Lords Sitting of 25 June 1992

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords Several Lords —Took the Oath.

Whaling: Moratorium
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
What conclusions were reached at the International Whaling Commission's humane killing workshop held on 20th-22nd June and how they propose to ensure that the moratorium on commercial whaling is maintained at the International Whaling Commission's meeting later this month.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the workshop was chaired by Professor Sir Richard Harrison and undertook a detailed review of whaling techniques and their humaneness. The outcome has still to be reported to the International Whaling Commission and until then the detailed deliberations of the workshop are internal to the commission. The moratorium on commercial whaling came into operation in 1985. Her Majesty's Government will not contemplate any lifting of the moratorium unless stocks are healthy and effective management procedures are in place, and because present evidence suggests that commercial whaling cannot be undertaken in an acceptable and humane manner.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that his Answer gives me nothing but delight? On behalf of all the whales in the world, I thank him for it. Is he prepared to go a little further? At next week's IWC meeting, will the Government urge all other delegations to stop the process of so-called scientific whaling and support the proposal for an Antarctic whale sanctuary? If so, my cup of joy will be full.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. The Government have opposed, and will continue to oppose, scientific whaling unless the IWC is satisfied that there is no danger to the whale stocks involved and unless the research provides essential information which cannot otherwise be obtained through non-lethal methods. The idea of an Antarctic sanctuary is one of the main items to be considered by the IWC at its Glasgow meeting. It is a very complex issue. We shall need to consider the scientists' advice carefully, but we regard it as an interesting and challenging proposal.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether Her Majesty's Government's welcome
540
attempt to extend the ban on whaling to include small cetaceans has any prospect of international acceptance?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the present moratorium on commercial whaling does not apply to small cetaceans such as dolphins and porpoises. Nonetheless, the Government are fully aware of the importance of safeguarding those species and will continue to press for their conservation through the IWC and other international fora.

Fisheries Protection Fleet
3.5 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the fisheries protection fleet is to be privatised; and, if so, how protection vessels will distinguish between British vessels and Spanish or Dutch vessels flying the British flag.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the White Paper Competing for Quality identifies the fishery protection task carried out by the Royal Navy on behalf of the Ministry as a possible candidate for market testing. No decisions have yet been taken, but officials from interested departments are considering the way forward and will be reporting to Ministers.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, is the noble Earl happy about the fact that our so-called fisheries protection fleet C will take on the protection of other countries' property—vessels which fly the British flag, a flag of convenience—especially as those vessels undermine our own sea fishing industry and the supporting ancillary industries?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord's analysis. The judgment of the European Court in the Factortame case means that nationals of other member states are entitled to register their fishing vessels here and thus fly the British flag. It is important therefore to distinguish between British vessels licensed to fish and British vessels without licences, and, more generally, between vessels that are entitled to fish within British fishery limits and vessels without such rights. It would be for MAFF inspectors aboard private contractors' vessels to perform this role, and they should be able to do it as competently as the Navy.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, in the context of this Question, will my noble friend take into account the notable contribution to European unity that was reported in the press today as having been made by three large French trawlers sailing apparently very close to Lundy?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am aware of the alleged incident to which my noble and learned friend refers. My honourable friend Mr. Curry has taken up the matter vigorously with the French authorities today and has received a very constructive response. The Royal Navy fisheries protection vessel HMS "Brecon" is on site and and we understand that all is now quiet.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Government give up this crazy idea of privatising the fisheries protection service? Is it to be armed? Is it to be competitive? Are the Government aware that it seems that they will now interfere in practically everything? They spread their tentacles throughout the whole of our lives, but are rapidly abandoning their three chief purposes—the first of which is to maintain order; the second, to enforce the law; and the third, to protect the currency.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we have obtained informal quotations from possible contractors which suggest that we might save approximately £1 million a year if private vessels were used to deliver the Ministry's enforcement effort. We also believe that contractorisation would deliver a service more precisely tailored to our requirements, as borne out by a short-term civilian charter in 1990.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is it inevitable that the lowest tender will be accepted? And will that always be the most efficient?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the equation is complicated. It is not just a matter of choosing the lower of two figures. The Royal Navy vessels in the squadron have other roles to fulfil besides fisheries protection, and other departments are involved. It will be some time before we are able to take decisions.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the abuse known as "quota-hopping" is a matter of great concern both to the United Kingdom and to other countries, such as Ireland? Will he ensure that the question is properly addressed in the present negotiations on the common fisheries policy?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I take note of my noble friend's comments and assure him that the issue is uppermost in our minds. Access to quotas has been explored in a series of cases at the European Court of Justice. The position is that we cannot prevent registration of, say, Spanish or Dutch-owned vessels, but they must be managed, directed and controlled from this country. They cannot fish without a licence, which includes conditions to ensure an economic link with UK fishing communities.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that all the indications are that enforcement of the common fisheries policy and in particular of total allowable catches will become progressively much more difficult for whichever authority is in charge? Does he not consider that if yesterday's incident off the Cornish coast had involved on the British side a civilian protection vessel rather than one from the Royal Navy the situation would not be so easily dismissed as the noble Earl appeared to dismiss it today? What would be the effect on the resources of the Royal Navy and in particular its naval capacity if this work were to be taken from it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the vast majority of policing work carried out by the fisheries protection squadron consists of routine inspections. MAFF officials would
542
be well up to the task of the normal policing role, but in particularly severe incidents the Royal Navy could still be brought in.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, have the Government taken account of the points made by the Select Committee on Defence in another place on Options for Change? The Select Committee commented on the fine record of the fisheries protection fleet, pointed out that its role was likely to increase in the future and recommended, not that it should be privatised, but that it should be strengthened.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I readily acknowledge that the Royal Navy does an excellent job. However, aerial surveillance is already handled very satisfactorily by a private contractor. It is clearly in taxpayers' interest for us to consider whether the process could be carried further. Any contractor would be required to meet standards of reliability and other specifications which MAFF would lay down.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say what guidance has been given to the fisheries protection fleet in the light of the attack this morning by French fishing vessels on British fishing vessels off the Cornish coast, as reported by the media?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that I covered that incident in answer to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. The Ministry's inspectorate will be asking for full details from the British skippers and will consider in the light of that information how to proceed in our discussions with the French.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware—I am sure he is—that a section of the Metropolitan Police carries out protection work of one kind or another on the River Thames? Is that the next target for privatisation; and if so, what about the police force itself?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I feel that that does fall a little outside the scope of the Question.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, does the noble Earl appreciate that his replies will be read with surprise and worry by the 190,000 people involved in the sea fisheries industry in the British Isles?
Noble Lords: Reading!Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I am sorry, my Lords, but I would find it difficult otherwise. I shall continue. Should the fisheries protection fleet tasks be privatised, will the fishing fleet be afforded the equivalent protection, money, men and materials as were given in the Middle East last year?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are some way yet from taking any decision at all. In deciding whether or not to contractorise, we would take many factors into account. Standards of reliability would be chief among them.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether there is one rule for one side of the House and another rule for the other side? I have noticed over the past few

543
weeks that when noble Lords on this side of the House happen to refer to notes they are accused of reading whereas when noble Lords on the other side of the House read from notes not a peep is heard.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I am not sure that I know the answer to the noble Countess's question. I understand that there are some rules and conventions about it but copious use of notes has always been allowed—in some places anyway.

M. Delors: European Commission Presidency
3.14 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support the reappointment of M. Jacques Delors as President of the European Commission.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the European Council in Lisbon on 26th-27th June will consider the appointment of the President of the next Commission. My noble friend the Leader of the House will report to this House after the Lisbon council.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she satisfied that if, as seems likely, M. Delors is reappointed he will now be prepared to help to make the EC more open and accountable and wherever possible leave decision-making to member states?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, M. Delors has indicated that there needs to be a change of approach in the Commission. But that is not a new theme. He told the European Parliament on 12th December last year that subsidiarity is a guarantee against the spread of Community action and against worries about the encroachment of bureaucracy. We shall work with M. Delors during our presidency to put those sentiments into firm practice.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government are reluctant to tell us how they will vote on 27th June? Is there any particular reason why the Government are reluctant? Has M. Delors done anything to offend them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that we are not always in agreement with M. Delors. It is right that we should have a proper discussion in Lisbon, and on the basis of that discussion we shall make up our minds.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, might there not be some advantage in continuing with the devil we know?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have heard and read that very statement in respect of the Presidency of the Commission, but I think that we need to be very sensible about this. There are times when M. Delors attracts a great deal of public
544
attention by his comments, as do other members of the Commission, but he is a highly competent man; and even the Daily Telegraph has said that today.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Prime Minister and M. Delors reached agreement on the precise definition of "subsidiarity"? If so, can she say what the agreed definition is?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that discussions are continuing about the detail of the word "subsidiarity". I have myself given some information in the past on that very subject. What I think is important is that we should have not just agreement between M. Delors and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister but among all 12 member states, which certainly do have a very good idea of what subsidiarity ought to be. We shall be working on that in our presidency.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when considering the matter of reappointing M. Delors it is important to look at the other possible candidates in the frame? Despite M. Delors having been created a bit of a bogeyman, it may well be that he has been sufficiently chastened by his experiences over the past month or two to make him the best possible candidate for the next two years. Does she further agree that during those two years, especially during the first six months of those two years when we hold the presidency, we shall be in a position to line up a sensible successor to M. Delors? In particular, does she not agree that, under the tutelage of our right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the next six months, M. Delors may well improve as a president?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as my noble friend said, M. Delors has many qualities, and on that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has also remarked. I believe that M. Delors has the most experience of any possible candidate for the job. Whatever the decision made in Lisbon about whether or not to reappoint him, M. Delors' term of office runs to 6th January 1993. In that period we shall be holding the presidency for the most part. We shall certainly be looking to a common decision among all member states about the presidency of the Commission for the future.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on the assumption that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to extend what must be regarded as an exceptional degree of generosity to M. Delors in respect of his continued holding of the office, can the Minister say what assurances as to his future conduct Her Majesty's Government have received from him? Further, in the absence of anything in writing from the Commission as a whole in regard to its future conduct, can the noble Earl say whether they are prepared to accept verbal assurances in whatever dulcet terms—unusually dulcet terms—they may have been delivered?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that it is a bit much, even for the noble Lord, Lord

