Sitting of 20 May 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered upon Thursday next.

METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords] (By Order)

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Attendance Centres
    Mr. Simsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many senior attendance centres there are in England and Wales; and what plans he has to increase their number.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): Only two such centres have been established, on an experimental basis. We have no plans to provide more at present.
    Mr. Sims: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the centres to which he refers have been open since 1958 and 1962, respectively, thus giving ample time for evaluating experiments? Is he aware that despite the apparent lack of interest in these experiments by the Home Office, the centres have proved successful as an economic means of dealing with young offenders in the 17–20 age group? Will he reconsider this decision?
    Mr. John: The Advisory Committee on the Penal System has recommended in its 1974 Report, as part of a larger package, that these two centres be closed, because it feels that the opportunity for community service forms a more constructive way of proceeding. We are considering that matter as part of the whole of the recommendations, but during the time we are considering it the two centres will remain open.
    Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is of the greatest urgency and importance that there should be a move away from custodial treatment for offences towards this sort of technique? Is this matter receiving urgent attention in the Home Office?
    Mr. John: It is receiving immediate attention. I point out to my hon. Friend that the alternative posed by the Advisory Committee is non-custodial in its nature.

    Shot-guns
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will tighten the controls over the possession of shot-guns.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 18th March.
    Mr. Townsend: Is the hon. Lady aware that the shot-gun has become the preferred weapon for the serious criminal? Is she further aware that many senior police officers feel that the current rules and regulations are riddled with anomalies? Will she take urgent action to try to deal with the situation?
    Dr. Summerskill: We hope that in the next Session amending legislation to the firearms law will be included in a Criminal Justice Bill, the passage of which we hope the hon. Gentleman's party will facilitate; but I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: I do not wish to mitigate the problems of the criminal use of shot-guns, but will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no intention on the part of the Government to limit the use of shot-guns to those living in the country who own land? Does my hon. Friend appreciate that that would inhibit the use of shot-guns for sporting purposes?
    Dr. Summerskill: I cannot anticipate the details of the legislation, but I can assure my hon. Friend that that matter will be taken into consideration when the legislation is drawn up.

    Immigration
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further proposals for immigration controls he is considering to assist local authorities charged with having to house immigrant families who come to the United Kingdom with no advance provision for their housing or other financial support.
    Mr. Hordernasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now revise the immigration rules to ensure that no immigrant, from whatever authorised method of entry to the United Kingdom, is allowed to enter the United Kingdom unless he or she can demonstrate that he will not be a charge on the provision of social security services.
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the liaison between his Department and local authorities on the reception of immigrant families.
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans for issuing further orders under the Immigration Act 1974 to tighten the restrictions on new immigrant entrants and their dependants.
    Sir George Youngasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with current provisions for admitting voucher holders from Malawi; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I have no plans to reduce the annual quota of 5,000 special vouchers for United Kingdom passport holders, whether from Malawi or elsewhere. I recognise that a very small proportion of the families who are admitted under the voucher scheme may be unable to provide for themselves immediately on arrival, but it would be undesirable and inconsistent with the object of the scheme to refuse them admission on that account. I keep the operation of the scheme under review, but it would not in general be feasible to arrange with local authorities in advance for the reception of individual families.
    As to the dependants of persons settled here, there is a general requirement that a sponsor must be able and willing, without recourse to public funds, to support and accommodate his dependants seeking to join him. This requirement has not and does not, however, apply to the admission of the wife and children under 18 of a Commonwealth citizen who has the right of abode or was settled in the United Kingdom on the coming into force of the Immigration Act 1971.
    Mr. MacGregor: Is the Home Secretary aware that these recent incidents—admittedly involving a small number of families—have created enormous resentment among ordinary working people and pensioners, especially those with incomes under £3,000; that in our current economic conditions they do our immigration policy and social security system no good

    1689
    in the public eye; and that they are unfair to the immigrants themselves? Will he, in consultation with the Foreign Secretary, use our considerable muscle over relevant African Governments to introduce a tighter system that ensures that these cases do not arise again?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am certainly aware that there has been considerable concern and resentment about this much-publicised but somewhat isolated, case. It is easy to criticise others, but, on the information available to me, I do not think that the local authority handled the matter particularly well. However, I am aware of the problem and am anxious—as I know the hon. Gentleman is from the way in which he phrased his supplementary question—that there should not be any unfair repercussions on other immigrants.
    People in this category of United Kingdom passport holders from Africa countries are in general well able to support themselves and they quickly become useful and, quite often, prosperous members of the community. It is highly desirable that they should be able to do that from the beginning. That is one reason why we are having them in somewhat faster—but not above the 5,000 total. If racially discriminatory policies are pursued in other countries and these people are thrown out of work and have to wait a longer time to come here, there is more danger that they will be destitute when they arrive.
    Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been various loopholes in the immigration controls, of which unscrupulous people have taken advantage? Will he see what can be done to stop up these loopholes, which are a matter of concern to both the indigenous and the legally immigrant population of this country?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that there are attempts to exploit loopholes in various ways. The extent can sometimes be exaggerated, but it certainly exists. In the interests of the immigrant community, the community as a whole, and good race relations, we need strict immigration control. Therefore, I am endeavouring in all possible ways to stop up such loopholes.
    Mr. Hordern: Does the Secretary of State now recognise that he was wrong
    1690
    to criticise the West Sussex County Council over its handling of the case that has been mentioned? It is intolerable that any local authority should be made responsible for carrying out what is national policy. Furthermore, there is the strongest objection to allowing immigrants into this country who immediately become dependent upon our social security services. What does he propose to do about reducing the number of entry vouchers?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not propose to reduce the number of entry vouchers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect, must see that, having accepted this obligation, which we inherited from the previous Government, to deal with the problem more slowly while people in other countries, for reasons into which I do not wish to go, pursue discriminatory policies against these people, would almost certainly guarantee that a greater proportion would be without funds when they came here. We want to deal with this limited, but difficult, problem in an orderly way, so that the people who arrive, as in the great majority of cases, are able to support themselves on arrival.
    Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the story of the Malawi Asian family in West Sussex has been ballooned out of all proportion to its importance to the British people, and that the most intelligent of them understand that? Does he further agree that in principle there is nothing against a destitute British pass-holding family being accommodated in a swanky hotel in West Sussex for a limited period, provided that they have a legitimate right to be in this country? Does he also agree that the Tory backwoodsmen should have their attention drawn to the action taken by Lord Carr, when Home Secretary, in facing the 1972 Ugandan Asian exodus fairly and squarely, and in principle—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many supplementary questions on this Question.
    Mr. Jenkins: I agree that Lord Carr faced this issue with courage and from the point of view of principle. I think that one must face this issue as a matter of principle. I agree that it must be handled with reasonable sensitivity to the

    1691
    feelings of the people who were accommodated in the way that they were. Such a matter is almost inevitably ballooned out of all proportion. The job of all of us is to try to bring the matter back into proportion. One of the two families concerned did not come here under the voucher scheme, because the wife was patrial and was entitled to be here in any case.
    Mr. Tim Renton: The Home Secretary referred to dealing with this problem in a limited and orderly way. Is not the danger that it may cease to be either a limited or an orderly problem? Does he agree with two propositions: first, that the possession of a United Kingdom passport should in no way be thought of as a passport to the social services and, secondly, that the reception of a large number of immigrants and their families places an intolerable strain on local authorities which have to deal with them, and that therefore they should be dealt with on a national basis?
    Mr. Jenkins: If there were anything approaching a major problem, such as arose in 1972, it would have to be dealt with on a national basis. The circumstances surrounding the two families have been ballooned out of all proportion. The number of people who arrived last weekend was many more than the Press suggested, and none of them constituted a burden on the local authorities where they arrived. To set up an elaborate national organisation to deal with a limited problem would be bureaucracy run mad and not sensible future planning.
    I talk of a limited and orderly way, because we have managed to reduce the problem substantially in scale. While we cannot be certain what the future will bring, we are less likely to have difficult problems if we face the matter in a rational way now.
    Mr. Greville Janner: When considering the assistance of local authorities in receiving immigrants, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to cities such as Leicester, which have assimilated large numbers of immigrants and require help with their problems?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that when large numbers of immigrants come in, as happened in 1972 and on certain other occasions, there is a concentration and
    1692
    demand upon the resources of certain cities, of which Leicester is one and Birmingham is another. There are other cities as well. I agree that a considerable strain is imposed on local authorities. I pay tribute to the efforts of local authorities and, indeed, of individuals living in those areas to deal with the problem, often in difficult circumstances.
    Sir G. Young: Are the Government unable to persuade other countries in the free world to offer refuge and hospitality to the victims of racialism in Malawi?
    Mr. Jenkins: Many United Kingdom passport holders, formerly resident in East Africa, have gone to countries other than the United Kingdom, with a view to settlement. No doubt many more will do so. That is a reasonable allocation in view of what is happening. Obviously we cannot act by unilateral diktat in this matter. I agree that it is desirable that there should be dispersal when these problems arise. But, if that does not occur, they are passport holders of this country and not of other countries.
    Mr. Faulds: Would it not be totally dishonourable if Britain were to welsh on her obligations in respect of a limited number of immigrants, the more particularly since those obligations devolve upon Britain as part of her post-imperial responsibilities?
    Mr. Jenkins: I assure my hon. Friend and the House that I have no intention of welshing on any obligations at all. My hon. Friend's historical analysis is correct. It arose, I think, from the arrangements made by Lord Duncan Sandys in the early 1960s. It presents a problem, but I am convinced that the way that we have proceeded with this substantial but not huge increase, in a limited and orderly way, has enabled us, at any rate so far, to accommodate the Malawi Asians within the total of vouchers that we announced some time ago. That has proved to be the correct approach to this limited, but difficult, problem. We are determined to discharge our duties both to the individuals concerned and to the people in this country.
    Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), may I ask hon. Members not to use the expression "to welsh" as long as I am in the Chair? It is highly

    1693
    offensive to the people from where I come.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that unfortunate word. As a Scot, I know no other.
    Mr. Speaker: To scotch is not as bad as to welsh.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Does the Home Secretary agree that in handling what I accept is an extremely difficult problem, it is very important to take account of the strong feelings of the British people? It is impossible to pretend that when the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) says that "enough is enough", he is not reflecting the mood of the British people. We have to take that very seriously.
    Nobody wishes to welsh—I am sorry Mr. Speaker; I beg your pardon. No one has any intention of going back on the obligations that we have to British passport holders, but does the Home Secretary agree that Lord Carr said, after the Ugandan Asian problem, which he carried through correctly, that any further influx of that order could not be handled by a British Government in that way? Was Lord Carr not correct? In having orderly entry under the voucher system, is it not possible to make as certain as possible that those who come have means of support and somewhere to go when they arrive?
    Mr. Jenkins: On the subject of the unfortunate word "welsh", I have every reason to be as sensitive about this as you, Mr. Speaker. But the Oxford Dictionary says that the word can be spelt with a "c", and is a northern racing term. Therefore I do not react as strongly as you do.
    On the more serious matter, I take the view that it is my duty as Home Secretary and the duty of the House, to take account of the natural reactions and feelings of our people. But it is important to explain the facts of the situation to them and to guide those reactions into rational and humanitarian channels wherever possible. I hope and believe that we can contain this problem. The number of United Kingdom passport holders remaining in Malawi is relatively limited.

    Immigrants (Dependants)
    Mr. Budgenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has now made of the number of dependants eligible to enter the United Kingdom from the New Commonwealth.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: It is not the practice to publish estimates of this kind, and any forecasts of future immigration would necessarily be speculative since numbers arriving may be affected by a wide variety of factors.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the Home Secretary tell us whether he agrees with the view of Home Office officials as reported in The Times on 26th April, to the effect that the queue of dependants from the new Commonwealth, eligible for entry into this country, is never-ending? If this is so, will he tell the House what he intends to do about it? Does he have any plans for redefining the rules concerning the entry of dependants in a more restrictive way?
    Mr. Jenkins: One should not assume that Press reports, even in The Times, about the views attributed to Home Office officials, are necessarily accurate. I take the view that this is a complex subject. It is one on which there is a debate on Monday, arising from a Private Member's motion, and I propose to intervene in that debate. I shall deal with this matter in the course of my speech.
    Mr. Spearing: Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has just said, there is considerable concern throughout the country as a whole, and especially in the older areas of cities. Much of this concern is based on wrong information. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that he gets the right information across on Monday? While ensuring that there are no unfair repercussions on immigrants already here, will he make sure also that there are no unfair repercussions on the people in the older areas of cities, who have been there for many years?
    Mr. Jenkins: I hesitate to predict whether, in the course of a single speech, I can attain all the substantial objectives that my hon. Friend has outlined, but I shall try seriously to deal with these matters.
    Sir David Renton: As there are still large numbers of immigrants coming from the Commonwealth and Pakistan, which is not a member of the Commonwealth, would it not be better to refuse those people, thus making it more feasible to accept the holders of United Kingdom passports?
    Mr. Jenkins: We are maintaining very strict control over these numbers, and there is virtually no admission from the Commonwealth or Pakistan for new heads of families. Almost all the immigrants coming now are those who are entitled to do so under the rules as they originally existed and were confirmed by the 1971 Act, enabling heads of families to bring in their dependants—wives and children under 18.
    I would not contemplate going back on this undertaking by saying that we should continue in this country indefinitely with divided families. That would not assist our problems. But I agree there is a limit to the rate of absorption that we can maintain.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Home Secretary convey to his departmental officers the gratitude of all hon. Members about the way in which they deal with inquiries from families whose dependants come here? Will he discuss with the Foreign Secretary the waiting time in Bombay and Islamabad which is now 18 months, with a view to expediting the procedures?
    Mr. Jenkins: We have made some changes, in order to expedite these procedures. Inevitably it is our right to have some degree of control there, as the overwhelming majority of immigrants are families who are entitled to join the heads of families already here, and inevitably there is pressure from those who cannot be members of families but who try to come here under a false guise. One is bound to appreciate that with the difference in the standard of living of those here and those remaining behind, a degree of pressure is inevitable. It means that we have a sieve, but we must try to make it work faster. But as a sieve is inevitable it must take a certain amount of time.

    Psychiatric Patients (Voting Rights)
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is
    1696
    satisfied with the arrangements for voting rights of patients in psychiaric hospitals; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John: The 1973–74 Speaker's Conference recommended that patients resident in mental hospitals should be able to use the hospital as their qualifying address for the purpose of electoral registration. The Government have now accepted this recommendation in principle, subject to the satisfactory resolution of certain practical problems that have been identified by an interdepartmental working party set up on the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference.
    Mr. Flannery: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he accept from me that among the best of the community health councils—modesty forbids me from admitting that one is in Sheffield—there is very deep concern about this matter? Can an overall review of the democratisation of, and voting in, such institutions be undertaken?
    Mr. John: My hon. Friend will know from my earlier answer that the working party is looking at the practical problems, the principle having been accepted by the Government. It is now consulting other parties and specialist bodies in mental health to see how these practical problems can be overcome.
    Mr. Christopher Price: There will be a wide welcome for this move, since many patients in psychiatric hospitals are there for no better reason than that their relatives have deserted them and they have nowhere else to live. There is some urgency about sorting out the final details. May we have a date when final implementation can be expected?
    Mr. John: I cannot do that, because a satisfactory solution is often preferable to a quick unsatisfactory solution. As for the question of principle, I was a member of the Speaker's Conference and I have no hesitation in saying that we found the case compellingly made out. That is why we made that recommendation.

    Winson Green Prison (Education Facilities)
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what

    1697
    steps he is intending to take to improve the prison education situation in Winson Green Prison, Birmingham.
    Mr. John: The education programme was restarted last week on a limited basis. Available resources are unlikely to permit a significant improvement in the near future.
    Mrs. Knight: Does the Minister recall that Command Paper No. 4214, which deals with education and vocational services, says that all offenders over 21 have to attend a certain number of classes each week? Does he appreciate the situation at Winson Green Prison, where just under 900 offenders are locked in their rooms for 23 hours a day, receiving no education but for the limited amount that the Minister has mentioned? Does he accept that that is far from satisfactory?
    Mr. John: I accept what the hon. Member said about the figures. The education programme has been restarted, but "available resources" means two things. It means the money involved—and I am sure that the hon. Member joins me in expressing concern about the level of public expenditure. It also means the availability of prison staff, who, for example, are often heavily engaged in conducting people to court for hearings. That is one of the problems.
    Mr. Grocott: Since the education service in prisons represents only one aspect of attempts to rehabilitate people, and since that is unsatisfactory, does my hon. Friend agree that all facilities designed to rehabilitate the prisoner—the education service, the pre-release employment scheme and other such arrangements—urgently need extension and improvement? If not, prison will continue to be what it is at the moment—a university of crime.
    Mr. John: A great deal is being done in order' to proceed along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. There are, however, certain priorities in our present economic situation and it would be foolish for me to mislead the House into believing that desirable projects do not have to be deferred whilst we tackle the main objectives.

    European Assembly (Direct Elections)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what
    1698
    estimate he has made of the length of time the Boundary Commission would take to draw up the boundaries of the constituencies in the event of direct elections to a European Assembly.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The length of time that the Boundary Commissions would take to draw up constituency boundaries for direct elections to the European Assembly depends on the terms of reference and procedure which Parliament gives them in the legislation. I look forward to hearing the views of the Select Committee on this point.
    Mr. Marten: That is an eminently sensible answer. May we have an assurance that when the Boundary Commissions come into operation they will operate in precisely the same way for direct elections as for the ordinary constituency boundary changes, and that there will be no short cuts in order to expedite direct elections?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, I cannot give any such assurance. As I told the House quite firmly in the debate on the White Paper on direct elections, it would be desirable for the constituencies to be drawn up by the Boundary Commissions rather than it being done by Parliament, which is perhaps not best suited to such a job. That being so, it is essential, if we are to meet the timetable—if that remains as 1978—that the commissions should operate with existing "building blocks". They cannot go back and start afresh. They must take existing constituency units and make recommendations as to how they can be put together for direct elections.
    Mr. Heffer: I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend that he will take into consideration the views of the Boundary Commissions. Is he aware that the Labour Party has not yet taken a view on the question of direct elections? Therefore, will he consult not only the Labour Party but the other parties before any decision is taken by the Government either about boundaries or about the principle of direct elections?
    Mr. Jenkins: There have been consultations with the parties, but I think it must be the constitutional position that the decision in principle about whether we should have direct elections should be taken by the Government and

    1699
    endorsed by the House, and not by any party.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: The Home Secretary refers to using the existing pattern of constituency boundaries as a basis. Would it not give greater confidence in the exercise if he expedited the redrawing of constituency boundaries for the House of Commons and corrected the grotesque disparities which at present exist in the size of electorates?
    Mr. Jenkins: There are, of course, conflicting considerations to be borne in mind here. There is, first, the undesirability of constant flux in the map of parliamentary constituencies. That affects the whole country. There is also the undesirability of continuing with constituencies that are grossly larger than other constituencies. A balance must be struck between these two considerations, and I believe that that will be done sensibly by sticking to the timetable laid down by the Boundary Commissions that they should report between 10 and 15 years after their last general reports. The next reports should begin to be available after 1979.
    Mr. Jay: Does my right hon. Friend think that before the House takes a final decision other bodies should be consulted, as was done by the Government with the TUC in the case of the incomes policy?
    Mr. Jenkins: Of course other bodies should be consulted. There has been close consultation with the party organisations. The Select Committee will no doubt take account of such views. These consultations can be held again and discussed by the House before it takes a final decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) seemed to be suggesting more than that, and that some other body should take the decision.
    Mr. Heffer: I did not say that.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does the Home Secretary agree that if the constituencies for the European Parliament are to be made up of groupings of existing parliamentary constituencies, that could be done very quickly by the Boundary Commissions?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes, I think it could be done quite quickly and ably, and done better by an independent body. If I have
    1700
    misrepresented my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, I apologise.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about attempting to build on existing boundaries. Will he do his best to ensure that the European Parliament constituency boundaries do not cross over the original Westminster boundaries? If he does not, he will add to the problems of devolution.
    Mr. Jenkins: I take note of that point, although in a sense points of that sort—the Government having taken the view that a Select Committee would be an advantage—are more relevant for Select Committee consideration.

    Heads of State (Visits)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the arrangements, which fall within his departmental responsibilities, for official visits from overseas Heads of State.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Yes, Sir. The police make appropriate arrangements for such occasions.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the protests by many people, including political and religious leaders of various persuasions, against torture and violations of human rights in Brazil, was it not provocative and an affront to all who believe in democracy to allow the Fascist dictator of Brazil to ride in state through the streets of London? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the advisability of permitting this sort of shameful spectacle?
    Mr. Jenkins: As my hon. Friend is aware this question is not primarily one for me, although I am willing to take the responsibility for answering it. The demonstrations that occurred were of a mild nature and the Commissioner of Police assures me that the policing arrangements during the State visit were not in any way abnormal, compared to arrangements for State visits from a wide range of countries. If we were to prohibit everything against which people demonstrate, nothing much would happen in this country.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Is the Home Secretary aware that those hon. Members on both sides of the House who know enough about Brazil, unlike some hon.

    1701
    Members, warmly welcome the attitude that the Government have taken to the visit by President Geisel, which can do nothing but good for the cause of parliamentary democracy in Brazil and for Great Britain's trade?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am all in favour of supplementary questions ranging reasonably widely. I am in favour of not keeping my own nose too buried in the recesses of the Home Office. But the hon. Gentleman is getting much too wide of the original Question.

    Detention Centres (Remissions of Sentence)
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the effect on establishments of the increase in remission to detainees in detention centres.
    Mr. John: The increase in remission, which applied only to boys under the age of 17 when they were sentenced to detention centre training, reduced the normal training time in the six junior centres from eight and a half weeks to six and a half weeks. The wardens and staff of the junior centres have worked hard to adapt training programmes to the shorter period of custody, but it is too soon to make a definite assessment of the effects of this change.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the increase in remission has put great pressures on the organisation and staff at the centres? Will he ensure that the opinions of the staff are taken into account when the subject comes up for its annual review?
    Mr. John: Yes. A conference was held in March to consider this problem and a further conference to consider its effects will be held in September.
    Mr. Sims: Will the Minister consider whether his action is justified? Has not the procedure of unilaterally increasing remission at detention centres undermined the authority of the courts that imposed the original sentences?
    Mr. John: A definitive assessment will be made as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is wide of the mark. The primary reason
    1702
    for the increase in remission is to relieve chronic overcrowding. The action is generally in line with my right hon. Friend's policy that young offenders should spend shorter periods in Prison Department custody.

    Contraband (Police Powers)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the powers he possesses concerning the role of the police in the detention of people entering the country in the possession of contraband.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend possesses no such powers.
    Mr. Adley: Do the police have clear and unambiguous powers to apprehend, without prior reference to Customs, port or health authorities, people suspected of being about to break or of breaking, the animal quarantine regulations? Much of the problem is likely to arise in small harbours rather than in the large ports on which the Government seem to be concentrating most of their efforts.
    Dr. Summerskill: The responsibility for directing the police officers in the enforcement of the law rests with the chief officers of police concerned. The principal rôle in enforcing the law on contraband is performed by Customs officers, but the police co-operate closely with them. If the hon. Gentleman has particulars of any local difficulty, perhaps he will inform the chief officer of police in the area concerned.

    Shops Act 1950
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been received by his Department seeking amendments to the Shops Act 1950.
    Dr. Summerskill: So far this year about 60 letters on the working of the Act have been received from local authorities, shopkeepers and others. The majority favoured relaxing restrictions on Sunday trading.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister agree that the level of representation demonstrates that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the working of the legislation, particularly as it affects Sunday trading? When will the stupid anomalies

    1703
    in the legislation affecting Sunday trading be swept away?
    Dr. Summerskill: Although the hon. Gentleman may reflect the public view to some extent, he does not reflect the parliamentary view. When we last voted on amending the Shops Act the vote was 159 against and 151 for. There is no general agreement on the way in which the Shops Act should be amended, and the Government cannot find time in their present legislative programme to do so.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Irrespective of the arguments about Sunday trading, will the Minister consult the Department of Environment in order to get something done about those Sunday markets that continue to trade without planning permission?
    Dr. Summerskill: Local authorities are responsible for implementing the Shops Act.

  MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister whether he has any further proposals for changes in the allocation of ministerial responsibilities.
  Mr. MacGregorasked the Prime Minister whether he has any further proposals for changes in the allocation of ministerial responsibilities.
  Mr. Aitkenasked the Prime Minister whether he has any further proposals for changes in the allocation of ministerial responsibility.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): No.
  Mr. Lawson: Would it not be a good idea if the Prime Minister were to give to one of his Ministers the responsibility for investigating his redeployed predecessor's smear campaigns? Meanwhile, can the Prime Minister say whether the security services have discovered any evidence whatever to justify the serious allegations by his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) of improper interference by South African organisations in British political life—yes or no?
  Mr. Callaghan: I am all in favour of the hon. Gentleman asking me a ques-
  1704
  tion, but I am not going to allow him to give the reply as well. Those of us who have known my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) for many years know that he has a great capacity for illuminating a truth long before it becomes apparent to other people. In this case there is no doubt that as the investigation proceeds, and despite the persiflage that surrounds much of it, it will be found that attacks are being made against individual members of the Liberal Party. As to who is making them, that is not something that I can go into at this stage. The security authorities are investigating reports that have been made, but there is no evidence, apart from what is appearing about Mr. Russouw, to connect the South African Government with the campaign that has been going on. It was clear that Mr. Russouw exceeded the expectations of a diplomat in any country.
  Mr. Pavitt: On a more practical and less political note, will my right hon. Friend take a long clear look at the large departments of ministerial responsibility that have existed since 1968, with a view, for example, to separating the Department of Health and Social Security into two Departments?
  The Prime Minister: I had not thought of doing that. I am against scrambling omelettes and unscrambling them again. A certain amount of stability in Civil Service organisation is a good thing, if people are to know where they stand. If there were a deficiency in organisation I should certainly want to review it to see whether changes should be made.
  Mr. MacGregor: In view of the continuing decline of the pound since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, will he consider appointing a Minister of Cabinet rank to deal with public expenditure and cutting down the borrowing requirement, which is the obvious reason for the lack of confidence in his economic policies?
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry if I have made all that impact in six weeks. I have a feeling that there are more deep-rooted causes for the position of sterling. Those causes extend over many years, when both my party and the hon. Gentleman's party were in power. The matter should not be treated as if it were a game

  1705
  of bingo. It is a serious question. The integrity of our currency concerns us all —or it should do. It is therefore my concern to ensure that economic and financial policies command support, not only at home but overseas. We are making great progress in that direction.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: In view of the alarming increase in import penetration, the outflow of capital, the speculation against sterling and the inter-relationship between those factors, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of one Minister being responsible for both trade and payments policies, so that we may begin to plan trade policy linked with the balance of payments and the protection of sterling?
  The Prime Minister: These policies are co-ordinated. There is bound to be an increase in the level of imports as there is economic recovery, because this country depends so much on imports of raw materials, commodities and semi-manufactures. I am glad to say that exports are going ahead very well. I trust that that trend will be maintained. We have the capacity to maintain it, and the price is right. I hope that we can now achieve delivery at the right time. Coordination is the responsibility of the Cabinet as a whole. We are carrying it out.
  Mr. Aitken: Will the Prime Minister consider appointing a Minister with special responsibility for immigration, in order to reconcile the apparent differences of policy that have arisen between the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this subject? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while Home Office Ministers have been saying that there will be no increase in the 5,000 vouchers issuable to East African Asians, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said at the Dispatch Box on Monday that there might be certain circumstances in which the number of vouchers would have to be increased? Who is in charge?
  The Prime Minister: I am.
  Mr. Grimond: Reverting to the Prime Minister's original answer, as we all agree with his assessment of his predecessor's
  1706
  capabilities, will he assure us that after the completion of the inquiries, which are of great interest to my party, there will be a statement on exactly what has been going on in South Africa in this matter?
  The Prime Minister: I shall certainly consider that. Nobody in any political party should be under the threat of suspicion if it can be cleared. In some of these matters security considerations are involved, and it would not be the custom or practice for us to depart from that, but I shall suggest to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that he should consider whether it is possible to make a statement in due course. It may take a little time.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: Will my right hon. Friend consider transferring some of the powers of the Lord Chancellor to the Attorney-General, so that there may be more accountability to the House for matters with which the Lord Chancellor is at present concerned?
  The Prime Minister: If there is a particular illustration of the need for that, I shall be glad to look into it, but in one of my previous incarnations as Home Secretary I was always very careful to avoid intervening between the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor, and I recommend that caution to my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Thatcher: As the Prime Minister says very firmly that he is in charge, may I ask him whether he now intends to take personal responsibility for matters concerning Rhodesia or whether he will leave them to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and to the Home Secretary, as regards British passport holders? The Prime Minister will be aware of the urgency of the question, because on the tape there is a statement that the British High Commission in Lusaka has repeated previous advice that British citizens should consider leaving Rhodesia. Will he therefore say what contingency plans have been made, should any such people wish to come to this country, and what diplomatic initiatives he intends to take to avoid bloodshed?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the distribution of functions is clearly understood. I certainly do not wish to intervene in it.

  1707
  As I read the story that appeared on the tape, I understood that the High Commissioner had been asked a question to which he gave the reply given on many previous occasions. There was no new statement of policy, and I do not think that the right hon. lady meant to indicate that there was. It is obvious that since sanctions we have not been in a position to give consular protection to British citizens in Rhodesia. That situation has not changed. As I understand it—from the same information as that which the right hon. Lady has—the High Commissioner, in reply to a question, pointed out once again that those who felt in need of that protection would have to leave the country if they were to get it.
  As for emergency arrangements, the Government make contingency plans for a number of events, and the right hon. lady and the House may take it that the subject of United Kingdom passport holders in Rhodesia is under review.

  RABIES
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will reallocated responsibility so as to make one Minister responsible for coordination of anti-rabies measures.
  The Prime Minister: That responsibility, in so far as the campaign against rabies in animals is concerned, already rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Mr. Adley: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. I realise that technical matters are handled by the Ministry of Agriculture, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Office has decided to see a delegation of Members from all parties about the police powers in this connection; that the Customs officers are responsible to the Treasury; and that questions of notification of the regulations for overseas visitors are in the hands of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? In view of the widespread concern, particularly in coastal constituencies, will the Prime Minister consider giving one Minister, if only temporarily, wider powers than he might normally enjoy to co-ordinate overall the work of dealing with the problems connected with rabies?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have acquainted myself with a number of the facts on this situation. The hon. Gentleman's constituency is clearly one that would be immediately affected. I understand that a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture will be present at the meeting with the deputation that the hon. Member will be leading. The various aspects of control must be in the hands of local agencies. Up to now, I am satisfied that there is co-ordination. However, a number of aspects of the problem need to be examined. For example, if I may revert to an earlier Question, I think that we should consider the possibility of making offences under the rabies legislation arrestable. I do not know what answer we should come up with, but that is the kind of issue that I am having examined. I hope that we can find some answers to it. I do not think that any hon. Member is in doubt about the gravity of the matter.
  Mr. Corbett: In view of the seriousness of the threat of the introduction of the disease here, will my right hon. Friend suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that he make a ministerial broadcast and a personal appeal to so-called pet lovers not to take an appalling risk?
  The Prime Minister: That is a very good suggestion, and I shall pass it on. The broadcast would probably have to be on the BBC overseas service, although clearly people going abroad and returning also need to have this information. A number of matters are being considered, such as suggestions to port officers about directing boats with animals aboard to certain specified moorings. That is the kind of thing that could be done. The Government will certainly take action to draw attention, as far as is possible, to the dreadful consequences of the disease coming to this country.
  Mr. Costain: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that there are reports of rabies within a 100 miles of my constituency, and that Folkestone and Dover have the biggest passenger traffic of any port in Great Britain? The Minister of Agriculture's responsibility comes in after the disease has broken out, and we must wish to prevent it. Could not the Prime Minister arrange for the local police forces to have special powers of inspection and

  1709
  to help the Customs and immigration people?
  The Prime Minister: The police have powers. Questions were asked about them 20 minutes or so ago, and were answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Whether they should have more powers is a question to which we are giving consideration. There is a maximum fine of £400 on summary conviction, and on indictment there is the prospect of imprisonment. These are serious penalties and I think that they are adequate. It is now a matter of ensuring that those who try to smuggle in animals are caught.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that offences might be much more effectively prevented if they were made subject to much more severe penalties—say, a fine of £1,000 or a minimum of five years' imprisonment?
  The Prime Minister: I am never quite sure where the deterrent ceases to apply. I should not like to go into the question whether more serious penalties would have the consequences that my hon. Friend suggests. It is important that we should alarm people and awaken them to the consequences of the introduction of the disease into this country.
  Mr. Burden: Does the Prime Minister agree that the many proposals put to him this afternoon indicate the gravity with which the matter is viewed? Will he therefore set up a committee which can act very quickly and can consider publicising the dangers and producing a cohesive programme that can be brought out quickly to deal with them?
  The Prime Minister: There is a cohesive programme and the departmental responsibilities are properly coordinated. There is no confusion about responsibilities as between the various local agents who are concerned with this matter, whether they be Customs and Excise officials, police, or people from the Department of Health who are concerned about rabies in human beings. Only if we set up a special department, with special agents to deal with the matter, would there be complete co-ordination. I am sure that it is right to leave it to the local
  1710
  agencies, provided they have proper direction.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: Does the Prime Minister agree that, however important the measures taken at home may be, it is far more important to ensure that the disease never arrives in this country? As to co-ordination, is the Prime Minister satisfied that enough is being done at foreign ports to reduce the possibility of the disease coming into this country? Does not this emphasise yet again the need for proper consideration of the matter, and proper co-ordination?
  The Prime Minister: There is proper co-ordination in the matter. The local agencies understand their powers and responsibilities perfectly well.
  As to the position in foreign ports, I am not able to give an authoritative answer. I am told that at the end of 1975 the nearest point in France that the disease had reached was about 80 miles from the coast of France, although one or two isolated cases have since been reported a few miles further west. The control measures on the Continent are different from ours, because on the Continent there is an endemic situation.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our task is to try to keep the disease as far away as we can. But I regret that we cannot stop people trying to smuggle animals in, except, perhaps, by bringing home to them the serious consequences of their actions.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that one of the strongest recommendations of the Waterhouse Committee, which went into the whole question in great detail, was that the port authorities around our coast should be greatly strengthened? Will he investigate this and ensure that this action is taken?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that some of these questions will be directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that my right hon. Friend has joined me on the Front Bench. I feel like Wellington when Blucher arrived. Perhaps hon. Members will table some of these detailed questions to my right hon. Friend. If they are not satisfied with his answers, I am sure that he will let me know.

RHODESIA (SPORTS TEAMS)
The following Written Questions stood upon the Order Paper
Mr. RIPPON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it was by his authority that the Minister of Sport banned Rhodesian holders of British passports from entering the United Kingdom to play cricket; under what power the ban was imposed; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. URWIN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Rhodesian sports teams have toured the United Kingdom since UDI; how many have sought to do so; and what Government action has been taken to prevent such tours, and with what results.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Denis Howell, to answer Written Questions Nos. 118 and 133.
The Minister of State for Sport and Recreation (Mr. Denis Howell): Successive Governments have made it quite clear to the Sports Council that following the decisions of the British Parliament to declare the Rhodesian UDI to be illegal, and the international support for this stand both at the United Nations and by international sporting bodies such as the International Olympic Committee and FIFA, it would be quite incompatible with these decisions to allow normal sporting encounters to take place with Rhodesia.
In furtherance of this policy, the previous Administration intervened on several occasions to stop visits by sporting teams to and from Rhodesia. In 1971 they stopped the entry into this country of two Rhodesians—including an African—for the World Ploughing Contest, and in the same year they intervened to secure the withdrawal of a Rhodesian team from the Admirals' Cup. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) did well in spite of that.
In 1972, following similar intervention, a Rhodesian team withdrew from the World Bowls Championship, and a proposed visit by a British hockey team to Rhodesia was cancelled. In May 1973 the Womens Squash Rackets Association, after consultation with the then Government, cancelled a proposed visit to
1712
Rhodesia by a British team, and in February 1974, after similar consultation, the Amateur Basketball Association decided not to send a team to Rhodesia.
So far as is known, two teams, one of hockey players and one of cricket players, have toured this country during the last two years, but on both occasions neither the Government nor the governing bodies of the sport concerned were consulted, and only learned of these tours after those teams had returned home.
The powers under which the Government can act are contained in the Southern Rhodesia (Immigration Act 1971) Order 1972.
Mr. Urwin: I thank my right hon. Friend for the information which he has given to the House on this very important subject. I am sure that it can bring no joy to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who surely had ministerial responsibility for at least some part of the time to which my right hon. Friend has referred.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are many people, certainly on the Government side of the House, who have no quarrel with sanctions imposed in sporting activities? Indeed, I go so far as to say that this policy would be wholly compatible with the trade embargoes operated since UDI. My right hon. Friend has referred—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister did not make a statement. He answered a Question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask a question.
Mr. Rippon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not normal for a Minister who is to answer a Written Question to give notice to the hon. Member who put it down?
Mr. Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My office got in touch with the office of the right hon. and learned Gentleman at about 17 o'clock, and I was informed that he would be told that I was seeking to answer these Questions at 3.30 p.m.
Mr. Cryer Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting very untidy. An hon. Member is asking a question.
Mr. Urwin: Will my right hon. Friend say something more in regard to the latter part of his Answer, in which he referred to two teams which had come to this country without the knowledge of the Government? Will he say something about those tours, which appear to have been surreptitiously organised, and indicate what information he received about the Ridgeback's tour?
Mr. Howell: It is quite true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that following the previous practice of Labour and Conservative Governments to write to governing bodies and say that such tours are inadvisable, there seems to have been a change of practice, in that governing bodies are not now being consulted. That is how these teams have got into this country without knowledge.
We were aware of the Ridgebacks' tour because the Rhodesia Herald of 29th April carried a statement which made it clear that there had been a public appeal in Rhodesia for funds to send the team here and that eight members of the side had played for the Rhodesian national team. I made it clear last week that they would not be allowed to play in this country, whatever pseudonym they used.
Mr. Monro: Is it not right that decisions on touring teams should be resolved by the responsible national bodies and not by the last-minute intervention of the Minister of State for Sport and Recreation? Would the Minister not agree that this tour of club cricketers, who can come here as individuals, has been blown up out of all proportion by the Minister's action during the last week? Would he give his interpretation of these powers under the 1968 and 1972 legislation in relation to sport?
Mr. Howell: I think it very odd that, in the seven days in which I have been lambasted by the Press and the Opposition, not one word has come from any official spokesman of the Opposition, bearing in mind that they acted similarly on six occasions. On this occasion we acted at the last minute because it was the first we had heard of the matter. Had we known earlier, we would have acted as the Conservative
1714
Government acted. The only case in which powers have been used to prevent someone from entering was when an African was coming here for the World Ploughing Contest.
Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that many people in this House, to whom it is not sufficient excuse for Government action that the Conservative Party committed some ludicrous folly first—they would no doubt have received a Russian cricket team with acclamation if the Russians were foolish enough to play cricket—believe that it is time we dropped this attitude and accepted that people who want to come here to play games may not be very important and should be allowed to come?
Mr. Howell: That is an understandable point of view and may be valid, but it is not a point of view previously advanced by the Liberal Benches in this House, or in another place, when the Conservative Government defended their decision over ploughmen. The fact is that Parliament and the courts have declared this regime to be illegal and Parliament has imposed severe penalties on business men who trade with Rhodesia. It is surely ludicrous at the same time to play games with Rhodesia.
Mr. Faulds: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is nothing very sporting about racial discrimination and the consequent human—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take one!"] I usually have my words well. Does the Minister not agree that there is nothing sporting about racial discrimination and the consequent human deprivation? Would it not be advisable for some of the permanently immature schoolboys opposite to go back to their peculiar schools in order to relearn the whole ethos of cricket?
Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend that the only judgment of a sportsman should be on merits and not on grounds of racial origin. I must say in fairness to Rhodesia that they have sports organised on a multi-racial basis. Therefore, the case should not be confused with South Africa. The case against Rhodesia involves the illegality of its regime. If people persist in living an illegal existence, they cannot expect the normal social niceties of life to be made available to them.
Mr. Hastings: Will the Minister recognise that this decision and the action to which he has referred are typical of the spite manifested for so long by the Foreign Office department responsible for relations with Rhodesia, as many of us who have tried to follow this matter are so tragically aware? What kind of contribution will this demeaning and petty decision make towards eventual agreement with Rhodesia?
Mr. Howell: I do not believe that Conservative Ministers who took the decisions in earlier years on this matter were spiteful or mean in any degree. It is a little sad that no Conservative Member raised these subjects at that time. All that has happened is that my Conservative predecessors were more effective than I in catching people coming into this country, but, having caught them, I have been more honest than they were in letting people know about it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows
MONDAY 24TH MAY—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.
Proceedings on the Seychelles Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Northern Ireland Orders on Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) and Sex Discrimination.
Motion on the New Towns (Limit of Borrowing) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has announced opposed Private Business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 25TH MAY, WEDNESDAY 26TH MAY and THURSDAY 27TH MAY—Remaining stages of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
FRIDAY 28TH MAY—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment until Monday, 7th June.
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? Since we are not to have an economic debate next week, will he say whether a White Paper will be published next week or possibly after next week on the pay restraint agreement?
Secondly, as the situation in Rhodesia is becoming even more urgent and the arrangement for British passport holders is not yet clear, will he arrange some time soon for the House to have a foreign affairs debate with particular reference to Rhodesia?
Mr. Foot: There is to be a debate on foreign affairs. I am not saying that it will take place in the next week or two, but we were thinking of having in the forthcoming pericd a full day's debate on foreign affairs, and Rhodesia would arise as a subject for discussion in that debate, if desired. If a statement is required on that subject, we shall no doubt consider a request beforehand.
As for the right hon. Lady's request for a White Paper, I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to say whether there will be a White Paper on the subject, but I should have thought that there was a probability. We shall give the House full notice of the. situation.
Mr. Ashley: Is it not quite wrong for the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Legal Profession to be selected from an allied profession which works very closely with the legal profession and which shares its general ethos? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate so that some of us can propose that the members of the Royal Commission should be strong, tough, radical and impartial men, who can examine deeply this well-entrenched and secretive profession?
Mr. Foot: I am sure that my hon. Friend, judging by his supplementary question, would make an admirable member of the Royal Commission. However, I am sure that he did not ask his supplementary question in the form of an application for such a position, and I would inform him that there are methods available by which representations can be made about those who are to compose commissions. I hope that my hon. Friend and others, if they wish, will make such representations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Sir John Hall: Does the Leader of the House recall that before the beginning of the main business yesterday the House heard three statements and that we then had points of order and an opposed Ten-Minute Bill? That meant that the main debate did not get under way until 5.11 p.m. and that, as a consequence, we lost debating time of one hour and forty minutes? Does he not agree that on a Supply Day it was a little unfortunate that so many hon. Members were shut out of the debate by so many Government statements? Is it not possible in future to ensure that the number of Government statements are severely limited so that time is not taken out of an important debate?
Mr. Foot: I agree that we should do everything in our power to avoid the situation that occurred yesterday whereby so much lime is taken with statements of that character. There were reasons in each case why those statements were made yesterday, although 1 shall not go into the details of each case. I agree that we should try to avoid a situation in which too many statements are made in such circumstances.
Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend say when time can be provided to debate the important subject of energy conservation, particularly in view of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, to which after a period of ten months the Government have made no reply?
Mr. Foot: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that we cannot have such a debate in the very near future. I shall look at the report and see whether there is an opportunity at a later date to have such a debate.
Mr. Hooson: Will the right hon. Gentleman, after the short recess and before the end of the Session, find time to debate Early-Day Motion No. 109 relating to a moratorium on whaling, which has been signed by 156 Members of all parties, since it is clearly an important, even though perhaps a narrow, issue?
[That this House is of opinion that the Government should impose a ban on the import of sperm whale products into this country and take all other practical steps to impose a moratorium on whaling for
1718
a period of 10 years as an essential conservation measure of great importance to mankind in general.]
Mr. Foot: I do not think that it is a narrow issue but it is an extremely important one. I do not detract from the importance of the subject. Indeed, if I were free to do so, I would have signed that motion myself. I am not sure whether we can find time to debate the matter, but I shall examine the point.
Mr. Reid: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the growing concern in Scotland over the timing of the Government's devolution proposals? Will he give a firm date on the form to be taken by that announcement? Will he comment on today's Press report that the Prime Minister is to visit Scotland, no doubt in an attempt to pre-empt the SNP conference on the subject?
Mr. Foot: It would not be just a matter of pre-empting that event, but of completely overshadowing it. I am sure that that was a wrong choice of words by the hon. Gentleman. As for giving the House a statement about the date of the devolution proposals, a statement will be made, although I cannot yet give him a date. I am sure that it will be as soon as possible.
Mr. Cryer: May I draw my right lion. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 389 regarding the doctrinaire attitude of Conservative councillors at Tameside? Does he not agree that it is urgent that the House should debate this matter because the motion has been signed by a number of Conservative Members of Parliament and condemns the attitude of the Conservative majority at Tameside in disrupting comprehensive plans?
[That this House deplores the continuing uncertainty caused by the threat of disruptive and precipitous action by the Conservative Council in the Metropolitan District of Tameside whereby the educational progress of thousands of children is jeopardised, the functioning of schools is endangered by the threat of an immediate return to 11+ examination, the career opportunities of many teachers are damaged and scarce public resources allocated to build a more viable nonselective system of secondary education may be misused, especially when the

1719
system due to be implemented from September gives nearly 90 per cent. of parents the first choice of secondary school for their children.]
It is serious that hon. Members opposite have signed the motion, because they are either betraying their own party or they cannot read—in which case there is a crisis of education in the public school system.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should inform the House that my attention has been drawn to the fact that in the Notice of Motions circulating this morning, the names of more than 50 hon. Members which should have appeared under the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) to a motion were printed in error under the motion itself. This matter will of course be set right. It is not the fault of the hon. Members concerned.
Mr. Foot: I fully share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Keiehley (Mr. Cryer) and those hon. Members who consciously signed the motion about the Tameside situation, which carries serious risks for the educational opportunities of some 3,000 children and for relations between the local education authority and its teachers. Some hasty and ill-considered things have been said by individuals. It is essential to know what the authority proposes to do, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has asked for such a statement to be supplied to him. I believe that it is on that basis that we should look at the matter further. It is extremely serious for the children involved.
Mr. William Hamilton: When does my right hon. Friend expect to announce the names of the members of the Select Committee on Procedure? Have the Government already fixed up the chairmanship of the Committee?
Mr. Foot: I do not like the words "fixed up". I do not know where my hon. Friend gets this indelicate vocabulary. I very much hope that the names of members of the Committee will be put on the Order Paper today or tomorrow. The chairman has been approached on the same basis as the chairmen of all
1720
previous such Committees have been approached.
Mr. Peyton: We are so pleased to hear that children are to be protected from doctrinaire attitudes. I trust that the Leader of the House will communicate that fact to the Secretary of State for Education.
There are many amendments, a great many of which emanate from the Government side of the House, to the Police Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we go rather late in our consideration of the Bill tonight, there is no need to continue and to drive the House into the ground and that further time may have to be provided?
Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall), it seems wrong that Government statements should be repeatedly taking time out of an Opposition day. I take the point made by the Leader of the House about the circumstances yesterday, but on Tuesday there were two routine statements which could well have been answered by a Written Reply without eating into the time of the House.
Are we making progress on the question of the composition of Select Committees? There may have been discussions. If so, I hope that they will prove fruitful and that before we rise the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a statement to the House.
Mr. Foot: I very much hope that we shall make further progress on the question of the composition of Select Committees. We are having further discussions, and I, too, hope that they will prove fruitful. If agreement is reached about how we should proceed, I shall make a statement to the House. I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern.
However, I do not think that his remarks about Government statements were justified. especially when he said that the statements on Tuesday were of a secondary character and need not have been made on the Floor of the House. One of the statements was about the asbestos inquiry—a matter on which great concern has been expressed in many parts of the House. If we had made that statement in a Written Reply, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, I am sure that he would have been the first to leap to

