of the committees— but also for the clarity with which both have addressed the House. The explanation is that I intend to deal only with the control of human beings. My noble friend Lord Gallacher will deal with other animate and inanimate objects which may be subject to control.
It is interesting that we are discussing proposals for the abolition of controls of persons at intra-Community borders. We have been clearly told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, that his committee considered two bases upon which that abolition was recommended. The first was psychological. I merely choose the psychological heading to cover the unity of the EC family as the expression of that psychological objective. Then there was the practical objective— the ease of travel, the comfort for human beings, so often upset. A whole holiday may be ruined by delays at frontiers, whether travelling by air, sea or vehicle.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, mentioned, the same sub-committee of your Lordships' House considered back in 1983 and 1984 the question, not of abolition, but of easing controls. I had the privilege of being a member of that sub-committee and of sitting under the magnificent chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. His presence in the House is greatly missed.
We considered a great deal of evidence. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, mentioned, we studied the special geographical elements of the United Kingdom and why we were possibly an exception to what might otherwise be a general EC rule. Only because of its relevance to this afternoon's discussion do I venture to read, not the whole of our conclusions, I assure your Lordships, but a couple of paragraphs in the conclusions. I read from page xiii of the 4th report of the 1983–84 session. Paragraph 31 on the easing of frontier formalities states:
"In the case of the United Kingdom, these beneficial aspects of the proposals have to be weighed against the consequences of abandoning a system of immigration and security controls uniquely suited to an island nation. If, as the Committee believe,
1558
the consequence of abolishing systematic frontier controls would be a substantial increase in the number of undesirable persons entering the United Kingdom, a development which could only be avoided by the introduction of an unacceptable system of internal registration and police checks, the price to be paid for the benefits would be too high".
That was exactly what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and his committee concluded some six years later. I believe that it still holds true.
The sub-committee back in 1983–84 recommended— and we thought that we were doing something quite revolutionary— that there should be two channels: one for British subjects and one for EC members who travel through our airports and ports. Your Lordships will know that there is now one channel. At all events, it is an easing of travel for members of the EC. That was done only last year.
The consideration that we are giving is not something based upon careful planning and gradual methods over a period of approximately 10 years. We are asked to consider this as happening by the end of 1992. I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, say in the clearest possible terms that on the evidence that he and his committee had and the documents at which they looked, the best advice was that it was not a legal obligation to do so by 1992. I too have read the evidence and the expert view. I am delighted to be able, with respect, to support the view that there is no such obligation by 1992.
Obviously, in an ideal world, we should love to see frontiers disappear, except for the pleasure to be derived from looking at a map if the country happens to have substantial frontiers or possibly with commiseration if one's country has less substantial frontiers. I am reminded of what Mr. Ernest Bevin, as Foreign Secretary, gave as the aim of his foreign policy. It was to be able to take a ticket at Victoria Station and "go anywhere I damn well please". That put in most succinct language the whole philosophy as well as the political idealism. We should all love that. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, employed statistics I had proudly culled from the 1983–1984 report. I do not intend to repeat those statistics. I merely illustrate the point about the dangers that would exist, certainly with abolition and even— as we decided back in 1983–1984— with the easing of frontier controls in the manner suggested. I have 1987 figures; the Minister may have later ones. If he has, I shall naturally listen to them or rather read them in Hansard with interest in view of the apology that I have already made.
In 1987 our Customs seized some 90 per cent. or more by weight of the heroin, cocaine and cannabis that was seized in the whole of the United Kingdom. That occurred at the frontier. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, said, there is, unfortunately, a significant trade in drugs within the Community itself. That obviously has a relevance to frontier control. I believe the noble and learned Lord mentioned the figure of 40 per cent. in this connection. I am proud to say that I have a little more detail in regard to that 40 per cent. figure. I know that half of the weight of cannabis and one-third of cocaine that was seized by our Customs

1559
in 1988 came from or through EC countries. That is a formidable statistic. As the sub-committee so wisely suggested, more police co-operation would be welcome, as would more intelligence co-operation throughout the EC. The sub-committee also suggested that harmonisation of procedures would be welcome, in so far as that is possible.
However, I now come to the question of immigration, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, also touched upon. If there were an abolition of control in that regard as regards EC nationals, it would lead, without any doubt at all, to
the abolition of the control at the frontier and to an increase in the control within our country itself. That would lead to police control, and, I suggest, almost without doubt, to the introduction of identity cards. I fear for the political party that endeavours to pass legislation making it imperative that our citizens carry identity cards and giving the right to stop people and request production of the card.
As regards non-EC citizens, the idea was that some kind of a girdle should be placed around the EC and that people wanting to enter EC territory would have to obtain permission at the frontier of one of the countries concerned. The choice of country might be one of necessity. But the country might have difficult regulations. Entry to another country, on the other hand, might be terrifically easy. I know of no appellate procedure that has been suggested; therefore the extraordinary situation would occur where a non-EC citizen would be debarred from entering any EC country if he failed to pass through the frontier of just one of the EC countries involved. He would not have a chance of applying at a frontier which was beyond the original frontier at which he had applied. Unless we have complete harmonisation and a great lessening of the evils with which we are faced, I am afraid that the question of abolition of frontier controls is, from our point of view, not on the cards.
I shall complete my remarks by referring to something that we on these Benches— although I believe that I speak for the whole House on this matter— regard as rather more important than the comfort of travellers, however important that is, and the psychological advantages of belonging to an EC family. We may possibly regard ourselves at this moment as being fortunate to belong to countries within the EC. However, the people I am thinking of are those who do not have that benefit and who crave asylum within one of the countries of the EC because of the persecution they are suffering in their countries of origin. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to that point. One prays for a council within the EC to make life easier for those seeking asylum. We ask for a proper appellate procedure for those who are refused asylum by officials. I say that in no pejorative sense but merely in terms of a matter of justice. One should be able to appeal against the decision of an official who is possibly denying a person or a whole family the chance of a decent life, even if it is not a question of sheer survival.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to an Act. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I, and other
1560
Members of this House discussed that Act some little time ago. We talked then from these Benches in terms of disappointment, if that is not an understatement, that we in this country were passing legislation which would fine airlines and make them take passengers back if those passengers did not possess the correct papers and were asking for asylum. We said from these Benches that that situation meant that carriers were adjudicating on the matter of whether a person was a genuine refugee.
I personally cannot put it better than a fine High Court judge of this country who was dealing with the decision of the Home Secretary in regard to six applications for asylum and certain directions for the removal of the people concerned. Having considered the regulations and the Act I have just referred to, the High Court judge said:
"He who wishes to obtain asylum in this country, short of a prior contract with the Home Secretary offering him asylum, has the option of lying to the UK authorities in their country in order to obtain a tourist or some other sort of visa; obtaining a credible forgery of a visa; or obtaining an airline ticket to a third country with a stopover in the United Kingdom".
Neither the conscience of this country nor of a united Europe will rest when we treat asylum seekers in this way. I can only hope from these Benches that that Act will be repealed. I can only hope that a Europe of which we are happy to be members, an EC which we are proud to regard as a family, will be a family which exercises human rights for those who want, deservedly, to enter in order that they may receive relief from persecution and the possibility of a decent and safe life.
2 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, as a member of Sub-Committee E, which produced the report on 1992: Border Control of People, I should like first of all to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for his able chairmanship of our committee and in particular for introducing our report so clearly and comprehensively. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for his able introduction of his report, which was published some months ago. In particular I am grateful to him for bringing us up to date with what has been happening in Europe since the publication of the report. It is perfectly natural that we should discuss the two reports together as they both deal with border controls within the EC. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the conclusions of the two reports are very similar.
The noble Lord, Lord Oliver, said that he felt a certain amount of unease about his report being negative. When I heard that we were to investigate the subject of the easing of border controls I entered the first committee meeting thinking that we were to abolish border controls in Europe. However, those of us who would like the United Kingdom to be more positive about European integration are still fully conscious that we have to be very careful not to fall into the trap of blindly supporting any proposals coming from Brussels that seem to assist that end regardless of what other consequences they may

1561
have. It is in that light that I should like to discuss our report.
The noble Lord, Lord Oliver, has already referred to Article 8a of the EC treaty. In that article the internal market is defined as,
"an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured".
That is now on our statute book. Therefore the discussion must focus on the interpretation of free movement of goods and people. Although the Commission takes the view that the "free movement of goods" means that there should be no border controls it has also been interpreted as meaning simply that there should be no substantive legal impediments to such movements. Since both interpretations are held by eminent people in the field the obligation to accept the removal of all border controls is not contained in our statute book as it stands. We must therefore decide whether we agree with the European Commission in believing such a move to be beneficial.
Both noble Lords, as chairmen of committees, have referred to what seemed to be the essential two reasons put forward by the Commission for the removal of border controls. The first is that citizens of Europe will feel more European if they do not have to show a passport when travelling from one country to another. The second is that it is needed for the creation of a single market because goods could travel more easily and much faster around Europe if there were no controls to delay their passage.
The first point seems to me to be rather spurious. I believe that there are many reasons why some people do not feel real citizens of Europe. I believe that the carrying of a passport through a border control is one of the minor ones.
The second argument is much more substantial. It is true that the long queues to pass through borders add to costs by slowing the movement of goods. Although totally removing border controls is one way of solving the problem, there are others. We could, for instance, as a palliative, increase the number of staff at border posts and substantially reduce or in some cases eliminate waiting time. We could harmonise laws in different member countries so that there are fewer items to be checked at a frontier. That would be one way of dealing with the problem that faces us.
There is a distinction between the direct benefits of removing border controls and the desirable measures that removing border controls would force us to take. We can choose to implement and reap all the benefits from the second category without removing border controls. We can choose, for example, to have much greater co-operation between our police forces in combating drugs, organised crime and terrorism. We can choose to establish pan-European organisations to monitor, control and eradicate animal and plant disease. We can choose to act together on foreign policy issues. In fact, we can choose: to co-ordinate and unify our actions on all manner of issues. All of that can be done without dogmatically insisting that we remove all border controls.
1562
After reading the two reports that we are discussing today it is hard not to believe that the real reason the Commission is pushing so hard for the removal of border controls is that it knows that such a move will necessitate massive co-operation in the wide spectrum of issues which I have just mentioned. The rushed implementation of such co-ordination will be necessary simply in order to minimise the chaos that removal of borders would no doubt cause if implemented before such co-operation was properly up and running.
The proposed date of 31st December 1992 is an incredibly unrealistic timescale. I imagine that the Commission has introduced it because it feels that unless there is a timescale the goals of co-operation will not be achieved. It believes that it needs the impetus to get itself on the way to being able to remove the border controls, but we must be careful that we do not rush into implementation before the problems have been adequately considered.
All noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, have referred to the problems of immigrants from third countries, visitors and the movement of EC citizens around the Community. The Commission essentially believes that the simultaneous strengthening of borders with third countries will compensate for the effects of removing internal borders.
First, with regard to non-EC citizens— that is where the greatest problem appears— if there are no border controls within Europe at which visas would normally be checked, we shall have to have European visas rather than visas for specific countries. As has been said, the refugee organisations are more than worried that as a result the only people who will be allowed to come into Europe will be those who are acceptable to all member countries, so Europe might become a fortress which would exclude many people who would otherwise come to some parts of Europe.
Secondly, the different geographical conditions of countries have led to the development of different methods of controlling and detecting criminals, illegal immigrants and illegal substances. Those countries with long land borders such as Germany find that they cannot effectively control the borders as we do in this country. That is undoubtedly the reason why countries with long land borders have had to adopt an identity card system. I do not have to tell noble Lords that such a solution would not be very acceptable in this country. The British aversion to identity cards is well known. We need only look at what happened with the football spectators' identity card. However, if we abolish border controls, it might force us to introduce identity cards because that would be the only way in which control of undesirable individuals could be checked within the country.
The second report, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, deals with health controls within the internal market— the implications of the movement of plants and animals. Again, the solution to those problems and the rules and regulations that countries within Europe have adopted have grown up largely because of their geographical situation in Europe. For instance, it is no coincidence that Ireland, Denmark and the UK have the highest

1563
health status within the Community. They have the shortest land borders.
Some countries tackle disease through eradication, the higher cost of that being justified because it can be maintained. That is true of this country, Ireland and Denmark. Other countries with long land borders have to accept the recurrent costs of vaccination and crop spraying because it would not be practical to keep out the disease once eradicated. Different countries have developed different policies which are the most cost-effective and least costly given their own conditions. Taking away border controls will therefore significantly increase both health risks and costs. That could well jeopardise our trade with third countries, which would need guarantees that standards would not fall. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, that certain steps are being taken to move Europe towards a much more efficient system of eradication.
Those are just some examples of the problems involved. The Commission has said that present frontier controls are ineffective— no doubt some are— but it has also said that it is looking for the most effective and, in these days of shortages of manpower resources, above all more cost-effective controls. The abolition of internal frontiers will allow us to use our manpower and resources on the external frontiers of the European Community. So far as this country is concerned, I believe that the abolition of internal frontiers could increase to an unacceptable extent the cost of protecting our country.
The fact that different European countries have different policies with regard to border control must not prevent us from jointly pursuing the other and much more important objectives which I have already mentioned and which make up the bulk of these reports; namely, the greater co-operation of police forces and the co-ordination of external controls and foreign policy.
We must ask ourselves whether the benefits of removing border controls, feeling more European and having speedier transportation of goods are greater than the costs. The reports show that there are valid reasons why we should not support the indiscriminate removal of border controls. That does not imply that we are any less positive about the European ideal. Perfectly consistently we can still believe that we should move toward greater co-operation and co-ordination.
I hope that one day our policy of co-operation will have progressed so far as to have reduced the costs to the point where they will be outweighed by the benefits of a border-free Europe, at which time I should heartily welcome such a move. I believe that the present proposal to remove border controls by 1992 runs the risk of doing more harm than good to the ideal of a unified Europe.
2.16 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, as another member of Sub-Committee E which produced this report, I wish to make a few very short general observations on the background against which it should be read. Like most matters which are considered by the
1564
sub-committees of the Select Committee, we looked at proposals which were under consideration by other bodies within the Community as well as the United Kingdom and which are likely to be altered before being finalised. In its report, the sub-committee looked at the underlying principle being put forward and then considered the various specific areas which might cause disadvantage and difficulties in its implementation.
Looking at the underlying principle from the point of view of the Economic Community as a free trade area, the abolition of border controls within the Community has much to commend it. It is therefore within the ideals of the free trade area. There will be major savings in the cost of transportation of goods, and the savings in costs will benefit the consumer by enabling manufacturers and producers throughout the Community to compete on a better and more equal basis.
Apart from the economic factor, there is another that may not be generally appreciated throughout the United Kingdom. All institutions must develop and change. The European Community is no exception to that rule. There is pressure now present in the Community to develop in a political as well as an economic area. Any proposal which not only has economic benefits but also is a step toward a wider political Community will have great impetus. For instance, there are two proposals now current to which this consideration especially applies: the abolition of border controls throughout the Community, and the granting of rights to vote in local elections on the basis of residence throughout the Community.
Other matters which tread on a political as well as perhaps an economic area are the establishment of a central bank under Community control through the Commission, and the talks which are taking place on the harmonisation of taxes and the reconstitution of the European Parliament. If we stay in Europe we cannot avoid being subject to the pressures to concur in the development of the Community along those lines. But in relation to border controls at which we are looking today, our geographical position is such that we are reluctant to make changes. This reluctance to make changes results in the report dealing extensively with the difficulties and other disadvantages that too hasty a move towards the abolition of frontier controls might produce.
I mention the three that stand out: the importation and exportation of firearms; the importation and exportation of drugs; and the admission of undesirable persons, terrorists and the like. Since the report was printed, I understand that proposals for the control of firearms throughout the Community on a Community basis have been made by the Commission involving the issue of Community firearms licences throughout the area. Such proposals are obviously the right way to tackle the problem and if proposals are (a) satisfactory, and (b) effectively controlled. I would submit that this disadvantage is thereby overcome. However, we are proceeding on the basis that this disadvantage is tackled on a Community level and effectively controlled before we abolish the border controls. Such an approach is the one that I believe the