545
Bruce of Donington, to expect me to answer that question in the affirmative. I really believe that M. Delors is serious about the changes that he and other Commissioners wish to see introduced. That is why, during the British presidency, it is vital that we ensure that the decisions that are made are decisions with which we can happily live.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the definition of subsidiarity include clarification of the article on subsidiarity in the Maastricht agreement which the former President of the European Court described as "unenforceable gobbledygook"?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is putting together two quotations from the former President of the European Court. In my view, it is possible to have a clear definition of subsidiarity. I believe that we shall succeed in achieving that during our presidency.
Lord Monson: My Lords, despite M. Delors' last-minute conversion to the somewhat nebulous principle of subsidiarity, does the noble Baroness agree that M. Delors makes no secret of his passionate attachment to the ideal of a united states of Europe, broadly on the lines of the United States of America with all that that implies in terms of a single army, navy, air force and so on? Is that not totally contrary to what most people in this country and, in all probability, most people on the Continent actually want?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that it is. However, I also believe that that is not what we shall get. Looking at the membership of the European Community as it is at present, and knowing what those member states think, we shall not have the sort of united states of Europe just described by the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that many members of the Conservative Party believe that M. Delors is a centraliser, a federalist and a corporatist, would it not be surprising if the Government were now to support an extension of his term of office? However, if they do so, will they tell M. Delors that a period of silence for the next two-and-a-half years would be most welcome?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's frustration over the question. But, like many politicians—that is, both Socialist and Conservative—I do not think that one could bind even the President of the Commission to silence over the next few years.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that her highly successful and effective use of her diminishing voice affords a very good example of making maximum use of diminishing resources and that that should be urged on M. Delors for imitation by the Commission?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the original Question as the Chamber seems to he reflecting three replies—namely, yes, no, or do not know. Which reply has the Minister given us?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: All three!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I sought to make very clear to the House the fact that the decision will be taken at Lisbon by all the member states together.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House the definition of the President of the European Commission? For example, will it devolve into some form of head of state and, if so, will we be threatened with the possibility of a state visit by M. Delors?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sure that we shall continue to have many visits from M. Delors during our presidency over the next six months —that being the first of them. However, I believe that it is quite fair to say that we shall not have a single state. It is not something of which the Government, or this country, have ever been in favour. The president of the Commission is just that: he is the president of a Commission consisting of himself and 16 other members whose duty it is to propose the business in Europe. But it is the Council of Ministers that will continue to decide the outcomes.

Ministry Spending Plans: Procedure
3.24 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whose responsibility it is to decide whether a reduction in spending in one Ministry may lead to an increase in another.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, each Autumn Cabinet agrees new spending plans for departments in the light of discussions which take place between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and spending Ministers in the annual public expenditure survey. There is no presumption that any reductions which might be made in one programme will be used to finance higher spending elsewhere.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I appreciate his point. However, will he take into account the fact that the Question seeks to ask about a situation where a reduction in the budget of one Ministry may have the no doubt inadvertent effect of increasing that of another? Is any machinery available for considering whether such a situation may arise? Further, is the present bilateral system of the public spending round best designed to get at that question in advance?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in the negotiations within the discussions which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has with individual departments, all the ramifications of bids or reductions in bids are taken into account.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the highly sophisticated machinery of government, and especially that of the Treasury, will very easily handle the problem to which the noble Earl referred?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords; my noble friend puts it well.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I have with me a hook from the Library entitled The Course of the Exchequer. Does my noble friend the Minister realise that in 1247 the barons complained to the King about the Treasury on this very subject? Despite the very welcome intervention of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does my noble friend agree that there has been over-spending in social affairs because there has not been a co-ordinated policy between different departments?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am glad that there is some continuity in this world in that past noble Barons have been joined by others in often complaining about the Treasury. However, those of us who have been lucky enough to work in the Treasury know that it is an excellent department. My noble friend is absolutely right—there has been a substantial increase in a number of departments' spending.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does not the ultimate responsibility rest in another place? Surely it is not our concern.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it might well be our concern. However, my noble friend is right to say that the responsibility is with another place.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the responsibility may rest with another place, but it seems to me that correct procedure in government is not exactly a subject which is closed to us. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, say that the Treasury dealt with such matters easily. Having been a junior economist, I seem to remember that it was very hard. I think that the noble Lord, as Chief Secretary, may also remember that too. However, in his Answer the noble Earl said that there was no presumption that a reduction in one Ministry would lead to an increase in another. Perhaps more for the sake of his own noble friends than mine, can he say what would happen if the situation was the other way around? For example, is there any presumption that if one Ministry starts to spend more, there will be a need for other Ministries to spend less?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not see how that question has any particular relevance to my noble friends on this side of the House. I should have thought that it was much more relevant to the noble Lord's noble friends on his side and to his honourable and right honourable friends, who seem to want to increase public expenditure right across the board.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I think that the Minister has missed the point. We on this side of the House actually believe in an increase in public expenditure. I thought that noble Lords on the other side of the House believed in a decrease. Therefore, if they
548
discover that there have been increases, surely they will be campaigning very strongly for countervailing decreases. That is the question I asked. Will the noble Earl give me an answer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that the difference may be that we exercise very tight control over public expenditure.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although these and some other matters are the responsibility of Members of another place, would they not exercise that responsibility much more efficiently if they paid careful attention to what is said in your Lordships' House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend—and I know that from his own experience that he will know this too—that right honourable friends in another place do take very seriously what your Lordships say.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have been asking this question on and off in different forms for the past five years? After the exchanges this afternoon I am still none the wiser. Is it possible to have some kind of clear committee which talks about what will happen if people become unemployed? They lose their houses, they become ill, the Inland Revenue loses money and considerable expenditure is then incurred. Would it not be possible to do that?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have another example of continuity from the question put by the noble Countess. However, it is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Earl Russell: My Lords, without wishing to challenge what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said about the wisdom of the Treasury, will the noble Earl confirm that it is not likely to be at the front of the Treasury's mind whether it may be accidentally creating spending in another Ministry, especially a Ministry such as Social Security where spending is often demand led? Does a Minister not deserve notice if one of his colleagues is attempting to dump spending in his department? Does that not again illustrate the "unwisdom" of the purely bilateral system of negotiation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think the noble Earl, with respect, missed the first part of my Answer, which is that each autumn it is the Cabinet that agrees spending.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is not the real area of concern that which happens when the expenditure on a policy by one department can reduce the need for demand-led expenditure in another and when decisions are taken not during the PES rounds with the Treasury? Is there machinery for negotiating virement between departmental Votes for this purpose? If not, should that not be considered?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will recall that where money is involved the Treasury is always there too.

Gas (Exempt Supplies) Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Sections 5 and 36 of the Gas Act 1986 and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Cochrane of Cults.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Dormand of Easington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Disclosure of Information) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Release of short-term, long-term and life prisoners]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("the Lord Justice General and,") and insert:

("(a) the Lord Justice General or, if consultation with the Lord Justice General is impracticable, the Lord Justice Clerk; and

(b)").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when we dealt with Committee stage Amendment No. 1 I mentioned that there were three provisions in the Bill under which the Secretary of State is required to consult the Lord Justice General about life prisoners.
I think it will be helpful, in moving Amendment No. 1, to deal at the same time with the amendments which
550
have been tabled in respect of Clause 10 and Schedule 5. These latter amendments, Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 31 and 32, reflect our acceptance of the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that it should be for the judiciary rather than the Secretary of State to certify an opinion as to what the court would have ordered had certain circumstances obtained at the time of imposing a sentence of life imprisonment. However, they also embody a provision for the Lord Justice Clerk, as an alternative to the Lord Justice General, to carry out the certification after consultation with the trial judge if available.
All these amendments therefore reflect acceptance of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, which was that if the Lord Justice General is for some reason not available then the Lord Justice Clerk should stand in for him, so to speak. Amendment No. 2 to Clause 1 may require some further refinement at Third Reading, but I hope that these Government amendments are acceptable to those noble Lords who expressed concern at the earlier stage. In particular, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, may feel that in the light of these government amendments he need not move Amendment No. 33. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward these amendments. Perhaps I may at this stage express my regret that duty has prevented me from attending Second Reading or the Committee stage. But my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna made clear the thrust of what we were seeking to achieve. I am perfectly content that the amendment, and the consequential amendments, to which the noble and learned Lord has spoken, satisfy what we sought to achieve. I can intimate now that I am not proposing to move Amendment No. 33.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I should also like to express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, for taking on board the criticisms—if I can call them that—from the Committee stage. I just wonder why, referring to Amendment No. 12, the words,
"if consultation with the Lord Justice General is impracticable"
have been left out from Clause 10. I think for consistency those words should be included. Otherwise there is no opposition from this side of the House to the amendments proposed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("particular").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Duty to release discretionary life prisoners]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 26, after ("account") insert ("—(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 3 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 3 is in fact consequential upon Amendment No. 4. The purpose of these amendments is to clarify a point on which doubt has recently emerged. As they stand the words in subsection (2) of Clause 2 now appear to be more restrictive than was intended.
When a court makes an order under that subsection it will be expected to specify in the order the period which is to be served by the offender before his continued detention on grounds of risk alone. In determining the period—the "relevant part"—the court is to take into account the seriousness of the offence combined with other offences associated with it. The word "associated" could be read too narrowly as meaning only offences charged on the same indictment. The amendments therefore make clear that the courts will also be able to take previous convictions into account. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert ("; and
(b) any previous conviction of the life prisoner.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 28, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 30 and insert ("Where a court which imposes life imprisonment for an offence such as is mentioned in subsection (1) (a) above decides not to make such order as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, it shall state its reasons for so deciding; and for the purposes of any appeal or review, any such order and any such decision").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I undertook to consider, after consulting the Lord Justice General, Committee stage Amendment No. 6 which was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
Amendment No. 5 reflects the fact that all concerned now accept the point made by the noble and learned Lord, to whom I am most grateful. As he said, if the court decides not to make an order under subsection (2) of Clause 2 then it should give its reasons. Amendment No. 5 will require it to do so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Persons detained under Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert:
("( )) In section 71(7) (a) of the said Act of 1984 (categories of prisoner who may be transferred to hospital), the words "in criminal proceedings" shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to deal also with related Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 36. We are again indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, whose amendments to Clause 4 in Committee I was unable to accept. Nonetheless, that led me to examine the provisions in the clause and those in the Mental Health (Scotland)
552
Act 1984. That closer examination revealed a number of defects which the amendments are designed to correct.
Section 71 of the 1984 Act enables the Secretary of State to make a transfer direction in respect of a person who is in custody and who requires to be transferred to a mental hospital to be treated for mental disorder. I am sure that the provisions in that section were originally intended to apply, as they obviously should, to anyone who is in custody as a result of court proceedings. What has now emerged is that they do not. Because of the existing terms of Section 71, certain prisoners are excluded. A person imprisoned for contempt, or for breach of interdict, for example, could not lawfully be made the subject of a transfer direction.
Because the periods of imprisonment involved are relatively short, that defect has not so far given rise to any practical difficulty, and it is perhaps unlikely that it would have done so. Nevertheless, it seems right to take account of the defect and to put it right. Amendment No. 6 is designed to serve that purpose.
Amendment No. 36 relates to Schedule 6. It effects the necessary repeals in connection with Section 71.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are consequential drafting changes. Amendment No. 9 corrects a further minor defect in those provisions. There would be no point in providing, as in subsections (9) and (10) of the new Section 74, for the continued detention in hospital of a person detained under the Immigration Act if that person, on release from custody, is to be removed from the United Kingdom. The amendment therefore excludes such persons from the scope of those subsections. If it is decided that an Immigration Act detainee who has been transferred to hospital is to be allowed to remain in this country, and if his continued detention in hospital is necessary, authority for such detention could as now be obtained by way of other procedures under the 1984 Act.
In connection with Amendment No. 10, your Lordships will see the words "sentence of imprisonment" in Clause 4(1). It is intended that those words should include within their scope the types of imprisonment imposed for contempt or fine default. Provision for the release of persons imprisoned for those reasons is made in Clause 5. Amendment No. 10 is intended to ensure that there is no doubt about the meaning of the expression used in Clause 4(1) as including the types of imprisonment dealt with in Clause 5. I am afraid that I have had to inflict a technical explanation on your Lordships, but I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps I may express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the amendments and for again taking on board the matters raised in Committee.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, as I understand it, the purpose of the amendments is to clarify certain provisions of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act. If a person who is subject to a restriction order is taken into hospital for the reasons stated, and, thereafter, is kept there under supervision