1721
the Dispatch Box to criticise us for making that decision.
I recognise that there are difficulties about the Police Bill, but we believe that they should be overcome in today's proceedings. We want to proceed with the Bill in the way I described last week. I know that there are some problems, but we shall do our best to overcome them.
Mr. Wigley: May we have an early debate after the recess on the Layfield Committee Report? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government will publish a White Paper as quickly as possible in view of the uncertainty created by the report, particularly in the farming community?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an early debate. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made clear, there are a number of formidable documents associated with the report and the House and the country should have an opportunity to discuss the whole background, including these documents, before we have a debate. Of course, the report must be debated at some stage.
Mr. James Johnson: An important meeting is taking place in Oslo at this moment between NATO Ministers. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that a statement will be made to the House on Monday, particularly as the Foreign Secretary has been talking to the Icelandic Foreign Minister, Einarr Augusstson, and possibly other Ministers, about the cod war?
Mr. Foot: I know my hon. Friend's special interest in this matter. I cannot guarantee a statement on Monday, but I shall convey his question to the Foreign Secretary.
Sir David Renton: As I was one of the many hon. Members on this side of the House whose names were erroneously added to Early-Day Motion No. 389, may I ask whether, in order to ease the burden on the Table Office, our names will be withdrawn from that motion and added to the amendment without all of us having to go along to the Vote Office to ask that this should be done?
Mr. Foot: We shall try to ensure bulk redemption for hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Molyneaux: On what day does the Leader of the House expect to move the motion for the Adjournment for the recess?
Mr. Foot: I am not sure. It will be moved on Tuesday or Wednesday. I am sorry that I have not been able to make an announcement today.
Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to debating EEC regulations and orders at a more reasonable hour, as there is growing suspicion —with both the Front Benches being in favour of Britain's entry—that these debates are coming on late so that the number of hon. Members in the House will dwindle and these matters can go through without proper parliamentary scrutiny? Would he consider this matter and, if necessary, bring forward a number of orders on one day, or make some other arrangement through the usual channels, so that hon. Members may discuss and, if necessary, vote on these vital questions?
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is one of the most diligent attenders in the House, but I think that he was not here for last night's debate. I am not blaming him. But if he had been here, I am sure that he would have agreed that we are not seeking to treat this matter lightly. We are seeking better solutions for these problems.
We had what all hon. Members who were present would agree was a good and constructive debate last night. A solution is not easy, but we made some advance last night, and the Government will bring forward proposals to help the situation.
The question of the timing of debates was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and others. If EEC debates are to be taken at another time, other matters will be pushed out. That is one of the difficulties, but I shall certainly take into account the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer).
Mr. Tapsell: Will there be a ministerial statement next week on devolution announcing that the Government are retreating from their previous undertaking to produce a dummy Bill for discussion by the House in the present Session?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman and the House would be better advised to wait and see what happens next week. I hope that we shall carry the hon. Gentleman and many others along with us when the announcement is made.
Mr. Christopher Price: In view of the substantial public interest which the balanced report of the Select Committee on Cyprus has produced, will my right hon. Friend give an indication when this important and unique report will be debated in the House?
Mr. Foot: I am not sure that the phrase "balanced report" is the description that would jump to everyone's lips. We shall have to see whether the House wishes to have a debate or whether the report could be discussed within the general foreign affairs debate. I shall wait to see what representations are made to me.
Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman showed some sympathy when I asked him last week whether he would consult the Home Secretary about the possibility of making available to the House the figures for the number of animals bred in establishments in this country for vivisection and exported, the number of animals that were so exported and the species of the animals in question.
Mr. Foot: I am sorry that no announcement has been made about it. I am not able to make an announcement now, but I shall communicate with the hon. Gentleman on the subject.
Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) asked about the conservation of energy resources. Does not my right hon. Friend think that there should be a debate in the resonably near future on the conservation of water resources, in view of the abnormal drought? We have had debates on statutory matters appertaining to water, but a general stocktaking debate is called for.
Mr. Foot: Every question that is put to me illustrates the difficulty of providing time. I agree that it would be highly desirable to have debates on all these subjects, but the time is just not available. We have to deal with them in statements and by other means.
Mr. Whitelaw: I revert to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) about the Police Bill. I am the first to understand that Leaders of the House normally reply that they will have to see how they get on. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the Bill has been largely rewritten since it was introduced and that there are a substantial number of amendments, many of which are tabled by the Government and by Labour Members? Does the Leader of the House further understand that we in no way wish unnecessarily to delay the proceedings? I genuinely believe that there will be too much business for the House to complete at a reasonable and sensible hour. Will the Leader of the House undertake that if that proves to be the case, we shall not be asked to sit through the night?
Mr. Foot: I understand that the representations made by the right hon. Gentleman are genuine and that the number of amendments put down gives rise to these anxieties. On the other hand, the Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading, and it has been considered at 21 sittings in Committee. It was announced last week that we hoped to conclude proceedings on the Bill in a single day, a single half-night or a single night [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was put down for business today and everyone understands that. Some questions were put to me about it last week. I hope that we shall be able to get the Bill through in today's parliamentary business. We shall have to take into account representations that may be made at some time during the evening, but we want to get the Bill through and we have strong reasons for doing so. We wish to get it to the Lords as speedily as possible.
Mr. Michael Spicer: Will the Leader of the House elaborate his reply on the question of a Cyprus debate? He seemed to be slightly lukewarm in his approach. Does he understand that this is a very serious matter, and there may be repercussions on the NATO Alliance if the report is left on the table for too long? Will the Leader of the House give it much higher priority?
Mr. Foot: I made no statement about priority in my reply. I said that I would wait to see what representations were

1725
made on the subject, and I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. David Price: Has the Leader of the House had time to consider Early-Day Motion No. 382 calling for a Select Committee on rabies? He will recall that he answered my question last week favourably. In view of the exchanges earlier this week and today at Question Time, will he please state that the Government are prepared to set up a Select Committee on rabies? This is as much for the benefit of the Government as for anyone else.
[That, in view of the advance of rabies across continental Europe, with the increasing danger of this dreadful disease getting into Great Britain, this House invites the Government to establish as a matter of urgency a Select Committee to assess this danger, to study all appropriate measures, both to prevent rabies getting into Great Britain and to eradicate the disease, should preventive measures be unsuccessful, and to make recommendations.]
Mr. Foot: The Government are eager to do everything possible. Whether a Select Committee is the best way of dealing with the subject is another question, on which I have nothing to say now. I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend.
Dr. Edmund Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the subject of rabies comes within the remit of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee and that members of that Sub-Committee have asked me as their Chairman to indicate that they are considering the possibility of taking it as their next topic of investigation?
Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the information he has given.
Mr. Jessel: As the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill this morning completed its Committee stage, and as each week's delay in its implementation results in the loss of about 20 lives and 100 serious injuries, will the Leader of the House say when time is likely to be found for the remaining stages of the Bill?
Mr. Foot: I cannot give the exact date. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's arguments.
Mr. Crouch: Will the Lord President take it from me that the country's concern over rabies is no longer whether it will cross the Channel but when? The people in East Kent are anxious about the state of medical knowledge in this country and the world. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services about existing medical knowledge of the treatment of this terrible disease?
Mr. Foot: I shall see whether a statement about that can be made to the House next week. if a statement is made I hope that I shall not be accused of taking up the time of the House. I appreciate that it is a serious subject, but whether a Select Committee is the best way of dealing with it is another matter.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Has the Leader of the House seen Early-Day Motion No. 390 drawing attention to the failure of the promoters of the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill to make available to hon. Members a transcript of the Committee stage to enable them more effectively to deal with the Report stage? Will the Leader of the House consider referring the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure, so that in future when we consider contentious Private Bills we shall have available to us transcripts of the proceedings of the Committee to enable us to form a better judgment during the remaining stages?
[That this House records its displeasure at the failure of the promoters of the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill to ensure that there was available in the Private Bill Office a supply of transcripts of the proceedings of the Committee sufficient for the needs of honourable Members during their further consideration of this measure; censures the Agents for the promoters, Messrs. Sherwood & Co., for this discourtesy to Parliament; and requests Mr. Speaker to consider whether the said Agents should be suspended from the Register of Parliamentary Agents.]
Mr. Foot: I cannot add to what Mr. Speaker said yesterday on this subject. In the light of what you said, Mr. Speaker, I hope that hon. Members who have put down a motion on the subject will see fit to withdraw it. They are not acting fairly towards the parliamentary agents by putting down the motion.

1727
I shall consider whether it is advisable to refer the matter to the Sessional Procedure Committee. That is not a promise to do so. I shall consider it. In normal circumstances a Private Bill is not a matter for the Leader of the House, but I shall consider it. Whether or not we propose to send it to the Committee on Procedure, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will withdraw the motion from the Order Paper.
Mr. Lawrence: In view of the number of recent miscarriages of justice which have come to light, and the need to maintain public confidence in the system of criminal justice, will the Leader of the House give urgent consideration to bringing forward a debate on the Devlin proposals?
Mr. Foot: The Home Secretary referred to this subject last week. I cannot promise an early debate. The question whether there should be legislation is being urgently considered.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I understand that the Leader of the House will shortly have before him a report about the. House catering facilities. When will he lay it before the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange matters so that, when we come back after the short break, the Terrace Cafeteria downstairs is no longer closed at 7.30 p.m? Those of us who do not want high tea or dinner on a given night have to discuss business with our colleagues in the public cafeteria after 7.30 p.m.
Mr. Foot: These decisions were made by a previous Committee of which I was not a member. Whether they should be altered involves a whole series of other factors which the Committee, no doubt, took into account. I cannot yet give a date for when I shall put down a motion on the subject but I will try to let the hon. Gentleman know as soon as possible.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Lord President discuss with the Prime Minister whether an early opportunity could be taken to clear up the appalling allegations which have come to light regarding South Africa? Whatever the truth, or otherwise, of this matter, it surely cannot be left where it is.
Mr. Foot: I do not think there is any purpose in my adding to what the Prime Minister said at Question Time about the matter.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Leader of the House ensure that we do not debate the Layfield Report until at least three clear weeks after the publication of the evidence? Does he agree that it is quite unreasonable for the House to debate a matter of this complexity when it has not had adequate time to read the evidence submitted because it has not been printed and will not be available to hon. Members for some considerable time? If he cannot get it printed in a reasonable time through the usual channels, could he have it printed privately, rather than at the Stationery Office, so that hon. Members have it available as soon as possible, which must be highly desirable?
Mr. Foot: I certainly have some sympathy with hon. Members who urge me not to have urgent debates. I take that into account at once.
Sir Bernard Braine: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the answer which he gave to the request from this side of the House for more time to be given for consideration of the Police Bill? He seemed to give the impression that because the Standing Committee had had 21 sittings, this was sufficient. Will he bear in mind—and I speak as a member of the Committee—that in 25 years I cannot recollect another Bill which has left a Committee with so many alterations? If, on this important Bill, there is to be adequate consideration of even Government proposals, more time must he given; otherwise, I am afraid, a great deal of the argument will go through the night, tomorrow's business will be lost and no purpose will be served.
Mr. Foot: I was not suggesting that the fact that there were 21 sittings in Committee was the sole factor to be taken into account, but I think it is one of the factors which it is legitimate to take into account when considering the amount of time devoted to a Bill. I am sure that, if the research students got to work, many examples would be discovered of Bills which had been altered more extensively than this Bill. I repeat that we very much want to get the Bill through at today's proceedings, if we can, but I have

1729
heard the representations which have been made. We shall have to see what happens, although this should not be taken as any undertaking by me. We shall have to see what occurs.
Mr. Beith: Since progress has not been made in the discussions on the composition of the Committee of Selection. and since the Leader of the House cannot, for good reasons, carry the discussion further until the day before the Committee next meets, will he make time available for the motion on the Order Paper to be discussed?
Mr. Foot: I should like to have further discussions with the hon. Gentleman and others who represent some of the other parties in the House. I think we could have some discussion at the beginning of next week. Let us see how we proceed then. I do not believe that any vital decisions will be taken before we have had another opportunity to discuss it. What we are trying to do is see whether there is a convenient way in which the matter can be settled with general agreement throughout the House. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has a case, and we have to see how best we can accommodate it.

ADVOCACY BY MEMBERS (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) suggested to me that it was
"a convention of the House that an advocate does not personally raise or discuss in this House any matter which concerns a case in which he has been directly involved."—[Official Report, 19th May 1976, Vol. 911, c. 1429.]
I promised to give a considered ruling today.
The resolution of the House deprecating advocacy by Members of cases in which they have been concerned professionally for a fee must still be regarded as standing and indeed it was cited with approval by the Select Committee on Members' Interests of 1969 –70. It is, however, quite clear from the context of the debate at the time that the resolution was directed at civil cases and to cases involving Private Bills in particular.
In 1893 Mr. Speaker Peel was asked about a case involving the criminal law and he replied that after a criminal case had been decided there might be information at the disposal of a Member engaged in the case which could usefully be supplied for the conduct of the debate. Those were almost exactly the words used by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and I agree with him. I therefore intend to follow Mr. Speaker Peel's ruling until the House directs me otherwise.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  POLICE BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.19 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise the question of the selection of amendments? The amendments which have been selected do not include two new clauses to which, we were told in Committee, further consideration would be given before Report. There was no express undertaking, but a reference was made in Committee to the fact that further consultation would take place both in relation to the new clause which now stands on the Notice Paper as New Clause 7 and to the clause which now stands as New Clause 3, neither of which has been selected. I appreciate that the extent to which it is legitimate to question your ruling on these matters is limited but these are matters which occupied the Committee for some considerable time. It was considered that we were not in a position to press those amendments to a vote because further consultation was required. It was indicated that this consultation would take place.
  Amendment No. 9 which appears on the Paper to a certain extent is the other half of New Clause 7. May I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, for a ruling that you will permit New Clause 7 specifically to be discussed when we reach Amendment No. 9?
  However, New Clause 3 does not arise, except to a certain extent, under any other amendment: it stands in its own right. It was the subject of considerable debate in Committee. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department said in col. 1035 that it was intended that explorations and investigations with the police organisations would be undertaken to see to what extent it would be practicable to deal with the spirit and intention of the new clause which corresponded to what is now New Clause 3. In those circumstances my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) withdrew his amendment. However,
  1732
  neither of these new clauses is listed for debate.
  While I appreciate the point made by the Leader of the House—we are all anxious to see this Bill go through—it is, nevertheless, a technical Bill and an important and difficult Bill. It is important to ensure that it goes through in a form which is workable. Both sides of the House desire to see the Bill carried through effectively but it requires examination and the two new clauses are important. I feel that we should have an opportunity to discuss them in adequate detail.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) is right. Substantially the same clause as New Clause 3 was withdrawn in Committee, as reported at col. 1037 of the Official Report, on the understanding that the Parliamentary Secretary would intervene on Report to tell us of his consultations. Try as I might, I cannot see any other new clause or amendment as tabled, either by the Government or by Back Benchers on either side, which would allow him to make that intervention. Although the undertakings were given on All Fools Day 1976, I hope that they can be honoured and that perhaps the selection of amendments might be reconsidered on this point.
  Mr. Michael Alison: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that some very special considerations arise about the way in which we should handle the Bill and the suggested amendments. I do not know whether you are aware of the fact, but had it not been for the attitude of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), myself and one or two of my colleagues towards amendments tabled in Committee the Bill would not have emerged in this form, if at all.
  It is only because we agreed to a Government undertaking that they would enter into the most widespread and systematic consultations with outside bodies on the basis of proposals very akin to those contained in some of the new clauses—I understand that those

  1733
  consultations have since taken place—that we allowed the Bill to go through as it was. Because of the ending of the Committee stage, there has been no systematic opportunity to debate the principle which we put forward.
  The most important point is the reaction to those consultations of outside bodies with an immediate personal interest. This is the only opportunity that the House has had to consult and debate matters widely discussed outside by the representative bodies of the police. It would greatly damage the principle of debate and consideration of measures supported by both sides if we were not given an opportunity at least to discuss new Clause 4 and, I believe, new Clause 3. I hope that it will be possible for you to reconsider this matter.
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged for the way in which hon. Members have raised their points. I shall certainly look at New Clause 3, but I must say that my first understanding is that an identical, or almost identical, new clause was discussed in Committee and withdrawn without being pressed to a Division.
  On New Clause 7 I cannot hold out much hope at all, for technical reasons. I get into difficulties if I start explaining why I have not selected any new clause, and I had better not do so now. I shall consider whether there is cause to change my selection.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. What my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has said about New Clause 3 is correct. I undertook to report on the progress of certain negotiations. It is obviously a matter for you, but I have no objection to discussing New Clause 3.
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged. I shall let the House know my decision within a few minutes when I have considered it.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that this point of order is constructively put. It is intended solely to expedite progress on the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said, we are confronted by two Government new
  1734
  clauses and, subject to your discretion, possibly with extended debate on between 27 and 30 new Government amendments, plus amendments by others. I would, through you, put it to the Home Secretary, who I know wishes to get the Bill through, as do we all, that it is more likely to go through expeditiously if the House can know reasonably soon that the Government will not be pressing us to gallop through the whole thing during the night. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience of the House that pressing hon. Members to do that is likely only to be counter-productive and to result in debates which do not expedite the Bill. I would, through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the Home Secretary—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot ask the Home Secretary anything through me. He must ask him directly when he gets the chance. I have undertaken to look at the matters raised, and that I shall do.
  Sir Bernard Braine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept the ruling which you have just given, of course, but you are responsible for the general conduct of proceedings. I would join my hon. Friend in submitting—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I know already what is coming. We shall reach midnight simply on points of order if we do not begin the business. I cannot allow points of order on the question of how long the debate is likely to continue. If I am wrong in my assumption of what the hon. Gentleman wanted to raise, I apologise.
  Sir Bernard Braine: You have the gift, Mr. Speaker, of the Celtic race. You have psychic powers which enable you to see deep into the recesses of my heart and mind. All that I wanted to say is that, unless there is some quick response to the pleas which have been made, not only will the Government's clause, which we in principle support, be badly served but every police officer in the country, whose morale is bound up with what happens to the Bill, will look askance at this House. I hope that for that reason, if not because of the feelings of hon. Members, due note will be taken by the Home Secretary.

  POLICE BILL
    New Clause 1

      DISCIPLINARY CHARGES IN CRIMINAL CASES
      '(1) A disciplinary charge shall not be preferred against a member of a police force (or, if already preferred, shall be withdrawn) if he has been convicted or acquitted of a criminal offence and the charge would, if it were criminal, be barred by the conviction or acquittal.
      (2) Subsection (1) above shall not be construed as applying to a charge in respect of an offence against discipline which consists of having been found guilty of a criminal offence'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments to the new clause:
      Amendment (a), at the end of subsection (2), insert:
      but no punishment that is applied in respect of such a discipline offence shall be more severe than that to which the police officer already has been sentenced in respect of the said offence'.
      Amendment (b), at the end of subsection (2), add:
      '(3) a disciplinary charge shall not be preferred against a member of a police force (or, if already preferred, shall be withdrawn) if the charge is in substance the same as a possible criminal charge on which the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided, on evidential grounds, not to prosecute'.
      We may also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 26 and 38.
      Mr. Davidson: These amendments and the new clause are designed to deal with the problem of double jeopardy and to fulfil undertakings given by the Government in Committee. In announcing last July the scheme which is now embodied in the Bill, my right hon. Friend made it clear that, in drawing up his proposals, he had been most careful to ensure that the important principle of no double jeopardy should remain unimpaired. That is still his view and still the Government's policy.
      The Government recognise the great importance which the police service, rightly and understandably, attaches to this principle—a concern which was reflected in Committee debates which went on for a great deal of time—at all
      1736
      costs being maintained. There is no question, therefore, of anything but complete agreement on the underlying purpose of these amendments. It is the method of achieving it which has proved difficult to decide.
      The difficulty arises because double jeopardy is fairly easy to recognise when it occurs in a given set of circumstances, but is almost impossible to define in general terms so as to provide for every case. The example which is often quoted and which certainly exposes the principle clearly is that when, in the case of a complaint against a police officer, the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided, on evidential grounds, that criminal proceedings should not be brought, proceedings for a similar offence under the discipline code should not be brought if the evidence required to substantiate the disciplinary charge is the same as that which would have been required to substantiate the criminal charge.
      But that example by no means covers all the cases in which double jeopardy might occur. It would be contrary to accepted ideas of natural justice and justice as administered in the courts if a police officer were to be charged with a disciplinary offence similar to a criminal offence on which he has already been tried by the courts. That is the basis of New Clause 1.
      On the other hand, there may be cases in which, without breach of the principle of double jeopardy, it would be appropriate to bring disciplinary proceedings—for example, where a disciplinary defence rested on elements distinct from criminal aspects of the case. I do not want to weary the House with further examples, many of which were given in Committee, and it would not help the proceedings if I gave any more. However, I shall do so if that is the wish of hon. Members.
      4.30 p.m.
      Certainly it was found in Committee that there would be many cases in which a decision could be taken only in the light of particular circumstances, because issues are by no means always as clear-cut as might be supposed. There was some disagreement between hon. Members in the Committee about whether in any particular case there was double jeopardy. Because of the wide variety of circumstances in which the

      1737
      principle of double jeopardy might fall to be considered, chief officers of police have not been subject to statutory orders or regulations in this matter. But, as hon. Members who were on the Committee will know, they have followed non-statutory guidance issued by the Home Office, drawn up in consultation with the police service amongst others, based on police experience and acknowledged good practice. This system has worked well and has stood the test of time, so that the chief officers of the service concerned see no need to change i t.
      What is important, however, as was stressed in Committee, is that the intervention of the board should not result in any threat to present practice in respect of the rule against double jeopardy. The second part of the amendment is designed to ensure that, in discharging its functions under the Bill, the board shall have regard to current guidance to chief officers on the question of no double jeopardy. We hope that this twofold approach the new clause and the amendment which I have mentioned—will answer the concern of the Committee that statutory provision should be made in the Bill for the principle of no double jeopardy.
      Perhaps I may add a few words on the substance of the new clause. It was clear from the Committee discussion that hon. Members were anxious for something more than a provision relating to Home Office guidance of the kind to which I have referred and sought some kind of general provision as well. The new clause attempts to meet this requirement. It is based on the well-established principle that no one should be tried for a second time on the same criminal charge on the basis of evidence which has already been considered by the courts. In such circumstances, the plea of autrefois convict or autrefois acquit —I am afraid that my French is appalling, though it is no worse than my normal English—to use the correct legal terms, would be a bar to further proceedings.
      Subsection (1) of the new clause gives expression to the same principle in terms of disciplinary charges similar to criminal charges on which an officer has already been tried. It is generally accepted that where an officer has been convicted of a criminal offence there is no breach of the
      1738
      principle of double jeopardy if a disciplinary charge of conviction for a criminal offence is then proved. If, for example, a police officer commits a serious criminal offence, his fitness to remain in the force is clearly in doubt, and it is right that the chief officer should be able to prefer a disciplinary charge of conviction for a criminal offence so that suitable action may be taken.
      Subsection (2) of the new clause, therefore, is designed to make clear that this specific case is not affected by the new provision relating to double jeopardy in subsection (1). Amendment No. 26 does not call for any further explanation.
      I have not so far expressly mentioned Amendment No. 38, in Clause 7, page 6, line 4.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: Can my hon. Friend clarify the nature of the advice to be given to chief officers as to the principle involved where an officer has been involved in criminal proceedings? It appears from the wording used in Amendment No. 26 that chief officers are to be guided as to the principles to be app!ied where a criminal offence may have been committed. At present, the 1964 Act is clear that in any case in which a criminal offence has been alleged this must mean double jeopardy. Is it contemplated that there will be any change in that provision? If not, what kind of guidance is likely to be issued to chief officers in relation to such cases?
      Mr. Davidson: Certainly no change is contemplated, and the guidance that is already offered to police officers will continue to be offered. The Committee was concerned that any guidance on double jeopardy given under this new amendment should be freely available to Parliament, police and the general public so that there should be no doubt as to the principles to which the board would be bound to have regard in dealing with complaints cases referred to it. This seems a useful suggestion, and the amendment to which I have referred seeks to make provision accordingly.
      I am not sure whether I ought to deal with Amendments (a) and (b) to the new clause until they have been moved by Opposition Members, but I shall be quite happy to do so.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has used the term "serious criminal

      1739
      offence" as being a case for which a police officer would automatically be disciplined; and because he had been guilty of a serious offence no case would need to be put against him. That is a fact. Of course, this covers not only what the hon. Gentleman describes as a serious criminal offence but any criminal offence, and this can include quite minor matters.It can include any traffic offence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not resting his case on the argument that only a serious criminal offence will bring an officer into discipline, because any criminal offence will do so.
      Mr. Davidson: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. I believe everybody will accept that in the case of a serious criminal offence such as shoplifting—which is a serious offence though not one of the most serious—an officer's fitness for the force would certainly be in doubt. It would be up to the chief officer to take whatever disciplinary measures he thought necessary. Equally, in the case of conviction for a traffic offence, although the chief officer would certainly consider whether disciplinary proceedings were necessary, the public at large probably would accept that possibly in those circumstances punishment was not necessary.
      It was only for that reason that I mentioned a serious criminal offence. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He is quite correct. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept this group of amendments which attempt to deal with the question of double jeopardy, which the Committee and, I am sure, the House, and certainly the police, understandably attach great importance.
      Mr. Alison: In considering the Government's new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I also address myself at the same time particularly to Amendment (b) in the name of my hon. Friends and myself?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. It is necessary that we refrain from moving the amendments until after the Question on the Second Reading of the new clause has been put and agreed to. The amendments may
      1740
      be discussed generally, but they must be moved at a later stage. A general discussion is in order.
      Mr. Alison: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the context of a general discussion, I shall speak particularly to New Clause 1 and the Government amendments and to Amendment (b). My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) will address himself particularly to Amendment (a) standing in his name.
      I start by thanking, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department for the major advance in the drafting of the Bill which the Governments new clause represents. We were delighted with the ringing tones of his Norman accent in his reference to autrefois acquit. It is this, perhaps, which gives us the lead-in to the criticism I wish to make.
      Having thanked the Government for going so far, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends still feel that they have not gone far enough. This is why, in particular, we can elaborate the new clause by the addition of our new subsection in Amendment (b); it should really be subsection (3). To make our dissatisfaction clearer, I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the advice which, I believe, has been given to the House and to the Government by the report of the working group, Command 5582.
      The hon. Gentleman will remember, from paragraph 14(iv) of that report, that there was an elaborate discussion in it on the principle of double jeopardy. Two things emerged, crucially, from that analysis of double jeopardy. The first was that there should be no double jeopardy following acquittal on a criminal charge. It is quite clear that there is no double jeopardy where there is conviction on a criminal charge, because it simply could not arise. However, the principle enshrined there is that there should be no double jeopardy on acquittal on a criminal charge—that is, when a criminal charge has been decided upon, when the Director of Public Prosecutions thinks that there is enough evidence on which to prosecute, a case is launched and an acquittal is secured. That is when there has been a prosecution and an acquittal.

