Sitting of 27 June 1975

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Abortion
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to present a Petition, with some 3,000 signatures of people in Hampstead and elsewhere, on the subject of abortion. It reads:
  "Wherefore your petitioners pray that no legislation be passed which would restrict the circumstances in which women can have legal abortions, believing that women should have the right to free National Health Service abortions and that restrictions will lead to enforced pregnancies and motherhood, unwanted children or dangerous back-street abortions.
  Your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: I now have to rule on the complaint of breach of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham).
The complaint related to words reported to have been spoken by Mr. Arthur Scargill, President of the Yorkshire area of the National Union of Mineworkers, and to a resolution of the Yorkshire Area Council of that union, upon which Mr. Scargill's remarks were alleged to have been based.
I am satisfied that the matter of the complaint is such that I should permit a motion relating to it to be given precedence over the Orders of the Day.
Mr. George Cunningham: In view of that ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
"That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges."
Question put and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.7 a.m.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Last night I put the case for the renewal of the emergency powers Act. Today we begin the process of amending the Act in the light of the Gardiner Committee, which was set up
  "to consider what provisions and powers, consistent to the maximum extent practicable in the circumstances with the preservation of civil liberties and human rights, are required to deal with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland, including provisions for the administration of justice and to examine the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973; and to make recommendations."
  It would not be honest of me to paint an optimistic picture of the security situation at present. I am hopeful that the people in Northern Ireland as a whole are beginning to recognise that only they can eliminate violence, and only through the established constitutional machinery of the police and the courts. But I must also tell the House that the cease-fire remains fragile and tension remains high. We cannot relax measures to deal with violence. For the time being, the Army must be maintained in Northern Ireland at a level which can contain an upsurge of terrorism; and while this risk remains, and while terrorism continues at the present level, it is necessary for emergency powers to continue. These are special provisions for the administration of justice in the courts, special powers for the security forces, and the extra-judicial process of detentioin.
  If the cease-fire were to end, and terrorism and intimidation were once more to reach the horrifying levels of the past, there must be provisions for removing evil killers from the streets. As the Gardiner Committee pointed out in paragraph 148 of its report:
  "We would like to be able to recommend that the time has come to abolish detention; but the present level of violence, the risks of

  887
  increased violence and the difficulty of predicting events even a few months ahead make it impossible for us to put forward a precise recommendation on the timing."
  The Gardiner Committee also states in paragraph 15 that, while the liberty of the subject is a human right to be preserved under all possible conditions, it is not, and cannot be, an absolute right because one man may use his liberty to take away the liberty of another and must be restrained from doing so. Where freedoms conflict, the State has a duty to protect those in need of protection. The committee also pointed out that the detention procedure is not in breach of our commitment to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as we have exercised our right to derogate. I told the House yesterday that since 22nd December 1974 I had released 276 detainees, including 10 whom I released last Tuesday. In addition, the commissioners have released a further 25 detainees during that period. Today I have directed the release of a further five detainees.
  Before leaving this subject, I should perhaps mention another more general matter not directly related to detention. Hon. Members will have noted that paragraph 21 of the report states the Gardiner Committee's view that consideration should be given to the enactment of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will know that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, chaired by Lord Feather, announced recently that it intended to embark on a major study of the extent to which existing legislation provides sufficient protection for human rights in Northern Ireland, including whether a Bill of Rights is needed, what form it might take and how it would relate to existing legislation. It is also possible, as we heard yesterday, that the Constitutional Convention might decide to consider the subject. Indeed, I understand that there are two motions currently on the Convention Notice Paper raising the question of Bills of Rights. In the circumstances, the Government have decided not to take any action at this stage, but we shall study carefully any proposals from the commission or the Convention. A Bill of Rights, or legislation covering the
  888
  human rights law, will be part of the next constitutional legislation for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: As my right hon. Friend knows, I am concerned about the question of a Bill of Rights. As the Feather Commission made a statement to the effect that it would spend at least one year in considering whether a Bill of Rights was necessary, is my right hon. Friend able to tell me whether the commission will take notice of the debates which have taken place in this Chamber on the subject of a Bill of Rights?
  Mr. Rees: Most certainly. By nature of the law, it is not for me to tell the commission what to do, but I am sure that in the process of consideration it will be prepared to listen to people's views. It is not for me to say how the Convention might have contact with the commission if it so wished. Implicit in the commission's terms of reference for the investigation it is conducting are the terms of a possible Bill. I have learned from the Gardiner report that I received at the end of last year that it is all very well to make a report but to translate that report into legislation is not an easy matter.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as long as Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom it is exceedingly difficult to conceive a Bill of Rights which applies to citizens in only one part of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Rees: In the context of Bills of Rights that go back in constitutional history, that is correct, but the right hon. Gentleman will note that the previous administration, under the heading of a "Charter of Human Rights", introduced several pieces of legislation which have been translated into fact and add up at least to part of a Bill of Rights. The commission is thinking about its job in the context of human rights overall. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When we come to translate the commission's recommendations into action, it will be a matter for the House at the end of the day.
  To return to detention, Lord Gardiner has pointed out that there are many who are critical of the present detention procedures; in particular, I am concerned

  889
  about the assertion that it has brought the law into disrepute. That is certainly a view that is expressed forcefully by the legal profession in Northern Ireland. It is no reflection on the commissioners, who have carried out their onerous duties with fairness and conscientiousness, that these procedures have aroused criticism. Indeed, I should like to take this opportunity of recording my appreciation of the way in which the commissioners have discharged their duties, and my gratitude for the services they have so readily given in Northern Ireland. But the Government have decided that there is sufficient substance in the criticisms to introduce a new system. I shall deal with that in a moment.
  I shall describe only briefly the clauses in the Bill dealing with the administration of justice in the courts—one aspect of the report—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be available to cover any points raised on these provisions in the winding up speech.
  Clause 1 brings the law in Northern Ireland on the admission of written statements into line with the law in Great Britain and is a permanent addition to Northern Ireland statute law.
  Clause 2 vests in the court the decision to have either a preliminary investigation involving witnesses or a preliminary inquiry based on written depositions at the initial hearing of a scheduled offence. At present an inquiry may be held only if the accused does not object, but, as the Gardiner Committee pointed out in paragraph 57 of its report, in the case of a person who does not recognise the court it is difficult to say whether or not he objects. Hence it is proposed that the decision should lie with the court, which can take into account any representations made by the accused or his representative.
  Clause 3 enables scheduled and nonscheduled offences to be tried together where these offences are closely related. Clause 4 considerably broadens the number of judges who may grant bail to a person charged with a scheduled offence, and completely frees persons being tried summarily for such offences from any restrictions on the grant of bail.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: In the debate last night, the right hon.
  890
  Gentleman may remember that I raised the question of bail for members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I also referred to attempts having been made to try them in what are known as "terrorist courts" in common parlance in Northern Ireland. Will the Bill change that position?
  Mr. Rees: As it stands at the moment, it will not. The hon. Gentleman raises an important Committee point. From what I recall of what the hon. Gentleman said last night, his point is that soldiers are held in barracks at Holywood, or wherever it might be, amongst their own kind, and the police argue that they also should be held in that way. A difficult point of principle arises, that the policeman is a civilian, unlike the soldier, but that is a matter for consideration in Committee.
  Clause 5 makes it much simpler to obtain legal aid for any such applications for bail.
  Clause 6 removes any reference to the Belfast Recorder's Court, as it is not in practice used for the trial of scheduled offences. Clause 7 repeals Section 5 or the 1973 Act, which allowed written statements to be admitted as evidence in the trial of scheduled offences where the witness was unable or unfit to attend the trial or could not be found. Hon. Members who attended the debates on the previous Bill will remember that the question of written statements was discussed.
  Finally, Clause 8 provides that the special provisions on evidence in Part I of the 1973 Act should no longer apply to the summary trial of any scheduled offence.
  Lord Gardiner recommended in paragraph 85 of his report that the existing powers of search and arrest in Part II of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 were necessary and should be retained. Moreover, I have repeatedly made clear that I would not expect the security forces to continue to operate in Northern Ireland without the protection afforded by such powers.
  However, the Gardiner Committee recommended two changes to the existing powers. The first was to make clear the powers the security forces have to stop and question persons. Clause 10 puts it beyond doubt that a member

  891
  of the security forces may stop and question anybody about any one or more of the matters specified in Section 16 of the 1973 Act; that is to say, his identity, his movements, his knowledge of any terrorist incident or his knowledge of anyone killed or injured in such an incident. I think that this was the intention of Parliament when the provision was approved. The amendment removes any possible ambiguity.
  The second recommendation was to introduce a power to search for illegally-held, or illegally-used communications equipment. Transmitters are used by terrorists to set up ambushes for the security forces, and they are used to detonate bombs. For example, booby traps are frequently set up and an observer, who may be up to a mile away from the trap, detonates the bomb by radio control when an Army patrol approaches the bait. Clause 11, therefore, introduces a power to search for and seize such transmitters. This power is analagous to the power in the 1973 Act to search for and seize munitions.
  Before taking this office and before getting heavily involved in security matters, I do not think I could possibly have realised the sophistication of the equipment that is used. It is not just associated with the use of guns. Complicated equipment is coming from various parts of the world. The training to use that equipment is not something that can be done by means of a short chat lasting an hour or so. The use of such equipment involves careful training. It is important that this type of transmitter should come into legislation in the way that I have suggested. We have not thought it appropriate to include radio receivers, which, although used by terrorists, are widely held by the general public.
  The Government have rejected the recommendation in paragraph 70 of the Gardiner Report that a general offence of terrorism should be created. If a person commits an act of violence we consider that the proper course of action is to bring that person to trial for his crime and not to convict him under some "catch-all" provision such as an offence of terrorism. Nevertheless, the proposal that there should be an offence of terrorism highlighted two areas where the law is deficient. There is, at present, no
  892
  effective method of bringing to justice persons who recruit others to belong to or to act for an illegal organisation. Nor is there any way of bringing to justice a person who instructs others in the theory of making bombs or using weapons but does not himself construct or handle the bombs or use the weapons. Therefore, Clause 12 makes it an offence to recruit others to an illegal organisation and Clause 15 makes it an offence to train others in the use of arms and explosives or to receive such training.
  Mr. Powell: I appreciate that this may be a Committee point but perhaps there is no harm in its being mentioned now. As regards Clause 12, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied as to the form in which what he has decribed informally as "recruitment" is defined? For example, it is easy to imagine a member of a proscribed organisation, who is purporting to be a member, making a public speech in which he extols the virtues of persons who belong to it in the same way as a recruiting sergeant might extol the advantages of belonging to Her Majesty's forces. I do not know whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's view that that situation would fall within the definition, but I am sure he will agree that the definition is a matter of great importance.
  Mr. Rees: Yes, I think that the right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I would rather my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General dealt with it later, but, in the spirit of not being legally trained, I think it is important for me to say a word or two about the matter.
  What we had in mind was recruitment to an organisation. I accept the difficulties of definition. The point that I wanted to take up was the aspect of extolling what has been done. That is the penumbra around it which is so important. It is extremely difficult to deal with any clause of this nature. Historically in Ireland martyrdom has been an important aspect of the community. Talking in that way is often done by people who are not involved in violence. That is part of history. It is extremely difficult in those circumstances to use the clause as a "catch-all" provision. As I have said, this is an important issue and I am sure that it can be dealt with in Committee.

  893
  The Bill also introduces two other offences against public security. Since the start of the current campaign of violence and terror in Northern Ireland certain professions have been in the forefront of measures to deal with terrorism—namely, the RUC, members of the Armed Forces, judges and prison officers. As regards prison officers, they put their families at risk in a way that I had not realised. At present Section 20 of the 1973 Act makes it an offence to collect information about either the Armed Forces or the police which is likely to be useful to terrorists. Clause 13 extends this provision to information about persons holding judicial office, court officers and prison officers. There have been 17 attacks on members of the judiciary, and a judge and two resident magistrates have been murdered.
  The clause will not apply to persons having lawful authority or reasonable excuse for being in possession of such information. I know from experience that sometimes men are arrested who have information on them about the movements of people. Intelligence collecting on the street corner about families is carried out. But it is important—I accept that we cannot protect everyone—that the group to which I have referred, and particularly the judges, is protected.
  Clause 13 provides that it will also be an offence to collect any information which is likely to be useful in planning or executing an act of violence. Hon. Members may recall the plans that were captured last year which clearly related to the burning of large parts of Belfast. On another occasion a person was found with detailed plans for loading a boat with explosives and directing it towards a naval vessel. At present it may not be possible to charge such persons with an offence.
  Clause 16 implements the Gardiner Committee's recommendation in paragraph 72 of the report that it should be an offence to wear a hood or mask in any public place or in the vicinity of other people's houses. Hoods are worn to intimidate persons in Northern Ireland. It is not always possible to prove intimidation as the very act of wearing a hood is in itself sufficient to frighten people without other action. We have, therefore, decided to make this an offence.
  894
  Clause 14 implements another recommendation of the Gardiner Committee in paragraph 72 of the report, that the offence of riotous behaviour should be dealt with summarily. Clause 14, therefore, provides for the repeal of the penalty of 18 months' imprisonment for riotous behaviour imposed by Section 22 of the 1973 Act; consequently the offence will become a purely summary one.
  The last part of the Bill provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions must consent to any prosecutions brought under this Bill in the same way as he consents to all prosecutions brought under the 1973 Act. It also provides for minor alterations to the list of scheduled offences in the 1973 Act and ensures that any terms used in this Bill have the same meaning as those in the 1973 Act.
  The temporary provisions in the Bill will expire at the same time as those in the 1973 Act, which this House yesterday approved for a further six months until 24th January 1976. Clause 21 provides for the renewal of all the temporary provisions in the Bill in the same way as the temporary provisions in the 1973 Act are renewed. I urged when in Opposition that emergency provisions should not be in force for more than six months without the consent of Parliament, and, indeed, this is the practice which I have followed as Secretary of State. Accordingly, it is my intention that the maximum period of renewal should in future be six months rather than 12 months. I propose, therefore, to introduce a Government amendment to this effect.
  I turn to the specific provisions of Schedule I, which, with Clause 9, repeals Schedule I to the principal Act and provides instead new detention arrangements. The committee argued that, because the deprivation of the liberty of an individual by extra-judicial process is a very serious decision, it should be taken by the Secretary of State himself, onerous as that may be. I accept this. The commissioners and appeal hearings which were at the heart of the system introduced by the 1973 Act will, therefore he abolished. As the Gardiner Report emphasises, the introduction of the commissioners' scheme was a genuine attempt to afford a person suspected of terrorism an opportunity, consistent with security, of challenging the allegations made against him. In order to do this, such

  895
  a person has been able to employ a legal representative and the hearing has proceeded by way of adversarial contest, much as in a normal court. It was for the commissioner alone to decide on the basis of his inquiry whether or not the person should be detained.
  The committee suggested, however, that these quasi-judicial procedures, although well-intentioned, are not appropriate if security considerations are of such overriding importance that it is often necessary for commissioners to hear evidence in camera, to admit hearsay evidence and to allow the identity of witnesses to be concealed by the use of screens and voice scramblers. I can understand the point about voice scramblers, because recognition of a voice could mean death for the person concerned or his family. Indeed, the committee argued that, because the commissioners' hearings have such an apparent similarity to the ordinary judicial process, the ordinary processes of law in Northern Ireland are being brought into disrepute.
  There is also criticism of the delays which have in the past crept into the commissioners' system; the committee felt that these can be attributed to the basic unsuitability of the procedures themselves. In general, I accept the strength of the arguments, and paragraph 8 of the schedule, therefore, places sole and ultimate responsibility for the making of a detention order with the Secretary of State.
  Nevertheless, there must be an advisory procedure, and this will work as follows. Where it appears to the Secretary of State that there are grounds for suspecting that a person has been concerned in the commission or attempted commission of any act of terrorism or in directing, organising or training persons for the purpose of terrorism, he may make an interim custody order. Within 14 days he must refer the case to an adviser or the order shall cease to have effect.
  Where a case is referred to an adviser, he is required to consider it and report to the Secretary of State whether or not in his opinion the person detained has been concerned in terrorist activities and also whether the detention of that person is necessary for the protection of the public. When the Secretary of State receives the report of the adviser, he must also
  896
  consider these two points, and, if satisfied in respect of them, he may make a detention order. If he is not so satisfied, he shall direct the person's release.
  While the adviser's role is, therefore, very much at the heart of the new detention procedure, sole responsibility for the making of detention orders will rest with the Secretary of State. The adviser will be able to provide an independent assessment of all the evidence, including the views of the security forces, and will thereby ensure that a full and balanced picture is put before the Secretary of State, who will then have to reach a decision.
  I have given this point a great deal of consideration. In the days of the old-style campaign, when under the old process things happened in the middle of the night or on Sunday afternoons, my Ministers and I have sat considering cases brought before us by Army officers or policemen. I see the new process as meaning that the security forces will put their view to me. That matter will go to an adviser, who will look at the matter independently. In the 14-day period I shall have a chance to consider the view of the security forces and can decide my view of the situation. But at the end of the day the decision is mine as Secretary of State. I shall respect the advice I receive, but the decision will be mine, and this will apply to my successors as long as this is the law.
  Hon. Members will also note that the schedule provides that a single adviser shall consider cases. This does not accord entirely with the Gardiner Committee's recommendation that a detention advisory board should be created with membership of seven holders of judicial office, three of whom should constitute a division for investigating cases. While I accept the merits of these proposals and the arguments which lead to them, it is not practicable to provide this number of judges at the present time. For this reason an adviser will sit alone, and, like a commissioner, he must hold or have held judicial office in the United Kingdom or be a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing.
  In response to the Gardiner Committee's criticism in paragraphs 153 and 154 of the report, of the quasi-judicial nature of the commissioners' proceedings, advisers will consider cases privately and

  897
  quite informally. There will be no legal representation at the inquiry, although a person whose case has been referred to an adviser will be able to obtain legal advice or assistance when preparing written representations to be considered by the adviser. Hon. Members will note, therefore, that the formal court setting of the commissioners' hearing is being replaced by a much less formal arrangement which I believe is more suited to the advisers' function.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I accept much of what the Secretary of State says about the reasons for having the scheme involving an adviser. However, will he go further on the specific terms of reference of the adviser, bearing in mind the difficulties that have arisen under the legislation dealing with the prevention of terrorism and the confusion which surrounds the adviser's rôle under that legislation?
  Mr. Rees: I shall look at the matter, which raises an interesting point.
  Another important feature of the new procedure is the introduction of time limits. I am conscious that I am setting the scene for the Committee stage of the Bill, and to skimp these matters would be bad for the House, and I am sure hon. Members will not expect me to skimp them. When I was on the back benches I always thought that Cabinet Ministers spoke for too long, and that is in my mind at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. Carry on."]
  The Gardiner Committee recommended that, because delay has been a serious defect in the present procedures, there should be mandatory limits of seven days for the service of the statement of allegation, 21 days for the submission of the report to the Secretary of State, and seven days for the Secretary of State's decision. I have looked at this matter most carefully. Many practical difficulties are likely to arise, however, not only in relation to the preparation of a statement of allegation but also as regards the adviser's proceedings. In order to make the' system easier to administer and also to safeguard the rights of the person detained, a simpler arrangement is being introduced.
  The case of a person detained under an interim custody order must be referred to an adviser by the Secretary of State
  898
  within 14 days. This reduces by hall the present period of 28 days. A person detained will continue to be served with a statement in writing as to the nature of the terrorist activities of which he is suspected.
  A second overall limit of seven weeks is imposed by paragraph 8. If a detention order is not made by the Secretary of State within seven weeks of the date of the interim custody order, the person must be released. Provision is made, however, in paragraph 8 for three extensions of one week each should exceptional circumstances arise to prevent an adviser from completing his report on time. Thus, to take a simple case, an adviser may fall ill just before completing his report and, clearly, some contingency measure is necessary to deal with this. By introducing an overall limit, the delays of the present system will disappear. The delays under the current system are not defensible.
  On the subject of release, the Secretary of State may release a detainee at any time. He may also refer a case to an adviser for an opinion as to whether the person's continued detention is necessary for the protection of the public. In addition, a detainee will be able to request the Secretary of State to refer his case to an adviser after one year has elapsed since the making of the order or six months from the notification that a previous request had not resulted in his release.
  I would also refer to the committee's concern about the availability of prison accommodation. I am glad to report that the prison building programme announced last November is going well. The public inquiry into the siting of the new prison at Maghaberry, which will be known as Moy Park, has now finished and the inspector's report is awaited. In the meantime, work proceeds at the Maze with the construction of new cell block accommodation and it is hoped that 200 individual cells will be ready by November and a further 300 by October of next year. Other schemes now in progress at various sites will provide new accommodation for 40 women prisoners at Armagh by January 1976, as well as 50 borstal trainees by December 1976 and 300 young offenders by mid-1977. Work was completed on the new kitchen at the Maze last March, and the alterations to

  899
  the hospital should be finished by March 1976.
  One of the matters with which many people in Northern Ireland are concerned right across the board is the age—which is quite remarkable—of those involved in violence. I told the House some time ago that I had set up the Committee on Young Offenders, under Lord Donaldson, the Under-Secretary of State, and it is considering the use of accommodation for young offenders, together with the related questions of training and the procedures for their release.
  It is has not yet been decided whether the new cellular blocks soon to be ready at the Maze should be used for young offenders, but, clearly, this is a possibility. It is one that commends itself to me, because it would enable the young offender to be away from the influence of older people. However, there are difficulties about providing separate accommodation for detainees. Hard-core terrorists require high security, and the Gardiner Committee's suggestion that army camps or barracks should be used for this purpose cannot be readily implemented because of the lack of suitable sites.
  I have given a great deal of consideration to the Gardiner Committee's suggestions as to means of helping detainees in their return to ordinary life. A person is released as soon as it is considered that his detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. Once that decision is taken, any period spent at a pre-release centre would mean delaying his return home. A stay in the centre would without doubt, therefore, be unacceptable.
  In the course of this morning five people will be released from the Maze. By the very nature of detention, they did not know of this beforehand. They are not prisoners who know that they have a month or six weeks or two months to serve before release. All I can say, bluntly, in the face of the Gardiner recommendations, is this. When I decided on the names of these five people two or three days ago, if they had then been told that I had decided to release them but that they had to stay for another four or five weeks in a pre-release centre, the plain fact is that this would not have been acceptable.
  900
  It is not easy to meet the committee's proposal that a form of special assistance should be provided for detainees on the lines of a family fund. This would mean, in effect, a scheme financed out of public funds which excluded other members of the community who have suffered from the effects of violence.
  Mr. Stallard: Concerning the prerelease centre, my right hon. Friend is saying that he cannot tell these lads that they are about to be released because they would not accept the pre-release conditions. If it is still his intention to end detention altogether, why is it not possible to put the remaining detainees into a pre-release centre now?
  Mr. Rees: There is a short answer to that: it would not be acceptable. I say that bluntly. I am coming in a moment to a scheme for dealing with people after release which I understand is acceptable.
  The Gardiner Committee also recommended that detainees should be credited with full insurance contributions during their period of detention. Detainees already have Class II or Class III contributions paid for them by the Northern Ireland Office. This preserves their longterm pension rights and places them in a more favourable position than convicted prisoners or ordinary remand prisoners released without penalty, all of whom, if they wish to preserve their pension rights, have to pay the contributions from their own pockets.
  I have considered the Gardiner recommendation sympathetically but do not feel able to accept it. The general principle is that credit of Class I contributions is not given to those not available for work, such as students, remand prisoners, and those unable to be employed because they are caring for elderly parents. Detainees clearly fall in this wider category, and I would not be justified in treating them more favourably. Moreover, released detainees are not at any practical disadvantage through the absence of Class I contributions for the period of detention. If after release they are unemployed or sick, they may not be eligible for unemployment or sickness pay, but will receive supplementary benefits, which in practice may mean more in actual money.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Is it not anomalous that so many persons in Northern Ireland who do not recognise the courts of the State are quite eager to recognise its social benefits?
  Mr. Rees: That is a fact of life, but if in highlighting it the hon. Gentleman is pointing out something which marks Northern Ireland as different, for a variety of historical reasons, from other parts of the United Kingdom and may indeed be the basis of some of our political problems over recent years, there is no way of dealing with that, but, of course, it is possible to express it in the way that the hon. Gentleman has expressed it.
  However, positive measures are already being taken which have a bearing on the matters of special concern to the Committee. They relate to the needs of both detainees and convicted prisoners, and they are based on the principle that all persons released from prison should as ordinary citizens be able to take full advantage of services available generally within the community.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is a vast difference between a convicted person and someone who has been interned or detained without trial? When a person has been convicted in the eyes of the law and sentenced to a specific term of imprisonment, he cannot in all justice expect any preferential treatment from any Government source, but the person who has been detained, against whom the Government can prove no offence, should have his rights protected, and it is not being extra generous to take some steps to make certain that the social benefits are maintained.
  Mr. Rees: All I would suggest is that in Committee we can look at the benefits obtained from Classes I and II which I have already mentioned.
  I propose, therefore, to use the prison welfare service, which has been expanded and is extending the range of help and advice available to prisoners during the period leading up to release. The prison welfare officers are recognised and accepted by both detainees and special category prisoners, and one of their jobs is to make sure that they are well informed on the various statutory and voluntary services available on release.
  902
  They maintain close links with the voluntary welfare organisations which have particular associations with the different groups of detainees and special category prisoners. They are also in touch with individuals, community groups and other bodies with an interest in this work.
  I regard co-operation and trust as vital, and here I should mention the difficulties encountered by the Resettlement Association, which formed itself into a voluntary body last year to help both detainees and convicted prisoners to return to society. The association was unable to obtain the necessary support to discharge the rôle which it had defined for itself. I understand that because of this the association has decided to wind up its affairs.
  It is during the weeks immediately following release that men stand in greatest need of advice and support. Following discussions with the various welfare organisations and with prisoners and detainees themselves, an office is to be set up shortly in Belfast which will serve both as an advice bureau for men who encounter difficulties after release and as a centre for co-ordinating the work of voluntary organisations. It will be manned partly by the prison welfare service and will provide the continuity of help and advice necessary to smooth the transition from prison conditions to ordinary life.
  Lord Gardiner's Committee set out in some detail the regrettable consequences which followed the granting by administrative means of special category status to certain groups of convicted prisoners. It was an administrative decision taken under the previous administration. The Government acknowledge these consequences. They must also acknowledge that the decision to introduce special category status was taken in circumstances of very great difficulty, and few of us at the time the decision was taken would have been prepared to assert that it was wrong.
  In any case the consequences described by Lord Gardiner's Report flow not only from the introduction of special category status but also from the great increase in the prison population and the need to keep prisoners in overcrowded and understaffed temporary prisons. If we abolished special category status tomorrow the effect on the real situation in prison would be minimal. The prisoners would still be

  903
  in the compounds. I would not announce a procedure which cannot be carried out. In any event, this is in the nature of Northern Ireland, and the views expressed on both sides of the community, by the Loyalist prisoners as well as by Republican prisoners, suggest that they would continue to regard themselves as special and distinct from other prisoners. That is the other side of the coin on the point which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) made.
  The real answer must lie in a combination of measures, legal and practical, to improve the whole situation in the penal system. These measures must be accompanied by a change in community attitudes and a recognition that the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders, like the prevention of crime, is the responsibility of the whole community and not just of the Government.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how a person gets political status? As he knows, we, as Members from Northern Ireland, whether or not we agree with the system, have representations made to us about ways in which a person gets political status.
  Mr. Rees: Special category status, which is administrative, is, as I myself found in the prisons concerned, dependent on whether the people concerned are acceptable to the leaders of the compound. That is the basis of the decision. It is a measure of the lack of control which is implicit in the system, and it cannot be ended by an amendment to a Bill or by a speech in this Hosue. It is a fact of life.
  Mr. Powell: Would it be right, then, reading what the right hon. Gentleman has said in the context of his statements about the development of prison accommodation, to deduce that Her Majesty's Government accept the intention to phase out political status of prisoners in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Rees: When we have better accommodation, bearing in mind all the difficulties, including the decision whether to put young persons later on this year in cellular accommodation, I hope that there will be more room. That is more precise than my saying that I want to phase it out. What I can do is determined by
  904
  the facilities that I have in prisons in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: Can the right hon. Gentleman at least say that no further granting of political status will be given?
  Mr. Rees: No, I cannot. I could not carry that out. That would be to say something that I could not undertake to do.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the submission which my party made to the Gardiner Committee; namely, that the practice had no basis in common or statute law or in any of the temporary provisions measures? Therefore, should we not start from the basis that there is no justification for it, that it is a matter of expediency, and that we should try to abolish the practice as soon as possible?
  Mr. Rees: I can only repeat that I am conditioned by two factors: the lack of facilities, and the plain fact that in the situation in Northern Ireland, amongst the Republican special categories and amongst the Loyalist special categories—I would not like to say who feels more strongly about the nature of the status involved—whatever I wanted to do about it in terms of building and staff, I should be unable to do it. It is no good my saying what I want to do. If I said that it had to be done, I should have to put in large numbers of soldiers and increase the number of prison officers, and we would be in a position of non-implementation and bloodshed. That is the situation that I face.
  The practical measures that we propose are directed largely at improving prison conditions. I have already talked about the building programme. Education and welfare staff are being increased, and it is proposed to introduce vocational training even in temporary prisons in the near future. Legal measures under consideration include new alternatives to imprisonment, including community service orders and deferred sentences, as well as revised release procedures. It is important that at some time we put our minds to this in the context of United Kingdom developments over the years.
  The Bill before the House it to enable effective actions to be taken against

  905
  terrorism and terrorists: it is our duty to protect the public in this way. The extent to which the provisions are exercised and the time for which they remain in force depend entirely on those who are tempted to engage in violence.
  Since Lord Gardiner and his committee considered the problems of terrorism and violence in Northern Ireland there has been a significant change in the nature of violence. Although any reduction in violence must be welcomed, the horror of terrorism remains. What possible motive could there have been behind the blowing up of a car which was usually used to take children to school, which savagely ended the life of an innocent 4year-old girl? What great cause were young men fighting for when they sprayed the harmless pedestrians and shoppers in a Belfast street? I find political connotation in this difficult to understand, even in an Irish context.
  I am glad to be able to report that there seems to be a wave of revulsion in Northern Ireland against these senseless crimes and, through information and outstanding dedication by the security forces, particularly the RUC, 59 persons have been charged with murder so far this year, 60 with attempted murder, and 458 with other serious offences. What is more, 174 travelling gunmen have been apprehended. With permission, perhaps I may pick up one point which I have been considering since the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised it in the early hours of this morning concerning the nature of the ceasefire. It is not unrelated to all that we are discussing.
  On the basis of setting the ground for the discussions that we have been having in recent weeks, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the continuing talks with Provisional Sinn Fein and the relationship of them to the Government incident centres. Overnight I got in touch with my people to get some more information about the incident centres which I thought would be of value to the House.
  Let me take the first point first. I believe that it is of fundamental importance to put over to all shades of opinion in Northern Ireland the policies which the Government are pursuing in an effort to bring about the de-escalation of violence which permeates both communities.
  906
  I and other Ministers take every opportunity to expound the Government's policy publicly. Against the background of bitterness and violence, this message does not always reach the ears of those who most need to listen. This is why my officials speak to representatives of organisations such as Provisional Sinn Fein, I made clear in the House on the 14th January the need for this, and I make no apology for the continuation of such talks. This is a continuing process. Events in Northern Ireland do not stand still. We cannot say to people in Northern Ireland any more than anywhere else "We have told you what our policy is, and there is nothing more to be said."
  I turn now to the role of the incident centres. I explained to the House on 11th February the nature of the incident centre arrangements. These arangements have worked very well, and they continue to work well. The security forces during the cease-fire have shown great skill in helping to bring down the temperature in the Province. But the fact of the matter is that there are many people in the Province who, for historical reasons, are likely to put the wrong construction on the security forces' actions. The incident centres provide a means by which we can tell such people the right construction, in our view, to put on those actions and so prevent trivial incidents being blown up into major confrontations. Some of the issues raised with us on the incident centre network are not settled as easily as that. The talks to which I have referred give an opportunity for exposition in greater detail of what we are doing and why. For example, the are doing and why.
  The incident centre network serves an equally useful purpose to us in finding out who is doing what though the Provisional IRA has admitted some acts of violence during the cease-fire. We have been able to use the incident centre network to probe responsibility for a large number of other violent acts. I choose my words carefully here. For example, the murder of Police Constable Davis in the Glenshane Pass seems probably to have been committed by another Republican group, not by the Provisional IRA, as was freely said in Northern Ireland. It is important that we should get that clear, because it is easy to bandy names

  907
  around in the context of Northern Ireland. On 15th May, in answer to a Question from the right hon. Member for Down, South, who quite properly raised the matter again last night, I said:
  "I rest completely on what I have said to the House."—[Official Report, 15th May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 631.]
  My objective is a permanent end to violence and these are some of the means that we are using to get them.
  Finally, the RUC is responding to this new situation. Hon. Members will be aware of the further measures that were announced by the Chief Constable yesterday. The police are the key to the security situation. They must have support. I ask that all those people who express views about the police should support them.
  Successive Governments have demonstrated that they will not be blackmailed by violence. Equally, they have responded to moderation. As soon as peace prevails we shall strike these provisions from the statute book, but for the present they are essential.
  12.6 p.m.
  Mr. Airey Neave: I do not think that the Secretary of State has any need to apologise for dealing with this very important Bill at great length. The Opposition welcome its provisions and congratulate the Secretary of State on his exposition of it. We were glad to hear it in detail, because we may be able to consider the matter in Committee, besides raising points today.
  The fact that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the provisions at length, and with such lucidity, enables me to speak for a relatively short time in stating our view of the Bill which, of course, follows the recommendations of the Gardiner Report. We should have liked to have a full debate on the Gardiner Report before the Bill was introduced, as the Secretary of State knows. We regret that was not possible.
  There was some reference to the Northern Ireland Committee last night. It is not for the Opposition to take the initiative in getting it going, but perhaps the Secretary of State could have talks in the proper place about that, because it would be of value.
  The Bill comes at a time when, as the right hon. Gentleman said quite realisti-
  908
  cally, there is no ground for optimism about violence in Northern Ireland. There is still considerable political uncertainty about the future. However, we all hope that the Northern Ireland Convention will produce recommendations which will lead to some stability for the future and good results for peace.
  The Secretary of State said that gangsterism is not a great cause. In the past some of us have taken part in open and honourable warfare—a very telling phrase which was used last night by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). We are talking about gangsterism not "open and honourable warfare". This should be impressed on those people who perhaps do not understand what is happening in Northern Ireland at present.
  We should remain prepared for every eventuality in Northern Ireland. These amendments, combined with the order extending the Emergency Provisions Act for a further six months—as the right (hon. Gentleman said he had recommended when in opposition—which was agreed to in the House last night. are therefore very timely.
  The Bill is important to the security forces, whom many of us have had the opportunity of visiting recently, and to the RUC.
  I join with the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating certain politicians on their political and physical courage. On these occasions there is no substitute for personal leadership and physical courage. They have shown it in very good measure, and I hope that they will be rewarded by seeing stability and peace in Northern Ireland.
  Since 12th February this year there have been claims to the operation of a cease-fire, but with the assertion by the Provisional IRA and ethers of the right to retaliate and indulge in sectarian attacks. We have seen these claims effected in the brutal killings in various parts of the Province, and I include the killing of Constable Gray in Londonderry and at least one bombing in County Armagh, both of which have been admitted by IRA spokesmen. However, the Secretary of State was quite right when he said that, by and large, there has been a general drop in the activities directly attributable to the Provisionals and in the number of random bombing attacks on the

  909
  security forces. None the less, one cannot say that there is not a considerable number of violent deaths and a position that needs constant security attention.
  I congratulate the Army and the police on their successes, especially in dealing with the travelling gunmen, who are a particular menace in Northern Ireland at present. It is frequently said that effective policing is the real solution to Northern Ireland. I welcome the Secretary of State's reiteration last night of his answer to me on 16th June when I asked him a question that I phrased very carefully, namely, have the Government decided that the Army
  "shall continue in support of the civil power until normal policing … throughout the Province is possible?"—[Official Report, 16th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 958.]
  The Secretary of State replied:
  "Yes, Sir".
  The Secretary of State reiterated that answer last night. It is good that he did so, in view of some of the excitable remarks that have been made in the last few weeks about the position of the armed forces in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I should like to repeat what I said in the House the other day in reply to a Private Notice Question by the right hon. Member for Down, South, because I was sincere when I said that was the policy. When the number of soldiers is reduced in Northern Ireland from time to time in a changing situation, there is always the difficulty that people will say "The Government are pulling out". Therefore, the words that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) used —"normal policing"—are the key words. People must not—I am not referring to hon. Members—jump to the conclusion that a reduction in the number of soldiers is an indication of the Government's pulling out. It is an assessment of the needs of the security forces in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Neave: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that. If, for various administrative or other policy reasons, there are further reductions, from time to time, in the Army in Northern Ireland, would it not be a good idea for the Secretary of State to repeat those words whenever that situation arises? Otherwise, directly it occurs there will be alarms about withdrawal. If he used
  910
  those words in future—they are not ambiguous—it would be a good thing. I thank the Secretary of State for what he said.
  I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's recent announcement that new measures have been taken by the police to deal with sectarian assassins, and his announcement last night about the reinforcement of the police and the detective services will be welcomed by all hon. Members. Sectarian violence, whatever its source, must be stamped out. I also welcome the recent agreement among members of the Convention on that point.
  None the less, we have to face the need to deal with any resurgence of violence by the Provisional IRA and other paramilitary forces in the Province. The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly stressed that he is seeking a permanent end to violence and that the evidence of that must include an end to the movement and stockpiling of arms, explosives and ammunition. We should be deluding ourselves and the people of this country if we were to pretend that there is yet convincing evidence of a plan for a permanent end to the Provisional campaign. Therefore, we welcome the strengthening of the provisions in the Bill concerning the security forces. We must hope that a temporary cessation will gather momentum and make permanence more likely. We all know that there is a massive desire for peace by all sides in Northern Ireland, but that, in itself, unfortunately, cannot prevent the operation of a small and ruthless terrorist organisation.
  It was rightly said last night that one of the great dangers is that if the Convention were to move towards agreement and stability, such a compromise and expression of good will is exactly what some of these people do not want. This is why we have to prepare defences against it. It is for these reasons that Conservative Members—politely, I hope —have constantly pressed the Secretary of State, in his response to the cease-fire, about the release of potentially dangerous people. We have been particularly worried about this, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware from private discussions with myself and others. Caution is required, especially in regard to what are called "hard-core terrorists".