553
for a period of, let us say, two years, during which time the period of imprisonment would otherwise have elapsed, what will be the result of the restriction order coming to an end at the conclusion of that period of time, he having, as it were, already served a period which would be the equivalent, and more, to the period which he would otherwise have been confined in prison?
The noble and learned Lord may not be able to answer that point at the moment, but it is one to which consideration should be given, because in those circumstances the prisoner, as he would then be, should be treated differently—perhaps as a person who would otherwise be released from hospital on a normal discharge in the event of his mental illness having improved.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am not sure what particular point the noble and learned Lord is raising. In general terms the purpose of the provisions is to deal with people who are not convicted. I am not familiar with the example given by the noble and learned Lord, but I shall look into the matter and write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 9:
Page 3, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 41.
Page 4, line 1, leave out (", (b)").
Page 5, line 10, after ("effect") insert ("other than by virtue of subsection (8) above").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Fine defaulters and persons in contempt of court]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("or detention") and insert (", detention or sentences of imprisonment").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Life prisoners transferred to Scotland]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:
Page 9, line 43, leave out ("Secretary of State, after consultation with the").
Page 9, line 44, after ("General") insert ("or the Lord Justice Clerk").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 19 [Appeals in respect of decisions relating to supervised release orders]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 13
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient if we consider together Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15. The first and last of the amendments are drafting changes in consequence of the second, which substitutes a reference to the High Court in place of the first reference in Clause 19 to the Clerk of Justiciary. I am indebted to the noble Lord,
554
Lord Macaulay of Bragar, for drawing attention in Committee to the need for these amendments. The Clerk of Justiciary has himself pointed out that it is more appropriate for the High Court rather than for him to decide whether late appeals should be allowed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 17, line 26, leave out ("Clerk of Justiciary") and insert ("High Court").
Page 17, line 29, after ("court") insert ("which made the determination").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Parole Board]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 31, line 43, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
("(a) a Lord Commissioner of Justiciary;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is the same in effect as Committee stage Amendment No. 26 which was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. The purpose is to ensure that the specified core membership of the Parole Board for Scotland includes a serving High Court judge. Having consulted the Lord Justice General, as I undertook to do, I am now satisfied that the amendment is acceptable to all concerned. I do not propose to repeat what was said at Committee stage by the noble and learned Lords who moved and supported the amendment, but would merely thank them for drawing attention to the need for this improvement in the Bill. In moving the amendment, I invite rejection of Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for moving the amendment. In the light of that, I shall not move Amendment No. 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Additional days for disciplinary offences]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 18:
Leave out Clause 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter was raised in Committee. Clause 24 allows for additional days for disciplinary offences to be imposed upon a prisoner. During the debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said:
"We are not entirely satisfied with the orderly room procedures for the award of such punishments. The Scottish Prison Service Board proposes to implement changes recommended by an internal working group which was set up to consider how those procedures might be improved. The changes which will stem from the recommendations of that group will bring orderly room procedures into line with current perceptions of natural justice as developed by the courts".—[Official Report, 2/6/92; col. 884.]
We were all satisfied with what the noble and learned Lord said on that. Subsequently I asked him whether a copy of the working group report could be published so that we could consider it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, helpfully wrote to me on 17th June as follows:

555
"The working group was an informal one, without terms of reference".
Perhaps I may comment upon that. I find it a little surprising that a working group or working party should be established by a government department with apparently no terms of reference whatever. The noble and learned Lord continued:
"It produced no written report, but advised the management of the Scottish Prison Service that practices and procedures needed considerable tightening up. This was endorsed, and those responsible for training were asked to consider how to accommodate in existing programmes additional training preparatory to the implementation of new procedures. That consideration is in hand".
I have an important question rather than a statement. I find it surprising, first, that we have a working party without terms of reference and, secondly, that it does not produce a written report. I am not clear how the Scottish Prison Service can consider the views of a working party which does not produce a written report. Having served in different capacities in three government departments, I am bound to say that I have not heard of such procedures. No doubt the noble and learned Lord can help us on the matter. I should be interested to know how he could be briefed on what the working party said, given that there was no written report. It seems puzzling.
The noble and learned Lord went on to deal with changes to Prison Rules in Scotland. He said:
"These will be considered in the context of the wholesale revision of the Rules, on which work is now proceeding. Any changes which are introduced will be given proper publicity, and any proposed changes to the Rules will of course be placed before both Houses of Parliament".
I and others, I am sure, will be interested to know when the process is likely to be completed. The matter is of considerable public importance and we should like help from the noble and learned Lord on it. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I recall the exchange that we had at Committee stage. As the noble Lord indicated, I subsequently wrote to him and he has accurately quoted from my letter, beginning at the second sentence of the third paragraph. However I began that paragraph by saying:
"During the debate on Clause 24, I made reference to the fact that an internal Scottish Prison Service working group had been looking at the conduct and procedures of Governors' orderly rooms; that is, the system of internal prison discipline as prescribed in Prison Rules 38 to 47".
It is clear from that sentence that there are more rules than merely those affecting orderly room procedures.
However, I do not find it as surprising as the noble Lord that, as my letter continued, having looked merely at these rules in isolation, the working group determined that there should be a considerable tightening of the practices and procedures. However, the group's apprehension was that to seek to do that in isolation was not the correct way forward. A better way forward, and one which ties in with other matters that arose, is that there should be a wholesale review of the Prison Rules in Scotland. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, that follows a number of references and cases which went to the European Court of Human Rights. In that context, a wholesale review or revision has been necessary. It was perhaps
556
unfortunate that it was not possible to tighten up those orderly room rules in isolation and in advance of the whole revision.
However, I can tell the noble Lord that the review is in progress. I cannot tell him when it will be completed but he will be aware that it is not just a simple matter of a quick tidying up. We have had to look in great detail at how we approach matters. I can only say that the review will proceed in a broad fashion and I repeat the undertaking that I gave to the noble Lord in the letter that any changes which are introduced will be given proper publicity. I also repeat the undertaking that:
"any proposed changes to the Rules will of course be placed before both Houses of Parliament".
I hope that that explains why the context has to be broader than possibly I indicated at Committee stage, and why we have decided to take the matter forward in this way.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he give your Lordships' House an indication of how long the process of revision has been going on? My recollection is that it seems to have been about two years. One would look for results by now; perhaps at least a draft of the revised rules being produced.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I accept that the review has been going on for some time. I sought to convey to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the difficulty about the review, which is that the situation keeps changing. There have been decisions of the European Court of Human Rights which, to a greater or lesser extent, may affect the content of the rules. If we cease to have any further change or innovation requiring more detailed re-examination, obviously that would be desirable. But if we can get on with the review as expeditiously as possible, we shall do so, as we have done. The results will be made public and placed before both Houses.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I still find the procedure of a working party without terms of reference and without publishing a report mildly odd, but I accept that it is a substantial issue. I hope that on reflection the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us an indication of when the process will be concluded. Will it be within one year, two years or when? Perhaps he would like to reflect on the matter and consider whether it is possible to write to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and myself before the next stage of the Bill. That would be extremely helpful. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Provision in prison rules for directions]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 20, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) Any reference, however expressed, in any enactment other than this section to rules made under this section shall be construed as including a reference to direction's made by virtue of subsection (8) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, there could be doubt as to whether any statutory reference to the Prison (Scotland) Rules is to be taken as including reference to directions made under those rules by virtue of the provisions of subsection (8) which Clause 24 adds to Section 39 of the 1989 Act. This amendment would avoid that doubt. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Prints, samples etc in criminal investigations]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 21, line 43, leave out ("The") and insert ("All").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment fulfils another undertaking I gave at Committee stage to clarify that the statutory provisions concerning destruction of records apply to any record or copy print or impression taken under the powers in the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
Evidence from documentary records
(".—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a statement in a document shall be admissible in criminal proceedings as evidence of any fact of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if the following conditions are satisfied—

(a) the document was created or received by a person in the course of a trade, business, undertaking, profession or other occupation, or as the holder of a paid or unpaid office; and

(b) the information contained in the document was supplied by a person (whether or not the maker of the statement) who had, or may reasonably be supposed to have had, personal knowledge of the matters dealt with.