1565
Community should be urged to follow under the other two areas that I mentioned: drugs and immigration.
Drugs are a difficult problem because the rules about illegality of drugs differ throughout the Community as does the enforcement. Whereas in the United Kingdom Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have very wide powers of search and arrest— not only at border points but also within the four countries— which we would wish to retain, in the European context we should like to see a unified form of control of drugs and an effective method of control by the countries involved.
Immigration is an even more difficult subject than drugs. These requirements are suggested by the Community to control immigration. However, policies throughout the European countries now differ widely. On this area, before we can proceed to the abolition of border control, we want a unified understood policy throughout the Community on immigration and the imposition at Community entrance points of some outer ring form of control before we dismantle ours. That is another matter which the countries themselves have to tackle. It is not a matter that the Commission can tackle because they have no executives, no administration, and they rely on the countries themselves to enforce the Community policy.
Therefore on these two subjects— drugs and immigration— from the point of view of abolition of border controls, the member countries should appoint ad hoc committees to consider such points. They should put forward to the Commission and to the countries a unified policy which would enable us to move towards the principle that we could then implement of abolition of border controls. I hope that eventually we can move towards the benefit of the abolition of border controls. However, the message should go back to the Commission that before we can do so steps must be taken by the countries in these difficult fields.
2.25 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and his committee for the report and for the exemplary way in which he presented it to us today. It would be arrogant of me to offer any criticisms or comments. However, I certainly do not accuse him, as have some people, of psychological insularity. Perhaps he could be accused, as undeniably could I, of physical insularity, but that is a different and realistic attitude.
He has outlined the difficulties which lie ahead as we approach 1992 and as we move beyond that to an even better and more closely integrated Europe. I shall not delay your Lordships by commenting further on the matter about which I am completely unqualified.
I shall now turn to the report and speech of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. Again— and to my disappointment because it is dull to have no criticisms— I am in complete agreement with his committee's report and the manner in which it is expressed. It covers a wide range of aspects, but I
1566
shall deal primarily with those involving animal health. However, first I remind noble Lords that this country is a substantial exporter and importer of different plants and the maintenance of their health is of great importance. It is vital that we should continue to import from countries such as Denmark, Germany and France the valuable new varieties and seeds which they produce and export to those and other countries, plants for which we are becoming increasingly and rightly famous. Therefore, the comments on the phytosanitary aspects of the proposals of the Commission are pertinent and wise.
On animal health certain aspects of the report are worth underlining even at the risk of repeating what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. However, I first wish to remind noble Lords that we are not alone in taking such an attitude. We have the benefit— which historically was enormous and remains a benefit in certain aspects, although in others it may well be a handicap— of being an island with no land frontiers. That is so with the exception of Northern Ireland. If we include ourselves with Ireland itself, we have complete protection by the sea from invasion— if one can use that word— by diseases carried by animals. We very nearly share that unique privilege with Denmark. That is not quite an island but very nearly so. It is worth remembering that Denmark's only boundary with continental Europe is something like 60 kilometres along the borders of Schleswig-Holstein. In order to preserve its integrity, it has erected a 2 metres high wire-mesh fence running along the whole of that area in order to make sure that it can maintain its high standards of animal health which is so vital to its agriculture in which it has for decades— and one can almost say generations— been a world leader.
Denmark is as dependent in its way as we are on the export of animals both live and dead to third world countries. Any risk to the health of their livestock and particularly pigs would have a very profound effect on its economy, and particularly exports to Japan which are rising all the time. Therefore, we should not look on that matter as one which affects only the United Kingdom. It affects all those countries which are susceptible to the protection which the sea has afforded to them.
There is a further aspect here which is becoming increasingly important for us to bear in mind. The Commission hopes, as we do, that it will be possible to establish throughout the whole of the Community equivalent high standards of animal health so that there will be no need for any impediment to the free movement of animals and also plants. That is the ambition.
The Commission proposes, as do the member states through their governments, various methods in order to raise standards of health. However, we cannot escape the purely geographical fact that many countries— and in particular Germany— have very long frontiers with Eastern Europe. Whatever success Germany may have in the next few years in improving its standards of animal health— and it has enormous expertise and very well developed agriculture in all aspects so that it has a good chance of succeeding in that— it will never be able to patrol, by a form of Berlin wall, against animal disease and

1567
prevent the influx of wild animals, which in many cases are carriers of disease, and to a certain extent smuggled animals. That will undo much of the good work which otherwise has been done.
For that reason, while we applaud and support the efforts of different countries to improve their own health standards, we must not forget that they do not have the advantages which we have and have always had and which have enabled us to become, as we once proudly boasted, the studfarm of the world, exporting pedigree livestock throughout the world.
That enviable position has for various other reasons been eroded but we must not allow what remains of it to be jeopardised by relaxing in any way the present disease controls.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one or two items from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and his committee. In paragraph 96 the report speaks of a transitional period, which is a very important aspect of this subject. I draw your Lordships' attention to the following comments,
"The Committee are utterly opposed to the poposal that in the 'transitional' period up to 1992 health checks on imported goods should be carried out at the place of destination of the goods and not at the frontier. A system of checking imports at destination would provide neither the same degree of protection nor the cost-effectiveness of frontier checks."
Moving to the next paragraph on quarantine, which is even more important, the report states:
"Quarantine is an essential defence for countries free from certain specially virulent diseases like foot-and-mouth and rabies. The Committee do not support the Commission's proposal that in the short term quarantine should take place at the holding destination. This increases the risk of spreading disease in transit through the importing country and would be prohibitively expensive. Quarantine facilities, if they are to be effective, must conform to the highest standards. It is quite unrealistic to suppose that such standards could be maintained at hundreds of separate potential destinations inland."
Those are strong words, but the situation warrants strong words and it is important that we should always bear those words in mind.
I now turn to the question of vaccination, particularly vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease. Paragraph 100 states:
"Vaccination may mean that livestock are free of clinical disease but may also mean that they are a source of disease agents which are difficult to detect".
That is vitally important. The paragraph continues:
"The United States and certain other countries therefore regard vaccination virtually as the same as infection. If no controls were to be applied to the trade in vaccinated stock, countries which do not vaccinate run the dual risk of infection of their fully susceptible animal population and of losing export markets in third countries".
The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said that the latest proposals from Brussels indicate that they are proposing to discontinue vaccination. That is an admirable suggestion and I hope that we shall give them all the support that we can. However, we must be realistic and remember that it will take a long time before that can be achieved. Timescale is of vital importance in that matter. Again, the report quite rightly underlines that point in paragraph 118 where it states,
1568
"It will be apparent that the Committee do not believe that all import controls can be abolished by 1992. This timescale is unrealistic. In the veterinary and plant health fields 1992 is more valuable as a slogan driving on the programme of harmonisation than as an achievable objective and the Committee think it now important to recognise this fact".
To sum up what the report has made abundantly clear, the proposals which are the subject of the report are to my mind ill-thought out, inefficient and will be ineffective. I am glad that the Committee came down so strongly against them in such a constructive way.
2.39 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for introducing this debate and also to my noble friend Lord Middleton for his contribution in a slightly different field.
I shall confine myself to one aspect of the report: that concerning weapons, and firearms in particular, together with shotguns. I declare my interest in that I am the current chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council, which acts as a watchdog body over all aspects of legislation concerning shotguns and firearms.
The intention of this directive is to control the importation from one country to another of firearms by criminals or terrorists. Such people, however, are the least likely to be affected by the laws of any country. They tend by their very nature to ignore laws. These directives, as with our own domestic legislation, will serve only to bear more harshly on the legitimate user, be he or she a sportsman or a target shooter.
The text of the directive is described in its own introduction as "complex and detailed". That is an understatement. It has suffered in translation from the original language: I am not sure whether that was French or German. Our own domestic legislation is more or less precisely drafted but, even so, it is still open to interpretation by the courts. The imagination boggles at what a United Kingdom court might make of having to interpret some of the provisions in this directive, which does not use one word where two will do.
Our own country now has the most restrictive legislation of any within the Community, and I believe that other countries are amazed at some of the restrictions to which our citizens are subject. The interchange of visits from one country to another, whether for sporting purposes or for target shooting, is all two-way traffic and it is one which is greatly cherished by the participants. The visits by overseas sportsmen to this country for game shooting are an important source of overseas revenue, and there are facilities here for shooting game of one sort or another which do not exist on the Continent and vice versa. Also for competitive shooting we regularly interchange visits. Teams from the United Kingdom go to countries overseas and we receive return visits. I hope that that situation may continue for a long time to come.
The directive makes no distinction, as our parliamentary legislation does, between different types of weapons: for example, shotguns, rifles,

1569
pistols, air weapons and so on. It merely divides them into three broad categories: prohibited weapons, weapons requiring authorisation and weapons requiring only declaration. Therefore there is a wide discrepancy between our legislation and that proposed for the European Community.
Article 5 of the directive proposes a minimum age limit of 18. This is completely out of step with our existing laws and I hope that the Government will no: accept that provision at least.
The directive also provides for a European firearms certificate or firearms passport— call it what you will. That will ease the movement of weapons for lawful purposes from one country to another, but nothing is said about the period of validity involved. I should like to think that it would be five or six years. I have said on more than one occasion that the period of validity of our own firearms and shotgun certificates should be more than three years. I say the same about the European firearms certificate. What is not made clear from anything I read is whether a certificate will cover more than one weapon. Will it be necessary to have a certificate for each weapon or can more than one weapon be included on the same certificate?
There is also a conflict between the directive and United Kingdom law concerning visitors' permits. I hope that that matter will receive some attention from Her Majesty's Government. It is too much to hope that this directive will result in any relaxation of our domestic laws, and I hope that the Government will think very carefully before they agree to accept some of these provisions.
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for presenting his report so lucidly and also to my noble friend Lord Middleton for producing the report of Sub-Committee D. As regards the first report, the noble and learned Lord expressed a fear that some of his committee members felt that it was a little on the negative side. Having heard the speeches that followed, I was very pleased that it was and that it did not go along with some of the European suggestions.
As far as the admirable report prepared by my noble friend, it must have become evident to everyone that, first, the report is a little stale and, secondly, it now represents something of a moving target. There seem to be more directives coming through at the moment and more precise standards are being produced. I suppose that these factors are moves towards ultimate harmonisation.
As the last speaker before the gap, the only course open to me is to speak fairly broadly and to try not to repeat too much of what was said before. Having said that, I must begin by reinforcing something which has been said more than once. I refer to the unique position of the British Isles as far as plant and animal diseases are concerned. Apart from the internal border with Southern Ireland, the sea has provided us with a tremendous physical barrier which has made it very easy to check undesirable things coming in. Certain ports are allocated for
1570
quarantine and others are just for checking. There are not too many points of entry, which is a factor to be borne in mind.
There is a subsidiary point in that respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, to check items when they arrive at their destination would be almost impossible. It came out very clearly in our inquiry that it would be literally impossible. It would demand the presence of so many environmental health officers, people from MAFF, veterinarians and so forth that we might just as well forget about it.
The other matter which I must touch on is that of change and harmonisation. When animals or plants start off on their journey towards their ultimate destination— presumably they have been purchased— they are meant eventually, because of harmonisation, to be acceptable. It appears to me— no one has yet mentioned it— that this is an open door to fraud. On the whole, it is the farmers who send produce from one place to another and from one country to another. They send animals from one place to another. Your Lordships well know that farmers are never dishonest, but they are quite capable of taking advantage of a market situation. I believe that there is a subsidiary problem brewing up.
The real and central problem, however, is timing and it is on that aspect that I intend to base my short speech. It would appear that the powers in Brussels have in fact read the report of Sub-Committee D, or so I like to think, because they have in certain respects bent towards our suggestions. Your Lordships will well remember that the final conclusion was that the Commission should think again. So perhaps it has.
Certainly in regard to foot-and-mouth disease the Commission has decided— it must have been a very harsh decision for it to make— that it will adopt a slaughter policy rather than a vaccination policy, which was a major block towards proper harmonisation. I believe that on the Continent it is a major blow to the pharmaceutical industry, which produces a considerable number of gallons of vaccine because vaccination has to be carried out every three months or so.
The Commission has bent a little on timing. If my memory is correct, 1992 has been stretched to 1993 to accomplish an amazing number of objectives. It is impossible to contemplate, as we said in our conclusion, that there can be any inspectorate in place that makes sense or any proper standard accomplished which might be agreed upon on paper. I think we said that progress in the foreseeable future is unlikely. I suggest that it is so unlikely, disease being no respecter of boundaries or harmonisation, that a completely different approach should be adopted.
I listened carefully to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that although boundaries between countries are to be abolished there is still some scope on interpretation. That should be used as much as possible.
I suggest that harmonisation of standards should go forward but that the border controls for each