  911
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind the risk involved if potentially dangerous and, above all, trained terrorists are released on the streets of Ulster at a time when there could be a conflict between rival groups. We shall continue to press him on that point. An extremely cautious approach is required. I need not labour that point any further. I have raised it frequently at Question Time.
  The Secretary of State has explained to the House that the Bill implements many of the proposals of the Gardiner Report in relation to trial procedures, offences, powers of the security forces and detentions. However, it omits some of the important recommendations in the report, especially in relation to prisoners. If I may, I shall refer to them, and some of my hon. Friends will do the same.
  Later in the debate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) will have some contribution to make, no doubt, on the legal points. I do not wish to make detailed comments on this aspect because the Secretary of State has already done so, and this will enable us to raise such matters as we wish in Committee.
  Several of the amendments in the Bill are of a technical nature, and designed simply to improve the authority of the courts—a very important provision. Therefore, I shall deal with the judiciary in Ulster. I want to pay a special tribute to its courage and determination throughout these difficult times. The members of the judiciary have been subjected to the most extreme pressure, as the Secretary of State has said, and I should like to refer, as he did, to the murders of Mr. McBurney, Judge Conaghan and others. These showed starkly what is involved in facing the realities there. Their homes have been bombed, they have been shot at, they have received letter bombs and they have been threatened. Yet they still continue to do their duty. They set an example to us here. We should realise what they are suffering They have come through these dangers with great honour, and I hope that the House will pay tribute to them for the invaluable work that they are doing.
  I do not wish to speak for very long, because many hon. Members have a great
  912
  interest in this subject and wish to take part in the debate.
  The Bill appears to go beyond the Gardiner Report in one important respect, which I welcome. Clause 13 extends the offence of spying and collecting information about members of the security forces, which the Secretary of State mentioned in his opening remarks, to persons holding judicial office, prison officers, and others. The position of prison officers is of great importance. The right hon. Gentleman paid a moving tribute to those whose families are at risk. Clause 13 is an important recognition of the dangers which these servants of the Crown face in carrying out their difficult and dangerous duties. I am sure that it is the wish of the House that the operation of Clause 13 will afford them that extra protection.
  For many people, especially lawyers, the major innovation and interest in the Bill relates to the new procedures for detention and release from detention. There is no doubt, as the Secretary of State re-affirmed on the orders that were discussed last night and this morning, that detention is necessary and that although we all wish for stability and peace, we have to face the facts. He may agree that in some ways these new arrangements will be similar to those operated after August 1971, when internment was first introduced. However, that is by the way.
  The object of introducing a quasi-judicial element into the hearings was to create confidence that those detained were being held for good reason. However, we accept, in the face of experience and as the Gardiner Report points out, that to involve legal representatives in this quasi-judicial process has created more problems than it has solved. We support the change to a simpler form of detention as the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State, subject to an adviser.
  The Secretary of State explained the position about the adviser, and no doubt other hon. Members will wish to raise the matter. However, I was satisfied with what he said. This is dealt with in Schedule 1, paragraph 8. Detention is now an administrative act carried out by a Government in an emergency situation, and it is probably best that this

  913
  should be clearly accepted. In these circumstances detention is a legitimate weapon in the hands of a democratic Government for use against organised terrorism, as the Government clearly recognise at present.
  Naturally, those hon. Members who have been trained in the law and, indeed, all other hon. Members, will wish to see a return to trial by jury as soon as possible and a return to the most liberal and civilised methods. However, that can be brought about only by the permanent end to terrorism, for which we all wish, and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
  I welcome Clauses 10 and 11, which confer on the security forces the power to stop and question and to search for radio transmitters. I do not have much to say about those clauses.
  There was some interesting discussion about social security and pension rights. I should like to reiterate one point on this subject, and refer to Schedule 1, Part I, paragraph 15. This paragraph allows the payment of money to detainees at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman has already announced that an advice bureau, which we welcome, will be set up for people after their release. Will these payments be for the rehabilitation purposes referred to in the Gardiner Report? Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the present arrangements for rehabilitation? He has set up the advice bureau, but what is the purpose of those payments? I am sure that all hon. Members agree with the intention, if such it be, that, as far as possible, people should be fitted to go back into a normal life.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees Mr. Merlyn Rees indicated assent.
  Mr. Neave: There is no dispute about that. However, it is not necessary to warn the Secretary of State that idle hands can find dangerous occupations in violent situations. We hope that rehabilitation will include occupation.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In Committee hon. Members will see that this is the situation. However, if a person has no money he may go to the only source he knows when he is released, which puts him back in the treadmill that he was in before.
  Mr. Neave: I presume that the purpose of paying the money is as the Secretary of State says. That is probably the answer to my question, but hon. Members may wish to raise the matter in Committee. I thought that it was worth mentioning at this stage.
  We should welcome the creation of the new offences of recruiting and training for terrorist organisations. The Secretary of State will have noted the point about "inviting" people to join. There are some legal points here which no doubt my hon. Friends will raise.
  We also welcome the banning of the wearing of hoods, masks and other disguises in public. It is a sad fact that many young people allow themselves to be drawn into violent activities by dangerous men who manipulate them and send them out on missions. Many young people on the fringe of terrorist organisations are caught and taken before the courts, but the people who are responsible for organising and planning what they do are much more difficult to catch. I hope that the Bill will help to improve this situation.
  The Secretary of State said he had rejected the idea proposed in Paragraph 70 of the Gardiner Report that there should be a "catch-all" offence of terrorism. The Gardiner Committee wanted to create a simpler statutory offence to be included in Schedule 4 of the 1973 Act to catch those people responsible for attracting, organising, training or recruiting others to commit acts of terrorism. We shall want to consider whether Clauses 15 and 16 cover that point. A simple catch-all offence creates difficulties, but we may want to strengthen those clauses for the same purposes as the Gardiner Committee had in mind. Perhaps the Attorney-General will deal with this matter when winding up.
  It is difficult for people in this country to understand the extent to which ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland can be intimidated by the sight of men wearing para-military uniforms or disguises outside their front doors. It is an easy way of intimidating people, and it is not "open and honourable warfare". It is possible to intimidate by putting on a uniform and standing outside the place of business of a person who may have been refusing to co-operate with a violent organisation. Nothing needs to be said

  915
  or written, but the victim clearly understands the threat. I think that the clauses will help the security forces to deal with this problem. There may be discussions in Committee about the banning of invitations to join organisations.
  We regard the Bill as essential for the continued prosecution of the campaign against violence in Ulster. It is easy for hon. Members on both sides of the House who sit for peaceful constituencies in Great Britain to criticise such legislation in sometimes high-sounding, rather theoretical language, without understanding the real dangers and practical difficulties encountered by ordinary citizens of Northern Ireland—it is moving to meet these people—in the face of terror.
  The first duty of a democratic Government is to protect the lives of their citizens and allow them to go about their legitimate business in peace. Democracies which failed to do so in the past brought about their own downfall. Some of us were in Germany before the Second World War and saw Nazis on the streets. Some people, like me, were in Germany in 1933 when Hitler came to power and saw the Nazis in action. Those who have seen that will realise the importance of this legislation.
  As Lord Gardiner said in his report, the terrorist can offer the people of Northern Ireland nothing they cannot now achieve by democratic means. This House in its turn will not offer terrorists anything inconsistent with democratically expressed wishes. I end with a quotation from that excellent report:
  "The rule of law … must be maintained in Northern Ireland not only for the sake of its people, but for the sake of all those in the United Kingdom and beyond who want freedom and peace instead of anarchy".
  For all those reasons, I hope that the House will approve the general intention of the Bill, subject to any points that we may wish to raise in Committee.
  12.25 p.m.
  Mr. William Craig: As one of the hon. Members from that part of the United Kingdom which has endured the misery of terrorism, I am more than interested in any proposal that seeks to strengthen the law to deal with it. My colleagues and I generally welcome this Bill. Our only criticism is that more
  916
  could have been done. We hope there will be other occasions on which this will be the case.
  We are all bitterly disappointed that we have to consider this legislation without having first had the opportunity to discuss the Gardiner Report in its widest context. There was some inconsistency in what the Secretary of State said last night. He suggested that the report might have been considered in the Northern Ireland Grand Comimttee, and later said that it would be improper for security to be considered in the Committee.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: What I had in mind was the sort of exposition I gave today about the terms on which an hour and a half's debate would have enabled all of us to consider the practicalities from a legalistic point of view, and that would have saved time this morning.
  Mr. Craig: I think that is a valid point. It did not strike me that way last night. It does not change my view, however, that all of us would have benefited from a wide-ranging debate before legislation, not with a view to making life difficult for the Government, because I believe we could have assisted the Government.
  The Secretary of State put the situation in Northern Ireland in the most favourable way when he said it was not optimistic. I share that view, and would, perhaps, put it rather stronger. I am somewhat pessimistic.
  We must learn from the past and strengthen the law to deal with the problems of the future. I have gone quite a long way with the Government's handling of the situation that has arisen from the cease-fire and I know what the Government are hoping to gain from it. I hope they appreciate the fears many of us have about the sort of cul-de-sac situation in which the Government may find themselves.
  The cease-fire—I am not decrying it in any way—has meant, in terms of positive action only that murdering and bombing have been stopped by one organisation; it has not meant that it has changed its attitude to the use of violence for political ends. People who have been released from detention as a result of the cessation of violence have given no undertaking

  917
  or assurance that they will not start again. Is there any undertaking that they are not going back into the organisation which got them into detention in the first place? In many quarters in Northern Ireland it is widely believed that released detainees are going back into their organisations, and one continually hears reports of a sizeable buildup in the Provisional IRA. That causes us concern.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The right hon. Gentleman has quite properly raised this matter. It is something that I consider with my security advisers. The right hon. Gentleman talks about "widely believed" reports, but is there any evidence for them? I have my own sources of evidence. Many people talk in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggested, but what evidence underlies their claims? If there is any evidence, it should be put to my security advisers for them to add to what they already know about what is going on.
  Mr. Craig: It might be better if I were to talk privately with the Secretary of State. I know of a number of cases of people having gone back into active organisations.
  Mr. McCusker: I am sure the Secretary of State is aware that the one IRA unit which has never acknowledged the cease-fire is based at Forkhill, in my constituency, and was commanded by Francis Jordan, the terrorist who was shot two weeks ago. He was interned in 1973 and released in May 1974. I do not criticise the Secretary of State on that score. He has to make such decisions. But this is evidence of what my right hon. Friend was suggesting.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am advised that some of the more senior people who are released act as a brake on the sort of indiscriminate terrorism we have seen in the past 18 months. It sometimes works the other way with the older man. People cannot be locked up for ever.
  But I am grateful for the point made the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), and I note that he will speak to me privately. I shall pass on his information to the security forces.
  Mr. Craig: I shall be surprised if they have not already got it. I do not want to labour the point further, except to say
  918
  that one cannot proceed on the basis that the IRA has renounced violence, or that the IRA organisation is so weak that it can be ignored. It would be exceptionally foolish to do that.
  In addition, we have the present campaign of violence going outside the so-called cessation of violence. Whether or not it is right to describe it as sectarian violence, it is a frightening situation. There are some terribly callous murders being carried out—murders which do not seem to serve any cause or useful purpose. Men have sunk to the level of beasts. Although it may be true that some murders are sectarian, there is a growing suspicion that much so-called sectarian killing is not as random as it appears. The Secretary of State is in a better position than any of us to judge, but it would seem that in some instances the murders are committed for specific purposes, whether it is a question of organisations fighting each other, or of punishment. I am concerned about the situation in which organisations are seen to be fighting each other. If that situation were allowed to escalate it could very well lead to what is feared most—an extensive civil war.
  The Secretary of State said last night that people were inventing names to describe the activities of different groups, to suit the occasion. No doubt he is right in that, but all of us in Northern Ireland would like to be assured that if there is any evidence of the establishment of such ruthless groups as the Protestant Action Force the full weight of the law will be used against them and that the powers to proscribe will be used. The community must be assured that new organisations will not be allowed to establish themselves, and that they will be made to feel the full weight of the law.
  Whether the Bill strengthens the law significantly is a matter on which I should like to dwell. Its main impact is to change the law on detention. My colleagues and I welcome that. We think that the Bill's proposals constitute the only effective way to use the exceptional powers of detention without trial. The Secretary of State is right when he says that the whole legal profession agrees that the previous procedure was bringing the judiciary and the law into contempt. I shall deal with the detention proposals in greater detail later.

  919
  I do not want to anticipate the Committee stage, but sometimes one can be helpful by indicating in advance some of the problems that may arise. In Clause 2 there is a departure from the Gardiner recommendations. Gardiner recommended that silence be construed as consent to a preliminary inquiry, but the Government, in their wisdom, seem to have gone much further, removing the accused's right to have a preliminary investigation. I think that I would have preferred Gardiner's approach. I know that it was a right that was rarely exercised, but the fact that it was not extensively used does not mean that it was not valuable. The matter should be reconsidered.
  The same can be said about Clause '3, which deals with the capacity of a court to try scheduled and non-scheduled offences together. The clause drops the safeguard of requiring the accused's consent to that procedure. The accused should have a say in the matter, and I ask the Secretary of State to have another look at the question.
  Clause 4 goes a long way with Gardiner, but for some reason has not given the county court judge the right to grant bail during a trial. There can be occasions on which it would be useful and proper that the county court judge should be able to grant bail in the event of the trial's being adjourned. Nor does the clause give any power to grant bail on compassionate grounds. Hon. Members who receive representations from their constituents know how often compassionate circumstances require these matters to be considered. I believe that there would be no great risk to the safety of people in custody if there were more generous provision for bail, particularly in those two instances.
  Can the Secretary of State say why, under Clause 6, the Recorder's Court is no longer to have jurisdiction in Diplock cases? I believe that it is correct to say that the City Commission is not under as much pressure as it used to be. Nevertheless, there is a feeling in Northern Ireland that cases are not heard as expeditiously as they should be, and I do not think that this is an appropriate time to be reducing the number of courts competent to deal with the Diplock cases.
  At this stage there is not much that I can say about Clause 7. The next
  920
  clause on which I should like to anticipate the Committee stage is Clause 12, which to me is somewhat curious. I shall deal with that clause and Clause 15 together, because I believe that they are an attempt to implement the recommendation in paragraph 7 of the Gardiner Report. I very much doubt whether Clause 12 does. If it does, it does not do it very satisfactorily, because it adds to the section dealing with membership of a proscribed organisation in the existing legislation the offence of recruiting and acting under directions of a proscribed organisation. Gardiner rightly regarded that as a most serious offence.
  I believe that the clause suggested in the report was admirable. It must be remembered that we all, including Gardiner, have in mind the way in which older men in the background are manipulating youngsters. I say "youngsters" rather than just teenagers advisedly. It is a most heinous crime, the way young fellows are being manipulated. Those who are guilty of it should be severely punished when they are caught. As the Bill stands, they will be subject to a maximum penalty of only five years, whereas Gardiner recommended that for an offence of that nature there should be a maximum penalty of 15 years. All those concerned with law and order in Northern Ireland, right across the spectrum, abhor the offence, and would like to see tougher action on it.
  There are a number of minor points on the other clauses that I should like to deal with in Committee.
  I come briefly to what I regard as the main change in the Bill, which concerns the detention of terrorists. As I go through Schedule 1 I find a number of points that I do not yet feel quite happy about, although the Secretary of State has helped me somewhat with his most useful introduction this morning, for which I thank him very much.
  I was particularly concerned that we are to have only a single adviser, as opposed to the advisory board envisaged by Gardiner. I can see the objection that the Secretary of State makes to such a board when we think of constituting it from judges alone, but is there the same objection if the board is constituted from lawyers of considerable standing?

  921
  In Northern Ireland we have lost the right to trial by jury and a lot of important decisions are taken by one man. Whenever we can we should try to benefit from a multiplicity of minds. I favour the idea of an advisory board of two or three members rather than a single adviser. It also struck me that the hurdle for the interim custody order seems to be somewhat lower than Gardiner envisaged. Gardiner said:
  "Where the Secretary of State suspects"
  whereas the Bill says:
  "Where it appears … that there are grounds for suspecting"
  To many people there will not be a great distinction, but as a lawyer I can see a considerable difference. I would like to know whether I am right to draw that conclusion and whether the Secretary of State has any reason for lowering the hurdle.
  The same sort of problem arises when I look at the Gardiner statement about the reasons for detention. Gardiner advised that the reasons for detention were to be served on the suspect within seven days from an interim custody order. The Bill merely says "As soon as possible." This is another instance of an area in which Northern Ireland Members have practical experience. We all know of the great anxiety that is caused in families as a result of delay in serving the reasons for detention. Under the old system the delay at times was great. It would be reassuring for everyone if there were a fixed period, such as seven days or, perhaps, a little longer in which time reasons had to be served.
  I notice that the criteria for the advisers' recommendations are much looser than those suggested by Gardiner. It is said in the Bill that the criterion should be
  "that the detention of that person is necessary for the protection of the public"
  whereas Gardiner spoke of the release seriously endangering the general security of the public.
  These are two different things. I feel that the right approach is to ask the question: would the release endanger the general security of the public? I prefer that to what is in the Bill. Gardiner also recommended that the adviser should have power to summon persons and documents. I can see no such power in the
  922
  Bill. If I am wrong I would like to be corrected and if I am right I would like to know whether there is any reason for this omission.
  It is worth looking at the timescale suggested. The Secretary of State knows far more acutely than I the confusion that arose from the timescale under the old procedure. Gardiner had a maximum of five weeks. The Bill provides for a period of seven weeks, with a possible extension to 10. If the Secretary of State feels that he needs that sort of period I do not think any of us will quibble. We know the value of a well-defined period to the families and relatives of these people. That ought not to be longer than necessary.
  Another aspect about which I am a little perturbed is the business of advice to the Secretary of State on release, particularly when we see releases taking place, as they are now, ahead of what appears to be a political agreement. I know that the Secretary of State's test is the existing level of violence. Many people will interpret his actions in another way. Gardiner suggested a release advisory committee. The Bill merely says there should be reconsideration by the advisers after one year and then at six-monthly intervals. Apart from this scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the advisers any release that he proposes to make, irrespective of the question whether it is in the scheme? In other words, if the right hon. Gentleman were releasing under an understanding arising out of the cessation of violence, would the detainee go before the advisers in every case?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: These are matters which must be studied with care. The release of persons is in the hands of the Secretary of State of the day. I have a Civil Service unit which monitors this task and provides me with information, making a list available. There were, for example, the five this morning. I cannot imagine every case going forward. On some occasions I like advice. I prefer to have someone else to look at it. To do that in every case would be wrong. This has nothing to do with any agreement. It is a continuing process. I give a lot of time, properly, to considering the list of releases. It is my judgment. Some cases are easier than others. There are instances when having someone else to

  923
  look at a case helps me to make up my mind.
  Mr. Craig: I thank the Secretary of State, but I am still confused. The Bill requires the Secretary of State, after one year, to refer each detainee to an adviser. There is provision for the detainee to request referral. Does it follow that the Secretary of State must refer every proposed release to an adviser rather than to this Civil Service committee?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: What the Bill says is that if I have not released someone after a year the case goes before the adviser. That is a protection for the detainee. It is not the case that if at some time in between I decide to release someone, the case has to go before the adviser, unless I want advice.
  Mr. Craig: I think I have it now.
  The question of time is important here. It is a matter of reassuring the public rather than myself. Schedule 1(5) can give a false impression, in the same way that the 28 days under the old system gave a false impression. If they read the Bill quickly, people will think that there must be a decision within 14 days. I hope that something will be done to make it clear that it has only to be referred within 14 days and that a decision is not envisaged within that time. Paragraph 6 of the schedule gives detainees only seven days in which to prepare their objections. This is the only right the detainee has to challenge detention. He has no right to appear before an adviser. He will need more time to consult a solicitor, to check the facts alleged, and so on. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether the detainee can be given more than seven days in which to prepare his case.
  I hope that I have not unnecessarily anticipated the Committee stage, but there are some points that I should like to think about again before Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman can help me in the meantime, I shall be very grateful.
  While we welcome the Bill, we look forward to another opportunity to review the law and the treatment of offenders under the law. A great deal is left in the air by the Bill. There have been passing references, for instances, to special
  924
  category prisoners. This is an important issue. I know the difficulties in dealing with it, but I ask the Secretary of State to consider parole, so that, through an imaginative parole system we shall fairly quickly be able to get rid of special category status.
  I know from experience that many people in Northern Ireland are left in acute uncertainty because, rightly or wrongly, they had understood that the Gardiner Report would result in new decisions relating to special category satus in a new parole system. As the Member for Belfast, East, I tend to get many inquiries about this, and I can see the disappointment in the faces of my constituents when I say that the Government have not made up their minds about it.
  Mr. Marlyn Rees: This morning I indicated very carefully the wider considerations, and I hope to address the House on those wider aspects, linking them with procedures in Great Britain. I had not realised that in Northern Ireland that aspect of the law is in some ways in advance of Great Britain. If the right hon. Gentleman reads my speech carefully, he will see that I dealt with that point particularly.
  Mr. Craig: I appreciate that very much. Those of us on this bench can give our pledge to the Secretary of State and the forces of law and order that we are always ready to assist in the improvement of the law to deal with the serious problem of terrorism. We hope that before long we shall be able to report considerable progress.
  12.53 p.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Of necessity, this debate and the debates yesterday have taken on the atmosphere of a full-scale Northern Ireland security debate. This was necessary, and it will ease some of the suspicions which have been rampant in Northern Ireland over the past few weeks, particularly throughout the period of the ceasefire.
  My remarks will, as expected, again be in opposition to the continuation of detention. I recognise that the Secretary of State is trying to bring detention without trial to an end, but he should move much more quickly. He said that releases have taken place this week, and

  925
  some even this morning. I am grateful for that, although the numbers are small.
  But then the Secretary of State begins to display a lack of confidence in the political situation as he sees it. He elaborately explains the new detention procedures and describes the projects for building a number of prisons throughout Northern Ireland. I fervently hope that those procedures and those prisons will be unnecessary. I hope that political decisions will be made in the Convention which will end the present troubles.
  I took offence at what the Secretary of State said about protecting the insurance rights of those detained in detention centres. I have always believed that unless a person was brought before a court and properly convicted he should be regarded as innocent of any crime. In those circumstances, it is not unduly generous to protect their insurance rights: it is only justice. Again, I distinguish between those properly convicted before a court, often before a jury, who cannot expect the same consideration as those who have been interned or detained without trial. The Government should not take great credit for protecting the rights to pension and social benefits, which are of importance not only to the person detained but to his wife and children in the years after release.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked what the criterion was for political status. I believe that my right hon. Friend said that it was whether those in charge of the compound were prepared to accept someone. I know that there are difficulties here, that some people may be claiming political status who do not have a patriotic thought in their heads, who may have no cause but the cause of being a criminal. Anyone in political life in Northern Ireland tends to quote the case which helps his point of view, but I can think of a very sad case which was condemned by all reasonable people in Northern Ireland.
  This concerned a woman who was murdered by a set of other women in the Sandy Row area of Belfast. It was one of the most brutal and callous murders that have ever taken place in Northern Ireland. Throughout the trial, the paramilitary organisation of which the accused
  926
  women claimed to be members—the Ulster Defence Association—completely dissociated itself from them because of the horrible circumstances of the case. These were that two young girls beat this woman's brains out with a brick, taking a long time to do it, even taking time off for a smoke before the woman was eventually killed.
  The UDA said that it had nothing to do with those involved; yet I understand, that as soon as the girls were convicted the Northern Ireland Office received a message saying "We are now prepared to accept those found guilty of this heinous crime into our compounds. They were, after all, acting under the orders of the UDA." Those people have been granted political status.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a vital point. The crime to which the hon. Gentleman refers was an atrocious and frightening crime, of a magnitude perhaps unparalleled during these troubles. Would the Secretary of State tell us whether the UDA told him that those people were acting under its orders, as the hon. Member alleges?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: What is at issue is acceptance into the compound. That is a different matter. My hon. Friend is entitled to draw conclusions. However, it was the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who raised the point.
  Mr. Fitt: I do not wish to misrepresent the position. I am certain that I have read UDA statements to the effect that it was prepared to claim those who were convicted as its members. Therefore, those people were given political status.
  To illustrate that case, I am aware of other people on the Republican side of the political divide who have also been guilty of horrible murders. They have also claimed political status.
  I recognise that there are people on both sides of the religious and political divide in Northern Ireland who are politically motivated. Rightly or wrongly, they believe that they have a cause. To some extent, I can understand what motivates them, although I can never for one second justify their part in the campaign and their acts of violence for the achievement of their political ends.

  927
  There is a criminal and gangster element which is being afforded the luxury of political status in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State may say that the ending of political status cannot be contemplated at present. I hope that there will be no necessity for further political status prisoners because the campaign of violence may taper off with the deliberations of the Convention coming to a successful conclusion.
  Both yesterday and today the Secretary of State drew attention to the changing pattern of violence and to the sectarian murders which have occurred. He said that it might be all too easy to blame one organisation. I asked him a question yesterday. I ask it again today. Does he accept that there is a force called the Protestant Action Group, which has claimed responsibility for a number of vile murders?
  I made one point yesterday. Having checked my facts, I repeat it. The Loyalist para-military organisations, the UVF and the UDA, especially the UVF, have said in their journals published periodically in Northern Ireland that they have been responsible for murders in Northern Ireland, even though the victims were not identified with subversive activity. They said that they had information which the general public did not possess. I possess a newspaper cutting, which I can give to the Secretary of State, according to which they said that they had received the open co-operation of the Army, that the Army had given them the names of subversive persons, and that they engaged in assassinations. I do not know how true that is. However, if there is an iota of truth in it, it must give real cause for concern throughout Northern Ireland and these islands. Unless all the people of Northern Ireland respect the police, the UDR and the Army as being a legitimate peacekeeping force, acting impartially at all times and not showing bias in favour of one community or the other, we can never expect them to respect the security forces.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked the Secretary of State whether he would put the police in a different category from those who were liable to be affected by the emergency provisions Act—in other words, treat the police differently from those coming within the
  928
  ambit of these provisions. I do not think that that would be right. We are desperately trying to build up confidence and trust in a police service in Northern Ireland which will be acceptable to the whole community. If it appears that the police are treated differently from other citizens, there might be cause for suspicion. If there is one bad apple in a barrel, we all know what happens.
  Policemen and members of the security forces in Northern Ireland have cast doubts on the impartiality of the security forces. The police should be subject to the laws which apply to every other citizen in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman argues that the police in Northern Ireland should be treated the same as the police anywhere else. However, the members of the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are, under this provision, given a special category. Surely it is only fair that the other members of the forces of the Crown who are combating terrorism should stand on the same platform. That is the point which we argue. There is another point which I hope to develop later about the discretion of the Attorney-General to bring people to court.
  Mr. Fitt: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that if the police are to be treated in a special way, as opposed to the status given to the other members of the security forces, the UDR or the Army, there would seem to be a lack of justice.
  I draw another case to the attention of the Secretary of State. It may have been drawn to his attention before. Perhaps it could be more appropriately dealt with by the Secretary of State for Defence. I refer to a newspaper report in the News of the World of 11th May 1975, which also appeared in other newspapers, to the effect that Clifford Burrage, a former lieutenant of the Green Howards, who had seen service in Northern Ireland in 1971, wrote a letter in 1975, after he left the Army, to the parents of the young boy whom he had murdered in Belfast.
  Mr. McCusker: The regiment to which this soldier belonged is currently serving in my constituency. The soldier concerned has a record of gallantry and

  929
  has set an example second to none. I doubt very much whether on the evidence which I have, the admission was made in the terms in which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is making it. I should hate to think that he would say something here today which could blacken the reputation of a person when he does not know all the facts. While he has the right to raise this matter, I think that he should consider his words very carefully.
  Mr. Fitt: I am not influenced by the fact that the Green Howards are now serving in the constituency of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). I have already discussed that with the Ministry of Defence.
  I wish to draw the attention of the House to a newspaper report in which it is clearly stated that Lieutenant Clifford Burrage wrote a letter in 1975 to a Mr. and Mrs. McLarnon in the Ardoyne area of Belfast, in my constituency of North Belfast, in which he said that he had killed their son.
  Mr. McCusker: Have you seen the letter?
  Mr. Fitt: The letter said that Mr. and Mrs. McLarnon's son was not engaged in terrorist activities at the time, but he felt bad because the day before he had been hit over the head with a bottle, and out of revenge he shot their son. That is the effect of the words in the letter which was published.
  That person has now left the Army. As far as I am aware, no action was taken against him—regardless of whether it is necessary to take action now, whether action should have been taken at the time, or whether an inquiry should have been held into the death of young Mr. McLarnon at the time.
  The report of such a case in the Press gives cause for suspicion in other cases where conflicting statements have been made by the Army and those who were involved in possible activities against the Army.
  The communities in Northern Ireland must make an all-out effort to support the security forces. Hon. Gentlemen will be aware of a broadcast which took place the day before yesterday in which a Methodist minister made an appeal. He was asked by the interviewer whether he thought
  930
  that people who were aware of terrorist activities should inform the security forces. The Methodist minister said that he would not go as far as to say that. Full support for the security forces is not limited to one community in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: It would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to indict the whole Church and the whole Protestant community. This man is theologically worlds apart from me and other people in Northern Ireland. I was flabbergasted when I heard that statement, and I should like publicly to dissociate my colleagues and myself from it. We believe that people who have information about murders or terrorist activities should get in touch with the police and support the authorities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in making that appeal to all his constituents.
  Mr. Fitt: I did not attempt to identify this individual minister with the whole Methodist congregation in Northern Ireland. I know of many hundreds of Methodists and other clerical spokesmen in Northern Ireland who are dedicated to bringing violence to an end. I drew the House's attention to the broadcast to show that there are people, even within the majority community, who, perhaps because of lack of courage or because they live in a dangerous area, do not dare to come out openly in support of the RUC.
  From my political standpoint, support for the RUC has many difficulties, but nothing that I or my colleagues have said can be taken as lending support to anyone who engages in violence—certainly not the Provisional IRA, which regards me as a political enemy. I would not want to change my position because of fear or cowardice.
  My opposition to detention is not because I give support to the IRA or to anyone who has ever had any association with men of violence. I find it a little dishonest when Unionist spokesmen now say how dangerous it would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to end detention immediately. They say that the Secretary of State must delay ending detention because those who are released return to violence. We heard a completely different story when there were some Loyalist detainees. I should not like to think that the burning issue

  931
  of internment was being brought down to the level of whether the internees were Republican, Catholic, Protestant or Loyalist. It is a matter of justice whether a man should be incarcerated and taken away from his wife and children without a specific charge being brought against him.
  It is dishonest for Unionists to attempt to place restrictions on the Secretary of State's acceptance of the responsibility for releasing detainees. My right hon. Friend shows courage in accepting full responsibility for any further releases from detention or internment. The procedure of the commissioners being responsible was a farce. Hon. Members representing constituencies throughout Northern Ireland expressed objections and opposition to that procedure. It is right to clear the air and identify the person who has responsibility either for ending detention or for keeping it in existence. That responsibility now lies fairly and squarely on the broad shoulders of my right hon. Friend.
  The commissioners gave the procedure a veneer of respectability, but it brought the whole judicial process into disrepute. There was no legal justification for it. I accept that the Secretary of State wants to bring detention to an end, and I hope that he will do so as quickly as possible. I hope also that he will not be influenced by people who may try to restrict his efforts by saying that people who have been released have returned to violence.
  The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said that rumours abound in Northern Ireland to the effect that detainees who have been released have gone back to violence. I do not understand his justification for saying that. I know many people who have been released who have not gone back to violence; indeed, many have left the country. The right hon. Gentleman made those observations about rumours with the intention of restricting the Secretary of State's freedom of movement. I urge my right hon. Friend to continue in the direction he has chosen to go and, within a short time, to make certain that detention without trial in Northern Ireland is ended, never to return.
  1.15 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) in regretting that the House has not had an opportunity to discuss the Gardiner Report. We deplore the failure of the Secretary of State to put the report before the House and to give us a full opportunity for debating it.
  It is deeply to be regretted that the Gardiner Report did not contain as an appendix the submissions made by the political parties which appeared before it. I have studied all the submissions carefully, and some important submissions which were made are not mentioned in the report. One of those submissions was made by the United Ulster Unionist Party. The House well knows that long before any Protestant was interned I opposed internment and raised my voice against it. I ran into severe opposition when I said that the commissioners' trials were bringing the law into contempt. I was rebuked by the then Conservative Attorney-General, who stated that what I said about commissioner's trials was unfounded and false and that witnesses did not appear behind screens. I am glad that the Secretary of State, with great openness, admitted that the commissioners' trials brought the law into contempt, and that they are now ended.
  Right from the beginning I opposed internment, but that attitude was not shared by my hon. Friends, and those who speak today adhere to the attitude they took then. I freely admit that some people changed their minds, and that Protestants who today say that they are opposed to internment at that time denounced me vigorously for daring to say that internment was wrong. I opposed it both in principle and in practice. It was sold to the people of Northern Ireland by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Brian Faulkner, as a practical solution to the terrorist campaign. The bringing in of internment was supposed to end terrorism.
  I knew that internment could not work, for two reasons. First, the announcement of internment was made in a political context. On the one hand, the apprentice boys were banned from marching in Londonderry—that was a sop to

  933
  one side—and, on the other, people were to be detained or interned—that was a sop to the other side. The time has come when sectional interests should not be considered in the fight against terrorism, and the law should be seen to be even-handed.
  I knew that once that political decision had been made we should run into heavy trouble. I think that most hon. Members will agree that a Government can never say that they will never take powers which in normal circumstances they would not dream of taking. In certain circumstances a Government must retain the right to take certain powers. An hon. Member who advocated that the Government should say "We shall never take this particular action" would be wrong. That view would not be accepted by the House.
  The sad thing is that the circumstances have changed. The fact is that the police are not operating in certain areas. I welcome the openness which the Secretary of State displayed when, in a letter to me, he set out the areas in which the police cannot operate and in which there is no normal policing. That being so, and the circumstances having greatly changed, the Secretary has a responsibility to deal with terrorism. No other course is left open to him but that which is advocated in the Bill.
  To me the Bill is obnoxious. In principle I do not like it. I felt at the beginning that it would not add anything to the situation but would, rather, inflame it. However, we now find a different situation arising. I should like to see the Secretary of State dealing with the present detainees on the basis of their belonging to a proscribed organisation. After all, they claim, by going into a Provisional IRA compound, to belong to a proscribed organisation. Why cannot the law take its course and let those men be charged with belonging to that organisation? If they stand trial and they prove that they do not belong to it, the law must take its course and they must be released.
  There is great feeling in Northern Ireland because on one occasion the Secretary of State says "These men are detained because they are a danger to the public", and then says, a few months later, that he is able to release them. People naturally ask "How were they
  934
  a danger and a threat to society only a few months ago when they are now no longer a threat?"
  Is it not a fact that there has been a build-up of Provisional IRA activity in the Market area? I fear from the reports that are coming from that area that the Provisional IRA is now stronger than it has ever been before. In that context I put another question to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not a fact that in the case of the dreadful murder of Miss Michelle Connor, who, was murdered in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), the police are now following the line of inquiry that her father had connections with the, Provisional IRA, that he wanted to cease having those connections, and that he was threatened by the IRA that it would kill him? Is it not a fact that the police are now following that line of inquiry?
  Of course, as the Secretary of State has said, it is not right for people quickly to judge a situation without getting the facts. It is easy to say that responsibility lies on one side of the fence or the other. Some time ago two prominent Loyalists. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hall, were shot in the Shankill Road. Everyone suggested that it was an internal feud within the UDR. That was the suggestion that was brazenly put forward in all the newspapers. However, the two people who appeared before the courts were Republicans. It has been proved in a court of law that Republicans shot those two Loyalists. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), could give us illustrations from the other point of view.
  I turn now to matters concerning the police. I believe, along with the Secretary of State, that policing is all-important in Northern Ireland. I hope that very shortly the members of the SDLP, represented by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, will be able to join other members of the Convention in calling on all sections of the community to give their support to the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as they seek to do their duty in all parts of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman not express appreciation for what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has said in his criticism of members of the majority community who

  935
  did not give full support to the police? In so doing the hon. Gentleman implicitly gave his own support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Surely we should acknowledge that.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I gladly accept that, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own clarification. We must all face the facts of life in Northern Ireland, and it is clear that the SDLP cannot find its way publicly to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary. However, I hope that in the near future, and as the Convention continues, the SDLP will be able to give its support. The hon. Member for Belfast, West already knows my attitude on that issue.
  I find it hard to understand why a difference is made between the police and the members of the security forces. Under Section 5 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1973, bail cannot be given at magistrates' courts for scheduled offences. Such offences must go to the High Court. The High Court judge can grant bail. However, Section 3(5) provides that:
  "This section applies to persons who have attained the age of 14 and are not serving members of any of Her Majesty's regular naval, military or air forces."
  We had a case recently in which accusations were made against a police officer and the officer was not able to secure bail. At the same time, accusations were made against a member of the British Army and he was allowed bail. The RUC man was put into custody. That does not help the RUC in its fight against terrorism. Note 2 of Schedule 4 reads:
  "An offence under section 18, 20 or 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 shall not be a scheduled offence in any particular case in which the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland certifies that it is not to be treated as a scheduled offence."
  The Attorney-General has the right of discretion. However, in a case that caused great trouble in Northern Ireland, and which caused the police to cease carrying out their duties so as to establish their case, we had a policeman going to a terrorist court for trial without being granted bail. That does not help the RUC. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, West is not present whilst I am dealing with these matters. It does not help the police to be accused by terrorists
  936
  of committing certain acts and to find that one of their members has to stand trial in a terrorist court. This is a point I must make with some force, and I do so as the United Ulster Unionist spokesman for the police.
  I have another case that I wish to mention which is now before the courts. I do not want to comment on the case, but I ask the Attorney-General to assure the House that in future the RUC will be treated on a par with members of the British Army and of Her Majesty's other security forces. This is a very important issue. Representations have been made to me by the police in Northern Ireland, and there could be serious problems involved. The police are carrying out some great work, and are risking their lives. We know that one policeman was barbarously shot to death on the walls of Londonderry. Members of the IRA, irrespective of the protests, issued a statement glorying in the fact that they had planned the murder in cold blood, and they continue to claim the right to shoot policemen in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to help us on this matter. If he takes action, he will be doing a great service to the police in Northern Ireland.
  I wish to mention special category prisoners. I welcome the openness of the Secretary of State. He is the first Secretary of State to tell the House publicly that the way to achieve political status is to become leader of a compound. That is a sad commentary on the present system in Northern Ireland. If we wish to establish law and order in the streets of Belfast we should begin by establishing authority and discipline in our prisons. I have had experience of the system because I have been a prisoner on two occasions, and I conduct a religious service in Crumlin Road Prison every week. I know what the Secretary of State is up against. I feel strongly that a date will have to be announced and that it should be made clear that beyond that date nobody will be able to attain any political standing. We must now deal with the political standing of prisoners and the whole question of special categories.
  It is repugnant to the ordinary prisoners who are in prison for petty crimes that they are put under the strictest prison supervision and perhaps have to visit the cells of special category