(2) Subsection (1) above applies whether the information contained in the document was supplied directly or indirectly but, if it was supplied indirectly, only if each person through whom it was supplied received it—

(a) in the course of a trade, business, undertaking, profession or other occupation; or

(b) as the holder of a paid or unpaid office.

(3) A statement prepared for the purposes—

(a) of pending or contemplated criminal proceedings against; or

(b) of a criminal investigation respecting,

a particular person or particular persons shall not be admissible by virtue of subsection (1) above.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed to some extent during the Committee stage in relation to the difficulties being encountered in cases where a large amount of documentation was being produced. I readily accept that in its present form the amendment is defective and not full enough to cover all the requirements. However, it has been put forward at this stage in view of the recent comments made by the Lord Justice General, Lord Hope, on the need for statutory provisions for Scotland on the subject of documentary evidence in criminal proceedings. His Lordship made these comments in the course of his opinion in the Lord Advocate's Reference No. 1, 1992, where the court considered difficulties which had arisen over the admissibility of certain documents,
558
including computer-generated documents, to which the Criminal Evidence Act 1965 did not apply. Indeed the evidence from the computers was not admitted in that case because there was no provision to do so.
"In the course of his judgment his Lordship said:
'It is a matter for regret that Parliament has not yet been invited to legislate for Scotland on this matter, so that the inconvenience of the hearsay rule in regard to evidence from documentary records in criminal cases may be reduced to the extent now permitted in England in terms of sections 68 and 69 of [the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984]. The present case illustrates the urgent need for consideration to be given to a measure of this kind, in order to relieve the Crown of the difficulties to which the sheriff has referred. I consider that it is beyond the powers of this Court to introduce a relaxation of the hearsay rule to the extent now permitted by these sections'.
The sheriff referred to in the quotation was the original presiding judge. I need not quote further from the judgment of the Lord Justice General at this stage, but the issue is a practical one relating to the presentation of evidence in cases where evidence is bound to come from a computer-based source among other things. In allowing that to take place one has to ensure that the acceptance of that evidence is dealt with fairly in relation to the position of the accused because it constitutes a fundamental breach of the hearsay rule.
Any document admitted under the principle set out in Amendment No. 21 would still be open to challenge on relevancy and competency. The amendment has been tightly drawn to ensure that documents are limited to any document,
'created or received by a person in the course of a trade, business, undertaking, profession or other occupation, or as the holder of a paid or unpaid office'.
That means we are dealing with business or trade records. A personal diary for example would not be permitted to be received under the amendment, nor would a police notebook or precognitions taken by the Crown or the police pending criminal proceedings.
I accept that the amendment is defective at present. There would have to be a new definition clause in relation to trade, business, profession, undertaking or other occupation. There would also have to be provisions for certifying the source of the document. The Scottish Law Commission is, I understand, looking at these matters in great detail. However, a full report has not yet been published. If the Government are prepared to consider the whole matter between now and Third Reading I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment and await any amendments which the Government may wish to table. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I certainly support the principle which lies behind the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, accepts that the amendment has certain defects, but the principle has already been the subject of statute. Section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act makes provision for relaxing the rule against hearsay in certain special circumstances. I add one cautionary note. Care would have to be taken that the form of any drafting does not impinge upon the ability of the

559
court, and indeed the parties, to deal by agreement with documentary evidence, such as will be proposed, I trust, by the Minister in his Amendment No. 24.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I very much welcome the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. They are obviously proposed with a view to reducing the need to bring to court witnesses who would give purely formal evidence. That is particularly desirable in a case involving computers as it is impossible for witnesses to give useful evidence.
The problem highlighted by the Lord Justice General in the opinion to which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, referred, arose because of the restrictive terms of Section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1965. It is therefore necessary, given the developments which have occurred, to reconsider the terms of that section and indeed to reconsider altogether the form in which this kind of evidence should be given.
The Scottish Law Commission considered this area of criminal evidence in Scotland. Among the issues is the question of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings. The commission issued a discussion paper in 1988 and has carried out work on the matter since then. Following the Lord Justice General's opinion, the Law Commission produced a paper setting out its considered views on the matter relating to documentary records. I do not think I can sufficiently thank publicly the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, Lord Davidson, and Sheriff Macphail for the work they have done in the short period since the judgment was issued.
In the light of that work I shall carefully consider the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, has tabled. I shall study its terms and consider how it should be amended in the light of the considerations of the Scottish Law Commission. I anticipate that I shall wish to consider the matter further on Third Reading. I shall accept the amendment of the noble Lord today, consider the terms of the clause as it will then be, and come back on Third Reading to deal with amendments to the clause.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the course he has taken. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, for his contribution which no doubt will have been noted by the Government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Transcript of customs interview sufficient evidence]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 22
Page 23, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, moved an amendment in Committee to delete subsection (2) from Clause 30. Following my undertaking to consider the position further, he withdrew the amendment.
The noble Lord was concerned in Committee that there could be a problem about the meaning of the phrase "proceedings commenced." I have therefore looked at subsection (2) again. The purpose of the
560
subsection, as I stressed in Committee, is to get the maximum benefit from the subsection as soon as possible.
However, on reconsideration, although we do not think there is a problem over the use of the phrase, we have decided nonetheless that it might be proper simply to withdraw the subsection. That is in effect the purpose of the amendment. I hope that my explanation will deal with any concerns that the Law Society has about the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, once again I express my appreciation to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the course he has adopted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Evidence of children on commission]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 24, line 12, at end insert:
("; but to be so appointed a person must be, and for a period of at least five years have been, a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, sought to amend Clause 32 to ensure that the person who was appointed by the court as a commissioner would be someone with legal qualifications. At that stage I indicated to the Chamber that we would take the matter away and consider whether that provision should appear on the face of the Bill. At that stage the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, withdrew his amendment."
The amendment which we now bring before your Lordships' House gives effect to the principle underlying the noble Lord's point, but is slightly more specific in its terms. It is right that a commissioner appointed for the purposes of this provision should be either a member of the Faculty of Advocates or a solicitor with due experience, and we have provided for that by specifying five years' standing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
New circumstances on notice of which preliminary diet may be ordered
(".—(1) Section 76 of the 1975 Act (which specifies various circumstances on notice of which a preliminary diet shall or may be ordered) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(bb) that there are documents the truth of the contents of which ought in his view to be admitted, or that there is any other matter which in his view ought to be agreed, the court may make such order as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above;"; and
(b) in paragraph (c), for the words "or (b)" there shall be substituted the words ", (b) or (bb)".
(3) In subsection (7) (c), after the word "paragraph" there shall be inserted the words "(bb) or".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage my noble and learned friend

561
Lord Fraser undertook to consult the judiciary on the scope of Section 76(1) (c) of the 1975 Act in relation to the matters which could be considered at a preliminary diet. That process of consultation has been carried out. The view of the judiciary is that an amendment along the lines proposed would be a welcome addition to the powers of the court in order to enable preliminary diets to be convened purely to try to agree evidence. On that basis I am glad to present the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation of the Government's acceptance of the amendment which was put down in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Morton and myself in Committee. I hope that it will be of considerable benefit in trying to secure that parties, and more particularly representatives of those appearing at criminal trials, will understand that they have an obligation to try to clarify the real issues which lie between them and the remaining parties in any criminal trial, whether it be a jury trial or a summary trial. Too often there has been a feeling that it is enough for those appearing to allow issues to be obfuscated, without intending to do so, and, indeed, to fail properly to bring before the court the true issues.
From my experience, if this path were to be followed, and documents could be agreed so that they could be presented to juries and explained simply as they stand, without the necessity to have witnesses appear to speak to them, the matter would be made much easier for lay persons and juries to understand. It would have the added benefit, one would hope, that at the end of the day there may be some shortening of trials.
I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Minister and his noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for what has been done in this regard. I accept that their amendment (Amendment No. 24) properly goes further than Amendment No. 25 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Morton and myself and I do not propose to move that amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate replies to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, perhaps I may raise a minor matter. I have just noticed that the word "admitted" is used in line 2 of paragraph (bb) but the word "agreed" is used in the penultimate line. Is there a distinction between admitting something and agreeing something? Does the word "admitting" imply something more sinister than agreement? While accepting the principle of the amendment, for the reasons which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, explained, I wonder whether for consistency the noble and learned Lord would consider whether it might be better to use "admitted" twice or "agreed" twice—or is there an explanation for the use of the two different words?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, regarding the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, I have
562
come across some counsel who are prepared to agree things but never to admit them in case that is somehow more incriminating of their clients. Apart from that, and a welcome and refreshing elegance of language in the change, it does not seem to me that there is a great deal of difference between the two words. Nevertheless, I shall look at the matter, but I do not believe that there is any significance in the difference.
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, for having drawn the matter to our attention. I concur entirely with what lie said. One of the defects of our procedure is that we do not manage to refine the issues sufficiently. It is to be hoped that this measure will have some effect in leading to a further refinement of the issues in trials. If it does not work it may be necessary to think of something else.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Relief for non-compliance with 1975 Act
After section 1 of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Relief from consequences of failure to comply.
1A. The court may, at its discretion, if it considers it to be in the interests of justice, relieve any party from the consequences of any failure to comply with the provisions of this Act which is shown to be due to mistake, oversight or other cause, not being wilful non-observation of the same on such terms and conditions as shall appear just; and in any such case the court may make such order as may be just by extension of time, or lodging of documents so as to enable the case to proceed as if such failure had not happened.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 is something of a rogue amendment. It has been included to focus on an issue which has been troubling some people for some time.
Whereas in the civil courts, and certainly in the Court of Session, the court has an overall discretion to overlook non-compliance with the rules of court and to allow a case to proceed under such conditions as the court may apply to the case, in criminal cases no discretion whatever is given to the court if the procedure under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 is not complied with. The object of the amendment in its present form is to raise the issue and ask why, if discretion is good enough in civil cases, it cannot be built into criminal cases.
There are many cases in which technicalities win the day and justice and the public interest are defeated. I do not need to remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, or the present Lord Advocate of the cases which can be seen throughout the Law Reports. There have been many cases in which people have walked out of court on the basis of a pure technicality such as, for example, a minute not being properly recorded. The public must have shaken their heads in wonder and asked what sort of system of justice it is for the public, let alone the individual, when people are allowed to walk away from court without a verdict from the jury on the evidence. Of course justice must