1571
country should remain as they are. There is nothing new about that. If any noble Lords have passed from Victoria to South Australia, as I have, and had their fruit confiscated they will know that there are boundaries between the states, as there are throughout the world. It is nothing to do with a united Europe or anything of that nature. Therefore, interpretation will be important.
I would put in place a cross-country inspectorate; in other words, a small inspectorate of observers who would literally check to see that cheating does not take place. It could even be a roaming inspectorate. I believe that that proposal is worthy of consideration. Therefore, my whole theme is that all this mass of detail which has been coming forward— draft directives, new directives and so on— would be better swept aside and the whole issue turned on its head in the way I have described.
If noble Lords will bear with me for a moment longer, I have a particular matter that I should like to bring to the attention of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. During the discussions which took place in the committee I raised the question of live fish travelling across boundaries. It was quite clearly stated that that matter would not be dealt with in these directives from Brussels. However, since the report has been published a directive on live fish has recently appeared. I have read it, as no doubt has my noble friend. It seems to me to be a very sensible document. I think that I understand it entirely. I hope that conformity with this directive will in no way upset the present legislation on fish diseases which I had the privilege to take through your Lordships' House. The Act has served us very well indeed. I am quite sure that it should be left in place, come what may.
We can talk about foot-and-mouth disease, rabies, Colorado beetles and so on, but for the fish industry there are two diseases which have never occurred in this country and which we must not allow to be imported in any way, both for the sake of the industry and possibly for the sake of the wild fish in our rivers.
I noticed one part of the directive which stated that there would be zones. Of course I should like the zones to be the boundaries of countries, but these zones would be considered to be free of two diseases, one in list 1 and the other in list 2; namely, IHN and VHS. These zones would be considered to be contaminated until they had been examined four times by the veterinary inspectorate. After that time they would be cleared and presumably there would be cross-border fish sales. However, under the Act we do not import any salmonids, if I remember correctly. Moreover, I think that under regulations produced since that time we do not bring in ungutted salmonids. Those two points are most important and perhaps when my noble friend replies he will be able to deal with them.
I have spoken for long enough and perhaps a little controversially. However, I hope that what I have said has put an idea in people's heads that we may on this occasion as regards diseases interpret the harmonisation of Europe a little differently than
1572
perhaps we do in respect of the composition of chocolate or something of that nature.
3 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for their very comprehensive introductions to these two reports. I hope that noble Lords will understand that because it is late in the afternoon, and also because I am not an expert in many of the matters covered by the reports, I shall concentrate on only two points.
The first concerns the report of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I refer to the problem of the control of game and the veterinary control of game. I think that the noble Lord commented very constructively on the problems which are seen in this country in that respect. It is perhaps because our sporting fields are different from those in Europe that the techniques and controls must be different.
The second point concerns very much the same topic. In this respect, I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, although I shall differ from him on certain points and also the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I refer to the control of the movement of firearms or weapons which is also commented upon in the report.
The committee was at a definite disadvantage. One day after it had reported, what I personally— unlike the noble Lord, Lord Swansea— feel is an excellent document was published, updating the frontier control and the proposals for frontier control of firearms. I suspect from what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said and the general tenor of paragraph 85 of the original report, the committee would support the document but feel as the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said, that it needed amendment.
The committee found in its evidence that there were three categories of users of weapons or firearms. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, in feeling that terrorists, by their nature, do not obey the law. Therefore they will probably not be concerned by any frontier controls other than the broad control by spot checks or something similar.
With criminals we are in a different position in England. We have no land frontiers. I suspect that most criminals will not normally carry arms across a frontier, whether a port or airport is involved. They will draw on a local pool to the extent needed. I know that the committee has doubts as to whether there is an illegal pool of arms. If one gets to talk to people at the Home Office or chief constables in a quieter moment and ask them to consider the situation, they will admit there almost certainly is. I suspect it is also occasionally topped up by illegally imported weapons. However, I should not have thought that there was necessarily a major traffic in weapons.
I should be interested to know how Customs and others estimated the destination of the 681 weapons which they quote as being found in one year. It may be that some were a bulk shipment, or from people who fall into my last class— sportsmen. The latter

1573
might have come in not realising the strict UK regulations on the movement of firearms, being used to the much more relaxed methods and techniques in Europe. They arrived and then fell foul of our legislation.
Sporting users cover stalkers, game sportsmen, target shooters, clay pigeon sportsmen and those using other targets. To those I add people who collect weapons. Again they may need them for lectures and similar purposes. It is a perfectly sensible reason for holding weapons. If the gun is properly certificated, I can see no great reason why it should not be moved across a frontier by a law abiding citizen.
Controls are required for the criminal and the terrorist. I hope that we can put into place a simplified, recognised set of controls that law abiding people will find easy to use, even if it means presenting the weapon with a certificate at a frontier post or something similar.
Where perhaps I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is that I believe that we should work for a sound basis under the latest EC proposals. I hope that the Government will pursue the matter constructively and the result will be an acceptable European passport or certificate, call it what you will. That certificate will enable people lawfully entitled to hold weapons to bring them in. They know that certain classes of weapons may not be acceptable in certain countries. I quite accept that this may be true in the UK where the law is much stricter. I hope that there will be a degree of flexibility in that some or indeed many European countries have classes of weapons which might be allowed in here on a temporary importation basis, properly controlled. I have a feeling that the way things are going we could have a computer readable card so that people can clearly check that the person carrying the weapons is genuine and is entitled to carry them. If we ease the routine measures, more spot checks can be made to deter the illegal and criminal terrorist elements from moving weapons.
I was interested in the definition of weapons in the annex to this proposal. Again I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Swansea. I agree that they are both prohibited and permitted, but I found the classification in Annex 1 constructive and useful. There is the question of what constitutes a weapon. I was glad to see the crossbow included in that list. I know that during the passage of the firearms legislation we had a debate on crossbows. Unfortunately, although the Government were pressed, they were unable to agree to the measures proposed on crossbows.
I also noticed that bows are included in the weapons list. Perhaps this will allow our civil servants or other negotiators a time of refighting the battle of Hastings in trying to allow the traditional English longbow to be moved around freely, whereas that is not the case for the crossbow. I think that the longbow is a less lethal weapon than the crossbow, but that is another matter.
There are some useful classifications of weapons which, if adopted, might prevent football hooligans from moving some of their equipment around. I hope that the Government will work constructively
1574
on this proposed new directive. On page 6 it is stated that travel with weapons will be made easier. It is stated that a person may hold,
"a European firearms certificate, which represents proof acceptable to all national administrations that the traveller is lawfully in possession of the firearm in question in his country of origin. Decisions concerning the movement of the weapon will also be recorded on the certificate".
That is a positive hope. It will also mean that sportsmen will be able to travel with their weapons,
"on condition that they possess a European firearms certificate and that they can establish the purpose of their journey".
I hope that the Government can negotiate a satisfactory position from those constructive points.
3.7 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, will recognise that my remit covers animate and inanimate objects. Therefore, I shall turn at once to the report on health controls and the internal market which was so excellently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton.
In my opinion the consideration of that report has taken too long to come before your Lordships' House. In that respect I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, not merely for the manner in which he introduced the report but also for the update which he was able to give us. I, however, must deal with the report as it stands. In doing so I consider that the key phrase it contains is given at paragraph 141, which states that 1992 is a useful slogan but not an achievable objective in these areas. To that could be added in the case of plant health that the cost of achievement outweighs benefits for member states from the dismantling of barriers.
As regards trade in plants, a distinction needs to be made between those used for food production and those used for domestic use. Both are important but plants used for food production are vital. As an example of that I refer to the recent Rhizomania case with sugar-beet, which fortunately has been contained so far.
The case for retention of border controls is dealt with at paragraph 122. It is stated that border controls should not be accepted until four conditions are met. That is well stated, but I wonder whether those controls can ever be fully met. The discontinuance of checks at the point of import would be risky, even when the Commission's system is in place. The United Kingdom has a good record of control at ports and benefits from the absence of land frontiers with other member states.
Even so, there are problems; for example, the recent case of lead in feedstuff's which came in via two ports, Teignmouth and Liverpool. Flagrant dishonesty was at the heart of this matter on the part of a foreign exporter, yet the fact is that the contaminated feedstuffs got in and were distributed. It required commendable speed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, backed by the Department of Health and the Milk Marketing Board, to contain an outbreak, which was described in a written reply in your Lordships' House and whose dimensions are considerably worrying to those who are responsible for the safety of food in this country.

1575
I also ask whether the Community Inspectorate for Plant Health, details of which were described in paragraph 130 of the report as vague, can cope with the workload. I also wonder whether the passport system, which will be different for each product depending on the health status of the zone of production and the requirements of the destination zone, is really a starter in the race to 1992.
Tests of a common standard during growing, at harvest and post-harvest are not sufficient in all cases, according to paragraph 132. They are to be reinforced at any period before export even if a passport is issued. Again I ask myself whether that can really happen in 12 member states.
At paragraphs 109 and 110 the committee supports the development of health status zones for plants and animals, defined initially in terms of existing frontiers and zones where means of enforcement already exist, so removing unnecessary barriers between zones of similar status. That is good so far as its goes and will pave the way for their removal when it is safe to do so.
Turning to the safeguarding of meat supplies, as a result of a freer regime for trade between member states we confront the old policy of control by vaccination versus slaughter. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has advised the House today that the Commission has now chosen slaughter as an acceptable method. I believe that we all applaud that decision. The United Kingdom has prided itself on its livestock control. However, bovine spongiform encephalopathy reveals the risk even in the domestic market. The widespread nature of the disease in England and Wales calls in question the safety zone concept on the basis of 12 member states. Again the problem is feedstuffs derived, and protein from sheep, in which the disease is endemic in the form of scrapie, is thought to be the cause of the BSE outbreak in the United Kingdom.
Far from lifting barriers of health control, in my opinion it may be necessary to strengthen existing controls. Here I draw the attention of the House to the press release by the Ministry dated 28th March in which it is stated that the Government propose to take new powers to protect livestock from rare diseases which may be difficult to identify at an early stage of investigation. Therefore there is now the Movement of Animals (Restriction) Order 1990 which enables movement restrictions to be applied to livestock where a potentially serious situation appears to exist and where the disease in question is not already subject to control. The Ministry, I believe commendably, is making sure that we are prepared for any new disease which may require urgent and complete action internally. One must consider that care and caution in the context of the Commission's proposals to dismantle barriers.
Apart from ensuring humane conditions for travel to and health at the point of slaughter, the export of live animals is a fragmented operation in the United Kingdom, as indeed is the marketing process. Speeding controls at ports places great reliance on the accuracy of certification. Can such documents be fully trusted in every case in 12 member states?
1576
Standards, including veterinary standards, at present vary widely and will certainly not be uniformly satisfactory by 1992. Even a Commission veterinary inspection service, though essential, will be fully stretched to do more than exercise limited control and influence progress towards a uniform standard. Criticisms of inspection systems under the common fisheries policy indicate the realities of life and the limitation of Community initiatives in the area of inspection. It may be that in that area, so far as concerns the export of livestock, there will ultimately need to be a system of licensing either by member states or even the Commission itself if present health controls on meat are to be removed. It will also be necessary to ensure that during the process of transport and slaughter not merely are humane conditions observed but full safety standards are applied.
In my view Her Majesty's Government is wise to continue with the training of vets. That point has already been touched upon. The Commission proposals will certainly add to costs. That may be a reason for the absence from the original proposals of what is described as a fiche financiè re.
In particular, the quarantine proposals are both onerous and, if implemented as they stand, likely to be costly. The report wisely emphasises that aspect. If funds are to be established to compensate for animals slaughtered on the outbreak of contagious diseases— that seems likely now as the option to slaughter has partly been taken up— or even to recompense for an outbreak of a disease from plant importation, they should be based on sound insurance principles, even though not conducted for profit. In our view, the premium should relate to the degree of risk in each member state and practical experience of claims. Mutuality should be the keynote in all that.
The effect of the proposals on third world trade is wisely stressed in the report. If different regimes for control are used, exporters from third world countries will resent that and might reciprocate. Thus, two different systems of control will reduce any benefits which we may hope to obtain from the Commission's proposals. All that argues, as the report's conclusion does, for a controlled approach to implementation without the overriding pressure of a year for completion.
The report was commended by the Ministry of Agriculture as far back as 4th October 1989. We commend it equally today. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, asked for an update from the Minister who is to reply to the debate and we join him in asking that that be done. In the meantime we renew our congratulations to the sub-committee on its excellent report.
3.16 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate and a very particular debate in a number of respects. We have dealt not only with our own country, but with other European countries, Community practice and future policy on individual problems as well as specific subjects ranging from bovine spongiform encephalopathy down to firearms

1577
and identity cards. I can only pay tribute to the authors of the two reports— the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and my noble friend Lord Middleton— not only for their reports, but for having stimulated such a wide-ranging debate.
It is difficult to do justice to two important reports which cover such wide and intricate subjects. At first sight it is difficult to see what connection there could possibly be between such matters as measures against terrorism and the health of plants. The connection between the two, of course, is that both reports deal with the implications for the United Kingdom of developments in the European Community as we proceed to the establishment of the internal market after 1992. The matter at issue is what should be the nature of the controls at the common frontiers between member states.
It is axiomatic to say it, but it is nevertheless not a bad thing to remind ourselves that Britain is an island nation. We have come to cherish the advantages which we derive from our geographical position, not least of which is the value of the natural barriers which constitute our frontiers; in other words, the sea. Our natural advantages have helped us in two ways. Our national defences, such as immigration, customs and police controls, against threats from the outside world have been concentrated at ports of entry where they are most effective. Consequently, it has not been necessary for us to impose the kinds of internal measures and controls which many of our Community partners have found necessary because of the fact that the controls at their land frontiers are inevitably less effective.
Border controls are not considered to be vital in some other member states of the Community and some would be prepared to see them abolished. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to take whichever view best accords with their own circumstances. We would not seek to criticise the European Commission for advancing its vision of a Europe in which crossing national frontiers was as straightforward a process as is crossing in our country from Surrey to Berkshire.
However, border controls are important for this country. They provide a vital and effective first line of defence against drug traffickers, terrorists and criminals; illegal immigration; threats to human and animal health; and the spread of harmful plant pests and diseases.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that if one removes controls at borders it will inevitably increase controls within the country. He sent shivers down our spines by talking about police control, identity cards and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, also expressed some concern about that. It was helpful to be reminded of those matters.
Perhaps I may first deal with the report on health controls and the internal market which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Middleton. The report deals with two aspects of health control; namely, animal health and plant health. I shall deal first with animal health. The Commission's aim to ensure that the completion of the single market is achieved without animal diseases being spread into parts of the Community where they are not at present
1578
established is very important. The Government support that aim. Until serious disease threats have been eliminated, effective measures have to be maintained in order to contain them. It is as well to remember that however frustrating controls may be, it is disease that creates the barriers and not the controls because the control measures are there after all only because of the disease.
A directive on veterinary checks on trade in meat and other specified animal products was agreed upon just before Christmas. The outcome reflected the United Kingdom's view that existing methods of control at the frontiers should not be dismantled if, by doing so, we were to increase the risk of the spread of disease. The directive has to be reviewed before the end of 1992 but, until then, we retain considerable discretion over maintaining our own border checks.
A lot of work remains to be done in the area of animal health. Discussions have started on veterinary checks on the movement of live animals. We are waiting for proposals from the Commission on the rules affecting imports from third countries. Progress towards the removal of frontier controls between member states will be impeded if one member state may import from a third country goods which another will not accept.
Above all, we await proposals on the disease control measures which are to apply after 1992. A Commission strategy document confirms that attaining a uniformly high health status throughout the Community is an objective. It envisages several categories of disease control, which will reflect the differing seriousness of individual diseases and the prospects of eradicating or controlling them.
My noble friend Lord Radnor was concerned that standards should not be dropped. The Government fully appreciate the risks posed by exotic diseases— fish diseases such as the ones he mentioned of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia and infectious haemotopoietic necrosis, which my noble friend described as IHN, an acronym which is a much easier form. We shall be seeking to negotiate arrangements which afford adequate protection to maintain our high fish health status with sound enforcement and the provision for safeguard action.
My noble friend Lord Middleton was concerned about the proposals on game meat. There has been no discussion yet in the Council of the Commission's proposal. However, the Government have secured some improvements in the Commission's proposals which take better account of the way in which game meat is produced and marketed; for example, allowing the importation of small game to be inspected on a sample basis rather than probably on a 100 per cent. basis. The Ministry of Agriculture is consulting interested organisations on the proposals as they now stand.
My noble friend also referred to rabies, which I know is a matter of concern to a great many people. The Government support the action that has been taken at Community level for the eradication of rabies. They would resist any suggestion that the Community should commit itself to any particular date for the elimination of quarantine. The