  937
  prisoners as orderlies to deliver food. The special category prisoners treat ordinary prisoners with the utmost contempt. The ordinary prisoner wears prison clothes and comes under the jurisdiction of prison discipline, whereas some of the special category prisoners—men who have committed diabolical crimes—sit in their cells dressed in their own clothes, and tell the other prisoners what to do. That does not lead to proper discipline in the prisons. I know that we cannot stop this practice immediately, but surely the Government must declare their views.
  I hope that the Government will carefully examine the parôle system. Surely there must be some way of bringing the law in Northern Ireland in line with that in the United Kingdom. The parôle system generally is based on good conduct, and the work which prisoners carry out. Unfortunately, special category prisoners do not do any work. This is very bad, for Satan finds plenty for idle hands to do. When men are locked up and have nothing to do, they can even study the very things for which they were put in prison in the first place and the very things from which society would like to wean them away.
  I appreciate the remarks made by the Secretary of State in his speech today. However, I believe that there should be a clear declaration by the Government that they will put an end to the special category system in such a way that it will seem that justice is seen to be done to all concerned. If the parôle system can come into effect, so much the better.
  I wish to pay tribute to the governors of the various prisons and to the prison staff, who have a difficult job to do and do it extremely well. I agree with the Secretary of State that a prison warder puts his family in jeopardy by taking the job. I pay tribute to the work done in prisons, and particularly to the work carried out by prison welfare officers. They are humane people, who do their best for each prisoner, irrespective of his crime. They take a personal interest in prisoners' families and in their social and family needs. These people tend to be forgotten, and therefore this needs to be said.
  938
  I must say that in my representations to the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues I have always found a helpful response. I should like to refer to the case of Mr. Frank Newell. There is great alarm in Northern Ireland about the case. I uderstand that there is nothing the Secretary of State can do about the situation until fresh evidence is made available to him. I hope that in the near future that evidence will appear.
  Frank Newell is now serving an eight-year prison sentence, but the Ulster Volunteer Force has publicly declared that it was responsible for the crime which Mr. Newell is alleged to have committed. He was not at the scene of the crime and he is not a member of that organisation. Statements have been made in the Press and on radio and television by the UVF saying that it is responsible for that crime and stating that its personnel carried it out and that its members planned it and executed it. Yet Mr. Newell is now serving eight years in Crumlin Road Prison for a crime for which the UVF claims responsibility.
  Feelings are being whipped up about this case in Belfast. I say on behalf of Mr. Newell that he utterly condemns the violence which has resulted at some protest meetings. He knows that violence does not help him in any way. The people responsible for the crime should come forward and say so. I hope that new evidence will soon come to light and that this unfortunate man will know that justice is being done in his case.
  There has been difficulty in the case of a Mr. Gusty Spence in regard to independent medical examination. I am glad to say that that has now been resolved by the Northern Ireland Office. I should like the Minister concerned—one Minister who is interested in police matters is present—to take note that it would be helpful if, in cases where independent medical evidence is sought by a prisoner, there could be some quicker way of achieving this end. It took a very long time indeed before the Northern Ireland Office was able to tell the relatives of Mr. Spence that he could have an independent medical examination.
  This Bill is of the utmost importance. There are many aspects of it which deal with a situation which will soon no longer prevail in Northern Ireland. I trust that in Committee we shall be able to make

  939
  some suggestions to the Ministers concerned that will strengthen the Bill and make it more useful in the battle against terrorism.
  I do not believe that any political solution will automaticaly eradicate terrorism from Ulster. I believe that there are hard-line individuals who can be dealt with only by the force of the law. Even if a perfect, unanimous solution comes out of the Convention, there will still be these hard line people to be dealt with. I believe that the law must take its course and that justice must be seen to prevail in these cases.
  1.42 p.m.
  Mr. Robert J. Bradford: It is tragically appropriate that we are debating the Second Reading of this emergency measure. I should like briefly to draw the attention of the House to three important aspects which are not so much contained in the Bill as related to it.
  The first is the absence of a coherent release policy required as a safeguard for society. There are three great areas of apprehension concerning this absence of a coherent release policy.
  The first is that leading officers in Her Majesty's Forces stated, prior to the cease-fire, that they were convinced that many terrorists released from detention would again enter fully into the fray of violence. We recognise that that has not been the case since the so-called cease-fire, but it is at this point that the second great area of apprehension emerges. It was dealt with very fully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), when he stated that there was now a great deal of evidence that many people were returning to the organisations which in the past were overtly responsible for violence in Northern Ireland—particularly the Provisional IRA.
  The third great area of apprehension which demands a coherent release policy arises from the fear that the Provisional IRA may be purchasing time through the cease-fire in order to re-group and re-organise. In this connection we welcome the comments of the Secretary of State last evening and the comments which we anticipate he will be making at the end of this debate, but
  940
  we cannot ignore these fears and apprehensions. One of the measures which would help alleviate these fears would be to set up a code of practice, of procedure, that would convince the people of Northern Ireland that detainees were not going to be released willy-nilly but that there would be definite and very real safeguards.
  Gardiner has attempted to indicate the need for this kind of safeguard and the need for a coherent release policy, but his efforts are indicative rather than definitive, and we believe that the Secretary of State should address his mind to presenting to this House at a later stage a fairly rigid and coherent release policy.
  At this stage I should like to mention the subject of young offenders, to which the Secretary of State referred. Some of us were rather perturbed to read in the Press in Northern Ireland recently that one young offender was not being sent to any kind of institution because there was no detention centre in Ulster to deal with young offenders. I think that this state of affairs is dangerous, for two reasons.
  The first is that if, as in this case, the Belfast judge gives the young offender a suspended sentence, the court then ceases to have its power as a deterrent. Detention centres are needed for the young people, if only to retain their respect for the court's deterrent power.
  Secondly, we need detention centres for our young offenders if only to remove them from the hard-core experienced terrorists. There are quite a number of 16-year-olds in prisons in Northern Ireland who need at this early stage to be removed from an atmosphere in which they can acquire more of the expertise which is undoubtedly imparted in adult prisons, where future acts of violence are discussed. They must somehow be redeemed, and in order to achieve this they must be separated from the hardcore people.
  Thirdly, I draw attention to the unfairness of releasing detainees—while sentenced prisoners who have committed similar or perhaps lesser offences remain inside—because of unequal policing facilities and the consequent need for a policy of parôle or amnesty.
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned the great problems of policing in

  941
  Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) stated that it is recognised by the Northern Ireland Office and this House as a whole that there are in Northern Ireland still "no-go" areas where there is no proper policing. This has an insidious kind of chain reaction, because in the predominantly Republican areas the police cannot make arrests and bring offenders to the courts, and detention of suspects is the order of the day.
  We have listened to the Secretary of State time after time clearly stating that there are people detained who have been guilty of the most vile crimes. But now we find that these same people are being released—indeed, there is a date envisaged by which all detainees will be released—so we have in essence a state of amnesty for men who have been guilty of vile deeds. These are not my words but those of the Secretary of State. This surely must lead us to consider again the whole question of parôle, and even perhaps amnesty, for prisoners who have committed lesser offences.
  In my view, there is another important deficiency in the Bill. It is that there is, surely, a desirability for a three-man Diplock-type court.
  I should not like what I am about to say to be misunderstood as a generalised criticism of the Northern Ireland judiciary. However, there are many legal minds in Northern Ireland who feel that the quality of the expressions of the judiciary over the past 12 months or so have declined somewhat. We can understand that, in part at least. Such has been the overwhelming and daunting task which has faced them, that it is almost humanly impossible to get through the volume of work with which we are asking our judges to grapple. But the fact remains that the quality of judgments and sentences has been open to question. Because of that, there is surely a need not to devolve the total responsibility to one man but to share out the responsibility. Therefore, I suggest that we consider the possibility of a three-man Diplock-type court.
  The reason for this is not just the volume of work and the great onus upon one man. It is also the fact that not only in Diplock but also in Gardiner we have emphasised the importance of the
  942
  offender's right to appeal. I think that we should be in a much stronger position to argue that if there were three minds addressed to his crime or trial this would be compensation for losing the right to a jury trial. I do not think that we should underestimate the point which is being made here. We must do our utmost to compensate for the loss of a jury-type trial.
  Gardiner says that we must get back to jury trials as quickly as possible. But if we had a three-man court, I am sure that it would go some way to convince a prisoner that he was being compensated somewhat for the loss of a jury.
  I return to the problem of appeals. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North referred to the case of Mr. Newell. We have made much of the right of appeal in our courts. However, I believe that many people will think twice before exercising their right of appeal in the light of Mr. Newell's sentence being doubled subsequent to the exercising of this right. I hope that I am right about this. If not, no doubt I shall be corrected. But this House would do well to remember that no such provision or power for a sentence to be doubled exists in this part of the United Kingdom.
  We must encourage the exercise of this right of appeal. But if the case of Mr. Newell is not corrected, it will undermine the willingness of many prisoners and perhaps even detainees to exercise this right.
  I promised not to take too much time, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the debate. I offer these points for consideration as we move from this stage to the Committee stage.
  I conclude by saying that I welcomed the words of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), who said that we were not dealing with a matter of mere theory. That becomes all too apparent to anyone who has to visit a home such as the O'Connor home, the home of the little girl who was blown to pieces, and to anyone who has to visit the home of a young man of 25 who was slaughtered and, in some way, try to find words of comfort for a widow of 25 left with two children. What we are doing is not a matter of mere theory. It is a matter of the utmost importance for Northern

  943
  Ireland and for the return of normality to every section of the community in Northern Ireland.
  1.55 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) is himself in the front line, and I salute the courage with which he and his colleagues from Northern Ireland have carried out their public duties in recent months.
  I was glad that the Secretary of State took for his principal text two sentences from the report of the Gardiner Committee which I had myself underlined as being basic to the problems which we are considering today. Those sentences read:
  "While the liberty of the subject is a human right to be preserved under all possible conditions, it is not, and cannot be, an absolute right, because one man may use his liberty to take away the liberty of another and must be restrained from doing so. Where freedoms conflict, the state has a duty to protect those in need of protection."
  I was glad also that the Government accepted the recommendation of the Gardiner Committee in its robust view that, since detention is an administrative act, both the immediate and the ultimate responsibility for it ought to rest with the Secretary of State himself.
  Of course, it is right that there should be a review of particular findings. But it is always dangerous to try to blur the distinction between the executive and the judiciary. Terrorism puts a strain on the fabric of the law, and it is natural that we should try to block every loophole and deal with every fresh stratagem adopted by the terrorists. But there is a danger that in trying to block these loopholes we shall make the law so detailed that on occasion it becomes absurd.
  I am not entirely happy about Clause 13 of the Bill, which seeks to amend Section 20(1) of the 1973 Act. This is the clause which deals with collecting, recording, publishing, communicating or attempting to elicit any information with respect to the movements of members of the Armed Forces and the police, and it extends this protection to the judiciary.
  I am second to none in my praise for the way in which members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland have carried out their duties. I wonder whether this
  944
  attempt to restrict the collection of information is wise and whether many prosecutions have been carried out in the past 18 months under Section 20(1) of the original Act. We could be in an absurd position if the clause remained unamended. For example, if the Secretary of State invited the judges of Northern Ireland to have dinner with him and his private secretary asked the judges to say whether they will be attending that dinner, technically an offence would be committed under the clause. It would be up to the Secretary of State to prove that this was harmless information.
  When we move into the area of trying to limit the collection of information we tread on dangerous ground. Considering the scope of the Official Secrets Act at present, one wonders whether these provisions are really necessary. I am also curious about why the Government have decided not to act on the recommendation in paragraph 74 of the Gardiner Report:
  "We recommend that it be made a summary offence for editors, printers and publishers of newspapers to publish anything which purports to be an advertisement for or on behalf of an illegal organisation or part of it."
  That recommendation is noticeably absent from the terms of the Bill. I wonder why.
  During the debate my attention was riveted by the remarks of the Secretary of State about the scope of political status for many prisoners in the prisons of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman outlined a horrifying situation. I wonder whether there is any other country in the world where a Minister could stand up before Parliament and say "We have lost control of our prisons". This is a wholly unprecedented admission on the part of the Government.
  In the past I have been an opponent of "no-go" areas in the main cities of Northern Ireland. I find it disturbing that we now seem prepared to tolerate "no-go" areas in our prisons. I can well understand that, given the shortage of both staff and accommodation, it is difficult for the administration to set the situation right overnight, but I cannot understand why fresh recruits to political status should be allowed in the prisons. Surely the new prison arrivals can be dealt with in a different fashion

  945
  from those who have been accorded political status in the past. Why must we keep adding to the numbers who are placed in that special category?
  I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that in Northern Ireland policing is all-important. But for a considerable time to come it is obvious that the Army will have to continue to play a major rôle in supporting the civil authorities. I have always fervently supported the right of the individual in Northern Ireland to full protection from the Government, but I do not believe that it is right to keep large forces there indefinitely. So long as the Army is overstretched, the terrorists can claim that they are scoring some sort of limited victory. If, therefore, without undue risk, we can reduce the number of troops in Northern Ireland to the point where there is no great strain on the Army in carrying out this commitment, we shall have strengthened our position rather than added to our risks.
  The Bill seems to recognise the fundamental human right of the citizens of Northern Ireland—indeed, of all the citizens of this country—that they should not be killed by terrorists and that they should not be in jeopardy of having their legs blown off or their children kidnapped. The Bill will, in small part, strengthen the hand of the Government in this struggle.
  2.7 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Like several hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the main provisions of the Bill, with qualifications. I should like it to be known that the welcome that has come from almost every quarter of the House is shared by the Liberal bench.
  Like others who have spoken, I must touch on the background provided by the present situation, including the cease-fire and the kinds of violence that have been seen to develop in a period in which Provisional IRA activity has been substantially, if not totally, reduced. This period is highlighted by two kinds of violence which are extremely horrifying and present particular difficulties to the security forces.
  The first is the even greater use of systematic murder as a weapon in inter-
  946
  nal or inter-organisational conflicts and feuds in both sections of the community. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) referred to this matter, to which reference has been made on other occasions. It is an extremely disturbing and horrifying development.
  Even more disturbing is the extent to which we have seen the psychology of violence in action in even more mindless ways. Since the level of Provisional IRA activity has dropped, we have seen the extent to which people in Northern Ireland, who are in the fever grip of violence, have found a pretext or a rationalisation for that violence. Perhaps the word "pretext" underestimates the extent to which they have convinced themselves that because of their commitment to some group or organisation they have a right to get guns or bombs in their hands and use them. It is a kind of blood lust which seems to have gripped a number of people who take a sinister delight in the use of violence for its own sake.
  We have seen a number of television interviews with people who have been involved in violence in the North, but who are now sheltered far too comfortably in the South. We have seen the way in which the people engaged in violence talk about their motives and say "We were defending our people and looking after our community. We had to use guns." These are pretexts or, in some cases, rationalisations for a delight in violence by people who give little or no thought to the consequences of their actions. It shows the extent to which the existence of political conflicts of various kinds have provided a framework within which people who are not sane or capable of controlling their own actions can use guns to engage in violence. This is a particularly horrifying feature of the situation. It will never be removed until all the people of Northern Ireland recognise the importance of bringing such people to justice and ensuring that they are locked up, out of harm's way. This gives particular importance to co-operation with the police and the security services. By the same token it is important that we do our best to remove the remaining niggling doubts and difficulties which in various sections of the community hinder co-operation with the security forces. That co-operaton is essential.

  947
  It will be difficult for some people on both sides of the community to get over their initial reaction that violence is ultimately justified when their beliefs about the future of their country are threatened. That belief is there, and we can understand why it is there. However, if people in Northern Ireland want to stop this kind of violence they will have to fly in the face of their own deep-seated convictions and say, "We shall not tolerate violence or see it used, even by those people who purport to be defending our cause and who say that they are on our side." Psychologically that is difficult to do when one has lived for years with a defensive feeling of trying to retain something which one considers is threatened by another section of the community. That change must take place, and it is all the more important that such factors as we can remove—such irritants and difficulties as we can take away—should be taken away.
  In that context many provisions in the Bill are welcome. We welcome not only the main thinking behind the Bill, but its attitude towards detention and its recognition that detention is undesirable, should not be continued for longer than possible, and should be seen for what it is—an emergency action carried out by the executive and in no sense the kind of justice for which we strive. That implicit recognition is welcome.
  Some of the specific features of the Bill are also welcome—for example, the extension of bail, which is provided for in Clause 4. Even at a time of accepted emergency, it is right that we should try to preserve and extend the right of bail. The extension of Clause 5 in respect of legal aid is equally welcome. It was an anomaly in the 1973 Act which is happily redressed by the Bill.
  Clause 7, which repeals the whole of Section 5 of the 1973 Act, which deals with the admissibility of written statements by certain witnesses, is again something we welcome.
  The Gardiner Report identifies the weaknesses in the old system—the lack of opportunity for cross-examination and the impossibility of checking the accuracy or quality of statements which were regarded as admissible under the 1973 Act. The repeal of Section 5 is, therefore, particularly welcome.
  948
  There are other areas of legislative anomaly which the Bill rectifies—for example, the inclusion of the power to search for radio transmitters and the whole aspect of dealing with recruitment for proscribed organisations. These are extensions in the Bill which are particularly welcome and which should be of assistance to the security services, both in the direct powers that they confer on those services and in the extent to which they can improve the climate within which the security services work.
  Having welcomed those clauses, I should like to look at the queries, the omissions and the matters that might give rise to concern. I should like to mention an apparent omission—although it may not be an omission, and I am not clear from looking at the schedule what the position is. The Gardiner Committee recommended that the offence of escaping or assisting escapes should be added to the list of scheduled offences, to eliminate the discrepancy which existed in the law as it stood. I am not entirely clear whether Schedule 2 covers the point or whether the Government have not carried out the recommendations which the Gardiner Committee made quite strongly. The committee said:
  "We recommend that this inconsistency should be removed by inserting in the list of scheduled offences the offence of escape and the related offences such as assisting escapes and rescuing persons under sections 25 to 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953".
  That may be covered, but I must admit that to a layman's mind it is difficult to disentangle it from the mass of material in the schedule.
  On Clause 3, to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred and which deals with scheduled and non-scheduled offences being tried in the same court, I still have some queries and doubts. It is quite right—indeed, it is a welcome improvement from the point of view of the prisoner who is potentially shuttled between two courts—that the much simpler and more obvious course of trying scheduled and non-scheduled offences in the same court should be pursued. However, the Gardiner committee refers to the non-scheduled offence which is "associated with" the scheduled offence. That form of words does not appear in the Bill. Whether it is covered by the law in every case and

  949
  does not need to be included I am not entirely sure.
  The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the ordinary rules in relation to applying to the court to sever offences will apply, and the court normally acts on that principle when deciding whether or not to sever.
  Mr. Beith: I am glad to have that authoritative legal interpretation of something at which I can only guess. I am pleased to note that that will not prove to be a problem.
  The Gardiner Committee recommended a number of other things some of which we would like to have seen in the Bill and others of which would not appropriately fall within it but which are bound to give us cause for concern when we consider implementing the main Gardiner recommendations. The Gardiner Report refers to the control of the sale of detonators, cross-border traffic, and fertilisers that can be used for explosive purposes—we should note that. There is the aspect of proscription, on which we touched last night and on which the Gardiner Committee came down very strongly, saying that there was a distinctly uneven application of proscription. We need not go over that today, but we should realise that it is part of the same problem.
  In paragraph 21 of the Gardiner Report there is a clear indication about the importance of the political and social developments. I need hardly spell that out, because it is part of the whole context of the debate. That paragraph mentions the van Straubenzee Report and the importance of dealing with discrimination in private employment as something that should be dealt with along with the committee's other recommendations. It is difficult to pick on any concrete basis on which we could say that the Government had successfully proceeded along these lines.
  If there is one absence from the Bill which gives rise to concern—I am sorry that the Minister of State is not present, although I appreciate that he has had a long stint already and he did reply to a Question on this matter from me at Question Time yesterday—it is the issue
  950
  of the police complaints procedure. The Gardiner Committee was quite clear and unequivocal in its belief that an independent police complaints procedure was desirable. The Committee said:
  "We believe that the introduction of an independent means of investigating complaints against the police would be an important step towards restoring universal confidence in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and we recommend that this should be established. It should also be considered whether such new procedures should be extended to deal with complaints against the Army."
  Throughout the debate hon. Members have rightly stressed the importance of establishing confidence in the Royal Ulster Constabulary throughout the community. This measure alone could not do that. Many more things are involved. I find it extraordinary that the Government should be dragging their feet on this particular, very clear and unequivocal Gardiner recommendation. Yesterday, the Minister of State said that the Department had decided to await the decision of the Home Secretary in respect of Great Britain. I find this a very lame and feeble excuse. I do not believe, given the different context and the different order of problems in Northern Ireland in relation to the police, that we should be waiting for a decision which, in terms of Great Britain, is taking an unconscionably long time but which, in the rest of the United Kingdom, apart from Northern Ireland, is governed by different considerations. They are important and pressing, but not quite so pressing as the situation that faces the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  I cannot view with equanimity the Government's apparent bland willingness to sit and wait for discussions between the Home Secretary and the Police Federation which have next to nothing to do with the RUC in this respect. The RUC obviously has its own views, and its representatives will have their views about what form the independent complaints procedure should take. I am convinced that we should be proceeding to make provision in Northern Ireland, given the nature of the problem there, and that to hinge non-implementation of such an important Gardiner recommendation on the time that it is taking to deal with the police forces of the rest of the United Kingdom is a great mistake, and one of the few really significant failings

  951
  in the Government's attitude in dealing with the Gardiner Report.
  Lest either the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, who have both been in and out of the Chamber in the last few minutes, should think that I am generally attacking their dealings with the Gardiner Report, perhaps I should say that I welcome the extent to which they have tried to incorporate its provisions in the Bill. I regard this omission as a major one and, in another capacity, I have to deal with the long time it is taking for us to make any progress in the rest of the United Kingdom on the police complaints procedure.
  I do not see how we can afford to wait on these very slow proceedings. I hope that the sort of attitude I have been encountering at Question Time on this matter will not long persist, and that the Government will recognise that it will be possible to act within the broad lines of the Home Secretary's proposals for the rest of the United Kingdom.
  There is enough information for us to avoid Northern Ireland's getting wildly out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom. We could proceed on similar lines on both sides of the water, and I do not see the necessity, given that the situation in Northern Ireland is so much more pressing, for this fearful delay. With that qualification I welcome the Bill.
  2.21 p.m.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: No Act of Parliament is perfect, and a Bill is tar from perfect when it has not been through a Committee stage. I hope the loopholes and "grey areas" in this legislation can be removed at a later stage.
  I am disappointed that the Bill does not give effect to many of the recommendations in the Gardiner Report. When it was published five months ago, the report received a general welcome in Northern Ireland and was more widely read than most reports of its kind, possibly because there was great respect for Lord Gardiner and for Lord McDermott, a former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, who was a member of the committee. Lord McDermott's membership guaranteed that plain Ulster common sense would always be present to curb
  952
  any tendency towards an academic approach to what are really very practical problems and this is borne out by Lord McDermott's remarks at the end of the report.
  I welcome the extension of offences against public security and public order, but I cannot help feeling that to the public the organisers of terrorism seem less obnoxious when the Government, on their own admission, enter into a fairly continuous dialogue with them.
  The Gardiner Committee recognised that many of the most dangerous terrorists did not commit specific offences themselves, but were responsible for encouraging others. What is the purpose of the Bill if the Government continue to talk to people responsible for organising and directing terrorist offences? The ordinary person finds it difficult to understand how the Government can justify dealing with terrorist leaders on the one hand and trying to bring the backroom boys of terrorist organisations to court on the other.
  No matter what the Secretary of State may say, the people of Northern Ireland are convinced that there has been a deal with the Provisional IRA. After five years, how can the Government justify the failure to capture, through the security forces, David O'Connell and Seamus Twomey, both of whom have made well-publicised visits to the North? Both have been photographed attending funerals in the North, and they were both interviewed on television last year—
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the South.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I agree entirely with what the Gardiner Report says in paragraph 76 about interviewing terrorists on television and contact with terrorist organisations.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what he means about the supicion in Northern Ireland of a deal with the Provisional IRA? Does he mean a deal as to the conduct of the cease-fire, to use the word it employs, or a deal on the constitutional and political future of Northern Irleand?
  Mr. Kilfedder: If the hon. Gentleman tours Northern Ireland he will find that this suspicion exists. The people wonder what agreement the Government have

  953
  entered into with the leaders of the Provisional IRA. These discussions are still going on with officials of the Northern Ireland Office. People rightly assume, until evidence is put before them to the contrary, that, in order for the so-called cease-fire to be agreed, the Government must have offered the IRA terms which it found very satisfying. That is what causes me and many others in Northern Ireland grave disquiet.
  I regret that the Bill does not include provisions to curb the dangerous freedom given to television to inflame public opinion by parading wanted men before the cameras. The Attorney-General, who is to wind up this debate, is seeking an injunction to restrain publication of the Crossman diaries. I would have thought there was a far greater warrant to prevent the reporting of views of wanted criminals. Surely everything should be done to stop these people from getting publicity on television and radio and in the Press.
  I have looked in vain at the Bill to see whether the powers of the security forces have been extended to enable them to restore law and order in Northern Ireland as quickly as possible. I find nothing that assists them. Even the possible use of identity cards, which I have advocated for many years, has not been included. This would be an asset to the security forces and, having spoken privately to members of the security forces, I find most of them agree with me.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have put this suggestion to the security forces and it has been rejected. In the situation in Northern Ireland it would be very easy for identity cards to be manufactured by the ton all over the shop. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but he is not entitled to say that a private chat is a basis for saying that the security forces are in favour of his idea. The advice I have had, which I have accepted, is not in favour of it.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I have heard the Secretary of State make similar statements on previous occasions. His advice differs from the views expressed to me by members of the security forces. I cannot go any further than that. He says that the cards could be reproduced. Of course
  954
  they could. They could have been reproduced in the last war by any German spy working from Eire through Northern Ireland into Great Britain. The use of identity cards is a means of waging war against the terrorists.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Nonsense.
  Mr. Kilfedder: It is not nonsense. We must use every weapon we can. If identity cards saved a single life, they would be a great help to the people of the Province. More than anything else in the current situation, the security forces need a good intelligence service. However good the intentions of the Bill, it will achieve nothing if intelligence on the terrorists is not forthcoming.
  Since the so-called cease-fire, the sources of intelligence have virtually dried up. That is what some members of the security forces have told me. I know the Secretary of State disagrees and I am not surprised, because he could not agree with me and continue the policy he is advocating.
  When the Secretary of State's civil servants carried on secret negotiations with the Provisional IRA, one of the bargaining counters must have been the vital question of collecting information. Since the so-called cease-fire started in December, little information about the Provisional IRA has come into the hands of the security forces. Effective policing in the sense of continual surveillance of released IRA terrorists does not exist, and many of them go across the border to train in camps there and return, retrained, refreshed and re-armed. Can we have an assurance that there is surveillance maintained on these hard-core terrorists being released from the Maze and Magilligan?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give me that evidence so that I can pass it to the security forces? I should be pleased to do that. This sort of chit-chat about what is heard on the quiet is not good enough in the context of the situation in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I have to relate to the House and the Secretary of State what is told to me privately. I cannot reveal the name of a particular police officer or member of the Armed Forces. But I hope that the Secretary of State will at least give

  955
  some weight to what I say, and not just dismiss it out of hand, as he is now doing.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he has the names of people who have crossed the border and come back? Is he saying that he knows about it, or is it simply chit-chat for the sake of a nice little political argument on a Friday afternoon?
  Mr. Kilfedder: I deeply resent what the Secretary of State has just said. As a Member of Parliament for a Northern Ireland constituency, I am very conscious of the grave situation in the Province. I have done more than most people to try to make sure that people do not engage in terrorist activities or join para-military groups. The right hon. Gentleman should accept that I am a very responsible person. I resent the observation that he has just made, and I hope that he will apologise for it.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Has the hon. Gentleman the evidence that he said he had? Is he prepared to give it to me, or is this just political chit-chat?
  Mr. Kilfedder: I said that I had spoken to police officers and members of the security forces. I know their names, but obviously I do not have the information that the police and the Army have. But they are concerned and worried about it. They are not just relating to me something which is absolute nonsense in order to get me disturbed, so that I in turn get the Secretary of State disturbed. I am anxious to see peace restored in Northern Ireland. I want to see an end to killing in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State should not always put on an injured air when someone expresses criticism. Every one of us—not just the Secretary of State—is concerned about the protection of the individual in Northern Ireland. His manner just now did not do him justice.
  Confidence in the police depends in the end on the success of the RUC in bringing criminals, whether political or otherwise before the courts. I find little in the Bill which will enable the police to deal more effectively with terrorism. It is sad that the SDLP has not come out in support of the police. Whatever the motives of the SDLP, this hinders the work of the police in curbing sectarian violence. I hope that it will give
  956
  its wholehearted support to the members of the security forces.
  Why does the protection of servants of the Crown in Clause 13 not include civil servants employed in the Prisons Branch of the former Department of Home Affairs, now part of the Northern Ireland Office? Is there a simple explanation? Why does it not include civil servants employed in the incident centres which were established—I do not suppose that the Secretary of State will disagree with me about this—to liaise with the Provisional IRA?
  In his opening speech, we had the remarkable statement by the right hon. Gentleman that the Provisional IRA was not responsible for a particular recent murder. He said that he knew because the Provisional IRA had been in touch with the local incident centre. Who tests the information offered by the Provisional IRA? Who knows whether the Provisional IRA is speaking truthfully? It may say that the murder of a policeman was the responsibility of some other breakaway Republican organisation. But the Provisional IRA could well be responsible and be able to wash its hands in public, saying "We are maintaining the cease-fire", although the Secretary of State would agree that a number of people have been murdered by the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland, since the beginning of the year.
  It is ridiculous to have the incident centres for just one para-military organisation. If one has them for one, one would need to have them for all the others as well. It is sad that the Secretary of State created the incident centres, because their creation gave a status to the Provisional IRA.
  The Gardiner Committee held its first meeting in June 1974, and it reported in January, five months ago. Terrorism has been going on in Northern Ireland for years. The intolerable and long delay in implementing a few of the Gardiner Report's recommendations shows that the Government are not seized of the need to deal rapidly with the very dangerous and volatile situation.
  I regret that there has been no indication from the Government that they intend to reverse the ridiculous decision of the previous Secretary of State to give political status to certain convicted

  957
  criminals. The Gardiner Committee says at paragraph 108 of its report:
  "Nevertheless we recommend that the earliest practicable opportunity should be taken to end the special category. The first priority should be to stop admitting new prisoners to special category."
  Can the Secretary of State give us the assurance that no more convicted persons will be admitted to the special status of political prisoner? It means only that anyone who is tempted to commit an act of violence will do so in the belief that he will have all the privileges and benefits of being a political prisoner. That is something we should all avoid.
  2.37 p.m.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: This has proved to be a fairly wide-ranging debate. I believe that it must be wide-ranging, because it deals not only with the Bill but with its background. This is proper, as we hope that the Bill will be one of the roots from which peace and, eventually, prosperity will grow in Northern Ireland.
  I have no doubt that in the future we shall hear many comments about the repressive nature of this legislation from those who will be affected by it. But those who will shout the loudest are those against whom the law is particularly aimed. It is a law which is repressive only to the criminals in our society.
  It is wise to remind the House that only this week another country, one of the most populous countries on earth, found it necessary to imprison people without trial, in order, it was said, to protect its society. It is only reasonable that this country should take the powers necessary to protect our society against the attacks made upon it.
  The Secretary of State said that when in opposition he recognised the need for such powers. I suspect that since he became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland he has progressed and become even more convinced of their necessity, in view of the horrors he has encountered in that responsible office.
  I welcome particularly the fact that the Bill provides that the Secretary of State is to be solely responsible for the detention of persons under it. The IRA is engaged in a political act and it must be answered by political action. If the buck has to
  958
  stop somewhere, it should stop with the politicians in this country, and not with the judiciary.
  There is no acceptable level of violence in Northern Ireland, any more than there is an acceptable level of violence in this country. I hope that the Bill will be a first step towards eliminating the remaining levels of violence in Northern Ireland. However, before the penalties which are provided in the Bill can be applied, we must catch up with the evildoer. If this is so, it is necessary that the security forces should be well prepared and supported by this House. The Secretary of State said that the security forces could not protect everyone. Yet that is the ideal to which we should be working. If the right hon. Gentleman finds that the forces under his control are incapable of protecting everyone it is time to ask what more can be done to maintain the peace and to preserve the security of every individual in Northern Ireland. Every step that can be taken to increase the mobility of the police and the Army and to increase the security of the people by still more personnel should be taken.
  The right hon. Gentleman dealt with two other matters. One was training in the use of transmitters used for exploding various devices in operations against the security forces. The other item concerned a boat loaded with explosives and aimed at a ship which was being used as a security barracks. Is it not a fact that the plan to seize that vessel originated in the Irish Republic? Is it not also a fact that the training in the use of these transmitters must take place in the Irish Republic since the extensive use of transmitters that would be necessary in the training period would be sufficient to draw down the security forces of the Crown upon local training areas?
  If this is so, may I ask what steps have been taken to ensure that the Southern forces are doing their job? Good intelligence is a vital necessity if this measure is to be brought fully into force in Northern Ireland. When we have a lessening level of IRA violence being matched by a lowered profile on the part of the security forces a gap is created in the security of Northern Ireland. There is a gap in the intelligence system of the security forces concerning the illegal importation of weapons and explosives. While it is true

  959
  that most types of explosives will deteriorate, it is the case that plastic explosives last for a long time. It is possible that the IRA is now getting its hands on such explosives.
  The principal difficulty about prophets is that when they are proved wrong they are no longer likely to be regarded as reliable, but we have to try to assess the future actions of the IRA in Northern Ireland. It must be made clear that the IRA believes that it is being treated by this Government as the equal of the Army and other security forces. It is purely in this context that it claims the right to retaliate whenever it believes that a breach of the cease-fire, or truce—call it what you will—has occurred.
  We have only to look at the incident in Londonderry when Police Constable Paul Gray was foully murdered. It is claimed that that was retaliation against a police search. The Secretary of State gave the IRA claim a certain amount of substance by retaliating and stopping releases. Did the right hon. Gentleman stop the releases purely because of the murder of Constable Gray? Did he include the murder of Constable Davis, in the southern part of County Londonderry? He was killed less than two weeks later. I have also been told that it is the IRSP which is now suspected of this murder. Are we to take it for granted that the release of detainees is tied purely and simply to the activities of the IRA? Did the Secretary of State ignore the activities which occurred in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), when the IRA leader was shot in the act of planting a bomb? Is that not an act of terrorism, and, if it is, how many such acts must the Provisional IRA commit before the ceasefire is seen to be at an end?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: That is a fair point. In the course of last year when the IRA compaign was on, a substantial number of releases was made by the commissioners. Releasing is done not only in the context of the cease-fire; much of it goes on on an individual basis. What I and my officials have said, here and to Sinn Fein, is that when there is a permanent cease-fire, and I can only take account of that, we shall be in a position to do away with legislation of this nature.
  Mr. Ross: I think the right hon. Member for his intervention. Are we, then, to be assured by his remarks that whenever a cease-fire occurs people will be released? What is meant by a "permanent cease-fire"? How long must elapse without Provisional IRA activity before all detainees are released?
  The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he regarded the cease-fire as the only way to peace. I doubt it. The only way to peace is to convince the IRA that it will not win. The truth is that it is not yet convinced. The IRA apparently believes one thing is happening with the cease-fire while the Government believe another. The penny is bound to drop. When it does and the IRA realises that there is a difference of opinion and it is not being treated as the equal of the security forces or of this House it will be furiously angry. There will be major retaliation. I see the right hon. Member nodding. What will happen when that situation, which I believe is inevitable, comes about? Will the IRA then be faced and militarily defeated so that we will be in a position to move forward towards a secure and reasoned peace in Northern Ireland?
  There always seems to be a distinction drawn in this House and by political figures in this country between Sinn Fein and the IRA. One of the leading members of Sinn Fein is Maire Drumm. Her daughter was recently picked up carrying a gun and ammunition. Where is the dividing line there? The right hon. Gentleman wrote to me on 25th June concerning a Question which I had put to him about an incident at Dungiven in my constituency. In that letter he says:
  "In no case were the participants of various marches which had taken place wearing paramilitary dress or behaving in a military manner".
  I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is incorrect.
  On 30th March, in company with a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I was proceeding to my house from the direction of Glenshane when I was stopped by the police under the command of Inspector Bryson at Dungiven Roman Catholic Church. The reason for the hold-up of traffic was to permit a number of men—about 15 to 20—to

