Lords Sitting of 22 January 1990

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

Education Resources
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that sufficient resources are made available to all education authorities to comply with their duties to provide every child with proper teaching facilities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government believe that, given effective management of resources, including staff, the resources made available should be sufficient to allow proper provision to be made in every local education authority.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Perhaps I may also congratulate her on her appointment and commiserate with her on the extremely difficult task that she has been given. Is she aware that the current teacher loss is damaging the fabric of education? Those who leave create extra burdens for those who stay; those who stay then become fed up and they in turn obtain alternative employment and there are therefore fewer teachers. It is a vicious circle, with extremely dangerous elements, which might have a very serious effect on education.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations and commiserations. I think that I shall need them in good measure in the current weeks. It is important to put the matter into perspective. There is no teacher shortage which would cause a crisis. Vacancies have stayed within a narrow range for many years. Secondary vacancies in January 1989 were 1·2 per cent., the same as in January 1979. Resignations, which are running at about 10 per cent., are not out of line with previous years. About half of those resigning move on to other teaching posts. The proportion of teachers leaving full-time service in maintained schools has remained constant in recent years. Many initiatives are being introduced to address the issue of teacher supply.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Although the market place is a very important factor in deciding who goes into employment, does she agree that the Government should make more resources available in terms of pay to encourage more teachers into the profession?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no. I do not agree. The Government's record on teachers' pay is considerable. Teachers' pay has risen by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. In cash terms, since 1986
868
it has risen by 40 per cent. The number of incentive allowances available has increased rapidly since they were introduced in 1987 to a total of nearly 175,000.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I offer my congratulations and all that. How does what the noble Baroness states apply to Tower Hamlets?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations and all that. Indeed I thank the previous noble Lord for his congratulations. There are two particular problems with Tower Hamlets. One is housing, and I know that the Government are trying to address that problem in consultation with the education authorities. Another is that Tower Hamlets has not made the proposition a very attractive one for teachers.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Baroness from these Benches. Is the situation not patchy, with great shortages in the South-East, while in Scotland and parts of the North-East schools are being closed? Is that not a reflection of the inadequacy of a regional policy?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the problems for schools will be different in different places. It would be wrong to have one policy to cover the United Kingdom. The problems in Scotland would be very different from those in England. The range of the policies provided by the Government reflects the differences between regions. It would be for local education authorities to reflect the nature of the problems in their areas.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, it is about time that my noble friend received some congratulations from these Benches. What are the Government doing about good propaganda for teaching services? Teaching is not just a matter of pay but of vocation. The desire is to encourage men and women to go into this noble service. I ask the question because I am a school governor.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his congratulations. I hope that they will continue to come from my side of the House. He raises an interesting point. The Government are involved in a great deal of promotion to encourage teachers back into the profession and indeed to encourage those already in the profession. But there is a good deal of negative comment on these matters which I believe does no service to the marvellous work done in many of our schools.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I cannot think of anything original to say on the congratulations line except that I totally agree with the noble Baroness that she ought to be looking for a modicum of support from her own side when one considers how two of her noble friends have reacted to certain prospective legislation in the education field. I understand that the reply about sufficient resources being available is yes. In that case, can the noble Baroness say why even her right honourable friend the Secretary of State appears to be worried to a very considerable

869
degree about the effects of the national curriculum on our schools and in particular the extent to which the examination for such assessment seems to be overburdening them? If there are sufficient resources, how can there be the problem about which her right honourable friend is worried?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his unoriginal but nevertheless very welcome congratulations. I understand his concern about the national curriculum. It relates not only to funds but also to the time involved and the enormous challenge that the national curriculum presents to teachers. However, it is important to say that teachers are not starting from scratch. There are considerable skills and resources already available within the teaching profession. The hope is that, together with the new resources that are to be applied, such skills and resources will be adequate for the task in hand. The sooner that these proposals and reforms are put into place to benefit all the children, the better.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble Baroness and ask an original question. Is she aware of the enormous drain that is likely to be made on our educational system by the events which have occurred on the other side of what used to be called the Iron Curtain? Has she noticed that Poland is asking for 40,000 teachers of English, that other countries are likely to add considerably to the total and, therefore, that we may experience a considerable drain?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his kind words but his question strays from that on the Order Paper. However, I should be pleased to deal with it if he would be kind enough to table it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister enlarge on the reply that she gave to my noble friend Lord Mellish, which was that Tower Hamlets has not presented an attractive proposition to teachers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, teaching in inner London has not been the most attractive proposition. That is, first, because of the housing difficulty and secondly, because of the difficulty presented by the attitude of some LEAs to education in inner London. I shall leave my comments on the report at that.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend have any information to give to the House about the demographic trend in relation to pupils, because that must have a bearing on the future demands of teachers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I have understood the question correctly, my noble and learned friend refers to the movement of children around the country. It is a matter for individual LEAs, which are constantly coping with demographic change. In some areas enormous pressure will be applied for the closure of schools while in other perhaps developing areas —such as my own in East Anglia—pressure will be applied for the building of new schools. I am
870
impressed by the way in which many LEAs are grappling with the problem.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have already congratulated the noble Baroness. In relation to the national curriculum, what does she think about the argument put forward by CIPFA, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, that implementing the Government's education reforms and other new policies could add 1·5 per cent. to inflation? Does the Minister agree with that and, if so, how will the Government cope with the situation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not in a position to say immediately whether I agree with the statement. However, when in local government I was trained to treat the comments of CIPFA with caution, but always to take them into account and certainly to use them as a starting point. Again, in deciding whether the statement applies to it, each LEA must make up its own mind in terms of managing its resources.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I add my words of congratulation to the avalanche which is descending on the head of the noble Baroness and say that I exempt her from replying to that part of my question. However, when considering the provision of adequate teaching facilities for all young people, will she bear in mind the great importance of providing adequte residential accommodation in the form of centres and camping opportunities outside school premises, because they are an essential provision?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord asks me to take that into account and I give him an unequivocal yes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consider recommending to her right honourable friend that the cash limit suggested by the Interim Advisory Committee should be lifted and that a conference of representatives of students, who are becoming angry, local authorities and teachers could make a contribution towards resolving that serious problem in education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is wide of the original Question. I do not intend to ask my right honourable friend to increase the sum of money suggested by the Interim Advisory Committee. All the issues relating to its remit were taken into account.

London Underground: Automatic Barriers
2.48 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the result of installing automatic barriers at Underground stations in terms of reducing fare evasion and economising on staff, and whether serious delays have occurred.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I understand from London Underground that the installation of gates was largely completed to plan and that, since the gates have come into operation, revenue from ticket sales at stations with gates has increased by £3 million. The gates have enabled London Underground to redeploy staff away from ticket collecting to tasks which help passengers and ensure their safety. London Underground has not reduced the overall number of staff.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Is he aware that, as a regular user of the Underground during peak times, I have observed the new barriers working satisfactorily? Is he further aware that the London Underground authority should take credit for installing the automatic barriers, which have led to an obvious advantage? Does he agree that the saving of £2 million is less than I expected, because fare evasion was known to be occurring on a very large scale? Does he anticipate that the figure will be improved upon? Will my noble friend answer my last Question about problems of congestion?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I too have found a considerable improvement since the barriers were introduced during the past year. They have had a considerable effect in reducing the level of fraud —the figure I gave was £3 million. However, London Underground estimates that fraud costs it and honest passengers over £20 million per year and, therefore, there is still scope for further reductions. London Underground is working on that issue.
As regards congestion, it is true that the gates are helping. When two trains arrive at the same time at the same station and all the passengers disembark, the gates can be opened automatically and thus congestion is relieved.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in terms of inflation is my noble friend aware that the £3 million saved by London Underground is rather less than would be expected? Is he also aware that many regular users of the Underground would have preferred London Underground to have concentrated its energies on securing the mechanical efficiency of the trains and proper working of the escalators instead of installing that expensive machinery which it is perfectly possible to avoid?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on to the chairman of LRT the comments of my noble friend. All estimates of fraud should be treated with a certain degree of scepticism. It should be emphasised that they are estimates by London Underground and not by the department.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, have the Government any information about the safety record of these automatic barriers? There are stories of accidents occurring and people being squashed. Do the Government have any figures on that and, if so, what are they?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government may have figures but I do not have them today. If there are such figures I shall make sure that the noble Lord is advised of them. However, independent consulting engineers have declared that the gate system is safer than previous ticket barriers and safer even than open stations because, as I have said, gates can be used to control overcrowding. The Railway Inspectorate and the London Fire Brigade accept that view.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Viscount but I do not understand how the gates can be safer than open stations.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, because they can be used to control overcrowding.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, has the Minister seen a report in a Sunday newspaper that the Secretary of State for Transport has made a journey on the London Underground in order to familiarise himself with the problems which many of us face more frequently? Will other members of Her Majesty's Government follow that admirable example?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I read that in the newspaper yesterday. I understood that he was going to travel on the Underground every day and not merely make one journey. I assure my noble friend that as spokesman for transport, I travel regularly on the Underground and I have seen a great improvement over the past year.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the noble Viscount indicate whether it is a rule that a member of the staff of London Transport should be present wherever those barriers are installed in case anything goes wrong?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes. Regulations specifying fire prevention measures at sub-surface Underground stations were introduced last September. Regulation 10·4 requires that stations must have at least two staff on duty at any time otherwise that station is closed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that frequently that does not happen? As somebody who travels a great deal on the Underground, very often with a large suitcase, can he tell me what one is supposed to do if one has a large suitcase, there is no member of staff present and one cannot get through the gate? When my noble friend travelled on the Underground, perhaps he had his Red Box with him and suffered with that.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not have a Red Box. However, I can tell my noble friend that each station has next to the other gates, special manual gate facilities for passengers who are disabled, who have heavy luggage or who are accompanied by small children. If any of your Lordships find difficulty, I suggest that you should write to the chairman of LRT.