1579
Government's position is that the elimination of quarantine can only be considered when quarantine is no longer necessary in order to exclude the disease. We believe that eradication will take longer to achieve than three years. It is therefore likely that the quarantine will remain necessary beyond 1992.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Brain, also referred to the availability of veterinary surgeons. The Government asked the Page Committee to review veterinary manpower and education and broadly accepted its findings. Veterinarians from elsewhere in the Community are already free to establish themselves in the United Kingdom, and the Government are encouraging this. However, this is not the whole answer. For example, government veterinary surgeons need to be British nationals. The Government have therefore agreed to raise restrictions on the intake of the veterinary colleges— accepted in principle by the Universities Funding Council— with a view to realising an annual intake of some 400 students a year compared with the current figure of 335.
My noble friend asked how far the Government were pressing the Commission to assess the effectiveness of vaccination. In many cases vaccination can be a sensible way of dealing with animal diseases. For example, we are currently pursuing a voluntary vaccination policy for Newcastle disease in poultry but each case needs to be looked at on its merits. We always look very carefully at Commission proposals from the point of view of new cost effectiveness.
Plant health controls give rise to not dissimilar considerations. Border controls against the spread of plant health pests and diseases cannot be removed until satisfactory alternative defences are in place.
The European Commission strategy introduces a new concept for preventing the spread of harmful plant pests and diseases. The strategy hinges around a new control document, the plant passport, and it contains many new ideas. However, at present we can see only the framework of the new system. Fundamental points, as well as matters of detail, still remain in doubt. These will need to be developed during the future negotiations that we shall have. During these negotiations we shall take full account of the helpful views that the committee expressed in its report.
It is encouraging to note that since the committee's report was published, there have already been developments in some of the areas to which it drew attention. Last June the Council adopted a proposal to establish a Community plant health inspectorate which should play a valuable role in ensuring that plant health standards are applied equally across the Community.
My noble friend Lord Middleton asked what progress was being made on the inspectorate. The Commission has not yet announced any appointments; we expect to hear who the new chief inspector will be shortly. We shall be pressing for early action to be taken to set up the inspectorate.
My noble friend also wondered about the timescale for harmonised plant health standards. The
1580
Commission's declared aim remains to have the new arrangements in place by January 1993, but much has still to be settled. It remains to be seen whether that date will be achieved.
At the agricultural Council on 26th March, Ministers agreed that border checks should remain in place until new systems for checking material have been brought into effect. The Council also agreed that member states should retain the right to safeguard action against the threat of infected material arriving from elsewhere in the Community until the Commission has been able to investigate the extent of the threat and to propose measures to react to it. The views of the committee have been reflected in both those decisions.
The Commission has recognised the need to establish isolated or protected zones in order to allow them to remain free of diseases which are prevalent in other parts of the Community. Although the Commission's latest proposals give only a general framework for this aspect of its strategy, as the discussions progress in Brussels such issues as the enforcing of controls within the zones will become clearer. The Government will be concerned to ensure that they provide an effective plant health protection. It is our hope to aim for a higher level of plant health throughout the Community and not to lower standards.
The Government consider it essential to maintain our plant health status for the continued well-being of our industry, and we welcome the report of the Committee which has highlighted many of the areas of concern which we shall be examining with other member states and the Commission in the negotiations.
I now come to the report on border control of people which was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver. If there is one area above all others in which the United Kingdom relies for its continued well-being on the maintenance of effective controls, it is in the movement of people. It is the Government's view that checks on people seeking to enter this country provide an essential defence against drug traffickers, terrorists and serious criminals. They also act against illegal immigration and they are a vital part of the enforcement of immigration control. Consequently, the Government are firmly of the view that border controls on the present pattern must remain in place. I am delighted that, having carefully considered the issues, the committee should have come to much the same view.
I was not surprised that my noble friend Lord Swansea referred to firearms and shotguns. He is well versed on the subject and is most concerned about it. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, referred to the effect on sporting users. He was particularly concerned about the possible implications for firearms of the European passport. He said that not only should controls be required; they should also be simple and effective. Controls are required. We see advantages in the proposed firearms certificate which makes it easier to obtain the necessary national certificates. It may not meet entirely with the noble Lord's wishes but it is essential that we have control over the weapons which are introduced

1581
into this country. We are not in favour of firearms permits being granted by other than our own author: ties. The control of firearms is less strict in some other countries than in the UK and, therefore, it is important that we have control over the types of firearms brought into this country. The British visitors, permit allows overseas sportsmen to come here with their weapons and with the minimum possible fuss. However, it involves authority from our police.
In particular, the committee endorsed the Government's interpretation of their obligations under the Single European Act. Its report confirms the value of border checks. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the abolition of border controls which she said would produce problems in cases of theft. I believe that that is right. The report provides a convincing analytical framework against which the effectiveness of border controls might be assessed.
The committee emphasised the value of co-operation among member states in tackling questions about border controls. The Government agree with this wholeheartedly, and we are grateful for such an authoritative endorsement of our policies.
I fear that in the time which is available I shall be unable to do full justice to the committee's report which excels in the breadth as well as the depth of its analysis. However, there are two particular points on which I should like to offer comment. The first relates to arrangements at airports. The committee's report contains a cogent and illuminating assessment of the implications for airports of the possible developments in the field of frontier controls within the European Community. It concludes that, for the time being, no changes should be required to the structures and systems which at present operate at airports in Europe.
However, the committee recommends that serious efforts should be made to agree a common Community system which will respond to the wishes of travellers and to implement such a system over a long transitional period. As a matter of principle, I think that the Government could readily accept the wisdom of such an approach. In practice, though, I fear that we are still some way from a situation in which agreement on such a common policy is a realistic prospect.
At the heart of the problem lies the fact that arrangements at airports reflect, to a very large degree, the nature of the system of controls which are in force. Current negotiations on frontier controls in the Community are designed to determine the basis for those controls in future. Consequently, I think that we must accept that plans for airports cannot realistically be considered in isolation from the main issue which is the nature of frontier controls in Europe. And, at least in so far as the intention of other member states is concerned, the future is far from clear.
Certainly, the logic of our position on the retention of necessary frontier controls is that the operational arrangements and structures at our airports are likely to remain fundamentally unchanged. The
1582
Government therefore agree with the committee's recommendation that no changes should be contemplated at present. However, we accept that the issue of airports in particular is one which merits further study. I can tell your Lordships that an interdepartmental working group of officials is shortly to be established, under the leadership of the Department of Transport, to look at the implications of developments on frontiers in Europe for airports within the United Kingdom, given our position on border controls. Representatives from airports and airlines are being invited to join that study.
The second matter to which I wish to draw specific attention is one on which it is only fair to make it clear that the Government's approach differs in some respects from that which was recommended by the committee. This is the subject of refugees and asylum.
The committee recommended that the criteria for refugee status and procedures should be harmonised with the close involvement of the United Nationals High Commissioner for Refugees; that an agreement on which member states of the Community should be responsible for handling an asylum application should not be brought into operation until harmonisation is achieved; and that accepted refugees should be given the rights of free movement which is available to Community nationals.
The Government play an active part in the European discussions on refugees and asylum. The presidency of the European Council keeps the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees informed of these discussions. Member states have jointly recognised that it is desirable to work towards harmonised criteria and procedures for the grant of refugee status. This is, however, likely to be a sizeable task, given the different judicial and administrative systems involved, and I cannot guarantee that it will be thought right to postpone the coming into effect of the convention, which is under preparation, until harmonisation is achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers. There is a need to balance the importance of ensuring that genuine refugees are given asylum against the need to operate a firm but fair immigration policy. The noble Lord referred to the carriers liability legislation. There is a necessary reaction to immigration pressures. It is not aimed at refugees. The United Kingdom remains committed to obligations under the 1957 Geneva Convention.
The noble Lord was also concerned— and quite rightly so— about the position of drugs. He quoted the fact that the customs seized 90 per cent. of cocaine and heroin at airports. In 1988 93 per cent. by weight of all drug seizures were carried out by customs. The provisional figures for 1989 are that 49 per cent. of all drug seizures by weight came from or through the European Community countries. Sixty three per cent. of cocaine came from or through the European Community and 49 per cent. of cannabis.
The Select Committee considers that harmonisation of procedures for refugee status should be based on best national practice. We agree

1583
with that conclusion in general terms, but we do not accept that it necessarily means an automatic system of judicial appeals against decisions to refuse refugee status, as the report envisages. In those European countries which have such appeals systems, there is considerable anxiety about the delays which they create. Those delays often run into many years and they provide scope for abuse by applicants whose cases are unfounded.
It is the Government's view that any effective refugee determination procedure must be workable and must provide for quick and effective decisions both on those cases in which refugee status should be granted and on those cases which are without merit. We are not persuaded that a special case should be made in favour of those with refugee status from the general rule that freedom of movement under the Treaty of Rome does not extend to non-EC nationals.
If I conclude these observations of mine on a slightly negative note, that is only because I am anxious that the very warm welcome, which I am giving on behalf of the Government, to the report on border controls should not mislead your Lordships or the public as to these particular matters which of course form only a small part of the report.
Leaving those particular matters aside, I repeat the Government's admiration of the contribution which both these reports, under their distinguished chairmen, have made to the general debate, and I express our profound appreciation of the support which they have given the Government for the objectives which they are pursuing.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps he will allow me to raise a question with regard to scrapie. I was chairman of the National Sheep Breeders of Great Britain in the 1950s and, if he looks into his files, he will find that I have raised the question many times. I hope the noble Lord who is to follow will allow me a few moments.
For years I have been asking for some assurances regarding the steps taken and the nature of the research into the disease of scrapie. I at once declare an interest in that subject because in 1951 I was a leading exporter of pedigree sheep to Australia and New Zealand. As a result of the imposition of a ban of all British sheep, due to scrapie, I naturally suffered considerably.
My main point is whether my noble friend is satisfed that everything possible has been done to improve research into the isolation of that ghastly virus, which has impeded the export of British sheep for so long. I apologise if that matter has already been dealt with, and for not being present at the beginning of the debate. If I had been I should have tried to take part earlier. However, I apologise for my absence and hope it will not be too difficult for my noble friend to give me an answer. I do not expect an answer now; perhaps, however, my noble friend will take the matter on board.
The matter arose in the time of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, when he was
1584
chairman, I believe, of the Agricultural Research Council.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps, for the Leader of the House, I might briefly answer that question. My noble friend has invited me to look into the files and I shall take up his invitation. I have been briefed on a great many matters, from firearms to immigration and plant health, but not specifically on scrapie. I am not quite sure what the connection is between my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and scrapie, but I am sure that it is a totally reputable connection. I will find the answer to my noble friend's question, and perhaps I may write to him.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: My Lords, the afternoon is well advanced and I do not propose to take up a lot of time now. As chairman of the sub-committee which produced the report on border controls, and as the mover of this Motion, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and also to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who has been good enough to compliment the committee on the report. I am also grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew attention to the earlier report. It is interesting to see how closely the conclusions of two differently composed committees, separated by a period of six years, coincided. The noble Lord referred in terms which I think can have left nobody unmoved to the plight of those seeking asylum, and he suggested a council of the EC to ease the situation of the refugees, and also a common appeals procedure.
There may be some who are disappointed in the reaction of the Government to the suggestions contained in the report, and I think we would all agree on the desirability of some common approach to the refugee problem as a desirable objective. However it is approached, it is an end which can be pursued quite independently of the sweeping proposals of the Commission's communication. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, observed, there are dangers to the position of those seeking asylum which lurk in the abolition of internal border controls and the substitution of what would be in effect an external wall round the Community.
The report refers to the psychological effect of border controls and more than one speaker has also referred to that aspect of the matter. There is a psychological feeling of belonging to a single community to some extent. That it exists and is important, I do not doubt; but I think it really has more to do with freedom of association than with border controls. I was interested to read in a newspaper that one of the first suggestions made by the Lithuanian Parliament was the establishment of border controls. So the absence of border controls in that instance does not seem to have led to any particular psychological feeling of belonging to a single community.
Everything that has been said this afternoon— and I think this is equally applicable in regard to the control of weapons— leads us inevitably, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and almost irresistibly, to the conclusion that the

1585
Commission, in proposing the abolition of border controls almost at breakneck speed by 1992, is putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps one should say that it is trying to construct the cart and the horse at the same time. At the moment it has got half a horse and, if I may be forgiven for trespassing on the area of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, it appears to be possibly a wooden horse which is suffering from a bad attack of dutch elm disease.
The objective of a frontier-free Europe is a desirable one, but this is not the way to go about it. The conditions in which a frontier-free Europe can operate do not follow from the abolition of border controls. The abolition of border controls can follow only from the creation of the conditions in which they would be possible; and it is that objective to which I think we must all work.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Controls and the Internal Market: ECC Report
3.50 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At this stage I should merely like to say how grateful I am for the way in which our report, Health Controls and the Internal Market, has been received by the noble Baroness and by noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, was my predecessor in the chair of Sub-Committee D. He set a very high standard, so his comments and remarks are all the more appreciated. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for bringing us up to date with government thinking on these matters. It is very gratifying to know that this seems to be very much in accord with the ideas of the committee, which is still studying the matter in depth.
Perhaps I may pick up two matters. I was specially reassured by the view which my noble friend expressed concerning the Government's thoughts on the question of quarantine. It is absolutely essential that we keep out these diseases, especially rabies. I am delighted to hear that the Government are going to keep quarantine until there is no more risk. I was also grateful to hear what my noble friend had to say about increasing the number of vets. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, that this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on 1922: Health Controls and the Internal Market (9th Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 47) and of the Response from Her Majesty's Government (Cmnd. 815).— (Lord Middleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance
1586
with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act, Nottingham Park Estate Act.

Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
3.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide another weapon in the fight against international terrorism in the air and at sea. It was almost a year ago that the then Secretary of State for Transport announced in another place that he intended to seek new powers for Parliament in order to secure more effective implementation of aviation security measures. I believe that this Bill provided these powers. It also extends to maritime activities similar powers to those currently available and proposed for aviation security. I shall deal firstly with aviation security and then with maritime security.
I am sure that the mention of aviation security immediately brings the Lockerbie disaster into your Lordships' minds. On 21st December 1988 Pan American Flight 103 from Heathrow to New York crashed at Lockerbie killing 259 people on the aircraft and 11 on the ground. The disaster was caused by a terrorist bomb and was a grisly example of the depths to which these callous individuals will descend. Further evidence of terrorism since Lockerbie has been the destruction by bombs of a UTA aircraft in Niger and an internal flight in Colombia. The Government are totally committed to opposing terrorism whether on the international or the domestic front and will do all they can to eradicate such heinous acts as those I have just mentioned.
The Government are determined to learn all they can from Lockerbie. The police investigation has made impressive progress with the help of outstanding forensic work and unprecedented international co-operation. The Air Accident Investigation Branch is continuing to do valuable work and will report the results of its investigation to my right honourable friend in due course. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has announced his intention to hold a fatal accident inquiry under Scottish legislation. This can be expected to consider the reasonable precautions by which the disaster might have been avoided. The Government have concluded that a confidential independent inquiry should not be held but that established procedures should be followed. In reaching this decision consideration was given to the legal implications, including those for the continuing police investigation, and the implications for foreign relations and security among other things.
Since the Lockerbie disaster the Department of Transport has carried out a major review of aviation security. Immediately after Lockerbie security was tightened for United States airlines operating from this country; in this there was close liaison with

1587
the Federal Aviation Administration. New security procedures were also brought in dealing with electrical equipment carried by passengers. In addition, the whole pass system has been tightened up for those employees and vehicles which have to have access to the restricted areas of our four major airports. There are also tighter checks for the issue of passes, the control of vehicles, the searching of staff and vehicles and the control of passes at the gate. Electronic checking of all passes should be in place this month.
The department's Aviation Security Inspectorate has been doubled and" new requirements for recruiting and training security staff have been introduced. The money available for research and development into equipment and techniques has been doubled.
The Commons Transport Select Committee has, also since Lockerbie, conducted a constructive inquiry into airport security. The Government have been able to respond positively to 21 of the committee's 28 recommendations. In spite of all this, it became apparent that aviation security could perhaps be more effectively enforced if the existing powers in the Aviation Security Act 1982 were enhanced.
The Secretary of State is already able under the 1982 Act to direct airports and airlines. Directions under the 1982 Act have been in force for many years. Improvements in security last year were made using these powers, but further powers are needed to give the aviation security inspectors more flexible and effective means to enforce directions, to enable directions to be made to other businesses, as well as airports and airlines, that have access to airports and aircraft and to make it an offence for individuals to do certain things which are prejudicial to security. Because the proposed legislation builds on the 1982 Act the aviation security provisions of this Bill are framed very much as amendments and additions to that Act. The 1982 Act and Part I of this Bill need to be read together and taken as a whole.
The measures to improve aviation security are in Part I of the Bill. Clause 1 enables the Government to ratify the International Civil Aviation Organisation's Montreal Protocol of 1988, which we signed in October 1988. This protocol commits the Goverment to make it an offence under our own law for any person to carry out armed attacks at any international airport and to cause damage or disruption at such an airport. The protocol requires severe penalties for these offences. In relevant cases offenders can be extradited.
Part I of the Bill widens the categories of persons to whom directions can be given. In future as well as giving directions to airport and aircraft operators the Secretary of State will be able to give directions to other businesses which go on to airports. In practice, this means that catering suppliers, cleaning firms, aircraft maintenance and servicing firms and suppliers of aircraft stores will all be brought within the scope of the Act. It will be possible under Clause 2 for the Secretary of State to direct these undertakings to carry out searches of persons or
1588
property entering land under their control and under Clause 3 to direct them to take other measures for the protection of aircraft, aerodromes and air navigation installations against acts of violence.
Clause 4 gives powers to aviation security inspectors to issue enforcement notices where there is a failure to comply with a general requirement of a direction. The person served with an enforcement notice may be required to carry out remedial action. He may alternatively be required to secure that certain operations are stopped until remedial action has been taken. An objection procedure will be available to a person served with an enforcement notice. It will be an offence not to comply with an enforcement notice.
Clause 5 creates new offences relating to security at aerodromes. It brings individuals within the scope of aviation security legislation so that certain acts prejudicial to aviation security become offences. It will be an offence: for a person to give false information in answer to questions relating to baggage, cargo or stores; to give information in relation to an application for or the holding of an identity document; to be in a restricted zone or to go on board an aircraft without proper authority; to refuse to leave a restricted zone or an aircraft when requested to do so; or to obstruct or falsely pretend to be an authorised person.
Clause 6, which was added during earlier consideration of the Bill, enables the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for a list of aviation security approved air cargo agents to be compiled and maintained so that those not already covered can be brought within the direction-making and enforcement notice powers and other provisions in the 1982 Act, as amended by this Bill.
Clause 7, which was also added during earlier consideration of this Bill, enables the Secretary of State to make regulations which would establish an aviation security incident reporting system.
Finally, this part of the Bill, along with Schedule 1, provides for revised information-gathering powers under Section 11 of the 1982 Act. It provides for daily penalties to be imposed for continued refusal or failure to comply with a direction after being convicted of the offence. The procedure to be followed for designating an area of an aerodrome as a restricted zone is also set out in this schedule.
The Bill also deals with maritime security. There is at present no satisfactory legal mechanism by which the Government can ensure that adequate precautions are taken against terrorist threats to maritime activities. Cruise ships and ferry operators and the ports serving them have voluntarily accepted the need to improve their security arrangements. However, individual companies are not well placed to assess the overall threat, and it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the necessary progress is made in implementing new measures. A rapid response may be needed to new types of threat. The provisions of the Bill will apply equally to both British and foreign ships. When foreign ships enter British ports they will be treated no more and no less favourably than British ships.

1589
Part II of the Bill enables the Government to give effect to the International Maritime Organisation's convention on terrorism at sea and its linked protocol of fixed platforms. It makes it an offence: to hijack any ship or unlawfully to seize or exercise control of a fixed platform; to destroy or damage a ship or fixed platform or to destroy or interfere with any property used for providing maritime navigation facilities or to transmit false navigational information; and to issue threats which could endanger the safety of ships or fixed platforms.
Part III of the Bill extends to maritime activities comparable powers to those available under the Aviation Security Act 1982 or proposed for aviation security in Part I of the Bill. The powers will cover shipping and ports operations and will apply to those handling freight as well as passengers.
The extension of these powers to maritime activities does not imply that the same level of security measures will be required at all ports and on all ships as is presently required at airports and on aircraft. Ships are inherently somewhat less vulnerable than aircraft to the worst effects of terrorist attack. But we must bear in mind the attacks on the "Achille Lauro" and the "City of Poros" and on more than 50 other vessels worldwide during the 1980s.
At present the problem is being tackled by voluntary co-operation with the industry. It is hoped that this will continue. But there is a need for a framework for setting out and enforcing standards for the protection of the travelling public, the crews of ships and others engaged in the maritime industries. The provisions of Part III of the Bill are intended to provide this framework. They will aim to achieve a level of security which is appropriate to the level of threat to shipping.
I turn now to Part IV of the Bill which contains miscellaneous and general provisions. In particular, the Civil Aviation Authority will be enabled to examine and send for analysis the contents of any package or baggage which it believes contains dangerous goods, to seize and detain such goods, to take samples of them and to require related documents to be produced.
A further clause which was added during the earlier stages of the Bill's consideration will enable the Secretary of State to take action against any foreign registered aircraft which lands in the UK from a state which has banned UK registered civil aircraft from its airspace, by restricting access to that aircraft other than that which is necessary to prepare it for its flight out of the UK. The Secretary of State will be able to direct aerodrome managers and other persons on whose land the aircraft is situated to ensure that access to the aircraft is thus restricted.
During your Lordships' consideration of the Bill the Government propose to introduce amendments which will confer express statutory authority on authorised persons to test the effectiveness of security procedures and practices.
In conclusion, I am confident that the measures in the Bill will improve aviation and maritime security still further. It is encouraging to know that the proposals have the backing of the relevant
1590
industries and the police. I hope your Lordships will give this important piece of legislation a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
4.3 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think that the House will be grateful to the Minister for having gone through the Bill and explained its purpose. We on this side of the House give our general support to the Bill, especially as it carries out international conventions and protocols. However, as no doubt the Minister expects, there are several matters which we shall wish to raise more fully in Committee.
While considering the Bill we have received from the Select Committee in another place helpful reports on aircraft security which were published in 1986 and 1989. Indeed, the Minister has already referred to them. The 1986 report contained 21 recommendations, while that of 1989 contained 28. Though the Government are not compelled to adopt such recommendations, the Minister stated that they had carried out 21. I am not sure which report those came under. I should be interested to know how many and which of the 49 recommendations have yet to be carried out. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on that at some point during the Committee stage.
We all want 100 per cent. airport security. We recognise that there are problems particularly in cost and time involved in checking baggage for the hold. I should like to ask the Minister whether research is still being carried out to ascertain some speedy way of carrying out this essential checking. Are we satisfied with the criteria and the system for checking and training staff of the private security firms? If a firm fails to satisfy the inspectorate, the firm should be stopped from operating at the particular airport in question. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether this has ever happened. Has a firm of any importance ever been excluded from the contract allowing it to take part in the security work of an airport?
The Commons committee made one or two recommendations. One was that aircraft parked overnight or temporarily unstaffed during turnround should be searched before being brought back into service. Is that being applied?
Both reports recommended the resumption of the aviation security fund, which was set up in 1978 and wound up in 1983. The Government rejected this recommendation, I know, but are we satisfied that all airports can meet the necessary security costs, particularly those in connection with international flights? Do the Government accept the recommendation that cargo should be accepted only from registered shippers?
Turning to the maritime side, the officers' organisation, NUMAST, has expressed serious concern at the use of other persons in addition to the police in carrying out important security functions. The House will recall that concern was

1591
expressed at the substitution for British transport police at Harwich of a private security firm. The Minister will also be aware that the General Council of British Shipping has grave doubts about some of the matters of ship security raised by the Bill. It has sent us a number of amendments, most of which we shall table at least for information or for discussion with the Minister when we reach the Report stage.
Under the Bill, private guards are to have powers to arrest and will be able to search both property and people. The Minister, Mr. Portillo, said that it was up to firms to satisfy themselves about the persons they would employ. However, the Police Federation has expressed serious concern at such persons being given these powers. It expressed this in a letter of protest to the Home Secretary. The complaints are particularly relevant to Clauses 21, 22 and 23.
There is also reference in the Bill to unreasonable duties placed on masters and their consequential exposure to penalties. It should be kept in mind that ships are the homes of seafarers as well as their workplaces. Any searches of crew accommodation should be carried out by police only and not by private security staff.
Clause 19 refers to information that must be supplied by a master. The notice to request information must allow seven days. The Minister must surely realise that this is impractical unless the notice is served before the ship arrives in the UK port. Otherwise turnrounds could be unreasonably lengthened in certain circumstances.
Clause 21 deals with keeping people from the proximity of the ships. It is virtually impossible for the master to accept this responsibility. He may not have the resources to institute the necessary searches, nor would he have the authority to make modifications or supply the specified equipment. The master should be separated from the owners and others mentioned in the clause so that, if necessary, he can be directed not to sail.
Clause 22 contains references to other persons specified in the directions. We should be told who those other persons are. Searches of ships appear not to require a warrant. That makes it even more important that searches should only be carried out by constables and not by private security staff. Obviously Customs staff are in a different class and they would also be entitled to carry out searches.
Clause 24 refers to guarding ships against acts of violence. Who is intended to carry out the guarding? Is it to be the crew members? The words "acts of violence" imply that there is a risk of violence, perhaps by armed individuals. Clause 25 follows on with that point. The qualifications of persons in Clause 25(1) should be defined. In respect of Clause 25(4), surely no one who is unconnected with the Home Office or the police should be able to give authority to constables to carry firearms. It would be interesting to know the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation on that point.
One of the most objectionable clauses in the Bill is Clause 29. Despite the Minister's assurance, this
1592
clause could put a master in the position of having to comply with directions which are intended to apply to the owner and to others who are mentioned. However, failure to comply exposes a master to offences and penalties under the provisions of Clause 31. Clause 45(8) and (9) appear to me not to make sense when, under Clause 29(3), a copy of an enforcement order overrides the whole provision of that clause.
This Bill also covers the supply by ships to oil platforms. In a news release by the Department of the Environment of 16th March it was stated that Mr. David Trippier, the Minister of State, had announced on 15th March that the Government would support an amendment to the environment protection legislation to be tabled by Roger Knapman MP which would seek to provide additional controls over marine oil pollution.
The owners of registered vessels are to be held accountable for illegal spillages of oil when in UK harbours. The authorities would be able to obtain direct financial leverage against the owner. At present only masters can be brought to court and anti-pollution measures in merchant shipping legislation are generally targeted at masters. The Bill refers to oil spills when a ship is in harbour. However, there is no reference to spillage by a ship in UK waters outwith harbours.
Although I may have sounded rather critical of the Bill, I did not intend to be. There are obviously parts of the Bill that we cannot give total support to. However, anything that can be done to tighten up airport and maritime security will, of course, gain our support. We will discuss the department's suggestions and say whether we think it has got the matter right. It will be our intention to move a number of amendments in Committee. We hope that all our amendments will be treated as constructive.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to find that he obtains general approval for the Bill from all around the House today. That was the case in another place. No one in his right mind would stand in the way of legislation which was properly designed to reduce the fear of terrorism, whether in the air, on land or on the sea. The Bill goes some considerable way to tightening up the existing legislation. In passing I should say that it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I believe that the Bill was to a certain extent his brainchild so it is good to see him taking it through your Lordships' House.
For once in another place there was very little partisan posing either in Committee or on the Floor of the Chamber. That is perhaps the reason for the Bill arriving in this House having been rather better scrutinised than some Bills.
As another aside, I am fascinated to see the word "aerodrome" in the Bill. It is a splendidly archaic word which I have not seen for a long time.
Also in passing perhaps I may ask the Minister how far the provisions already apply to the Channel Tunnel. It is obviously not proper for that to be included in the Bill but I should be interested to