  961
  march across the road in military formation, wearing black berets and jerkins, the normal dress of the IRA.
  I am further informed by a friend in the village where I live that a further march has taken place since then. I am trying to get details of that march and when I do I will let the right hon. Gentleman know about it. I must express my regret to the House that I cannot record these meetings. Unfortunately, such incidents have become so common that people do not take notice of them now.
  Turning to the Bill, I have some misgivings about the special category prisoners and the long trail of disaster which that has brought, which I fear will extend into the future. I should like the Secretary of State to do something concrete about this and to overcome the tragic mistake of his predecessors. It is something that he inherited. It helps all the myths of terror and violence among the extremists, Roman Catholic and Protestant. That is helped by such an incident as the return of the extremist Price sisters, the Roman Catholic murderers, to Northern Ireland, and the non-return of Protestants.
  The name of the new police organisation—the A Squad—is a tragic mistake. The IRA will say that this is the return of the A Specials—the old Black and Tans. It was psychologically foolish to call that force by that name.
  Finally, we should ask how we get rid of the necessity for the Bill. That can be achieved only with political stability. This House is the apex of power in this country and, since the apex of power in any country is the power of taxation, I believe that the problems of Northern Ireland's under-representation, compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, should be considered. We should receive greater representation here whether or not there is a Government or Parliament in Northern Ireland. Then we shall have political stability and the necessity for this unfortunate Bill will disappear.
  2.52 p.m.
  Mr. McCusker: Earlier today we heard a typical performance by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I regret that he is no longer here, because what I have to say I would
  962
  prefer to say to his face rather than behind his back. The manner of his speech was more familiar in a Northern Ireland context than that which we normally have from him here.
  The hon. Member made a number of scurrilous attacks. Apart from innuendoes about Her Majesty's Forces, he attacked a gallant ex-Service man and the majority community by reference to the comments of a Methodist clergyman. But I want to refer particularly to his reference to a report in the News of the World some weeks ago.
  I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that the hon. Member for Belfast, West has had that report for two weeks. It purports to refer to a letter in the possession of one of his constituents. The hon. Member would have us believe that he knows all his people, that he is almost on Christian-name terms with them. I should have given more credibility to his claims if he had had the actual letter and was prepared to refer to its contents than to a tattered copy of the News of the World.
  The community that the hon. Member represents is noted for the expert legal and propaganda advice that it has available to it. If there is any substance in his allegation, I am sure that the normal processes of law and order would already be under way.
  The Attorney-General: Having made that remark, would the hon. Gentleman also make it of his hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder)?
  Mr. McCusker: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would specify exactly what he is referring to, perhaps I would.
  The Attorney-General: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had heard his hon. Friend's remarks and my right hon. Friend's question to him asking for evidence of matters of which he was speaking, which he did not give.
  Mr. McCusker: Certainly, I should like to believe that if my hon. Friend makes such remarks he should be able to provide evidence for them. I have little sympathy for the comments that he was making or the Secretary of State's reply—
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: In fairness to the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), he did not actually traduce any individuals.
  Mr. McCusker: Yes, I accept that also. It can be argued that one can speculate about terrorist activity and that that is different from virtually accusing individuals, by name, of murder.
  I have referred before to what I consider to be the phoney cease-fire in Northern Ireland. I have been criticised for that, and perhaps it would be best to refer to it in the context of my constituency as an incomplete cease-fire. The Secretary of State will accept that, as the Member for Armagh, I know of sufficient evidence in my constituency to cause me to throw grave doubts on the sincerity of the attempts by the Provisional IRA to establish what it calls a cease-fire.
  There have been about 150 shooting incidents in the six months of the ceasefire. UDR patrols have been mined, a postmaster at White Cross has been murdered and there was also the diabolical murder of three dog exhibitors coming home from a show in Eire. All these things force me to say that there cannot really be a cease-fire. I have had to take that attitude consistently over the past six months.
  I was prepared at one stage to say that the IRA activity in the south of Armagh was cowboy activity outside the control of the Dublin hierarchy. But the display at the funeral of the terrorist who was killed and the support which that funeral received from the IRA hierarchy forces one to concede that that activity has the stamp of approval. I do not know why, but that is the reality.
  When I question the cease-fire, it is not because I have not enjoyed the benefits. Everyone in Northern Ireland has been able to take some consolation from the little relief that it has offered us. I welcome that, and I hope that it will continue, but in that situation, it is my duty as a public representative to examine it, question it, and try to establish its validity.
  I do not take the view of some hon. Members opposite that out of sight in Northern Ireland should be out of mind.
  964
  Simply because the terrorists are not engaging in the same activities as last year, that is no reason to believe that they will not engage in them again. I believe that it is only by means of an open and candid debate on this situation that we shall arrive at the reality.
  Last night my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) tried—as have some of my other hon. Friends today—to raise the question of the background to the cease-fire. He tried to establish the reality of the situation because it is of tremendous significance to us. I have considered this matter for a long time within the context of my own constituency. Perhaps that was too blinkered and parochial a way in which to look at it. It was only when the Feakle clergyman made his wild speculation, to which I do not attach much credibility, that I was forced perhaps to look at the wider scene. When I did so I became concerned.
  The Irish Times dated 27th May, stated:
  "The Provisional IRA's truce with Stormont Castle is now much less likely to break down through misunderstanding or the activities of uncontrollable militants.
  Since February 10th, Provisional IRA Leaders have 'sold' their truce to supporters by arguing that they obtained definite promises from the British Government. The statement of the Feakle clergymen lends enormous weight to these arguments."
  Having read that, I was forced into a situation in which I had to establish evidence to lend weight to the comment in the Irish Times. I do not wish to refer to the casual comments—perhaps that is underestimating them—made by various IRA incident centres following shootings and murders in various parts of the province. I wish to consider the case of the people who represent the Provisional IRA, to the extent that a former British Government were prepared to fly them to London to negotiate peace with them. If we look at what they say, we must take cognisance of their words in a different manner from those of their spokesmen in Londonderry, Newry or Strabane.
  The first evidence which I obtained concerned two comments made by Seamus Twomey, the man in charge of the Provisional IRA Council. On Easter Sunday,

  965
  30th March 1975, at a ceremony in Belfast, he said:
  "The IRA is prepared to fight and has been kept in a state of readiness. There can be no permanent cease-fire until its main demands are met."
  Seamus Twomey is one of the most important and influential men in the war council of the Provisional IRA. His words cannot be brushed aside the way we can brush aside the comments of the various incident centres.
  In Carrickmore, in County Tyrone, on the same day, David O'Connell said:
  "In the consequence of a breakdown in negotiations we shall not be found wanting in employing more direct and decisive means of securing our objectives. English rule must be ended even if this required five more years of hard fighting."
  We must accept that two men, who are the leading spokesmen of the Provisional IRA, said in categorical terms that they at least believed—irrespective of what the Government believes—that negotiations were taking place, or that at least something was happening which they recognised as negotiations.
  On the same day Rory O'Brady said in Londonderry,
  "If the British want to leave Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein will help them on their way."
  In the context of his other remarks we could interpret that as supporting the comments of the other two men. He was accompanied on that day by Martin McGuiness, the former Provisional leader in that city.
  In its Easter message from its headquarters in Dublin, the Provisional Sinn Fein claimed that the truce had had the desired effect and that Britain had indicated willingness to give consideration to the IRA's basic demands.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will not jump to conclusions. I have quoted the evidence which I tried to establish of what the IRA see as the situation.
  More recently on Sunday 15th June, at the Wolfe Tone Commemoration at Bodenstown, addressing 4,000 Frank Card, who apparently took some part in talks with Northern Ireland officials, said:
  "These young men and women, the very heart of fighting Ireland, have pledged loyalty to the leadership.. well knowing that before the inevitable withdrawal of the Crown forces, talks must take place with the enemy. If our
  966
  demands are not met in full the fight will be resumed and the gallant struggle over the past 6 years will not be betrayed at the conference table."'
  Attending that ceremony were Messrs. Rory O'Brady and—surprise, surprise—Sean MacStiofain.
  They are the most influential Provisional IRA spokesmen I can find. I tried to elicit from them their view of what had happened in the past six months. If it was only at that level, we might wonder precisely what they were doing.
  This message has been translated right down throughout the organisation, and it has, obviously, been the motivation for the discipline that has been instilled in the organisation throughout Northern Ireland, except for that small section of County Armagh which I represent. It has been done by way of broadsheets. For example, in the news sheet of Ferga O'Hawlon Cumann, of the Provisional Sinn Fein, Monaghan, the faithful are exhorted in this way:
  "We simply want the Brits to get out of our country once and for all. The Republican Movement is negotiating with the Brits about their withdrawal and the Convention will only hinder this departure."
  That message, translated down through the ordinary members of the Provisional IRA, is saying "Our cease-fire is an extension of our struggle, another phase in the war and, as the IRA sees it, we are now negotiating."
  I pose virtually the same question as was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South. In simple terms, who is fooling whom? I do not believe that the Secretary of State is fooling us, or trying to fool us. Is he trying to fool the Provisional IRA, or is the leadership of the Provisional IRA trying to fool the rank and file of the Provisional IRA? I do not know the answer to either of those two questions, but no matter what the answer is, there will be a very dangerous consequence if I accept what the Secretary of State tells me. The bitterness which is bound to emerge when the reality of the situation becomes known could match, if not exceed, in ferocity many of our experiences over the past four or five years. My comments are designed not to bring that about sooner but to put forward the situation as I see it. It will

  967
  not go away if I forget about it. We have to acknowledge the reality and take action to handle it. I welcome this legislation as going some way towards handling the ultimate situation which will develop.
  3.3 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Our debates today and last night have been wide-ranging. The two debates are really one. By the Irishness of our procedure we have emphasised that we are talking about Ireland, in that we renewed last night an Act that we intended to amend extensively today.
  As has been said by many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), we must give a great deal of time to Northern Ireland debates. If we wish to rule Ulster by direct means we must be prepared to give up time, which may be difficult to find, for that purpose.
  I am sure that many hon. Members would have preferred to discuss the Gardiner Report before debating the legislation which arises out of it, in the hope—perhaps a vain one—of changing the legislation that is laid before the House. The Gardiner Report to some extent has been overtaken by events. It came out almost simultaneously with a cessation of attacks on our military forces and a diminution in the bombing. Much that the Gardiner Report recommended is not reflected in the legislation before us. If the emergency had continued at the intensity experienced last Christmas, more might have been done. I hope that the present slackening in the attacks is not a short-term illusion but a real change in the situation in Northern Ireland. Certainly there is much in the Gardiner Report which we must attend to urgently and which I shall deal with later.
  The Secretary of State, both last night and in his opening words today, has forcefully reminded us of his reiterated view that the present situation means that detention is necessary for him to govern the Province. This is the dilemma he faces, and it was extremely well summed up last night by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), when he said, about the Secretary of State:
  "We have understood, too, what has been his aim and his strategy in the gradual un-
  968
  winding of detention."—[Official Report, 26th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 824.]
  The right hon. Gentleman then went on to note the Secretary of State's need for freedom of action, which he said in present circumstances he undoubtedly needs. It is the gradual unwinding which we are watching, at the same time as the undeniable freedom of action which the right hon. Gentleman rightly demands from the House, which sums up for me and for many of my right hon. and hon. Friends the approach that we should adopt. It sums up the support which we give the Government in these matters. Of course, it is sometimes a difficult balance.
  There have been moments of quiet in Northern Ireland, but the enviable historical capacity of English people to forget what is happening is a great danger. They do not remember all the time the difficulties that the Government of the day are facing in Ulster. I sometimes think that perhaps a small portion of Ireland's eternal memory would be of some value to England. That would be so if we could take aboard just a small portion.
  The difficulties in Northern Ireland will not disappear below the horizon because at this moment we are enjoying a period of cessation as regards the attacks on our troops. We are very far from peace in Ulster. If we have to retain detention, let us consider the consequences. If the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) were present I would be inclined to ask him, bearing in mind his views on detention which he has made clear on a number of occasions, whether we should simply open the doors or adopt the more gradual and more common-sense approach? If detention has to be retained, my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself welcome the new schedule. It has been said by a number of people that the quasi-judicial approach was unfair. As a lawyer, I believe it was unfair not to the offenders but to the law, which it brought into disrepute. That is what Gardiner thought and that is what has been said by a number of Members in this debate.
  Quite properly the Secretary of State has taken it upon himself to make the final decision as to what is to happen. I am glad that he has adopted that

  969
  approach. I commend him for the forthright tone which he used this morning when he said that he would decide the matter.
  I also support the view that there should be only one adviser. I do not believe that having further advisers would help, because in the end the Secretary of State must make up his own mind. What he clearly wants is a clear and independent opinion from one person. Two or three advisers might well disagree. In those circumstances, how would the right hon. Gentleman act? Would he take the majority view? How would he come to a decision? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman wants a clear view from an independent person which he can accept or disregard, the right hon. Gentleman making the final decision. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will give great weight to any advice that he receives, but in the end, as the Americans say, the buck must stop. It seems that it must stop in this instance with the Secretary of State.
  We have discussed special categories on a number of occasions. Like many other hon. Members I have voiced my disagreement and disquiet on the whole position of special categories. I am well aware of the accommodation difficulties that face the Government, and it would be ludicrous to say that there can be any immediate change. I accept that. I also noted that the Secretary of State, without making a commitment, said that he would like, if possible, to get rid of special categories. There is something obscene about a great nation which has to allow prisoners to be categorised by the decisions of petty gauleiters. That is what we are faced with. That is why I return to a part of the Gardiner Report, which I hope will be given the greatest urgency.
  It is not necessary for us to legislate for more prisons; it is being done administratively, in any case. But surely it is right that we should press the Government as hard as we can and ask for a clear undertaking that every step will be taken to get the prisons open so that at least we can have a chance to begin phasing out special categories.
  There is something a little odd—perhaps it says a good deal for our judicial processes—that in the worst terrorist situation in Western Europe, we are prepared
  970
  to go through months of a public inquiry to consider whether a prison should be built here, there, or somewhere else. I do not think that there is another nation in the world, tormented as Britain has been over the last five years by this problem, which would spend time in appointing inspectors to listen to objections from here, there, and everywhere by those who do not want in their area a prison which they know is needed and they would like to see built—but want to go somewhere else.
  Mr. Molyneaux: In view of what was said in the House on this topic, I know that the hon. Gentleman would not seek to suggest that the villagers were responsible for the delay. I attended some of the hearings of the inquiry—not to "incite" anybody, the Secretary of State will be glad to know—and I found that the most substantial objections were being advanced by those representing the interests of agriculture and industry which are to a great extent involved in the site and which make a contribution to the employment situation in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Miscampbell: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I was not suggesting that constituents were in any way involved. Possibly I am being a little undemocratic, in the sense that I feel that sometimes I should like to see a few short cuts, but they are not always available to us.
  I should like to turn to a subject that is noticeable by its absence. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) asked, in an intervention, whether there should be three judges involved in hearing cases. It is worth recalling the passions which were raised three years ago about having that number of judges, and the fears that were expressed about getting rid of juries. There has now been an acceptance of how well the courts have worked under the present system. I have visited these courts and I find that they are a startling experience to a lawyer who has been involved in many criminal trials. The atmosphere in such a court is totally different. It is as though the judge was sitting to find out what had happened in an industrial injury case. He intervenes, he asks questions, and so on. It is a totally different atmosphere but none the less it has worked, and I pay

  971
  tribute, as other hon. Members would wish to do, to the members of the judiciary who have served so well in those courts.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South also raised the question of the three judges' courts. It is not my task to bat on the side of the Attorney-General in this matter—he can look after himself very well—but I simply do not know where the judges would come from in Northern Ireland, and I cannot think of anything worse than importing judges into the Province from outside. Secondly, I see no possible reason to assume that three lawyers sitting together would necessarily produce a better judgment than one.
  Be that as it may—and dealing now with jury trials and non-jury trials—when the Attorney-General replies, perhaps he will be good enough to inform us of his thinking on the problem of the way in which to use the discretion, very clearly given to him by Schedule 4 of the original Act, to declare that certain scheduled offences should be tried, albeit that they are scheduled offences, by a jury. It has been suggested that this is certainly one way—if properly dealt with—that might overcome some of the difficulties of police and others who are facing trial, when it is felt to be unfair that they should face trial without a jury.
  I have in mind page 22 of the Gardiner Report. The Attorney-General will be very familiar with the remarks made in the House in 1973 concerning the limit to the discretion given to the Attorney-General of the day. If he would care to tell us how he views his duties in that regard, I am sure that the House would be well pleased.
  I welcome cautiously the Secretary of State's words this morning about a Bill of Rights. I, too, would have grave doubts about it if it were simply to be something differentiating Ulster once again from the British mainland. On the other hand, it may be thought that there are things that could be done in Ulster, and perhaps in Great Britain, which would help people's rights.
  All I want to say now is that, whatever rights are being denied in Ulster today, certainly there are no rights worth one person's life, or one attack on a
  972
  single person. The injustices—if there were injustices, and I am not going back five years—that stirred people up at the very beginning of the troubles have been largely cured by successive Governments. Whatever injustices now remain, there is nothing that we cannot solve through proper parliamentary procedure. Force has no part to play in it.
  I shall deal only briefly with the legal changes. As to bail, I am inclined to think that policemen are civilians and probably ought to be treated as such. There was an intervention by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, East concerning the possibility of certain judges giving bail. I wonder whether the Attorney-General would clear up the question raised at that time, when it was suggested that county court judges would not be able to give bail. As I understand the position, as long as a county court judge is sitting in a court constituted to try scheduled offences, the judge has the right to give bail as and when he feels it appropriate.
  The Attorney-General: That is right.
  Mr. Miscampbell: I am obliged to the Attorney-General. Then, I, too, can be commendably brief. The details in the legislation which we are now passing seem sensible. They are details of the kind which any legislation requires after a year or two of working.
  I welcome the right to question. Apparently there was an ambiguity, and clearly some provision was intended in the 1973 Act. I am sure that no one who served on the Standing Committee at the time had any doubt about what was intended.
  Then there is the legislation about transmitters. The sophistication, about which the Secretary of State spoke, which is now lamentably employed in Ulster, means that some provision must be made.
  On recruitment, recruiters and instructors, again I welcome the Government's decision. I am glad that we are to have this power.
  As for gathering information, we had a very happy moment when my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) suggested that the secretary to the Lord Chancellor, who asked a number of judges to dinner, might find herself in some difficulty in getting together the list of names in order to set up the dinner

  973
  party. That need not worry us too much. The information has to be obtained unlawfully. This, too, is a sensible provision.
  Thus, in a situation which I describe as one of modest hope for Northern Ireland, we welcome this legislation. It is modest hope on two fronts. I get the strong impression that the Convention may do more than many of us feared it would. We have at the moment, albeit tenuously, a cessation of attacks on our troops. But there are hard-line men in Ulster who will never be disuaded. One of the paradoxes is that there are men so incensed, so dedicated and so fanatical that if the Convention were to succeed, and if Catholics were seen sitting down with Protestants, the very success of the Convention could take us back to the situation which we all hope and pray that we shall not have to face.
  This is legislation which can be commended to the House.
  3.27 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Mr. Samuel Silkin): Perhaps I might begin by welcoming the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) on what I think is the first official occasion that he has represented the Opposition on the Front Bench. I am sure he will not misunderstand me if I say that I hope that that will be his position for many years to come.
  When we were in Opposition we gave the 1973 legislation a very searching scrutiny. We were right to do that because it was a measure which made, as we thought, many erosions and many holes in the system of justice as it was known. We felt that it was right to consider carefully the extent to which they were justified. Among other things, we said that when we returned to power we would wish to review the workings of the Act as soon as we could. It was for that reason that we decided to set up the Gardiner Committee—a very high-powered committee with an excellent chairman which has done a first-class job, as I think all hon. Members will agree.
  Perhaps I might be allowed to spend a moment or two in reminiscence. I remember when, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I approached Lord Gardiner informally about whether he would be willing as a very important public duty
  974
  to accept the chairmanship if it was offered to him. As one would expect, he immediately agreed to do so. However, he went on to say "But I hope that it will not interfere with the course in sociology that I am taking in the Open University, to which I am giving 16 hours a week." I am glad to reassure the House that, as one would expect, he took the examination and passed.
  We have given the very fullest consideration to the report, very much on the basis that there is a burden upon the Government, if they disagree with it, to show why. We have considered it especially in relation to those provisions of the 1973 Act about which widely felt anxiety was expressed during the debates on that Act.
  Thus, we have reviewed the case for non-jury trials in the light of our own experience of them. The hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North was quite right to draw attention to the fact that there has been little or no criticism of the way that the judiciary has coped with the task of conducting those trials. That is the more significant because certainly in Northern Ireland—perhaps even Ireland as a whole—the tradition of using juries, even in civil actions, has been retained much longer than here. There is no doubt on the clear evidence of what I, exercising my function, have seen, that the judges have gone a very long way in interpreting and deciding upon their powers to allay the kind of anxieties that we had about some of the provisions of the 1973 Act. That also applies very much to the Director of Public Prosecutions and his staff.
  The exercise of my own discretion has been referred to, and I shall deal with that matter further in due course.
  In deciding whether to certify out a trial which comes prima facie within the schedule, I have been most closely concerned with this issue, because the right to trial by jury lies at the very heart of our judicial system—in a sense even more so in Northern Ireland than here. It should be known and understood that every case in which trial for a scheduled offence is proposed is considered personally by me in order to decide whether I should order the ordinary procedure or leave it to the Diplock procedure. That is a matter entirely for my discretion, and I do not, as I am sure the

  975
  House appreciates, lightly refuse to certify out so that the ordinary procedure can take place.
  However, I have been greatly helped by the way in which the judiciary has interpreted its powers and the law. For example, the way in which Section 6 of the 1973 Act has been interpreted has shown a deep-felt concern for the traditional protection of the citizen and has certainly mitigated many doubts and anxieties.
  The Diplock system was advocated primarily on the basis of intimidation of both jurors and witnesses. In Opposition we took the view—I believe rightly—that it was our duty to make a very searching scrutiny of that justification. However, in the practical application of my own powers I have been extremely impressed with the rather different aspect of possible bias whether for or against the defendant, sometimes depending on where he lives, on what his job is, whether he is a member of the security forces or a civilian, and factors of that kind. I have found it necessary to take that sort of factor into account in making my decisions. I therefore accept and welcome both paragraph 21 and paragraph 62 of the Gardiner Report, the latter of which removes any possible fetter on my discretion which might arise from the remarks of the previous Conservative Government's spokesman in 1973.
  The hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North, who asked me about this, will, I know, agree that if I were to say, for example, that I would so exercise my discretion that in no case of a police officer who is alleged to have committed a scheduled offence while on duty would I do other than certify out—that is to say, that I would in every case order trial by jury—I would not be exercising my discretion.
  If that is to be done, it would be necessary, therefore, for my powers to be removed. It could be done only by legislation which expressly excepted police officers in the execution of their duty from the operation of the schedule. An amendment to the Bill or some other Bill would have to be tabled and carried into law. Therefore, I have to do my best with the discretion I have.
  976
  It is right that I should take into account all the factors. I seek as best I can—and it is not by any means easy in the context of the situation in Northern Ireland—in each particular decision to try to ensure that justice will follow upon that decision. When I speak about justice I mean justice to the public as much as justice to the defendant. It is for that reason and because of the many and varied factors that have to be taken into account that it would be wrong, indeed impossible, for me to say in advance that I follow a particular rule or guideline in relation to the exercise of that discretion.
  What I have said applies not merely to the civilians but—fortunately much more rarely—also to the members of the security forces. For example, there have been very few charges against the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and not very many, although rather more, against members of the Army. I have to look at all the charges in exactly the same way, taking into account the factors to which I have referred.
  Experience has also led me to question to what extent each of these detailed Diplock provisions is really needed, whether in the context of trial by judge alone or by summary trial. The Gardiner Committee similarly questioned that need. Its recommendations have given effect to that process of questioning the need. The committee has taken the view, which I accept and which the Bill implements, that if a case is suitable for summary trial, the need for the stringent provisions of the 1973 Act could hardly be justified. That seems to me to be a very sensible approach, and the Bill, therefore, removes those provisions where either summary trial actually takes place or where the Director of Public Prosecutions certifies that in his view the case is fit for summary trial. The reason for that is that one would not wish to put at a disadvantage a defendant who, for his own reasons—as he is entitled to do in a case which is triable by indictment—elects for that trial although the prosecuting authorities are willing to allow summary trial.
  The bail pending appeal provision is a very good example of what I have been saying, where a relaxation of the rigidity

  977
  of the original Act has been recommended by the Gardiner Report and we have accepted it. In some cases the committee, in the light of experience, considered that certain sections of the 1973 Act were unnecessary, even apart from the question of summary trial. Generally, therefore, the Bill gives effect to the committee's views—for example, in Clause 7, which repeals Section 5 of the Act.
  I have been particularly encouraged by the fact that in the course of the very wide-ranging debate there has been little or no criticism of those proposals by the Gardiner Committee which we have incorporated in the Bill.
  A substantial number of Committee points have been made, and I do not complain about that. I hope that hon. Members will not expect me to deal with all of them. Some hon. Members have properly said that they mentioned them today so that they might receive a more informed answer in Committee. I shall therefore confine myself to the relatively few points on which an answer in more general terms will suffice.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and, I believe, the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North asked why some of the Gardiner recommendations were not being put into effect. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred particularly to the procedure for complaints against the police. Hon. Members must appreciate that, whatever is decided on that subject and others, this Bill cannot possibly be the vehicle for such decisions. It is confined to amending the 1973 Act, with the exception of one clause which operates generally upon Northern Ireland law, and the Bill is set in the context of the emergency provisions.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked about the effects of Clause 12. I hope he will forgive me if I say, as one must in reply to questions of that nature, that of course it will be for the courts to decide how that clause will be interpreted. Nothing I say, therefore, can be taken as binding the courts. The right hon. Gentleman's point was whether the implied appeal to people arising from a public speech or something like that would fall within the provisions of the clause, a case which is distinct from the more obvious example
  978
  of where he might come to a person and ask him to join a particular organisation.
  All that I can say about that is that it would very much depend on how it was put. I would not rule out the possibility that words used in a public speech which a court would construe as being an invitation to join a particular organisation would fall within it. They could well do so. But this is a matter which can be examined more carefully in Committee. If it is thought necessary to tighten up the provision, no doubt my right hon. Friend will carefully consider any suggestion that that should be done.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) was concerned about restriction of information. It is no doubt a very proper concern. But we are worried about the possibility—indeed, there have unhappily been instances of it—of people performing a function in connection with the courts being murdered in their homes or as they go about their normal business. The 1973 Act already provides for restriction on obtaining information which would enable terrorists to perform those acts. Although I cannot give the exact number of prosecutions, I am told that it is well into double figures. In looking at that provision again, we have thought that it is a valuable protection that should be extended somewhat. That is the reason for the clause to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention.
  Many hon. Members have properly referred to special category status. This is something which we inherited. I make no criticism about that. I think that the general feeling is that something should be done to phase it out as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend entirely agrees, and said so in his opening speech and in answer to questions about it. I do not think that any hon. Member regards it as other than something which should be speedily ended. But that must depend upon the ability to provide the cellular accommodation and so on which will enable people to be segregated. That is to be done as rapidly as possible.
  The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) spoke about paragraphs 70 and 71 of the Gardiner Report on the meaning of terrorism. He wondered whether we might have accepted the Gardiner proposals to expand its meaning. I am not

  979
  sure that to give effect to what Gardiner wanted it is necessary to accept the Gardiner amendment. I am by no means sure that when one speaks in this context of political acts one is not including sectarian acts which have a plainly political motive.
  Whether or not that be so, we felt that a better way of carrying out the intentions of Gardiner than the specific proposals, would be to make offences as clear and specific as possible, so that people are left in no doubt about what they are told they must not do, under penalty of punishment. That is what we have tried to do in Clauses 15 and 16. These are matters which, if they do not go far enough, or if they are too wide, can be looked at in Committee.
  I was asked by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North about the Gardiner proposals for an advisory board on detention. I was glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think in a slightly different context, take the view that we have taken in the light of experience. It is a view that was debated in 1973, at that time in the context of courts. Two or three judges are not really practicable in these circumstances. We maintain that view in relation to the advisory boards.
  If we make it absolutely clear that the decision to detain is an executive act, an act of my right hon. Friend and not the outcome of a quasi-judicial procedure, my right hon. Friend's task should be interfered with as little as possible. It is for that reason that he is given the power to consult the adviser, who will no doubt be a lawyer. If we build that up and create a bench of three judges or three lawyers it will be more difficult for my right hon. Friend to exercise his own judgment. It is more likely that he will feel, if three judges are unanimous, that it will be difficult for him to reject their view. We want it clear that this is an administrative and executive procedure and not a judicial one.
  I said in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North that a county court judge will be able to grant
  980
  bail in respect of a person charged with a scheduled offence. I am told that this is not altogether so. The judge may do so only when adjourning the trial of the person so charged when trying that case. I think that that was what both of us had in mind, but, in case anybody did not, I make the point clear.
  The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) talked about certain suspicions among people in Northern Ireland, and said, in effect, "I know, but, unhappily, it would not be right to reveal my sources." I am sorry that he is no longer here. My right hon. Friend asked him for evidence but he did not feel that he could provide it. When peripheral matters are raised and particular persons and incidents which have caused anxiety are mentioned, I feel strongly that the more people talk in that way with the authority of this Chamber, the more they increase anxiety. If these things are said here and reported, they attain some credibility, even though based on nothing more than suspicion—as the hon. Member agreed.
  In the context of the delicate negotiation in the Convention to find a basis for harmony between the two sides of the sectarian divide, nothing should be said here to increase the feeling that there are unbridgeable differences. It is not for me to preach to the House, but the less of that kind of discussion we have in a debate like this the easier it will be for the Convention to reach a unanimous recommendation and for the Government to put it into practice. Building up peripheral matters like this can only make agreement more difficult to achieve, which many hon. Members believe is a real possibility, and for which we all hope.
  I commend the Bill to the House. I hope that hon. Members will give it the scrutiny in Committee which they have promised. It is a useful Bill which should be welcomed, and evidently has been welcomed, on both sides.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, it is expedient to authorize—
  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of remuneration and allowance to Advisers appointed under the Act of the present Session;

  (b) of any reasonable costs or expenses incurred by a person detained under that Act in obtaining legal advice or assistance;

  (c) of any reasonable expenses incurred by any person in connection with a reference to an Adviser appointed under that Act;

  (d) of any payments to persons released or about to be released from detention under that Act; and

  (2) any increase attributable to the Act of the present Session in the sums payable under any other Act out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

  BUS AND RAIL FARES (COLNE VALLEY)
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: On the motion that the House of Commons should now adjourn I raise the urgent question of bus and rail fairs in the valley of the Yorkshire River Colne. The growing concern of many of the 20,000 or so residents of the Colne Valley can be illustrated by the fact that last December the fare for a single journey from the centre of Huddersfield to Linthwaite in the Colne Valley was 7p. By October of this year, if applications which have now been filed for fare increases are granted, as the transport executive expects, the fare for the same journey from Huddersfield to Linthwaite—which is undertaken many times a week by many important workers in ex-
  982
  port and other jobs—will have doubled to 14p in just over 10 months.
  In a hilly district with a wet climate and a dense pattern of travelling to work, to school, to visit relatives, to seek shops and recreation, such rapid fare rises seriously threaten the way of life. For example, at the last census, one in three of the employed people living in the Colne Valley regularly used a bus to get to and from work.
  Work in the Huddersfield and Colne Valley area is of immense importance to our export trade. Spokesmen at the former Board of Trade used to say that nowhere in the country was there a higher amount of export production per head than in this part of West Yorkshire. Furthermore, judging from the census returns, less than 10 per cent. of the population of Colne Valley in 1971 claimed professional or managerial status. It is, therefore, fair to infer that a relatively and unusually small proportion of that population have company cars at their disposal.
  The main services involved are across the valley into neighbouring industrial valleys, and to such places as the David Brown tractor works, which has a pay roll of 3,000 people, practically all of whom are engaged on production, and also to such centres as Huddersfield. Leeds, Oldham and Manchester.
  Marsden has 5,000 inhabitants. I take Marsden as a typical example for the purposes of this debate, with a journey from Marsden to Huddersfield as a typical destination. Marsden is eight miles outside Huddersfield and about 11 rather twisty miles from Oldham. There is a considerable public transport need across the Pennines for the purposes of work. For the eight-mile trip from the largest housing estate in Marsden to the bus station in central Huddersfield, the fare in December 1970 was 7p. Last January the fare for the same trip was 15p. Applications have now been made for that to rise to 20p by October. The increase which has taken place since December 1970 is 114 per cent. During the identical period of four and a half years, the official cost of living index rose by 78 per cent. Therefore, the Colne Valley bus fares have risen 50 per cent. more than general retail prices. No devices such as the excellent metro-card lump-sum fare purchase will bring

  983
  any significant reductions for the average five-days-a-week passenger travelling between Marsden and Huddersfield.
  Turning to the question of value for money, which has always been of concern to Colne Valley folk, the bus service provided in return for these rapidly rising fares is no better now than when the cost was much less. Local councillors and I have a file of complaints about buses not running, or not stopping where they are supposed to stop according to the timetable because of the stated need to make un time. The Director of Operations of the West Yorkshire Transport Executive wrote to me in February this year as follows:
  "It is confirmed to me that certain of the advertised journeys have not been operated due to our present staff position, which we are very happy to say is now slowly improving, although we are still some way short of our target of sufficient staff to give, what we consider to be, an adequate degree of reliability."
  The West Yorkshire Transport Executive has been frank in admitting that only a small proportion of the bus picking-up points in this wet, windy climate in an exposed area of the Pennines have adequate bus shelters, as I and my fellow political workers know to our cost.
  At the 1971 census, out of every 10 households in Marsden only between three and four possessed a car. From my observations, although there may have been some small increase in that figures since, there has been no significant change. There are no housing estates in Marsden with rows of cars parked outside every night. The Colne Valley—particularly the villages and townships up the valley on the steeps of the Pennines—is a relatively low-paid area. There is some neighbourly willingness to offer lifts and to share journeys, but that is no substitute for choosing one's own time and method for a journey.
  A few Marsdeners have turned to their old railway station on the main Huddersfield to Manchester line, where the single fare to Huddersfield is 11p. I make no complaint about that, because the rail trip is quick and it gives to the person who is travelling to work an opportunity to prepare himself for it. There is much to be said for it, but there are at most only four trains a day, and the station is difficult to use and inconveniently sited
  984
  for most of the Marsden people. It there is to be a railway contribution—which I would welcome—to providing reasonably-priced public transport up the Colne Valley, halts should be opened at genuinely convenient parts of the line in the light of housing developments since Victorian times when the line was opened and the station was built. Marsden is the only surviving station in the Colne Valley, and there has been public demand for halts to be provided at Slaithwaite and Golcar.
  Unless firm action on fare policy in public transport is taken soon, there will be many unromantic Robinson Crusoes stranded in Marsden. Although it is equidistant between Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield and closer to Oldham. Huddersfield, Macclesfield, Barnsley and Rochdale—it is not exactly out in the wilds—people will be stranded in a place which cannot provide the facilities which families need. I am not talking about an exceptional case. We acknowledge that Marsden and Huddersfield are exactly in line with a county scale which the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority has introduced.
  Local councillors and I are worried by the apparent attitude of the Government towards West Yorkshire's public transport. The public expenditure White Paper covering the period 1978–79 indicates that over the country as a whole subsidy support for bus services from rates and taxes should be reduced by 50 per cent. over the next three years. However, there is a more immediate threat for conurbations. On 16th June this year the Under-Secretary of State stated that for 1976–77 the priority of the conurbation for Government subsidy will be reduced in favour of the areas that are not so densely populated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to help us about that matter this afternoon.
  In the Colne Valley we have been brought into a metropolitan county. The Kirklees District, of which we are an important part, is often described in the Press as a conurbation, yet Colne Valley areas such as Marsden are not densely populated. In fact, seven-eighths of the old urban district of Colne Valley is green belt or national park. Without any political overtones, we want to know in Colne Valley whether, for the purpose of this important subsidy change, we are

  985
  to be treated as a less densely populated area or whether we are to be lumped into a West Yorkshire conurbation when we are not prepared to acknowledge any conurbation characteristics.
  There is the important question of the Government's attitude to West Yorkshire's transport policies. The county has made its position clear in that it wants to improve the quality and reliability of existing services. It wishes to improve the quality of the rolling stock. I believe it wishes to purchase smaller buses of a kind that can be adapted to climb our steep hillsides. It wants to improve terminal facilities and waiting places. Above all, it does not want to see fares soaring out of reach of the ordinary person who wants to get to work. Its fares policy is clearly stated in the document which it was obliged to produce under Section 18 of the Transport Act 1968, in which it said that the declared policy of the council and the chief executive in the Council's submission to the Department of the Environment was to ensure that fares did not rise faster than the general increase in the cost of living.
  The evidence is that during 1975—and I am hoping for some reassurances as regards 1976–77—fares have been rising substantially faster than even the enormous rises that have taken place in the general cost of living.
  I turn to another aspect of transport policy. I acknowledge the Government's sincerity in trying to restraint the congestion and pollution brought about by modern road making to accommodate the private car, which often contains only one or two individuals. My constituents are confused by the way in which fares are rising so rapidly on ordinary routes on one of our major trunk roads. They are surprised that that should happen at a time when the Government claim that they are doing all that they can to discourage the use of the private car for relatively short journeys to work and to encourage people to use public transport instead.
  As I have indicated, Marsden provides a telling example of a community which at the moment is not contributing anything like the usual national share of motor car congestion and pollution. That is because the level of car ownership in
  986
  Marsden is rather low by present national standards. What is the recompense to Marsden for having this admirable reliance on public transport? Knowingly or not, the community is contributing to the national conservation policy. Its reward, in a hilly area which the good Lord did not create for the benefit of cyclists, is to find that public transport is not rising to meet the public need. A gap is left in the facilities which invite people to save up so that they can run a car and use their cars for journeys to work. I do not believe that that is what the Government want but that is the effect that the Government are creating in an area which could be very favourable for public transport journeys to work.
  In my final remarks, I press on the Government to bear in mind not only the long-time residents of Colne Calley but those who have bought themselves houses in the area fairly recently on the ground that by a major trunk road they would be able to rely on a good service from public transport with reasonable fares. Their whole life plan is in danger of being frustrated. My constituency is a collection of trunk road corridors which do not contribute to the pleasantness of life in the valleys, but should guarantee a reasonable public transport service at a tolerable cost. I hope that this afternoon we shall hear from the Minister some indication that this can be a firm hope.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I am sure that the House will wish me to congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) on the way in which he has raised these matters, which are of great importance to his constituents.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for some reassurance. I can tell him that the Government are firmly committed to the continuing support of public transport. In regard to bus operators, the Government already contribute through the new bus grants and fuel duty rebates. Under the new bus grants the Government pay half the cost of buses bought for stage services. Since the decision by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer early last year the whole of the fuel duty for stage services is rebated.