Package Holidays: Consumer Protection
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the arrangements in place to protect the British holidaymaker abroad in the event of default by tour operators or travel agents.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, in addition to statutory rights, the majority of holidaymakers who travel abroad will benefit from the new codes of practice announced by the Association of British Travel Agents to take effect during 1990. I understand that the Bus and Coach Council and Passenger Shipping Association have also implemented improvements to their vouluntary codes. EC Ministers have now reached a common position on the package travel directive.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. But can he tell me the line Her Majesty's Government took regarding the EC directive, particularly as regards liability for compensation of the whole of the package and as regards compensation protection for the contract once it is signed with the travel agent to the point of delivery?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is an extremely complicated matter. I have the information in front of me but perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, do I understand that those who book a holiday through a tour operator who is a member of the Association of British Travel Agents is automatically covered for default? If that is true, why is it not made a condition that all tour operators must be a member of ABTA?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is intended to bring the EC directive into force in the near future. That will have the effect of imposing control upon the operation of all kinds of package holidays. We do not believe that it is right that all tour operators should belong to ABTA which does not necessarily cover the requirements of all branches of the travel trade. However, there will certainly be new provisions resulting from the directive.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the maxim caveat emptor—let the buyer beware —still prevails in the holiday market place, are the Government satisfied that the travel business is doing all in its power adequately to train staff in order to guide the travelling public on matters about which they should be wary? Can the Minister say something more in response to the point made by my noble friend Lady Fisher? When the Government find themselves in debate with their European colleagues and have to come down on the side of either the travel industry or the consumer, which side do the Government favour?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are on the side of both sets of people to whom the noble Lord referred. We do not believe that the two are necessarily not coincident. A flourishing travel business will be to the benefit of the consumer. There is no purpose in putting the travel business out of business —if I can describe it in that way. Equally, we must be sure that the consumer receives a fair deal. I believe that that will be the benefit of the European Community directive on which member states have reached a common position. The directive has now to be formally adopted by the Council of Ministers and approved by the European Parliament. In due course it will come before the United Kingdom Parliament.
Staff training is for the travel industry, but the Association of British Travel Agents and the other bodies to which I referred in my Answer will have the matter as an important part of their codes of practice.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I was rather disappointed with the noble Lord's reply to my Question. I should have thought that if he has the information before him he could stand up and give it so that the whole House will be aware of it and not just myself.
Can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government have made compromises to the detriment of the consumer? The noble Lord talks about ABTA. A noble Lord answering a similar Question on a previous occasion agreed with me from the Government Front Bench that there are cowboys in the travel industry. Would not the noble Lord therefore agree that in this instance the consumer should be paramount?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if there are cowboys in the travel trade, they will be covered by the implementation of the new directive, to which I have referred, when it comes into force. As to the earlier point made by the noble Baroness, I have a page and a half of information on the subject. It might unduly weary your Lordships if I read that out. Pehaps the noble Baroness will table a Question for Written Answer and all your Lordships can then benefit from the reply.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I am quite willing to talk to the noble Lord outside the Chamber at the end of Question Time.

Christmas Road Accidents
2.59 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the numbers of deaths and serious injuries respectively attributable to drink-driving over the recent Christmas and new year holiday period.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, accidents resulting in death and injury over the period totalled 5,715 an increase of 11 per cent. over the previous year. The extent to which alcohol and other factors played

875
a part in the accidents, and the casualties resulting from them, is not known.
While the number of breath tests was 30 per cent. higher than over the previous Christmas, the proportion of drivers found to be over the limit fell from 10 per cent. to 8·5 per cent.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of that deeply disturbing Answer, which demonstrates to me at least the inadequacy of the present legislation, does not the Minister think that the time has arrived for a new approach to the problem? Will the Government now introduce static testing; that is, where the police are authorised to stop, say, one in 10 vehicles —a predetermined number which can be agreed —to carry out breath testing? In considering this matter will the Minister look at the remarkable success of that procedure in Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia and America? When is this slaughter of 1,000 people killed annually by drunken drivers to stop?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I thought the figures I gave were encouraging. While 30 per cent. more tests were carried out than in 1988, the proportion of drivers failing the breath test fell from 10 per cent. to 8·5 per cent.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will announce shortly the Government's response to the police request for wider powers to stop and breath-test drivers. Clarification of the law by the Attorney-General last month confirmed that the present powers are extensive. The Christmas campaign has shown that they were widely used. It is lawful for the police to stop vehicles at random for the purpose of investigating whether the driver has alcohol in his body. We urge the police to make the fullest possible use of those powers.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that of the fatal accidents only one-quarter are drink related and one-third of those are drunken pedestrians? Does my noble friend agree that more people are killed or injured on the road through defective vision than through drink-driving? Eyesight should be taken more seriously, but because it is respectable to have faulty eyesight and not respectable to have one drink too many, Her Majesty's Government do not appear to be doing anything about it.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not wish to enter into this particular debate, but your Lordships will be interested to hear that an on-going programme of research is being carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Trial surveys took place last year in Wiltshire and the previous year in Warwickshire and Sussex and a survey is to go ahead on a national basis later this year. This research project will tell us more about the extent of the drink drive problem and will assist in monitoring the success of our efforts to tackle it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister certain that he is justified in the encouragement he draws from the figures for Christmas? If the percentage
876
being tested has gone up, one would expect a percentage of those found to be drunk to go down, because presumably previously the police tested the people who were obviously tipsy. They are now testing some who are less obviously tipsy. Among those you would expect to have a higher proportion who were not drunk. Is that not correct?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my mathematics do not quite come up to scratch to answer the noble Baroness. I shall have to go home and do some homework. I will see if she is right, and if so I will write to her.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, presumably the figures given by my noble friend cover Scotland since the Question on the Order Paper is not limited to England and Wales. Have the Government formulated any views on the situation in Scotland, because press reports indicate that breath test results there have been disappointingly worse this year?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not have the figures for Scotland. I will have to write to my noble friend.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that no matter what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says, the figures for Christmas drinking and driving are quite appalling? Does he agree that one of the reasons why the figures are so appalling is the enormous cost of non-alcoholic and soft drinks, which often cost more than alcoholic drinks, which have duty upon them? Is it not possible for the Government to prevail upon the brewers and others to sell soft drinks and non-alcoholic drinks at considerably reduced prices?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on getting in that question, but I think it is a long way away from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, has my noble friend any further information on the total figure for serious accidents given in the first sentence of his original Answer? Can he show what relation, compared with previous years, those serious accidents bear to the number of vehicles registered on the road?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the figure I gave was for the Christmas period this year. I do not think figures are yet available to break that down.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that at least 82 per cent. of the deaths and injuries on our roads are caused by sober drivers, about one in 10 of whom, incidentally, are under the influence of drugs, mainly medicinal drugs? Is it not time, therefore, to abandon the notion that drink is the sole cause or even the main cause of road accidents and to concentrate more on the bad driving habits of the 82 per cent.?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot agree with that. Everybody is aware that drinking and driving

877
causes many unnecessary accidents. I can tell the House that a campaign has been developed with the support of police and local authority road safety officers. Other bodies also involved are the Department of Health, health education authorities, Alcohol Concern, the Brewers Society, AA —both AAs, I suppose —and many others. Work will continue to draw in as wide a range of interested organisations as possible and we intend to continue with it.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, important as alcohol is in causing accidents, the general standard of driving in this country is much too low? Unless it is improved, alcohol will only make it worse.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have to agree with my noble friend. The standard of driving is far worse than it used to be. Whether or not that is due to the increased number of people driving, I do not know.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, following the question of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, can the Minister say whether the police, when they apprehend people for drunken driving of motor vehicles at any time of day or night, also test eyesight or have reason to ask the drivers to have their eyesight tested? Many of us on this side of the House —and I think the whole House —know that defective eyesight is a cause of accidents.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly inform my right honourable friend at the Home Office of what the noble Baroness has said.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the form of random testing which I suggested be considered is supported by the National Council for Civil Liberties, the British Medical Association and by opinion polls? Does he therefore appreciate that the fear, which I understand, of people being harassed and bias being applied in some cases is quite simply unfounded?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I have already said, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will announce the Government's response to the police request for wider powers to stop and breath-test drivers. I cannot go further than that today.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the provisions of the Gaming Act 1968 relating to premises licensed or registered under Part II of that Act. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Consolidation Bills Joint Committee
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to Standing Order 49 the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Airedale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Grey, E.

Hanworth, V.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Lockwood, B.

Lowry, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Renton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS SEROTA in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [United Kingdom evidence for use overseas]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment. No. 1:
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: There is a part of this Bill —namely Part II —which deals with international co-operation in regard to the investigation and prosecution of offences relating to drugs and terrorism. I should like the Minister to know immediately that he, in moving amendments to Part II, will find full co-operation from these Benches not only with the original measure but with the amendments that he intends to move. I do not know whether that will enable the Minister to

879
shorten his address to the Committee. As I have said, there is complete co-operation and agreement on this side of the Chamber.
However, Part I of the Bill deals with criminal offences generally. The exchange of information and co-operation which should lead to the apprehension of criminals wherever they commit offences is the subject matter of that part of the Bill. My amendment deals with a situation which the noble Earl may be able to clarify.
It will be known to the Committee that in many countries fiscal offences are criminal matters. They are very largely dealt with in this country as civil matters and only the more serious ones become criminal cases. Fiscal matters regarded as criminal offences may come under the aegis of this Bill. If that is so, the Committee and the Minister may feel that it would be quite wrong, for example, to impose on our banks, which rely for their custom on people believing in their confidentiality, a duty to hand over to a foreign authority a copy of a statement of a bank account if it is alleged by that authority that the offence is a criminal one relating to fiscal matters in that foreign country but not in ours.
If this Bill becomes an Act it should enable the Government to ratify the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959. It would also appear to authorise the Government to ratify the additional protocol. It is that protocol which has the effect of extending the scope of the convention to fiscal offences.
There has been a previous pronouncement by the Government regarding these matters. That appears to be irreconcilable with the idea of affording assistance under a convention regardless of whether or not the fiscal matter being investigated is a criminal matter in this country. On 20th December 1988 a press release was issued by the Inland Revenue which quoted the reply of the Financial Secretary to a Written Question tabled in the other place on 20th December. In that reply the Minister said:
"The Government recognises the value which is rightly attached to international co-operation among fiscal authorities and the need to make adequate and effective arrangements to this end which are fair to taxpayers and the Revenue authorities concerned. Such co-operation plays an important part in ensuring the proper determination of tax liabilities on an international level. However, in view of the existing provisions for mutual assistance in this area provided, for example, by our extensive network of double taxation treaties and our European obligations, we have concluded that the UK need not become a party to the Convention".
That refers to the OECD and Council of Europe Convention for Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. Therefore I ask the Minister, through this amendment, whether it is correct that fiscal matters are covered by Part I. If they are, does the Minister agree that, regarding fiscal matters, we should extend this co-operation and cause banks to disclose information which is otherwise confidential only where the offence alleged is an offence according to our own criminal law? I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said. I shall not try to repeat his
880
arguments which have been so admirably and clearly stated. I know it is the strong view of the banks of this country that an amendment of this kind is necessary. Frankly, a moment's thought on what is involved would support that view.
Lord Monson: I had not seen this amendment until about three minutes ago. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has made out an excellent case for it. We have to recognise that the United States of America in particular is claiming more and more jurisdiction over what goes on outside its own frontiers. That is a development which worries a great many people. I do not believe that we should do anything to facilitate it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not wish to express a view on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, until I have heard what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has to say. We wish this Bill to be as rigorous as possible because of the scale of money-laundering that is now taking place. I am grateful to the Minister for the letter which I received earlier this afternoon dealing with a point of some importance. As far as I am concerned, he has dealt with the matter satisfactorily.
I wish to raise a particular point on this amendment which could also be raised on other amendments. It concerns a different issue. What happens if a bank or another financial institution also operating in the United Kingdom is convicted partly as a result of the provisions of this clause? In my view there is little doubt that the American authorities would have found the provisions of this clause particularly helpful in a prosecution which took place last week in Tampa, Florida. The Bank of Credit and Commerce International was convicted. It pleaded guilty to three charges of conspiracy and money-laundering. An associate bank —
Lord Mishcon: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him and not think me discourteous. Everything that he has said so far has nothing to do with this amendment, but it might be extremely relevant to a debate on clause stand part.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am perfectly prepared to deal with the matter in that way, but the speech I am about to make will be brief and there would be no purpose in repeating it later. Therefore perhaps I may continue. An associate bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas), pleaded guilty to another 29 charges. Those two banks agreed to pay a fine of 14 million dollars, which is the largest fine that has ever been imposed in such cases by a court in the United States.
The BCCI operates worldwide and it has no fewer than 40 branches in the United Kingdom. What action will the Bank of England, as the regulatory authority, take against the BCCI in this country as a result of what happened in Tampa, Florida last week? As the noble Earl and his officials will be aware, it has power to take action under the provisions of the Banking Act 1987. As the noble Earl will realise from the debate we had at Second