563
be seen to be done even-handedly between the prosecution and the accused, but the law should not be brought into disrepute by an over-technical approach.
The wording which I have used in the amendment is taken from the preface to the rules of court. Some anxiety has been expressed in the time I have had to discuss the matter with other practising members that the 110 day rule, which is the cornerstone of Scottish criminal procedure might be affected by this approach. For example, there is anxiety that if the 110 day rule were not to be observed, the court could say, for instance, that only one day had gone by, that there was no prejudice to the accused and continue with the trial. I appreciate that that is a legitimate and sincere point of view.
However, if need be the 110 day rule could be removed from the discussion because it is an absolute rule which puts pressure on the Crown Office to get on with the preparation and presentation of cases and ensure that people are not kept in prison for unnecessarily long periods, such as happens in this part of the world where people can be in prison for a long time and then be acquitted. I seem to recall having read of a case recently in which someone had been in prison in England for 18 months before coming to trial. I accept, therefore, that the 110 day rule is an important feature of the Scottish legal system, but consideration could be given to excluding it from the general provision giving the court discretion to overlook matters, on explanation and on compliance with the Act.
The amendment reads:
"The court may, at its discretion, if it considers it to be in the interests of justice, relieve any party from the consequences of any failure to comply with the provisions of this Act which is shown to be due to mistake, oversight or other cause, not being wilful non-observation of the same on such terms and conditions as shall appear just; and in any such case the court may make such order as may be just by extension of time, or lodging of documents so as to enable the case to proceed as if such failure had not happened".
In other words there is built-in protection for the accused. If he claims that there has been some form of prejudice arising out of the ruling of court, the court will make sure that he is given an extension of time and so on, as seen in the amendment.
One problem, which occurred to me after tabling the amendment, is that sometimes the court itself is at fault—for example, in not signing a minute. If the court itself were at fault, obviously it could not correct its own fault. That being so, consideration might have to be given to the Court of Criminal Appeal being asked for its opinion immediately to deal with any fault on the part of the court. The Court of Criminal Appeal could exercise the discretion which would normally be exercised by the single judge.
I hope that the Government will at least show some interest in the matter. I feel sure that they will. It is important to ensure that the system of criminal law in Scotland serves the community as well as the individual. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord has taken the form of words of the amendment from the rules of court of the Court of Session. I counsel a certain degree of caution.
The rules of court in civil matters are rules which the court itself has passed. It is only right that it should retain a discretion, if it considers it appropriate in the interests of justice in a particular case, to overlook failure to comply with provisions which it has set down. We are dealing here with provisions for criminal procedure which are set down by Parliament. I should be reluctant to allow wider discretion to the courts to deal with failure to comply with statutory provisions where Parliament, within the context of those provisions, has allowed for the court to exercise a degree of discretion on cause shown. That is a phrase which appears in various sections where procedure is set down with certain time limits.
I am very conscious of one particular case. A detailed time limit set down by Parliament was not complied with—for reasons with which I need not trouble the House—in the service of indictment. The matter caused a great deal of public concern when an accused person was in effect acquitted, or did not have to stand trial on a charge brought by the prosecution. That seemed to me a salutary lesson from which the Crown learnt; namely, that timetables are very important in protecting the interests of the accused. I suggest that the House should be very cautious in extending the power of the court at its own discretion to relieve any party, which would include the Crown, from what are clear time limits set down procedurally for various steps, all of which are intended to protect the accused and sometimes, likewise, to protect the Crown.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I fully appreciate the thinking which lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. However, in conjunction with my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, I believe that it goes too far too fast. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, acknowledged, it would have the consequence that the statutory safeguards—the time limits, the 110-day rule and the 12-month rule—would be subject to some form of judicial discretion.
I believe that there is a role for fixed time limits in criminal procedure. Those safeguards have served prisoners well in Scotland over the years. At the same time I acknowledge there are cases in which the rigid application of particular rules can lead to results which seem to the general public not entirely consistent with justice I submit that, when considering the matter, it would be better to look at whether a particular provision should have associated with it some power, on cause shown, to dispense with the limit, as occurs in the case of certain provisions of the Act.
I propose that when the Government next review the 1975 Act they should consider whether there are any other sections of the Act where a dispensing power of that sort on cause shown could be attached rather than an overall dispensing power which, as I

565
said, would have undesirable effects. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his contribution and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, who gives the House the benefit of his long experience both in the office of Lord Advocate and now as a High Court judge in Scotland.
The message I am getting is, "Proceed with caution but we shall have a look at it." I think that that message comes from both speakers. I am prepared to stay at the amber light for a little while, but if it does not change within the next couple of years, perhaps I shall bring the issue back again. I should be interested to know when the next review of the 1975 Act will take place.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the Act is looked at from time to time. I do not think that there is any fixed timetable but the noble Lord can rest assured that criminal procedure is always watched with care.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, in the light of that explanation I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Date of commencement of sentence]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 26, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert:
("(2) After the word "shall" there shall be inserted "— (a)".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Prosecutor's consent to or application for setting aside of conviction]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 28, leave Out lines 11 to 22.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose underlying Clause 39 is to facilitate the procedures where the prosecutor is of the view that a conviction cannot be sustained. In many respects, the provisions in Clause 39 mirror those which are currently contained in Section 453 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
The purpose of the amendment was to remedy an inconsistency within the clause between the current subsection (7), which sets out time limits within which the prosecutor should act, and subsection (1).
On closer examination, the effects of the amendment would be to limit the scope for action by the prosecutor to the point at which the appeal was intimated to him and not at any later stage. I am sure your Lordships would agree that, in the circumstances where a conviction cannot be sustained, the
566
prosecutor should have greater flexibility to minimise the expense on the part of the accused and also to avoid the unnecessary waste of court time.
In those circumstances I propose to present to your Lordships at Third Reading minor amendments to enable the prosecutor to enjoy greater flexibility than the current amendment would allow. Having explained the basis for the amendment, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 35, leave out lines 14 to 18 and insert (", for the words "three weeks" there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

"(a) where the accused is remanded in custody, three weeks; or

(b) where he is remanded on bail or is ordained to appear, eight weeks but only on cause shown and otherwise four weeks".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during our consideration of the Bill at Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, moved an amendment to increase the four-week period to six weeks. I opposed such a change. The amendment before your Lordships' House does not arise out of a change of heart on my part. It does not move the period from four weeks to six weeks, as was proposed, but to eight weeks. That is not a sudden change of heart on my part. But there has been a decision in a recent case before the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh concerning the powers of the court to adjourn for sentence in order to obtain matters such as the DVLA printouts on an offender's previous record.
The Appeal Court ruled that Sections 179 and 380 must apply in such circumstances. The experience of the court is that, in order to obtain such printouts, a period of six weeks is normally required. It makes sense to allow the court, in those cases to be able to adjourn for an appropriate period rather than to reconvene within four weeks in the knowledge that the case would have to be further adjourned.
I might take this opportunity to inform your Lordships that neither the original provisions in the Bill nor this proposed amendment will in any way alter the period of time in which social workers are expected to prepare their reports. Social workers operate to nationally agreed standards which specify the maximum desirable period of three weeks, when the accused person is ordered to appear, and two weeks when he is remanded in custody. The Consultation Group on Offender Services, which includes representatives of local authorities, social work directors, the police and the judiciary, last considered this time limit in April 1990. They concluded then that a three week period was reasonable and achievable. Neither the clause nor the amendment will alter that period.
The amendment will nevertheless provide a degree of flexibility, which I hope will be used only in the limited circumstances envisaged. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 35, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 36 and insert:
("(8) For sections 274 and 275 (shorthand notes of trial etc) there shall be substituted the following sections—
"Record of trial.
274.—(1) The proceedings at the trial of any person who, if convicted, is entitled to appeal under this Part of this Act shall be recorded by means of shorthand notes or by mechanical means.
(2) A shorthand writer shall—

(a) sign the shorthand notes taken by him of such proceedings and certify them as being complete and correct; and

(b) retain the notes.

(3) A person recording such proceedings by mechanical means shall—

(a) certify that the record is true and complete;

(b) specify in the certificate the proceedings (or, as the case may be, the part of the proceedings) to which the record relates; and

(c) retain the record.

(4) The cost of making a record under subsection (1) above shall be defrayed, in accordance with scales of payment fixed for the time being by the Treasury, out of money provided by Parliament.
(5) In subsection (1) above "proceedings at the trial" means the whole proceedings including (without prejudice to that generality)—

(a) discussions—

(i) on any objection to the relevancy of the indictment;

(ii) with respect to any challenge of jurors; and

(iii) on all questions arising in the course of the trial;

(b) the decision of the court on any matter referred to in paragraph (a) above;

(c) the evidence led at the trial;

(d) any statement made by or on behalf of the accused whether before or after the verdict;

(e) the summing up by the judge;

(f) the speeches of counsel or agent;

(g) the verdict of the jury; and

(h) the sentence by the judge.

Transcripts of record and documentary productions.
275.—(1) The Clerk of Justiciary may direct that a transcript of a record made under section 274(1) of this Act, or any part thereof, be made and delivered to him for the use of any judge.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the Clerk of Justiciary shall, if he is requested to do so by—

(a) the Secretary of State; or

(b) any other person on payment of such charges as may be fixed for the time being by the Treasury,

direct that such a transcript be made and sent to the person who requested it.
(3) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Lord Justice General, by order made by statutory instrument provide that in any class of proceedings specified in the order the Clerk of Justiciary shall only make a direction under subsection (2) (b) above if satisfied that the person requesting the transcript is of a class of person so specified and, if purposes for which the transcript may be used are so specified, intends to use it only for such a purpose; and different purposes may be so specified for different classes of proceedings or classes of person.
(4) Where subsection (3) above applies as respects a direction, the person to whom the transcript is sent shall, if purposes for which that transcript may be used are specified by virtue of that subsection, use it only for such a purpose.
(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) A direction under subsection (1) or (2) above may require that the transcript be made by the person who made the record or by such competent person as may be specified in the direction; and that person shall comply with the direction.
(7) A transcript made in compliance with a direction under subsection (1) or (2) above—

(a) shall be in legible form; and

(b) shall be certified by the person making it as being a correct and complete transcript of the whole or, as the case may be, the part of the record purporting to have been made and certified, and in the case of shorthand notes signed, by the person who made the record.