  987
  Therefore, no duty is paid in that regard and there is also the 50 per cent. grant for the purchase of new buses.
  I should now like to say, in a few words, why bus fares have been rising so steeply. Everybody is now aware that the demand for bus services has fallen sharply over the years. The wider spread of car ownership has been associated with this decline in demand. Some people argue that poor bus services have led to the wider use of cars. The hon. Gentleman argued the point from a later stage in the cycle, but it is almost a "chicken and egg" situation. I repeat that undoubtedly the wider spread of car ownership has led to a decline in bus services, but I cannot believe the situation is as simple as that. There is no doubt that the great advantage in the use of a car is its door-to-door convenience. No matter how many experiments are carried out in the employment of buses—and a number are in process at the moment—the bus cannot possibly match the car as a personal individualised mode of transport. It may well be that the car started the tendency for bus journeys to decline. This decline led to a deterioration in services, because the reduction in passengers did not bring with it a corresponding reduction in operating costs, and the downward spiral continues.
  Bus operators have therefore been fighting an uphill battle to keep their services going within the resources available to them. At the same time, operating costs have been rising at a faster rate than prices generally. The bus industry is labour-intensive; on local services, labour accounts for 70 per cent. of operating costs. Unless they can covet their increased costs, operators simply cannot provide services.
  The money to pay for bus services has to be found from somewhere. It has to be found by the farepayer, or by the taxpayer, or out of the rates. There is no other source of which I have knowledge. I have already mentioned the extent to which the Government are helping to finance the bus industry direct. We have also acted this year to contribute towards local authority support to bus services. There was a big increase in the amount of local authority expenditure planned on revenue support
  988
  for public transport between 1973–74 and 1974–75, as bus operators were hit by steeply rising costs and local authorities, particularly the major conurbations, were unwilling to see the costs passed on in fares. This may account for the figure of 114 per cent. mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He would agree that the figure would depend on the base line. It sometimes takes a number of rears to see what the trend is, and fares may have been held back artificially for a period of time.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: I gave the hon. Gentleman the advantage, when I compiled the figure of 114 per cent., of taking the fare last January. If I had wished to over-egg the pudding I could have taken fares as they will be next month.
  Mr. Carmichael: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has worked on it with great accuracy, but he will excuse me if I say that I should like to see a cross-section of the fares over a few years, although I certainly do not gainsay the fact that the cost of operating buses has increased by more than the general standard because of the 70 per cent. of wage costs in operating such services.
  Local authorities estimated that their revenue support expenditure in 1974–75 would come to £85 million, at November 1973 prices. If they were to continue to restrict fare increases in 1975–76 to the same extent, revenue support in the current year could be double that amount. What the Government have done, to reduce the impact on the rates of local authorities' revenue support policies during 1975–76 and to moderate the level of fare increases which would otherwise be necessary, is to make a special grant allocation of £90 million through Transport Supplementary Grant towards local authorities' support of buses in England and Wales. There has never been previously any similar grant towards revenue support for public transport. This is on top of the £60 million a year which is made available to the bus industry through new bus grant and rebate of fuel duty which I have already mentioned.
  But I want to make it quite clear that such a massive level of support cannot and must not continue. The economy cannot continue to support subsidies to bus operations on this scale, and it is

  989
  this Government's policy that such subsidies must be reduced. Of course, this means that fares will have to rise. Inflation, which poses such a threat to this country, attacks the bus industry as much as any other. If costs and wages rise to the extent that they have been doing, someone has to pay, and the Government believe that the burden on the ratepayer is already heavy enough.
  So the Government believe that the level of revenue support to buses has to be reduced. They also believe that a greater proportion of the resources which are available for bus revenue support should be directed towards keeping going the public transport services in the non-metropolitan areas which are at present threatened with extinction. Only £6½ million of the £90 million grant went to the non-metropolitan counties in the allocation for 1975–76. We cannot change that allocation now. But in the allocation for next year, as is made clear in my Department's Circular 43/75, we shall give a higher proportion of the resources available for bus support to the non-metropolitan counties.
  For 1975–76 almost £4·6 million of revenue support expenditure was accepted for Transport Supplementary Grant for West Yorkshire. I am afraid that we have to be quite clear that, along with the other metropolitan counties, West Yorkshire cannot expect to receive such favourable treatment in the allocation for 1976–77. Nevertheless I hope that the hon. Member will accept that the Government have this year done more than any previous Government to support bus costs.
  The hon. Member has referred to the difficulties experienced in his own constituency, and the House will want me to express its understanding of and sympathy with the situation which he has described. But it would be wrong for central Government to try to interfere in the local transport and planning questions which are essentially the responsibility of the metropolitan county council, both in its role of passenger transport authority for the area and as the authority responsible for preparing the county's transport policy and programme. The West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive was, of course, set up under the Local Government Act 1972 and
  990
  came into existence in April of last year. The West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council and the Passenger Transport Executive deserve a good deal of credit for producing so soon after their simultaneous birth the very interesting and well-produced statement on "Public Transport for West Yorkshire" to which the hon. Member has referred. It is certainly an impressive document, which shows a real awareness of and concern for the problems of the West Yorkshire travelling public. I am sure that it is right that local transport problems should be faced and tackled in this way by the local responsible authorities, whose knowledge and experience of the situation is so much greater than anything to which central Government could ever aspire.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the West Yorkshire statement. However, although the county is classified as a metropolitan county, a large proportion of it is rural and cannot be compared with a truly metropolitan county in another part of England.
  Mr. Carmichael: Other areas have much the same problem, of course, although I agree that the hon. Gentleman's own valley is an exception, or is near to being an exception, compared with many of the other areas. This is one of the difficulties of metropolitan counties. It would have been silly to have left Colne Valley out of it, although I shelter behind the fact that I had little to do with the 1972 Act.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the reports of 1972 and 1974 by the Expenditure Committee on Urban Transport planning and on Public Expenditure on Transport, and he mentioned the recommendations of the earlier report on the encouragement of public transport and asked how current Government directives could be squared with the generally favourable response to these reports.
  I have explained some of the ways in which the Government are putting money into the public transport system. We as a Government are also encouraging county councils to put forward in their transport policy and programme traffic management measures which will succeed in helping bus operators in urban areas by improving their reliability.

  991
  One feature to have come out of all the studies of buses is that people are less concerned with the charges made for buses than they are about the unreliability of buses. Given the choice, the fact that the bus is there is more important than how much it will cost. There is no point in a would-be passenger having his money ready if no bus arrives.
  The transport policy and programmes will also need to give very careful consideration to measures of restraint on private cars. I am confident that this is the way in which we can really make the bus a more attractive method of transport. It is, I believe, much more important than artificial restrictions on fares, which of course in a time of rising costs amount to reductions in fares in real terms. It is more important that we should look at methods of improving the efficiency of buses rather than merely trying artificially to keep down fares.
  The Government have also worked to further the cause of public transport by their support for research and demonstration projects. The bus demonstration projects which my Department sponsored were important for the way in which they attracted attention to the various types of measures which could be taken to help buses—and these were measures to be taken not only by bus operators but by local authorities, their highway planners and their traffic engineers.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of using smaller buses. The West Cumberland area had such a service for the valleys and other difficult areas. Rather appropriately, they were known as the "Mountain Goat Buses". I am not sure about the up-to-date position, but for a period they showed promise of being of some help in that rather peculiar geographical area.
  992
  This series of projects demonstrated the practicability of with-flow bus lanes, contra-flow bus lanes, bus-only roads and means of giving priority to buses at traffic lights. It also explored the use of minibuses, as in a city centre bus service running through a pedestrianised area, and illustrated the use of a bus feeder service to a commuter rail service.
  There may be some ideas here for an area like the Colne Valley, with its existing, albeit Victorian-planned railway system.
  We have gone on to encourage experiments with other different types of operation. The Stevenage superbus has attracted a good deal of attention for its achievement in attracting increasing numbers of passengers. Dial-a-ride systems have been an interesting feature of the North American transport scene for some time, and the Department's Transport and Road Research Laboratory has been concerned to investigate the rôle of a dial-a-bus in the United Kingdom situation. Such systems are already operating in a number of locations in this country. One of the most interesting dial-a-bus operations is in Harlow, where it has had no difficulty in establishing its popularity
  A feature of so many of these experiments has been the excellent co-operation which has existed between the local authorities and bus operators concerned and central Government. I think that one of the most important jobs for local—
  The Question having been proposed at Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Four o'clock.

  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY
  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Expenses
  Members' Expenses
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
  Car Parking
  Car Parking
  Staff Welfare
  Staff Welfare
ENVIRONMENT
  Driving Instructors
  Driving Instructors
  Housing Standards
  Housing Standards
  Mortgage Finance (Birmingham)
  Mortgage Finance (Birmingham)
  Midlands (Local Commissioner)
  Midlands (Local Commissioner)
  Container Traffic
  Container Traffic
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Skelmersdale
  Skelmersdale
  Hang Gliding
  Hang Gliding
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Caravan Owners (Electoral Registration)
  Caravan Owners (Electoral Registration)
DEFENCE
  Military Aid (Disaster Relief)
  Military Aid (Disaster Relief)
EMPLOYMENT
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Wages Regulation Orders
  Wages Regulation Orders
  Newton-le-Willows
  Newton-le-Willows
  ECONOMIC POLICY (MINISTERIAL SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC POLICY (MINISTERIAL SPEECH)
  FUEL AND WATER SUPPLIES
  FUEL AND WATER SUPPLIES
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Civil Servants' Housing (Lancashire)
  Civil Servants' Housing (Lancashire)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Weymouth (Benefit Payments)
  Weymouth (Benefit Payments)
  St. Wulstan's Hospital, Malvern
  St. Wulstan's Hospital, Malvern
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Police
  Police
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Jockey Club and Joint Racing Board
  Jockey Club and Joint Racing Board
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Foreigners' Registration Fees
  Foreigners' Registration Fees
  Sport
  Sport
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Tax Deposit Certificates
  Tax Deposit Certificates
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Children's Incomes
  Children's Incomes
  Construction Contracts (Advertising)
  Construction Contracts (Advertising)
  Income Tax (Age Allowance)
  Income Tax (Age Allowance)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk
  Milk
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Fat Cattle (Certifying Weight)
  Fat Cattle (Certifying Weight)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Offices Dispersal (Midlands)
  Government Offices Dispersal (Midlands)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Graduates
  University Graduates
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  University Teachers (Pay)
  University Teachers (Pay)
ENERGY
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Heavy Water
  Heavy Water
  Conservation ("Save It")
  Conservation ("Save It")
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  International Women's Year (Mexico Conference)
  International Women's Year (Mexico Conference)
  South Africa
  South Africa
INDUSTRY
  Telephones
  Telephones
  Computers
  Computers
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Sale of Goods (Prescribed Quantities)
  Sale of Goods (Prescribed Quantities)
  Overseas Investments
  Overseas Investments
TRADE
  Egg and Other Dairy Imports
  Egg and Other Dairy Imports
  Patent Applications
  Patent Applications

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

NORTH SEA OIL RIGS
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many exploration rigs are now operating in the North Sea and what was the estimate made in April 1975 by the Government of the number which would be operating there at any one time in this year's drilling season.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, 26 drilling rigs are now engaged in exploration and appraisal work on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. The April 1975 Brown Book forecast that the average number of rigs operating at any one time during 1975 would be 30.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, have not six rigs recently left the British sector, four moving to the Norwegian sector, and the others to the Irish and French sectors? Is the noble Lord aware that the slower tempo than that which had been expected at the height of the summer drilling season is largely due to this Government's policies?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, there are bound to be variations from week to week in rig movements, for a wide variety of reasons; not least because the majority of rigs are independently operated, moving from company to company, and from block to block, and from time to time they have to return to base for maintenance and refit. The fact remains that the average number of rigs operating during the first six months of the year was little short of 30; in fact, during March and April of this year the average was 31 rigs. In February and May the average was 30, in January it
1704
was 28, and in June it was 25. That gives an average of over 29 rigs. In answer to the noble Lord's other point, good progress is being made on development and there is nothing to suggest that exploitation of any of the commercial fields is being delayed. It remains the Government's policy to encourage the rapid growth of oil production and to achieve the levels forecast in the Brown Book. Our discussions with the companies on participation take full account of the problems of marginal fields, as did the arrangements announced in February for the petroleum revenue tax.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comprehensive reply, but I am sure the House would be fascinated to know whether the answer to my noble friend's supplementary question was Yes or No.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: The answer is No, my Lords.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I too am grateful for the comprehensive reply. But does the noble Lord realise that the information he has given about the average number of rigs operating in recent months, and the fact that there was a greater number in the North Sea than there are now at the height of the drilling season, only confirms the slowing down in the tempo of exploration and activity? Is the noble Lord further aware that the tempo should be increasing rapidly now if we are to become self-sufficient in 1981?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, the important fact is that development is increasing very rapidly indeed. Exploration and drilling is obviously of crucial importance. But one cannot necessarily assume that the tempo of exploration and the appraisal of drilling should go on at an increasing rate all the time. It is an extremely costly business. It costs £2 million to drill a hole, and a rig costs £20,000 a day to maintain. Companies will not involve themselves in this type of expenditure unless they have very good reasons for doing so.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, has the noble Lord refreshed his memory about the comments of the right honourable lady Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, who, when in 1966 was Opposition spokesman

1705
on energy in the House of Commons, made precisely the same kind of allegations in relation to exploration for gas in the Southern sector of the North Sea as we have heard from noble Lords on the Conservative Front Benches this morning? Bearing in mind that the gas development programme has been extremely successful, and that the targets outlined in the 1965 White Paper have been realised, is it not likely that these fears expressed today will be equally false?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, my Lords. Since our forecasting has been called into question, I should say that we seek to be neither optimistic nor pessimistic. But we wish to keep our feet on the ground and resist being unduly swayed by the ebb and flow of political discussion which sometimes seems to colour the figures one reads. Early last year, there were those of us in the industry who were accused of extreme pessimism. It was suggested that prospects were so dazzling that 50 rigs might be operating on the United Kingdom Shelf, while we were forecasting 25. In the event, the average was 24½. Last winter, the political pendulum swung the other way and stories were circulating of poor prospects, dwindling discovery rates and a general flight of rigs away from British waters. What has followed this year is a remarkable succession of discoveries—17 so far—and a higher number of rigs operating than at any previous time, as we forecast.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the output in the next 10 years depends upon platforms rather than upon exploration rigs, and that the development of platforms is going ahead extremely satisfactorily?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, my Lords, as I have said.
Lord CAMPBELL OF CROY: My Lords, as it is less than four years since the announcement of the first commercial oilfield in the British sector, ought not an increase in activity to be taking place anyway? That is not an answer. Can the noble Lord agree with us that the activities should be taking place at a much higher rate now, at the height of
1706
the summer season, if we are be self-sufficient in 1981?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: No, my Lords. I think we can go as fast as the job will allow us to go. This is not even like laying out a farm and saying in advance what crops we are going to grow. It is a highly dangerous area and the most unpredictable sea in the world. Development is proceeding at a very satisfactory rate. We are not complacent about this, but the fact is that we are now moving into the first phase of development and we are doing so satisfactorily.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many gallons of oil have been brought ashore under this Government and how many were brought ashore under the Tory Government?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Is it not well known, my Lords, that all the oil was put there by Mr. Wilson?

ONCHOCERCIASIS FUND AGREEMENT
11.12 a.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the reason for the delay in presenting to Parliament the Onchocerciasis Fund Agreement 1974, what other countries have now signed the agreement and what information is available as to the first year's working.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the delay was caused by an administrative oversight, which is regretted. The other countries which have now signed the 1974 Agreement are Canada, France, the Netherlands, the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany. Iraq and Belgium. A progress report for 1974 has been issued by the World Health Organisation, the Executing Agency. I am arranging for a copy to be sent to the noble Lord.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he take note that this is a magnificent international achievement directed to the noblest objectives, and that it involves seven recipient countries and an estimated area very much larger than the whole of the United Kingdom? Would it not be well to see that publicity is given to some of these achievements at a time when the eyes of the world are focussed on the forthcoming Congress of African Peoples, as this involves a very large area of that continent? I am grateful for his promise to send information. I hope it will contain a Report of the first year's achievements.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords. I am sure that the whole House will agree with my noble friend in everything he said about the splendid work done in this respect in Africa by the United Nations. It is a great encouragement that the preservation of life is one of the preoccupations at the moment in that continent.
Baroness GAITSKELL: May I ask my noble friend to pronounce the name of the Fund?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: if it were spelled "Onkoserkiasis".
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend—and I hope that this supplementary question is relevant—whether the Government are in co-operation with the School of Tropical Medicine in regard to this very distressing disease, the clearance of which is like the clearance of flies in Panama and Suez earlier in history, and which will make possible a development in tropical Africa and elsewhere of great importance to the whole of mankind?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am glad to confirm that a good deal of very promising research in this vital field is being conducted in such British institutions as the one named by my noble friend.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, will my noble friend deal with that part of the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Hale which related to the publicity that ought to be given to actions of this kind? Is my noble friend aware that unless pub-
1708
licity is given these things rarely become known anywhere?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bruce will have noticed that I said that I agreed with everything that my noble friend had said, including the need for publicity of this kind of helpful and humanitarian activity. I will certainly see how it is possible to expand publicity. I agree that we should inform people much more than we do about this kind of activity, and I thank my noble friend for emphasising that point.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Government will find it difficult to get publicity for a constructive achievement of this sort, when the media are usually preoccupied with sex, perversion, rape, murder and other undesirable and antisocial acts?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I doubt whether the media are solely preoccupied with the themes my noble friend named. Judging from a number of documentaries that I have seen, I imagine that they might be interested in an exposé of this project.

PULMONARY DISEASES
Lord HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the "Other Industries" in respect of which figures of deaths from byssinosis are given on Table 6, page 9, of the Department of Energy's Digest of Pneumoconiosis Statistics 1973; whether these figures include cases of asbestosis and byssinosis, and what medical advise has been received on the diminished length of life of those so listed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the table referred to gives the number of deaths from pneumoconiosis resulting in the award of industrial death benefits, and includes asbestosis but not byssinosis. With permission, I will circulate the full list of "Other Industries" in the Official Report. All the deaths listed have been adjudged to be due to or

1709
materially accelerated by pneumoconiosis, though in many cases the reduction of lifespan will have been small. In 1973, 40 per cent. of the deaths occurred in the age group 65–74 and 8 per cent. in the age group 75 and over.
Lord HALE: My Lords, with respect, and while thanking my noble friend for that partial Answer, I should have thought that the figures were such that messengers of Æsculapius would have now been carrying the news from village to village. The first figures, in 1968, showed that in other industries the applicants who have lived to be over 65 are about 25 per cent. (in adjusted proportion) of the applicants in the motor industries. This exemplifies the proposition already accepted in Switzerland that asbestosis is a particularly dangerous disease and has the effect of shortening life. Will my noble friend look at the figures in 1968 and 1973 in his own Table, since he seems not to have realised that in mining and quarrying the death rate of applicants living to be over the age of 75 was 24 per cent. and in the other industries 5½ per cent.? Is this not a massive difference which ought to have resulted in action and research?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to asbestosis, then the situation as I understand it is that the figures are not available on exactly the same basis as the digest Table. This is my information. But I will take note of what my noble friend has said and look into it. In 1974, the first year for which information is available, about 75 deaths were accepted as due to or materially accelerated by asbestosis.
Lord DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, does my noble friend consider this an appropriate moment to pay a small tribute to the technicians of the Coal Board, for their efforts in limiting the avariciousness of modern mechanisms in relation to coaldust underground in the battle against the terrible disease of pneumoconiosis, and will he inform them that many of us watch with interest the progress of their technicians' effort in this battle?
Lord WELLSPESTELL: My Lords, I am sure that the National Coal Board
1710
will read with some gratification what my noble friend has said.
The table referred to is as follows:
" Awards in 1973 of industrial death benefit under the Industrial Injuries Acts in respect of pneumoconiosis in "Other Industries" analysed according to the Standard Industrial Classification.

Food, drink and tobacco

1

Coal and petroleum products

1

Chemical and allied industries

2

Metal manufacture

21

Mechanical engineering

5

Electrical engineering

4

Shipbuilding and marine engineering

25

Vehicles

1

Metal goods

4

Textiles

28

Bricks, pottery, glass, cement, etc.

30

Construction

7

Gas, electricity, water

7

Transport and Communication

5

Distributive trades

3

Miscellaneous services

1

Public administration and defence

1

Total

146

A corresponding analysis is not available for the 14 awards under the Old Cases and Workmen's Compensation Acts."

CABINET PROCEEDINGS AND CONFIDENTIALITY
11.20 a.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Prime Minister, on or about 18th June 1969, authorised Mr. G. Kaufman, M.P., then employed on the political staff of the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street, to supply Mr. Anthony Howard, editor of the New Statesman, with details of how each member of the Cabinet voted on the issue of whether the proposed Industrial Relations Bill should be proceeded with and whether the receipt of this information by Mr. A. Howard, as acknowledged by him on BBC television in the programme "Meet the Editors" on Sunday 22nd June, constituted a breach of the Official Secrets Act.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord SHEPHERD): My Lords, Cabinet proceedings are confidential except to the extent that the Cabinet itself approves the issue of a statement. On the occasion

1711
referred to, no such authorisation was given and no vote was taken.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal care to comment on the propriety of Mr. Anthony Howard revealing the source of information in this particular case, which is contrary to every principle by which journalists, who have any reputation to lose, operate? Has he noted that the statements on television by Mr. Anthony Howard were not correct? Has the noble Lord checked what Mr. Howard said against what he wrote on 22nd June 1969, that no vote was taken by the Cabinet on that day, but if a vote had been taken the vote would have been 12 to 11? Is the Minister further aware, if one examines the Press over those three or four days, 17th to 20th June, there was massive guidance, including detailed timetables of how the Cabinet and Cabinet committees operated, and it is perfectly clear, whether done with or without authority, somebody was carrying on what one might describe as an "operation"?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, regarding the first supplementary question of my noble friend, I do not think it is for me to comment upon the activities of this journalist. If he has infringed in any way the relationship between the Press officers and the journalists it is for the journalistic profession to deal with that. In that period there was a great deal of speculation. I would not suggest it was leakage or guidance, but there was speculation. From my short experience in the Cabinet, I have wondered sometimes, When reading the Press reports, whether I had gone to the right Cabinet Committee Room.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, leaving aside the wonderment of the noble Lord as to whether or not he was at the right Cabinet meeting, when speculation reaches the point that it is 100 per cent. correct, can one take it that speculation has passed from that area into an area of certainty? Would the noble Lord be good enough to answer the question as to whether Mr. Kaufman, who was employed in 10 Downing Street, briefed Mr. Anthony Howard?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, Mr. Kaufman informs me that he has no recollection at all of having a conversation
1712
with Mr. Howard, although one must appreciate this is some six or seven years ago. Regarding speculation and certainty, I am sure my noble friend will agree that because a horse wins a race that does not mean there was certainty it would win when it started.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree, if Mr. Kaufman has been dangerously misrepresented to his disadvantage, this was not a privileged occasion and he has his own rights under civil law if it is thought that this matter should be rectified?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is a matter entirely for Mr. Kaufman which I would prefer to leave to him.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, it is not only a question for Mr. Kaufman. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal must be aware that, if somebody working in 10 Downing Street signs the Official Secrets Act and devolves information for whatever reason, this constitutes a breach of the law. Surely it constituted a breach of the law by Mr. Anthony Howard to receive information which was improperly disclosed. As there is a conflict of evidence here, and Mr. Kaufman's memory seems to be defective while Mr. Howard's memory seems clear, is this not a case, as it involves not only Ministers but the Cabinet Secretariat, for an inquiry? Surely we are going right to the heart of Government here if an argument can be carried on half under the counter and half above.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if information of this kind had been disclosed by an official to the Press in the circumstances that have been reported, I believe it would be subject to the Official Secrets Act. But we have no reason to believe this. We have Mr. Kaufman's assurance that this information was not conveyed to the journalist. Therefore I suggest, in these circumstances, one can only question the statement that was made by the journalist on the BBC, taking into account the article he wrote at that time.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, assuming, as I do, the noble Lord's statement that there was no vote taken on the occasion in question is right, how can there possibly have been an illicit disclosure concerning the voting figures? Have we not spent enough time on this matter?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord; I was, however, seeking to deal with some difficult questions which my noble friend was putting to me. I am trying to put the matter right. But I agree with the noble and learned Lord—and I find I am more and more in agreement with him—and I suggest that we now move to the next business.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, the fact that there is agreement between the two Front Benches does not alter the fact that there was on this occasion guidance or leaks.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Question!
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I will put my remarks in an interrogative form. I notice that the House always wants interrogative questions from me but not when Ministers or Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are speaking. Does the Minister agree that the fact that there is agreement between him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, increases the probability of both being wrong rather than being right? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has a reputation of never being right on any subject and always managing to laugh at his own jokes. It may be funny to him but not to other people. On this occasion there was unquestionably major leaks or guidance. Mr. Anthony Howard has used a powerful instrument to reveal that; namely, the media. Should it not therefore either be established or refuted in detail, and not just palmed off because it happens to be inconvenient to the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the only area of agreement between the noble and learned Lord and myself was that we had had enough of this matter and wanted to move to the next business. I think that is the general sense of your Lordships' House. I have to say, in the light of what my noble friend put to me, that there was no question at all of guidance or leakage in this matter.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
11.29 a.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill of two clauses and I will not insult your Lordships' intelligence by spelling out exactly which clause is the kernel of the Bill. I must say straight away that I have not enjoyed the kind of research in which I have had to indulge to produce the facts and figures for the Bill. But as we recently had a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, his splendid opening speech then has relieved me from harrassing your Lordships with some of the descriptions of the tests on animals reported from very reputable sources of information.
Our attitude to animals in this country has always confused me in that it seems totally contradictory. On the one hand, we see the overfed and under-exercised pets who are allowed to defile our streets and make them unpleasant to walk on and we teach our children to love the soft bunny rabbit, and then we select certain animals for use in some rather undignified experiment. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said during our debate on the abuses of the Cruelty to Animals Act on 14th May (col. 721):
" You name it, … and some animals will have been made to eat it, have injected, put into their eyes, or they have been shaved of hair or fur so that substances may be tried out on their skins."
Because the noble Lord at that time gave us so many details about testing, it is not necessary for me to repeat them today. Bat I would remind your Lordships—I studied the report of the debate very carefully—that nobody at any stage challenged the accuracy of the noble Lord's statements.
Your Lordships will be very familiar with this Act which I am seeking to amend and so I will merely remind your Lordships that the Act says that it is not permissible to perform on a living animal
" … an experiment calculated to give pain "
unless the experiment is performed with a view to the advance by new discovery of
" physiological knowledge or knowledge which will be useful … for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering …"

1715
As your Lordships will know, licences are granted under certain categories, and since certificate A covers drugs, poisons, serum and vaccines, I can see quite clearly that if at this time anyone were to attempt dramatically to change the principal Act, they would run into the counter-attack that this was going to make it impossible for life to be saved or prolonged or the pain of man to be alleviated. Therefore I have been careful not to refer to "non-medical experiments". This Bill clearly states "cosmetic" and it goes on to define what is meant by "cosmetic".
The Research Defence Society in their letter setting out objections to the Bill—a copy was sent to me by courtesy of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and I believe it appeared in The Times yesterday—referred to the National Poison Information Service, which is part of the National Health Service. It states that in their first year they received about 2,000 calls for help and advice. This figure had risen to 20,000 by 1974, and of that figure about 800 referred to cosmetics. There is one point which is slightly confusing to me and that is that they say that two-thirds of the queries related to children. I am not sure whether this means children in relation to cosmetics, or children in relation to other substances.
No one—certainly not I—would dispute the value of this kind of information service, but I should like to know a little more about how the knowledge of antidotes is obtained. For instance, if a child actually gets a bubble bath substance into its eyes, presumably the antidote would be to wash out the eyes or clean them in some way. Could this knowledge not have been obtained by analysis of the bubble bath rather than by rubbing it into the eyes of an animal? Again, if a child eats lipstick, surely there are only two ways in which you can deal with what someone has eaten: either it comes out one way, or goes out the other. What contribution to that sort of knowledge requires the testing of an animal over a period of days with a particular substance, except to establish the rather unnecessary fact that if a living creature takes into its system enough of any substance it will certainly die?
Previous debates on this subject in your Lordships' House, as well as the
1716
discussion on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, seem to show that the reasons advanced for these tests on living animals fall into two main groups. The first is that it is mandatory to test. I have searched through the Medicines Act 1968 and, so far as I can see, it refers throughout to medicinal products. I looked at the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, which refers to pesticides, insecticides and weed-killers. So I have been unable to find reference to compulsory testing for cosmetics.
The second point which is often made—a much more emotive one, my Lords, and one which I suspect will be used today—is that testing must take place to protect the customer. This is always a very strong argument, particularly if we are to be told that children must be protected against a shampoo causing permanent damage to their eyes. In reply to that, I would question whether anyone could ever devise a test which would completely prevent the misuse of a product. In the end, the final test is that given to the product when it is applied, in this connection, to my skin, or, in the case of shampoo, to my hair. I am sure that many lady Members of this House will have heard hairdressers asking careful questions of a customer who has apparently used hair colouring. They ask the customer what brand it was and when it was applied, and so on. If they were so reassured that testing could obviate all difficulties, there would be no need to question customers in this way. Most women have at some time used a soap, bath oil or cream which is not quite right for them. I recently used a beautiful bubble bath substance which was made by a very expensive firm. Unfortunately, it caused a scaliness to appear on my legs and after two applications I ceased to use it. So there is always an answer to a test which, as a person, one is constantly applying.
The history of allergy is a very interesting and largely "hit or miss" business in that, as my doctor son-in-law once explained to me, there are about 1,000 possibilities of allergy, including flowers, animals, dusts of all kinds, rubber, synthetic materials and so on. There is validity in the claims made by certain firms, and I shall quote their names.

1717
One of them is Yardley, and their letter says:
" I am sure you will be delighted to know that we do not have any animal testing in our factory. All the ingredients are those that have been in use for a long time and there is no need for testing of any kind."
Again, I have a letter from Boots which says:
" The basic materials from which cosmetics are made have been available for a great number of years and one can say that, having thus stood the test of time, they can be considered safe."
That surely is the ultimate test that we should all like to have.
When I see the advertisement of "Beer tried and tested ", I must confess I assume it has been tested by a man and not by an animal. Am I entitled to ask what attempts are being made by this very honourable Society to which I referred earlier to find alternative means of testing? Indeed, do we really need—perhaps this is the worst heresy of all to mention—so many new products? I recognise that I am treading on very dangerous ground because against me are possibly the doctors on the one hand and the scientists on the other—and perhaps the Government as well. But every reformer throughout history has been told, (a) that he does not understand the subject, or (b) that he is a crank or a fanatic, although why persistence in a belief in an idea is a reason for insult, I cannot understand. If I am to be called a crank or a fanatic in a good cause, I can tell your Lordships that I do not regard this as an insult. Human beings have a curious ability to rationalise their behaviour. I am quite unconvinced that the fox likes being hunted, and I should have been equally unconvinced that the "chimney boys" liked being pushed up chimneys. With St. Francis of Assisi, I believe that all living creatures have a dignity, and man should be certain that the uses to which he puts an animal is absolutely essential for his survival.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
11.40 a.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I begin my brief address to your Lordships' House on this subject by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for introducing this emotive but important subject in restrained terms, and instantly
1718
waving aside any intention of suggesting that she either does not understand the subject or is a crank or a fanatic. If those appendages are to be attached to her they will be attached by others of your Lordships' House. Also by way of preamble and apology, I must ask for your Lordships' indulgence, since I am due to take part in all three pieces of legislation going through the House today, if I am absent during part of this debate. Otherwise, I have no reservations.
My Lords, no other nation enjoys such a widespread reputation for kindness to animals as does our country. Your Lordships' interest in this Bill on a fine Friday, to some extent, bears this out. We have reputations also, however, on the one hand for careful legislation and on the other, for a certain unpractical sentimentality in our concern for animals which sometimes acts at the expense of humanity without doing much good to the animals themselves. The noble Baroness referred to one of the anomalies in this realm. I am put in mind of those who say: Don't leave Rover at home when we go shopping ", and one sees the excitement of Rover's ride in the car with his ears streaming in the wind as he sniffs the air out of the window. Then an hour and a half later, after the car has been parked for an hour and a quarter in the parking lot, one sees Rover subjected to something only a little short of torture—in the full noonday sun, in a little tin oven with no windows open. And one wonders how kind it is to keep, for instance, a songbird in a cage 2 ft. square in full sight of the sky and moving clouds, no matter what the quality of the birdseed and cuttlefish bones that one puts through the bars from the side of liberty into the side of captivity.
The answer to this question is of course in part that we must not consider animals as if they were small and oddly shaped and sometimes feathered human beings. For human beings solitary confinement in a cage is solitary confinement in a cage, and remains so even if a mirror is hung up on the wall in which he can see himself. For a human being a reflection is not company; but for a budgerigar it appears it is. It follows therefore that the lesser brain is susceptible to other pressures, and is perhaps more easily protected from some that would be infinitely damaging to human beings. I

1719
say this at the outset by way of preface since it shows in a small way that animals perceive their environment differently from us and the environment reacts upon them in a manner different from that in which it reacts upon us.
Pain is one of those reactions and it is next to impossible to measure the intensity of pain in any human being other than oneself. How very much more definitely impossible is it to measure it in animals. One can I think say that as the life span of an animal is shorter than that of a human being, so the span of the passage of time in which the animal is acutely perceptive, whether pleasurably or painfully, whether hunting or hunted, must seem proportionately greater as well. The animal's intensity of perception, therefore, is to that extent and in those terms perhaps greater than in human beings. With this limited understanding of the nature of pain in animals, we have then the welfare of these animals given to us in trust.
Let us not forget that we have also the welfare of human beings in trust. And this is where the difficulties begin. If I might briefly touch on the difficult areas encompassed by this Bill, they are as follows. There is first the difficulty, which the noble Baroness has sought to overcome in the wording of her Bill, of deciding exactly what a cosmetic is. I feel that there are borderline cases, inevitably, within the definition she has placed in the Bill. If a soap is sold as a beauty soap it is a cosmetic, and presumably if it is sold as a medicated soap it is a medical preparation. What about the medicated beauty soap? What about anti-dandruff shampoos? Is curing dandruff, which normally is not in any way dangerous or even undignified but perhaps socially embarrassing, a cosmetic or a medical operation? So the first difficulty (and I do not want to delay your Lordships because many of you wish to discuss this Bill now and we presumably have a Committee stage ahead of us) is the difficulty of definition.
The next difficulty, which the noble Baroness touched on, is what are the properties of a cosmetic when it is misused by accident? I suggest there is a third outcome to the minor accident which she presented to your Lordships—the unlikely event of a small child (and these events, though unlikely, are con-
1720
stantly happening) eating a large quantity of lipstick. It can, she said, either come up or go through in the normal manner; I think that that is how she expressed it. What concerns me is that the lipstick might be allowed to be digested in the normal manner by parents who think that it is totally harmless because they bought it as a cosmetic sold under the pharmaceutical regulations which this Bill impinges upon, and they may not know that shortly or long after the digestive process had been completed the signs of damage will begin to be seen. I shall refer shortly to a parallel and frightening instance, but I do not want to anticipate what I have to say. I think we wish to know that, if baby sees mother's complexion milk and confuses it with ordinary dairy milk and drinks it, baby is not going to be seriously at risk. If we are not sure of that then of course cosmetics as well as medicines must be kept on that already overcrowded shelf out of baby's reach—and it is extraordinary how high babies can climb.
I take the noble Baroness's point that there are long-established firms with a tradition of producing harmless and even beneficial cosmetic preparations which are convinced that nothing they sell can possibly be harmful. I am sure that, if they continue to use the present ingredients, that will continue to be the case. But are Messrs. Boots and Messrs. Yardley's (since the noble Baroness mentions them) committed irretrievably to a policy of never expanding the range of their products, never using new ingredients? And what about other firms? Are they to produce only preparations that are constantly in use? I am informed that there is a constant difficulty in the cosmetic industry in the selection of colourants. Substances put into cosmetics in order to change and improve tone, reflectivity or colour, are constantly being brought on to their specialised market and their effects on the users cannot be known until some tests are carried out.
If your Lordships feel so strongly that these tests should not be carried out on animals—I am thinking more of tests for involuntary ingestion than the application of creams and unguents—I wonder whether your Lordships feel strongly enough to drink the stuff yourselves, because the principal alternative to the

1721
guinea-pig is a human being. Noble Lords are human beings and this would be a demonstration of the strength of their convictions. I would further say that of course until there is harmonisation internationally among all countries in the world which produce these preparations, we shall simply be saying to importers and sellers of cosmetics: "If you sell something which is produced in the United Kingdom (and not by a subsidiary of a company abroad, which so many companies are), you are buying something which may not be safe, and selling something which may not be safe. You are selling something for the selling of which you may be at risk in law. Whereas, if you buy it from the United States of America, or any other country with a statutory system of testing of cosmetics, then you are buying something which is safe and you will not be prosecuted." This is an aspect of the Bill at which the noble Baroness should look closely.
I do not want to expand at great length. Your Lordships should consider also the fact that cosmetic preparations are used for a great length of time. I am not very familiar with these matters, but I have the impression that noble Baronesses tend to fix fairly early in life on a favoured product and continue to apply it to the human body or any part thereof which they feel will be benefited by it. Therefore, the argument that because something has been on the market for two or three years it must be safe does not hold good. Here may I refer to the case I talked about earlier—to the substance known as hexachlorophane, which was developed in the United States and subsequently used world-wide. This is not a perfect analogy, because it was developed as a clinical aid. It was developed as a bactericide for surgical scrubbing. Therefore, the users came under the protection of legislation in the United States and elsewhere, which meant that these things had to be tested. I understand it was so effective that it was incorporated in other preparations, and among them was a baby care preparation which was used in France. Owing to a mistake in the factory, the very small proportion—I think it amounted to 3 per cent.—of the hexachlorophane which should have been used in this preparation was drastically in-
1722
creased. The result was that through neurological indications it became clear that the babies who had been cared for with this preparation were suffering damage to the white cells of the brain.
If this cleaning agent had not originated as a bactericide and some analogous substance—such as a cosmetic claiming no medical benefit whatever to users and going into beauty soap, and falling, therefore, into the channel from which the noble Baroness wishes to remove this kind of protection—was put on the market, the first indication one would get of its harmfulness in small quantities would be in the results upon the users, be they children born or unborn. It is possible for substances—and hexachlorophane is one of them—to be absorbed through the skin into the system and to affect the unborn child. I feel, therefore, that the noble Baroness must consider very carefully the responsibilities that the passage of this Bill will place upon your Lordships if it is given the effect of a Statute.
In conclusion, may I echo what has been said in the earlier debate, and remind your Lordships of the Littlewood Committee Report which has been with us now for 10 years. There were 83 specific recommendations, 49 of which required legislation but only two of which have been put into effect—and those through administrative means. I believe that the Committee was right to recommend that if this network is to be altered it should be altered not piecemeal but intact. I foresee the occasion when I shall have to use the same analogy in another debate which is to take place later in this Chamber, but I do not think you can catch a fly by using part of a web. To take a little piece of the existing Statute and alter it to give a different effect will in this case have unforeseen consequences, not all of them beneficial.
At the moment, we should be asking Her Majesty's Government two pertinent questions. The first is: what steps have they taken and what plans have they now, in the light of the Report which was made 10 years ago, for altering the legislation? The second question is: have the Government attended to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sandys at this Dispatch Box in the earlier debate, drawing their attention to the growing volume of information on the availability of tissue

1723
culture experiments to replace experiments on living animals? This is a fruitful field in which eventually—and in the not too distant future—it may be possible to remove from the admittedly grotesquely unpleasant field of experimentation the animals which are at present sacrificed, your Lordships may feel, upon the altar of human vanity.
However, I believe that the improvements which can legitimately be pursued by the noble Baroness—that is, the improvements which do not expose human beings to risk; and we must recall that in the last analysis human beings are more precious and important than animals—can be as well pursued under existing legislation. And if she wishes to hammer on the door, whichever door it is, which on being opened can release new legislation to update that which we have and which she at present seeks to amend piecemeal, she will have many willing and well justified supporters. In the meantime, however, while profoundly in sympathy with the aims of this Bill, I would wish to see it in a form very different from that in which it now is, before I could recommend your Lordships to accept its final version.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him two short questions? When he says that animals react differently from human beings to captivity or to pain, am I to understand that he is putting these points forward as assumptions or as scientific fact?
Lord ELTON: No, my Lords. As I think I made clear, I said that these are assumptions. I said that the measurement of pain, even in human beings, is almost impossibly difficult, and in animals which cannot speak it is worse. One can measure reactions, but that does not mean that one is measuring feeling. I was trying to avoid being drawn into the anthropomorphism which we are so fond of, where we think that the animal which is being pursued is thinking about its insurance policy and whether the mortgage is paid up, immediately before the wolf snaps upon its back.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord for clarification of one matter? In the case of hexachlorophane,
1724
I thought his argument was that it had been tested because it was introduced as a bactericide in America. This did not prevent the accident from happening. What inference does he draw from that, if it is not that the testing was quite irrelevant or ineffective?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful intervention, because I telescoped the story somewhat. I understand that the substance was originally introduced around 1930 when the structure of statutory testing was not complete. Also, I tried to say that it was only a partial analogy. However, it clearly shows the kind of dangers which can arise. The testing system was not then complete. However, I understand from reliable conversational sources that tests have been carried out relatively recently on the substance in the United States, that the danger was known in the United States, but that that knowledge had not penetrated to France at the time when the accident occurred. I do not wish to build a great complicated structure of argument on a particular case. All I wish to do is adduce the principle, and what I have said is, I think, sufficient to do that.
11.58 a.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I feel that I should begin with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who has been conducting Question Time for the last few moments so well! If I may first deal with a point he himself raised about the use of tissue cultures, I am advised that there are still many areas where these will not serve, but where they can serve they are preferred. If I may deal first with the speech which has been made by my noble friend Lady Phillips, as she said this is the second occasion in only seven weeks when your Lordships have debated the subject of experiments on living animals. The last occasion was when we had a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, calling attention to abuses of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. We are in debt to my noble friend for having given us another opportunity to debate this important topic this morning. I should like to say at the outset that the Government recognise that the