881
Reading, there is serious concern about the quantity of drugs' money still being laundered in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reminded us at Second Reading, that the National Drugs Intelligence Co-ordinator said that about £1,800 million derived from drug trafficking was still washing around in the United Kingdom. He also said that, despite the passage of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the United Kingdom continues to be a major centre for money-laundering.
In those circumstances I am sure that the noble Earl will appreciate that when a bank, which operates on a substantial scale in the United Kingdom, is convicted of such serious offences in the United States, many of us will assume that prompt action will be taken by the Bank of England to deal with the situation. I realise that this matter is outside the competence of the Home Office, but I shall be very grateful if, in the light of what happened last week, the Minister were to write to me about the problem and to put a copy of that letter in the Library of this House.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his final remarks. The question he posed is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, slightly outside the terms of the amendment. The noble Lord said that it was outside the competence of the Home Office. The Home Office is a fairly competent organisation and I have no doubt that we shall be able to find the answer to his specific question. I shall find the answer and write to him. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he would reserve judgment on the amendment until he had heard what I have to say. I have the fullest confidence that, having heard what I have to say, he will agree with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was kind enough to say that we would have full co-operation from his side of the Committee on Part II of the Bill. I am grateful to him for that because it is an important part of the Bill. I appreciate the concerns expressed by the noble Lord and by my noble friend Lord Selkirk and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I appreciate too the concerns on the part of the banks. However, I hope that I shall be able to reassure the Committee that the Bill is drafted in such a way as to meet those concerns. I hope it will be agreed that the amendments are not necessary.
As the Committee will recall, one of the main advantages we hope to obtain from the Bill is that it will enable us to participate with other countries in Europe in the full range of mutual legal assistance arrangements provided for in the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Part I of the Bill is intended to make it possible for us to co-operate with other countries in relation to any kind of criminal offence, subject to the Secretary of State's general discretion to refuse to act upon any particular request from overseas where it appears to him right to do so. The Bill does not specifically refer to fiscal offences, a matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked, but it is the Government's intention to accede to Chapter 1 of the additional protocol to the European
882
convention, the effect of which will be to require us to provide assistance to other European convention countries in relation to fiscal offences just as with any other criminal offences.
The European convention itself set out, in Article 2, the main grounds upon which a request for assistance can be refused. Under the terms of the convention, it is only possible for parties to the convention to require that the activity giving rise to a request for assistance should amount to an offence in both the country which makes the request and in the country which receives it if the request will involve the exercise of powers of search and seizure. This matter is dealt with in Clause 7 of the Bill, not in Clause 4 to which the present amendments refer.
In effect, this means that acceptance of the amendments would, since they impose a dual criminality requirement as a prerequisite to the grant of assistance under Clause 4, make it impossible for us to accede to the fiscal provisions of the additional protocol. However, the United Kingdom stands to gain by accession to the protocol because it will open up to us new sources of evidence for use in our own criminal proceedings against tax offenders. It is important, as the free market in capital draws nearer, that the United Kingdom should co-operate in ensuring that that free market does not make tax evasion easier. The ability to seek evidence overseas or to provide evidence to our partners in the Council of Europe is a useful addition to our defences. There is no reason in principle why assistance should be denied in the case of a fiscal offence when it is offered for every other kind of criminal offence. The Bill involves no breach of taxpayer confidentiality.
For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press his amendment. I hope too that I can give him some reassurance that the Bill's provisions do all that is necessary to meet the genuine concerns which lie behind the amendment. Acceding to the protocol will, after all, only oblige us to provide assistance in fiscal cases to other European convention countries. I do not think that it is with such countries that the noble Lord is primarily concerned.
Our dealings with countries which are not parties to the European convention or any similar treaty will be subject to the general provisions of the Bill alone, and, as I have already indicated, Clause 4 confers upon the Secretary of State a broad general discretion whether to comply with any particular request for assistance received from overseas. It would therefore be open to him to refuse to comply with any request if he judged it right to do so. We would not wish to be committed to a general policy of refusing any request which we might receive from a non-convention country in relation to a fiscal offence where there is no dual criminality but any such requests which we might receive will be examined carefully. If it is felt that there is, for example, any reason to doubt the integrity of the overseas judicial authority which made the request, or any other reason of public policy why the request should not be complied with, it will be open to the Secretary of State to take no action upon it.
I believe that the discretion which Clause 4 confers upon the Secretary of State will be sufficient to meet

883
the concerns indicated by the noble Lord, and I hope that, on the basis of my explanation of the circumstances in which this discretion might be exercised, he will not wish to press the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I wish I could feel content with the noble Earl's courteous reply but I found it singularly unsatisfactory. I wish to tell the Committee why. On every conceivable occasion where there has been a question of hitting at serious international crimes the Government have had support from this Dispatch Box. They have had support when they have sought extraordinary powers in regard to banks and in regard also to matters affecting personal liberty. We have talked in terms of the confidentiality of banker and customer and have said that that has to be invaded in view of the universal threats of terrorism and drug offences. From this Dispatch Box too I have ventured humbly to say that we must be careful to see that the floodgates argument does not apply —that once having allowed certain things to happen in our criminal law, we stop short of things which otherwise will come rushing through by way of alteration to old traditional and valuable concepts.
The relationship of banker and customer in this country is a sacred one. Because it is a sacred one, foreign depositors who are not as fortunate in their own countries —I am referring to countries in Europe which are members of the European convention —prefer to do business with our banks. The strength of their confidentiality is often the strength that enables them to obtain custom where banks in other countries are not able to do so from those self-same customers.
What did the Minister say when I talked about fiscal matters which are not criminal offences in this country but about which, possibly because of our passing this clause unamended, banks will be made to give information which they otherwise would have protected? The noble Earl referred to Clause 7 and fairly said that where there is dual criminality the matter relates to powers of entry, search and seizure. It has nothing to do with affording information and disclosing copies of bank statements.
The noble Earl referred to Clause 4 to which I seek to add this subsection. The clause gives a general discretion to the Minister. If he will only say, as I now invite him to do, that it will be the intention in the exercise of that discretion not to give such assistance where the fiscal offence was not a criminal offence in this country, I shall not press the amendment. However, the least I expect is an assurance that the discretion will be exercised in that way; otherwise we shall not be protecting bankers. It is strange for those on this side of the Committee to be trying hard to defend the interests of bankers. However, those of us on this side are equally interested in the confidentiality that exists by tradition as between bankers and customers. We are also interested in the prosperity of the City of London.
It is in those circumstances that I invite the noble Earl to give that undertaking; namely, that where the fiscal matter complained of by the other country
884
is not a criminal offence in this country, we shall not force our banks to afford information which would otherwise be covered by confidentiality. We are not dealing with drugs and trafficking offences. As I said, those of us on this side of the Committee have invited the Government to go ahead with as forceful measures as they can in that direction because we are at one with them in their endeavour to defeat these evils.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to ask my noble friend whether he will consult again with the British Bankers' Association. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, particularly as regards the significance of the banking system on the economic side of our life in this country, cannot be ignored. The bankers have not made these comments because they wish to evade anything; they say that this protection is a matter of great importance.
Can my noble friend at least undertake to consult with those who strongly hold that view? It is perhaps difficult for those who are not in the banking business to appreciate how significant are certain steps. Perhaps he can give an undertaking that this matter will again be considered so as to determine how the matter stands.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I certainly have no objection to the Government consulting the bankers. However, I hope that at the same time they will also consult other people. We are concerned about the public interest in this matter; not the interests of just the banking community. We are faced with a major criminal problem; that is, the quantity of illicit money raised by people involved in the drugs industry on both sides of the Atlantic. If this power will strengthen our position in terms of dealing with the matter, then I think we should give it to the Government.
However, when the noble Earl replies I hope that he will deal with one particular point. From his remarks, I was not clear about this matter, although that is probably the result of a misunderstanding on my part. I understood him to say that if the Bill were amended in this fashion we would not be able to ratify the convention. Am I correct in that assumption?
Earl Ferrers: Yes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I thought that that was so.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for drawing our attention to that point. There are many issues here and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, should feel any sense of shame in supporting the bankers, if indeed it is shame that he feels. There is a real issue here and I can quite see why people are concerned about the matter.
One of the matters which is of particular importance is the fact that in the Bill dual criminality refers to "search and seizure" only. That is the only occasion when dual criminality comes into effect. If we want that provision to apply to other matters, as

885
suggested by the noble Lord, then the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is right: we would not be able to sign the protocol. Of course it is most important that we do so because there are many benefits to be gained from so doing.
The protocol will oblige us to provide assistance in fiscal cases to other European countries. Therefore there are great advantages in signing the document. I think it would be a great pity if we were to accept the amendment and insert into the Bill a provision which would actually prevent us from so doing.
The noble Lord was also concerned, as indeed was my noble friend Lord Selkirk, about the position of British bankers. Consultations are continuing with the British Bankers' Association. I am quite happy that these should continue. If the association feels very concerned about the matter, I am quite content that it should inform us of such concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether I would give an assurance, in relation to any fiscal matter complained of, that the Secretary of State would not give such consent unless a similar matter was a criminal offence in this country. I have paraphrased the noble Lord's question, but I think that that was what he said. I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. However, I am sure he will understand that I cannot give him a blanket assurance which would bind any future Secretary of State. I cannot do so because it would then be necessary to put such provision into the Bill. However, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that any future Secretary of State confronted with this kind of situation would give it serious attention. I cannot, however, give him the blanket assurance he seeks. Indeed I do not think that he would really expect me to do so.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. In view of the assurance given, even though it was given in somewhat guarded language which I appreciate he had to use, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 11 [Substances useful for manufacturing controlled drugs]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 28, leave out from ("Convention") to ("under") in line 29.
The noble Earl said: This is simply a drafting amendment which shortens the form in which the Vienna Convention is cited in Clause 11. Because there are several references to the convention in the new clauses which we have tabled for insertion after Clause 12, we have decided to provide a definition of the convention. This is contained in the new clause proposed by Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Concealing or transferring proceeds of drug trafficking
—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) conceals or disguises any property which is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, his proceeds of drug trafficking; or

(b) converts or transfers that property or removes it from the jurisdiction, for the purposes of avoiding prosecution for a drug trafficking offence or the making or enforcement in his case of a confiscation order.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that any property is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, another person's proceeds of drug trafficking, he —

(a) conceals or disguises that property; or

(b) converts or transfers that property or removes it from the jurisdiction, for the purpose of assisting any person to avoid prosecution for a drug trafficking offence or the making or enforcement of a confiscation order.