      1741
      The recommendation of the working group was that it is an existing common law right that there should be no double jeopardy in such a context; that one cannot be charged again with an offence for which one has gained an acquittal. The working group said that this principle should be enshrined for the police in whatever legislation followed its report. That is exactly what the Government have done. They have sought to enshrine the principle of no double jeopardy following acquittal on a criminal charge. So far, so good.
      However, the working group went further than that. It analysed and isolated a situation in which there had been no prosecution because on evidential grounds it was found impossible or undesirable, or was not possible for other reasons, to follow through to prosecution. This is what the working group said about double jeopardy in regard to that second subsidiary set of circumstances:
      "The law already ensures against this risk following an acquittal on a criminal charge, and the same principle should apply where, after a complaint against a police officer has been investigated, it is decided that he shall not be prosecuted but he is put on a disciplinary charge, or is given guidance, or is told that the complaint has not been substantiated. it would be unjust to a police officer, if, in consequence of a subsequent review by some other person or body, decisions of this kind could be re-opened and he was put in peril all over again."
      The working group explicitly isolated not the situation of conviction or acquittal on a criminal charge but the possibility of no criminal charge being levelled because of lack of evidence. It said that in those circumstances there should be no double jeopardy. Indeed, as we reminded ourselves in Committee, the guidance of the Home Office on this subject is quite explicit. It says:
      "After any necessary reference to the Director, the Deputy Chief Constable will decide whether disciplinary proceedings should be instituted against the officer concerned. As now, disciplinary proceedings will not be brought on charges which are in substance the same as possible criminal charges on which the Director has decided on evidential grounds not to prosecute."
      There are, therefore, at least two hazards to which a police officer is exposed. First, there is that of being subjected to a disciplinary charge when he has already been acquitted in a criminal case.
      1742
      Secondly, there is that of being subjected to the risk of a disciplinary charge when he might have been acquitted had a criminal case been levelled but when it had been decided that the evidence was insufficient to produce one.
      Mr. Frank Hooley: The hon. Gentleman seems to be pushing his argument into a very extreme situation. What he is saying, in effect, is that the mere reference, of an alleged offence to the Director of Public Prosecutions shall rule out any disciplinary proceedings.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Alison: No, I am not saying that. Two things can happen when a reference is made to the DPP. He can either say that the case admits, of no criminal charges and does not come within the ambit of the criminal law. That is one thing that the Director might do. Under such circumstances, as this is entirely a disciplinary matter, I regard it as entirely proper and in no sense double jeopardy that the police officer should be subjected to disciplinary scrutiny. However, the DPP might say "Yes, potentially, prima facie, this is a criminal case. What evidence do you have? "Then an examination of the evidence takes place and the DPP finally decides, in his wisdom and professional experience, that the case, although potentially criminal, is not sufficient to stand up in court. He then rules that there should be no prosecution, on evidential grounds.
      It is in that situation that the working group said that there should be subsequently, likewise, no hazard of disciplinary proceedings, because what had been ruled out on evidential grounds as the possibility of a criminal case could not then qualify on the same lack of evidence as a disciplinary charge. That is the same thing as the working group referred to as the scope of possible double jeopardy.
      The new clause deals only with the first eventuality—namely, a criminal charge actually having been brought and having resulted in acquittal. That does not go far enough.
      There is no doubt that our proposed subsection (3) in Amendment (b) catches up this second hazard, to which there is no doubt that the police disciplinary

      1743
      regulations and Home Office guidance make reference as being an area in which there should be no possibility of a disciplinary charge.
      Mr. Hooley: The hon. Gentleman must accept that basically there are two things that the DPP can do. He can either proceed with the matter in court or decide not to do so. If he proceeds with the matter in court and the policeman is convicted or acquitted, very well, that is it. If he does not proceed with the matter in the court, the hon. Gentleman is still saying that that should be a ground for taking no disciplinary proceedings. I find that an extraordinary argument.
      Mr. Alison: That is exactly the Home Office view of the existing procedure within the police force.
      Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow): Perhaps —
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) will not mind very much if I give my ruling now, by leave of the House, and then I can withdraw again for a short while.
      In view of the representations that have been made from both sides of the House about New Clause 3, on which there was no clear undertaking given by the Minister—at least, not according to Hansard—I am, none the less, quite agreeable to the House discussing it, and it will be called.
      I am afraid that it is quite impossible for me to agree to New Clause 7 being called. "Erskine May "tells us,
      "Amendments are inadmissible if they refer to, or are not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules, of which notice has not been given, or if they are otherwise incomplete "—
      as new Clause 7 is.
      Mr. Whitehead: May I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling on New Clause 3? I think that those thanks will be echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. At what stage do you envisage calling New Clause 3? I believe that 26 separate debates are scheduled.
      Mr. Speaker: I shall call it when we come to it.
      Mr. Mikardo: Perhaps 1 may put this point to the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). It seems to me that his argument would be right if the function of the DPP were to form an opinion in a case put up to him on whether the person concerned was guilty. But that is not his function. His function is to decide whether a prosecution is likely to be successful.
      I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is a very different matter. The DPP may well take the view that the person is, prima facie, guilty, or looks to be guilty, or that there is a good chance that he might be guilty, but that, nevertheless. it would be difficult to carry a prosecution. On those grounds. the fact that the DPP has decided that the case might not stand up in a court of law is surely no justification for saying that the disciplinary procedure, which is not so rigidly bound as the rules of evidence in a court of law, ought not to proceed.
      Mr. Alison: I do not think I am competent to debate philosophically and definitively the basic and fundamental point of merit that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I make one simple point. The Police Disciplinary Code, the famous guidance from the Home Office upon which the police disciplinary regulations are based and which elaborates and expands the police disciplinary regulations, which are summarised in an important paragraph in the Home Office circular, states:
      "disciplinary proceedings wil not be brought on charges which are in substance the same as possible criminal charges on which the Director has decided, on evidential grounds, not to prosecute."
      That is the existing practice, whether it is right or wrong. It is a practice which the Government propose to encapsulate as continuing practice in Amendment No. 26, which refers in these situations to the existing practice in disciplinary regulations and the guidance given by the Home Office.
      It seems that we have to observe the existing practice of principle. As I understand it, the only reason for the Government not being prepared to accept a fundamental recasting of the Bill on the lines that we sought to have approved in Committee is that any ex post facto scheme would involve the hazard of

      1745
      double jeopardy. They cannot allow that second-class form of double jeopardy to continue as a hazard in the Bill. That is the reason for Amendment No. 26. In the view of the Opposition, what the Government have sought to refer to in that amendment should be brought into the clear and set out as part of the double-jeopardy provision in the new clause.
      All that the Government have done in the new clause is to refer to the acquittal case and not to the potential case. I believe that both are extremely important to the police. In fact, both will be observed in future. Therefore, both should be written into the Bill.
      Mr. George Cunningham: I apologise for intervening as I did not follow this matter in Committee. However, I had some correspondence some years ago with the Home Office on this very issue.
      At that time a difficulty was that although the police were not supposed to take disciplinary proceedings on the same facts as had been ruled out by the DPP as insufficient for court proceedings, the DPP had several forms of wording available to him for communicating his position to a chief officer of police. One of those forms left it uncertain as to whether he was ruling out prosecution on evidential or other grounds. Let us be clear that in future the DPP will be making quite clear on which of the two grounds he has given a negative answer to the possibility of a prosecution.
      Mr. Alison: If the Bill is enacted, it is important that that becomes the clear and regular practice in future. In cases which have been referred to the DPP and which come and go between the two bodies it is important that when the DPP reaches his final decision he makes it clear that he is not prosecuting because it is not a criminal case, or because the evidential grounds are not sufficient. If he decides not to prosecute because there is no criminal case, the matter immediately becomes inadmissible to disciplinary charges. Nobody is disputing that. If the position is that there is not enough evidence, or the evidence cannot be substantiated, the procedure should be that the police cannot follow it up on a disciplinary charge which in substance
      1746
      amounts to that which will be prosecuted on a police charge.
      That is all that we are seeking to write into the face of the Bill. We have extracted the terminology that is used in the Home Office guidance and tacked it on to the amendment. We extracted those words from the Home Office's own guidance and wrote them into the face of the double-jeopardy clause.
      It is important because a further complicated matter arises in this context, on which, I hope the Minister will be able to give us some guidance. I refer to the matter of what does or does not go to the Police Complaints Board from the DPP reference.
      Clause 2 provides that nothing shall be taken to the Police Complaints Board until the question of criminal proceedings has been dealt with by the DPP. We are anxious to know clearly what can and what can not emanate from the consideration of a complaint by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Police Complaints Board.
      It is self-evident that a case in which the complaint is proved to be a criminal act, the policeman being the subject of a criminal prosecution and convicted, would never go to the Police Complaints Board. In those circumstances the matter would have been disposed of in the criminal dimension and that would be that. Likewise, I understand that if there is an acquittal on a criminal charge, the complaint cannot go to the board. After all, what would be the point? By definition it would be inadmissible as a disciplinary case.
      The new clause provides that if there is an acquittal on a criminal charge the officer cannot be subsequently charged on a disciplinary basis. There would be no point in taking the matter to the board because the board exists to determine whether there shall be a disciplinary charge. If an acquittal means that a disciplinary charge is ruled out, by definition there is no good cause for it to go subsequently to the board.
      In the light of our amendment, what happens to the new clause if disciplinary proceedings are ruled out because, although no charge has been laid, the evidential grounds are insufficient? This is the second-class sort of hazard. Once

      1747
      again, it seems that it would make no sense to send a case to the board when the board has no scope for laying a disciplinary charge. Where no charge has arisen, such a reference is disbarred because double jeopardy Mark II arises. There would seem to be no good cause for referring cases to the board in those circumstances.
      There are other instances in which cases do not go to the board. In fact, it becomes quite a long and interesting list. For example, when a complaint is withdrawn, the case cannot go to the board. There are other examples. It is important that we know in the second category of double jeopardy, the one in which no charges are being preferred because of a lack of evidence, why it is that the decision as to whether a disciplinary charge should be laid should be left to the board. The decision should be one on which the DPP rules when there are not sufficient evidential grounds for a prosecution.
      Why should ex post facto the Police Complaints Board—this will be the provision resulting from Amendment No. 26 —receive cases that have not been prosecuted as criminal cases, it being left to the board to decide on guidance, admittedly, whether there is to be a disciplinary charge? It seems that the matter stands or falls on evidential grounds alone. Surely the DPP is the best judge of that.
      I dare not ask leave to move my amendment at this stage because I understand that this is not the proper time to do so, but I hope that the Minister will take the point that the working party envisaged this subsidiary double-jeopardy as being a real one. I believe that the Government recognise that in Amendment No. 26, and we insist that they put it on the face of the Bill alongside the formal acquittal cases. Double jeopardy, from the police point of view, is equally hazardous. It would cost the Government little to make that concession.
      5·0 p.m.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: First, I should like to thank the Government for living up to an undertaking given in Committe to try to deal more effectively with double jeopardy. They have done their best and gone nearly all the way to succeeding.
      1748
      I should declare an interest at this stage which will be with me through the night's proceedings. I am an adviser to the Police Federation. The police service is grateful to the Government for what they have sought to do in living up to the Home Secretary's undertaking.
      I have three points to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. The first is that, in reality, the police have always been and will continue to be subjected to double jeopardy regardless of the new clause. I say that for the following reason. If a police officer is taken before the court on any criminal offence—it can be a minor offence: having one over at Christmas, not being in possession of a valid driving licence for his private car, or something of that kind—and is found guilty, he is automatically taken into the disciplinary procedure of his force as well. Therefore, he goes through the wringer twice.
      In the disciplinary proceedings he may be cautioned, reprimanded, reduced in rank, or dismissed the force. In any event, his career will suffer and he will be punished a second time. That is a double jeopardy which any disciplined service is bound to accept. That is the nature of a disciplined service.
      However, I hope that the House is not under the illusion that, if we pass the Bill with this new clause, we shall eliminate double punishment of a police officer for the same offence. We shall not.
      The question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) stressed both in Committee and now, is whether the police should be subjected to punishment essentially on the same evidence when the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to prosecute.
      In this connection I must refer to a letter written on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State and signed by her private secretary. This is the Minister's letter of 29th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash. I refer particularly to the penultimate paragraph in which the hon. Lady seeks to explain the Government's view:
      "The Government scheme deliberately provides for the majority of cases to go to the Board (except those mentioned in Clause 2(2)) even though, in a considerable number of these cases…the decisions taken by the Director will rule out any possibility of disciplinary proceedings."

      1749
      That is where the Director has decided that there is no case to be prosecuted or the complaint has been withdrawn. The letter goes on:
      "The Government believe that the examination of the case by the Board in such circumstances will serve to reassure the public that the complaint has been properly examined by the police. Unless, for any reason, the Board dissent from the view that the police have taken, or wish to make further enquiries about it, it will, under our scheme, be for the Board to notify the complainant that there are no grounds for disciplinary proceedings".
      Where a chief officer of police decides that he must discipline an officer after the DPP has considered the case, surely that should be the end of the matter. It cannot be right that the police Complaints Board should come into the case and, in effect, provide a third bite at the cherry.
      I stress this point because, while the police service is grateful to the Government for trying to deal with double jeopardy, in effect, they have increased the problem of extended jeopardy. Because the Board is involved, the procedures for examining a case against a policeman will be stretched out. Instead of the man, his wife, his family, and his fellow officers being left in doubt about the disposition of his case for a matter of weeks, the odds are that he could be left in that situation for many months. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should accept that in dealing with double jeopardy he ought not to extend the period of jeopardy. That is a real anxiety in the police service.
      Mr. Hooley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about this idea of extending the jeopardy. It is built into any system which relies on review rather than independent investigation. As long as the people he represents in the police force resist an independent investigation ab initio, they are forced into the extended jeopardy which he has rightly described.
      Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman consistently sticks to his original point. But, for better or for worse, it is not the system that he proposes and, I suspect, would still prefer that the Government should accept. Therefore, while I take his logic—it is unarguable—the fact remains that, as things arc, I am entitled to complain that we shall be protracting
      1750
      the jeopardy of accused police officers, and that cannot be right.
      As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed general, though not specific, discussion on Amendments (a) and (b) to new Clause 1, I propose to put this point briefly. Since there is inherent in this matter an extending and protracting of the jeopardy, it is all the more important that, at the end of the line, when disciplinary proceedings are brought against the police officer, the punishment should not be more severe than that which he would have received from the court. That is an important point to which we shall come later. I put it in now because it relates to the protracting and extending of the jeopardy.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I should like to refer briefly to Amendments (a) and (b). Amendment (a) appears to be restrictive and to have a bad effect on the court. It is clear that on many occasions in deciding what sentence to impose, the court takes into account other circumstances which may result from conviction. Often the court will pass a fairly light sentence if a man is likely to be dismissed from his job.
      If this proposal were put into the Bill, it would be difficult for the court to pass a light sentence, because it would realise that the disciplinary proceedings which would automatically follow would be committed to a very light sentence as well. The court operates sensibly in dishing out a sentence by taking into account the effect of a conviction on a man's job. Therefore, although the police should not be more severe than the court, it seems dangerous to accept this amendment.
      I turn now to Amendment (b). I am concerned about "evidential grounds". Many people are concerned about how the DPP works. It is difficult to obtain much guidance. But certain members of that office have on occasions addressed conferences and given some indication of how the DPP works. It appears that the Director of Public Prosecutions looks at the evidence and decides, first, whether he believes it, and, secondly, whether it will convince a jury. Apparently, a case may or may not go forward depending on previous experience of the behaviour of juries.
      If the person in the DPP's office believes that the man is not guilty, it is

      1751
      wrong for the case to go back to the board. But if the DPP says that, from past experience of putting such cases before juries, police officers have been believed in preference to members of the general public—in other words, it is a test of the court's reaction to the evidence—it is better for the matter to go to the board. Unless "evidential grounds" is satisfactorily explained, I hope that the amendment will be opposed.
      Mr. Alison: Has the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) taken on board that the procedure he has objected to—namely, the uncertainty of evidential grounds for not proceeding with the prosecution—will be applied by Government Amendment No. 26, which will insist that the board observes the existing guidance given to the police in relation to their regulations? It would be exactly the same procedure by the back door as we are hoping to have by the front door.
      Mr. Griffiths: I accept that to a certain extent, and I believe that it is one of the disadvantages of the Bill.
      The guidance is that which is contained in Government Amendment No. 26. Can the Minister say whether the guidance which is intended to be sent out will be identical to that which exists at present? I cannot believe that it will be. I am sure that in the light of the new Bill it will be somewhat different guidance. I do not ask for it in detail now, but I hope that the Minister can at least give us an indication of the broad rules by which the Home Office expects chief officers to operate.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: I do not know in what detail I am entitled to reply to the new clause.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to reply in detail to the amendments on the debate on the clause. The amendments to the new clause will be put eventually, if that is so required.
      Mr. Davidson: Perhaps I may answer the last point. The guidance will be the same as it is at present, but modified to take account of the board, and of the amendments and so forth in the Bill. I cannot give the guidance in detail but
      1752
      obviously it will be modified. Basically, however, the principles of the present guidelines will be preserved.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the guidance cover this specific question? After a disciplinary action has been gone through by a chief officer, it goes on to the complaints board which will explain to the original complainant what has happened. is the board to be the final source of information to the complainant, or will this matter remain with the police service itself?
      Mr. Davidson: It will remain with the police service as at present. If I am wrong about that, I will correct it before the end of the debate.
      Mr. Frank Tommy: Supposing a senior officer is involved in a charge of discipline and the chief constable decides that this man should be dismissed from the force and then the complaints board takes up the case and decides that he should not; whose authority for discipline will prevail? Let us suppose the position is reversed and the chief constable decides not to dismiss a man but the complaints board thinks he should be dismissed. Surely such a man would have the right to claim for wrongful dismissal.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Davidson: Obviously there are two sets of circumstances here. If charges are to be preferred, quite clearly the police would notify the individual that a disciplinary or criminal charge was to he preferred. If no charges were preferred the police would inform the officer as at present, and the board would say that is the end of the matter. Of course the Bill very much preserves the basic principle that it is up to the chief officer to decide on disciplinary charges.
      I agree with the basic aim of Amendment (b) which is designed, as are the Government's own amendments, to ensure that the setting up of the new complaints procedure will not expose the police officer to the risk of double jeopardy. The amendment is in fact based upon, and is worded similarly to, the guidance issued to chief officers in the Home Office circular.
      It is one thing to formulate guidance in respect of a matter which ultimately must be left to the decision of the chief

      1753
      officers and quite another to convert the judgment into a statutory requirement. The Government have considered very carefully the example of double jeopardy contained in the amendment, but they have concluded that it cannot be given statutory force in the way proposed.
      The first difficulty arises from the words "in substance the same". In practice there are not many cases where a criminal charge can be matched by a similar charge in the police discipline code, and what is "the same" must be a matter of personal judgment. It is a judgment which should be made by the chief officer, as it is now. If these words became part of the law, they would lead to endless arguments as to whether a disciplinary charge offended the principle set out in the amendment.
      Another major difficulty in some cases arises from the fact that it is unlikely that the Director of Public Prosecutions has a particular criminal charge finally in view before reaching a decision that no criminal charges should be preferred. I am sure the hon. Gentleman accepts that counsel frequently take a long time to decide the exact nature of a criminal charge and whether the evidence fits a particular criminal charge. Even the ultimate charge may be found by the court to be defective.
      If the evidence does not support any further action, it is pointless to consider what criminal charges might have been brought. There is no question of compelling the Director of Public Prosecutions to define hypothetical charges when possible criminal charges will not always be defined. In these circumstances, the provision in the amendment would achieve little or nothing.
      Mr. Alison: I am obliged to the Minister for dealing in such detail with our misgivings about the provisions he has drafted. This is a nebulous area where often the unfortunate chief constable might find himself in some embarrassment in sorting out what is in substance the same case as a criminal one. It will he much more difficult for him if the case is to be Passed to the board to decide. At least at present the chief officer is in the hands of the Home Secretary under the guidance provided. for example, by Regulation No. 14. But in the whole agonising business of weighing up
      1754
      whether a charge is in substance a criminal charge, the fate of the officer concerned could be worsened and double jeopardy could bite even more deeply.
      Mr. Davidson: The guidelines will be there and the amendments set them out. I do not think that I can carry the lion. Member further with me than that.
      Mr. George Cunningham: Is my hon. Friend sure that the Director of Public Prosecuions, in transmitting his decsion, will always make clear whether he is saying that the action complained of is not an offence, that it is so trivial that it is not worth prosecuting, or that the evidence would not stand up in court? Is he sure that on all occasions the DPP will clearly indicate when the third situation arises, because that was not the case a few years ago?
      Mr. Davidson: The DPP does not in general give his reasons.
      Mr. Julius Silverman: Apart from giving his reasons, does the DPP ever specify the particular offence upon which he has decided not to prosecute? Or does he say in general terms that he does not intend to take action?
      Mr. Davidson: He would say in general terms, on evidential grounds maybe, that he has decided not to prosecute. There can be many complicated reasons why the DPP cannot proceed in a particular case.
      Mr. Silverman: May I make a suggestion? The DPP may not prosecute for several reasons. One could he that there is not enough evidence to take to a jury; another that the facts brought forward, while they may be reprehensible and justify a disciplinary charge, do not amount to a criminal offence, and that is one of the things that the DPP must decide upon. That is something, on which clearly the chief officer must subsequently use his discretion.
      Mr. Davidson: In general, the DPP does what my hon. Friend has said and will continue to do it. But he cannot specify in great detail why he has decided not to bring a particular case. It may be that he regards one of the witnesses as unreliable—perhaps because the witness has a string of convictions. That