1725
motives of my noble friend are wholly laudable. There is no question of anyone attempting to label her as a crank. Where we differ from her—and I am afraid that we do—is on the question of whether the experiments on animals to which her Bill applies are so objectionable that they should be outlawed entirely from the field of legitimate scientific research, or whether there exists a sound justification for such experiments.
Section 3 of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 limits the experiments which may be licensed under that Act to those performed with a view to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or knowledge which will be useful for saving or prolonging life, or alleviating suffering, or for testing such a discovery. The intention of this Bill is to exclude from the scope of that Act experiments which are performed solely in the course of the development or testing of a cosmetic preparation as defined in the Bill.
At first sight there might seem to be much to commend this. We have heard a good deal about experiments involving the subjection of substantial numbers of animals to indignity and death for the development of a new lipstick or face cream. The use of cosmetics, it is argued, is an entirely voluntary act of mankind. Why, it is asked, should animals pay a penalty for this use? If mankind, or womankind, is not prepared to exercise restraint in the use of cosmetics, then let him, or her, take the risk. So runs the argument. But I am afraid there is more to it than that. This Bill is based on two assumptions. The first of these is that it is really possible to identify certain substances which are cosmetic preparations having no medical purpose, and to draw a distinction between these substances and all others. The second assumption is that experiments involving the use of animals can properly be outlawed in the case of certain substances, in this case cosmetic preparations having no medical value.
The Government's view is that both of these assumptions are mistaken. It is easy enough to compare the great life-giving drugs, which have alleviated so much human pain and suffering, with the frivolities of a beautician's parlour. But there is a borderline where the distinc-
1726
tion is much harder to make, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to this. Take the case of medical shampoos and dental preparations, where the cosmetic and medical functions overlap. Or the case of disfigurement, where the use of a wide range of cosmetics is the only means of enabling the sufferer to lead a normal life without crippling psychological stress. The noble Baroness may say that her Bill is expressly confined to the preparations which have no medical purpose. But how is that to be determined? A Bill of this kind must be drafted without ambiguity, and I think it is clear from the examples I have already given that any attempt to define these preparations by reference to the purposes they may serve is calculated to lead to unpredictable results and endless anomalies.
But there is a greater danger to this aspect of the Bill. I feel bound to point out to your Lordships that the Bill would put both experimenters and those concerned with the administration of this branch of the law in an extremely invidious position. Experimenters would constantly be tempted to advance some medical function for the substance being developed or tested. Administrators would be faced with the new and difficult task of assessing the justification of such a claim. The Bill is objectionable, therefore, in that the attempt to define "cosmetic preparation" by reference to functions will not only produce anomalies but will also open the door to widespread evasion. As a result, the effect of the Bill is likely to differ considerably from the promoter's intentions.
A more serious objection to the Bill is its assumption that it is the supposed medical purpose of a substance being tested which justifies an experiment. The acceptance of such an assumption would lead to a damaging restriction on the advancement of an important branch of public medicine. One of the great developments in medicine over the last century or so has been the emergence of preventive medicine, on which our public health procedures are based. The most recent feature of this development is in the field of consumer protection. All countries are now insisting that new products should be properly tested for safety in various ways before they are released to the public. This extends to other substances as well as new drugs

1727
and we can expect these requirements to grow stricter, not only in this country but internationally.
The philosophy of this Bill is that if manufacturers develop new cosmetics and the public want to buy them they must jointly share the risk. They are to be deprived of the best method of ensuring that a product will not cause harm. I find it difficult to believe that your Lordships will allow the possibility of exposing the public to such a risk when the means of preventing it exist. The risk will not, of course, be confined to those who use the product in full knowledge of the risks involved. The fact is that even among users there will be no knowledge of the risk until, as the noble Lord indicated, it is too late.
Even more important—and my noble friend Lady Phillips has attempted to anticipate this point being made—we have to remember the potential danger to children that a wide range of household products, including cosmetics, may present. I can best illustrate this by making reference, as my noble friend did in her speech, to the work of the National Poisons Information Service. The service began operating in 1963. In the first year of its existence it dealt with about 2,000 calls for information about the nature and treatment of incidents of poisoning. By 1974 this figure had risen to 20,000. Approximately two-thirds of these inquiries originated from incidents with children and about 800 of these referred to cosmetics. Fortunately, with this group of products there were no serious consequences. But we could not be sure that this happy outcome would continue if appropriate tests were made unlawful.
While the majority of the inquiries to the National Poisons Information Service arose from misplaced and accidental use of cosmetics—as when small children swallow face creams, lipsticks, mascara, hair dressings and skin lotions and so on—there remain other potential hazards from repeated use, ranging from irritation to the risk of creating allergies to those of precipitating cancer, hazards against which precautions must be taken by appropriate tests in animals. If we are not prepared to legislate to forbid the use of cosmetics, then we cannot deprive the manufacturers and the general public of the best safeguards against possible
1728
hazards that are known. Indeed, it goes further than that. If harmful substances get on to the market they will, at the very least, give rise to skin conditions and possibly more serious consequences. The development of medical preparations to remedy these conditions may well involve experiments using animals. What can be the logic of permitting animals to be experimented on for the purpose of producing a cure, but forbidding them being experimented on to prevent the circulation of the substance which causes the disease?
My Lords, I am not advancing a new argument. The Littlewood Committee on Experiments on Animals, which sat from 1963 to 1965, also considered this subject and reached precisely the same conclusion. In paragraph 266 of their Report, the Committee expressed the general view that,
"… we think that it is in any case undesirable as a general principle arbitrarily to determine that particular kinds of purpose should never be served by animal experiments whether or not they involve stress or pain ".
My Lords, our debate today is about restricting the use of animals to test and develop cosmetic preparations. But if the only justification for using animals in research is the serving of a direct medical purpose, then we shall be faced with a series of Bills excluding animal experiments in such fields as pesticides and food additives. One of the more encouraging recent developments is the readiness of authorities throughout the world to insist on higher standards of consumer protection. This Bill runs directly counter to that development. It would have the effect of putting this country in the rear, instead of in the van, of progress. This Bill will not halt the research at which it is aimed. It will merely drive it, and the business based on it, abroad, so that the rigorous tests for consumer protection, involving the use of animals, as the noble Lord pointed out, which other countries require can be complied with. The experiments will then be taking place in countries where the standards for the protection of animals from pain and suffering are often a great deal lower than our own.
The Government of course share the concern of the noble Baroness and those who support this Bill for the welfare of

1729
animals. But we believe that the principles outlined in the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 strike the right balance between the needs of man and the prevention of unnecessary suffering to animals. In our view it would be a retrograde step to narrow the scope of the existing law in the way proposed by this Bill. For the reasons I have given, I am afraid that the Government will be unable to assist in any way with further progress on this Bill.
12.10 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I did give notice to the noble Baroness that I would have a word on her speech. I had not realised that the noble Lord was rising to close the debate.
Several Noble Lords: No.
Lord HALE: Frankly, my Lords, he did not give me much time. I am a little slow in getting up and—
Several Noble Lords: He was not closing the debate.
Lord HALE: Well, winding up, then.
Lord ST. JUST: That is not so.
Lord HALE: Well, he seemed to me to be giving a judgment of death: no assistance, no help, no anything. I had intended to go over one or two matters that were concerning me. I think one of them was mentioned by the noble Lord on the Benches opposite; that is, the question of surgical cosmetics, and cosmetics used in aid of surgery, of which I had some experience and knowledge at Roehampton, which dealt with some of the most suffering and noblest victims of the Great War. That is only a matter of flailing words and indeed must of the criticism that I have heard up to now is a matter of flailing words. I have some concern for an increasingly rare animal which is to be found only in Chancery Lane and which used to be called a Solicitor and which now faces Bills passing through this House—and indeed animals Bills passing through this House.
We have had a salmon Bill almost every year in the 30 years that I have been in Parliament, and every year my tin of salmon has cost more. At this moment we have a wild creatures Bill and a wild flowers Bill, and so on. We are
1730
going to have policemen searching for the blue butterfly in the Highlands and the natterjack toad in the suburbs—surely to the detriment of people who are liable to be mugged. One has to draw a balance. Even now on the television screen we can see dreadful crimes being perpetrated, like walking behind the bowler's arm, with complete impunity and apparently without any interference from the people who are present.
Lord PLATT: My Lords—
Lord HALE: My Lords, this is not a matter to be facetious about, The noble Lord on our Front Bench has treated it as a matter of great gravity and great danger.
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might intervene? Will the noble Lord give way? There has already been an attempt to intervene. I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. I think the noble Lord believes that he has leapt into the gap that exists between the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Baroness Lady Phillips, at the end of this debate. He is in fact speaking third in the debate and there are nine other people waiting to speak after him. Therefore I hope the noble Lord, perhaps with the leave of the House, would come in later at the gap or would conclude his address to this Chamber very briefly because he is in fact entirely out of order.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I am not aware of the Order under which it is out of order, but I have listened to a lot of out of order matters going on today and indeed a very grave offence by the Leader of the House.
Lord PLATT: My Lords—
Lord HALE: My Lords, I only rose, to conclude briefly—
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, will the noble Lord be so kind as to give way for a moment? I think the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is a very reasonable one, and I would seriously ask my noble friend Lord Hale if he would allow the debate to proceed. He does not have to forgo his opportunity to intervene in the debate; he can certainly join in, but I

1731
would suggest that instead of continuing with his speech now he waits until the last speaker before my noble friend Lady Phillips sums up and then makes his contribution. I should be very grateful if he would accept this suggestion.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I was just saying that I was doing that.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
12.14 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of MANCHESTER: My Lords, I claim no special knowledge of the subject of experiments upon animals, but am emboldened by the opinion of the Littlewood Committee that:
" animal experiment is a moral and social problem which does not exclusively concern the expert ".
Therefore, it may not be inappropriate for someone from this Bench to express support for the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. Indeed, it may be that there is a note of reparation implicit in such an intervention by a Churchman—although not, I may say, a personal reparation—for it has been said that in the past cruelty to animals has been, if not encouraged, at least condoned by the teaching that whereas human beings have souls animals do not, and are therefore, so to say, entirely subservient to or expendable for human use. Your Lordships will not wish me to become involved in a theological argument, but it seems to me a more Christian temper in our own age that stresses human solidarity with other living creatures, and indeed with creation as a whole, than our division from them. Did not some earlier thinkers overlook the fact that inhumanity towards what were called "the lower animals" could have a brutalising effect upon human nature itself and thus encourage inhumanity to man?
At any rate, while gladly acknowledging that many medical benefits have accrued to us from animal experiments, I also note that in the century since the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, two things have occurred: experiments on animals have multiplied tenfold—and for many different purposes, by no means all therapeutic—and at the same time our capacity for maiming and killing human beings has likewise grown on a scale which defeats imagination. If "reverence for
1732
life" is to be a saving slogan in our generation, it may have to begin with quite modest yet definite steps, such as the banning of animal experiments simply designed to test cosmetics.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has reminded us that interest in animals and concern for their welfare is a particularly British characteristic, and we are rightly warned against accompanying sentimentality about animals which might remain indifferent to human suffering. But, my Lords, unnecessary cruelty is sometimes the other side of the coin to sentimentality, and where that is so we have the worst of both worlds. To read some of the details of the "Draize" methods of testing—eye damage, skin damage and forced feeding of animals—suggests to me that either the majority of people in this country are quite unaware of what is being done ostensibly for their benefit, or if they are aware then they are not willing the means to bring about the end they desire. For public opinion surveys made last year indicated that 73 per cent. of the electorate disapproved of cosmetics and toilet preparations being tested on animals. Ought there not then to be legislation that would give some shape to this no doubt vague disapproval?
I feel sure that some of your Lordships occasionally watch, as I do, those glamorous moments on television which advertise this or that brand of cosmetics—as often for men as for women, be it said. Without looking for unreliable atrocity stories, might it not sometimes be beneficial if the viewers could see, instead of those delightful and usually irrelevant fantasies, some of the actual processes involving monkeys, rabbits or rats by which the product has been tested? If such a note of realism were injected into our consciousness, even for a few days, I feel reasonably confident that questions would at least be asked about present practices that are taken for granted. Would there not be a considerable volume of opinion in favour of asking the Government for more information about the extent to which they have commissioned research on the development of alternative methods of testing cosmetics, which do not involve the infliction of pain on animals? The human ingenuity which can devise so many ways of flattering our vanity could (it may be argued) equally well be devoted to ways in which we ourselves were

1733
able to test these products safely and reliably, without recourse to the suffering or death of other living creatures.
My Lords, I once heard it said—and the saying has haunted me ever since—that if animals believed in the devil he would look remarkably like a human being. Far be it from me to impute diabolical motives or methods to those who take part in animal experiments today. Nevertheless, the use on a very large scale of other creatures, not for our necessary health but simply for our supposed adornment, seems to me closer, if I may say so, to the diabolical than to the divine. I hope the passing of this Bill might strike a blow for the awakening of our consciences to that idea.
12.20 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I can scarcely express my pleasure at listening to the speech made just now by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. How infrequently the ethical or moral issues are dealt with in debates on this subject. It is extraordinary that on other moral issues—marriage, divorce, sex, abortion, capital punishment—the theological arguments are listened to with great care, and are expressed frequently and at length. But on this question, if one dares to express the kind of feeling expressed by the right reverend Prelate, it is called sentiment. We are told we must not be sentimental. Underlying the whole debate is the harsh reality of human selfishness and commercial profit. I shall dwell on this a little later.
But, first of all, with great deference, I wish to comment on our procedure. I should have thought it would be customary, when a Private Member introduces a Bill into your Lordships' House, that the official spokesman for the Opposition and the Minister on the Government side would listen to some of the arguments about the Bill before coming in with an ohiter dicta from the Opposition, and the Home Office brief from the Government Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Hale was obviously under a misapprehension a moment or two ago. He thought that when the Opposition spokesman had finished and the Minister had spoken, that this was in the custom of the matter to wind up the debate, but in your Lordships' House it appears
1734
to open the debate, leaving those of us who follow with little opportunity to influence the minds of those who are in possession of greater influence and authority.
My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, for whom I have the highest regard, has now spoken. It just does not matter what we say; he has spoken. He is not, in fact, asking the permission of the House to speak again. The final speeches in this debate are being made from the Back-Benches, where in fact the debate began.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it might be appropriate for me to intervene yet again to justify the arrangement made on this side of the House. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, listened with sufficient attention to notice that in conclusion I said something slightly ambivalent, to the effect that I would not recommend the Bill to go forward in its present form, but considerably altered. I thought it better to have an open mind, and to criticise this at the Committee stage, than to come to a hasty conclusion on an open question immediately after hearing a series of complicated arguments. I made this decision deliberately. I have advanced the reasons for doing it, although, of course, the noble Lord may not find them sufficient.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but if I may say so with respect, it would have been better to have heard about his open mind a little later in the debate, so that those of us who are hoping against hope to influence the minds of those in a position to do something, could have had the opportunity of putting forward our views in the first place. However, that is all I want to say on that.
My Lords, no matter what is said against it, I shall support the Second Reading of this Bill on the well-established practice in your Lordships' House of supporting the Second Reading of a Bill one does not wholly agree with. This seems to be the form in your Lordships' House. One can come to the practical details of a Bill after the principle has been accepted. In any case, I think it is desirable for this House to register a positive view on this aspect of the

1735
matter, and the only way of doing so is to give this Bill a Second Reading.
As has already been explained, this Bill takes certain experiments and procedures out of the cover and the licence of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. If they are taken out of the disciplines and conditions of that Act, where do they go? As I understand it, they would then be matters to be dealt with in the normal courts of law relating to cruelty to animals, which presumably would be under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. I am not at all sure that that would be satisfactory. I would wish to see this sector of experimentation on living animals taken out of the 1876 Act but put under new disciplines, or alternatively, the 1876 Act amended or enlarged to put this sector of experiments under new controls and disciplines. Surely by now we are willing to accept that much that is done in the field of cosmetics, toiletries and substances in efficacy testing and quality testing does not really come within Section 3 of the 1876 Act.
My Lords, the 1876 Act has been quoted frequently, yet since it is the text under which the whole debate is to take place, it is worth while reminding your Lordships that Section 3 of the 1876 Act provides that:
" … certain restrictions are imposed by this Act with respect to the performance on any living animal of an experiment calculated to give pain, that is to say, an experiment must be performed with a view to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or knowledge which will be useful … for saving or prolonging life or alleviating suffering …".
Many sins have been committed against animals under the provisions of that section of the Act of 1876. It has been said more than once that in the whole century of the operation of this Act, there has never been any test of that construction of words taken to a court of law. No judge has ever had to construe those words, because no case has ever gone to the courts for that to be done. Under this Act, one cannot take proceedings against another person who is undertaking research, except by permission of the Secretary of State. He has not permitted any prosecution, so far as I can trace, to be taken against a person licensed under the 1876 Act.
I do not mention that as a reproach, but state it as a fact because it has been
1736
believed by successive Secretaries of State that other disciplines can be imposed on those who operate under this Act, which probably would be more effective than taking proceedings. Licences can be withdrawn, and licences have been withdrawn. But the fact remains that if this goes on—and many of us object deeply —under the cover of what I believe to be a misconstruction of the terms of the Act, then there is only one course of action left; that is, to proceed against the Home Secretary. Many of us would be reluctant to make this a conflict between the citizen and the Minister, and I am not uttering any threats in this connection at all. I am merely indicating that, short of that kind of proceeding against the Home Secretary, there is no means by which we can seek reforms within the machinery of the 1876 Act, and we are feeling rather helpless in connection with it.
We know that the Home Secretary has granted licences and certificates for many of these experiments to be conducted, although, on the construction of the Act, I think some doubt could be held as to whether they were within the terms of the Act. We also know that under various Acts of Parliament some substances have to be tested by law. One is the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956, and another the Medicines Act 1968. But only if therapeutic or medicinal qualities are claimed for a substance is mandatory testing required, and then we come to this problem of definition.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Harris that an Act of Parliament must be precise, and I doubt whether the definition in this Bill is precise enough. I do not, however, accept the conventional argument that is put forward ad nauseam in Ministerial letters, that it is impossible to distinguish between a cosmetic and a therapeutic substance. The law has to attempt very difficult definitions in many different circumstances. Consider, for example, the definitions under purchase tax; consider definitions under selective employment tax, value-added tax, and, let me say definitions under the Medicines Act 1968.
Under the Medicines (Exemption from Licences) Food and Cosmetic Order 1971, foods and cosmetics not used wholly or mainly for medicinal purposes are exempted from the Act, and therefore

1737
manufacturers of exempted products are under no statutory obligation to test products on animals. So there you have a definition to start with. That is, in a sense, a negative definition. If one is looking for a positive definition then I believe that the Department of Health and Social Security has had a shot at this, as follows:
"' Cosmetic' means any substance or preparation intended to be applied to the various surfaces of the human body including epidermis, pilary system, and hair, lips and external genital organs, or the teeth and buccal mucosa wholly or mainly for the purpose of perfuming them, cleansing them, protecting them, caring for them or keeping them in condition, modifying their appearance (whether for aesthetic purposes or otherwise, or combating body odours or normal body perspiration."
That is a fuller definition of "cosmetic" than appears in my noble friend's Bill, but it is an official one. It is not an amateurish effort to define a cosmetic.
There is, in addition, the fact that cosmetics, as defined, are not exempted from the requirements of the Act if curative or remedial claims in relation to a disease are made. This has a bearing on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, namely, "How do you distinguish between a shampoo which is a cleanser, and a shampoo which is a dandruff cure or preventative? "This all goes into the detail, and this definition says:
" Cosmetics, as defined, are not exempted from the requirements of the Act if curative or remedial claims in relation to a disease are made, or if they contain any antibiotics or proportionately more than 0·004 per cent. of any hormone, or more than 1 per cent. of resoroinol."
Yet my brief—and I do not despise briefs; it depends where they come from and whether you like the look of them—goes on to say:
" The Home Office are totally unable and unwilling to distinguish between cosmetics and therapeutic substances."
In the light of what I have just read out, I am surprised that they are in such difficulty. They are not in difficulty when it comes to taxation, and other legislation, where they are required to have a definition so that a distinction may be made between one thing and another.
Nevertheless, we can leave the question of mandatory testing for the moment, and perhaps leave the definition of a cosmetic
1738
for the moment, because I think, being realists, we will agree that for his own sake, as well as that of the public, the wise merchant tests his wares as carefully as possible. He is open to civil action for damages if he places on sale a substance which causes harm to people, and as a result of some alleged negligence on his part he may inflict harm on someone who could claim compensation. But the question before the House this morning is not whether these substances should be tested, but how they should be tested; on what and on whom they should be tested.
It is gratifying to hear from various cosmetic manufacturers that increasingly they are turning away from testing their products on live animals, and are content to do it on human beings who volunteer in their laboratories for the purpose. This is a welcome sign. I mentioned in my speech to this House on 14th May that some manufacturers of cosmetics, well known brands and names in this country, would dispense with animals altogether were it not for the requirement in other countries, particularly the United States, who require certificates of testing on animals for various products before they will accept them as imports into their country. I mentioned that probably this is a question for consideration between Governments. In the American market alone it is said that 100 new substances, cosmetic products, are marketed every week.
Here I want to refer to the commercial aspect of this matter. There may be some substances which go in compounds, or in formulae, which have basic qualities or dangers. They may have elements of toxicity which will show themselves in whatever form, and in whatever compound, they are put. After all this time it should surely be known what are the danger substances, and what are not. Messrs. Boots, who manufacture very large quantities of cosmetics, have said that there is really nothing new in the basic substances of cosmetics used for human adornment, and so on, and that it is only a matter of the way in which they are put together and the qualities claimed for them when that is done.
I complain bitterly that there is no discipline here over what people are doing, and each firm pursues its own research. One finds this in the most

1739
obvious way in connection with the testing of tobacco which is going on at the present time. There is not one place or one agreed basis on which the tests should be done; they all want to have their own because they all want to come out in front. Gallahers and the Imperial Tobacco Group have their own separate researches going on in separate establishments on separate fees paid to separate commercial research stations.
All this is being duplicated so much because of the commercial and competitive element in what these companies are doing and your Lordships can imagine how one of these enormously rich tobacco groups wishes one day to be able to say, "We have the answer. We are in front," and this is sheer commercial competition. But on such a grave matter as an addiction, which is killing so many thousands of people every year in this country, one would have thought that central discipline, Government control, over research should be undertaken so that the whole community knows what is happening and work may be undertaken on behalf of the whole community and not get mixed up with competitive enterprise.
I do not want to dwell on this for too long, but one must consider the commercial nature of the research stations, which are growing in number and size. There is one research station I know of which has a turnover of about £3 million a year. It has a board of directors, the chairman of which gets £15,500 a year, and five other directors get £10,000 a year. They employ 900 people, and while it is an English company it is American-owned. This example can be repeated a number of times. I am going into this most carefully to see who is involved, who is running these organisations, and who is profiting by them, and I am sure that it will be interesting to see the results.
It is repugnant that these experiments should be conducted on living animals in the name of research, in the name of experiment, in the name of the discovery of new physiological knowledge and wholly for commercial purposes. When I see a letter from the Home Office on this subject I learn that this research is being undertaken" to meet a public demand "and to" contribute to a public benefit ". Bear in mind, my Lords, that a great deal of this public demand is
1740
generated by promotional, advertising and the other means which are adopted by the advertisers and promoters of commercial products. They wish to create the demand, and when they have created it they then wish to experiment more and more on animals in order to bring out more substances for this kind of commercial enterprise. I am not deriding this. I am simply saying that I do not think we are morally justified in putting so many animals through so much agony, or at least discomfort, for the purpose of human pride or consumer expenditure
I will not weary the House by detailing the enormous amount of material that is available in the several fields of toxicity testing. There is oral toxicity, skin irritancy, skin sensitisation, eye irritancy and inhalation toxicity of aerosols. Are we not moved by the fact that some animals are obliged compulsorily for periods on end to inhale hairspr y. and the Americans, we now learn, are about to ban the aerosol? Yet this is used in our laboratories. Eye irritation is a particularly distasteful form of experiment. I have particulars with me of mice which are fed with sucrose-rich powdered diets which tend to induce dental caries. These are Beecham's tests. The test toothpaste is brushed on to the animals' teeth. The brushing procedure consists of gently rotating a cotton bud coated with toothpaste in the animals' mouths. The animals are held in the hand during brushing, which takes three or four seconds, and this is repeated daily, and after three weeks on test the animals are killed with Co2 and small caries are detected microscopically.
I am told that the caries are not large enough "to cause any discomfort "to the living animal, and I gather that toothpastes are tested on human teeth but that the results are not as satisfactory as using live animals before an expensive clinical trial. Rats are injected with pilocarpine, a sweat-inducing compound, and beads of sweat are visualised under the microscope. To test the efficiency of antiperspirants, rats under nembutal anaesthesia are coated with a test anti-perspirant on one hind foot three, five and 24 hours after treatment. The rats are injected with pilocarpine and observed, and the difference in the mean sweating time between treated and untreated hind feet

1741
is measured to gather the antiperspirant efficiency. One could go on giving other examples.
I have occupied a much longer period that is justified, my Lords, and I now come to my own practical approach to this matter. I do not believe that this range of so-called experiments outside therapeutic and medicinal substances comes within the provisions of the 1876 Act. I do not think that they should be cast out of the 1876 Act, and left to find their own destination. I can think of many new problems which would arise if the disciplines of the 1876 Act were entirely removed.
A new approach should be made to this question within or outside the 1876 Act. These experiments are growing all the time. Noble Lords must realise that we will never be finished with these experiments, because even when substances have been tested and tested, they are still put down the throats of animals or are injected into their stomachs to prove efficacy or quality. It is a continuing process and the millions of animals used for this purpose will continue to be so used. What is needed is a reappraisal of what is happening here. How much of it is really necessary? How much of it can be co-ordinated? How much of it can be taken out of the field of commercial and competitive enterprise? I do not think that animals should be subjected to this treatment for the purpose of commercial profit. I recognise that substances will be manufactured for profit, but I do not agree that new substances should be invented, promoted and advertised for human consumption in the knowledge that they can go on being tested on animals until the end of time. Therefore a reappraisal of this activity is now overdue.
A few minutes ago the right reverend Prelate said that when people were asked in the street whether they were in favour of using animals for the testing of cosmetics, 73 per cent. said, "No ". Probably they do not fully realise how right they are. There is a feeling of increasing disquiet which we are entitled to have investigated. It is suggested that there may be difficulties in having fresh legislation. All Governments have very crowded legislative programmes, and
1742
many Governments wish to leave these difficult and delicate matters to Private Member's Bills, because they do not have the courage to promote such legislation themselves. They also know that it is much easier to knock down the inadequate drafting or the unsatisfactory content in a Private Member's Bill, as they have done this morning, rather than produce one themselves. They will say that a Private Member's Bill is badly drafted, that it does not do this, hut does that, and that it leaves out something else. It is as easy as anything to criticise Bills of this kind.
Therefore, if there is difficulty about getting legislation, can we not have the advisory committee more fully utilised than it is at present? It is within the province of the Home Secretary; he does not need an Act of Parliament to do this. He has enlarged the membership of the advisory committee and he has referred more matters to it. But he could refer many more, and he could reconstitute it and give it a properly serviced secretariat. He could provide expert assessors, and he could make the advisory committee a valuable instrument of advice to him in guiding his own actions under the 1876 Act. That is something which we can at least press upon the Home Secretary. In the meantime, the message I want to convey is in the Bill and I shall vote for it.
12.53 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords. I heartily support everything said by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I also support the right reverend Prelate who spoke before him and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in being so courageous as to introduce this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, very great commercial interests are involved in this matter. I understand that the cosmetic trade in this country amounts to an annual income of about £300 million, which is no small sum. I repeat the question posed by the noble Lord. Lord Houghton: are we really morally justified in allowing upwards of, I understand. 1 million animals to suffer pain, distress and death in order to support the cosmetic market in this country? My noble friend Lord Elton has had to leave the Chamber. He told

1743
me that he would have to leave, and I quite understand that. He said that he thought the noble Baroness was wrong in trying to amend the law piecemeal. But if the noble Baroness had to include in her Bill all the medical and non-medical experiments carried out on animals, I suppose it could take 30, 40 or perhaps even 50 years before such experiments were done away with. Mention has also been made this morning of tissue culture, and that will grow and grow. I have no doubt that one day—it is probably a long time ahead—vivisection carried out for medical purposes may be done away with.
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that it is nonsense on the part of the Home Office to say that you cannot define medical and non-medical experiments. The noble Baroness has been very mild in her approach to this matter. She has not included, for instance, floor polishes, detergents, weed killers, and many other non-medical substances, such as food dyes, et cetera. I understand that of all the experiments carried out on animals two-thirds are non-medical. That involves a great number of animals—I understand between 6 million and 7 million yearly. Such experiments are helping to create a market for cosmetics. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that every week 100 cosmetic preparations come on to the market in this country. Of course they are not all manufactured in this country; some are imported, no doubt from America. But this trade is to satisfy, I believe, 21 million female customers. There is also the question of cosmetics for men. I understand that here there is a growing market in such things as aftershave lotions and other preparations. I do not use such preparations personally, apart perhaps from a little something sometimes to keep my hair in place when I am in your Lordships' House; although I do not know whether my hair is in place at the moment. I am told that cosmetics for men is a rapidly growing market.
Government bodies have admitted that many animals are force-fed with these cosmetic preparations. What I object to—and I have raised this in previous debates—is the test which goes under the scientific term LD 50, which stands for lethal dose, with 50 per cent, of the
1744
animals killed within 14 days. I cannot understand why, if one wishes to test the toxicity of a cosmetic, one has eventually to give such a big dose that the animal is killed. Surely all that is required is an adverse effect. I cannot understand why an animal has to be forcibly fed until either it is killed or, if it survives, suffers great pain and then is presumably killed in any case by other means.
Another nasty aspect is that during these test animals are subjected to other unpleasant tests relating to their blood, their brain fluid and other similar matters. The only objects that I can see, of forcibly feeding animals with these substances to ensure that they will die, is to discover how much of these substances is required to commit suicide. But if one is intent on committing suicide, then one can do so by drinking enough of almost anything. One can commit suicide in many ways. If one drinks enough whisky one can presumably commit suicide by getting alcholic poisoning. I think that there is some illogicality here.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who said that for cosmetics it is absolutely essential to experiment on animals. I agree that what I am about to say has nothing to do with cosmetics, but thalidomide proved to be perfectly safe with animals, but we all know what happened when it was applied to human beings. We have cases of vice versa reaction. Take insulin and cortisone. When applied to animals they resulted in various deformities, but they appear to be safe in human beings. Therefore, the noble Lord's argument is not 100 per cent. Animals are not always a valid test. I can give plenty of examples. When we come to testing cosmetics in the eyes of animals—cosmetics such as shampoos, mascara and things like that—the Huntingdon Research Centre tried 10 different shampoos and instilled them into rabbit's eyes. One of these shampoos caused some of the rabbits to scream, but they all had convulsions. The interesting point is that they then tried a strong soap solution which was painful to human eyes, but apparently when applied to rabbits' eyes it had a mild effect. Therefore, again, it does not appear that these tests on animals are 100 per cent. accurate when applied to human beings.
I think that rather explodes the brief of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on this

1745
subject. I have not had the advantage of any brief, but I should just like to point that out. There are also, of course, very great differences between the various species of animals, and the reactions to tests of various individuals of any species also differ. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, touched on this point. I believe it is a fact that, on the whole, the manufacturers are not so concerned on the scientific validity of experiments, but are far more concerned with the legal aspect. In other words, they are really concerned, should one of their products damage a human being, to be able to say, "We tried this out on thousands of animals in our laboratories, where it was thought to be quite safe ". We cannot blame the scientists in regard to non-medical cosmetics. If we are to blame anyone, then I think it must be the manufacturers of these products, because I believe the noble Lord also mentioned that there are now alternatives. I understand that there are quite safe methods for testing skin lotions on humans.
I should like also to refer to the recommendations of the Littlewood Report. I have raised this matter in your Lordships' House on countless occasions. Why have the Government done nothing about this Report? It is really quite extraordinary. This excellent Report, produced in 1965, contained 83 recommendations, 40 of which could be implemented and two of which have been implemented—or so the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. Here we have an extraordinary position. We have the Government giving time for a Hare Coursing Bill which will preserve the life—for a short time perhaps—of 2,000 or 3,000 hares who will probably end up suffering a far worse death from gunshot wounds or snares, while the Government will not have a Bill to save the suffering of a million or more animals. It does not seem logical and I cannot understand their attitude.
My Lords, I should like to say a lot more but I shall not do so because I know that some noble Lords would like to go to lunch. But I should remind noble Lords that we ourselves are mammals, we are human animals, and some of us to a great extent—it depends on our experience of animals and our attitude towards them—may regard an animal just
1746
as we would regard a motor bicycle. But the noble Lord, Lord Elton—I think it was—stated what appeared to be a matter of fact about pain in animals, and about how much pain they feel, but it can only be an assumption. All I know is that the other day a dog of mine had to have his foot operated on, because he had wrenched a claw out of his toe. When I took him back to have the dressing off, he got to within 200 or 300 yards of the vet's house and started to whine and cry. It may be that he is a particularly sensitive dog, but from my experience of animals they can feel pain every bit as much as we can. Therefore, I will end by saying that though we claim to be the most civilised of the mammals,think that our treatment of animals leaves a great deal to be desired. So I heartily support the Bill of the noble Baroness, as I trust will your Lordships, and I hope that you will give it a Second Reading.
1.9 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, I am certainly not going to call the noble Baroness either a crank or a fanatic in a good cause, because it is a good cause. I am certain that my feelings about her attitude are the same as everybody else's. She is a good-hearted, kind-hearted Baroness and would like to see the lot of animals improved—and so would I; and so, too, would the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. But I have to reconcile some very real responsibilities in this matter—responsibilities which your Lordships share only at second-hand through legislation—by being responsible for these (shall I say?) sacrifices of 150,000 animals every year in the Institute of Cancer Research, which is a post-graduate teaching school at London University. You have to reconcile that with the fact that, as a matter of conscience, I will not eat pâté de foie gras because I am certain it inflicts unnecessary suffering on the goose. Having attended City dinners, I have a fellow feeling for it. I cannot commend the Bill because it is in danger of emptying the medical baby out with the cosmetic bathwater—whether bubble or otherwise, does not matter—and I will give my reasons for that later.
May I say I much regret having been unable to be present at the earlier Motion for Papers moved by the noble Lord,

1747
Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I studied it in detail in Hansard and tried to extract one or two themes from it which are relevant to our business today. There seems to be a climate of opinion developing which I feel I must challenge. One such opinion is that you may not employ animals for experimental purposes unless the results are of scientific value. I do not think the discovery that vinyl chloride monomer is carcinogenic is of great scientific value. Scientifically, it only adds one to an overlong list of carcinogens whose modus operandi we do not understand. But it is of tremendous social value when you think that workers are using vinyl chloride monomer in the course of making polyvinyl chloride plastic. So the fact that the result is not of scientific importance does not mean that it is not if importance generally.
The other trend I detect in the climate of opinion is that animals should not be used for frivolous purposes. I agree with that, if we can agree on what the frivolous purpose is. Two qualifications must be borne in mind: the purpose may be frivolous in some respects, but not in all. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, gave a very good example of the difference between vanity, wishing to beautify one's appearance, and the relief from mental suffering through having had one's appearance marred by disfigurement. He did not enlarge on this, though he might have done so, and I am going to do so. Scar tissue is at best a substitute for normal tissue, and it is more than normally liable to develop into a tumorous condition. It is more sensitive than ordinary tissue to carcinogens. The effect of this Bill if it became law in its present form is simply that if one of my colleagues at the Institute of Cancer Research suspected a cosmetic had a carcinogen in it, we would not be able to find out about it because we would not be allowed to carry out an experiment on an animal with a cosmetic. That would be terribly limiting. That is the main reason that I cannot support the way the noble Baroness has embodied her good intentions in the Bill.
As an example of a process being not always avoidable, if you dig down deep enough you will find at the levels of pre-Dynastic Egypt, 6,000 years ago carved slate pallets on which the beauties of those days mixed their powdered malachite and
1748
unguents in order to put green shading on the upper eyelids. A habit which has been going on for 6,000 years will not be dropped lightly. I shall not go into the question of whether women should or should not wear makeup. I have heard the matter argued in more than one way—Women's Lib takes a rather different view of the matter from Elizabeth Arden. The animal ethologists say that women wear adornments not to attract men but to intimidate other women. I shall not go into this argument either. All I am concerned with is that if the daughters of Eve have cosmetics on their dressing tables, then her granddaughters under the age of reason are liable to eat them, and we must know what is in these materials.
I would infinitely prefer legislation to require cosmetic manufacturers—I do not know whether they are under the same obligation as pharmaceutical houses—to declare the composition of their materials. I am not the least complacent or pleased at the current state of affairs in the cosmetic field, but I do not believe the proposed cure of the noble Baroness is the right one. On the moral issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I am very much with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I am not entirely in accord with the right reverend Prelate. I do not think here we have a choice between what is good and what is bad. We have a conflict of duties: our duty to animals and our duty to fellow human beings. We have made the Home Secretary the keeper of our conscience in this matter, so that what is permissible and what is not permissible is never in the hands of a self-interested party. That is the thought behind the act.
We are all a little uneasy that the keeper of our conscience is not responding as he should to some of the problems which have arisen in recent years. We have had our feelings harrowed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, about pilocarpine being put on the feet of rats. But I must tell your Lordships that I have been on a course of pilocarpine eyedrops to relieve a little tension in one of my eyeballs and, so far as I am concerned, what is good enough for my eyes is good enough for a rat's foot. I am not going to have my feelings harrowed by that example. This is an emotive subject, where you can easily