(3) A person is guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that any property is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, another person's proceeds of drug trafficking, he aquires that property for no, or for inadequate, consideration.
(4) In subsections (1)(a) and (2)(a) above the references to concealing or disguising any property include references to concealing or disguising its nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership or any rights with respect to it.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (3) above consideration given for any property is inadequate if its value is significantly less than the value of that property, and there shall not be treated as consideration the provision for any person of services or goods which are of assistance to him in drug trafficking.
(6) a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable —

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

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or a fine or both.").

The noble Earl said: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was kind enough to say that there would be agreement from his side of the Committee to the amendments which we seek to introduce into this part of the Bill. He even suggested that I might truncate my remarks accordingly. Indeed I was tempted to rise and simply say, "I beg to move". However, I think that that may be regarded as a discourtesy. It is only correct that I should give some explanation regarding what are substantial amendments to the Bill.
This is the first of several new clauses which have been introduced into the Bill in order to enable us to implement the Vienna Convention. The proposed new clause seeks to fill the gap between our existing money laundering offence under Section 24 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and the rather wider offence set out in Article 3 of the convention.
The position is as follows. Section 24 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 created an offence of being concerned in an arrangement whereby a drug trafficker is assisted by someone else to retain the benefit of drug trafficking. The key to the offence is that the defendant —the one who is assisting—knew or suspected that the person whose property he was

887
dealing with was a drug trafficker. Section 24 also requires that the arrangement must be for the benefit of the drug trafficker whose proceeds are the subject of the arrangement.
The convention offences, on the other hand, rest on the nature or source of the property itself and not on whether the person himself is a drug trafficker. They cover the situation where anybody, including a drug trafficker himself, deals with proceeds in such a way as to avoid prosecution or the making, or enforcement, of a confiscation order against any person.
Accordingly, subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause give effect to Article 3 of paragraph i(B) and (ii) of the convention. They create new offences of concealment, disguise, conversion or transfer of proceeds for the purpose of avoiding prosecution or confiscation. Similarly subsections (3) and (5) give effect to Article 3(c)(1) of the convention. They create an offence of acquiring property knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that it is the proceeds of drug trafficking.
The effect of subsection (5) is that a person, who provides goods or services unconnected with drug trafficking activities, will not commit an offence by receiving payment for those goods or services even if he knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect that the payment came from the proceeds of drug trafficking. We have in mind here, in particular, tradespeople who supply such goods and services, but, of course, if the goods or services assisted the drug trafficker in his drug trafficking activities, then an offence would be committed.
There are just two other points I feel I should draw to the Committee's attention about this new clause. First, the penalties in subsection (6) for these new offences are the same as for the existing money laundering offences in the 1986 Act. Secondly, by virtue of Amendment No. 19, those offences are made drug trafficking offences under the 1986 Act and consequently the power to make a confiscation order under the Act will apply to them. I beg to move.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: This is highly technical stuff, and I am not in a position to criticise or endorse everything before us. Virtually 10 pages of amendments of a highly technical character have been introduced by the Government in Committee. And one clause —Clause 15—that was in the original draft has been omitted. I wonder how it was that the Bill came to be presented on Second Reading for enthusiastic endorsement in principle when so much required to be done before it reached Committee.
Earl Ferrers: I am not surprised that my noble and learned friend asks such a question. He might not have asked it had he been here on Second Reading, but I do not blame him for that. He had many other things to do. It is clearly a matter of concern when the Government introduce a Bill and then bring forward a number of amendments.
I explained on Second Reading that we were endeavouring to put into statute the requirements of the Vienna Convention which was signed only 12
888
months ago. The Bill provided a wonderful legislative opportunity for immediate implementation of that convention. As my noble and learned friend rightly said, the Bill contains technical matters. It was not possible to have all those technical matters resolved by the time the Bill was introduced. I explained the dilemma that the Government then faced: either we introduced the Bill without the terms of the Vienna Convention or we asked the indulgence of this place to introduce a Bill which was inadequate and incomplete so that the requirements of the Vienna Convention could be immediately introduced. We can take some pride in that, even though it might irk my noble and learned friend. It is only one year since the convention was signed. That is pretty recent to enact enabling legislation. I do not say this with any great pride, but it took 17 years to ratify the 1971 convention. If we have managed to ratify this convention within 12 months with the help and understanding of this place, I believe that that will be of benefit.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: There is a tactic well known to the Home Office and every other department equated with the Home Office. It is one, I am sure, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has practised in the past. If there is a legislative gap, a slot to be filled, and no immediate government Bill, the Home Office can always be relied upon to come forward and provide one. It has a cupboard full of Bills ready to be brought forward at a moment's notice. I dare say that that is what happened on this occasion.
Earl Ferrers: I am not certain whether that is a helpful intervention. On the assumption that it is, I shall take it as being so. On reflection, the noble Lord might think that it was not as helpful as he intended it to be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 5.
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Interest on sums unpaid under confiscation orders
.—(1) If any sum required to be paid by a person under a confiscation order is not paid when it is required to be paid (whether forthwith on the making of the order or at a time specified under section 31(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973) that person shall be liable to pay interest on that sum for the period for which it remains unpaid and the amount of the interest shall for the purposes of enforcement be treated as part of the amount to be recovered from him under the confiscation order.
(2) The Crown Court may, on the application of the prosecutor, increase the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the confiscation order under subsection (2) of section 31 of the said Act of 1973 (imprisonment in default of payment) if the effect of subsection (1) above is to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (3A) of that section.
(3) The rate of interest under subsection (1) above shall be that for the time being applying to a civil judgment debt under section 17 of the Judgements Act 1838.").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 6. The two new clauses have been introduced to enable us fully to meet the requiremnents of Articles 5.1 and 6(c) of the Vienna Convention. Under those articles, we are required

889
to ensure that the maximum possible amount of proceeds of drug trafficking, and any income derived from them is confiscated. We need to make two adjustments to the scheme established under the 1986 Act: one to deal with interest accrued on sums unpaid under confiscation orders; the other to take account of the increase in realisable property which comes to light after a confiscation order is made. Both issues have been raised by our enforcement agencies as priority concerns and the Home Affairs Committee's recent report on Drug Trafficking and Related Serious Crime recommended that the 1986 Act should be amended at the earliest opportunity.
To that end the first new clause makes provision for the addition of interest, at the same rate as that applicable to a civil judgment debt, to the amount remaining unpaid under a confiscation order at the time when it should be paid, either forthwith or on the expiry of any period given by the Crown Court as time to pay. The interest so added is then treated as part of the amount to be recovered under the confiscation order and, under subsection (2), any period of imprisonment in default may be increased accordingly.
The second new clause provides that the amount to be recovered under a confiscation order can be increased, within the limit of the assessed value of the proceeds, where it turns out that the amount that might be realised is greater than was initially assessed by the Crown Court.
Under each clause the Crown Court is empowered to make a consequential increase, where appropriate, in the period of imprisonment to be served in default of payment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Increase in realisable property
.—(1) This section has effect where by virtue of section 4(3) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (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 High Court 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 a receiver appointed under the said Act of 1986 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 Crown Court 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 such 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

(b) increase the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the confiscation order under subsection (2) of section 31 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act
890
1973 (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 (3A) of that section.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Offences on British ships
. Anything which would constitute a drug trafficking offence if done on land in any part of the United Kingdom shall constitute that offence if done on a British ship.").
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to take Amendment No. 7 together with Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 18.
Taken together these maritime provisions are designed to give effect to the requirements in the Vienna Convention which require parties "to co-operate" to the fullest extent possible to suppress illicit drugs traffic by sea. To that end each party is thus required to establish jurisdiction over offences of illicit trafficking on its own registered vessels.
Article 17(2) of the convention identifies the form which such international co-operation is expected to take. With the Committee's permission I will read the following passage from that article:
"A Party which has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel flying its flag or not displaying a flag or marks of registry is engaged in illicit traffic may request the assistance of other Parties in suppressing its use for that purpose. The Parties so requested shall render such assistance within the means available to them".
Article 17(3) enables a party which suspects that a ship registered in another convention state is engaged in illicit traffic to request authorisation from the flag state to board and search the ship. That implies a regime in which the United Kingdom may be requested or authorised to board vessels flying the flag of another convention state and in which we may ask or authorise others to board our ships. There is, however, no point in boarding and searching a ship unless some form of criminal sanction is attached to the carriage of the illicit drugs which may be found as a result. Thus we need to ensure not only that the carriage of illicit drugs on a British ship is an offence but that the carriage of such drugs on the ship of any convention country is an offence also, triable in our courts. Thus we are proposing to extend the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the British courts in respect of the ships of other countries as well as our own whether on the high seas or in the territorial waters of another country. Any ship not registered in any country may, under the terms of the convention, be treated in the same way as a United Kingdom ship so far as jurisdiction is concerned.
One of two things may happen if illicit drugs are found as a result of searches authorised under these provisions. The ship concerned is likely to be escorted into port, following which either the flag country will seek the extradition home of those suspected of complicity in the offences, or the country in question will institute proceedings locally.
These amendments seek to give full effect to the convention's maritime requirements. Amendment No. 7 extends to British ships all drug trafficking