1593
know to what extent the provisions written into the Bill have already been applied to the Channel Tunnel. I ought to know because I spent a great deal of time on the Channel Tunnel Bill in your Lordships' House. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could let me know the answer.
We are glad that the Government are putting into legislation the Montreal Protocol and the Rome Convention. I should like to ask how many other countries have signed those agreements. These are matters which can only be successful if they are carried through on a widespread international basis. How many other nations have signed the protocol and how many, like the British Government, have taken steps to include it in their own legislation?
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that our major worry concerns the question of private security firms taking on the job of police officers. The terrorist attack on the Royal Marines at Deal highlighted the inadequacies of some private security companies. We know that a number of the better ones have first-class employees and take their responsibilities very seriously, both in terms of selection and training of employees. That is by no means the case with every organisation. Such organisations spring up like mushrooms and disappear overnight at an alarming rate. The idea of replacing highly trained police officers with such people, although it may save money, must not be allowed to undermine security.
When one reads of the criminal elements which have infiltrated some companies, one recognises the dangers that are inherent in the situation. It may be a flight of fancy, but one could imagine the possibility of a security company falling into the hands of a foreign power which would use it as a means of infiltrating terrorists into the docks and harbours. That may be fanciful, but until there is an acceptable code of practice—and there is nothing written into the Bill—for the recruitment and training of security officers those worries will continue.
After all, the security firms have to undertake some onerous tasks as well as the more mundane ones. The Bill makes provision for property searches both inside and outside ports and harbours. People living in houses inside a dock area could be searched by the private security firms in their own homes. People who work in the ports and live outside could also be searched in their homes. What redress do people have against private security operators undertaking such searches? We know that if the police were to step out of line when carrying out a search the Police Complaints Authority would be brought into operation. There does not appear to be any form of complaints authority overseeing security firms. That is, therefore, a most important aspect which has not been dealt with successfully in another place.
The second matter that I wish to raise is one that was raised by my honourable friend the Member for Southport, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, in another place. At the Committee stage he sought an amendment to what was then Clause 23 but which is now Clause 25. He sought to delete from subsection (4) the words
1594
from "the direction" to the end of the subsection and to substitute the words:
"inform the local Chief Constable of the direction given and in consultation with him request that constables be duly authorised to carry firearms when carrying out searches or other measures".
The point that he was trying to make was that not everyone should be able to institute the carrying of firearms. In general, the questions asked about the right to carry firearms were adequately answered in another place by the Minister, but this matter is still outstanding. The noble Lord will perhaps recall that on Third Reading my honourable friend raised the matter again, having had an assurance from the Minister, Mr. Portillo, in Standing Committee that his amendment had "considerable attraction" and that the Minister intended to reconsider the phraseology of that part of the Bill, although he said that he was not sure that the proposal was strictly necessary. He went on to say:
"A specific fault in the hon. Gentleman's wording is that it would require constables to be authorised to carry firearms, but that is not enough. We want to ensure that they actually carry them, if that has been specified in the direction. For that reason, I shall not accept his wording. However, I should like to review it to see whether we can provide something better".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 15/2/90; col. 139.]
On Third Reading my honourable friend again asked what had happened to the amendment and there was no reply because the Minister did not reply at the end of the Third Reading debate. Will the Minister, either now or at a later stage in our proceedings, let me know whether the Government have taken a view on the amendment or are prepared to return with one of their own, or whether they consider that the provision is unnecessary?
The question of private security firms is worrying because civil liberties comes into it. The number of searches carried out by those people will be far greater than the number carried out by members of the normal police force. Perhaps I may reiterate once again that we are extremely worried that there appears to be no enforceable code of practice for dealing with such matters. However, having said that—we shall no doubt return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill —let me say that the Bill as a whole has our full support from these Benches. We wish it well and hope that it will go a long way to discouraging terrorists and incidents such as the one at Lockerbie and that involving the "Achille Lauro" to which the Minister referred.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, perhaps I may also say how pleased I am to see the Minister reverting to his former incarnation on this Bill, if only temporarily.
I shall confine my brief remarks to the maritime section of the Bill. The Minister has already pointed out a number of recent occasions when terrorists have attacked ships. The memories of some noble Lords may go back a little further to 1961 when a Portuguese passenger liner, the "Santa Maria", was effectively hijacked by rebels. It was at sea for over a week before being tracked down and finally forced into port in Brazil. Thankfully, terrorist events are rarer at sea than they are in the air. There are several obvious reasons for that. It is more difficult to seize a ship. They are not as standard in layout as aircraft;

1595
indeed, hardly any two ships are the same. In addition, an aircraft can normally be steered towards what I might term a friendly country within a comparatively short period of time, whereas a ship might need perhaps two or three days' steaming to reach a friendly country, with the added risk of running out of fuel on the way.
One of my worries in legislation of this kind regarding terrorism and security is that any benefits accruing from it, however necessary the legislation might be, are largely negated if applied on a unilateral basis. For example, what is the use of one port at one end of a regular ferry service having the latest and most sophisticated equipment if the port at the other end does not have the equipment to match it? We in this country are perhaps more advanced than most in that respect. Indeed, the passenger facility at the port of Tilbury has the most sophisticated X-ray machinery available. It can search every single item of baggage that goes aboard a ship, whether cabin or hold baggage. That is very admirable, but we must ensure that the standard of equipment used by the ports is used on a worldwide basis; otherwise, there is no point in proceeding. I feel that it is perhaps better to proceed on a broad basis working through the International Maritime Organisation, for instance, rather than on a unilateral or even an EC basis.
I share the anxieties voiced by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Tordoff, regarding the creation of a new inspectorate which is to be given very wide powers of search, detention of ships and interrogation. The inspectors' qualifications are not spelt out in the Bill, and their duties would seem to me to be of a kind much better carried out by the police.
I agree with other remarks that have already been made regarding the issue of firearms. I am sure that we shall revert to those points at the Committee stage. I shall touch briefly on one other matter; namely, that directions can be given to extend the search of persons or property to those who have access to a port. That includes a very wide range of people, such as hauliers, freight forwarders and so on. Such searches could cover the whole country. I believe that that is a function to be carried out by the police in the normal course of their duties. It is a matter perhaps best dealt with by the Home Secretary rather than the Secretary of State for Transport.
In these uncertain times it is wise to be prepared and safe rather than sorry. Therefore I wish the Bill well. However, I again emphasise that common policies and common standards of protection, enforced worldwide by means of an IMO convention, are perhaps the best and ultimately the safest way of achieving the desired result. I hope that the Government will proceed along those lines.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, one way or another I can support every noble Lord who has so far spoken. It is interesting to note that when the transport specialists get together their speeches interrelate much more than in the adversarial
1596
discussions that we sometimes have in this Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, spoke in particular about the duties imposed on ships' masters. At the back of my mind is the question of whether it would not be worth going back five or six years to look at an early football Bill and the duties that we imposed on coach drivers with regard to their passengers. Noble Lords will remember that we did not impose by means of an amendment the same duties upon locomotive drivers of passenger trains who were felt to be in a more remote position.
My welcome for the Bill is tinged with some regret because of the sorry pass we have come to in needing such legislation in the first place. Sadly we are potentially all victims of terrorism. We need the Bill. I have regrets; nevertheless I congratulate my noble friend on having brought the Bill forward.
I have three reservations about the measure —one fairly global and touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the other two somewhat closer to home. It seems to me that aviation security is a chain, not least because there is so much transit traffic through London's intercontinental airports. Are the Government satisfied that the actions that we are discussing today will be mirrored throughout the world? It is one thing to devise a convention or protocal. It is a second thing to get the signatories to it. That can take a long time. And even when one has the signatories it is a third thing beyond our jurisdiction to make sure that they abide by the document that they have signed and undertake the activities to which they have committed themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned common standards when discussing ports on this side of the Channel and ports on the other side. The main reason that I wish to raise the matter is because of the debate that we had last month on the report of our Select Committee on Overseas Aid. It came across very strongly that it is no good giving people in some countries of the third world high technology equipment —and high technology equipment comes within the remit of the Bill—if they do not have the ability to use or maintain it and if they do not have hard currency resources to buy spare parts when needed.
A simple example stems from a friend on mine who was until recently our deputy high commissioner in Kaduna, Nigeria. I asked him, "How are Nigerian railways?" He said, "They are in terrible trouble." The reason is lack of skills to maintain the locomotives and lack of resources to buy the parts for such maintenance. A railway locomotive is a relatively unsophisticated piece of equipment compared with the high technology that will be needed around the world in support of the proposals in the Bill. Are the Government convinced that the common standards to which the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Greenway, in their different ways, have touched upon will be available to us?
Closer to home, I ask a much simpler question. The Bill deals with airports, planes, ports and ships. Can my noble friend assure me that it also deals with what I might call new technology means of crossing water such as hovercraft and catamarans?
Several noble Lords wish to see common standards. I have a reservation relating to the islands

1597
off our coasts. I think of the Isle of Wight, the Scillies and the Scottish islands. We are looking for universal standards world wide. I am concerned about the effect upon places such as Bembridge airfield, Fishbourne, Land's End airfield, or perhaps I may call it aerodrome, St. Mary's in the Isles of Scilly, and the ferry ports and airports of the inner and outer Scottish islands such as Barra, Benbecula, and Campbeltown. We could be in danger. The cost of applying necessary standards —and people fly from Barra to Glasgow, to Heathrow and elsewhere—could penalise those passengers and freight shippers who depend upon the Isles of Scilly steamship company, the Isle of Wight ferry, the Isles of Scilly skybus aviation operation, or, Caledonian MacBrayne. These carriers are essential to the livelihoods of the island communities which they serve. I therefore ask my noble friend for an assurance that these islands' terminals and carriers will not be so directed as a result of the Bill that passengers and freight are penalised. With those questions I am happy to support the Bill.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am very pleased to note that there has been such a generally warm welcome for the Bill. I believe that it is important that there should be no significant differences of opinion about the proposals in the Bill so that we in your Lordships' House can demonstrate a united approach in the fight against international terrorism. I am grateful also to those who welcomed me back to this role. However, I cannot help being reminded of the night of the Lockerbie accident, which was one of the most harrowing events that I have ever had to attend.
A number of points were raised during the short debate and I shall attempt to deal with as many as possible. However, I suspect that I must deal with some of the detailed points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Tordoff in Committee. At this stage I shall try to deal with many of the points in a general manner.
Both noble Lords rightly asked about the quality of security staff and the use of private security firms. The Government make the rules and set the standards for security. It is for industry to implement those requirements and standards. The Department of Transport lays down a code of practice for the recruitment of directly employed security staff, the training to be given and the prescribed physical standards to be fulfilled. The department carries out inspections to ensure that satisfactory standards are achieved.
Where private security firms are used for aviation security they must be members of the British Security Industry Association or the International Professional Security Association. They must be bound by their terms of contracts to comply with the associations' rules. Subject to that, it is not the Government's function to say which particular firms an airline or an airport may employ. It is not realistic to employ the police throughout airports inspecting baggage, operating archway metal detectors and so forth—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I accept what he said about airports. Is he saying that the same provisions will apply to ports and harbours?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure whether the requirements relating to membership of the various associations, training and so forth will apply to ports. I must come back to the noble Lord about that.
The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Tordoff, asked about ports police. Nothing proposed in the Bill will have any effect on the powers or status of port police forces. We have agreed to full consultation with the industry and other interested parties on the future of port police forces.
In association with that I turn to the arming of police forces. Again nothing in the Bill will require, allow or lead to the arming of police forces. The authority to carry firearms can be given only by the chief constable. The other persons to carry out security functions would be specified by the Secretary of State. He will endeavour to use the procedures which have served the aviation industry over many years in the same way for the maritime industry. Perhaps that answers in part the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. There is no reason to believe that the private security procedures used in the aviation industry are unsuitable for equivalent maritime settings.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised the old question of the aviation security fund. As he is aware, the Bill contains no provisions to revive the fund. The Government do not accept the idea that there must be a centrally run fund to ensure that security improvements are implemented. The absence of the fund since 1983, when it was wound up, has in no way prejudiced the implementation of measures in the aviation security programme. If the fund were to be re-established, the administrative costs of running it would have to be met from the moneys raised. A nationally administered fund would provide no incentive for efficiency. The Government remain convinced that aviation security should be funded by airlines, airports and others in the industry. They should foot the Bill because security is for the benefit of passengers and air crew. There is no evidence to show that airports have lacked money to implement security measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also asked whether the searching of aircraft parked overnight, as recommended by the Select Committee, was being enforced. Yes, it is a requirement of the national aviation security programme that such aircraft should be checked before being brought back into service. The noble Lord also asked whether cargo should be accepted only from known shippers. Again the national aviation security programme requires cargo other than that from known shippers to be subject to security screening procedures.
On the maritime side, the noble Lord was concerned about persons other than the police undertaking searching and guarding duties. He was also concerned about the imposition of duties on the master. I recognise that those are important points

1599
of concern and we shall have an opportunity to discuss them fully and give them proper consideration in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked me how many other countries had signed the two protocols which this Bill covers. Ten have signed the Montreal Protocol and to date six countries have signed the Rome Convention and the protocol. There is every indication that the Rome Convention and the protocol will secure worldwide international support. We hope that our ratification will encourage others to follow us.
In passing, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is aware that this does not affect the Channel Tunnel. However, security arrangements for the Channel Tunnel are still being discussed with Eurotunnel and the railway authorities.
The noble Lord, was concerned about searches of property outside harbour areas under Clause 23(2)(b). A search can only apply to land occupied for the purposes of a business.
Reverting to the constables and firearms issue, the noble Lord asked what happened to the amendment of his honourable friend in another place. That matter is still being examined and I hope to be able to return to it in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and my noble friend Lord Mountevans said that the benefits of the Bill would be negated if measures were applied unilaterally and that we needed to ensure that the measures were applied worldwide. I believe that that was as regards the maritime rather than aviation provisions. The IMO has provided guidance on a worldwide basis. The Government are discussing comparable standards with foreign governments and will be pursuing that on a broader basis as suggested.
Following on from that point, both the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and my noble friend Lord Mountevans said that security would be wasted if ships were vulnerable in foreign ports. However, the Bill enables the UK to meet the requirements of the IMO and, for aviation security, the IKO. I agree that we must work through those bodies to ensure that standards are applied worldwide. However, responsibility for security in foreign ports and airports must rest with the governments concerned. That said, I assure the House that the Government will spare no effort to encourage other states to adopt those standards and, if invited to do so, to consider how best to advise and help them.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans asked whether the Bill deals with hovercraft, catamarans and other forms of maritime transport. It will do so. He was also concerned about the possible impact of the Bill on smaller domestic flights and short domestic sea voyages. As regards domestic flights, the Secretary of State determines the security procedures to be applied. The present position is that for domestic flights other than those to and from Northern Ireland security measures are implemented in full in respect of all airlines registered or operating in the UK with aircraft having a maximum take-off weight exceeding 15 tonnes. Limited measures apply to domestic flights of small aircraft of a maximum
1600
take-off weight not exceeding 15 tonnes. As I said, special security measures apply to flights to and from Northern Ireland.
As regards sea voyages, it is intended that security provisions will apply to domestic seafaring routes on an individual basis. They will be designed to meet the perceived needs of the particular route in question. Clearly some routes are more sensitive than others and while appropriate levels of security will be introduced, we do not wish generally to introduce high levels unless there is a good reason for doing so.
I hope that I have managed to answer some of the questions raised during this afternoon's debate. I have no doubt that we shall revert to some points at the next stage. This new legislation, taken together with the Aviation Security Act 1982, will provide a stronger statutory framework for aviation and maritime security. However, security is only as effective as those in the front line responsible for enforcing it. There is therefore a responsibility on all who work at airports and ports to be eternally vigilant and to co-operate in making security procedures work. Passengers also have their part to play by being co-operative, patient and forbearing; their willingness to do so has been particularly evident since Lockerbie.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that notes on clauses will be available very shortly and I hope that your Lordships will now give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

National Code of Local Government Conduct
4.46 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move, That the draft code laid before the House on 20th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft National Code of Local Government Conduct be approved. This code of conduct has been laid by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Wales and Scotland under Section 31 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The code is for the guidance of members and there are no criminal sanctions attached to it. Nevertheless it sets the standard of conduct which members of local authorities will be expected to uphold, and against which they will be judged by the public and their fellow councillors. I am pleased to report that approval to the draft code was given by the other place on 3rd April. I would now hope that your Lordships' approval will also be forthcoming.
A code of conduct for councillors was originally proposed in 1974 by the Prime Minister's Committee on Local Government Rules of Conduct, chaired by Lord Redcliffe-Maud, which was set up in the wake of the Poulson corruption scandal. It was intended not only to set clear standards in areas of uncertainty, but also to increase public confidence in the integrity of local government. The draft code