1749
have your feelings harrowed. I am not happy about some of the experiments which involve tumbling rats in a cage in order to bring out stress syndromes. One of the cruelist things you can do to a mouse is to keep it in solitary confinement. Mice need other mice. This is one curious paradox. Animal lovers, a little boy with a pet mouse, subject it to great hardship by depriving it of the company of other mice. As Bertrand Russell once said, our lives should be inspired by love and guided by knowledge, and we need both if we are going to look after animals properly.
I want to see more protection for animals, not necessarily this kind of protection. I want to see a tougher Home Secretary, who, frankly, takes more interest in using his powers to see that objectionable experiments are if necessary mitigated. We have heard about animals having drops of detergent or shampoo poured in their eyes. If that is to be done to find out whether the contents of the drops have permanent influence, there is no reason why a local anaesthetic should not be added. It is up to the Home Secretary to say, "I am not going to give you a licence to do this unless you mix the material with an anaesthetic so the animal does not suffer ". This means taking more trouble over the job.
The answer is not another Act of Parliament, but more Parliamentary pressure on the Home Office. I believe with our present legislation we can do a lot. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that we do not want piecemeal handling of this subject. I want to see the whole matter properly treated. The Cruelty to Animals Act is nearly 100 years old—in fact even the spelling of "curare" has changed since the Act was drafted. Nobody had any idea in those days that the secondmost intelligent animal on the planet is probably the dolphin. The dolphins which your Lordships may be entertained by in a dolphinarium are not the common dolphin of the Mediterranean and general areas, for they do not survive the nervous shock of capture. The dolphins in a dolphinarium are from the Caribbean. Their natural life span is twenty-five years. That is shortened in a dolphinarium to five years because the dolphins are subjected to the pulmonary disorders to which we are subject, against
1750
which it has no immune system whatsoever. I want to see a lot more done on those lines. The special protection we afford to horses, sheep, goats, dogs and cats ought to be taken off the basis of sentimentality and put on the basis of science; the science of the nervous system: how nervously developed are these animals?
The Home Secretary ought to have the initial list scheduled and ought to have the power to add to it, in terms of new scientific knowledge, and so on. Everything is pinned round the concept of the vertebrate, but in fact since the Act was drafted we have learned that the higher invertebrates, the higher molluscs, the octopuses, and so on, are highly intelligent, with highly developed nervous systems—intelligent enough to recognise the letters of the alphabet. This argues a highly-developed nervous system.
Of course, to some extent, common sense must be brought into the argument. For instance when you are testing something for safety, you do not test arsenic or cyanide of potassium for safety: you know they are deadly poisons. You test for safety on the presumption that what you test is safe, because these tests cost a lot of money. So, if it is safe, as you hope, nothing very much happens. I quite agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, about the unnecessary provision of the LD 50s on things like cold cream, and so on. I believe this to be quite unnecessary. This, again, is a matter of consumer protection which has to be worked out. But what is the largest dose of cold cream that a child is likely to swallow from its mother's dressing table as a percentage of its own body weight? If you gave that much to a mouse or rat, varying it over the species, and the animal survived, I should have thought you knew as much as you needed to know about the lethal characteristics of cold cream.
However, I must come back to this danger of carcinogenesis. It is part of the essence of things like lipsticks that they are used continuously and regularly, and it is of the essence of carcinogenic materials that it is their regular application which causes a tumour, or what we call cancer, to originate. The freedom of the scientist to test anything that is to come into regular contact with the human skin must be maintained. When we come

1751
to the question of alternatives, I can only repeat what I have said many times before in your Lordships' House. Alternatives are cheaper and more reliable than the use of animals. The only limitation on the use of alternatives is where the animal is absolutely essential—because, as I think somebody once said, "There is no such thing as a pregnant test-tube." If you want to find out whether a chemical substance is teretogenic, you have to make your test on a pregnant animal—a primate—as closely allied to our species as possible. The terrible thalidomide tragedy was due to the fact that the concept of a non-toxic teratogen—all known teratogens were toxic—was just unimaginable: it was not believed that it could be thalidomide for a long time, for that reason. But now we know this can happen, everything has to be tested and we are demanding, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, more and more of this.
I see that the noble Lord is back again in his place, and I shall now wind up my speech by saying that I do not think either of the two Parties who face each other across this House have shouldered their responsibilities in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that they were scared, and I think he hit quite close to the gold. This is an emotional subject and nobody, of whatever political complexion, likes applying the Whips on such subjects. For instance, hanging was left to a free vote of the House. A Department with responsibility for implementing an Act is scared of having that Act mutilated in Committee by enthusiasts and then having the responsibility for administering it afterwards. So it does not want to apply the Whips yet it is scared of the consequences if it does not; and so it does nothing. That is why nothing has happened about the Littlewood Report for 10 years. I charge both Parties equally over this omission. They have funked instead of confronted the obviously awkward issues involved if we are to bring up to date our legislation for what I regard as our trusteeship over the animal kingdom.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Earl, whose speech I very much enjoyed, one factual question? He said that a great deal had to be done and then, almost in the same sentence, said:" it does not need legislation ". I think he meant that it does mean legislation on
1752
a big scale—a new Act—but not legislation on a piecemeal scale. Am I right in that?
The Earl of HALSBURY: The noble Lord is absolutely right.
1.26 p.m.
Lord BURNTWOOD: My Lords, the first part of the Bill does in fact rise against the trend of legislation on the Continent. That in itself is no bad thing because this country has always led the world in legislation, in effect providing the world with an example of the way to go about things and of the way in which we should progress. But the tendency on the Continent is to emphasise the consumer. When we boil things down to their elementals, the consumer is the child. Last year an enormous number of children were the subject of inquiries to doctors, and we feel that doctors themselves need guidance in order to help their patients and those in charge of patients. In America, far from limiting the pre-marketing testing of products, they are increasing testing legislation: so this Bill goes a long way towards reversing what the rest of the world is doing. I do not take the view that other countries—and I am talking chiefly of Continental countries—are more backward than we are in protecting animals, but at the same time we in this country are of a character which needs support from the world and should take into account what the world is thinking. The limitation of experiments on animals may mean an increase in danger to children. Indeed, were we in a better position to protect children regarding drugs which are kept in too many bathrooms, it would be a good thing; but we know that there are many dangerous drugs readily available in homes for children to absorb, and attempts are made from time to time to protect children.
We have here a Bill which is aimed at the very reverse: at least that will be its effect, it seems to me. I view the efforts of the noble Baroness as entirely praiseworthy. She has advanced her case in a modest way, but at the same time surely we should take into account the effect it may have if there is no possible replacement for animal testing, which is attacked by this Bill. Only a woman could move such a Bill, for the simple reason that, by and large, the cosmetic

1753
trade is largely, if not exclusively these days, one which is of interest to women. Therefore, for a man to attack cosmetics would be self-defeating.
We in this line of country recognise that, whereas the word "manufacture" does not appear in the 1876 Act or the present Bill, nevertheless by implication manufacture is safeguarded and workers are themselves subject to and protected by existing legislation. We are also concerned with the fact that we want to eliminate risk so far as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in an admirable speech, largely devoted to a criticism of the interventions at an early stage of both Front Benches, fell into a trap in the sense that he discussed danger but ignored the risk which we aim to eliminate from our lives. If we are to eliminate risk, we must find a replacement of the present system of animal experimentation. Nevertheless, in the present state of science, surely it is fair to assume that we cannot be sure on purely scientific experimentation of products. If we could eliminate animal testing in this way, so much the better, but we cannot.
If the public at large were not so gullible as they are; if people read the caveats on bottles and containers, we should feel happier, but we know that they do not. If for example, a child was capable of seeing the warning caveats on bottles, much of our anxieties would cease, but they cannot. As a result, testing has to be done before a product reaches consumer level. We therefore take the view, those of us who are in support of the noble Baroness in her Bill, that until a replacement of animal experimentation can be found which will eliminate all chance of risk, it must remain. I have always held the view that people who are of the school of thought which denotes or suggests that the public ought to know better are wrong. The public and the child population must be protected; and for this reason I hope that the Bill will not receive its Second Reading.
1.34 p.m.
Lord BROCK: My Lords, although basically I am opposed to any important limitation other than ordinary revision of the provisions of the 1876 Act, I am nevertheless attracted at first glance by
1754
the proposal that experiments or observations should not be permitted for the testing of cosmetic preparations. I acknowledge the desirable motives that have impelled the noble Baroness to introduce this Bill. I repeat that my own first reaction is towards supporting the Bill because, while animal experimentation employed to lessen human suffering and to advance and extend enjoyment of life and living is acceptable, the use of the law to permit the testing and preparation of cosmetics on the face of it seems unacceptable. This first simple reaction to the problem must affect many people in like manner, and reasonably so. But it is clearly necessary to examine the matter more carefully and to try to ascertain all the facts involved in the Bill, and whether what seems to be a commendable piece of legislation is in fact more complicated and could give rise to an undesirable situation or situations—in fact, whether it is as simple as it appears at first sight. I fear it has certain inherent drawbacks and disadvantages that could give rise to trouble that make it not desirable that it should be enacted.
The first point is that the animal tests of cosmetic substances there can be no from and additional to the 1876 Act, and they spring from later Acts of Parliament that command that certain tests must be done with the sole object of protecting the public. The legislation to effect this is not contained in the 1876 Act but involves later Acts. The requirements under these Acts are strict and precise and arise from the wisdom of Parliament, and that quite recently. We have a generalisation that the experiments, the tests laid down by Parliament, have no medical purposes, and the bedrock of this Bill is the implication that in dealing with cosmetic substances there can be no medical purpose. It is even maintained, and of course repeated in this House this morning, that only one out of three tests used and demanded on animals has any medical purpose, and that the others should be excluded as being non-medical tests. This could be a simple way out of the difficulty if it were feasible. But it cannot be substantiated, because it is difficult to define what is a medical and what a non-medical preparation.
It is surely certain that substances should be tested for any toxic effect they

1755
may have. It is essential for the protection of the user and of the public in general that any toxic effect should be known. Indeed, if there were no such control, no such protection and no tests to show how toxic or other harmful effects could be recognised and prevented, then there would be a violent public protest and public outcry. It is also important to know what harm can be caused by the misuse of cosmetic substances all of which, for example, seem to exercise a special attraction to children. It is not a sole question of protection of the users of cosmetics, but of the protection of others who use the products casually or inadvertently.
For example, each year produces a large number of calls on the National Poison Information Service, which was established in 1963 as part of the National Health Service. Doctors and others ring up for information on the possible ill-effects on little Tommy or little Mary, who has either used one of mummy's beauty preparations or even swallowed it when this was not intended. The Service can supply information about the poisonous or non-poisonous nature of the substance and what treatment, if any, is required. It has full records it can draw upon for this information. Several noble Lords have emphasised that in the first year of its existence it dealt with 2,000 calls, and by 1974 it was dealing with 20,000, two-thirds from incidents with children, and about 800 of these referred to cosmetics. Although this subject has been mentioned several times in the House today, I have no reticence in re-emphasising it because this Service and its experience are of such importance.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him? But he is such a distinguished expert and this point is very important. Many noble Lords have mentioned this particular Service. What they have not made clear is what kind of test is involved to get the piece of information just mentioned to be given to a doctor when a product contains poisonous substances. Is it necessary to have a test on an animal to determine that piece of information?
Lord BROCK: My Lords, I do not see how we are going to get the information fully and completely unless some
1756
tests have been made as to the toxic or poisonous nature of the substance.
There is great difficulty also in defining what is a cosmetic. It is in fact almost impossible to define it, and I doubt whether the definition proposed in Clause 1(2) would stand up to searching legal inquiry. It is superficially complete and an apparently successful definition, but it would not stand up to aggressive analysis. Many cosmetic substances are the basis of some kind of medical treatment. For example, many creams for the treatment of skin disorders also serve as the basis of cosmetic substances. Is it suggested that these should not be tested for any harmful effect that they may have? Even toothpaste may be classified as a cosmetic.
In addition to the accidental use or ingestion of cosmetics by small children, there exist other dangers from their use—especially from the repeated use of various cosmetics—such as irritation, the production of allergies and even the development of cancer. Precautions must be taken against these by the use of appropriate tests. If such testing were prohibited by law there would be a violent public outcry that no reasonable and proper precautions were being taken to protect the public from harmful substances.
As has already been mentioned by several noble Lords, it must also be remembered that for British goods to be exported to Europe, research and testing must continue if they are to be acceptable as approved substances. Without this testing they will not be allowed in. Other countries still have laws and regulations which are designed to give their public a degree of protection from harmful substances, and they will not allow the import of substances from Britain and elsewhere that have not been tested. In effect therefore, although at first sight this Bill appears to be acceptable and deserving of support, the true situation is very different. It could be a danger to health, and I maintain that it should not receive support.
1.42 p.m.
Lord de CLIFFORD: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordship's House may I say at once that I am in full support of the Bill of the noble Baroness. Before we arrived we all knew of the showers of chilly water which would be

1757
poured upon it by both Front Benches and also by noble Lords who are so involved in the actual happenings. In my view, that does not make the introduction of this Bill by the noble Baroness any less praiseworthy, since I feel it must be acceptable. The noble Baroness has done something which many of us should do. She has drawn attention once again to the Report of the Departmental Committee on experiments on animals which has now been outstanding for ten years, although hardly a ripple of interest has been shown in it.
As I ventured to mention in your Lordships' House during the earlier debate, the noble Baroness has drawn attention to the real basis of the matter which is in paragraph 237. I quoted it there in your Lordships' House, and I shall venture to quote it again:
" Who can say whether, if certain biological tests were forbidden, satisfactory chemical or other means of testing would not be developed? Who is responsible for establishing whether modern medical techniques, with emphasis on immunology and drug therapy, both of which are inseparable from animal experimentation, are developing medical practice in the right direction? Who is to take responsibility for moral or ethical judgments on the use of animals for experimental purposes as such? "
Certain noble Lords are prepared to take this decision, but I personally would need to think long and carefully about it. The Bill of the noble Baroness poses such a question. Let us suppose that it was forbidden to make experiments. Would not the industrial concerns—which are so involved in the vast commercial activities of the preparation of cosmetics, however you define them, whether as the noble Baroness has done or in some other way—be prepared to devote some of their vast resources to producing the same product in a different way? I am quite convinced that they would.
We have spent some time discussing this Bill from all kinds of angles and I do not propose to go very much further with it, except to thank the noble Baroness for introducing this Bill. If she and a number of other noble Lords and persons in another place could continually produce Bills like this and stir up the matter, we might get some action on the 82 or 83 recommendations of this Report and it might do some good to the animals
1758
which in their thousands are now suffering.
1.46 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Baroness who has introduced this subject—and also for being able to introduce it in 11 minutes, which was most laudable. We agree on most of the premises; we are all against cruel experiments. But I think we must ask the question point blank: Do we think that cruel experiments are being carried out in the testing of cosmetics? My only answer is, Yes, I think so. If that is so, one must realise that they are being carried out under the shelter of the Act of 1876 which exists to protect persons who are conducting animal experiments. This is just another sign that that Act is out of date. It was made at a time when commercial testing was not being considered. It was a matter of experiments by scientists who were working in medical schools and so on. Therefore, somebody is giving cover to these people.
Does not this at once point to the fact that the initial licensing procedure and the certificates which are given for the performance of certain experiments are being given too freely and are not being considered by any central body which meets regularly to consider, "Do we consider that such-and-such a type of experiment should be allowed under the Act?" I was a member of the Home Office Advisory Committee for 11 years. We met only five times in those 11 years. I do not know how many million experiments were conducted during that period, but we considered 24 cases. Largely these were cases referred to us by the Inspectorate. The Inspectorate is extremely important, but it has only limited power. If a person has a licence and certificates which have been signed by a competent professor and countersigned by the head of the Royal College, he is allowed to do those experiments. The inspector may say, "I would never have allowed you to do them ", but that is not his business. He has no power to do that. What he has the power to do is to say," You are doing experiments which you are not entitled to do under the particular certificate which you hold." That would indeed be a serious matter. I think that the noble

1759
Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, raised the point, among many others, that no case has ever reached the courts. That is because these experiments are being permitted. The people who are conducting them are not doing so against the law.
To me, therefore, the whole debate—I want to finish in a few minutes, but not just yet, on that note—shows the necessity for a new Act to replace completely the old 1876 Act, good though it was, in order to bring our thinking up to date. Above all, it requires a different kind of committee, which is prepared to sit regularly and, may I say, to be paid for it, if necessary, because the days when many wealthy people had plenty of time to spend on these matters are perhaps not over but are getting fewer and fewer. The committee must meet at regular intervals and, apart from matters referred to it, it should of its own initiative be considering all kinds of cases—how big the cages should be that the monkeys are kept in or, for that matter, beagles; should experiments be conducted for purely cosmetic purposes; can you separate cosmetics from the medicinal in every case?
These are very difficult matters. In spite of the strongly held views which have been declared in what I have been saying, the reason why I cannot give my wholehearted support to this Bill is because it involves definitions which cannot be made. It involves legislating on matters of biology, which is usually an impossible task. The only solution to questions as difficult as these—each and every case is different—is to have a regular meeting of a high-powered committee which can consider every aspect of the case on its own merits. I should hate to reject this Bill, and if it is your Lordships' wish that it goes through its Second Reading and on to the Committee stage, I should be quite happy. Nevertheless, while it is interesting legislation, it does not incorporate one-tenth or even one-hundredth of the things which I think are necessary, and I feel that I should probably abstain from voting.
I would end by pointing out to your Lordships, and above all to the Home Office, that almost every speaker was unanimous, although perhaps the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, were not quite clear, in wanting new con-
1760
sideration of the old 1876 Act almost certainly leading to new legislation. A Select Committee or a Royal Commission is not good enough: they would merely be delaying procedures. All the facts are known. Will the Home Office now start its new 1976 Bill to replace the 1876 Act?
1.55 p.m.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I would not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, about the new legislation which he considers necessary for the proper administration of the 1876 Act. But what is contemplated by this Bill would not interfere with that in the least degree. We are considering a much more limited problem; that is, whether experiments of this kind for the purpose of testing cosmetics ought to continue. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has said that these tests are necessary in order to protect the public, particularly children. Several speakers have emphasised that. He also brought in by way of analogy the fact that testing is required in the case of food additives. I entirely disagree with these propositions. It is not necessary to have these tests in order to protect the public, because the proposition that underlies this is that manufacturers are entitled to put upon the market food additives and cosmetics as they please. If the facilities for making such tests are not available, then the manufacturers are absolved from all evil consequences which may follow. I disagree with that proposition. It is not correct.
We have no need for any more cosmetics to be put on the market. The variety which is already available is enormous, and the constituents which are already known and approved can be recombined in so many different ways, if a slight variety is required. The public will not suffer if one of the results of this Bill is that the number of cosmetics will be diminished. It is not right to suggest that people are entitled to put poisonous substances on the market without taking adequate precautions to protect the public. It is their business to take precautions. It is not the business of the State to provide them with facilities for making tests on living animals, which are intrinsically repugnant to the feelings of all thoughtful and humane people.
1.57 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should first like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. At certain stages I began to say a small prayer, "Who needs enemies when you have friends like some ", as noble Lords rose and gave the Bill a welcome and then proceeded to say why they did not like it. But I cordially thank all those who have given it an unreserved welcome, particularly the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. As one who also tries to be a Christian, I thought what he said epitomised what we all thought and were talking about—the reverence for life.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has so splendidly come in with the very point with which I was going to start. I reject at once the fact that you cannot have a definition. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has today produced a splendid definition. I have had a spell in Government, as have many of your Lordships, and I know that if you want to block the passage of any Bill you have all sorts of splendid ways of doing it—by referring it to a Select Committee or a Royal Commission, or saying that it is not needed or is badly drafted. In fact, all Bills appear to be badly drafted, including those which come from the Government; otherwise, we should not need to have so many Amendments moved in the later stages. So I reject all these arguments—I have heard them all before—about ambiguity and bad draftsmanship. If the will is there, all these things can be dealt with. I have been long enough in your Lordships' House to see legislation that goes through in 24 hours when it is felt that there is a need to have it, and there is good will behind it.
I thought that noble Lords on the Front Bench had terrible briefs; there was one of the worst I have ever heard read. The noble Lord gave a very strange and confused example. I still say, in the presence of these eminent scientists, that it must be virtually impossible, by performing an experiment on an animal, to discover whether a woman using a cream will develop an allergy to it. An allergy is a very confused and mystifying subject in itself. It seems to me that you would have to perform experiments on innumerable
1762
animals, and at the end of the day you still would not have the answer as to whether somebody was going to develop an allergy. May I cite a personal example. I bought some ear rims, to which I was obviously allergic, but how could I claim against anybody? Could they have been put on to a little animal and tested?
The noble Earl said that he did not mind what had happened to the rats happening to him, but I can only suggest that there is one slight difference; he had a choice, the rats did not. This is partly what this sort of experiment is about. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, produced excellent evidence that it is quite possible to have the regulations, to have the definition and very clearly to decide that a shampoo which is described as a "medicated shampoo" will probably—and almost certainly—be regarded as part of a medical product. I think we are making quite unnecessary difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, seemed to me to give what I call a very reserved welcome; and I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that it is unusual to have a declaration of intent from the Minister early in the progress of the Bill. Probably it has only stimulated some of us to say a little more. I thought the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, of the talcum powder and the babies was not a good one, since he himself said that it was a mistake in the factory. It would have been tested much earlier, so I suggest that the mistake in the factory would not have been discovered by tests on animals. That was a mistake in the factory.
We hear so much about consumer protection and the necessity to protect the public. Is there anybody who can stand up and tell me that there has never been a case in law brought by an individual against a firm making cosmetic products? It would not be true to say that. The products have presumably been tested and I would say that the protection—and one noble Lord has made this point—is purely a legal one. If there is a case they can say that they have done all that it is possible to do and therefore they are absolved from blame.
I appreciate that this is piecemeal legislation. That is another argument which I have heard so often. But as

1763
was so rightly said, for 10 years nothing has been done. I know that we are in Europe and harmonisation is taking place, but may I say this to your Lordships: Time is not on the side of the little animals. While we sit here and debate and defer, the same tests continue without any real investigation. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, wants something different. May I say to him that if we accept this Bill, what he said about the Committee may well be one of its results. We can change the definitions, we can change the Title. Your Lordships know that we can change anything, except the genesis of the thought behind the Bill. I thank those who have taken part in this debate.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House

MOBILE HOMES BILL
2.3 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Lord Maybray-King in the Chair]
Clause 4 [Disputes]:
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert—
("; and in determining the annual charge for this purpose, the court shall have regard to all the circumstances other than personal circumstances, including in particular the amenities and locality of the site, and the position on the site offered to the occupier; and for the purposes of the determination it shall be assumed that the number of persons seeking to become occupiers of mobile homes in the locality on the terms other than those relating to the annual charge is not substantially greater than the number of caravans for which residential site licences have been granted by the local authority under the Act of 1960, in respect of which agreements are available on such terms.")
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to take with Amendment No. 14 the new clause stand-
1764
ing in my name as Amendment No. 18, which is concerned with the question of premiums, bearing in mind that the annual charges which are dealt with in the Amendment, and the premiums which may be levied by the site operator, are intimately connected with one another. Therefore, it might be convenient if we could discuss both at the same time.
Under subsection (3) of Clause 4, an occupier who is dissatisfied with any of the terms which have been offered to him by the owner may apply to the court to have the matter in dispute determined. It will be within the knowledge of your Lordships who concern yourselves with the problems of residents of mobile homes, that one of the most frequent causes of dispute is the amount of the charges and the increases which are imposed from time to time by the operators. Therefore, it may be expected that one of the matters coming most frequently before the courts to be determined will be the increase in charges to be levied at the time of the annual review.
Your Lordships may recall that when the Committee was discussing the question of the frequency of annual reviews—and, indeed, on Second Reading the matter also arose—I said that I did not think the mobile home residents would be disposed to argue against the case for an annual review, bearing in mind that this was connected with the aggregation of charges and the possibility that some element of it might be liable to VAT. They could see that point, but at the same time there was some anxiety about the size of the increases which might be demanded at the annual review and, if they were to be disputed, the lack of any guidance which is given to the courts under the Bill.
If I may give an illustration of what might conceivably happen—I do not suggest that it is going to happen, but it is something which may focus attention on the problem—if a certain site is full, and the site operator has a waiting list of applicants seeking to become occupiers on that site at the charges he is proposing to levy, or which he is already levying on other residents and proposes to levy on a particular occupier who is now coming up to an annual review, then the site operator could argue that he is not charging as much as the traffic could bear. We have not the faintest idea whether such

1765
an argument would be accepted by the courts.
I know that this has not been suggested by the site operators themselves. If one looks at the newsletter of the National Federation of Site Operators, one sees that they have proposed that any increases should keep in line with inflation, and they say that that would be preferable to the much larger increases which might take place at three-year intervals. I do not quite know what they mean by this; whether they mean that the increases should be decided by reference to some index of the cost of living as a whole, or the cost of rents or some analogous component of the cost of living index, or whether they are suggesting that we should examine individually what increases in costs have been incurred by site operators in particular.
Some of these were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, when we were discussing this subject last week. He said that increases in land costs, interest charges and so on, might be taken into account in the annual review. I am not disputing that these factors might be relevant. But the point is that the courts are not told which, if any, of the factors have been looked at and, if so, whether it is to be on an individual basis, site by site, or whether they can take some index which is to be looked at over the country as a whole.
Also, there is no mention in the Bill of the tremendous variation in amenities which occurs from one site to another, and which may be presumed to have some bearing on the level of charges which is reasonable. If a site is next to a gasworks or a sewage farm, if it is miles from the nearest public transport, would these factors have any bearing on the charge? Or is it to be assumed by the courts that Parliament did not want them to be taken into account, because there is no specific mention of them in the Bill? We all know that there is not only a great variation between one site and another so far as locality is concerned, some being immensely more preferable than others; there is also a wide variation between one site and another in terms of the amenities provided.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will confirm, at the present moment many
1766
hundreds of sites do not conform with the model standards. On the other hand, there are sites which provide surroundings as good as those one would expect to find on a residential housing estate. I am suggesting that variations of this kind ought to be reflected in the level of charges. We should write that into the Bill. My Amendment gives the courts some guidance on these matters, and follows the general shape of the provisions of Section 46 of the Rent Act 1968, which were taken over from the 1965 Act. Instead of the formula in the 1968 Act, "the age, character and locality of the dwelling house ", we have. "the amenities and locality of the site", and the disregard of scarcity provisions in the 1968 Act. I have taken this wording, with minor necessary modifications, to fit the circumstances of a caravan site.
The only argument I could have imagined against the Amendment, until the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was kind enough to write and disclose to me some of the thinking of the Government on it, was that the disregard of scarcity would lead to charges being lower than they would have been in the absence of such a provision, and thus to a reduction in the amount of such accommodation that would be on offer. This was certainly a point of view expressed to me by the late Lord Garnsworthy with whom I had correspondence in March 1974, when I suggested that a freeze should be imposed on the charges made for caravan sites analogous to those imposed on residential properties.
This argument implies that the site operators would continue in business only as long as they could exploit the monopoly rights they acquired through the restrictive operation of the planning laws, and the licensing requirements of the 1960 Act. What is really being said by those who use the argument is that in a free market with demand and supply in balance, the volume of accommodation being offered would be less than now with the artificial constraints of the economic process. I think that is indeed a bizarre contradiction of the case usually made out by free enterprise, and one which I do not think any reputable economists would accept. The corollary is that in the absence of any provision for disregard of scarcity, the owner of the site is able to make abnormally large profits, with

1767
the tacit approval of Parliament. For many years, it has been common ground between all the Parties that as long as there is not yet enough separate housing accommodation for all the families wishing to avail themselves of separate dwellings, the rule?, of the game between land-Lord and tenant should be so adjusted as to prevent exploitation. I would submit that the principle is exactly the same for the residents of mobile homes.
If I may turn now to the new clause, it deals with the widespread practice of charging premiums for the grant, continuance or renewal of a right of occupation on a caravan site. If the owner of a site is charging a fair rent and he is thereby making a reasonable profit on the operation as a whole, then there is no economic justification for allowing him to reap large additional bonus profits whenever a pitch is transferred to a new occupier or whenever agreements with the existing occupier fall to be renewed, when the sums involved are sometimes quite substantial.
To give an example, the Secretary and Solicitor of the North Devon District Council has written to me about the two cases that were reported to him where payments of £300 and £500 were demanded as a precondition of the execution of an agreement, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would agree that those sums are not by any means unusual. The Secretary pointed out that these premiums are not a term of the agreement, and therefore they would not appear to be covered by the disputes procedure in Clause 4. It would be only too easy for unscrupulous site operators to make up for any diminution in their income from the annual charges which could arise from the determination in the courts in the case of disputes by simply increasing these premiums still further, and that is the reason why this new clause is very much connected with the Amendment which I moved earlier on.
Apart from the much greater burden that it would impose on persons seeking to become occupiers, it would have the additional effect of making a rapid turnover of occupiers even more lucrative to the site operators. The Rent Acts have contained prohibitions on premiums for many years, and they are now embodied in Section 85 of the 1968 Act. I have always argued—I know that not many
1768
people agree with me on this—that whatever protection is given to tenants ought to be paralleled in the legislation for mobile homes, and this is a good example; landlords are not permitted to charge key money for tenancies, and site operators should not be allowed to charge siting fees for the occupation of a pitch, because the nature of the payment and the relationship between the parties are both identical, and there is no logical reason why they should be treated differently in law.
May I just refer to some of the arguments which I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may deploy and of which he has very kindly given me prior notice. He mentions the fact that, in the case law on premiums in relation to tenancies, some unexpected side effects have arisen, in that a payment bona fide made for value received may amount to a premium. He says that in the case of caravan sites if this decision of the courts were read across the site operator might be prevented from recovering reasonable expenditure which he has incurred. I take it that the noble Lord means the siting fees which are normally charged for taking a caravan on to the site and connecting it up to the services.
Obviously one does not want to leave the site operator out of pocket on such expenditure, and I should have thought that, if the principle of my Amendment were accepted, it would not be beyond the wit of the Parliamentary draftsman to take care of that minor point between now and the Report stage. More widely, the noble Lord reminds me that, despite the fact that "premium" is the word used in the 1968 Act, it was never statutorily defined, and other difficulties of interpretation, apart from the one I have mentioned, could possibly arise. It would be desirable to incorporate in this Bill a definition of the word "premium "so that we can limit it to what we know we mean; that is, key money. It is a pity that Parliament at the time of the 1968 Act, and before that in relation to furnished properties—and the word has a very long history—did not give this obviously necessary instruction to the courts.
Secondly, the noble Lord mentions the argument, to which I have already referred, that abolition of premiums could, in the short term, have an adverse

1769
effect on site charges. What I should like to know, in this problem, is whether the noble Lord thinks that the converse is true; that is to say, that in a dispute arising about the annual charges and any increases which the site operator demands, the courts will also take into account any premiums that may have been paid by the occupier to get on to the site in the first place. That would seem to be the corollary of the argument; that the two matters are so interconnected.
The noble Lord then mentions the point that if premiums were to be prohibited altogether—I am paraphrasing his letter—the occupier would acquire an equity in his pitch which he would be free to dispose of, and make a profit out of the operation, while the beneficiary would not be the site owner. I can see nothing wrong with a person who has lived in one place for a great many years acquiring some equity in it. To digress, one of the most harmful and divisive forces in our social life is that the tenant in rented property may live in one place for very many years yet never acquire a capital asset, whereas the owner-occupier, by paying slightly more money, finishes up with a stake in the community. Anything we can do—I know this is under discussion in relation to tenanted properties also—to heal the breach between two social classes would in my view be wholly desirable. I am in favour of the caravan dweller, the mobile home dweller, acquiring some equity in the pitch he occupies, though the beneficiary would in part be the site owner because the noble Lord may have overlooked the provision in Clause 3 under which the site operator may levy a reasonable charge on the sale price when an occupier disposes of his mobile home to an incoming resident; if he was then able to charge more than the price that excluded scarcity, then of course the site operator would get some percentage of that increased price.
The noble Lord finally says that if one of these proposals were adopted and not the other, the reaction of site owners is reasonably predictable; if rents were to exclude expressly scarcity, owners in the scarcity areas would be charging larger and larger premiums. I agree with that and I hope the House will think that
1770
both Amendments are equally acceptable. However, perhaps I should mention one other factor, and that is the review which was initiated by Mr. Gerald Kaufman in the Department of the Environment and which is now continuing under the leadership of Mr. McCreadie of that Department. I realise that there are many and complex issues that have to be considered by the Government before they can say, "Here is definitive legislation to regulate the situation as between residents of mobile homes and the operators of sites ", but I am afraid that if we do not take this opportunity of dealing with the regulation of charges and the imposition of premiums, we will have a period of many years before another opportunity is given to Parliament to come back to the subject.
When I introduced the 1968 Act in another place, both Mr. James McColl and Mr. Arthur Skeffington, who alas! are now dead, gave me the assurance that legislation would follow, if not in the next Session then in the one after that, and that we were merely involved in a holding operation very similar to that which was being conducted by the Government in the Protection from Eviction Act, which noble Lords will recall was followed very swiftly by the Rent Act 1965. We had to wait for eight years until a very praiseworthy Private Member introduced legislation to follow up the 1968 Act. I hope that the noble Lord, when he speaks about these two proposals, will, if he cannot accept them, at least be able to give us an assurance that we shall not have to wait another eight years before comprehensive legislation is brought forward by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: At the outset I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for expediting the proceedings of the Committee by agreeing to take Amendment No. 18 with Amendment No. 14. While I shall speak to both, as they are in a sense opposite ends of a seesaw, my remarks will be directed principally to the former of the two Amendments, which has been formally moved. We are on difficult and possibly emotive ground. I am confident that this is not the way to get out of the difficulty which the noble Lord sees ahead. The Amendment attempts to introduce a formula adapted from part of the formula on

1771
which fair rents are assessed for permanent dwellings—not for caravans or mobile homes—under the rent regulation system, on the basis of which annual charges are to be assessed by the courts to which disputes on the levels of these charges are referred. In particular, it seeks to introduce a requirement analogous to that designed in the fair rent formula, to exclude any artificial value attributable to security of dwellings to let. So much the noble Lord has vouchsafed to us.
This adaptation presents difficult peculiarities. For example, it would not require the court to assume on the supply side the number of pitches available to those seeking pitches—the Bill relates, of course, to contracts for pitches; not for rented accommodation, which is excluded. The court would assume that the conditions which existed, which in a free market would regulate the price, did not exist. Again it does not relate to any number of caravans or pitches available to would-be mobile home dwellers, but to the number for which residential site licences have been granted in the past. This disregards on the one hand the possibility that pitches or caravans are being provided by local authorities, whose sites do not need to have a licence and whose contribution will therefore be excluded from the statistics referred to, and on the other hand the possibility that licences have been issued but are not being used, which would have the countervailing effect.
Far more serious than any objections to the wording is the fact that the Bill is not, in my view, in the present state of knowledge of mobile home living, an appropriate vehicle for statutory regulation of the market. It attempts to introduce to a field not analogous to this principles which will not fit it, and the analogy which springs to mind—since it is taking a piece of a large Act and applying it in a different area—is that of somebody trying to catch a fly by taking a piece of a cobweb. The supporting strands are not there, and I do not think that a small fragment of the legislation will stand on its own. The Kaufman Committee is due to report—one hopes in the not too distant future. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has evinced a desire for its completion, and I dare say that a number of your Lordships will hope that his pressure is effect-
1772
tive. If we are to enter upon this degree of regulation of rents and of the charge assignments we should do so in a much more complete state of knowledge than we have, and that state of knowledge will be achieved by the publication of the report when it is completed.
I may rise a little later to speak on the second of the Amendments, but I think that at this stage it would be more helpful if we heard what the noble Lord opposite has to say on the matter.
2.35 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: While I appreciate the motives that have moved the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to put down this Amendment and the other Amendment to which the Committee is addressing itself at the moment, I hope that he will not press either of these two today for very much the same reasons as Lord Elton has already given and, indeed, for many of the reasons that Lord Avebury outlined, because I have already written him about this in an effort to expedite our proceedings today.
It is the Government's view that to legislate in so sensitive a field as rent assessment is risky unless the formula introduced has been drawn up, and been fully and carefully considered, in the light of adequate knowledge of the field in which the legislation is to operate. The fair rent formula incorporated in the Rent Act 1968, part of which the noble Lord has sought to adapt for mobile homes, was the outcome of months of study and discussion in the light of much fuller information on privately rented dwellings than we have on mobile homes. It is of course an object of the review of mobile home living started by my honourable friend, who is now the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Department of Industry, to assemble the data needed as a base for informed and sound decisions on, first, the need, and then, if applicable, the scope, nature and operation of any system for the regulation of mobile home living. But for the moment I must advise against any attempt to extend the scope of this Bill beyond that now before us, and certainly I must advise against any introduction of part of a rent assessment formula devised for use in quite different circumstances.
I should make it clear that I do not at this stage want to rule out any option for

1773
consideration in the context of comprehensive legislation. It is, after all, conceivable that any number of recommendations may arise from the mobile home review; but at present its findings cannot be anticipated. And I am most reluctant—above all at a time when we have at last the prospect of formulating conclusions on mobile home living in the light of adequate and relevant data—to tie the Government's or Parliament's hands by piecemeal importation of provisions designed for use in an entirely different field.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised one or two points in introducing the Amendment. He asked whether I thought it likely that a site operator would increase premiums—I think I understood him right—if the court reduces site charges—I assume under Clause 4(2) or (5) of the Bill as it stands. I can give the noble Lord a limited answer. A determination by the court on the site charge at that point would not be able to affect that mobile home residence premium which will presumably have been paid already. I can see that it is possible that a site operator would, nevertheless, charge higher premiums for other incoming residents.
Lord AVEBURY: My point was the opposite. If a person sought the decision of the court under Clause 4(3) when what he considers would be a reasonable increase is imposed at the time of the annual review, would evidence as to premiums which had been charged either to him, or generally speaking on the site, be accepted as evidence by the Court and taken into consideration in deciding what the annual charges should be? Surely, if the courts find that the site operator is making enormous sums out of these £500 premiums and a rapid turnover of residents, that should push them towards limiting the annual charge.
Lord MELCHETT: I was going to come on to the general question of guidance to the courts when making a determination. It is our view that in spite of the problems to which the noble Lord rightly drew our attention, because of the variation in standards of location, and so on, it would be virtually impossible to give general guidance to the courts applicable or appropriate to all sites. It is
1774
important that the courts should be free to consider local conditions without strict guidance which might prove to be inflexible in practice.
This comes back to the nub of the Government's opposition to the Amendment because we do not know in practice what the problems will be at the present time. We are not able to foresee what general guidance would be appropriate to the courts or to tell the noble Lord what problems we think will arise. We feel that we do not know, and it would be dangerous and unwise to legislate at a period when our knowledge is unsatisfactory and when we hope very shortly to have more information.
Judges in county courts are experienced at taking into account relevant local factors. We are conscious that the courts will be able to operate Clause 4 more effectively without general guidance, as they have done under Section 4 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. One other point which the noble Lord made struck a chord with me—his suggestion that at the moment site operators have tacit support for making abnormally large profits, because Parliament has not legislated in this field. Certainly no noble Lord on this side of the House would give tacit support to anybody making abnormally large profits, if by that the noble Lord is meaning unreasonably large profits, which I think he probably was. I dare say that would be another side of the unacceptable face of capitalism of noble Lords opposite.
We have considerable support for the objectives which the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. He has done the Government at least a great service by drawing attention to these problems—not that we were not seized of them already, but he has underlined several things. The correspondence and debate which we have had on the Amendment will be of great assistance to us while we undertake the review. I am loath to give the noble Lord any assurance about future legislation. He has already told the Committee that he had an assurance in the past which has proved to be inoperative. Therefore, even if I gave him an assurance—which I am not in a position to do—it would not be all that convincing. The noble Lord will have to decide whether or not he withdraws the Amend-

1775
ment on the basis of the case put forward rather than on any guarantee that legislation will be introduced in the next or any particular Session of Parliament. But as soon as this particular Bill is on the Statute Book the full resources of the Department will be concentrated on undertaking the review which, needless to say, has been held up by work on this Bill, and we will proceed as fast as we can in bringing before Parliament detailed conclusions of that review.
Lord AVEBURY: The noble Lord said that we do not know what factors ought to be taken into account in determining the fair annual charge to be imposed on a caravan site. Then, a moment later, he said that judges are experienced in taking relevant local factors into account.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Lord has slightly misunderstood me. Because we do not feel that we have full information, we are not in a position to say what problems are likely to arise in different localities on sites with particular problems and differences about which we may not be aware. The courts are much more likely to operate Clause 4 effectively without any general guidance. We feel they have operated a section of the Caravan Sites Act satisfactorily in that respect. I was not saying that because we do not know of all the possibilities that will come up, the courts also will not know. We are saying that because we do not know it is better to leave it to the discretion of the courts looking at the particular case.
Lord AVEBURY: If the noble Lord means the judges have power to look at any of the factors I have mentioned, and if he is saying the judges could study the amenities and the locality of the site, and if they thought those were relevant and they could say, for instance, charges ought to be lower on a particular site because it was next-door to a gas works or sewage farm, then I am very pleased with his reply.
We have dodged round the main question, which is scarcity. We have left it in the air as to whether the judges, in determining disputes on the annual charge list, are to assume that the number of people wishing to be occupiers in that locality is no greater than the number of pitches available, or whether they
1776
are to accept the economic factors which enable the site operator to impose an annual rent which is much larger than would be the case if there was equality of demand and supply.
I can see this is an extremely difficult matter for the judges to determine without any guidance from Parliament; but of course I agree with the noble Lord that the formula ought to be fully considered and that a great deal of study went into the original 1965 Act formula, upon which I have modelled this clause. Obviously, one must accept that different factors would be applicable to caravan sites from those which would be applicable to residential properties.
I shall not press the Amendment, but I hope the noble Lord will do everything in his power to ensure that once the Bill is out of the way the Kaufman Committee produces its Report as quickly as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has mentioned its publication and I hope he is right in assuming that the Report will be available to Parliament. We shall then need to exercise what pressure we can on the Government to bring forward comprehensive legislation as soon as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.42 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 16:
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause:
Disputes
" —(1) If the owner of a protected site on which a mobile home is, or is to be, stationed—

(a) fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the provisions of section 1 of this Act; or

(b) having in compliance with the said provisions offered to the occupier an agreement on terms and conditions which have been accepted by the occupier, fails without reasonable excuse to enter into a written agreement with the occupier to give effect to the terms and conditions so agreed within the period of one month following the date of such acceptance,

the occupier may apply to the court for the grant of an agreement which complies with section 3 of this Act or which contains the terms and conditions so agreed, as the case may be.
(2) On an application under subsection (1) above the court shall make an order for the grant of an agreement which—

1777

(a) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of that subsection, complies with section 3 of this Act and contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable; or

(b) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of that section—

(i) where the court is satisfied that terms and conditions have been agreed between the parties, contains the terms and conditions so agreed; or

(ii) where the court is not so satisfied, complies with section 3 of this Act and contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable.