891
offences (that is, all existing prior to this Bill) as well as those which we are now creating. Amendment No. 8 creates a new offence in respect of the transportation of controlled drugs for the purposes of illicit import or export. This offence will apply to the ships of convention countries and to unregistered ships, as well as to those registered here. Subsection (2) provides that the offence is committed where a person knows, or has reasonable grounds to suspect, that the drugs are intended to be imported, or have been exported, contrary either to Section 3(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or to the law of any other state. Subsection (3) provides for other governments to certify that import or export of controlled drugs is prohibited under their law. The test in respect of this offence is therefore not whether the accused actually suspected the illicit purpose behind the carriage of the drugs but whether a reasonable man would have done so in those circumstances, subject, under subsection (5), to the accused proving that in fact he did not do so.
Amendment No. 9 and the new schedule introduced by Amendment No. 18 create the arrangements whereby the United Kingdom may authorise other countries to board our ships, and we may be authorised to board other ships. No authorisation is required before the United Kingdom may board an unregistered ship. But in the case of the ships registered in convention states boarding may only take place at the request, or on the authorisation, of that country. Actions such as these may also be subject to conditions laid down by the other convention state. Subsection (4) empowers the Secretary of State to seek or authorise the boarding of United Kingdom vessels by other convention states. But in giving his authority the Secretary of State will be able to attach conditionsֵ For example, he might wish to limit local prosecution for any offences discovered, or to ensure that capital punishment is not imposed.
The remaining maritime amendments are largely technical in their effect, or consequential on the principal changes. I hope that these provisions will provide enforcement officers with much needed powers enabling them to deal with ships which moor close to our coasts, but which are nevertheless still in international waters and which tranship supplies of drugs to smaller craft which carry them to the mainland. If these important provisions are enacted they will strengthen yet further our ability to co-operate with other countries in this area. We must do all we can to remove any safe haven from those who organise such a trade. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: As a matter of general interest which may not fit specifically with these amendments, I am interested that we are speedily giving effect to convention decisions made only a year ago. Are other countries doing so? The concluding words of the noble Earl in explaining what these amendments meant were that the changes enabled us to co-operate with other countries to achieve what the convention had in mind. Do other countries need to enshrine that in their legislation as we are doing today? Have they done it?
Earl Ferrers: Yes, clearly the changes have to be ratified. I think I am right in saying that three other countries have done so already: China, Nigeria and one other country whose name I forget. We can consider that we are the first to give such detailed recognition and to alter our law accordingly.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: The Minister is quite right to doubt whether I intended to be very helpful on the last occasion I spoke. My purpose here is purely to seek information. This seems a very desirable provision. The noble Earl said that it would apply to our territorial waters and to the high seas, on request from another state or another flag registered in that state.
I take another example, such as one of our smaller independent territories. If we were asked to move in the case of such a territory without a substantial navy, and supposing we had a frigate within the territorial waters of that state—as we might well do—would we then respond if the suspected drug runner were in the territorial waters of the home state? I see no reason why we should not, but it would be interesting to know whether the provision would apply in that situation.
Earl Ferrers: If the vessel concerned were within the territorial waters of the country we could take such action as we liked because it is within our territorial waters.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I must apologise to the noble Earl—
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may follow the argument through. If I have not answered the noble Lord's point then he can make that clear when I have finished. If the vessel of another country were within our territorial waters then we could take action against that vessel because it was within our territorial waters. It would be the same way as taking action against an individual in our country who infringes the rules of our country.
However, if the vessel of the other state were to be moored not within 12 miles of our frontier, of our coastline—that is, our territorial waters—but if it were one mile outside those waters, then we could take action against that vessel provided we received the request from the country or we had its approval to do so and also provided that the country was a party to the convention.
I said that I had forgotten the third country which had taken action on the convention. It is the Bahamas.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I fully understand the point that we can operate on request within our own territorial waters or on the high seas. I am sorry if I did not make my question plain. Can we operate in the territorial waters of another country which requests us to do so? I am thinking especially of some of the smaller countries in the West Indies which are independent members of the Commonwealth and which have their own territorial waters but which do not have the necessary facilities to prevent some of the drug smuggling going on at

893
present. Supposing such a request came to us because we had a faster or bigger ship, would we be able to operate under this convention in another country's territorial waters? That is the point I am trying to make.
Earl Ferrers: I apologise to the noble Lord. I realise that on this occasion he is asking a helpful question. The answer is yes, we can do so, provided we have the authority of the other country. I am sorry that I did not understand the point to which the noble Lord referred.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 10:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Ships used for illicit traffic
.—(1) This section applies to a British ship, a ship registered in a state other than the United Kingdom which is a party to the Vienna Convention (a "Convention state") and a ship not registered in any country or territory.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if on a ship to which this section applies, wherever it may be, he—

(a) has a controlled drug in his possession; or

(b) is in any way knowingly concerned in the carrying or concealing of a controlled drug on the ship,

knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that the drug is intended to be imported or has been exported contrary to section 3(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the law of any state other than the United Kingdom.
(3) A certificate purporting to be issued by or on behalf of the government of any state to the effect that the importation or export of a controlled drug is prohibited by the law of that state shall be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the matters stated.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) in a case where the controlled drug is a Class A drug—

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

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life or a fine or both;

(b) in a case where the controlled drug is a Class B drug—

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

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

(c) in a case where the controlled drug is a Class C drug—

(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both.

(5) In this section "a controlled drug" and the references to controlled drugs of a specified Class have the same meaning as in the said Act of 1971; and an offence under this section shall be included in the offences to which section 28 of that Act (defences) applies.").
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement powers
.—(1) The powers conferred on an enforcement officer by Schedule (Enforcement powers in respect of ships) to this Act shall be exercisable in relation to any ship to which section (Offences on British ships) or (Ships used for illicit traffic) above applies for the purpose of detecting and the taking of appropriate action in respect of the offences mentioned in those sections.
(2) Those powers shall not be exercised outside the landward limits of the territorial sea of the United Kingdom in relation to a ship registered in a Convention state except with the
894
authority of the Secretary of State; and he shall not give his authority unless that state has in relation to that ship —

(a) requested the assistance of the United Kingdom for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above; or

(b) authorised the United Kingdom to act for that purpose.

(3) In giving his authority pursuant to a request or authorisation from a Convention state the Secretary of State shall impose such conditions or limitations on the exercise of the powers as may be necessary to give effect to any conditions or limitations imposed by that state.
(4) The Secretary of State may, either of his own motion or in response to a request from a Convention slate, authorise a Convention state to exercise, in relation to a British ship, powers corresponding to those conferred on enforcement officers by Schedule (Enforcement powers in respect of ships) to this Act but subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, as he may impose.
(5) Subsection (4) above is without prejudice to any agreement made, or which may be made, on behalf of the United Kingdom whereby the United Kingdom undertakes not to object to the exercise by any other state in relation to a British ship of powers corresponding to those conferred by that Schedule.
(6) The powers conferred by that Schedule shall not be exercised in the territorial sea of any state other than the United Kingdom without the authority of the Secretary of State and he shall not give his authority unless that state has consented to the exercise of those powers,").
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Jurisdiction and prosecutions
.—(1) Proceedings under this Part of this Act or Schedule (Enforcement powers in respect of ships) in respect of an offence on a ship may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom.
(2) No such proceedings shall be instituted—

(a) in England or Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;

(b) in Northern Ireland except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland or those Commissioners.

(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above no proceedings for an offence under section (Ships used for illicit traffic) above alleged to have been committed outside the landward limits of the territorial sea of the United Kingdom on a ship registered in a Convention state shall be instituted except in pursuance of the exercise with the authority of the Secretary of State of the powers conferred by Schedule (Enforcement powers in respect of ships) to this Act; and section 3 of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878 (consent of Secretary of State for certain prosecutions) shall not apply to those proceedings,").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 en bloc. I have already spoken to them.
Lord Mishcon: Do we have to be as pedantic as it seems we are in subsection (3) of the new clause in Amendment No. 8? The subsection says:
"A certificate purporting to be issued by or on behalf of the government of any state to the effect that the importation or export of a controlled drug is prohibited by the law of that state shall be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the matters stated".
If the words were "sufficient evidence" for both countries I could understand it. However why is it only "evidence" for us but "sufficient evidence" in Scotland? If there is a difference in the sense that "sufficient evidence" in Scotland means incontrovertible evidence, why cannot it be incontrovertible evidence also in the United Kingdom?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: This is a mystery which is only understood by Scots lawyers. But there is a distinction. I speak from my experience.
Earl Ferrers: I am deeply indebted to my noble and learned friend for giving me the answer. I was about to give it had my noble and learned friend not intervened. I am sure that the noble Lord will be satisfied that that is the answer, Scottish law is very different from English law and the Scots hold great store by the distinction.
Lord Mishcon: Because I know him to be an honest man, I take the noble Earl's word for it that this was exactly the answer he was going to give even if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, had not intervened. I recognise fully that there are different standards of evidence in Scotland as well as different types of pleas. But if Scotland has the terminology "sufficient evidence" and we wish to say that it will be sufficient evidence in the United Kingdom if that certificate is given, why can we not use the one terminology that it shall be "sufficient evidence" in both countries?
4 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am not the person who is competent to speak about Scottish law, but I think the noble Lord will find that if evidence in Scotland is insufficient it does not and cannot prove the case, whereas evidence in England can prove the case, notwithstanding the fact that if it were controverted it might not be sufficient.
Earl Ferrers: I have reason to be deeply indebted to my noble and learned friend. However, to make matters perfectly clear to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I should say—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: We appear to have the answer on a piece of paper.
Earl Ferrers: I was trying to explain that the only reason that I said that my noble and learned friend had provided the answer that I would have given was that when he said what he did I was reminded of what the answer might have been. I might have forgotten that, had my noble and learned friend not said it. Sufficient evidence in Scotland means admissible evidence. The two terms are intended to have the same effect. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who I know is very well versed in these matters, is satisfied with that answer. If he is not, he will no doubt let me know and I shall do my best to give him a long and detailed reply by letter.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Extradition
(1) The offences to which an Order in Council under section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 can apply shall include drug trafficking offences.
(2) In paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989 (extradition offences treated as within jurisdiction of foreign states) after paragraph (i) there shall be inserted "or
(j) a drug trafficking offence within the meaning of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986,".
(3) At the end of subsection (2) of section 22 of the said Act of 1989 (extradition offences under Conventions) there shall be inserted—
"(h) the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances which was signed in Vienna on 20th December 1988 ("the Vienna Convention")."
and at the end of subsection (4) of that section there shall be inserted "and
(h) in relation to the Vienna Convention, any drug trafficking offence within the meaning of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986." ")
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 20. This new clause proposed at Amendment No. 11 deals with extradition. Its purpose is to give effect to Article 6 of the Vienna Convention. Article 6 makes provision of a kind commonly found in such international agreements, the essential elements of which are that: first, criminal offences under national laws which give effect to the convention are deemed to be extraditable offences in any extradition treaty between parties to the convention; secondly where a party's extradition law depends on the existence of a treaty and there is no such treaty with another party, the convention may serve as a legal basis for extradition in respect of offences covered by it; and thirdly, a party in whose territory an alleged offender is found shall itself either extradite or prosecute.
United Kingdom extradition law is now largely contained in the Extradition Act 1989. This defines an extradition crime as one which carries imprisonment for a term of 12 months or more. The fresh offences created by the Bill are punishable on trial on indictment with terms of over 12 months, and so no additional provision is required in respect of Commonwealth countries. Nor need we be concerned about states which are parties to the European Convention on Extradition which we intend to ratify shortly and other foreign states with which we establish new treaties under the 1989 Act. But for the time being extradition with the remaining foreign countries with which we have arrangements will continue to be governed by treaties made under the Extradition Act 1870. It is therefore, necessary in respect of the latter to make provision so that new offences are treated as extraditable for the purposes of an Order in Council under Section 2 of the 1870 Act. This is the intention of subsection (1) of the amendment.
Subsection (2) provides that for the purposes of extradition, extra-territorial drug trafficking offences are to be treated as falling within the jurisdiction of foreign states. Subsection (3) adds the Vienna Convention to the list of international conventions in Section 22 of the 1989 Act which permit extradition for relevant offences to or from other parties to the respective conventions if the United Kingdom has no regular extradition arrangements with them.
Amendment No. 17 amends the provisions permitting extension of the Bill to the Channel