1601
which they put forward forms the basis of the existing National Code of Local Government Conduct which was agreed by the local authority associations in England Wales and Scotland, and issued as a joint departmental circular in 1975. This code was warmly welcomed by the Royal Commission on Standards in Public: Life, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, who described it as an "admirable document".
The code was looked at again by the Widdicombe Committee which concluded in 1986 that while the code served a valuable purpose in encouraging proper conduct by councillors, it needed clarifying and updating. The Government agreed this conclusion, and accordingly set up a joint working group with officials and representatives of the local authority associations to revise the code. The draft code which is before the House is largely the fruit of their endeavours, modified as appropriate by subsequent comments received from the local authority associations. I am glad to report to your Lordships that the new code has been generally welcomed by the local authority associations and is regarded as an improvement on the 1975 version.
In modifying the code we have, so far as possible, tried to retain the general format and style of the 1975 code. The main changes have been to the section dealing with non-pecuniary interests which has previously caused problems for councillors involved with public bodies and voluntary groups, which have been prevented from speaking on the very subjects about which they have experience and expertise. The code now enables councillors in this situation to speak, and sometimes to vote, provided they have declared the interest. This parallels more closely the law on pecuniary interests.
The new code also provides a procedure for councillors to "self-dispense" themselves in certain circumstances, enabling them to speak and vote where they would otherwise be required to withdraw. These criteria are similar to those used by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to give statutory dispensations to speak and vote where councillors have a pecuniary interest.
I should mention that it is the Government's intention to make the necessary orders under Section 30 of the 1989 Act that will require councillors, on accepting office, to declare that they will be guided by the code, to come into effect on 3rd May for the new intake of councillors. We also intend commencing Section 32 on the same day so that the complete package of reforms intended to enhance the status of and give greater prominence to the code will be in place for the forthcoming local government elections.
Finally, I mention very briefly the statutory register of members' pecuniary interests, since although we are not debating that today, it concerns the same general issue of members' conduct. We intend introducing the necessary regulations to enable the new statutory requirements to come into effect on 1st October. We have always made clear that the register would be introduced somewhat later than the new code. The register can be introduced at any time, while the code must be in place by 3rd May so that the newly-elected councillors can declare
1602
their acceptance of it. For the register we need to consult not only on the policy, which we have done, but also on the drafting of the regulations, which we shall do.
Turning once again to the draft code, I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 20th March be approved [Nth Report from the Joint Committee].—{Lord Reay.)
4.50 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House are very well satisfied with the appearance of the code, and I understand from our contacts with the local authority associations that they are satisfied that the code, so far as it goes, serves the purpose intended. The Minister is quite right in alluding in the history of these matters to the sad situation of some aspects of local government in the early 1970s. He also mentioned the Widdicombe Report. I have read very carefully the report of proceedings in another place, as the noble Minister will no doubt understand. Many of the questions I would normally have raised have already been raised by my honourable friends in another place.
There is one point on which I think the Minister should say a word or two. That is the register of interests. We on this side of the House see both the code and the register as part and parcel of the same nexus. Therefore, although the Minister has made out a case for wanting to get the code working in practice before 3rd May, so that it binds the incoming councillors, the register of interests, with its divisions into pecuniary and non-pecuniary columns, is something that can wait. We would like the Minister to say just a little more about the consultation he is going to have to ensure that this result comes about.
I should like to direct the Minister to paragraph 9 of the code, where we are talking about pecuniary interests which can be just as important, and non-pecuniary interests which can be just as important. It says there, as the Minister knows:
"Private and personal interests include those of your family and friends, as well as those arising through membership of, or association with, clubs, societies and other organisations such as the Freemasons, trade unions and voluntary bodies."
I should like to say to the Minister that we believe membership of a masonic lodge ought to be a declarable interest. It is an honourable estate and something which many people in this country are proud to belong to, but I believe that because of the nature of Freemasonry it is something that ought to be known publicly.
The other point I want to raise is that the code talks in terms of members of local councils who fail to declare a pecuniary interest or who give false or misleading information for the register. Apparently they are liable on conviction to a fine of up to £1,000. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us why such a punitive cost is not visited upon Members of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords. Why should local councillors carry the burden? Of course, they must act honourably, declare interests and comply with certain criteria. That monetary penalty,

1603
however, does not appear anywhere as being applicable if a Member of either House transgresses. Those are the two points on which I should be grateful for the views of the Minister. I certainly accept, as he has said, that there is unanimity across the political spectrum that the code and the register are necessary, and are welcomed in 1990.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked me about the register. In that regard we intend to lay the necessary regulations before the Summer Recess, after we have consulted the local authority associations. We see the question of the register as being a separate issue from that of the code, and we want to have further discussions.
The noble Lord also referred to non-pecuniary interests and asked whether they should be included in the compulsory register. In our view, it would not be appropriate to include non-pecuniary interests. They are much more diffuse, and it would be impossible to provide a definition sufficiently robust to give grounds for making failure to register a criminal offence. The noble Lord referred to the code of conduct and penalties for a breach of it in respect of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I do not think that it would be proper for me to say anything about that. That is a separate matter which is for the Houses themselves.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
4.55 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill seeks authority for the London borough of Redbridge to establish a market in Ilford. I have been asked to speak at Second Reading because my former constituency lay in the other part of the London borough of Redbridge.
The Bill comes to us after extensive scrutiny and debate in another place, much of which I have read. I doubt if everyone will disagree with me if I were to venture an opinion that some parts of those debates appeared to owe more to factors other than the specific issue of whether Redbridge should be allowed to have its market. Be that as it may, there were long debates. Perhaps, because of the controversy that apparently surrounded the Bill, I owe it to the House to explain a little of its background.
Ten years ago, in April 1980, after a long public inquiry, the borough council adopted what was called the Ilford Town Centre Action Area Plan. In doing so, the council accepted all the recommendations made to it by an independent inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. The plan now constitutes the current development plan for the area.
The plan has been the catalyst for some very remarkable improvements which have taken place
1604
in the physical environment of Ilford town centre. There is a new relief road, the A118, which takes through traffic away from the main shopping area. There is the pedestrianisation of the high road itself and in addition there is a splendid new award-winning central library and many other features. All of this has made Ilford today a really attractive place to live, work and in particular to shop. I believe that the local authority deserves considerable credit for that.
Such is the confidence of business in its new town centre that two major insurance companies are currently investing around £100 million in a new development to be known as the Exchange at Ilford. When finished this will provide 51,000 square metres of new shopping floor space together with a car park with 1,200 spaces.
The Ilford Town Centre Action Area Plan referred to the potential of
"an attractive covered retail market"
which, together with other developments,
"could be a vital feature of the improved shopping centre"
since it was recognised that a successful shopping centre depends, among other factors, on the diversity and breadth of choice available to consumers who themselves are becoming more and more discriminating.
Since the adoption of the plan, the council has had a number of approaches on behalf of about 250 traders who wish to see established an open market in Ilford. Planning permission was granted to an applicant to use one small town centre site for such a purpose. Moreover, the council has power under Section 50 of the Food Act 1984 to establish such a market within its district.
The question immediately poses itself: why then does it need this Bill? In this respect one has to go back not just 10 years, but about seven centuries, for the legal protection of markets is nearly as old as the common law itself. We must assume that our ancestors believed that, in order to avoid what they saw as undesirable competition between rival markets, where a market was established by royal writ, no new market was allowed to be established within a distance of six and two-thirds miles.
Further, even where there is now no extant evidence of such a royal writ, the law established the fiction of a,
"lost modern grant"
which is deemed to have the same effect. Section 50 of the 1984 Act does not override that ancient common law. Therefore, if a council wishes to establish a new market within six and two-thirds miles of an existing market, whether established by royal writ or by lost modern grant, the only way for that council to avoid being sued for infringement of the law is to obtain express statutory authority; hence we have the Bill.
Your Lordships may ask why six and two-thirds miles. The source of that rule appears to be in the writings of the great English jurist, Bracton, in the 13th Century. He treated six and two third miles as being one third of the Roman dieta— that is, a day's journey. The effect is that a man going to market

1605
should have one-third of a day to get there, one-third to attend to his business in the market and one-third to return home. If one does one's sums it probably meant that he was driving a flock of sheep as well, otherwise he would get to market rather quicker than in one-third of a day.
Therefore, we have the position that if the rival market was within six and two-thirds miles, it would attract customers who might otherwise go to the authorised market; that is, if the distance is less than six and two-thirds miles. Correspondingly, if the authorised market was given a wider protection than six and two-thirds miles people would have to spend much longer in getting to what would be their nearest market; hence the limit of six and two-thirds miles.
I draw attention to a recent remark made by the Vice-Chancellor of the Chancery Division, Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson, who in a High Court case last year said:
"The whole basis of the rule [the six and two-thirds miles rule] unbelievably archaic as it is, is therefore linked to the distance from an actual market, the customers of that market and their ability to get to it".
One might be tempted to think that such an archaic law has no place in a modern society which has motor cars, trains and buses, where consumers increasingly want choice and diversity and, moreover, in a world which has come to recognise that consumer choice is best served by competition.
However, it remains the law and those seeking a new market must take account of it. Human nature being what it is, the existing market owners and market traders who ultimately benefit from the restriction—for such it is—will fight like tigers to protect their vested interest.
In this case there are rival markets which enjoy protection at common law within a distance of six and two-thirds miles of Ilford town centre. They are located at Romford in the neighbouring London Borough of Havering. The distances are about four and three quarters and five miles away. It is claimed—I have to say that it is not disputed by Redbridge—that Havering has market rights by virtue of a writ issued in 1247, in the reign of Henry III, establising a market at Romford which enables Havering to hold markets anywhere in Romford on every Wednesday throughout the year.
Havering council also asserts that it has a right, established in common law, under the concept of a "lost modern grant", to hold a market in Romford on Saturdays throughout the year. In addition, Havering has exercised power under Section 50 of the Food Act to establish a further market held on Fridays in Romford throughout the year. Therefore, Havering has three markets, all of a similar nature. There are approximately 600 stall places of which most market traders have two and some, three. The market therefore supports about 300 traders at any one time. The goods sold in the markets are of a general nature, including food, and there is also an antique and speciality section in the market.
I have to say that the market is and has been immensely successful. It undoubtedly forms a considerable attraction at the centre of Romford. Havering is proud of its markets, and rightly so; but
1606
does that entitle Havering to stop Redbridge having a market of its own merely because it would be within six and two-thirds miles of the Romford market? With respect, I do not think that it does, especially, if I may say so, given the relatively modest nature of the Redbridge proposal embodied in this Bill.
I turn now to deal with the Bill. Its proposal is very modest. There will be only one market and it must be located within one mile of Ilford Town Hall. It will be held on council-owned land which is currently used as a car park with space for 50 cars and it will be situated towards the eastern end of Ilford town centre beneath what is called the Griggs Approach Road flyover which forms part of the town centre ring road.
The market will contain some 80 stalls, as compared with Romford's 600. In fact, given the need to provide adequate facilities on site and circulation areas for servicing, it could not physically accommodate more. It will be a high class market selling a wide range of goods, although, as one might expect, offensive and obnoxious products will not be sold and no stall will be permitted to operate if it will cause a nuisance. It may be open for up to six days a week but not on Sundays.
Even if the Bill is passed, the market will still need planning permission. That will be sought and will be subject to the full planning consultation procedures in the normal way. I must point out that the Redbridge market is very strongly supported by the Redbridge Chamber of Trade and Commerce and the Ilford Traders Association. That is an important point. It used to be said that the established shop-keepers and department stores in an area rather dreaded the thought of a tatty open air market being situated somewhere near them as they would feel that it would lower the tone of the area and perhaps drive shoppers away. However, today such is the attraction of these modern open-air markets that they are an added inducement.
The Ilford Chamber of Commerce and the Ilford Traders Association organised a petition because of the efforts being made by the London Borough of Havering to block the Bill. In the relatively short time that the petition was being completed it attracted 6,500 signatures of people in favour of a Redbridge Market. Perhaps I may quote from an article in a local newspaper, the Ilford Recorder. On 4th May of last year the newspaper wrote strongly in support of the council's Bill. While making the point about the Romford Market, the article stated:
"Nothing that has been thriving for 642 years" —
it is now 643 years —
"is going to be upstaged by a newcomer but that newcomer could enhance a town that surely deserves it. Ilford's town centre has fitted together like a giant jigsaw. Now let's have the missing piece".
Again, the two insurance companies strongly support this proposal. In emphasising the importance which they attach to the market, they say that it would complement the major new shopping centre development and will be a great benefit to the town. They have invested heavily in the project and they do not feel that their new shopping centre, which is only a stone's throw from the site of the

1607
proposed market, has anything to fear; nor should Havering have anything to fear with its markets, which, as I said, are between four-and-a-half and five miles away from the area.
Therefore, one has to ask why Havering council still objects to the Bill. The council's Petition to the House is a long one and it would be quite inappropriate for me to deal with it now in detail. But if your Lordships agree to give the Bill a Second Reading, it can be sent to a Select Commitee where the Petition will no doubt be examined fairly and thoroughly.
The main burden of the council's case is that it is entitled to the ancient common law protection which is based on the six and two-thirds miles rule. The council justifies that fact by arguing that the market at Ilford will be "seriously detrimental" to the success of the Romford markets. Redbridge vigorously refutes that argument and it has a mass of consultants' evidence to support its case. However, it is an issue best argued out before the Select Committee rather than in this Chamber.
It is right to point out at this stage that during the passage of the Bill through another place several significant amendments were made in Havering's favour, including—and I read this with some astonishment —a right in perpetuity, as I understand it, to have paid over to Havering 10 per cent. of Redbridge's profits from its market. I thought that was perhaps going a bit far but I was told that the matter could not be re-opened in this House because of well-established rules between the two Houses. Redbridge has accepted this, even though it argues strenuously that its 80-stall market, nearly five miles from Romford's 600-stall market, will have a negligible, if even noticeable, effect. I see the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in his place. He will no doubt develop the case against the Bill. Perhaps I should do better to reply to his comments, if I can, at the end of the debate.
The case for the London Borough of Redbridge is straightforward. There is a strong demand for an open market at Ilford. Councils can normally meet this demand by using their powers under Section 50 of the Food Act 1984. Redbridge cannot do so on this occasion because of the existence of an ancient royal writ market and an alleged lost modern grant market—a legal fiction—at Romford, some 4–84 miles away. That market enjoys what the courts have described as an "archaic" protection at common law. In addition to its two common law markets, Romford has itself established a third market under Section 50. It has expanded its own market operations.
The proposals of the borough of Redbridge are modest: only one market on a small site. The borough is quite certain that it will cause no loss to the Romford markets. However, it is prepared to offer compensation and the Bill now reflects that to the tune of 10 per cent. of the annual profits in perpetuity. The best place to test the arguments about loss of trade, size, location, trading days and compensation must be in the Select Committee and not on Second Reading. However, the Bill will not
1608
get there if the House does not give it a Second Reading. I hope it will do so. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
5.11 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I too hope, in fact I know, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I shall rest content that detailed scrutiny of the Bill will be carried out properly and carefully in a Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
I wish to begin by acknowledging that from his knowledge of the area, his commitment to the people of the area in his previous role, and his careful reading of what has happened so far, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has given the House a fair picture of the desires of Redbridge Council and of the concerns of Havering Council.
I wish to declare an interest. I advise the National Market Traders' Federation on parliamentary affairs. To that extent I shall put forward the worries of market traders. They are not opposed to but alongside those of the Havering Council. I have had the benefit of the references brought directly to my attention by Havering Council and, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, having seen the petition that has been put in. It will go to the Opposed Bill Committee and will quite rightly be argued out there.
The National Market Traders' Federation makes no great claims. It has 25,000 members, some of whom stand at the market of Romford. There are many more than 25,000 market traders throughout the country. The federation does not claim that it represents the views of market traders. It is inevitable that in a democracy such as ours one seeks to represent views of some people who favour and some who are against proposals.
If we look at the action taken we know that at least one-third of the ruling Conservative Party in Redbridge is opposed to the Bill. It comes before us from a divided council. We know that it is opposed by a united council as concerns Havering. We know that when the Bill reached us it had received a Third Reading in another place by the very narrow majority of 48 to 43 votes. Therefore we are looking at a piece of legislation which is certainly not universally welcomed.
The legislation bears directly on the interests of the London boroughs of Redbridge and Havering. However, it affects much more than simply the interests of those two boroughs. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned a matter which I would refer to as charter rights. In this instance we are talking about a charter right dating back not to time immemorial but to the year 1247. Hundreds of places have charter rights. Those places have established markets with accompanying rights. Those rights were enjoyed in the main by local authorities, although that was not always exclusively the case.
The Select Committee of this House will, I hope, not consider just the narrow confines of the Bill, but rather the totality of what is envisaged. There are