(3) If an occupier to whom an agreement has been offered by an owner of a protected site in pursuance of a duty under section 1 of this Act fails without reasonable excuse to signify within the period of three months following the date on which the agreement is so offered whether or not the terms and conditions contained in it are acceptable to him, the owner of the protected site may apply to the court for the grant of an agreement which complies with section 3 of this Act.
(4) On an application under subsection (3) above the court shall make an order for the grant of an agreement which complies with section 3 of this Act and contains such terms and conditions as the court thinks reasonable.
(5) An occupier who is dissatisfied with any of the terms or conditions in an agreement offered to him by an owner in pursuance of a duty imposed under section 1 of this Act may, within the period of three months following the date on which the agreement is so offered, apply to the court for the determination of the matter in dispute.
(6) Where an agreement has been entered into in pursuance of section 1 of this Act or has been granted by virtue of an order of the court under this section either party may apply to the court for the determination of any matter in dispute arising under the terms of the agreement.
(7) On an application under subsection (5) or subsection (6) above the court shall determine the matter in dispute and shall make such order as is necessary to give effect to its determination.
(8) Where on an application made under this subsection by the owner of a protected site the court is satisfied that an occupier does not occupy as his only or main residence a mobile home which is stationed on that site by virtue of an agreement entered into in pursuance of section 1 of this Act or granted by virtue of an order of the court under this section, the court may make an order rescinding the agreement on such terms as to payment by or to either party of damages for the non-performance of the agreement, or otherwise, as to the court may seem equitable."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment re-orders and simplifies Clause 4 of the Bill, with the object of making for a better understanding of what is un-
1778
doubtedly a very complex clause, as we found to our cost last Friday. There are only two changes of substance in the new, re-ordered Clause 4. First, subsection (4) of this revised version embodies the principle to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, drew the Committee's attention with his Amendment No. 13 which was accepted by the Committee. The clause now states that an agreement shall comply with Clause 3 and contain terms and conditions which the court considers reasonable. The new clause omits from subsection (4) the word "other", which appeared in the noble Lord's Amendment. I think your Lordships will agree, on reflection, that it is better omitted throughout.
Secondly, the new clause no longer includes the provision in the existing Clause 4(6) of the Bill, which would enable an occupier in certain cases to apply for a revocation of an order granting an agreement. On examination, there seems to be no need for this provision. Clause 3(c) enables an occupier to determine an agreement by giving 28 days' notice to the owner. In practice, it is thought that an occupier who is dissatisfied with an agreement granted by the court will find it quicker and less costly to take the course open to him under Clause 3(c) than to seek a revocation of the court's order.
As a consequence of the removal of this procedure, subsection (7) of the clause as it stands is also being deleted. That was the provision that dealt with the court's power to award costs arising from the exercise of the revocation procedure. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is largely a technical and helpful Amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of COLROSS: May I say on Amendment No. 16 that this entirely meets the tiresome and difficult point that I raised in Committee last week. I am glad to see that, contrary to what was then said, the word "other" has been left out throughout; and I am sure that this is better.
Lord ELTON: The noble Viscount has said what I was about to say.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Agreements to bind successive owners]:
Lord MELCHETT: Amendment No. 17A is consequential. The present Clause 4(6) provides that an occupier can apply for the revocation of an order by which an agreement is granted by the court. The power to revoke such agreement, as I have said, is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, leave out from (" shall ") to (" be") in line 26.—(Lord Melchor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Orders]:
2.47 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 8, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, can explain to me something that I do not understand. The Committee will see that in Clause 3(k) there are provisions for discounts and commissions to be put into the agreement between the occupier of the mobile home and the owner of the site, which I believe will come into operation when a mobile home is sold by the occupier to somebody else, or when he is buying a new one to replace it. That is something which is dealt with in Clause 3 and therefore, quite apart from what would happen in most cases in any event, it is something which must be in the agreement that is reached, whether voluntarily or under the procedure for disputes in Clause 4. Therefore, a figure to deal with this circumstance must be in the agreement.
Once this Bill comes into effect, all agreements that are entered into thereafter will cover this matter. They will cover it in the light of what the occupier of the mobile home and the site owner think is reasonable, and there will also be imported, of course, the judgment of the county court if there is any dispute. We shall find, if there is a dispute about this matter, that county court judges up and down the country are going to say that a certain figure for discount and commission is or is not reasonable, and no doubt after a certain length of time some kind of practice will be worked out with the guidance of some of the
1780
county court judges who have been seized with this matter to help.
In Clause 6—which I know my noble friend Lady Vickers will move to leave out in a moment—we have order-making powers (this is at the top of page 8) which have one specific purpose. It is picked out in a special paragraph, which is paragraph (b). That is to say, these are order-making powers to alter or to lay down maximum and minimum rates of discount and commission and scales. Why? Is it because the Government do not trust the county court judges to reach a reasonable decision on this matter? We now have the disputes procedure perfectly plain. It will be a matter for the county court judge if anybody is worried about the scale of commission and discount. Do the Government not trust the county court judges to produce a fair and reasonable result in every case?
Secondly, when we are proposing to have legislation, as I understand it, sooner or later anyway—I do not wish to enter into the question of when, although the honourable gentleman Mr. Kaufman was fairly specific in another place; let that be—do we really wish to have power to make orders which will bind, not those whose agreements are going to be dealt with under this Bill immediately it comes into force, and I think that would be the vast majority, but only those who enter into agreements later on, after Regulations and Statutory Instruments have been made to govern this matter? Then there will be, I suppose, two codes operating. There will be the one under the Bill itself—dealt with, sanctioned and examined by the county courts—which will be binding on the vast majority of people who are living in mobile homes. Superimposed upon that—and presumably different, because otherwise there is no point in making Statutory Instruments—will be a new code, or a new series of maximum or minimum scales introduced by the Department of the Environment.
Can the noble Lord tell me—because am genuinely puzzled—why it is that they want these powers? What on earth is wrong with the process first of private bargaining; and, secondly, of supervision by the county courts? The noble Lord has just told us that for a number of years the county courts have been quite

1781
satisfactorily carrying out this kind of operation under the 1968 Act. Why do the Government want to superimpose a new code which will apply only to a few people later on, prior to the new legislation coming into force? If the noble Lord can tell me the answer to that question and make out a reasonable case for it—which so far I have not been able to understand—I have no reason to suppose that I shall wish to insist upon this Amendment. However, at the moment I am genuinely puzzled and seek guidance. I beg to move.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Colville, but I support him on more general grounds. It is generally agreed that this Parliament is overburdened with domestic legislation and its implementation by Statutory Instruments. We are now in the EEC for all time and there will be even more work to be considered by Parliament. By this Bill more work will be given to Ministers, to civil servants and to Parliament, yet again and again we have said that central expenditure must be reduced; that we do not want more and more civil servants; that we do not want to put more and more work on to Ministers. Surely by this Bill we are going to provide extra work, which ought at all costs to be avoided. It is on those general terms that I should like to support the specific point which has been made by my noble friend.
2.53 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: It would be helpful if I set out as briefly as I can the reasons why the Government want the powers which are provided for in paragraph (b). The need to limit the amount of discount or commission taken at present by site operators has been vigorously advanced by representatives of mobile home residents. Certainly it seems to be the case that the more unscrupulous operators have extorted unreasonable terms, due to their ability to prevent occupiers from selling their mobile home on site. But equally it appears that many owners have maintained pitch charges at a relatively low level by cross-subsidisation from dealings in both new and second-hand caravans and that they have opposed an absolute right to re-sell on site since they want to maintain con-
1782
trol over who is to come on to their land. In Clause 3 the Bill attempts to allow site operators to retain a measure of control, but it also takes the first step towards checking present abuses by stipulating that the rates of discount or commission to be charged should be known to both parties in advance; in other words, they should be included in the written agreement to be offered to the occupier. This would at least enable the resident to know what he or she faces.
The various attempts by the Bill's sponsors to arrive at a fair maximum rate of discount or commission have run up against one overriding obstacle, that there is at present no means of settling on an objective figure which would be fair to all operators and occupiers in all parts of the country. For example, an operator at present charging low rents and high discounts might be forced to put up rents steeply if the allowable rate were set too low. Alternatively, a higher rate might too easily be taken as the norm by operators who are at present taking low rates. The basic problem is that not enough is known about charging practices and the effect of writing in specific figures at present—whether one figure or a range would be more appropriate and whether different rates should be applied in different parts of the country. For example, there may be differences in Scotland of which we are not aware.
As more information may come to light as a result of our experience of the working of this Bill and in the course of the review of mobile home living, the reserve power is needed in case the fuller information eventually justifies a more detailed prescription than the Bill has so far been able to attempt. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield, that this will not place any greater load on either officials of the Department of the Environment or Government Ministers because we are already undertaking a review. The review is under way and of course part of the review will undoubtedly consist at looking at the workings of the Bill. We cannot ignore that fact. We are saying that the workings of the Bill and the review as it proceeds may provide us with information which would allow a more detailed prescription to be made than is at present possible. So I do not think anybody will be overloaded with any more work, though of

1783
course I am grateful to the noble Lord for his consideration. I hope that that explains the noble Viscount's problem and that he will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: No, it does not, because the noble Lord has not dealt with the main point of my argument. Can I put it in another way? I understand what he says about there being a scarcity of information in the Department at the moment, and of course it is right that if something should turn up in the course of the review the Department should, if it can, put right something which is wrong. The noble Lord has not explained to me that as the county court judges (and in Scotland the sheriffs) are going to be dealing with this matter from time to time under the dispute procedure, they will be arriving at figures which they think are reasonable for discount and commission, or somewhere on the scale. They will be doing this in different parts of the country over a period of time until some Statutory Instrument comes to be thought out. The noble Lord has not told the Committee that he does not think the judges will be doing this aright; he has not cast any doubt on their ability to assess what is fair and reasonable. I am glad he has not done that, because I do not suppose that is what he intended to do.
Can the noble Lord answer two questions? If he cannot, it is a matter which perhaps we can go back to another time. First of all, when the county court judge is looking at a particular agreement which contains a figure for discount or commission, is he or is he not going to take account of the pitch charge which the noble Lord himself said sometimes acts as a compensation? I observe a carrier pigeon now setting forth, so I will keep going for a moment until it returns to roost. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is also going to speed it on its way.
The other question is this. When the noble Lord and the Department look at the material which they are amassing, are they going to get details of the decisions to which county court judges and sheriffs come? It is no use just getting a copy of the county court order. The county court judge may very well say: "In this particular agreement I vary the rate of commission from 5 per cent. to 7½ per cent. ",
1784
or whatever it may be. That will not give the evidence upon which the county court acted. It will not take account of the pitch charge or some other factor which will give full information and upon which alone one can make a proper assessment. Can the noble Lord tell me, first, that the county court is going to take account of fixed charges; and secondly, that the Department will get full details of the adjudications and not just a copy of the order, because these will not be reported anywhere? The Law Reports will not contain them, so no body of evidence can be obtained from that source, and unless the Department is to obtain these, I do not understand how it is that it is to say that their order-making power will be an improvement upon the system whereby the courts have been given jurisdiction to deal with the matter. I will not go on with this today, unless the noble Lord has a very full answer, but I should like to give him an opportunity to comment upon the point, and also my noble friend.
Lord AVEBURY: I want to make only two points to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. One is that it is a kind of court charge: if it is able to look at pitch charges to determine what should be the rate of discount or commission under paragraph (k), then obviously that would be a good thing. I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure us that it is so, because it carries with it the implication that the converse is true. I never really received an answer to that one, either; when looking at the pitch charges when a dispute arises, the rates of discount and commission would also be relevant.
But there seems to be another point that is worth making and which might help to satisfy the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. The Government obviously will be very interested in the decisions of the county courts and I endorse the hope he has expressed that they would look at the whole circumstances surrounding the cases and not just at the decisions of the judges. But it seems to me that after a period of time has elapsed, and seeing that there are plenty of these cases to look at so one can get a general picture, by imposing maximum rates of discount or commission one will then avoid a lot of unnecessary litigation. But so

1785
long as the site operators and the residents are not absolutely certain as to how the judge will view a particular figure in an agreement, then obviously they will be inclined (other things being equal) to seek the arbitration of the Court. But once you have an overall picture covering the whole country and the scales of maximum and minimum rates can be laid down. I do not see any reason why any of those cases should come before the courts at all, and that would mean, perhaps, a large saving in money and time for both the residents and the operators.
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made a very good point when he said that the courts ought to take account of the pitch charge when fixing the level of the commission. I hope that now the matter has been drawn forcefully to the attention of the President of the Mobile Home Residents Association all mobile home residents will make sure that their legal advisers, when presenting their case to the court, will put this before the judges. That will be one factor at least in deciding whether or not the judge is seized of the point. I certainly think that if it is put before the court, it is something that the court can take into account.
The noble Viscount also asked me whether we should be getting full details of the adjudication of county courts. That is something I should like to consider and write to the noble Viscount about, if I may. I am honestly not sure what the procedure is for obtaining the adjudications, let alone whether it is our intention to do it, and now that our attention has been drawn to the problem we would like to consider it and to let the noble Viscount know whether or not we shall be doing it, and if not, what the reasons for not doing so are. I will certainly write to him about that.
On the general point, it is our view that taking powers for the Secretary of State to prescribe when data is to hand is a reasonable compromise between, on the one hand, a statutory proscription which would be very inflexible, and, on the other, not even retaining the power to proscribe a maximum if evidence arises that excessive commissions are being charged. Really this is a matter that will
1786
have to be decided, to a certain extent, on general principles. If it is decided that excessive commissions are in general being charged as a result of data which comes to light, then on general principles a maximum would have to be fixed which might well not take into account particular circumstances and might lead to alterations in other charges; but that would be a question of principle as well as obviously taking into account the very great local differences which might come to light. I hope that has helped the noble Viscount a little further and, as I have said, I will write to him on the one point which I have not been able to deal with at the moment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I hope he will write very quickly, because this Bill is going through at some speed and, if I may very respectfully suggest it to him, he may find it not entirely easy to discover the answer. I know that county courts are very well organised and have a certain amount of central information. There are associations of ratepayers and the county court judges can help a little. But the noble Lord, if he is to get a meaningful answer, will have to hurry up in order to get something sensible before the next stage of the Bill. I look forward to that, and I will read it carefully. If I am not satisfied then, I may return to the point. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness VICKERS: I wish to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for anything I may have done that was not etiquette so far as he was concerned. I did not take up the time of the House last week, because I thought we wanted to get on with the Bill. I should like to refer to the fact that in the original Bill this clause was simpler and easier. Regrettably, the Minister in charge has made it a little difficult. On 30th April 1975, he said:
" The clause gives certain powers to the Secretary of State to make orders varying the prescribed minimum periods for agreements under Clause 3, and prescribing or regulating certain matters for the purpose of Clause 3(m). It is desired to add to these order-making powers, and it has been found more convenient

1787
to do so by substituting a new clause…"—
[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee C; 30/4/75; col. 137.]
which he did at a later date.
Personally, I think we have enough powers already. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, that we certainly do not want to give any more orders to the Secretary of State. We may not have enough work to do— and I am very glad to hear that—but I am totally against the orders. We have far too many, in both Houses. As I see it, under this clause the Minister will have powers to vary as he thinks fit any of the periods in Clauses 1, 2 and 3. I understand these periods are those which vitally affect the owner's investment planning, security of tenure, review of rent, and site charges. Naturally, there are considerable differences in standards, in the popularity of an area, in renting conditions, in public demand for somewhere as a desirable place of residence. I suggest there is no real uniformity in site charges. Perhaps I am wrong, but I understand that the clause was intended to allow the Minister to make changes in the light of experience gained over the next two years, after the Bill had been in operation for a trial period.
In another place, the Minister said that he is determined to introduce a new Bill in two years, based on his Departmental review of mobile homes. But the orders are not retrospective, and any alteration which he may make now will not apply to existing agreements, or to any new agreements in the Bill. Under this Bill, such agreements would be in force for at least eight years, and since any new Bill will be introduced within two years, there appears to be very little justification for granting the Minister now what I consider to be drastic powers. When the noble Lord replies, perhaps he will deal with that point, because it seems rather unnecessary to put this in this Bill at the present time.
I gather that in past years the income from sales of mobile homes has helped to keep down rents. The owners of mobile homes will have the right to sell, and the site owner will receive commission. However, the income received will he considerably reduced. If I may give an example, I gather that if one has 100 pitches on a level or uncomplicated site and the work is done without employ-
1788
ing outside labour, it will cost about £1,150; but with assistance from outside it will cost £2,500. The rent of a pitch at present is about £4, and the owner receives 4 per cent. per annum on his investment. In another place it was acknowledged that rents of £2 might go up to £4 a week, and those of £8 to £12.
I hope it will be agreed to remove Clause 6, because of the uncertainty among site owners. It will increase the present housing shortage, which I thought was the last thing the Minister would want to do, because of the uncertainty about the Minister having new ideas when he has gathered all his information. It might stop further development. I gather that there can be arbitration, and there are numerous estate agents and chartered surveyors who specialise in valuing mobile homes in all parts of the United Kingdom. These people have intimate day to day knowledge and experience which, obviously, a Minister cannot have, and they can nominate independent arbitrators. There is a President of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, and I gather that he can nominate an arbitrator within a few days. The courts should deal with all questions of possession, but arbitration could be used for other disputes.
I do not want to offend any of the legal lights in this House, but it is a known fact that the general public find it a little intimidating to appear in court, and the less formal arbitration procedure might be preferred. I hope that the Minister—though I suppose I cannot have much hope after his previous answers—might think again. In view of the fact that the Minister is having this review and. we presume, is to produce another all-embracing Bill which will put matters right for ever, I hope he will now withdraw this clause, because it will cause a great deal of hardship and make for a great deal of uncertainty in the years to come before the next Bill is introduced.
3.13 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: I hope that the Committee will allow Clause 6 to stay in the Bill. The noble Baroness is seeking to remove a clause the present form and content of which are the result of considerable discussion and ultimate agreement between the Bill's sponsors and the Government during its stages in

1789
another place. The clause indeed confers certain order-making powers on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but these are neither particularly extensive nor likely to have a far-reaching effect on the operation of the Bill. They give my right honourable friend the means of altering the various time periods set out in the first three clauses, including the original duration of an agreement and its renewal period. And my right honourable friend can prescribe the rates of discount or commission which we have already discussed at some length. I would say to the noble Baroness that these powers are limited in their effect. As she said, they are not retrospective; that is, they would not affect agreements already entered into.
Quite honestly, with great respect to the noble Baroness, I do not see how she can have it both ways. Either these are draconian order-making powers—undemocratic, I think, was the epithet she applied to them, although I hope they are going to be passed by both Houses of Parliament—which will dramatically upset the finances of the site operators in years to come, or, as she also said, they are limited in their effect, because, as we hope, the Bill will be running for only two years and they are not retrospective.
Baroness VICKERS: Then what is the point?
Lord MELCHETT: The noble Baroness asks: what is the point of having them? I say that she cannot have it both ways. They cannot be draconian and dramatic powers which will upset everyone, and also be minor order-making powers which give the Bill an attractive degree of flexibility, without being anything about which we ought to get very excited. I think she ought first to decide on what line she intends to attack the existence of these order-making powers in the Bill. They add a highly desirable element of flexibility. It might be that the review into mobile homes instituted by my right honourable friend could yield information or reach conclusions which pointed to the desirability of making changes in the length of agreements; or to the need to spell out what rates of commission or discount should be allowable, as we have
1790
already discussed; or the working of this measure could itself yield useful experience pointing towards the need for changes of this kind. In either case, the Government would expect to discuss any proposed changes with the organisations which represent operators and residents. But if the Bill is to have any meaning and real usefulness, a means of effecting such changes should be included in it. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her opposition to the clause.
Baroness VICKERS: I do withdraw, but I still have some opposition.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Power to prescribe minimum standards]:
3.16 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 19A:
Page 8, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(" (2) An order made under subsection (1) above may apply generally or to a particular area or to protected sites in a particular category and may prescribe different minimum standards in relation to protected sites in different categories.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to the Secretary of State's power to make orders prescribing minimum standards for protected sites including local authority sites. The Amendment would enable the Secretary of State either to make orders which apply generally or to prescribe minimum standards for particular areas or for particular categories of site. It further enables him to prescribe different minimum standards for different categories. Clause 7(2) as drafted gives him power only to make general orders or to prescribe different standards for different areas. The new provision is designed to cater especially for the particular case of gypsy caravan sites provided by local authorities. The minimum standards appropriate to non-gypsy sites would not necessarily be the right ones for gypsy sites, and an order-making power should be able to differentiate. In addition, it may be desirable at any given time to make an order in respect of non-gypsy sites but not of gypsy ones, or vice versa.
Lord ELTON: I do not wish to delay the Committee in its now pleasingly rapid progress through the remaining

1791
stages of this Committee stage. This appears to me to be a reasonable addition to the Bill and we will certainly not oppose it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Amendment of Act of 1968]:
3.19 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 20:
Leave out Clause S and insert the following new clause:
Extension of Act of 1968 to Scotland
" Part I (relating to the protection of residential occupiers) and Part Ill (miscellaneous) of the Act of 1968 shall apply to Scotland subject to the modifications contained in the Schedule to this Act."
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 with this Amendment. Clause 8 of the Mobile Homes Bill extends some of the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to Scotland. These Amendments are purely drafting in character and are designed to clarify the Mobile Homes Bill by removing to a new Schedule the detailed changes which are necessary for the application of the 1968 Act to Scotland and to tidy up the detailed changes by substituting a new Section 5 in the 1968 Act.
Part I of the proposed new Schedule contains the general adaptation of the 1968 Act currently made by Clause 8(1) of the Mobile Homes Bill. Part II of the new Schedule contains the modifications currently made by Clause 8(2)(h), (c) and (d) of the Mobile Homes Bill to sections of the 1968 Act, but is designed to set them out more clearly by substituting a new Section 5 in the 1968 Act. The Amendment to Clause 9, page 10, line 29, is consequential on the deletion from the Bill of the original Clause 7, which was replaced in another place by the existing Clause 7.
Lord AVEBURY: I wish to say how delighted I am that this Bill extends the 1968 Act to Scotland, remembering that my honourable friend Mr. James Davidson (as he then was) on the Second Reading of the Bill in 1968, spoke very strongly in favour of the extension to Scotland. At that time, as reported at column 1986 on the 1st March, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said he did not consider it appropriate to extend the provi-
1792
sions of the 1968 Bill to Scotland, mainly on the grounds that the County Councils Association there did not consider that it was in any way relevant to the smaller number of people living in mobile homes in Scotland. In fact the Association had not had adequate time for consultation.
Now at last, eight years later, the provisions of the Act are being extended to Scotland. About that I am delighted. This is one minor example of the general principle that Liberals are always seven years ahead of the other two Parties.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
3.26 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 8 insert the following new clause:
Saving for certain rights
(" Nothing in this Act or in any agreement entered into in pursuance of section I of this Act or granted by virtue of an order of the court under section 4 of this Act (including an agreement as varied from time to time by any such order) shall prejudice or derogate from or in any wise alter or affect the rights, powers and title of any person in respect of a mobile home which he owns but of which he is not the occupier.")
The noble Baroness said: The major point in my Amendment is that the statutory agreement would, by virtue of Clause 3(k), give a right to the occupier of the mobile home to sell it. However, he may not be the owner; in fact the owner is probably a finance house, and therefore, the right to sell, as contained in Clause 3(k), will not be allowed, I suggest, so to be exercised as to prejudice the rights or title of the actual owner. The same may be said to apply in respect of the right of the owner of the site to have access under Clause 3(i), and the occupier of the mobile home to assign under Clause 3(j). These rights should not be regarded as prejudicing any existing rights of the owner of the mobile home. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord that it is arguable that, as the rights required to be given by this Bill would be statutory rights, they could be said to override the statutory rights of the owner of the mobile home. Many mobile homes are bought by instalment credit agreement, for example, by hire-purchase or conditional sale agreements, and during the currency of such agreements the owner of the mobile home is the finance house.
I understand that the amount of money involved in agreements relating to mobile homes which are being entered into is about £2 million a month. Many of these involve permanent residences. I believe that there are about 100,000 permanent residences, and these will be affected by the Bill. Most of the mobile homes affected by the Bill are not owned by the occupier, but by a third party, a finance house. I wonder, therefore, whether there might not be some confusion, even conflict, between the terms of the Bill and the terms of the instalment credit agreements. For example, Clause 3(k) gives the occupier that right to sell the mobile home, but it might not be his to sell. Clause 3(g) makes provision for repair and maintenance of the mobile home, but I suppose there are in all credit agreements provisions about repair and maintenance.
What happens if the two sets of provisions are different? Clause 3(i) refers to access to, and movement of, the mobile home. If it belongs to a third party, should the third party not be involved in the right to have access to, and to move, his own property? Clause 3(j) deals with assignment of the agreement introduced by the Bill, and there may be some confusion if the occupier can assign the agreement, but not the mobile home. Clause 4 deals with application to the courts. If the mobile home is owned by a third party, it may be felt—I think quite rightly—that he should have the right to be heard at such proceedings.
I do not want in any way to challenge the object of the Bill, but I hone to have eliminated some of the difficulties caused by the assumption, as appears in the Bill, that the occupier is the owner. It might be relevant to quote the Caravan Site Act 1968, since this Act had an objective not dissimilar from the objective of this Bill and similar to the point taken in debate. The Act in Section 3(5) says:
"The court may from time to time, on the application of either party, extend, reduce or terminate the period of suspension ordered by virtue of this section, or vary any terms or conditions imposed thereunder, but shall not extend the period of suspension for more than twelve months at a time."
I would suggest that my Amendment will help on this point, and I should be grate-
1794
ful if the noble Lord would consider it. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: The Amendment tabled by the noble Baroness provides me with an opportunity to state the Government's views on points which the Finance Houses Association first brought to the attention of members of the Standing Committee considering this Bill in another place and to my Department. My honourable friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary in fact sought legal advice on these points, and I have done so again. It may therefore be helpful if I place this opinion on record and at the same time explain why I do not see this new clause as necessary.
The Association's main concern, as I understand it, is to remove any doubt that the benefits conferred on an occupier of a mobile home by grant of an agreement in compliance with Clause 3 could conflict with or override the rights of the finance company when the mobile home is being purchased under a hire-purchase agreement. The Association have drawn attention in particular to four areas where they are concerned about possible difficulties.
First, they are worried lest covenants about repair entered into as a result of Clause 3(g) may prove incompatible with an instalment credit contract. The position here is that Clause 3(g) does not stipulate what a repairing covenant should contain and it is for the parties to agree on terms which do not conflict with their obligations under any prior written contract which either of them has previously entered into.
Secondly, the Association are concerned that the right of the owner under Clause 3(i) to have reasonable access to the part of the site occupied by the caravan should be paralleled by a right of access for the finance company either to inspect or if necessary to repossess its goods. The position here is that Clause 3(i) in no way affects the existing rights of a finance company or any other persons with an interest in the mobile home.
Thirdly, the Association have pointed to the confusion which they fear might be caused if (under Clause 3(j)) an occupier were to assign the agreement without the consent of the finance company who own the mobile home and who may

1795
even have included an express condition of forbidding assignment of the mobile home in their hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement. The right to assign the agreement does not, of course, carry with it any assignment of the mobile home itself. The provisions concerning the sale of a mobile home are in fact contained in Clause 3(k). The Bill is not conferring a right on the occupier to sell his mobile home as against anyone but the site owner: in other Words, Clause 3(k) is subject to the right of the occupier to sell the mobile home: these provisions of the Bill do not apply if he does not own the mobile home. A caravan occupier cannot legally assign that which he does not own without the consent of the true owner. Accordingly, neither Clause 3(i) nor Clause 3(k) in any way interferes with or overrides the rights in the mobile home of persons other than the occupier.
Briefly, then, the clause which the noble Baroness has moved is not necessary because the Bill does not remove or affect the right of a finance company who are assisting an occupier to purchase a mobile home. I can understand that the Finance Houses Association wish to establish that there is no ambiguity in this matter, but I should be reluctant to see a further and (as it turns out) unnecessary provision added to the Bill, since, on my understanding, there is no element of doubt to be removed.
Baroness VICKERS: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I should like to have the opportunity of reading it in detail.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Interpretation]:
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22:
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 29, leave out from (" Scotland ") to (" any ") in line 31.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 23.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10 insert the following Schedule:
Section—(Extension of Act of 1968 to Scotland)
(" SCHEDULE
MODIFICATIONS OF THE ACT OF 1968 FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING THAT ACT OF SCOTLAND

MOBILE HOMES BILL

  PART 1 GENERAL ADAPTATION
  1. For subsection 17(3) (extent) of the Act of 1968 there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  " (3) Part I and sections 13, 14(1), 16, subsection (1) above and this subsection shall extend to Scotland as read with section 8 of and the Schedule to the Mobile Homes Act 1975, but otherwise this Act does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.".

  PART II SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS
  2. For section 5 of the Act of 1968 there shall be substituted the following section—
  "5.—(1) In this Part of this Act, any reference to "the court" shall be construed as a reference to the sheriff having jurisdiction in the place where the protected site is situated.
  (2) The power of the court under section 4 of this Act to suspend the enforcement of an order shall extend to any order made but not executed before the commencement of this Part of this Act.
  (3) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall affect the operation of section 89 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845.
  (4) Subsection (1) of section 12 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (power of site occupier to take possession and terminate a licence or tenancy in case of contravention of section 1 of that Act), when read with section 32(1)(d) of that Act, shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act.
  (5) Part III of the Rent Act 1965 (protection against harassment and eviction without due process of law) shall not apply to any premises being a caravan stationed on a protected site.".
  3. For section 16 of the Act of 1968 there shall be substituted the following section—
  " 16. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
  "caravan" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 19960, as amended by this Act;
  " local authority "means a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the regional or district planning authority within the meaning of Part IX of that Act;

  1797
  " the Minister "means the Secretary of State;
  " planning permission "means permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.".")—(Lord Melchett.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

LITIGANTS IN PERSON (COSTS AND EXPENSES) BILL
3.32 p.m.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Darling of Hillsborough.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord MAYBRAY-KING in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Costs or expenses recoverable by litigants in person]:
LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out (" to proceedings in a county court and ")
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient for the Committee to consider along with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The effect of these Amendments is to extend the provisions of the Bill to the Lands Tribunal in England and Wales and the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland, and to give power to the Lord Chancellor to extend the Bill by order to any other court or tribunal. I undertook on Second Reading to consider a suggestion by my noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough, the author and promoter of the Bill, that it should be extended to the Lands Tribunal, and I am now satisfied that it is now right and proper to do that. In its specialised field, the Lands Tribunal deals with a wide range of cases, the weight of which may well be equivalent to matters dealt with not only in county courts but also the High Court. It is a tribunal in which legal aid is available, but cases
1798
of substance are often conducted on one side or the other by litigants in person.
The Lands Tribunal has power under its rules to direct that the costs of a party to any proceedings shall be paid by another party, and the Tribunal may settle the amount of the costs by fixing a lump sum or ordering them to be taxed on one of the county courts scales or the High Court scale. It therefore seems appropriate that a litigant in person should be able to recover costs in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. It is possible that in future new courts or tribunals may be created to which it would be desirable to extend the provisions of this Bill. Similarly, changes may be made in the Constitution or method of working of existing courts or tribunals, which might be thought to qualify them also for inclusion. Clearly, the court or tribunal would have to have powers to award costs before the Bill could be extended to it. The draft Amendments cater for this situation by giving the Lord Chancellor power by order to extend the Bill to any other court or tribunal so that each case may be considered on its merits.
On the face of it, the Amendments look highly complicated, but I am happy to say that when they have been translated into the terms of the clause, they at quite happily into a tolerable picture. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the Committee, which are now rapidly accelerating—and which we all welcome—except to say that we approve of the principles of this Bill. Their extension seems a logical step to follow and I entirely endorse the noble and learned Lord's description of the way they fit into the clause.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: This first group of Amendments are the substance of the Amendments which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is moving to extend the provisions of the Bill, first, specifically to lands tribunals and then by order to other tribunals, as need arises. I am sure the Amendments will be warmly welcomed by the sponsors and supporters of the Bill in both Houses, and will be approved by your Lordships today. I

1799
merely wish to say that we are extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the Amendments he has moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, after (" proceedings") insert—
(" (a) in a county court ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
(" (b) before the Lands Tribunal or the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland, or
(c) in or before any other court or tribunal specified in an order made under this subsection by the Lord Chancellor.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 23, after (" proceedings ") insert—
(" (a)")
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient if I ask the Committee to consider this Amendment together with Amendment No. 5 and the first part of Amendment No. 6, which adds two new paragraphs, (b) and (c), to Clause 1(2). The purpose of these Amendments is to extend the Bill to the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and also to give the Lord Advocate power to extend the Bill by order to any other court or tribunal in Scotland. One is always apprehensive about embarking on the territory of Scotland, but I have full authority for saying that these Amendments will be well received North of the Border—and I am very comforted to receive support from my noble friend who hails from those parts. The Scottish Land Court, which is an institution peculiar to Scotland, as indeed its description indicates, is primarily concerned with disputes between landlords and crofters under the Crofters (Scotland) Acts of 1955 and 1961. It also deals with disputes between
1800
landlords and agricultural tenants other than crofters under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts.
It is very similar in both its procedure and its organisation to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. The court has power to award costs and it is designed to enable crofters and tenants to defend their interests without necessarily being legally represented. It is appropriate therefore that where a party in person wins his case, he should be in a similar position as regards costs to a party before the sheriff court or the Court of Session. The Lands Tribunal for Scotland has similar jurisdiction to the Lands Tribunal for England and Wales and should be brought within the Bill for the same reason. It is clearly desirable also that there should be power to extend the Bill to other courts or tribunals in Scotland, although the order for this purpose would of course be made by the Lord Advocate. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, at end insert (" the Scottish Land Court ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 25, at end insert—
(" (b) before the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, or
(c) in or before any other court or tribunal specified in an order made under this subsection by the Lord Advocate.
(2A) An order under subsection (1) or (2) above shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(2B) In this section "rules of court "—

(a) in relation to the Lands Tribunal or the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, means rules made under section 3 of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949,

(b) in relation to the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland, means rules made under section 9 of the Lands Tribunal and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, and

(c) in relation to any other tribunal specified in an order made under subsections (1) or (2) above, shall have the meaning given by the order as respects that tribunal.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I have already explained the effect of the

1801
first part of this Amendment when dealing with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. The Amendment also inserts in Clause 1 new subsections (2A) and (2B) to provide for any order made by the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Advocate extending the provisions of the Bill to be subject to anulment by a Resolution of either House of Parliament, and to assign the appropriate meaning to the term "rules of court" in relation to the Lands Tribunals and any other tribunals specified in an order extending the Bill.
In the case of a newly created court or tribunal, there will be an opportunity for a full debate on its constitution when the Bill establishing it is before Parliament. In the case of an existing court or tribunal to which the Bill is extended, there will have been full consultation with all interested parties before the order is made. Therefore, it is thought that the Negative Resolution procedure would be sufficient in the circumstances, and it is not necessary to provide for an order extending the Bill to require an Affirmative Resolution.
The term "rules of court" needs no further explanation in the Bill in its
1802
application to courts as such. But the Lands Tribunal is not a court and it is necessary to provide for the meaning of "rules of court" in relation to that Tribunal or any other tribunal to which the Bill may be extended. This is done by providing that in the case of the Lands Tribunal it means rules made under Section 3 of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 or the corresponding Northern Ireland Act, and in the case of any other tribunal it has the meaning given to it by the order extending the Bill to that tribunal. So a litigant in person entitled under subsections (1) and (2) to his costs and expenses subject to rules of court would in the case of the tribunal be subject to provisions made by the designated rule-making authority. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before four o'clock.