897
Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony. The new clause concerning extradition does not require to be extended to the islands by Order in Council because the Extradition Act 1989, which it amends, applies there directly. The amendment, therefore, recognises that it is not necessary to extend the entire Bill by Order in Council and permits exceptions. Amendment No. 20 makes two minor consequential amendments to the Extradition Act, 1989. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I take it that the provision referring to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man means that there will not have to be any legislation passed by the legislatures of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. I assume that it will be done at the instance of the British Government without the need for legislation in each of those three territories because, as the noble Earl will be aware, problems have arisen in the past as a result of rather slow progress in those legislatures on the drug trafficking offences legislation which we have been discussing this afternoon.
Earl Ferrers: As regards extradition, that functions automatically.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Application of ancillary provisions of Misuse of Drugs Act 1971]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 11, line 37, leave out ("section 11 or 12") and insert ("Part II").
The noble Earl said: Subsection (3) of Clause 13 extends Section 21 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Its effect is that, where an offence under Clause 11 or 12 committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or attributable to the neglect of specified officers of the body corporate then the officers shall also be guilty of the offence and liable to criminal proceedings. The effect of this amendment is to substitute for the offences under Clauses 11 and 12 all the offences provided in Part II of the Bill. This includes the new offences provided for by Amendments Nos. 4 and 8. This is really consequential on the expansion of Part II of the Bill by the amendments which we are discussing. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Earl said: Clause 13(5) of the Bill provides for the extension of Section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act so as to give courts power to order the forfeiture of items relating to offences committed under Clause 11. This is no longer needed because Section 27 of the 1971 Act was in fact amended by Section 70 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to cover all drug trafficking offences. This is therefore almost a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14, [Consequential amendments of Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987]:
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Ferrers: By virtue of Amendment No. 19 all the provisions presently contained within Clause 14 are to be transferred into Schedule 3 to the Bill. Clause 14 is, therefore, no longer necessary. This is devised really to tidy up the Bill. I hope that the Committee will approve of such tidying measures. I beg to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 negatived.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
("Interpretation of Part II:
.—(1) In this Part of this Act—
"British ship" means a ship registered in the United Kingdom or a colony;
"Convention state" has the meaning given in section (Ships used for illicit traffic) (1) above;
"scheduled substance" has the meaning given in section 11(4) above;
"ship" includes any vessel used in navigation;
"the territorial sea of the United Kingdom" includes the territorial sea adjacent to any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony;
"the Vienna Convention" means the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances which was signed in Vienna on 20th December 1988.
(2) Any expression used in this Part of this Act which is also used in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 has the same meaning as in that Act.
(3) If in any proceedings under this Part of this Act any question arises whether any country or territory is a state or is a party to the Vienna Convention, a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be conclusive evidence on that question.").
The noble Earl said: The main purpose of this new clause is to define certain terms used in Part II of the Bill. I think the Committee will agree that these provisions do not need any explanation. The clause also provides for the issue by the Secretary of State of certificates confirming whether any country or territory is a party to the Vienna Convention. That could be relevant, for example, in proving whether or not a foreign vessel was a convention vessel, and as such could have been legitimately boarded on the high seas with the consent of the competent authorities of the country of registration. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I may be making this point out of sheer ignorance, but should there not be a definition of a colony in view of the way in which independence is given to almost every one of the constituent parts of what was our empire? The amendment states:
"British ship" means a ship registered in the United Kingdom or a colony".
In other definitions one should at least define which countries are colonies and name them because they may fast disappear.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that that is probably a good reason for not naming them. However, it had escaped my notice that there is a definition of a colony in the Interpretation Act 1978.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Consequential amendments, repeals and revocation]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 12, line 28, after ("on") insert ("or otherwise relating to").
The noble Earl said: This is a very minor amendment. As the Bill stands at present Clause 16 refers to Schedule 3 of the Bill. Clause 16 indicates that the amendments contained in Schedule 3 are consequential on the remaining provisions of the Bill. After the addition of the further paragraphs to Schedule 3 proposed in Amendment No. 19 it would not be strictly accurate to describe all the amendments contained in Schedule 3 as being consequential. Therefore we propose adding the words "or otherwise relating to". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 12, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the amendment by that Schedule of the definition of "drug trafficking offence" in section 38(1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 applies to that definition as applied by any other enactment, including this Act.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment is linked with the proposal to amend the definition of "drug trafficking" in Section 38(1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. In the present print of the Bill that provision is found in Clause 14(1) but as a result of Amendment No. 19 it will be transferred to Schedule 3. The purpose of the amendment is simply to make it clear that the revised term "drug trafficking offence" applies not only for the purposes of the 1986 Act but also for those of other enactments, for example certain provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 12, line 40, leave out from ("that") to ("modifications") in line 41 and insert ("the provisions of this Act shall extend, with such exceptions and").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to the amendment in connection with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE ENFORCEMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF SHIPS
Preliminary
1.—(1) In this Schedule "an enforcement officer" means—

(a) a constable;

(b) an officer commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under section 6(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979; and

(c) any other person of a description specified in an order made for the purposes of this Schedule by the Secretary of State.

(2) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (1)(c) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) In this Schedule "the ship" means the ship in relation to which the powers conferred by this Schedule are exercised.
Power to stop, board, divert and detain
2.—(1) An enforcement officer may stop the ship, board it and, if he thinks it necessary for the exercise of his functions, require it to be taken to a port in the United Kingdom and detain it there.
(2) Where an enforcement officer is exercising his powers with the authority of the Secretary of State given under section (Enforcement powers) (2) of this Act the officer may require the ship to be taken to a port in the Convention state in question or, if that state has so requested, in any other country or territory willing to receive it.
(3) For any of those purposes he may require the master or any member of the crew to take such action as may be necessary.
(4) If an enforcement officer detains a vessel he shall serve on the master a notice in writing stating that it is to be detained until the notice is withdrawn by the service on him of a further notice in writing signed by an enforcement officer.
Power to search and obtain information
3.—(1) An enforcement officer may search the ship, anyone on it and anything on it including its cargo.
(2) An enforcement officer may require any person on the ship to give information concerning himself or anything on the ship.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of those powers an enforcement officer may—

(a) open any containers;

(b) make tests and take samples of anything on the ship;

(c) require the production of documents, books or records relating to the ship or anything on it;

(d) make photographs or copies of anything whose production he has power to require.

Powers in respect of suspected offence
4. If an enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence mentioned in section (Offences on British ships) or (Ships use for illicit traffic) of this Act has been committed on a ship to which that section applies he may—

(a) arrest without warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of the offence; and

(b) seize and detain anything found on the ship which appears to him to be evidence of the offence.

Assistants
5.—(1) An enforcement officer may take with him, to assist him in exercising his powers—

(a) any other person; and

(b) any equipment or materials.

(2) A person whom an enforcement officer takes with him to assist him may perform any of the officer's functions but only under the officer's supervision.
Use of reasonable force
6. An enforcement officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the performance of his functions.
Evidence of authority
7. An enforcement officer shall, if required, produce evidence of his authority.
Protection of officers
8. An enforcement officer shall not be liable in any civil or criminal proceedings for anything done in the purported

901
performance of his functions under this Schedule if the court is satisfied that the act was done in good faith and that there were reasonable grounds for doing it.
Offences
9.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) intentionally obstructs an enforcement officer in the performance of any of his functions under this Schedule;

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement made by an enforcement officer in the performance of those functions; or

(c) in purporting to give information required by an officer for the performance of those functions—

(i) makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular; or

(ii) intentionally fails to disclose any material particular.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 7.I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: This is only a small point but perhaps the noble Earl will be good enough to consider it. Paragraph 7 of the amendment states that the enforcement officer:
"shall, if required, produce evidence of his authority".
That may be very misleading if it is deemed to be oral evidence. I should have thought that the word "written" before "evidence" would be an improvement. All the enforcement officer would have to do would be to produce his authentication in writing. If it is left as "evidence" that could lead to misunderstanding and possibly to a great deal of argument by barrack room lawyers.
Earl Ferrers: I have little doubt that it means written evidence but I shall certainly look into the point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Consequential Amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 14, line 43, at end insert—
("The Criminal Justice Act 1982
1A. At the end of Part II of Schedule I to the Criminal Justice Act 1982 there shall be inserted—
"Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990
Section (Concealing or transferring proceeds of drug trafficking) (concealing or transferring proceeds of drug trafficking)."
The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986
1B.—(1) The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 2(4) after the words "section 24 of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or section Concealing or transferring proceeds of drug trafficking of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990".
(3) In the definition of "drug trafficking" in section 38(1) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
"(d) manufacturing or supplying a scheduled substance within the meaning of section 11 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 where the manufacture or supply is an offence under that section;".
(4) In the definition of "drug trafficking offence" in section 38(1) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
"(dd) an offence under section 11, Concealing or transferring proceeds of drug trafficking or Ships used for illicit traffic of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990;",
and in paragraph (e) for "(d)" there shall be substituted "(dd)".
The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987
1C. In section 1(6) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
"(e) manufacturing or supplying a scheduled substance within the meaning of section 11 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 where the manufacture or supply is an offence under that section;" ").
The noble Earl said: The amendment adds to the consequential amendments specified in Schedule 3 three new paragraphs which are numbered 1A, 1B and 1C.
Paragraph 1A proposes an amendment to Part II of Schedule 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Its effect is to extend the categories of prisoners in respect of which the Secretary of State has no power of early release to include those who are convicted of the offence (proposed by Amendment No. 4) of concealing or transferring the proceeds of drug trafficking.
Paragraph 1B proposes three amendments to the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. The Drug Trafficking Offences Act allows a court, in making a confiscation order against a convicted drug trafficker, to assume that any property which has come into the defendant's possession in the period prior to the institution of proceedings represents the proceeds of drug trafficking. The one situation in which the 1986 Act does not allow that assumption to be made is where the drug trafficking offence is solely that of money laundering. The effect of the first of the amendments is to ensure that the same distinction is preserved in regard to the new money laundering offences created by the Bill. The second and third amendments to the 1986 Act transfer into Schedule 3 what in the Bill as introduced were subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 14 with the addition of references to the new clauses proposed as Amendments Nos. 4 and 8.
The proposed amendment to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 simply transfers into Schedule 3 what was Clause 14(3) in the Bill as printed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 15, line 38, at end insert—

(1989 c.33.

The Extradition Act 1989.

In section 22(4)(f)(ii) the word "and".