1609
many areas with charter markets which could be affected by the historic precedent that will be set by the Bill when it becomes an Act. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, very fairly gave us the history of this matter. In 1891 a Royal Commission considered the grievances that many people felt as regards the protections that were enjoyed under charter rights. The Royal Commission recommended that those ancient rights should be abolished. However, that recommendation was never proceeded with. I submit to your Lordships that 100 years later it is about time that a Royal Commission or a government body of some kind should look at the whole situation. I submit that it is not right, fair or proper that the ancient market rights which have been enjoyed in many of our towns and cities should be whittled away. I can tell the House that if the Bill becomes an Act it is likely to be the beginning of a long continuous process of action by neighbouring authorities which will use the Redbridge Bill as a precedent for their own actions.
I referred to markets which could be affected by the measure. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, quite fairly pointed out what was proposed in the Bill. The preamble to the Bill states that it would be of public and local advantage to provide for the establishment of a market in the part of the borough known as Ilford, notwithstanding any infringement or non-compliance with any rule of law or enactment. We shall have to assess what is meant by the words
"public and local advantage".
The noble Lord said that in the absence of agreement, as in this case—market rights can, of course, be breached, assuaged or compromised if there is agreement—the Private Bill route could be used to override existing rights and entitlements. I believe that that is a dangerous precedent. I certainly think we should consider carefully in your Lordships' House before we embark on this costly piece of legislation, as we have been given the Bill on a tenuous basis. It is not only costly to your Lordships' House but also to the authorities concerned. I know that authorities these days are very careful about the amount of money they spend and about the size of the poll tax that they levy. I shudder to think what the poll tax payers in both the boroughs I have referred to are saying as regards the enormous cost of this measure.
I have looked at what happened in another place. I picked up a suggestion that the sponsors of the Bill have seen fit to allocate £50,000 and £4,000 a month plus expenses for their lobbyists. I do not know whether that is true, but it was never denied. Big money is being spent on behalf of ratepayers in order to achieve those ends.
It is right that I should indicate to the House the position of the London Borough of Havering. A great deal of its case has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I am grateful to him for saving the time of the House. He is right about the distances and the special protections involved. Redbridge council is perfectly entitled to establish a statutory market within its own borough. If it chooses Co site it in the part of the borough which is outside the six and two-thirds miles from Romford then Havering would have no say in the matter.
1610
However, if it wishes to site a statutory market within six and two-thirds miles of Romford market it can do so only by obtaining the consent of Havering. In effect, the Bill seeks to require Havering to tolerate a rival market at Ilford, operating six days a week, notwithstanding that it infringes the Romford market rights. Havering would therefore be placed in much the same position as if it had been compelled to grant a licence in perpetuity for that rival market.
I do not have the same knowledge of either Ilford or Romford as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. However, I have been to the Romford market a score of times. The noble Lord is right; it is a good market. I have not visited the market in connection with the Bill, but I used to live in Becontree and therefore I know the Ilford market. I noted his sense of pride in the way Ilford town centre has become alive. I passed by it a month ago and I did not recognise where I was. I could not see Harrison Gibson's, I could not see the ice-cream shop that I used to go to and I could not see a great deal of the Ilford I used to know. However, I know what the noble Lord was talking about. It is a vibrant place. Nevertheless, in the context of Havering, a market at Ilford is likely to be a danger.
We maintain that there is no real difference in the circumstances applicable to Romford market and those applicable to common law markets up and down the country. Conceding the principle in this Bill would make easier the compulsory extinction of other market rights.
The Bill is being promoted by Redbridge and still being opposed as a matter of principle by Havering—and that needs to be put on the record for the Select Committee to take careful note of the fact. Although agreements of a kind have been reached, particularly in respect of compensation, in another place the Members who represent Havering—who in my view did a very good job as constituency MPs—hammered home time and time again the fact that the London Borough of Havering does not want the Bill even though substantial changes have been made to it.
Already neighbouring London boroughs are making discreet inquiries as to the progress of the Bill and may consider doing something similar.
It is a question of compromise. Is it possible to compromise and avoid a great deal of cost? Attempts have been made to reach a compromise. However, it would be a compromise on a principle. There are some principles which we all hold on which we would not compromise. This is a principle upon which apparently compromise cannot be reached. However, I hope that an accommodation can still be reached at this late stage on what Ilford wants and what Havering denies it in order to avoid the enormous costs involved in the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the Petition. He said that this may not be the appropriate place to go through it in detail. However, in making the case for the committee to consider it is right for me to quote selectively from the Petition. Paragraph 11 states:
"As a result, market traders have built up substantial businesses and your Petitioners are aware of large sums having been paid

1611
for goodwill of businesses established in the market. The market is extremely successful, forming an attraction to Romford, and is considered by your Petitioners to be a major factor in the economic success of Romford town centre".
Paragraph 14 states:
"The Bill would enable the Council to establish the proposed market at Ilford without regard to the common law rights enjoyed by your Petitioners".
The committee should consider the manner in which common law rights will be taken away from people who enjoy those rights. Paragraph 15 states:
"Your Petitioners submit that it is not proper for their market rights to be removed in this way. As a matter of policy, all public general Acts relating to local authority markets, found in Part III of the Food Act 1984 and its predecessors, have scrupulously preserved all rights such as those enjoyed by your Petitioners. The proposals in the Bill accordingly represent a departure from a policy accepted nationwide by governments of varying political complexions. The Bill should be seen as running contrary to the accepted norm and should not be allowed in the absence of special circumstances. In your Petitioners' submission there are none in the present case".
Paragraph 16 states:
"The preservation of rights such as your Petitioners' is not, it is submitted, the perpetuation of an ancient and unjustified monopoly. Market law in England and Wales forms an integral part of the system of checks and balances which has been evolved over the centuries to cater for the needs of a mobile society in which regulation is required to some degree so as to ensure that enterprise and prosperity are not stifled by uncontrolled free trade".
I turn now to the main point which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, thought was the cause of the aggravation in Havering. Paragraph 18 states:
"The Bill would jeopardise Romford's position. By giving the Council power to establish the proposed market in sufficiently close proximity to your Petitioners' market to attract rival trade and within the common law protected distance, the Bill would in your Petitioners' opinion be likely to result in the Romford/Ilford area becoming over endowed with markets all vying with each other for a comparatively limited volume of trade, to the disadvantage of all concerned".
The noble Lord tells me that there are consultants and advisers able to produce statistics which show that that is not true. Paragraph 18 continues:
"Your Petitioners consider that the small size of the proposed market compared with Romford market is to a large extent offset by the fact that the proposed market will operate six days each week as against Romford's three. If the proposed market were to be covered its advantage would be further increased".
Paragraph 19 states:
"They [your Petitioners] nonetheless submit that the movement of trade from one town to another does not increase its volume but merely effects a redistribution, in the present case from a town which is reliant upon its market to one which is not. Your Petitioners fear that there is not sufficient trade to support markets held in such close proximity, especially if they are held on the same days".
Paragraph 21 states:
"Your Petitioners are greatly concerned by the complete absence in the Bill of any provision for the protection of the market traders whose livelihoods are likely to be badly affected by a rival market at Ilford or the other businesses in Romford whose trade may suffer if your Petitioners' market ceases to prosper. Nothing in clause 4 would benefit such people whose loss would not, therefore, attract any monetary compensation".
I am not competent to say whether that is so. However, if the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is correct—namely, that the incredible amount of 10 per cent. in perpetuity is to compensate
1612
the London Borough of Havering, not the shopkeepers or the stallholders for a diminution in their profits —that point must be taken into account by the committee.
Your Lordships' Select Committee will have a very onerous responsibility. Not only must it draw upon the history of this issue, it must consider the very closely divided way in which the Bill was brought before it. It will look at the narrow majority that the Bill obtained at Third Reading in another place. It must also look at the enormous domino effect which, in my view, will be put into operation if this Bill is enacted.
I referred earlier to other places which have markets that could be affected: Yeovil, Banbury, Chelmsford, Swindon, Plymouth, Shipley, Watford, Mid-Staffordshire—I pick that up particularly and perhaps Mrs. Heal will be interested to follow up that point—Grantham, Witney, Bridgewater, Kingston-upon-Thames, Morecambe and Lunsdale, Huntingdon—a certain gentleman called Mr. John Major may be interested—Plymouth Devonport, Aylesbury, Ribble Valley—of interest to a certain gentleman who is the Home Secretary—Colchester South and Maldon —there there is the Minister for Energy —Bristol West —which is the constituency of Mr. Waldegrave—Worcester, and so on. All those places have markets which are currently protected by a charter. In my view all those markets will —not could —be at risk if this Bill makes progress.
I ask your Lordships to take very careful note of all that has been said. I look forward with confidence to the outcome of the committee's consideration of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I intervene very briefly to restate the Government's view on the Bill. My noble friend Lord Reay has asked me to apologise for his absence. He had to leave to catch an aeroplane.
It is traditional on Private Bills that the Government take a neutral stance, and this Bill is no exception to that tradition. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to these powers being sought to establish a market at Ilford by Redbridge London Borough Council. No department has any point outstanding on the Bill. We have reviewed the whole matter of charter market rights to consider whether they are a restraint on trade. We found this a highly complex matter, which could involve compensation for loss of rights and which might well be expensive. We concluded that as existing franchise rights, present little impediment to trade —market trading being such a very small part of UK retail trade—we should leave matters as they stand at present.
The Government take the view that the issues raised by the Bill and other similar Bills in relation to markets and existing market rights are essentially of local concern and that it would not be right for the Government to intervene. It is for the Bill's promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they seek are justified, bearing in mind all the local circumstances.

1613
There is one Petition against the Bill in your Lordships' House and the Petitioner will have the opportunity to present his objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a very much better position that we are today to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual, conventional way to a Select Committee for detailed consideration.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. I am in particular grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for the painstaking way in which he spelt out the objections to the Bill. I entirely understand the Government's position. I see the difficulty that they would face if they tried to bring in general legislation. I suspect that it would certainly need to be preceded by a proper inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, indicated. However, that is not the issue before the House and it will not be an issue in the Select Committee.
I shall not respond to every point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. Those points will be argued out before the committee. The noble Lord was good enough to indicate that he at least is prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.
However, I cannot resist making one point. The noble Lord said that if the London Borough of Redbridge had chosen a site that was over six and two-thirds miles distant, there would be no objection —perhaps he said that there could be no objection —because the whole basis of the petition and the opposition to the Bill has to be based on that ancient law as spelt out by Bracton 700 years ago. Is the noble Lord saying that there would be no objection? Let us suppose that the market were to be sited at the south end of the borough, let us say on Wandsworth Flats, where it might be more than six and two-thirds miles away. Is he saying that it would have so little effect compared with one sited at Ilford, which is four and three-quarters miles away, that that changes the whole picture? I do not believe that that is the case. What he is really saying is that a market in Redbridge, wherever it is, will have very little effect on this large, prosperous and thriving market in Romford where the sites go for a premium.
However, the Bill provides for 10 per cent, compensation to Havering. The noble Lord asked what the traders will get out of it. The answer is that, if the market suffers, if the traders find that indeed they lose custom —I shall not anticipate the evidence and suggest that that is fanciful, but it is fanciful —the rents that Havering should command would fall and the traders would be paying a lower rent for their premises. It would indeed be Havering that would have to have the compensation to make up to its community charge payers what it would have lost. But, as I say, I believe that that is fanciful.
1614
That is the way that the traders would benefit. If they lose nothing, why should they receive any benefit? There is another answer. Most of the traders will be the same people. Many of the people who operate in the Romford market will wish to operate in the Redbridge market. I therefore believe that the argument about the traders is a little unreal.
Reference was made to a rash of Bills. Of course there have been some Bills. While the present common law remains in force and Section 50 of the Food Act 1984 does not override the charter rights, the correct course is that each case should be argued out on its merits each time through this procedure. That is precisely what the London Borough of Redbridge is doing. It has been done by others —the London Borough of Bexley, for example. The case is argued out. If serious damage would result and no proper compensation can be negotiated, the Bill can be thrown out. If not, it seems to me that it should go through.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I was waiting for the noble Lord to mention the magic name "Bexley" which he was kind enough to do before he finished. The committee that will consider this Bill will, I am sure, take careful note that the position with regard to Bexley is wholly different. At Bexley there was a complete agreement. There is no agreement in this case. The London Borough of Greenwich approved the Bexley Bill. The London Borough of Havering disapproves of the Redbridge Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I understand that the councils of Havering and Greenwich took different views, as the noble Lord has correctly stated. But it cannot be an argument against this Bill that other promoters of new markets may bring forward proposals for markets, by private legislation. With respect, this House has to look at the Bill that is before it and examine the merits and demerits on their own without regard to what others may do on another occasion or in relation to a different part of the country. It is amply clear that the Bill must go to a Select Committee. I hope very much that the House will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to; with an amendment disagreed to but with an amendment proposed in lieu thereof and with the remaining amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; the Commons amendments and reasons ordered to be printed.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at twenty-two minutes before six o'clock until Wednesday, 18th April.