      1755
      is not the sort of point that he can make in any detail.
      Mr. George Cunningham: I quite understand that within any one class of reason it would not be appropriate for the DPP to give his full reasoning. I can see no reason, however, why he should not distinguish between classes, those classes being, first, that the action is not a criminal offence, secondly, that it is a criminal offence but that it is not worth prosecuting, and, thirdly, that the evidence would not persuade a jury. It is important if the last class applies that the chief officer should be told that, because under Home Office guidance of a few years ago that would mean that he should not proceed with disciplinary proceedings.
      The trouble is that the form of words used by the DPP would not indicate whether that last class applied. When I was trying to persuade Home Office Ministers in the last Conservative Administration that this should be made clear, I was given unsatisfactory reasons why it was undesirable to make it clear. I should have thought that the matter might have advanced a bit since then.
      Mr. Davidson: I do not know whether it has advanced as far as my hon. Friend would have liked. The DPP will indicate the general reasons, if not the particular reasons. I cannot go further than that, but I am sure that the DPP will have noted what my hon. Friend said, and I shall pass the comments on to him anyway.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): It might be convenient if I intervene now to explain a point which may be of general assistance to hon. Members and which I may not have made clear earlier in the proceedings. Mr. Speaker's intention was that we should discuss New Clause 1 with Amendments (a) and (b), taking Amendments Nos. 26 and 38 with them. The aim is to have a fairly full debate so that the amendments to the new clause may be dealt with formally afterwards. I do not, of course, say this as any reflection on what the Minister was saying, merely to help hon. Members.
      Mr. Davidson: The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bury
      1756
      St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) seeks to provide that in respect of a disciplinary charge of having been convicted of a criminal offence, no punishment should be imposed which is more severe than that imposed by the court for the criminal offence. It is not possible to make a valid comparison between the issues which the court has to decide in considering the appropriate punishment and those considered at a hearing by a chief officer of police in respect of a disciplinary charge founded upon the fact of that criminal offence. In considering the appropriate punishment in each of these two sets of circumstances very different criteria apply.
      The question for determination by the court would be what is a suitable sentence in the light of the circumstances of the offence, of the offender himself and, of course, primarily in the interests of public justice. The question for determination by the chief officer is certainly of a different character. Essentially it is whether a conviction unfits a police officer for continued service in the police force in general or in his particular rank. In any event, there is no similarity between the range of punishments available under the criminal law and under the police disciplinary regulations.
      I well understand the concern felt by the hon. Member, but the amendment would serve no useful purpose since the decisions that the courts and the chief officer have to take are based on very different criteria.
      5·30 p.m.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I shall be brief. This is a delicate and sensitive matter in the sense that police officers do not ask to be treated any better than the generality of their fellow citizens, but they insist that they should not be treated any worse. Ministers will recall how in Standing Committee we repeatedly had to remind them of the sensitivity of the police service from the top to the bottom —from chief officers to constables on the beat—on this score.
      That accounts for the vast array of amendments, some of them of a fundamental character, which the Government have felt obliged to put down. In his calm and charming way the Parliamentary Secretary referred on a number of occasions to "guidelines"—he almost threw the word away. But the guidelines

      1757
      and regulations that will flow from the Bill are the key to whether the police service co-operates.
      The Home Secretary is aware that the police service as a whole will do its duty. It will faithfully carry out the role it must play under the new arrangements. There is no question about that. The police service did not much like the Bill in the form in which it was presented to Parliament. But the principle of introducing an independent element into inquiries about complaints against the police by the public was accepted by both sides of the House and by the police service.
      In referring to guidelines and regulations the Minister goes to the heart of the matter. Government Amendment No. 26 reads:
      "(7) In discharging their functions under subsections (2) and (3) above the Board shall have regard to any guidance given to them by the Secretary of State with respect to such matters affecting the:preferring and withdrawing of disciplinary charges as are for the time being the subject of guidance by him to chief officers of police, including in particular the principles to be applied in cases that involve any question of criminal proceedings."
      I take it that the guidelines will be in the form of regulations and Home Office circulars. Complaints against the police have been the subject of a degree of consultation over the years. There were many circulars but I do not know exactly how many. I presume that regulations are being considered already in the light of what was said in the Standing Committee.
      I call for an assurance that on this delicate and sensitive issue there will be no cursory consultation with the Police Staff Association involving a few days or the odd week or two before regulations are laid before Parliament. I call for an explicit assurance for the Police Staff Associations that there will be the fullest consultation before regulations are drawn up to form the guidelines upon which the Police Complaints Board is to proceed. Such an assurance may colour much of what I shall say, or what I shall not say, in the rest of the debate.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful for the explanation that we are to discuss the range of amendments together.
      1758
      In the presence of the Home Secretary I wish to say again that the police service is grateful to him for covering double jeopardy. The right hon. Gentleman has kept his word. But no explanation has been given on how the final disposition of the case will be conveyed by the board to the complainant, and therefore to the public.
      There are three bites at this cherry. First, the officer may be charged with a criminal offence. He might have been speeding or had one over the limit during his week-end off. That would go to the DPP and perhaps to a court. The court can decide to punish or to let him off.
      The next bite at the cherry involves discipline. The whole disciplinary procedure can be deployed against the officer and a variety of punishments could ensue—from reprimand, caution, transfer, suspension, loss of pay to a reduction in rank.
      The new matter is that at the end of that procedure the board has to look at the way in which the deputy chief constable has disposed of the disciplinary charge against that officer. If the board is under pressure, that could take months. During that period the officer and his family will be left in uncertainty and protracted jeopardy.
      At the end of that road the board can decide that the deputy chief constable has not imposed enough discipline on the officer. The board might conclude that he was too severe. Either way, the officer is faced with a third round before the matter is disposed of. The Bill protracts the jeopardy of that man and leaves him uncertain for a considerable time.
      At the end of the procedure, when the complaints board has decided that it is not satisfied with the discipline imposed, there could be arguments about it and the case could go to a tribunal—the fourth round. The chief officer may be over-ruled by the tribunal and forced to punish the officer more severely, although he may have publicly indicated that he did not think the officer should be punished at all. That fourth round is inherent in the Bill. It is a further protraction. The Home Office should direct its efforts to reducing the length of time. That is important.

      1759
      Will the Minister say that the Chief Officer will be seen to be the man who finally disposes of the matter? Nothing could be so subversive—but that is too strong a word—nothing could undermine the authority of the Chief Police Officer or tile confidence between him and his men so much as the Public appearance of the chief officer being overruled over the discipline of his own men. The federated ranks of the services are worried that a chief officer may be more severe than he might otherwise be because of the fear that the board will overrule him. No chief officer lightly puts himself in a position where he might be overruled.
      I urge the Government to use every available means to reduce the length of time that these procedures can protract the jeopardy of police officers. I urge them to make certain that the board does not erode the public responsibility of chief officers to exercise discipline, because that could damage the morale of his men.
      I take the point the hon. Gentleman made about Amendment (a), in my name. It is an argument I had already considered when I put down the amendment. One cannot draw an exact parallel between punishment for matters in the civil courts and the professional discipline that must be applied for the benefit of the service. I accept that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that if a court of law has decided that the offence committed by a police officer justifies, say, a £25 fine, that officer should not subsequently find himself at the end of a whole disciplinary procedure involving the hoard, the tribunal and so on and then be confronted with what amounts to a financial penalty, through suspension, loss of leave, or loss of preferment, many times greater than the fine.
      I do not seek to make the two sets of punishment analagous. They are not, but there must be some proportion. Nothing would cause more anxiety in the police service than if, as a result of the board's intervention, overruling a chief officer, a man were given a penalty vastly in excess of what a court of law had thought reasonable in all the circumstances. These are important matters.
      Mr. Alison: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his effort
      1760
      to deal with this nebulous area of secondary jeopardy, the area that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) hit upon when he said that it would be helpful if the Director of Public Prosecutions would in future make quite clear why in police complaints cases he is not proceeding to a prosecution—that is, whether his decision is on the basis of lack of evidence, that would certainly help clarify this area.
      The Government's position is still very obscure. What the Minister has said so far, helpful though it was, has not clarified the matter. Neither has the Government's new clause or, above all, Amendment No. 26.
      The operative guidance—the word "guidance" appears in Amendment No. 26—is set out in paragraph 14 of the existing Home Office guidance to chief officers, which says
      "Where an allegation against a police officer has first been the subject of criminal investigation, and it has been decided after reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions or otherwise that criminal proceedings should not be taken, there should normally be no disciplinary proceedings."
      The hon. Gentleman has already picked up the phrase
      "where the allegations are in substance the same",
      which is what the Home Office guidance says in another version.
      So far, so good. There is fairly clear guidance that there should not be double jeopardy, in the sense that the normal pattern is that if there are no evidential grounds for criminal prosecution, there should be no disciplinary charge. But the hon. Gentleman rightly said that a problem arises with an allegation that is not substantially the same. What do we mean by that? Paragraph 15 of the guidance says:
      "It is for the chief officer (or his deputy) to decide whether or not disciplinary proceedings should be taken in these circumstances."
      That is the existing guidance. Is it to be the continuing responsibility of the chief officer in these circumstances to decide whether disciplinary proceedings should be taken? If it is, there is no reason for the papers to be sent in such a case to the Police Complaints Board,

      1761
      because what the Government's amendment says it that
      "the Board shall have regard to any guidance given to them by the Secretary of State".
      The guidance says that it is for the chief officer or his deputy to decide whether a case can go to the board if the case is one in which the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to proceed, on evidential grounds. The board will scratch its head and ask "What do we do? We must have regard to the guidance, and that says that it is for the chief officer to decide".
      So the case goes back to the chief officer. Why send it to the board in the first place? What is the point of this circular procedure, which merely extends the period of jeopardy and uncertainty for the unfortunate officer, and results in the board's buying two 10p stamps to send back the case?
      5.45 p.m.
      We should write on the face of the Bill that there should be no double jeopardy here. If the guidance changes, if paragraph 15 is withdrawn and it is not for the chief officer to decide, following a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute, there is double jeopardy. The case must be passed to the board with advice from the chief officer for it to make the decision. That goes clean against the existing guidance. Presumably it is not intended, but it would produce double jeopardy of the worst sort.
      I believe that the Government intend to keep to their existing guidance. They say so in Amendment No. 26. We are left with the ludicrous situation that when a case goes to the board it looks at guidance which says "Send it back to the chief officer". That is circuitous and pointless. It would be easier to have the Home Office guidance set out in terms on the face of the Bill, as in our proposed new subsection. Without it, we shall run into serious difficulties.
      I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates one subtle point about complaints which do or do not go to the board. This comes about if a criminal case on the complaint is held not to be substantiated, and no criminal charges are preferred, but a subsidiary disciplinary case arises on a subordinate issue. I
      1762
      think of the peculiar example of the man whose complaint that he was hit on the head is not substantiated as a criminal charge but the police say that the officer concerned was off his beat, a matter which is the subject of a separate disciplinary charge.
      We accept that it is desirable that that should remain so. Such a disciplinary charge does not go to the board, because it is not the subject of the same complaint. To have one set of such cases going to the board and one set going to the chief officer is thoroughly muddled. The simple way out is to have the existing guidance, however broad it may be, on the face of the Bill, in our desire to protect the police from double jeopardy and give them the benefit of the doubt.
      Mr. Hooley: I was rather disturbed by some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who gave the impression that it would be the board's function to insist on penalties or punishments greater than punishments which might otherwise be given. My reading of the Bill is that it has no standing in the matter of punishment, because even where the matter is referred to a tribunal, it is made quite clear that the punishment will remain the prerogative of the chief officer, although the Bill says that he shall consult the other two members of the board. The hon. Gentleman is gibing false information if he suggests that the board will have some authority in the matter of the punishment which may be meted out to the offender.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If I gave that impression, I am glad that the lion Gentleman has corrected it. But the board will be able to tell the chief officer that it is not satisfied with the disposition of the case and require him to dispose of it in a different way. That brings in the question of punishment.
      Mr. Hooley: The Bill does not speak of the board's not being satisfied with the disposition of the case. The board's duty is to be satisfied that charges have been preferred where they should be. Its only power in relation to the chief officer is to say at the end of the day "We are satisfied that you have preferred the correct charges" or, alternatively, "We are not satisfied and direct you to prefer the correct charges." But from that moment

      1763
      on the disciplinary proceedings, the punishment, and so forth are as much in the hands of the police as they are now.
      The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has the matter quite out of focus, because the whole essence of the review procedure is to determine that where charges ought to have been preferred—not whether the man is guilty—they were so preferred, and that the police carried through their true functions in matters of discipline in relation to the particular complaint.
      The hon. Gentleman's arguments bring in quite separate and extraneous matters, although I accept, as I have already said, that once the police reject the principle of independent investigation they are landed with the difficulty of extended jeopardy, and there is nothing we can do in the terms of the Bill to get out of that.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Concerning the point made by the hon. Member for Essex, South East (Sir B. Braine), there will, of course, be consultation about the forms of the negotiation. We do not want them to be endlessly protracted. There will be full opportunity for consultation. That is the whole basis on which we proceed in this matter.
      The point made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) to some extent was a false point. Of course the new scheme affects existing arrangements. That is inherent in having an independent element. It is not a question of the chief officer taking a decision which is

      Division No. 149.1

      AYES

      [5.56 p.m.

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Clegg, Walter

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Alison, Michael

      Cope, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Costain, A. P.

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Bell, Ronald

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Benyon, W.

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Drayson, Burnaby

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Blaker, Peter

      Falrgrieve, Russell

      Lamont, Norman

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Farr, John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Bottomley, Peter

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Forman, Nigel

      Lawson, Nigel

      Brotherton, Michael

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Goodhart, Philip

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Budges, Nick

      Goodhew, Victor

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Burden, F. A.

      Gray, Hamish

      Loveridge, John

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Luce, Richard

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      MacGregor, John

      Channon, Paul

      Hastings, Stephen

      Marten, Nell

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Mather, Carol

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Holland, Philip

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hordern, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      known and then overruled by the board. The matter will be referred to the board and a decision will be taken by the board on the advice of the chief officer. The board may accept the advice. In exceptional circumstances it will overrule him. But it will be one decision. It will not be announced as one decision and then reviewed. It will be one decision taken by the board on the advice of the chief officer.
      The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) spoke about protracted proceedings. My whole object is to avoid protracted proceedings. His point about danger of double jeopardy would have very much greater force if we had some retrospective element brought in. looking at the matter after it had just been investigated.
      I hope that on the basis of those assurances we may now begin gradually to make a little progress.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a second time.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In the circumstances. I will not move Amendment (a)
      Amendment (b) proposed: at the end of subsection (2) add—
      '(3) a disciplinary charge shall not be preferred against a member of a police force (or, if already preferred, shall be withdrawn) if the charge is in substance the same as a possible criminal charge on which the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided, on evidential grounds, not to prosecute'.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 140.

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Tebbit, Norman

      Mills, Peter

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Moate, Roger

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Viggers, Peter

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Walters, Dennis

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Sims, Roger

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Neubert, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Newton, Tony

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Nott, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mr. John Corny and

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mr. Michael Roberts.

      NOES

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Hooley, Frank

      Perry, Ernest

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Bates, Alf

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Bean, R. E.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Beith, A. J.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Hunter, Adam

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Bradley, Tom

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Roper, John

      Buchan, Norman

      John, Brynmor

      Rose, Paul B.

      Callaghan, Rt. Hon J.(Cardiff SE)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Cant, R. B.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Selby, Harry

      Cartwright, John

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Lamond, James

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Lee, John

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Silverman, Julius

      Corbett, Robin

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Small, William

      Cryer, Bob

      McElhone, Frank

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Davidson, Arthur

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Spearing, Nigel

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Stallard, A. W.

      Deakins, Eric

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stoddart, David

      Doig, Peter

      Madden, Max

      Stonehouse, Rt Hon John

      Dormand, J. D.

      Mahon, Simon

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Eadie, Alex

      Mendelson, John

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Tinn, James

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Millan, Bruce

      Tomney, Frank

      Faulds, Andrew

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Flannery, Martin

      Molloy, William

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Moonman, Eric

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Watkins, David

      George, Bruce

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Weetch, Ken

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Newens, Stanley

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Gourley, Harry

      Noble, Mike

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Ogden, Eric

      Whitlock, William

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Grocott, Bruce

      Palmer, Arthur

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Pardoe, John

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hardy, Peter

      Park, George

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Harper, Joseph

      Parry, Robert

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Pendry, Tom

      M. Donald Coleman and

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Penhaligon, David

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause added to the Bll.

    New Clause 2

      COMPLAINTS THAT MAY INVOLVE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
      '(1) Where the report of an investigation into a complaint is sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in pursuance of section 49(3) of the Police Act 1964 (cases where criminal offences may have been committed) section 2(1) above shall not apply to the
      1766
      complaint until the question of criminal proceedings has been dealt with by the Director.
      (2) Where it appears to the Police Complaints Board that any information furnished to them under section 2 or 3 above —

      (a) may be relevant to the question of criminal proceedings against the member of a police force against whom the complaint in question is made; but

      (b) has not been furnished to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

      the Board may request the chief officer of that force to transmit that information to the Director; and the chief officer shall transmit

      1767
      that information accordingly unless it has already been furnished to the Director or the chief officer is satisfied that it cannot be relevant as aforesaid.
      (3) A chief officer of police who is requested under subsection (2) above to transmit any information to the Director shall notify the Board whether he has transmitted it and, if not, his reasons for not doing so.'. —[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the new Clause we are to take Amendment (a) to the clause, at end of subsection (1), insert
      and he has decided not to initiate a prosecution'.
      Government Amendments Nos. 8 and 18; and Amendment No. 19, in Clause 2, page 2, line 35, at end insert
      'and he has decided not to initiate a prosecution'.
      Mr. Davidson: These amendments and the new clause deal with complaints by members of the public against police officers which involve allegations of possible criminal offences.
      By Section 49 of the Police Act 1964, a chief officer is required to forward the report of an investigation into a complaint to the Director of Public Prosecutions, unless he is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed. The new procedure introduced by the Bill does not affect this requirement and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear on Second Reading and time and again in Committee, the Director's decision on whether or not criminal proceedings should be brought is not open to review by the board, which is concerned only with the question of disciplinary proceedings.
      Lines 30 to 35 of Clause 2 were intended to make it clear that no report would be sent to the board under the provisions of Clause 2(1) until after the Director had given his decision on the question of criminal proceedings. However, it became evident during the discussions in Committee that there was a good deal of confusion about the precise relation between reference to the Director and reference to the board.
      We have therefore sought to make matters clearer by removing the provision
      1768
      in lines 30 to 35 of Clause 2 into a separate subsection, subsection (1) of the new clause. Government Amendment No. 8 paves the way for this part of the new clause by making it clear that the reference of a case to the board under Clause 2(1) is subject not only to subsection (2) of Clause 2 but also to sub-section (1) of the new clause. There is no difference in substance in that subsection. It remains the case that when a chief officer receives the report of an investigation into a complaint under Section 49, he must first consider whether there is any possibility of a criminal offence being involved. Unless he is satisfied that there is not, he must send the report to the Director under Section 49(3).
      Only after the Director has completed his consideration of such a case and reached a decision on the bringing of proceedings does the chief officer turn his attention to the question of reference to the board under Clause 2. The fact that a case has been considered by the Director does not prevent the case also being submitted to the board, subject to the provisions of Clause 2 or of Regulations under Clause 5 concerning cases which are not sent to the board.
      At the same time, we have tried to meet a point which was made in Committee by a number of hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). This was that in the board's consideration of the disciplinary aspects of a case —and bearing in mind especially its power under Clause 3(1) to call for additional information —fresh evidence might come to light which was relevant to the question whether a criminal offence had been committed and which had not been considered by the Director.
      It was our view that, as a matter of common sense, the board would take appropriate steps if such information came to light in the course of its exercise of its functions under the Bill.
      Nevertheless, we recognised hon. Members' anxieties on the point and we have considered how we could meet these without involving the board in criminal matters which are not its province or trespassing on the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It seemed to us

      1769
      that the best course would be to introduce into the Bill a provision on the lines of subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause.
      The effect of this will be that, if information furnished to the board under Clauses 2 or 3 of the Bill appears to be relevant to the question of criminal proceedings against the officer concerned but not to have been already referred to the Director, it will be able to request the chief officer of the force to refer the information to the Director. The chief officer would be required to comply unless the information had in fact already been sent to the Director or he was satisfied that it could not be relevant to the question of criminal proceedings. He would then be required to inform the board either that he had sent the information to the Director or, if he did not do so, why he had not.
      This provision has the advantage, first, of maintaining the position of the chief officer as the channel of communication with the Director and, secondly, of not breaching the important principle that the Director's decision is not open to review. On the other hand, it will also help to ensure that any information which ought to be in the Director's hands does in fact reach him.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden is satisfied that this provision in statutory form meets the anxieties he expressed in Committee.
      Mr. Roger Sims: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the new clause. There was some confusion on this issue in Committee, and if I am still a little confused it may be because I lack the hon. Gentleman's legal training.
      The implication of the new clause seems to be that the board will have available to it information that was not already in the possession of the DPP or the police. I am not clear how this situation could arise. Surely the police would have had the fullest possible details when conducting an investigation, and if the DPP was dissatisfied he could seek more information before reaching a decision. It is not clear how the board could find itself better informed. Therefore, I am not clear about the purpose of the latter part of the new clause.
      1770
      The new clause also seems to introduce the possibility that the Director will have the board looking over his shoulder. Despite what the Minister has said, it seems that the board will have the power to tell the DPP to do his job again. Difficulties could be caused if he was able to be semi-publicly overruled in this way.
      The other aspect of the new clause is highlighted by our amendment, which attempts to clarify the situation in which the new clause would operate. We assume that it would do so when the DPP had decided not to initiate a prosecution. If he had decided to prosecute, the process we are discussing would presumably go ahead anyway and the new clause would not apply.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I welcome the provisions of the new clause as far as they go. They help to meet the concerns I repeatedly expressed in Committee.
      My particular concern was that there might be circumstances in which further information in relation to disciplinary charges became available to the board and might indicate a glaring gap in the evidence which had gone to the DPP. For instance, the board might see that a particular witness had not been interviewed and, in considering whether disciplinary proceedings should be brought, it might suggest that the witness should be interviewed. His statement might put a different light on whether the officer concerned should face criminal charges. I was concerned with serious cases of allegations of criminal offences. In such cases the board might become aware of a lacuna in the evidence which needed to be filled.
      My concern with the new clause is whether it goes wide enough, to ensure that, in a case in which there might be grounds for anxiety, the case would reach the board in sufficient time or that the board would be sufficiently alerted to matters which might need further investigation. The new clause makes clear, as did my hon. Friend in Committee, that if fresh evidence became available it would be possible for the matter to be referred back to the DPP. That was my major concern.
      Hon. Members on all sides who have had experience of cases involving complaints against the police will be aware