In Schedule 1, in paragraph 15(h) the word "or" where it last occurs.").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Scottish Agricultural Colleges
4.16 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements will be made in any reorganisation of the Scottish agricultural colleges to maintain the co-operation now existing between the University of Aberdeen and the North of Scotland College of Agriculture.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the timing of business in this House can be very difficult for someone who lives only 20 miles away and relies upon getting to the House within an hour and then finds a mile of the Embankment torn up and spends half an hour there and arrives almost too late for the debate in view of the speed with which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has dealt with the business today.
The Question concerns the effect which the implementation of the Williams Report might have on the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. Although I have narrowed the Question to that issue I am sure that my noble kinsman will expand on the report as a whole.
To some extent my interest is a family one. My uncle and my father were both chairman of the governors of the college for many years. I was a governor for many years and also served as vice-chairman. I farmed in the area near the college for many years and my family still farms there. I was chairman of the hill farm research farm and saw a great many of the less favoured areas which are referred to in the report. I saw the great help which the college's advisory service gave to those areas, and I should like to emphasise the close contact between those areas and the college. I was a student of the college, taking a certificate course. In all the time that I farmed in the area I received help and advice from the college's advisory service.
It was therefore a great disappointment to me that moves were afoot to upset the system which I knew so well and took part in for so long, particularly on the educational side. I understand that those moves are the result of the Williams Report recommendations being almost rubber-stamped by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Although I have not seen his statement, I understand that he accepts the report's recommendations.
The foreword to the report goes into a fair amount of detail about what is in the report. I should like to read out the first sentence which states:
"Scotland is not well-endowed physically for the pursuit of agriculture. Most of its farming is nothing less than trench and tractor warfare against a hostile terrain".
I should like to repeat that statement, but perhaps I should let it sink in. Has the committee no knowledge of Scotland? Even starting at John o' Groats and taking the coastal strip of arable land all the way to the Black Isle, one cannot say that that is "hostile terrain". The farming there is not trench warfare. When one thinks of the Black Isle, which includes some of the best land and farming in the country, and the easy, beautiful land and climate along the coast of the Moray Firth, one can hardly imagine classifying that as "hostile terrain".
We can go from there into Aberdeenshire where my family has farmed for nine generations over the
904
past 340 years. It is one of the largest farming counties in Scotland and has rightly developed over the years. My ancestors did a great deal of trenching and draining there at one time. As one goes through Aberdeenshire—I am sure that the Minister has been there—one realises that this is not an area of hostile terrain.
There is some of the best land in the country in the Howe of the Mearns where I farmed for 30 years. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, will emphasise that point in relation to the Valley of Strathmore where he farms. There is then the coastal plain from Stonehaven to Perth and the kingdom of Fife with its golden fringe, good land in the centre and good farming.
The Lothians contains the best land in the country. I knew many of the farmers there, including the late Jack Dale who made a reputation for the farming and land of the area. Farming in Berwickshire and the Borders can by no stretch of the imagination be described as:
"warfare against a hostile terrain".
Perhaps I may now cross the country to the noble Lord's homeland of Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire where some of the best grassland for farming is to be found and milk production is the envy of many. I have many friends there and it has never struck me that they struggled against "a hostile terrain".
Quite frankly, that opening sentence is the most extraordinary that I have ever read, especially given that there are two prominent Scottish farmers on the committee. It makes me and many other people suspicious of the report. The statement that 90 per cent. of the land is classified by the EC as unfavourable—I do not know whether it is right or wrong, but I think it must be wrong—prompted me to calculate the gross cash intake per acre available for the remaining 10 per cent. It comes to about £800 per acre. That is a rough calculation, but if that is the case, there is not a great deal coming over that 10 per cent. I do not know where that figure came from; it should be examined carefully.
The second paragraph of the report is simply a statement of fact. The third paragraph is the most revealing. It states:
"This network of agricultural education, research and development and advisory services is the Scottish System which won parliamentary praise as recently as 1983. It is now under threat for various reasons, all reducing"—
I do not understand that piece of grammar—
"to swingeing cuts in the public funds which have been allocated annually in support of the System for the last 80 years".
The report is obviously not concerned with increasing the efficiency of the college services, be they educational, advisory or regarding research and development. It is simply a grant-cutting exercise in line with the Government's dogma of cutting public expenditure irrespective of the harm that might be done. I emphasise that point, but anyone who reads the report will see that that is the case.
The report is most difficult to understand. I have tried to understand it and I am not alone in my difficulties. Professor Jones and his staff sent a letter to the Secretary of State. I do not wish to quote it all; I am sure that the noble Lord must have read it

905
as I believe that it was also sent to him. Professor Jones mentioned the muddled way in which many matters were dealt with.
Chapter 8 contains the committee's main opinions, recommendations and conclusions. There are 82 in all, so it is difficult to sort them out and deal with them. I rely on, as the North-East poet, the late Charles Murray, said:
"Folk wi' better thums thon me to red the ravelled snorl".
He goes on, although I have altered one word to fit the case:
"and tell ye fa be-good the ploy that sae upset the College".
I may have to translate that later. The people on whom I have relied are Professor McNicol, the principal of the University of Aberdeen, Professor Jones—the head of the college—and his staff, and many others interested in the North of Scotland College of Agriculture who have had the time and knowledge to go into that matter in depth.
In a detailed survey, Professor Jones pointed out the committee's naivety on the subject of higher education in paragraphs 7.47 and 7.49 and in paragraph 8.82 which contains its final, overall view. He also pointed out a mistake in costs with regard to the figures for Aberdeen and the West of Scotland College. There was a mere £400,000 difference which I suppose does not worry anyone. The number of times that he uses the expression "This is untrue" leads one to be suspicious of the value of the report.
Its two main recommendations will disastrously affect the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. Professor Jones is not quite so hard on the report as I am. He uses the phrase, "seriously affect".
The first recommendation concerns the centralisation of administration of three colleges at Edinburgh. This recommendation is viewed with great apprehension by the staff of North Scotland College and by the principal of the university. The North of Scotland College is over 100 miles from Edinburgh. If it is put further away, a few miles will be added to that. Large areas of North Scotland College's advisory territory are well over 100 miles away. Therefore there will be an enormous waste of time and money. Staff will be moving about and governors will struggle to meetings. Some people believe that the effect of that recommendation will lead to unworkable conditions. The point is emphasised that the college may close.
The second and most important recommendation concerns the separation of the college from the university. This would be a major tragedy—and I use the word "major" unreservedly. For years the headquarters of the college were at Marshall College. Physical contact with other students of the university has a broadening effect on some narrow-minded farmers' sons and other agricultural students. When the university required this space for medical use an unimaginative Department of Agriculture said: "You have plenty of land at Craibstone. You can build cheaper there". That land is 4 to 5 miles away. The governors, who appreciated the situation, fought against the suggestion. With very good support from the then principal, Professor Taylor, we obtained a
906
site at King's College and the physical connection was continued. This point is also emphasised by the present principal. I cannot stress too strongly how important this contact is. I and my two brothers and my three sons derived great benefit from it. However, my grandson, although he is the tenth generation, has left agriculture and gone into another business.
The tragic proposal to dismantle the present joint University of Aberdeen and North of Scotland School of Agriculture is ably dealt with in the memorandum of Professor McNicol of 16th November and in the letter from Professor Jones and his staff to the Scottish Secretary. I am sure that the noble Lord has read both those letters. It would be presumptuous of me to attempt to enlarge upon them. However, I should like to read paragraph 11 of the principal's memorandum. He writes:
"Account must also be taken of the financial and legal complexities of dissolving the partnership between the University and NOSCA and transferring the College's assets to ACS. The School of Agriculture Building, for example, was financed jointly by the University through a direct grant from the UGC (one-third share) and the College (two-thirds share) but is built on land exclusively owned by the University. The Animal Metabolism Unit, however, was built by the University on College land. This is a good illustration of the extent to which the complementary activities of the University and NOSCA are physically integrated."
The attempt to get students to attend the university and the college could create serious competition. That is a situation which should not exist. There is also the point about waste of manpower. These matters are expressed very clearly by Professor Jones and his staff and the principal.
I do not wish to say any more. I hope that the noble Lord will take into consideration all the points that have been put to him not only by me but by other people.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to back up my noble kinsman in practically everything that he has said. Although he has expanded fully on the foolishness of the opening sentence, I should like to say that it is quite extraordinary that it should appear in a document of this kind. I have farmed in the Howes o Muir for 40 years. I started there as a tenant of the grandfather of the noble Earl sitting on the Front Bench. He will know the quality of that land. It throws a little doubt on the validity of many sections of the report.
The principle that we are pushing is that of co-operation between the universities and the colleges. The system of the three colleges has worked very well, particularly with Aberdeen and the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. There, one has three internationally known research bodies: the Rowett Institute, the Macaulay Institute, and the Craibstone Research Station. All three bodies co-operate closely with the university and have governors on their boards who are members of the other bodies. As a result, one has a complex which is of great value to Scottish agriculture. I dare say that the same is true of Edinburgh, but I do not speak with so much knowledge of that as I do of Aberdeen.
I remember the row that went on just after the war when a professor was appoined to head the

907
college and to be the professor of agriculture of the university. Having taken on the appointment, he became frighened at the amount of work. He set to work to undermine the system and to separate the university from the college so that he could concentrate on his academic navel, or something of the kind. He was successful and the university had to provide a new farm. Happily, he left to go back to Leeds. By this time the university and the college were aware of the harm that had been done by splitting the two functions and breaking the co-operation between the two bodies. The university provides the intellectual and academic background and the college provides the immense range of services which are necessary to produce good advice and good practitioners of agriculture at every level.
It is very important that the principals and the professor of agriculture appreciate that something good is going to come out of the Williams Report, whose main recommendation is that the three colleges should be combined as one college on three separate campus sites. This may well be sensible. Some of the other recommendations are far from sensible. The one which was calculated in the summary of the conclusions—and I cannot understand how any sensible person could have put it in this way—was that the schools of agriculture at Aberdeen and Edinburgh should cease to exist and that their academic function should be taken over by joint boards of studies responsible to the appropriate university faculties and the Academic Policies Committee of the ACS. I cannot think of anything that would be more inclined to send shivers up and down the backs of the people concerned.
Further recommendations in the report state that it is essential that the strong academic links between the existing colleges and their local universities should continue. These are two different interpretations of the facts. It is suggested that the colleges should continue as separate campuses under a central direction. That is sensible. However, I think that other recommendations are enormously dangerous.
There is some evidence, although I do not think it is conclusive, that there is a preference among certain firms in England for employing people with national diplomas from English colleges as opposed to those with a Higher National Diploma from Scotland. That is worrying. A number of Scottish students have gone south. That is not a bad thing so long as a reciprocal number come north. However, it may be more a case for propaganda for the value of the Scottish HND. If the course needs upgrading and a further input of different disciplines, then that should be done in collaboration with the universities. It should not be separated entirely from the universities, as the report recommends. That must be wrong.
I hope that the Minister will study the recommendation with great care and decide against it. It is one of the conclusions reached by the report that must be wrong and needs to be reviewed. It is all very well to say that the college and university can co-operate. But if one has total separation as, for example, with Aberdeen—it is recommended that the principal be appointed entirely by the college
908
and that the university will appoint its own professor—one begins a process of separation that is bound to do harm in the long and the short run to the cause of education and research in the area.
It is recommended that the headquarters be moved from Perth and set up in Edinburgh. That would be overturning a decision taken only in 1987. It is also recommended that the principal in charge of direction of the central board could be a principal of one of the colleges. That must be wrong. If one has three equal colleges co-operating with one another, and the principal of one is made director overall, one will have much bad feeling. Although a good start has been made by the provisional appointment of a good chairman for the new college, we must look carefully at that issue. I believe that Perth should remain the centre. It is always cheaper to adapt an existing establishment than to set up an entirely new one, especially, as in this case, since I am certain that the change will cause a good deal of strife. I should like a comment from the Minister on that aspect.
There are many other points in the report with which I disagree. However, there are some good suggestions. One is that the lower degrees for farm workers in crafts and so on, the courses for which at present are provided by colleges run by the education authorities, should be integrated with the colleges in their area. That is done at present by the East of Scotland College at Oatridge and the local authority. That is sensible.
There are a number of sensible suggestions in the report. The Minister has already allayed some fears in the North by his Statement. I hope that he will consider the central point of the report and accept that the colleges should be combined as one college with three campuses. However, he should then consider the human relations aspect with great care. Human relations are what make any company, college or advisory system work. I hope that in particular he will apply his well known charm and common sense to the academics of Aberdeen University so that the very excellent co-operation that has done so much good for agriculture in the North and over a wider field will be able to continue.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I shall certainly not keep the House from the Minister's reply for more than a few minutes. I was always told that the one subject on which one should not speak unless one knew about it was agriculture. Having listened to the two contributions in the debate I am fully convinced by that advice.
I have studied the report. There were many elementary facts that I was unable to understand because of my totally different background. However, I am concerned about some fairly simple points. The Statement in answer to a written reply by the Secretary of State in another place on 15th December is less than two columns in length. Would it not have been better for the Secretary of State to issue a fuller reply to some of the points raised by the two previous speakers?
I have been trying to find out from colleagues how the Statement has been accepted generally. After a