(8) The cost of making a transcript in compliance with a direction under subsection (1) or (2) (a) above shall be defrayed, in accordance with scales of payment fixed for the time being by the Treasury, out of money provided by Parliament.
(9) The Clerk of Justiciary shall, on payment of such charges as may be fixed for the time being by the Treasury, provide a copy of any documentary production lodged in connection with an appeal under this Part of this Act to such of the following persons as may request it—

(a) the prosecutor;

(b) any person convicted in the proceedings;

(c) any other person named in, or immediately affected by, any order made in the proceedings; and

(d) any person authorised to act on behalf of any of the persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment represents an important relaxation of those provisions in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 which govern the availability of transcripts of evidence led in solemn proceedings. Recent experience has indicated that the existing provisions are unduly restrictive in their effect. The 1975 Act requires that transcripts should be made available only where an appeal is outstanding or where an applicant is an interested party in the proceedings, as defined in Section 275(5). Those restrictions have created certain difficulties which two examples may serve to illustrate. Convicted persons who have already exercised their right of appeal and wish to obtain a transcript of the proceedings at their own trial in order to prepare a petition to the Secretary of State concerning an alleged miscarriage of justice have not readily been able to obtain such a transcript, despite undertakings to meet the transcription or photocopying costs entailed. A further example concerns professional bodies which might legitimately seek a transcript of evidence in connection with disciplinary proceedings relating to alleged professional misconduct. Such bodies would not be eligible under the present law to receive such a transcript, since they would not be interested parties in terms of the strict statutory definition.
In such cases the Government consider there to be good reasons both in the interests of natural justice and in the public interest for transcripts of evidence to be more readily available. The position in England and Wales is that a transcript may be supplied to an interested party or any other person on payment of the costs involved. I understand that the arrangements south of the Border operate satisfactorily and the charges involved have the effect of deterring frivolous requests. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is

569
both sensible and equitable that our provisions should be relaxed in line with the present English arrangements. Evidence led in open court is already in the public domain and, subject only to the recovery of reasonable costs, our policy is that access to transcripts should generally be unrestricted.
Your Lordships will observe that the new sections incorporate provisions already in the Bill which are designed to take account of prospective developments on the tape recording of proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. I confirm that over the years there has been a great sense of injustice, whether or not justified, in the minds of many people convicted of serious crimes because of inaccessibility to the shorthand record. One has to bear in mind that all the proceedings have been held in public. It did not make sense for people to say, "You cannot have what is already on public record". No doubt there were records in newspaper offices and elsewhere. I welcome that part of the amendment.
I make one observation on new Section 274(2) which states:
"A shorthand writer shall sign the shorthand notes taken by him of such proceedings and certify them as being complete and correct".
How can the shorthand writer certify his notes as being correct? I should have thought that the provision should finish at the word "complete". We all know that mistakes are made in shorthand reports of proceedings. The new section also states that,
"A shorthand writer shall retain the notes".
That appears to mean that if a person is called in to take shorthand notes he can just stick them in his pocket and walk away with them. I wonder whether there might be a tightening up of the wording to ensure that the notes are retained for future use by someone in authority: that the notes shall be retained by the Crown Office, or whatever, for future use.
New Section 274(3) (b) states:
"A person recording such proceedings by mechanical means"
—presumably by tape recorder or otherwise—
"shall certify that the record is true and complete".
What does the word "true" imply? It is either a complete recording by mechanical means or it is not. The word "true" might lead to some difficulties in interpretation in the future.
New Section 274(3) (c) states:
"A person recording such proceedings by mechanical means shall retain the record".
Again we have the same problem. That seems to give to the shorthand writer or the operator of the machine —whether or not he is acting in an official capacity —the right to retain the shorthand notes and the record of a tape recording. I envisage that there might be difficulties in obtaining the notes or the recording at a future date in some years' time when an appeal is being considered. I raise the point in passing. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will consider whether the shorthand notes or a record by mechanical means can be required more precisely to be placed in some official custody.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a point for consideration. In the existing Section 275 the direction is to retain the shorthand notes unless and until the shorthand writer is directed by the clerk of justiciary to forward a transcript. As the present position stands, he has to retain the notes for ever and a day even though in the interim the clerk of justiciary may invite him to send a transcript. It is a matter of wording.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I shall consider the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, has made. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has misunderstood. As I understand it, the purpose of retaining the note is that the shorthand writer shall not destroy them, perhaps by throwing them in his wastepaper basket once the trial is over. He should keep them in perpetuity until the request that he transcribe them.
I shall consider the certification again. I believe that such wording is fairly standard on documents in such circumstances.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House where the shorthand writer is expected to put the notes? Does he have to have a great chest of drawers in his sitting room? The provision does not state where he retains them.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, so long as the notes are retained, it is a matter of no particular anxiety to us whether he keeps them at home, in his office, or wherever. Shorthand notes are rather personal, like our own handwriting. Shorthand writers tend to have their own distinctive styles. It is important that the shorthand writer should have the notes and should be in a position to refer to them at a time when it is required or requested of him that the notes should be extended. But there is no requirement that they be kept in a bank vault or anywhere like that.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, we cannot allow the position in which shorthand writers are wandering about with notes and keeping the only record of proceedings in their attics, perhaps to he lost for ever. What will happen if an appeal is lodged some years after the case, as sometimes happens, and the notes are requested? It may be said that so-and-so said this and so-and-so said that and the Crown may say that they did not. The only way to resolve the matter will be to obtain the shorthand notes. I am trying to be constructive and not nit picking.
Perhaps it may be necessary to discuss the matter with shorthand writers to ensure that shorthand notes and records taken of proceedings by mechanical means become part of the courts' documents to he retained as part of the court process. I do not know where the Crown's documents are kept but perhaps they should include shorthand notebooks or any tape recordings that were made during the course of the proceedings. I put that forward as a helpful suggestion for the Government's consideration.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is why there is the requirement of retention. It is important that shorthand notes are not dispensed with. I am sure

571
that the noble Lord appreciates that in Scotland shorthand writing is not done on an ad hoc basis. It is undertaken by a number of competent firms which keep records and notebooks in a careful manner. I shall look to see whether there needs to be an improvement in the way they are kept but I know that usually the notebooks remain with the people who took the shorthand notes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 40, line 48, leave out ("Secretary of State, after consultation with the").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 40, line 48, leave out ("and, if available, the trial judge") and insert ("or Lord Justice Clerk, after consultation with the trial judge, if available").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 40, line 52, at end insert ("and the Secretary of State shall, within a reasonable time after section 2 of this Act comes into force, submit the case of any such existing life prisoner to the Lord Justice General for the purpose of obtaining such certificate.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in the case of any existing life prisoners, as is defined in the clause, the Secretary of State shall, within a reasonable time after the coming into force of Section 2 of the Act, submit the case to the Lord Justice General for the purpose of obtaining the certificate which is relevant to this clause. We wish to ensure that there is no back sliding in the submission of all cases which would be covered by the clause and if there were to be an unreasonable time, to allow the individual life prisoner to proceed by way of judicial review to have the matter brought before the Lord Justice General as soon as possible. The amendment may be otiose because one would expect the Secretary of State to do that which is required of him within a reasonable time but it is there in majiorem cautionem. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand the purpose of the amendment and I do not believe that anyone will disagree with the logic that underlies it. However, I hope to be able to persuade the noble and learned Lord that the amendment is unnecessary. At present there are only 26 people in custody in Scotland who are serving discretionary life sentences or equivalent sentences. Our intention is to move faster than is provided for in the noble and learned Lord's amendment. It is that all the relevant information in each case should be assembled before the provisions of the Bill are brought into force. They should be submitted to the Lord Justice General on the commencement date, or shortly thereafter, so that he will be in a position to issue the certificates with the least possible delay. It is obviously necessary that the
572
position of existing discretionary life prisoners is clarified as quickly as possible. I suggest, therefore, that the Secretary of State does not need to be compelled by statute to attend to the matter.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. In the light of it I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Repeals and Revocations]:
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 42, line 37, column 3, at beginning insert:

("In section 71, subsection (2) (b); and in subsection (7) (a), the words "in criminal proceedings".")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Building Societies (Member States) Order 1992
4.47 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 19th May be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the order is made under Section 14 of the Building Societies Act 1986. That enables the Treasury to designate countries or territories outside the United Kingdom where building societies may lend on mortgages. The order designates the other member states of the European Community.
The second banking co-ordination directive provides a passport which enables credit institutions authorised in any member state to extend their businesses to other Community countries without the need for further authorisation in the host country. The order does not implement the directive but it helps to allow building societies to compete on equal terms throughout the Community.
Societies can already carry on most of their business either directly or through subsidiaries throughout the European Community. The 1986 Act allows them to make deposits anywhere in the world and to form mortgage lending subsidiaries in other Community countries. A series of orders made by the Building Societies Commission, which came into force on 1st June, enabled them to offer banking and other financial services throughout the Community. This order completes the series by enabling societies to undertake mortgage lending directly rather than through subsidiaries. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th May be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount St. Davids.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order and ask him to clarify one issue. The order applies to individuals—the borrowers—and to the assets—the residential properties—which are

573
the security. I assume that it is being extended to other countries in respect of both individuals and the land used for residential purposes which would be the security against the loan. In other words, the order moves in two directions; that is in respect of individuals and the residential land used as security.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, indeed, that is so. On Question, Motion agreed to.