      1771
      that one of the most frequent reasons for dissatisfaction is that when a complaint was investigated some people were not asked to give evidence, and that if they had been interviewed the case would have been viewed in a different light.
      The new clause makes clear that the matter could be referred back to the DPP, but it does not make clear the circumstances in which a chief officer could say that he was not satisfied that evidence was relevant and would therefore not refer it back to the DPP. There is no such power for chief officers to say that they are not prepared to find fresh evidence. They are given an express duty to supply any further information requested by the board.
      I hope that the Minister will indicate the sort of circumstances in which he envisages that chief officers might be able to resist indefinitely pressure from the board that the statement of Joe Bloggs or whoever it might be should be referred to the DPP for him to consider whether in the light of the fresh evidence, criminal proceedings should be brought.
      In another part of the Bill the board is given power to overrule the decision of a chief officer that disciplinary proceedings should not be brought. The board should at least have power to override a chief officer who was reluctant to refer a matter back to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the Board thinks that evidence is material, it is inappropriate for the chief officer to be able to say that it is of no relevance and that he will not refer it back. Subject to that, I welcome the clause and the amendments associated with it.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: We are not clear where these new subsections are to be inserted in the Bill. Therefore, the references in them to
      "section 2 or 3 above"
      are confusing. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) rightly says that the board will be able to obtain information furnished to it
      "under section 2 or 3 above",
      but what will be above the clause? This is not just a technical point. It relates to the whole question of the information that further action should be taken by the on which the board will make a judgment
      1772
      chief officer. The reference is in subsection (2) of the clause, which states:
      "that any information furnished to them under section 2 or 3 above".
      I should like to know to which
      "section 2 or 3 above"
      that refers.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) asked me to explain in what circumstances the board might come into possession of fresh evidence. He is correct in assuming that in the overwhelming number of cases the police would have all the available evidence. The police will send that evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he will consider the case in the light of that evidence. If the Director decides that he wants more evidence or that another witness should be interviewed, he can ask the chief officer of police to interview that witness and to send to him any other evidence which he considers necessary.
      The circumstances in which fresh evidence would be sent by the chief officer to the Director are very limited. It might be evidence received following further inquiries instituted by the board under Clause 3(1). Fresh information might be sent by a member of the public direct to the board which the board considered might be relevant.
      Mr. Alison: Subsection (2) states
      "Where it appears to the Police Complaints Board that any information furnished to them under section 2 or 3 above".
      That is a precise, narrow channel of information. Information from the general public is not admissible under the two following paragraphs.
      Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman is right. Information from the general public would be sent to the chief officer of police.
      Following the board's scrutiny of the papers, it might be decided that something relevant had not been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. These are very narrow circumstances. None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) was right to raise the matter, and I hope that I have covered the point.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my hon. Friend consider widening this provision

      1773
      slightly to include information in the hands of the board as a consequence of investigation into other cases? Information from a completely separate case might be already in the possession of the board, and that information might be material for the Director of Public Prosecutions to take into consideration. If the board already had in its possession strong evidence to suggest that a police officer had accepted bribes or been guilty of some other offence, it would be material for that information to be supplied to the Director and, therefore, it should be passed to him.
      I suggest that it might be preferable to leave out the words
      "under section 2 or 3 above".
      Whether the information is supplied under Section 2 or 3 in relation to that case, in connection with another case or direct by members of the public—
      Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman intervening?
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am, Mr. Speaker. I am waiting for my hon. Friend to finish his conversation.
      Mr. Speaker: The Minister is addressing the House. He cannot sit down for ever.
      Mr. Davidson: I think that my hon. Friend was doing me a favour to allow me to get more information. I was listening with care and wondering when his intervention would finish.
      I have already dealt with the point. If the board has information, it will go to the police and the police will pass it on in the normal way to the Director if it is evidence of a criminal offence.
      The hon. Member for Chislehurst raised another point, which I have forgotten.
      Mr. Sims: It was the circumstances in which the clause would operate. Will it operate simply when the Director has decided not to initiate a prosecution, or is it a general clause which applies whether he has or has not so decided?
      Mr. Davidson: Whether the Director has decided to prosecute or not to prosecute, the cases will still go to the board. That is inherent in the clause. The board will examine all cases, even cases in which the Director of Public Prosecu-
      1774
      tions has decided to prosecute. We dealt with that matter at some length in Committee, and the amendment merely clears up the point.
      Mr. Alison: I still cannot understand the rationality of moving a new clause at the beginning of today's proceedings, as the Government did, providing that when a criminal charge is made against a police officer and he is either acquitted or found guilty he cannot be susceptible to a disciplinary charge. In what circumstances can it be relevant or necessary to send to the Police Complaints Board a complaint which has resulted in a criminal charge producing conviction or acquittal? There is nothing that the board can do about it.
      The Government have ruled that the board may not prefer a disciplinary charge. It has been written into the Bill that no disciplinary charge can arise. The board is there to see that disciplinary charges are preferred when for some reason the chief officer has not done so. The Government have ruled out the admissibility of disciplinary charges, so there can be no conceivable rationale or purpose in sending a complaint to the board, because there is nothing that the board can do. It can only send it back and say that it is not relevant for consideration. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify this matter. It does not make sense to send cases to the board over which the board by definition has no jurisdiction.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: The case will go from the Director to the chief officer of police, who will send it to the board.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why?
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Davidson: Because it is important that the board should examine the case. There are circumstances in which the chief officer of police —[Interruplion]. It is not a laughing matter. We considered this at great length in Committee and had a series of debates on the subject.
      Mr. F. A. Burden. It is so illogical.
      Mr. Davidson: Since the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, perhaps he might like to refer to what was said in those debates. The hon.

      1775
      Gentleman is entitled to his view. It is important that the board should see all cases. It might well be that the chief officer of police had decided to bring some sort of disciplinary charges, not based on the same evidence, and it is important that the board should have cognisance of that. There are circumstances in which disciplinary charges could be brought on the same evidence as a criminal charge but there could be other separate disciplinary charges. We have debated this over and over again. Those charges do rot arise out of the same evidence upon which the criminal charge was based, but they are disciplinary charges which the chief officer of police, in his discretion, has decided to bring. It is those charges which the board would want to see and has a right to see. That is the answer to the question.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Perhaps I can help by saying that this is what we described in Committee as the "Regents Park case" where a policeman gets himself into difficulty with someone while he is in Regents Park. The matter is examined, and when it goes to discipline the chief officer discovers that the policeman should not have been in Regents Park at all but should have been in Islington. The charge which lies against him is that he was failing in his duty because he was not in the place where he should have been.
      The Minister is not helping at all. In effect, what he is saying is that where the police bring disciplinary charges against a police officer because of some matter which has arisen, such as in the Regents Park case, it should have something to do with the board. In principle, it ought to have nothing to do with the board because there is no complaint which lies against that police officer in respect of the matter on which he is being disciplined. The complaint arises on an entirely different matter which has been disposed of. To bring in the board on the purely internal discipline of the service is wholly wrong.
      Mr. Alison Mr. Alison rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It is disorderly to have two interventions at the same time. We must have the first one answered.
      Mr. Davidson: I appear to be subject to very long interventions; perhaps there is something about my personality. I do not know what else it can be which causes people to speak at great length when they are intervening.
      The board cannot interfere with the decision of the chief officer; that is absolutely true. The question of discipline and punishment is for him. It is, however, important that the board should have a general oversight of cases, including that sort of case.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths indicated dissent.
      Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman does not agree with me. I am sorry; I cannot take the matter any further than that. I think I have dealt with most of the points which have been raised, and I believe that the new clause and amendments go some way to meeting the points raised in Committee.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was about to speak on this matter,Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I already have the hon. Gentleman's name down as having spoken. I must have written his name down by mistake.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was out of the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Speaker. Possibly my intervention may have given you the impression that I made a speech, but I hope my speech now will make it perfectly plain that my intervention was no more than a short aside.
      The point I wish to make to the hon. Gentleman, which I hope he will take seriously, is that I think he has got it wrong and that he ought to consult his officials to make sure that he gets it right. The Long Title states the intention of the Bill:
      "To establish a Police Complaints Board with functions relating to complaints from the public against members of police forces".
      That is the heart of the matter. It is only where the public make complaints that the Bill will operate. Of course, the very case we are dealing with is precisely one in which the public have made no complaint at all. It is simply a matter

      1777
      in which, as a result of some infringement of the law or of discipline, a policeman's superiors discover that he has acted in a way which is an offence against the internal management of the service.
      The public have no means of knowing whether a police officer ought to be in Regents Park or Islington or anywhere else. How can they? The public have no knowledge of how the police deploy their men. Therefore, if in the course of investigation of an offence it appears that there is some irregulatrity in the way in which a constable has carried out his professional duty, that is not a matter on which the public can make a complaint because the public, by definition, can have no knowledge of that.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: Following the analogy of the Regents Park case, if a member of the public complains that a police officer in Regents Park was abusive to him or that the officer was drunk in charge of a car, the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to consider whether criminal proceedings should be brought against that policeman for driving while unfit through drink. The question of complaint would still have to be considered by the board. However, if Amendment (a) is accepted that will not be possible. I think that the hon. Gentleman is speaking beside the point, which is unusual for him.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged, as always, to the hon. Gentleman. He and the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I suspect, has now obtained advice from the Box, will recognise what we are dealing with here. If it is a case which concerns a police officer who is charged with assault or drunkenness, and there is a complaint by a member of the public, it is entirely proper that the Bill should dealt with it. But if, in the course of the disciplinary procedures which are followed, it is discovered that a police officer committed some purely internal offence —let us say his personal radio set was out of order or he was not carrying his pocket book —these could be matters for discipline which arose from the investigation of the initial case.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann Mr. Douglas-Mann rose—
      Mr. Griffiths: What the Parliamentary Secretary said in his speech was that it would be a matter for the board. If
      1778
      he consults his officials, I think he will see that he is entirely mistaken on this point. The Bill does not cover the internal management of the police service.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: Perhaps I can disappoint the hon. Gentleman and also please him, which is a happy thing to do. He is wrong in thinking that the advice I have received from my officials implies that the advice I gave the House was wrong. Possibly the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. Clearly, what we are describing as the Regents Park case —in which a police officer was disciplined for not wearing his helmet or something, and which was not the subject of complaint by the public —has nothing to do with the board at all. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I certainly did not intend to give that impression and I did not think I had done so.
      Mr. Burden: You did.
      Mr. Davidson: I am sorry; I did not think I had.
      But there is still a category of case, in which, for instance, a complaint—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the Minister that this is not Committee stage, when interventions can come at any time? This is Report stage. When an hon. Member is addressing the House, if anyone intervenes —Minister or Back Bencher —his intervention should be of reasonable duration. Otherwise, reasonable progress is impossible.
      Mr. Davidson: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I thought that I was winding up.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I had in fact completed my remarks, Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to know.
      Mr. Speaker: I was misled by the hon. Member's earlier remarks: I apologise.
      Mr. Davidson: So, Mr. Speaker, do I.
      There might be a complaint by a member of the public under Section 49 that he had been mistreated or assaulted by a constable. At the same time, he might complain that the officer had been abusive in the way he had spoken. So there would be two complaints. One is obviously a criminal matter, and the

      1779
      DPP might decide, for evidential reasons, not to prosecute. But that would not in itself be a bar to disciplinary proceedings for the use of abusive language. It might arise from the same incident or it might be separated by minutes, but it is one that the board should see. It is a question of a complaint by the public, it is a question of disciplinary proceedings, and the fact that the major offence of assault had not been the subject of proceedings should not debar the board from seeing what had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings.
      It is that sort of matter, which is slightly apart from the Regents Park type of offence, that I was trying to describe. Perhaps hon. Members will now understand it a little better.
      Mr. Alison: I should like to speak particularly to our Amendment (a) —
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Has not the hon. Member addressed the House already?
      Mr. Alison: Only by way of intervention and query, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: There is something wrong. When I called the hon. Member, I called him to make a speech. If he says that it was an intervention, I shall have to keep a closer eye on interventions.
      Mr. Alison: I shall be very brief.
      I want to start by paying tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary. The reason why we keep on speaking is that he is so helpful and constructive that he invites us to probe these matters to get to the truth.
      I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would confirm that, as things stand, there are at least three types of case —I hope we shall be able to show that there are four —which do not go to the Police Complaints Board. The first is the case of a complaint which is withdrawn, the second is one which proves to concern internal disciplinary matters and is not directly relevant to a complaint by a member of the public and the third is a case in which the charges are admitted and disciplinary charges are preferred —although the Government propose to change that later in the Bill.
      1780
      6.45 p.m.
      The fourth type of case, on which I continue to have misgivings is that in which the DPP has prosecuted a particular complainant. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary saying that there are some bits of complaints which may prove susceptible to disciplinary charges after the criminal case has been dealt with. When the new clause was tabled specifying certain kinds of criminal case in which, following an acquittal, there could be no disciplinary charges, there must have been some clear end in view.
      It is that isolated sort of case, which the new clause defines as being not susceptible to a disciplinary charge, which I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm cannot itself be referred to the board. It would be nonsense for such a case to be sent to the board. There must have been some intention behind New Clause I, which we have now included in the Bill. We should like confirmation that that type of case, in which disciplinary charges can no longer be preferred, cannot be sent to the board. There would be no purpose, because the board could do nothing about it. If the hon. Gentleman says that it is not necessary for such cases to go to the board, we shall naturally not press our amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE OF A PERSON ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE
      '(1) Where a complaint is made by or on behalf of a person accused or convicted of a criminal offence about the conduct of a member of a police force in relation to his arrest, charge or prosecution, the chief officer of police to whom the complaint is made shall, if so requested by or on behalf of the complainant, send to the Police Complaints Board a copy of the complaint if made in writing or of the record of the complaint if made orally.
      (2) The Board shall thereupon consider whether the complaint contains allegations which, if they were made out in whole or in part, would in the opinion of the Board cast serious doubt on the validity of any conviction of the complainant for a criminal offence.
      (3) If the Board is of the aforesaid opinion it shall so inform the chief officer of police

      1781
      and the complainant and shall require the complaint to be investigated upon the conclusion of any trial then still pending, and before the hearing of any appeal therefrom (if any such appeal be then pending) and the Board may, if it thinks fit, require the investigation to be carried out by an officer of another police force of such rank as the Board shall direct.
      (4) If the Board is satisfied that the subject matter of the complaint cannot be adequately determined by the court of the complainant's trial and that justice to the complainant cannot therefore be done unless the complaint is investigated before the trial, it shall (if so requested by or on behalf of the complainant) require the complaint o be investigated forthwith and shall so inform the chief officer of police and the complainant.
      (5) The report of the investigation shall be rendered direct to the Board and if the Board is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice that further investigations should be made the Board shall require such further investigations to be carried out as it thinks fit and the report thereof (hereinafter called the supplementary report) shall be rendered direct to the Board.
      (6) Any such investigation shall be completed and the report thereof rendered to the Board regardless of any pending disciplinary proceedings against or prosecution of any member of the police force concerned or any other person or any appeal therefrom.
      (7) On receipt of the report (including any supplementary report) the Board shall send to the complainant, to any court before which appeal by the complainant may then be pending, and to any prosecutor acting in such an appeal, a statement of the facts disclosed by the investigation and copies of the statements of any witnesses interviewed in the course of the investigation, with the exception only of such facts and statements as, in the opinion of the Board, should be excluded in the interests of national security or the prevention or detection of crime'.—[Mr. Whitehead.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Whitehead: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I am particularly grateful that the House should be able to debate the new clause and those matters which we raised on the last day of the Committee proceedings on 1st April. I look forward with interest to what the Parliamentary Secretary will say about the consultations which have been undertaken and the exact statistics of previous proceedings in which investigations under Section 49 have been brought into evidence between the first conviction or charging of complainants and subsequent proceedings on appeal.
      Substantially, what we tried to do with a similar new clause in Committee was
      1782
      to consider the comparatively rare category of complaints against the police in which the complaint is essentially related to matters like the falsification of evidence and the suborning of witnesses—grave in themselves, but especially grave in that they would lead, perhaps, and sometimes of necessity, to the wrongful conviction of the complainant before the court.
      As we said in Committee, the category of complainant dealt with here is precisely of that kind of person who does not know his rights under Section 49 as others know them, and will probably know them even better once the Bill becomes law. This is a small category of people who are themselves, perhaps, somewhat disreputable and are known to be disreputable, and, therefore, to be the kind of people against whom a certain animus, conscious or unconscious, might prevail on the part not only of the police but sometimes of the courts.
      For these reasons, we feel that there should be a right for at least a request to be made that the board shall be able to investigate the substance of such a person's complaint before the legal proceedings of appeal in which he has been involved are concluded.
      Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is describing a rather odd category of people, towards whom, he says, there is a certain animus, not only among the police but in the courts. Is he talking about Martians?
      Mr. Whitehead: I am talking about a certain category of people to whom I will refer more specifically, if the hon. Member can contain himself.
      I said when introducing the Second Reading of the Private Member's Bill on which this is to some degree based that nothing could stand against its time; but if anything has found its time it is what, in this week of all weeks, should be the principle, that there are matters to be investigated, matters still before the court, when there has been an allegation of malpractice of one kind or another by the police. In the last 12 days we have had a number of significant concessions by the Government that justice was not done in what are now quite famous, or notorious, cases.
      I referred to two or three of these cases in the Standing Committee proceedings.

      1783
      We have had the release and free pardon of Patrick Meehan who is quoted in newspapers today as saying he was framed by the police, or perhaps even by the Special Branch, because he was involved in the escape of George Blake from prison. That may or may not be the case, but Meehan at the time of his original arrest and trial made a number of allegations about the nature of the evidence against him and the way it had been acquired, and protested his innocence vehemently during the whole of that period of time and since, a period which can never now be given back to him, the time he was in prison for a crime he did not commit. Nothing, and no form of money provided at the instance of my right hon. Friend or any other agency in this country, can compensate him for the period of mature, adult life that he has lost in prison.
      In the Standing Committee proceedings I referred to the Luton murders. I did not at that stage refer to them by name because I knew the matter was under investigation by the Home Office, but my right hon. Friend yesterday quite correctly —and I applaud him for it —referred back to the Court of Appeal the question of the two men who were convicted in the Luton murders, Mr. William Davis and Mr. Patrick Murphy. Again we can see that this is precisely the kind of situation where, if they had been able to have their complaints against a certain officer investigated between the time of their initial conviction for the murders and the hearing of the appeal, a miscarriage of justice might not have taken place. I say "might not" because I must not prejudge what the Court of Appeal may decide in this instance, but I applaud my right hon. Friend's action in referring this case back, I believe for a second time, to the Court of Appeal.
      I have referred, though not by name. because there has been a substantial amount of Press and television publicity over the last week on it, to the case of Bruce Brown, the third case I raised in Standing Committee when we were originally discussing the need for these procedures. Bruce Brown was sentenced for his part in a bank robbery. He was refused leave to appeal and is at present in prison. A number of statements have been made about this case. There have
      1784
      been complaints about the way in which the evidence against him was prepared and the way in which a large amount of money, the proceeds of the robbery for which he was charged, disappeared —it is alleged, at the instance of two police officers who have now left the force. All this, I would submit, has caused grave concern. In the case of Bruce Brown two separate complaints were made to the A10 Division of the Metropolitan Police.
      I refer to this case specifically because in the Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said the Government had considered, as an alternative to the clause as framed, a way of allowing a complainant at least to have the results of a Section 49 inquiry laid before the court before that stage. That may be a halfway house, and is what this new clause is proposing.
      Let us suppose that had already been in effect at the time of the Bruce Brown hearing. Two separate sources of complaint about the behaviour of these named policemen went to the A10 Division of Scotland Yard. A policewoman —a woman of impeccable reputation—Mrs. Joan Angel, complained formally to New Scotland Yard about the way in which art informer, who had brought about the arrest and identification of the suspect in the case, had been treated. Mrs. Angel complained that the reward money had been paid not to the informer but to a nominee of two police officers. I have here an affidavit from her concerning the case. Mr. Brown's wife approached the A10 Division at New Scotland Yard and made a certain number of complaints, supported by tape recordings, about the behaviour of a particular police officer. Those matters were investigated by A10, but none of this was placed before the court at that stage. It was not admitted in evidence. The actual A10 investigations have not been published.
      There is here some evidence of a miscarriage of justice. This case has certainly attracted widespread public comment in the Sunday Times, on London Weekend Television and elsewhere. In this case the man is now in prison and these two police officers have now left the force, one having been required to do so. though neither has been charged with any offence at all. I accept, therefore, that the only way justice will come

      1785
      to be done in this case is by a public inquiry, which I would support, and for which I call in this case.
      Looking ahead to the future and discussing such cases, one comes back to the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). We can see that there is a category of complaint exemplified by some of these cases which have been very much in the public mind over the last week or two, and on which we can on Report legitimately press the point embodied in the old New Clause 7, now before us as New Clause 3. We can ask my hon. Friend to say, in replying, what he has been able to do, not merely in the consultations which he undertook to carry out with police authorities but also by way of new procedures, allowing a complaint in particular circumstances, where such complaint is neither frivolous nor malicious, nor a rogues' charter as mentioned by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) in Committee, but is a serious matter which could bear on justice in a case before the court. Will he say how he will allow such complaint to be investigated in the future before that stage?
      I should particularly like to ask, first, how far have these consultations proceeded? Knowing what we know about the snail-like pace of consultations in preparation for this Bill and through the various working parties set up, I should like to know if thus far he has been able to get an adequate process of consultation and reply from the various police authorities concerned, and whether there is still the wide divergence that there was, at the time of the Committee proceedings, between the practices of the Metropolitan Police with the A10 Division and the practices of a number of other forces which do not have even this system of investigation of a complainant's allegation that the evidence brought against him by the police is the result of serious malpractice.
      Thirdly, could my hon. Friend tell us how many such interventions there have been invoking the existing Section 49 procedures, never mind what we are now suggesting should he ipso facto the role of the Complaints Board? How often is it possible to have this kind of serious complaint investigation under
      1786
      Section 49, not after a complainant has had his initial case and appeal heard, and in some cases, like that of Bruce Brown, has had leave to appeal turned down and is in prison? How often has there been a Section 49 inquiry before a complainant has actually been consigned to prison after the failure of his appeal? Unless my hon. Friend can tell me of a significant number of such cases in instances where there is grave cause for concern about present malpractice, I would suggest to him and to the House that the principles embodied in New Clause 3 should be put into the Bill. In fact, that is the best way of rectifying a system that has led in some cases —I accept that they are isolated instances, but isolated and scandalous instances —to grave miscarriages of justice.
      7.0 p.m.
      I should be very interested to hear what reaction my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has had from the police and the police authorities to the notion that there should be a more widespread inquiry under Section 49, as he appeared to concede in principle in Committee, or even what reaction he has had to the proposals that my hon. Friends and I have put forward for this investigation to be carried out in some cases by the Police Complaints Board. I am not happy at all with the proposal that it should be only as a result of a public inquiry or a special investigation by the Home Office under Section 50 that we get an investigation of this kind of scandalous situation—which is comparatively rare but all the more scandalous when it arises—and innocent men, released from prison.
      I hope that I have said enough, mentioning just a few cases—there are others that I could have mentioned, including some that are in the public eye at present —to indicate that there is serious cause for concern here and that there are some areas of complaint that must be investigated before the complainant has gone through all the courts and has finally been consigned to prison.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: Let me say at once that the Government are not unsympathetic to the concept underlying the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I concede, as I did in Committee, that there can be a problem when the