909
close discussion there has been much greater acceptance than I should have expected, although there are many points in dispute. The Secretary of State might have been able to allay many of those fears, and to get closer to the nitty-gritty, had he made a fuller Statement and analysis of the report and his reaction to it. Perhaps that will be made at some point, although I am not referring to this afternoon.
During my discussions questions were raised about a reduction of staff and the availability of help to small farmers or even crofters. Will the source of information and advice still be available to them?
We are grateful to my noble friend Lord John-Mackie for raising the Question. After the Minister has replied, I hope that we may have a fuller Statement either here or in another place.
Finally, what happens to the report now? Is it merely implemented or will any of the recommendations come back to the House for ratification? Will the report be debated more fully in another place?
4.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, first, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that I am pleased to answer this short but very important Question on the future of the agricultural colleges in Scotland. I know that he and other members of his family—in particular his father—had an important role to play in the agricultural scene in Scotland, in particular in Aberdeen. I shall address most of my remarks to that subject, which has exercised me and the Secretary of State over the Williams Report.
Perhaps I may say that the acceptance of the committee's appointment was welcome. I very much understand the concern of the noble Lord at the opening sentence of the foreword and the impression that it might give. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will understand when I say that the amount of less favoured area in Scotland is considerably greater than in other parts of the United Kingdom. While I accept what the noble Lord says about the Mearns—the noble Lord talks with much authority about the land in Angus and so on—there is a considerable amount of land in Scotland which is of a less favoured type. I know only too well that I have to deal with that when we come to matters such as hill livestock compensatory allowances—a subject that is exercising me at the present time.
With an ex-president of the Scottish National Farmers' Union on the Alwyn Williams Committee, together with Mr. Manson, who farms near Oldmeldrum, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will understand that we did our best to persuade those who are pro-active in Scottish agriculture to take a part in the work of the important committee.
The major recommendation of the Williams Report was that there should be one college, a single board of directors and a single chief executive or executive director. I am pleased that Mr. Sandy Inverarity, who has considerable knowledge and
910
experience of agriculture in Scotland combined with wide experience in the business sector and as a chartered accountant, has agreed to be chairman of the new board. We intend that it should have its full appointment in February.
The creation of the new college will mean that the Board of Governors of the three existing colleges will be wound up, although there will be a place for local bodies deriving their authority from the main board to carry out certain functions locally relating to the individual colleges or "campuses", as the Williams Report describes them. The Secretary of State has also decided that, in accordance with the recommendation of the Williams Report, the educational focus of the new college should shift towards the higher end of the education spectrum. That is a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred.
That will put the new Scottish Agricultural College more in line with other nationally-funded central institutions in Scotland. It means that the college will increasingly provide courses at degree level while reducing provision at National Certificate level, particularly the craft level courses, which can be accommodated in other centres of learning.
It has been suggested that the creation of the new college could have particularly damaging effects in Aberdeen, where there is a long tradition of college and university working intimately together in the framework of the Aberdeen School of Agriculture for the provision of agricultural education. In Aberdeen, as in Edinburgh, there is a single head of the school and arrangements for sharing land, buildings and other facilities. In the West different but equally constructive relationships exist between the West College, which I visited only on Friday, and Glasgow and Strathclyde Universities. There have been, and still are, fears in Aberdeen—clearly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie—that the creation of the new college and the accelerated thrust towards degree-level provision will do damage to this existing relationship.
I must say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have listened very carefully and took a great deal of care especially as regards representations from Aberdeen. As the noble Lord will be aware, I have also seen representatives, Members of Parliament and others from the area. We have concluded that the specific recommendation of the Williams Report—that the existing schools of agriculture should be abolished—would not be in the best interests of university or college, or, more importantly, of the students attending either institution, or of the agricultural industry which they serve. It is essential that there continues to be an intimate association between the college and the university. In the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, it remains desirable for them to share resources.
That brings us to the very nub of the argument presented by the noble Lord: how is co-operation to be maintained between college and university in the new arrangements? There are a number of points that can be made immediately in response to this

911
question. I shall ensure that all noble Lords who have spoken receive a copy of my right honourable friend's Statement because it allays some of the fears expressed.
Taking the example of Aberdeen, there is close co-operation between the university and other higher education research organisations in the area. I am aware of the kind of co-operation that exists, for example, between the university and Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology or, within the agricultural sector, between the university and the Rowett Research Institute in the provision of postgraduate education and research. Therefore, I am confident that one of the earliest tasks of the new board of directors, its chairman and executive director will be to enter into discussion with the principal of Aberdeen University—and with the principals of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde Universities who have generally welcomed the findings of the report—about the arrangements which will operate in the future. They range from the details of course provision to the use of resources, including staff, land, buildings and equipment.
But one point is absolutely fundamental. It is that there must be proper lines of accountability within the college and the university. It is essential that responsibility for appointing the principal or head of the North College or campus should lie solely with the board of directors of the new college, albeit with university involvement; and that the head of the college should be fully and solely accountable to the board of directors through the executive director for the management of the college. The same principles must surely apply to the university where heads of department are accountable to the university principal. It is neither sensible nor desirable—indeed it is quite bad management—for the head of an important organisation to be responsible to two masters.
The argument has been put that such an arrangement—the separation of responsibility for college and university department—was tried before in the 1950s and failed. But that argument fails to take into account the profound changes that have taken place in the college structure over the past five years. That experiment—if that is how it can be described—occurred when all three colleges were quite independent of each other and provided a full range of services—education, R&D and advice—within their local areas. But it was the colleges themselves which in 1985 recognised that their continued existence as purely regional-based organisations could not continue. The creation by the colleges of SAC Ltd., and the establishment of the general advisory and veterinary investigation services on a national basis—that is a Scottish basis—marked a clear and radical break with what had gone before and signalled the determination of the colleges to operate increasingly in the future on a national basis.
Before Christmas I attended an extremely good meeting of the college advisory service personnel in Crieff and the morale and standing of that body I could recommend to anyone. The transformation which has taken place within the set-up since 1985 is quite remarkable. It goes to the point raised by the
912
noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about small farmers. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the determination of the college advisory services is now such that the small farmer, wherever he is in Scotland, is receiving a very good service.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked whether it is a cost-cutting exercise. The answer is certainly not. It was never the intention, nor was it implicit in the terms of reference of the Williams Committee, that we were embarking on a cost-cutting exercise. I hope that, in what I have said and what I have to say, I can demonstrate that we must have a proper set-up for Scotland as regards the Scottish agricultural colleges.
In short, the Williams Committee found that the way forward lay in a national college under unitary management. The new management arrrangements would be incompatible with overall management responsibility of the north or any college or campus by a university-appointed senior manager. That is the major point.
I appreciate that there are necessarily a great many points which require detailed consideration and discussion before a new agreement can be established between the college and the university. That applies not only to Aberdeen but also the other bodies. The discussions must cover staff—a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—including the arrangements for senior academic appointments which are currently jointly funded. They must also cover land and buildings—where the college occupies the greater part of the Department of Agriculture building which was built originally with funds contributed from both sources—and the use of farms and equipment where the university has the use of college-owned facilities. Important questions of policy and finance also arise in relation to the nature of the degree-level courses to be provided and the access of college students to the academic and non-academic facilities of the university such as libraries, sports fields and so on. I know very well the strong representations made by the principal of Aberdeen University and of course Professor Jones on this matter and I have had the pleasure of discussing this matter with him. I am confident that with good will on all sides there will be a satisfactory arrangement on every campus as regards the future.
I can take away the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, on the headquarters of the new operation. That will be a matter for the new board but all three governing bodies of the three colleges suggested that Perth, the present headquarters, should be the place. From those headquarters the successful development of the advisory service has taken place. I also draw attention to the statement by my right honourable friend that the role of the executive director should be separated from that of the campus principal. Therefore, the noble Lord will understand that the Secretary of State and I have not accepted all the recommendations of the Williams Committee.
I shall read to him, because it is vital, the paragraph which concerns the schools of agriculture in Aberdeen and Edinburgh:

913
"So far as the Schools of Agriculture are concerned I am not minded to accept the Williams recommendation that these should cease to exist. While some restructuring of the relationship between the present Colleges and their neighbouring Universities will be an inevitable consequence of the establishment of a single national college, I attach the greatest importance to allowing the strong academic links and the productive sharing of resources established between Colleges and Universities to continue both now and in the long-term. I would therefore in particular wish to see the concept and title 'School of Agriculture' carry on at both Aberdeen and Edinburgh provided that the School was in future headed jointly by its respective campus Principal and by a Professor at the University. I expect the Scottish Committee of the UFC to offer me advice on the balance of provision in agricultural education between the College and the Universities, recognising the Universities main strength lies in the sciences and that of the College in technological and vocational subjects".
As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, said, agriculture is at times difficult to explain to those who are not involved in it. When I started this job I did not know much about it but I know a good deal more now. One thing I know is that in Scottish agricultural circles one must work with the grain and not against it. That is why when I came to this job I was very concerned by some of the problems surrounding the Scottish agricultural colleges. I believe that, with the recommendations which we have accepted from the Williams Committee, we shall make sure that we are delivering into the next century a satisfactory situation in Scotland.
What is most important about the Williams Committee report, although it has not been mentioned by any noble Lord, is that the three-legged stool—the Scottish system, the advisory service and the research and development function—of the colleges in Scotland will be maintained. That is something I should not wish to see in any way jeopardised. I believe that the arrangements which we are setting in train to be brought into effect as fast as possible will achieve that end.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he expand on his statement that the North of Scotland College will continue to exist and that the professor appointed by the university and the principal of the college will work together to run the college? Does that mean that there will be no competition for students, because I believe that that is very important?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the arrangements and the necessary courses will be determined in the light of what the university and the college would wish for agricultural education. The new campus principal, who will be situated in Aberdeen, running the agricultural college on behalf of the SAC, will, it is hoped, at a very early date get down to the provision of the courses required and the arrangements necessary for the use of land, property, farms and so on which will be implicit in that. I believe—and I am sure this also goes for the new chairman of the SAC—that an early start must be made to those arrangements so that we can provide the education required through the right channels.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has some doubts about Williams and his remarks about a degree. But he might wish to have another look at paragraph 3.70, where there is no doubt that, not merely in agricultural education in Scotland but also in the other Scottish CIs, there are problems in relation to degree courses being available in England, That is something on which the noble Lord and I differ. However, there has been a problem in relation to that matter and that is something which the SAC must address.
House adjourned at six minutes after five o'clock.