Thames River Bus Service
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take action to secure the future of the river bus operating on the Thames between Chelsea, central London and Docklands.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there are many long-term issues surrounding the river bus but today's debate is essentially a short-term question and I am grateful for the opportunity to raise it at short notice because it is a matter of urgency.
The river bus service which runs now from Docklands to central London and Chelsea is provided by the RiverBus Partnership and one of the two partners is Olympia & York Neptune Limited. Olympia & York has provided funding for the service since 1989 but is now in administration. Although the services have continued, further subsidies are necessary to enable the partnership to trade beyond the end of this month.
Negotiations have started with other parties and contributions are sought from various potential partners. However, I have tabled this Question to ask the Government to assist and—I suppose literally— tide over the service to give a reasonable opportunity for negotiations to succeed. I am aware that the Government have been involved in some talks and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort by telling us that they are prepared to facilitate the continuation of those discussions.
I understand that some £300,000 would be required to cover projected losses for the next three months and during that time the river bus management should be able to determine whether a buyer can be found for the service.
I should not wish it to be thought that I am entirely unconscious of the broader issues. Perhaps I may mention them briefly. The use of the river as a mode of transport is one of which those of us who have to cope with London's traffic are well aware. It is an excellent and underused mode to ease congestion in London. River services are reliable. They are not affected by other modes of transport. To put it in less technical language, once you get on a boat it is able to keep to a timetable and is not, as is a bus or a car, liable to be held up by the traffic.
River transport is extremely responsive to demand. New piers can be provided within about six months or traffic can be directed to other piers. That is a much shorter period of time than is required to build a new station or to provide a new railway line.
It is entirely a good thing if the modes of transport available in London can be diversified and coordinated with other modes. Many people to whom I have spoken about the river bus service over the past few years, with no thought of ever mentioning it in this House, have told me how helpful it would be if its ticketing arrangements were co-ordinated with Capital Cards and, more recently, with the Docklands Light Railway. While I know that those matters are for London Transport and the other service providers, that is an area in which the Government can at least provide encouragement.
There is of course—and this is a subject which we discussed in a broader sense—a need for considerable subsidy in transport in our capital city. We must have less public transport in our capital than almost any other capital city.
There is one major long-term consideration on which it is worth dwelling for a few moments; that is, the expectations of those who are now, and who will shortly be, working in the Docklands. They have been encouraged to move there very largely because of the promises—and they have understood them to be promises—by the Government as to the facilities that will be provided. That is not a point which I make entirely from my own imagination. It was put to me in just that way by the chairman of one of the major tenants. He said that he took the decision to move his company to Docklands on two major bases: first, the developers' promises about the quality of the environment; and, secondly, the Government's promises about the energy and effort that they would put into Docklands. He compared Docklands with La Defense in France and with Frankfurt. He felt that tenants had not received the support from the Government that is available in other countries. Of course, as an employer the Government will wish to know that their own civil servants, if they move there, will have the facilities that other tenants have expected.
The implications for the area of the loss of the river bus are considerable and my noble friend Lord Tordoff will speak in particular about the implications for the London City Airport. This is not a question of bailing out Canary Wharf. It is a question of recognising the needs of tenants, and perhaps a belated recognition of the need for infrastructure, for such a major development to succeed.
The same businessman told me that 120 of his 400 staff daily used the river bus service. They use it because of the inadequacy of other systems, particularly if they come in by train to Waterloo or Charing Cross and then need to go on to Docklands. He said that if the river bus is lost, his company will lose staff. I taxed him on that because it seemed to me that in a recession that was a fairly extreme comment to make. However, he told me that he was quite certain that it would be so and that staff would not be able to cope with the travelling and, therefore, his company and the individuals would suffer. He told me also that in surveys of staff of prospective tenants the river bus has proved an important factor in the willingness of staff to move to the area.
The river bus service has improved hugely since its early days. It provides a punctual and reliable service and a safe environment for passengers. I have been struck by comments about how women are glad to have the service because it means that they do not have to cope with the nasty changes, particularly at Waterloo. It has extremely efficient ticketing and operating practices. It is responsive to passenger demand and has modern passenger information and control systems. Much has been invested to achieve that. The data track system which is used reads to me as though it is real state-of-the-art computerised stuff. I understand that each vessel transmits its speed, position and direction every 54 seconds. That is not done just for the sake of it. That information is linked with screens at the piers so that passengers know the arrival time of not just the next vessel but the next three vessels.
There are three main markets for the service: commuter and business travel, access to and from the London City Airport, and tourists. During 1991 there were more than 400,000 passengers. Assuming that the service continues, this year it is anticipated that there will be 800,000 passengers; in other words, in the period January to May 1992 there has been an 89 per cent. increase over the same period in 1991.
I said that I am raising only a short-term matter today. I should like to see the river bus service continue. However, access to Docklands by other means will shortly improve. The new management of DLR will provide improvements and there will soon be new signalling arrangements which will enable the number of services to be increased. The Beckton Link has a target date for opening of next May and the same date is the target for the Limehouse Link for road access.
In the meantime, the continuation of the river bus is important in real terms. If it goes into liquidation, it is likely to be dead forever.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on this extremely important subject; namely, the river bus. I hope that the Minister will give some encouragement as regards its continuation. It should not continue as a service which is regarded as something of an Aunt Sally but it should be a service which has teeth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the Travelcard. I have been in contact with London Transport. There have been exchanges between the operator and London Transport but difficulties were encountered as regards Section 12 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 which provides that no subsidies should be given by outside bodies unless it is a commercial service. Perhaps my noble friend will clarify that point. I tried to contact British Rail. However, I left it much too late. I was hanging on awaiting a reply and I have not yet received an answer. I am sure that British Rail could help. Many of us travel in to London from the country. We are thinking of off-peak rather than on-peak services. The peak services are well patronised; it is the off-peak services which cause anxiety. Perhaps British Rail could help
576
by providing a service similar to that offered to Greenwich, and other places. That would help enormously.
Since including my name to speak in the debate I have spoken to various noble Lords—I do not see them present—who said that they use the service, particularly from Chelsea, and hoped to be here to say how good it is. However, that is not enough. I do not criticise my noble friend, but transport must be made attractive and must be well packaged. We may all complain of British Rail at times but its marketing policy is excellent. Its ThamesLink service has exceeded all expectations and its off-peak travel schemes are extremely good.
Perhaps there is some way in which the operators or the Government could encourage people to travel. That would assist not just in the short term—as the noble Baroness said—but would help in the long term also. That is what we must look at.
I hope that we are not in a "Wimbledon" situation —the final set five games to love, 40 love down. That would be a great pity and the staff must be extremely worried. Such situations have been reversed in the past, as we would find if we looked in the annals of sport and other areas. For the sake of the public and all the people who use the service, I hope that it will continue.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my name is not included on the list of speakers but perhaps I can intervene before the party representatives make their contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has done the House and London Transport a good turn in raising the matter.
I have found the water bus an agreeable and expeditious method of travel. It would be a pity if, having made a promising start, it were to pack up. I am always hesitant in urging government support for activities, not least because—as some noble Lords may recall—I spent a good deal of my ministerial life rejecting such applications. However, I feel that the noble Baroness has made out a case for trying to ensure that the service does not collapse in the short term and to give it another chance to succeed.
The river bus is a good method of travel. It is efficient. It is fascinating to reflect that centuries ago the river was used far more as a means of transport through London. In the Middle Ages and later most people of substance owned a boat and proceeded to this Palace, to the Tower, or to various other points which could be reached easily by boat. It seems to me that in recent years we have made remarkably little use of the river.
I would regret the service being discontinued. I hope that my noble friend the Minister—I appreciate the restrictions under which no doubt he is operating —will not slam any doors.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I was delighted to hear that intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am almost inclined to suggest that I and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, should not

577
speak while those words are ringing in the Minister's ears. Coming from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, it was a powerful intervention.
However, I should like to deal with one specific area —the impact of the possible loss of the river bus on the London City Airport. I have long been a supporter of the City airport because anything that spreads the load of air traffic in the Greater London area is to be welcomed.
The City airport provides a specific service to people working in the City who, in theory, are able to travel to the airport and on to the Continent comfortably and quickly. The number of people using the airport has been growing steadily over recent years. The airport is becoming viable; more aircraft are coming in and more companies are beginning to base their activities there. In 1988 the throughput of passengers was around 133,000; it is now up to 200,000 and expected to reach 500,000 by 1994.
At the moment the means of reaching the airport are inadequate. My noble friend said in her excellent introduction that action is afoot for improving the Docklands Light Railway, extending the Beckton link and installing the road link through Limehouse which is due in May next year. They are not in place yet. The result is that the river bus at the present time is an extremely important link. It carries up to 27 per cent. of the passengers travelling through the City airport. That is a large number of people.
A number of letters passed to me speak for the airlines better than I can. With your Lordships' permission I shall read from one or two. The first, from Flexair, states:
one of the airlines that has made a substantial investment in developing routes between The Netherlands and London City Airport, we are concerned about any diminution in the present ground transportation facilities from Canary Wharf into the centre of London and any retardation of the development of the Dockland Light Railway and the Jubilee Line."
The Jubilee line has not been mentioned today, but the whole question of that line is now in some doubt. It is my belief that it must and will be built in some way or other. But it places another question mark over that whole area. The letter continues:
"Certainly, our immediate worry is the fate of the RiverBus service … which many of our passengers from large multinational companies have found to be a most convenient means of getting from London City Airport to their London offices within one half hour … It would be extremely damaging to us and the airport if this service should be reduced or cease to operate".
A letter from Air France says much the same thing.
It reads:
"As you may be aware a substantial proportion of the passengers using the London City Airport now use the River Bus which provides a fast and efficient way of reaching the airport. In view of the difficulties there have been with the development of conventional means of access to the airport I feel sure you will agree that it is vital for the continued expansion and viability of London City Airport … that the River Bus continues to operate".
A letter from Crossair states:
"As the first jet operator into London City Airport I write with concern at the threatened stoppage of the River Bus service … Crossair passengers who have been using the services from Lugano and Zurich since 31 March are reporting total satisfaction with the River Bus service. Indeed some 57 per cent. of our passengers are using the river as their>
578
transport to the City, a far higher percentage than we originally envisioned … Crossair is concerned that the cessation of River Bus services may have a detrimental effect on our services and indeed on the future of London City airport".
Those are unsolicited testimonials from airlines which are slowly building up the credibility of the airport and their own services and which I fear will be severely damaged should the service cease. It needs only one of those services to decide that numbers of passengers are declining and to pull out to see the potential collapse of the whole of the London City Airport experiment. That would be extremely sad.
In addition to what my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, I ask the Minister to convey to his honourable and right honourable friends the fact that it is not just a subsidy for the sake of subsidy; it is not simply a way of keeping in being a rather quaint means of transport as compared with the usual means of transport in London. It is a vital element in building up a tremendous asset for the City of London; namely, the City of London airport.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising this important issue, which is important in the terms that have just been described by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and as reflected in the characteristically incisive contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I fear that I shall disobey the injunction of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that I should shut up, especially since he declined to obey his own injunction himself.
This subject is but one part of the far wider transport issues affecting London, among which the Government have had but one major success: they have concealed their policy objectives and philosophy with remarkable success. However, as we are considering the very real crisis facing the river bus service, I shall not go further into that matter, tempted though I am.
The fact is that we are faced with the closure of this service—perhaps next week. Perhaps the Minister will let us know whether the Government can confirm that the end of the month means the end of the river bus service. The service is widely used and, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said, it is convenient. It is also an environmentally friendly way of travelling, especially when one considers how our streets in London are so desperately congested. It cannot be that we should easily allow the situation to develop in this way.
I should like to ask therefore whether, as the Financial Times reported, a potential bidder is on the scene. I believe that the bidder is called White Horse Ferries. Has that body actually made a bid for the service; and, if so, are the Government inclined to take the offer seriously? How would the Government propose to assist in that? It is quite clear that the river bus service has made extensive losses over a long period of time—since the mid-1980s, and I do not believe that it was helped adequately by the property developer concerned, Olympia & York.