      1787
      same or similar issues arise in the context of criminal proceedings, on the one hand, and in the context of a Section 49 complaint against the police, on the other hand. The Government would like to tackle the problem if they possibly could.
      Perhaps I may explain in some detail some of the difficulties. It may avoid some of the traditional interventions that occur during my speeches. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me, because a very important principle is involved.
      The problem tends to arise most acutely, as I think my hon. Friend would agree, in a small number of rather difficult cases. However, I think that I would be misleading my hon. Friend and the House if I were to give the impression that any major change in procedures is likely to be possible in the near future. There are many difficulties of principle and practice in the way. Also—if 1 dare mention this —there are resource constraints in the present climate of restrictions on recruitment of manpower and on Government expenditure.
      When we discussed this matter in Committee I dealt with some of the major difficulties. I dealt with them in the context of this very clause. I said then, and I ought to make it clear now, that the Government do not see any role for the Police Complaints Board in this matter. The board's job is to provide an independent element in the handling of complaints against the police. It cannot provide a remedy as such for the complainant, and it cannot and must not intervene in criminal proceedings. Any changes can and should, more appropriately, therefore, be dealt with by administrative action.
      Secondly, I explained the problems—they are considerable problems —about carrying out Section 49 investigations while proceedings are pending. I explained some of the real practical problems which affect both the police and the accused. The investigation must usually begin with the complainant being interviewed and questioned as to the details of his complaint, and a statement must be taken from him, provided that he desires to make a statement. Such an inquiry involves an examination of the complainant on matters touching upon the offence with which he has been
      1788
      charged, an offence which is still subject to determination by the court. Such an investigation is open to criticism—indeed, criticism by the complainant —in that it facilitates or may facilitate the obtaining of incriminating evidence from the complainant and the exposing of his defence to the pending proceedings. That is a serious difficulty that the House must face.
      Further, if the interview is to be carried out properly, and in the way that the police do carry out their interviews, it might involve the identification of witnesses whom the defence propose to call. The investigating officer, if he is to do his job properly, will need to interview those witnesses, if the investigation is pursued, with a view to taking statements from them.
      A further objection to the complainant being interviewed is that he would require to be cautioned before being questioned. Many complaints are made by accused persons, in and out of court, that they are not properly cautioned. Any statements made by the complainant and any possible witnesses would be available to the prosecuting solicitor for use by the prosecution. To caution the complainant in those circumstances could inhibit him from supplying any information, and might be regarded by him as having the effect of discouraging him from pursuing his complaint.
      For those reasons the Government think it inappropriate that, in other than a small minority of exceptional cases, investigation of a Section 49 complaint should precede the trial of a related criminal charge. I hope that the House will accept that those are serious practical difficulties.
      Assuming, therefore, that we are looking for some way of increasing flexibility —and there ought to be increased flexibility—between trial and appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, the third major difficulty is to devise some means of isolating the minority of cases, in which there is a genuine possibility that the investigation of the Section 49 complaint may bring forward evidence relevant to the accused's guilt or innocence on the criminal charge, from the many cases in which this is not so.
      It should be recognised that, if there is movement here, a great many people

      1789
      will be tempted—it is naive to pretend otherwise—to make a Section 49 complaint as a means if for no other reason, of getting a second look at their conviction, even if the complaint has no merit. If it becomes the general practice to have a second look at everything, any arrangements that could be devised with the best of intentions could well become unworkable. Indeed, the people who would suffer from this would be those who have a genuine grievance.
      Assuming that the genuine cases can be isolated from the rest, there will be a need to identify and put forward relevant information arising in the course of the investigation in a form which the Court of Appeal can handle, and to limit what is put to the court to only that material which is relevant to the question of guilt or innocence of the accused. This will require time and expertise on the part of those who evaluate and present the evidence.
      That said, my right hon. Friend has explored with the police organisations the proposal that there might be advantage in rather greater flexibility in carrying out Section 49 investigations between trial and appeal than it seemed to us had occurred under the present arrangements. The position at present is that discretion on this matter rests with chief officers except to the extent that a further investigation is requested by, say, the Court of Criminal Appeal itself or the Director of Public Prosecutions. I can tell my hon. Friend that the inquiries that my right hon. Friend has carried out confirm that there is some variation in practice. In certain parts of the country, notably in London, there is greater flexibility at present than, perhaps, my hon. Friend may have realised.
      The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs my right hon. Friend that in the Metropolitan Police District investigations, not necessarily arising only out of Section 49 complaints, have on occasion taken place between trial and appeal in the following circumstances: first, when information about police documents or the examination of exhibits has been requested by the appellant, either direct or through the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal; secondly, at the request of the trial judge; and, thirdly, because matters came to the attention of the police, quite outside the
      1790
      context of any complaint or request by the appellant, which threw doubt on the validity of the conviction.
      Mr. Whitehead: Specifically on this point about the Metropolitan Police—in intervening, I shall confine myself to precisely this point—I accept that there is greater flexibility in the Metropolitan Police and that the A10 investigations take place, but in the case which I mentioned, where it was a police officer, Mrs. Angel, who complained of the activities of two other policemen and alleged malpractices, the A10 investigation was said to be inconclusive, and no action was taken then or later against those officers. How else is it possible, other than by recourse to an ex post facto independent procedure, for such a complainant to receive any satisfaction?
      Mr. Davidson: I accept that there is a difficulty, and I have never hidden that fact. Obviously I cannot comment on the facts of individual cases.
      The Commissioner has informed my right hon. Friend that in some cases, where the Metropolitan Police have had doubts about whether it was proper to continue with an investigation prior to the hearing of an appeal, they have written to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal explaining why they considered that the investigation should take place forthwith and stating that, unless the court objected, it would go ahead. There is certainly no automatic investigation at the option of the defendant, but the current practice in London appears to be that the prosecuting solicitor or counsel is informed of any relevant complaint and of its nature and that he decides when an investigation should take place, seeking advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions in cases of difficulty.
      There does not seem to be the same flexibility in other parts of the country, and some of the police organisations at any rate are reluctant to move further in this direction. They fear confusion and complication if the investigation of a complaint proceeds at the same time as criminal proceedings and think that this might have a prejudicial effect on their members. My right hon. Friend proposes, however, to continue his discussions with those concerned, with the intention of exploring whether the practice

      1791
      presently adopted in the Metropolitan District might be more generally adopted. I should like to make it clear, however, that if there were to be this greater flexibility, the defence would have to be prepared to provide access to their witnesses for the purpose of the Section 49 investigation.
      It is, of course, necessary to consider how best any relevant material arising from any police investigation shall be made available to the Appeal Court. It is true that, under Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the Court of Appeal has wide powers to receive evidence, but if greater flexibility in the present arrangements concerning police investigations proved possible, the Government would need to consider whether any consequential modifications in present procedures would be necessary with regard to the ways in which relevant evidence arising from the investigation could be brought before the court. This needs to be looked at very carefully, and my right hon. Friend will be looking at it further in the context of the consultations to which he has referred.
      7.15 p.m.
      As I said, my right hon. Friend has had his preliminary talks with the police representative organisations. He has had discussions with officials of the DDP's office with the Court of Appeal. These discussions are continuing. It is a difficult matter. I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend is trying to put forward, as, I am sure, has everyone. It would be quite wrong for someone to be convicted on perjured evidence and languish in gaol as a result. I hope, however, that the practical difficulties to which I have referred, in what, I hope, has been an excusably lengthy speech, will cause my hon. Friend at least to realise that the Government are very serious about their consultations, and that, in the circumstances, he may feel inclined not to press his new clause.
      Mr. Whitehead: Can my hon. Friend say whether the consultations will be completed before the Bill has gone through the House of Lords?
      Mr. Davidson: I am afraid that I could not possibly say that.
      Mr. Aitken: In the soporific atmosphere now pervading the Chamber, the
      1792
      impression may be getting abroad that this clause—and, indeed, the whole Bill—is somehow uncontroversial. It is about time that it was clearly said that the whole Bill is the 1976 equivalent of the groundnuts scheme. It is incredibly expensive, excessively bureaucratic, administratively unworkable and absolutely irrelevant to the first duty of the police, which is fighting the war against crime.
      When I heard the Parliamentary Secretary speaking of the difficulties which would be encountered because of the human and financial resources which the clause involved, it struck me that he might well have thought of that before introducing the Bill, because it is more germane to that than to this clause.
      There are a number of very basic and solid objections to the clause, and they can be summarised in this way. First, it will usurp the power of the courts. Secondly, it will be an open invitation to anyone charged with a criminal offence to obfuscate the whole issue by alleging a number of outrageous complaints which will have to be investigated and assessed by the Police Complaints Board. It is a fairly standard off-the-shelf reaction among certain criminals to claim, when accused of a criminal offence, that they were beaten up by the police, that confessions were forced out of them, that "verbals" at the time of arrest were invented or that evidence was "planted". I do not say that actions of that kind never occur—indeed, this would be a bad week in which to do so—but they are extremely rare in relation to the number of times that allegations of that kind are made.
      If such allegations are made, invariably they are brought up in the courts and listened to carefully by a judge and jury. The fundamental objection here which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) appears to have overlooked is that the courts themselves listen carefully to allegations of this kind and they assess them and decide them.
      Suddenly we are told that the Police Complaints Board is to be mightier than the courts. Hard cases make bad law and bad new clauses. We are in danger, if we accept the new clause, of creating a camel to strain at one or two gnats.
      There are numerous routes by which a genuine case where injustice has been

      1793
      done can be investigated and can be remedied. One well-known remedy is for the case to go back to A10. I am at the moment handling the case of a Mr. Westbrook. A10 is investigating its original investigation. The alternative is the one adopted by many hon. Members of taking cases direct to the Home Secretary. But this small and isolated number of cases for which there are remedies are not so numerous that we have to bring into existence this gigantic new apparatus and give new powers to the board to cope with them. As I say, this would be usurping the power of the courts.
      I found myself in considerable sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary when he spoke of the great difficulties involved in carrying out Section 49 investigations in the course of criminal proceedings. He was right to say that a defendant's own defence might well be revealed and prejudiced in advance. Above all, he was right to say that a great many defendants would be tempted to use a Section 49 investigation by the board as a means of delaying their own convictions and of trying yet another bogus escape route, even when there was no merit in their complaints.
      In Committee the hon. Member for Derby, North originally used the phrase "a rogue's charter". The original user of it was not my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). In fact, that is exactly what the clause could become.
      Mr. Whitehead: In Committee I was quoting the words of "Dogberry" in a police magazine. I do not claim any authorship of "a rogue's charter".
      Mr. Aitken: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is true that the phrase was used in the interrogative sense. The hon. Gentleman may have been quoting from another source. However, the phrase emerged not from the lips of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst but in a quoted form from the lips of the hon. Member for Derby, North.
      It is correct to say that the clause could become a rogue's charter. It could be an invitation to a "regular" to create a smoke-screen to delay criminal proceedings. We should rely on the good sense and the good justice of our courts. I reject the suggestion that there is a category of persons towards whom both the police and the courts have a hostile
      1794
      animus. That is why I asked whether it was a reference to Martians. I cannot think of any earthly category of persons to whom all the judges and all the police are universally hostile. I accept that there may be individual personality clashes and difficulties, but to say that there is one large category of persons who form a hated group is nonsense.
      We cannot allow the powers of the courts to be usurped in this way. We cannot allow a rogue's charter to be established. The House should reject the clause.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I cannot say that I am puzzled by the remarks of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). Throughout the Committee, having supported the measure on Second Reading, he attacked the whole Bill rather than making detailed points. To take up his remarks about the House becoming soporific, it seemed that he was himself in danger of going to sleep and that he wanted to make his Third Reading speech at this stage.
      Having heard the reply of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, there are those of my hon. Friends who may be very disappointed. The history of the demand for an independent board and an independent system of inquiry into complaints against the police did not arise because of the way in which perhaps 99 per cent. of complaints have been dealt with over the years. Most people feel that for the vast majority of complaints that are made the present procedure is perfectly all right. The demand that grew up for an independent inquiry into complaints against the police occurred because of the small number of cases that disturbed people. It is those cases, some of which have been referred to tonight, that produced the campaign for this measure.
      That is the way in which the Bill or the Act, as it will become, will be tested. The question will be asked "Does it meet the requirements of those who pressed for it?" I feel that we have marginally improved the way in which we deal with the vast majority of complaints, but we have not made a significant alteration. When we consider the serious complaints, I feel that the Bill fails to grasp the nettle. I know that there is a problem, but we

      1795
      must do something about the very difficult complaints. In my view it is not worth having this measure unless we do so. If we fail to take that action, there will be an ongoing campaign to make the Bill effective in the really difficult cases.
      If there is a complaint against the police, it is important that it should be investigated as quickly as possible. One of the major problems in the present procedure is the amount of time that elapses. I am sure that no one in the House can think back to events that took place 12 months ago anything like as clearly as they can recall events that took place recently. That is one of the major elements in any investigative procedure. It is vital that investigation should start quickly.
      We have been told that there is the difficulty of costs. I suggest that it is much more important that we should spend the money on the difficult cases, in which there can be a major miscarriage of justice, instead of spending marginally to improve the way in which we administer the minor complaints.
      Much emphasis is placed on the period after the first court case and before an appeal. Surely at that stage there are few of the difficulties that have been suggested in the interviewing of witnesses. Most of the witnesses will already have put forward their evidence in the first court case.
      Notwithstanding the failure of the Government to give specific undertakings, I think that the House would be well advised to accept the clause and to strengthen the Bill in an area in which there has been a major campaign—namely, the area of the very difficult cases which can result in a serious miscarriage of justice. I hope that the House will accept the clause.
      Mr. Hooley: It is probably common ground that, although all offences which can be committed by policemen in the course of their duty are unfortunate and are to be deplored, the most serious offence that a policeman can commit is one which leads by its nature to the conviction and sentencing of an innocent person. That is surely the most damaging and deplorable action that anyone can take, quite apart from a policeman. To
      1796
      perpetrate action, or to omit action which he should properly take, as a result of which an innocent person may be convicted of an offence as serious as murder or robbery with violence, for example, is surely the most damaging behaviour. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Mr. Whitehead) and others of my hon. Friends are right to press that point home now as they did in Committee
      The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) said that such cases are not numerous. Again, I think that that is common gound. That rather reduces the hon. Member's objection to having a procedure for dealing with those cases. We are not suggesting any extra machinery or special machinery. The Police Complaints Board will exist when the Bill is enacted. We are not suggesting the establishment of another complaints board or another set of machinery. The Police Complaints Board will be three and the staff will be there. It will be available to do its job and to deal with the difficult cases, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, are not numerous. It is common ground that they are not likely to be numerous, but they will be serious.
      It seems to be assumed by the Government Front Bench and by the Opposition that the Board must go into a thorough investigation of any complaint that is made. That is not so. The clause states:
      "the board shall…consider whether the complaint contains allegations which, if they were made out…would in the opinion of the board cast…doubts on the validity of any conviction".
      The board is not bound to come to that conclusion. I accept that it might seem to certain people who are on trial that this is a technique for evading conviction or postponing the evil day, but it is clear from the clause that there is no automatic right of investigation of any complaint of this nature that is made. All that it provides is that there will be a right of complaint to the board. However, the board will decide whether the nature of the complaint is such that it could cast serious doubt on the validity of a conviction.
      Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that the process by which weak complaints are to be sifted

      1797
      from serious ones will be quick and easy. The clause states:
      "the Board shall thereupon consider whether the complaint contains allegations which, if they were serious".
      Any allegation per se which involves the planting of evidence, must, by its very nature, involve a serious investigation by the board. An allegation of a sort which might result in a difficult conviction has only to be made for the whole complaint to be seriously considered. It will not be a short process.
      Mr. Hooley: I am not saying that it will necessarily be a short process. That is a matter that the board will determine. I am saying that there is no automatic right of investigation. If a complaint is produced, whether it is good, bad or indifferent, it does not mean that the board must thereupon investigate it. The board must consider whatever facts are presented, but it is not forced to go into a detailed investigation in every case. The board is free to exercise its own judgment.
      7.30 p.m.
      It has been suggested that the board will in some way be usurping the functions of the courts to determine innocence or guilt. I do not think that that construction can be placed upon the new clause. At the end of the day, when the board has investigated the complaint—not crime—its only duty is to make its findings available to the prosecution, the court, the complainant and, presumably, the defence. What action the court then takes or what weight it places on the results of those findings is for the court alone. The board has no further standing in the matter thereafter.
      However, it is important that the board shall have brought to the light of day the nature of the complaint or malpractice, if any, and have given the prosecution, the court, the defence and all concerned full knowledge of the facts. That procedure is reasonable and does not require extra machinery. It does not put special burdens on the system as such. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be more forthcoming than he has been so far on this idea.
      Mr. John Loveridge: I did not have the pleasure of listening to the Committee's deliberations. Therefore,
      1798
      it is with some trepidation that I intervene in the debate. I do so because of my interest in the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) in favour of the new clause. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, there must be a good deal of sympathy with that argument in the House.
      Why have a separate board to investigate complaints if it is not to be effective in even a few cases? The board's knowledge could possibly help justice in those few cases in the event of appeal.
      I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) said about the natural temptation for criminals to make false accusations against the police. Speaking as a magistrate, I think that courts generally take that matter into account as well as the natural wish of the police to secure a proper conviction. Therefore, what my hon. Friend said is right in almost all cases, but there will be the protection of the court and, in the end, of the appeal, so that justice will be done.
      I recall one case—a rather childish case, and I shall not burden the House with the detail of it—about a melee during the course of which a policeman's helmet was knocked off and kicked away. The two police officers who gave evidence against the defendant were proved by the defendant to be utterly incorrect in what they said. There was no question of perjury. The defendant was in the peculiar position of having been a police officer for many years. That fact was not known to the two police officers at the time of the arrest. Therefore, the defendant was able to bring before the court evidence of a special nature from his own knowledge which demonstrated that he could not have commited the small crime with which he was charged. In that case justice was done and he got off. After the case. I wondered what would have happened if that man had not had the special knowledge that he gained by having been a policeman.
      The question may be asked, how would that affect this issue? Had a complaint been laid and investigated in advance of the matter being brought to court, I dare say that the chief officer in charge would have applied to the court to withdraw the case as the police did not wish to present further evidence. As it was, the defendant knew that he was on strong

      1799
      ground because of his special knowledge and that he would be acquitted, as he was. That is the kind of case, though not of great consequence, that could be affected in the way proposed in the new clause.
      I appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the grave technical difficulties which would ensue for the police and all concerned with these cases if the new clause were accepted. Will the hon. Gentleman, through his Department, try to ensure that the administrative procedures about which he spoke are checked thoroughly so that, where there is any element of doubt, there can be some delay, if necessary, to enable defending counsel to have any information at the conclusion of an inquiry which might help the defendant? I think that is the proper way to handle these matters. Of course it will not satisfy everybody, because it will not be visible to the public at large. None the less, if the Home Office will try to ensure that that is done, I think it would be the most satisfactory way to deal with the matter.
      There is another aspect. If a police officer is convicted of perjury—I am not specifying a particular case—where such perjury would have changed the outcome for the defendant, are any procedures applied to past cases in which that officer has given evidence and secured convictions? Are past cases looked into to make sure that no previous instances of perjury have occurred thereby giving rise to wrongful convictions?
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am glad to have had qualified support from the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge) for the new clause. The provisions of the clause, whether accepted in their entirety or not, lie at the heart of an effective police complaints procedure.
      Mr. Loveridge: I should like to put the record straight. I did not feel able to support the clause for the reasons which I gave. I supported the principle behind the clause. I said that it had my sympathy.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of the spirit of the clause, if not the entire wording of it. I accept that the provisions of the clause require parliamentary draftsmanship, notwithstanding
      1800
      the respect that I have for the draftsmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).
      I was disappointed by the complacency with which my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary viewed the proposals in the new clause. It is implicit in what he and the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) said that there is an overwhelming probability that a man who is charged is guilty of a criminal offence, so that it is not worth investigating his side of the case first.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: indicated dissent.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: My hon. Friend shakes his head, but it is implicit that if a man is charged with a criminal offence it is not worth investigating his contention "Not only did I not do it, but the two police officers who are accusing me of it are lying. They know that I did not do it, but they are doing this for their own purposes." I accept that in very many cases people put forward that kind of allegation when it is not true. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend must accept that this happens—people are prosecuted by the police in circumstances in which the police are perjuring themselves.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: My hon. Friend interrupted me several times, so he must allow me to make the briefest intervention in his speech. He is wrong to say that I am complacent. My reply was anything but complacent. Of course I acknowledge—anyone would—that there are cases where the police behave improperly and cases involving corrupt officers. But my hon. Friend must not think that the postition is easy and accuse other people of being complacent. It is a very serious problem indeed.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: I withdraw the word "complacent". But even if my hon. Friend's attitude is not complacent, the effect of his actions confirms the complacency with which the authorities view the situation. When we have a position in which a man is charged with a criminal offence in circumstances in which he can produce evidence tending to show that the accusations are false, and that the evidence the police present in seeking his conviction is false, or was "planted" or secured in an improper

      1801
      fashion, it is right that not only the defendant's case should be investigated but the prosecution's case should be investigated as well.
      My hon. Friend has practised as a lawyer, as I have done. He must know that there are a considerable number of cases—admittedly it is a minority, but it is still a significant number—in which the police, having made an arrest for one thing, find out they have made a mistake and produce something else in order to get a conviction. I know of at least two cases in which this has happened and in which it would have been highly desirable to have had an investigation into whether the accused was properly charged before the case actually came to court to be heard. In cases like this, very often by the time the defendant has been acquitted and awarded costs the trail has gone cold. It is impossible to establish which police officers were in the station at the time, who was responsible for the assaults and who was responsible for altering the evidence. These matters require investigation from the outset.
      7.45 p.m.
      The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark, announced the other day that 400 police officers had been required to leave the service over the past four years. It is difficult to suppose that a substantial number had not had complaints made against them. It is difficult to imagine that, even with the procedures that we have in the Bill, these cases will be effectively solved. What we need is a more uniform procedure for ensuring that, where there is reasonable ground for suspicion that the evidence which is to be presented to the court is not true, or there are reasonable grounds for suspicion or perjury, planting of evidence or bribery, there should be an investigation at the beginning, while the trail is still warm and it is possible to find the information.
      Mr. Alison: But there is bound to be an investigation if a complaint is made. This is a serious criminal charge, and it does not need a new clause to initiate an investigation as long as a complaint is made.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: The practice varies very widely in different parts of the country. In some areas if there is a serious allegation it is investigated
      1802
      straight away. My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that in certain circumstances that is the practice in London, for example. But certainly in the past, and even now in many parts of the country, such allegations can be made, but not until the case is finally over is there an investigation; and even then it is dependent on the luck of the draw, on whether the jury has believed the complainant or the police, because if the defendant has been convicted there is little likelihood of a serious investigation. The complaint has gone by default.
      Mr. Alison: The hon. Member is talking about allegations. I am talking about complaints. If a complaint is made by a chap that the police have committed perjury, planted evidence or been involved in bribery, Section 49(3) of the Police Act means that axiomatically an investigation must follow.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: It does not follow immediately. There is nothing in that section which requires an investigation to be made immediately. Very often the investigation is not made immediately and frequently it does not really take place at all, if the complainant has been found guilty. Only in exceptional cases does it take place while criminal proceedings are pending. The attitude is usually "Wait for the court case to be finished, and then we will investigate. "That is not a satisfactory situation in circumstances where there is a reasonable ground for thinking that the police might be perjuring themselves, that they might have been bribed or that they might have planted evidence.
      I realise that there are difficulties with the procedures. The number of cases in which an allegation is made falsely vastly exceeds the number in which it is made justly. I accept that. We need a device to sift out the categories of complaints. I suggest that, where such a matter goes to the board, the board should attach importance to whether or not the legal representative of the defendant says that in his opinion, and in the light of investigation, he was firmly of the view that it was a matter which required investigation before the court case. The board should be much more ready to direct that an investigation should take place.
      The board has no absolute duty to investigate. It is correct that the board