579
Although this is not an immediate matter, it is nonetheless significant so, if the Government are proposing to transfer civil servants to Docklands—most of them against their will, I suspect—how are they proposing to deal with their obvious transport requirements? Perhaps I may add in parenthesis that the best thing might be to ensure that Ministers accompany the civil servants—because then something would really be done to ensure that the infrastructure requirements are fulfilled.
It is as well to contemplate this point: in many ways, this case represents a test of the Government's transport and environmental credentials. People will say, "If the Government are not disposed to help in this regard, it does not say much for the possibility of maximising the use of one of London's greatest potential assets for transport—or so it used to be in the old days—the river Thames." The river is a potential asset for commerce and leisure, as well as for transport purposes.
Having raised this important point, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also raised a significant incidental point. I say "incidental" without in any way seeking to diminish its significance. I refer to the question of integrating the ticket system, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in order to allow the river bus to join the Travelcard system.
The Government should not adopt a hands-off attitude here. All these matters relate to the Government's responsibility for handling an important aspect of London's transport system. We now have a Minister who is responsible for transport in London, and he has expressed interest in using the river. Therefore, there is an obligation on the part of the Government to ensure that those sentiments are matched with appropriate action. There can be no doubt at all that, although it would not be a disaster, it would be a setback for London if we were to be deprived of this service. As I have said, it has assumed a greater significance because of the Government's own proposals to transfer civil servants from some of the Government buildings here to Docklands.
The points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, about London City Airport are matters of considerable significance to us from an international point of view. I happen to be a supporter of the City Airport. What I like about it is not very helpful to the airport—I like its emptiness, but we want to change all that. That characteristic is unknown to me when visiting any other airport in Europe. I believe that the airport has great potential but that that potential would be negated if the river bus service disappeared.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, cited a number of representations that had been made to him and, I hope, to the Government also. Although I was not the recipient of such prolific correspondence as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, Mowlem, which played a considerable part in developing City Airport and therefore has a vested interest in this matter, has raised a significant point with me. It stated:
"While we can all understand that the Government should not be seen to be bailing out the O&Y creditors, the fact that Canary Wharf tenants would benefit should not prevent the
580
use of public funds to subsidise a transport service important to Docklands as a whole until such time as the infrastructure being provided by the Government is in place".
In my view, that is a very powerful argument.
It is incumbent upon the Government tonight to answer the host of points that have been raised in this short but nevertheless extremely important debate in which I am very happy to have participated.
5.17 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised an important issue today and we are all grateful to her for doing so.
The river bus is a transport service owned and operated by companies in the private sector. It is in difficulties now because one of those companies has gone into administration and may no longer be in a position after the end of this month to subsidise the services to the extent that it has in the past. However, I understand that several approaches have been made to the RiverBus Partnership and its owners with a view to maintaining the services. The London Docklands Development Corporation is using its good offices to bring the various parties together, and I very much hope that they will be successful in facilitating an outcome which will secure the future of the river bus services.
I understand the important worries that are felt by those who make use of the river bus service at present, and those that have been raised by your Lordships today. The river bus provides a pleasant and convenient means of travelling from Chelsea to Westminster and the City, and from central London to Docklands. Perhaps it would be helpful if I set out some of the background to the river bus operation and explain the Government's initial reaction to the suggestion that the service should be maintained by public subsidy.
In 1989, Thamesline, the predecessor to the river bus, was in financial difficulties, but was rescued principally by Olympia & York and P&O in partnership. The rescue package amounted to £2.5 million, of which the Department of Transport provided £0.5 million in grant. The latter was a one-off payment, not an operating subsidy. Since then River Bus has operated as a private sector public transport service, subsidised, I understand, by Olympia & York to the tune of £3 million or more per year. Now that the administrators have been called in to deal with the problems of Olympia & York, there is concern that the River Bus service might cease to operate. At present the administrators are maintaining a subsidy but that may not continue for very much longer.
River Bus, then, has been subsidised by development companies. It has been used by Olympia & York and P&O as one of the ways in which they can make their developments more attractive to potential customers. They have no doubt weighed up the benefits of there being a service available to those needing to travel to and from Chelsea and Canary Wharf and have decided that those benefits outweigh the costs of subsidising the River Bus service. That decision has been a commercial one. It suited their book as developers to subsidise the service.

581
Because River Bus is now apparently in danger of losing that subsidy, various interests have suggested that the Government—in reality the taxpayer— should take the developers' place. The Secretary of State for Transport received the first approaches. He was asked whether public money could be made available in order that River Bus might continue to operate. Government must, of course, look at matters like this from the point of view of value for money. When River Bus is viewed solely as a transport service to convey people from A to B, the case for subsidy is difficult to justify. The total number of passenger journeys on River Bus last year was no more than 400,000. Of those, only 180,000, or about 400 journeys on each working day, were for business travel. Thus, less than half the total number of River Bus journeys were used for commuting to Docklands. This is in sharp contrast to patronage of the Docklands Light Railway which carried more than 7.5 million passengers in 1991.
The River Bus is very popular with tourists. The growth in patronage of River Bus, which seems likely to reduce the level of subsidy from the £7.50 per journey which was needed in 1991, is largely as a result of the increase in tourist traffic. There can be no case for Government subsidising travel facilities for tourists whose needs can of course be met by other craft and by other means. We have concluded that, in simple transport terms, direct subsidy of River Bus would not represent good value for money for the Government.
The London City Airport's owners and management are arguing that the airport's future is linked to the future of River Bus. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, reminded us, only about a quarter of airport users travelled there by River Bus last year. The River Bus does not operate direct to the airport but to a pier at Canary Wharf from where there is at present a courtesy bus service to the airport. The Docklands Light Railway also has a station at Canary Wharf. The Government have invested more than £450 million in the Docklands Light Railway and are continuing to devote resources to enlarge the network and improve its reliability. The Docklands Light Railway is an integral part of the public transport network serving London. It has a direct line to the City; it is included in the Travelcard scheme; and, as I have already said, it is the means by which most people travel to Docklands. We believe that the airport case is not sufficient to tip the balance. However, I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, about the use of the airport.
The private sector partners in River Bus clearly considered that a relatively high level of subsidy was worth paying. If River Bus was important to Olympia & York, perhaps it will prove as important to the administrators and they will continue the subsidy. Olympia & York will either survive or be succeeded by new owners with an interest in the success of their investment in Docklands; they might well consider it worthwhile continuing the subsidy. There is a good case for arguing that the private sector should organise itself to secure the continuation of a service
582
from which it is the prime beneficiary. There are signs of that happening. As I said earlier, the London Docklands Development Corporation is working to organise immediate support from interested parties. The Government are aware that, for the longer term, there are potential buyers interested in acquiring and operating River Bus. I can tell my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that Steven Norris, the Minister with responsibility for transport in London, will be considering the use of the river for our transport needs. He will be looking at the matter very carefully.
It has also been suggested that the River Bus should come under the control of the London Docklands Development Corporation, as did the Docklands Light Railway in April this year. But as I have said, there is a difference between the two operations. The Docklands Light Railway is a mass people mover, used by the majority of commuters into Docklands. The River Bus is used by only 8 per cent. of Docklands employees. It is, however, true that the LDDC is above all concerned with the success of Docklands and it is for that reason that it has been using its good offices to try to arrange for the service to continue for a further short period while discussions are continued with potential purchasers. I am sure that your Lordships welcome that helpful initiative by the LDDC and others concerned to see River Bus stay afloat and in service. We hope that they will be successful. But let me emphasise—the long term future of River Bus is as a commercial service operated by the private sector to serve the interests of the property owners and tenants of developments along its route as well as tourists visiting Docklands. It would be too easy an option to put responsibility for River Bus on the taxpayer.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Viscount completes what he has to say, he conceded that 25 per cent. of passengers using the airport utilise the River Bus. Does he not recognise that the remarkable experiment that City Airport represents could be struck a dire blow as a result of the loss of so great a percentage of the travelling public using the airport? What does he propose to do about that?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have given my answer to the noble Lord. He was quite right about the 25 per cent. I have also pointed out that there are many other ways of getting to the airport. The River Bus is certainly not the only way and it is not the most crucial way to get to the airport. It is not the way that most people use.
My noble friend Lord Teviot asked me about the Travelcard scheme. The Travelcard is operated on a voluntary basis by London Transport and Network SouthEast. They have considered the case for including River Bus in the scheme and have concluded that because it makes a substantial loss they would end up subsidising the service. That would be outside their powers. As I said earlier, we must await the outcome of the present discussions.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he confirm whether the concern about the subsidy being withdrawn or not continued beyond

583
the end of this month is justified? If that is so, in the context of the encouraging words he has given—directed perhaps beyond us to the LDDC—perhaps he would at least pass on to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State and indeed to the Minister with responsibility for transport in London the words that have come from all sides of the House, not with regard to long-term subsidy but with regard to assisting the service to continue until its funding is more secure.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I take very much to heart the points raised by the noble Baroness. We hope that the present discussions will be successful. They are continuing at the moment and I can say no more at this stage.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past five o'clock.