      1803
      must require the chief officer to carry out investigation of the allegations—this is the very minimum required. Only under subsection (4) would the board specify that the matter required to be dealt with before the court proceedings were heard and that the full machinery should be put into effect. The board has a substantial discretion under the clause.
      As the Bill stands, without some procedure for ensuring more effective means of investigating the allegations of criminal behaviour on the part of the police prior to the hearing of the court case against the complainant, we shall continue to have miscarriages of justice. Anyone who has practised in criminal courts cannot be unaware of the tendency of police officers, once they "know" that a defendent is guilty, to indulge in "bending" of the evidence, which is considered legitimate to secure a conviction on someone they "know" is a villain. That is understandable when one considers the problems that the police have in dealing with crime, but it is something which we cannot tolerate, and the House should not accept its perpetuation.
      Without something along the lines of this new clause, the Bill is not effective to prevent serious miscarriages of justice. The provisions in the new clause would need to be used carefully and with discretion, but I urge the Government to consider introducing a further amendment at a later stage, if the clause is not carried tonight, to ensure that there is a more uniform procedure for investigating these matters before the court case.
      There are cases in which the burden of proving the guilt or innocence of the defendant or the police is fairly evenly balanced. There are even cases where police are involved in criminal activities and seek to discharge their guilt on to the defendant in criminal proceedings. There is a very grave danger that the jury will accept the perjured evidence of the police and not the true evidence of the defendant. I accept that it does not happen frequently, but it happens and we must have a procedure in those circumstances for investigation to ensure that it is avoided.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member both this evening and in Committee and I have some sympathy with his anxieties. I hope that he will accept, however, that in his anxiety to deal with a very few cases of bent or perjuring policemen he is in danger of creating a very much greater evil in placing large numbers of policemen improperly at risk.
      It is important that the House should get this matter into perspective. Of course, there are police officers who perjure. But I ask hon. Members to accept that for every police officer who may perjure there are hundreds of old lags who perjure against the police. In our anxiety to deal with the minority of policemen we should not forget the danger of opening the door to a much greater number of perjuries against the police.
      The new clause is ingeniously drafted, and under it the man under accusation would be able to make certain allegations and, I believe, to start to interfere with the course of justice. There is also the case of the man already convicted and in most cases already in gaol. I accept that people have been wrongly convicted on perjured or bent evidence.
      The greater danger—and here I rely to some extent upon my constituency experience—is that many men, having been quite properly convicted on the evidence and sent to gaol, will lie in their cells nursing a grievance and spending much of their time writing letters making accusations against those who have secured their conviction. On many occasions they write to their Members of Parliament. There must be very few hon. Members who do not regularly receive letters from convicted felons.
      To those who write them the letters seem perfectly reasonable. But they are based upon grievance and upon the fact that none of us finds it easy to accept their guilt, even when a court has properly found them guilty.
      While I have a lot of sympathy with the clause, I believe that it will open the door to a much greater danger. Perhaps I may illustrate what I mean. There is, first, the case of the man who, while accused, wishes to make an allegation which would trigger off the hon. Gentleman's clause. One recent example of

      1805
      this was Mr. Norman Scott. I hope that I need say no more about that. That is an illustration of the kind of charge which can be made by a man under accusation in a court, a charge which may do immense damage.
      The other case is what I would call the Colonel Cheeseman case. Wild charges have been made by that gentleman. Let us suppose that he had been before a court of law under accusation. As drafted the clause would enable the whole procedure to be activated, not so much by the evidence, but by the seriousness of the allegation, and there could hardly be more serious allegations than those made by that gentleman.
      Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Member has cited two examples, neither of which entails complaints against the police. But, to take a more realistic example, does he agree that if these wild complaints to which he is referring had been investigated before the cases came to court, there would be much less opportunity for the defendant to say that the police officer had been perjuring himself?
      Mr. Griffiths: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I chose those two cases because that kind of irresponsible charge, securing the widest possible publicity and often for the worst possible reasons, can be made. The clause is virtually a charter for many old lags putting forward precisely that sort of charge, not because they necessarily feel that they are aggrieved but because they had determined in advance that the police officers who arrested them would have to be made to pay.
      Many police officers, especially in the Metropolitan Police CID have suffered the experience when arresting or even cautioning a man with a well-known criminal record, and who may have been in gaol before, or being told "You arrest me and I will do you for assault". That is a common reaction these days of men who are investigated.
      Mr. Christopher Price: In raising the Scott and Cheeseman cases, which I agree have many lessons for this House, is not the hon. Gentleman commenting far more on the methods and ethics of our Press and other media and the way in which
      1806
      they treat unsubstantiated evidence than he is about the Bill? Can any old lag, attempting to activate the clause, create the sort of publicity—which is the real problem—which arose in the Scott and Cheeseman cases?
      Mr. Mikardo: Perhaps I may put a similar point. The hon. Member will have had letters from constituents saying that if he does not do something about particular cases they will write to the newspapers about them. There are many people who believe in making a stink in the Press because they have no other recourse. They are sometimes wrong in that action. The provision of some other recourse, as is proposed by the clause, would decrease, not increase, the Scotts and Cheesemans.
      Mr. Griffiths: Does the hon. Member believe that the board would be a substitute for the statements of accused people in open court? In practice, frequently the accused person would have some outburst in open court and the matter would then have to go to the board. If the hon. Member has some secret way in which he could ensure tnat those accused would only make their outburst to the board and to no one else, he would have a point. But that is not the case. Under the clause the board would be required to act where these outbursts were made in open court, with all the attendant publicity. That is why the clause is dangerous and why the Government are right to resist it.
      8.0 p.m.
      Subsection (4) virtually puts the board in the position of impugning the competence of the courts, because if the board is not satisfied that the subject matter of the complaint can be adequately determined by the court, it can require the complaint to be investigated. It requires that the complaints board can decide that a court of law, when holding a trial, cannot do its job. We should not set up a statutory body with that responsibility.
      The drafting of subsection (7) is extraordinary. It says that when the board has caused an additional investigation to take place and has got the result, it shall supply a copy of those results only to the prosecutor. I do not understand that. If the new material has any validity, it

      1807
      should be supplied to both the prosecutor and the defence.
      Mr. Whitehead: Is it not clear that subsection (7) provides that the board shall send it to the complainant and the prosecutor?
      Mr. Griffiths: I understand that, but it is extremely important that a copy should go to the police. That is not covered. After all, the complaint will be against a police officer.
      If the Government accept the clause, they might amend it accordingly. But it is important that we do not have a piece of drafting which is only approximately right. It has to be dead right. It is not.
      The Minister said that it would be necessary to exclude all those cases where the board concluded that the handing over of supplementary evidence would affect the interests of national security or the prevention or detection of crime. If the board acted in that way, it could compromise investigations in which the police were already engaged, and I am sure the Minister does not want to do that. He has recognised that there could be matters of national security but he has blown a hole in his case because, as he said, further investigation must not compromise the work that the police may be doing on some related investigation. He reduces the situation not quite to absurdity, but he makes it ineffective. That matter needs to be considered and the Bill does not deal with it.
      When a man is charged, issues might emerge in the trial that should be investigated. The Government are right to reject the new clause and one of my hon. Friends put his finger on it when he said that in practice it would become a rogues' charter. None of us wants that.
      Mr. Christopher Price: I come to the Report stage as an innocent of the Committee. At that time I was down the corridor doing something else. To that extent I have not been privy to the long discussions on this subject in Committee.
      The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made a reasonable speech which could, in the final resort, lead to a compromise. The cases which might be embraced by the courts
      1808
      involving national security or sensitive, continuing investigations will represent a small minority of the cases which the clause is intended to embrace. The clause attempts to do a job, the need for which the House has always beeen conscious. In cases where a miscarriage of justice has taken place, the clause will cut down the time spent in gaol by those people who are eventually freed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) was right to say that the problem involves not just the absolutely corrupt policeman. It is a problem of over-zealousness. It concerns the policeman who is absolutely certain of someone's guilt and who considers it right in his book—sometimes condoned by his superiors—to bend the evidence so that a "guilty" verdict is reached. Over-zealousness is a greater danger to the image of British justice than the type of corruption which the House and Sir Robert Mark have been so enthusiastic in attempting to eliminate.
      My interest arises from a case involving three of my constituents which became known as the Confait case. They were arrested in March 1972 and convicted in October 1972. They were not constituents of mine at that time because I was then taking a rest from the House. Their appeal was finally heard in June 1973 and they were acquitted in October 1975 on a reference by the Court of Appeal after two police investigations. Those three innocent youngsters, two of whom were mentally retarded, spent three-and-a-half years in gaol after being convicted on charges of murder, manslaughter and arson—crimes which they could not have committed—having gone through all the processes of the courts with highly-paid barristers defending them.
      That case illustrates that our processes of law, although not bad, are not perfect. We must never become complacent and feel that whatever verdict a court or the Court of Appeal decides must of necessity be right. More information from a responsible board about the processes which concern the police would improve the administration of justice rather than retard it.
      I do not want to say too much about this case because an investigation into it

      1809
      has been started, although now suspended. But I am convinced that in this case, had there been the type of investigatory procedures that are contained in the Bill, my constituents would not have spent so long in custody. It would have reduced public expenditure and effort. It would have prevented television programmes which, unfortunately, publicly cast doubt on the processes of law and the standards of our police. All that would have been prevented because the investigations would have taken place quietly without the unfortunate and appalling blaze of publicity which made it difficult for the police, difficult for the boys and their families and was expensive.
      I also believe that once such a process was seen to be working in a responsible way many policemen, particularly senior policemen, would welcome it. The policeman involved in the Confait case went on to carry out two very controversial investigations. I believe that the force generally would be assisted by such a process, especially when doubts were raised about matters involving particular policemen. The accusations would not hang over them for such a long time.
      Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman may well be right, in that in 1 per cent. of these difficult and unhappy cases the police would be assisted. But is it a right price to pay for the 99 per cent. when the police, far from being assisted, would be virtually swamped by all kinds of new procedures which, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, would diminish their manpower resources and generally make them much less effective?
      Mr. Price: I take the point that the Opposition are making, that every time Parliament introduces new processes and procedures it is not clear for a year or so after they have been working just what the reaction will be. One can go back over the years and read the debates about the terrible things that it was said would happen if we did certain things.
      Mr. Hooley: The Ombudsman.
      Mr. Price: That is a case in point where nothing happened. An even better example is our introduction of a lay observer to look over the activities of solicitors. He has received so little publicity that so far as I can see nobody
      1810
      goes near him. I wish he had a bit more publicity.
      Although I understand the genuine fears of the ordinary policeman that this sort of procedure might subject him to pressures and difficulties which might impede his work and that of his colleagues, I believe that the procedures outlined here would not generate a rush of complaints, that the board would act responsibly, and that when the procedures had been running for a few years they would aid the administration of justice and of the police. Everybody would then wonder why we had not carried out the reform before.
      I realise that there may he flaws in the drafting, but I appeal to both my hon. Friends—one of whom is well aware of the case which I have just outlined— to respond sympathetically to the new clause. Many of the speeches by Opposition Members have not been in the absolute terms that we so often hear on this sort of Bill. There is a real possibility of a traditional parliamentary agreement on how we should deal with the matter. If the Bill went forward ignoring this problem, an important and sizeable gap in it would remain.
      Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should not be surprised—and I am sure that he is not—by the extent of the identity of outlook between the two sides of the House in general, if not in detail, on the provisions that the Bill should have. That identity of outlook existed during the whole of the long proceedings in Committee. It became more and more apparent as time went on.
      8.15 p.m.
      The reason is that all of us who were involved were agreed, first, that the present arrangements for investigating cases against the police would not do, and, secondly, that that situation would continue so long as complaints against the police were investigated by the police. That would still be so, even if every investigation were meticulous to 110 per cent. Even if justice were done to 110 per cent. in every investigation, it would not be seen to be done.
      Without public confidence in them, the police cannot do their job properly. Without it, the task of the police, already very

      1811
      difficult, becomes almost super-humanly difficult. Confidence will not be established until there is a method of investigating complaints against the police which carries public confidence.
      The job of the House today, just as it was the job of the Committee, must be to assess how far the Bill, as amended, and as it would be amended further if the new clauses were agreed to, goes towards the objective of ensuring confidence in the police by the public.
      My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary objected to the suggestion that he was being complacent. I did not hear his speech, and I apologise to him for that. I am sure that he was not being complacent in it, but the Government are being complacent if they think that the Bill will satisfy the demand from which it originally stemmed.
      The Bill is being put through the House because the Government know that the present arrangements are not good enough, because they know that public confidence in the police, which they and all of us desperately need, does not exist and will not exist without a radical change, The need is admitted.
      Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is being a bit of a Rip Van Winkle when he says that there is no confidence in the police. There was a time, about six years ago, when there were grave grounds for concern about the Metropolitan Police, the major attention-gathering force in this country. But while the hon. Gentleman has apparently been asleep there has been a major clean-up by the present Commissioner, and many of the fears which inspired the Bill have diminished, to such an extent that we are all chasing after a white elephant.
      Mr. Mikardo: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's gazing at my white hair and the other evidence of my advancing years and thinking of me as a Rip Van Winkle—
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has still got his nappy on.
      Mr. Mikardo:—but I have not lost my memory. The best answer I can give the hon. Gentleman is to extend to him, which I do cordially, an invitation to do
      1812
      a little pub crawl with me one night round the East End of London. It is not absolutely identical with the Isle of Thanet, although many of my constituents spend a couple of weeks every year in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. But I invite him to have a pub crawl with me and to talk to the chaps in the pubs—I do not mean crooks but ordinary people. He would find out for himself that, with all the changes which he and I and the whole House and many other people know about, there is among many sectors of the population still a feeling which is expressed in their common phrase that "The police look after one another." That arises because there is no belief that complaints against the police are fairly investigated.
      I believe, together with other hon. Members, that in the overwhelming majority of cases this charge is wrong. But where hon. Members opposite make a mistake in their attitude to the Bill—it was evident just now in the intervention of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet and in part of the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)—is in thinking that it does not matter that some injustices are done because it happens in only a small minority of cases. The whole of the British legal system—one might go further and almost say the whole of the British way of life—is constructed round the concept of looking after the small minority, looking after the individual. It is better that 10 guilty men should go free than that one innocent man shall be condemned.
      It is no good, therefore, saying that here we are looking after only 1 per cent. of the cases, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said. We have to remember that 1 per cent. of the cases accounts for a lot of people. One man rotting in gaol when he is innocent is one too many. If it were only one in the lifetime of every one of us—
      Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Member is always fair but I think he is departing from his usual standard of fairness. I assure him that no one on this side of the House, and no Member of my party in Committee, could possibly have given the impression that all is well in this regard, or that we can afford a single case of injustice if it can be avoided. Will not the hon. Gentleman concede that I at

      1813
      least, representing senior police officers, have said on the Floor of the House and in Committee, not once but many times, that the police service as a whole warmly welcomes the idea of a truly independent element being introduced into the investigatory procedure?
      Mr. Mikardo: I know that the hon. Gentleman has said this, and so, too, has the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who speaks with considerable authority about the views of another section of the police. So, too, have other hon. Members. But we have to concern ourselves with the way in which that general good will works in practice. It is no good being in favour of something in theory if we then propose practical measures which do not solve the problem.
      It is our view that the Bill as drafted does not solve the problem. Indeed, this was the view of many hon. Members opposite in Committee. As everyone will recall, we were getting so near to each other that it was becoming a matter of both Back Benches against the Government. On both sides we were saying that the Bill was not good enough. I do not think that the changes resulting from our protests are sufficient to alter that view.
      My remarks are based on an observation by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who said that the 1 per cent. of cases in which something would otherwise be wrong would be put right, but that this would be at the cost of a very much larger number of cases which would be phoney. I accept that. Nobody who has been a Member of the House and had correspondence about these matters could be in any doubt that there will be many false accusations. There have been many made in the past, and no doubt many more will be made. But I repeat that the whole of the British constitutional system is based on the protection of the individual in the odd case.
      We have all seen cases going through the courts—there is one such lengthy cause cèlébre at the present time, although I had better not say which it is—which every hon. Member would regard as open and shut cases. We spend a huge amount of public money, the time of a learned judge and of learned counsel, and a huge amount of the time of police and
      1814
      witnesses, because of the nature of our system of justice.
      What we do, in effect, is to write insurance premiums. Just as hon. Members insure their houses against fire, when they know that there is not one chance in 10,000 of their houses being set on fire, in our system of justice we also pay an insurance premium. This involves a great waste of money. Just as people's houses do not often catch fire, I can see at once that there will be a great waste of effort in respect of the Bill, but the whole business is one of the protection of minorities.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member's complaint ought not to lie against the Opposition. We have here a massive Bill which will cost a lot of money to implement. What the hon. Member is saying is that in the respect to which he is referring it will not work. I agree with him. That is why I do not like the Bill. But let him complain to the Government. He ought to address his complaint to them.
      Mr. Mikardo: My complaint is against the opposition to the new clause which has come from some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and from some of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I complain equally about both groups. They are both targets of my criticism.
      My second point is that some of the objections put forward to the new clause, including those put forward by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, are valid only on the assumption that the complaints board will consist of a lot of halfwits. Serious and experienced people will be appointed to the board. They will be people who know how many beans make five. They will be people with as much knowledge as hon. Members of the House of the way in which old lags behave. They will be people who, once they have been operating for a short time, will develop a sort of case law and an ability to discriminate.
      I put it to the House that if the board consisted of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and a couple of other hon. Members opposite, together with myself and a couple of my mates, it would not take us long before we came to know the real from the phoney, or the prima facie real from the prima facie phoney. I

      1815
      do not accept, therefore that there will be a great waste of time and effort over a lot of frivolous things.
      Moreover, the establishment of what I would call "case practice"—it is a better term than "case law"—will soon be recognised. The people who complain frivolously—I have forgotten the name of the phoney colonel who was mentioned—will soon come to realise that it is no good going to the complaints board. They will know what sort of treatment to expect from it. The dangers in the clause seen by the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken are really far more apparent than real.
      8.30 p.m.
      The important thing to be remembered is that the Bill is in the interests of the police themselves. Those who spoke on behalf of the police in Committee said that so long as we were dealing with general theory, that was all very well, but in their resistance to our proposals they were not prepared to go the whole hog in making justice appear to be done.
      I believe that the police need an effective Bill. The worst thing that can happen from the point of view of the police is that this Bill should be in an emasculated form. We all agreed that in Committee. After the board is set up, after a year there will be a public outcry and a demand for a proper system of investigation against the police. In other words, we shall go through all the traumas again—in the same way as we have been going through them for three years since my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) first started this hare involving the whole business of consulting police organisations and local authority bodies. No doubt the whole process will have to be gone through again if the demand is not satisfied by the Bill.
      The Government are deluding themselves to a ridiculous extent if they believe that the existence of these provisions will bring an end to the public demand for a proper procedure for investigating complaints against the police. The Bill will not have that effect. We shall have to go through the whole process over again.
      That is no good to this House. We must do our best with legislation to deal with a problem once and for all. Some-
      1816
      times we make a mistake, but we always try to do our best. If these matters are not dealt with once and for all, that is no good for the police. They do not want to go through this trauma again. The Government, via these provisions or through some parliamentary means, must produce stronger legislation, and certainly more effective provisions than those contained in the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge) quoted a case in which a man who otherwise would have suffered succeeded in avoiding that fate only because of the fact that he happened to have special knowledge of police procedure. In Committee I quoted a case of a man who would have got it "in the neck" if he had not known the procedure for taking civil action against the police. He took that action and won damages against police officers who had lied to the investigating officer, and who eventually were disciplined as a result of that lie. The case reached the courts and the courts overturned the earlier findings.
      But why should we rely on the accident that the odd person here or there happens to know the procedure, or indeed happens to have a member of Parliament at whom he can nag so that justice is done and can be seen to be done? If the Government want to ensure that there is a good procedure for dealing with complaints, they will have to accept a proposal such as that which has been outlined—or, if that proposal is found to be deficient technically, they will need to work out something else.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I did not intend to speak in this debate, and I shall detain the House for only a few moments.
      The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is never dull but always interesting to hear, and there was a great deal of sense in his remarks. I must put on record that members of the police service, who in general feel that in the main the existing system of dealing with complaints is satisfactory and is conducted efficiently and fairly, welcome in principle the idea of an independent element when complaints against them are being investigated. They saw the sense of such a procedure.
      For that reason I suspect that Conservatives were happy not to vote against the Bill on Second Reading. However,

      1817
      there were a number of important points of principle, and even matters of details, which were apparent to us then. The whole police service was worried about certain aspects of the Bill, but on Second Reading the practice is that if one accepts the general principle—as we did—one expects other matters to be put right.
      I have never known a Bill in Committee that was so fundamentally changed and altered as was this. This was evidence of its ill preparation, poor drafting and lack of effective consultation. There was never any question but that the police service as a whole accept the principle and want the Bill, though not necessarily in its present form. Members of the police service certainly do not accept the proposals advanced by some Labour Members, and indeed it is obvious that the Government are not prepared to accept them.
      At a time when the police have never been so strained in their duties on behalf of the public and when they face rising trends in crime, with threats of terrorism,

      Division No. 150.]

      AYES

      [8.40 p.m.

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Silverman, Julius

      Corbett, Robin

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cryer, Bob

      Madden, Max

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Noble, Mike

      Whitehead, Philip

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Parry, Robert

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES'

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Mr. Frank Hooley and

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rooker, J. W.

      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

      Lamond, James

      Sedgemore, Brian

      NOES

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Bates, Alt

      Hunter, Adam

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Bean, R. E.

      Janner, Greville

      Roper, John

      Beith, A. J.

      Jenkins, RI Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Selby, Harry

      Cant, R. B.

      John, Brynmor

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Cartwright, John

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Cohen, Stanley

      McElhone, Frank

      Small, William

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davidson, Arthur

      Maclennan, Robert

      Stallard, A. W.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Millan, Bruce

      Stoddart, David

      Deakins, Eric

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Dormand, J. D.

      Moonman, Eric

      Tinn, James

      Dunnett, Jack

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Tomlinson, John

      Eadie, Alex

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Tomney, Frank

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Ogden, Eric

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Faulds, Andrew

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Weetch, Ken

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Whitlock, William

      Hardy, Peter

      Pardoe, John

      Wriggiesworth, Ian

      Harper, Joseph

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Pendry, Tom

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Penhaligon, David

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      it is imperative that there should be no misunderstanding about where the police stand in this respect. It is still our hope that the Government will listen to reason.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpem): Order. The hon. Gentleman said he was going to be brief.
      Sir B. Braine: I merely wanted to say, in the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, that the House should not get the impression that there is any doubt about the attitude of the police to what is proposed in the Bill.
      There is much in the Bill which is wrong and much needs to be done to improve it. I was about to say, when you rose so majestically, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the night is long and there may be many opportunities to demonstrate the truth of what I have said.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 68.

    New Clause 4

      DEFINITIONS
      '"Non-Police Act force" means a body of constables maintained by an authority or company under a public or private Act of Parliament other than the Police Act 1964'.—[Mr. Teddy Taylor.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient also to discuss New Clause 5—Disciplinary appeals relating to non-Police Act forces—
      As from the passing of this Act, the right of appeal to the Secretary of State set out in section 37 of the Police Act 1964 shall apply in respect of non-Police Act forces.
      We may also take the following amendments:
      No. 34, in Clause 6, page 5, line 20, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 23 and insert
      'shall, within twelve months of its establishment, make arrangements with those authorities, Ministries and companies set out in the schedule (Non-Police Act Authorities) which maintain police forces under statutory powers other than the Police Act 1964, for the discharge by the Board in relation to those police forces'.
      No. 35, in page 5, line 25 leave out from 'Act' to end of line 27 and insert
      'The Board may also, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make similar arrangements with other non-Police Act forces'.
      No. 36, in page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
      '(2) If in the case of any body of constables, the Board have not within twelve months after the coming into force of this section made such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit and after consulting the Board and the authority in question, by order make such arrangements as aforesaid.
      (3) The power to make orders under this section includes power to vary or revoke a previous order and shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'
      No. (a) to Amendment No. 36, to leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.
      No. (b) to Amendment No. 36, leave out 'may if he thinks fit and' and insert 'shall'.
      No. 42 the new schedule—

    NON-POLICE ACT AUTHORITIES
    The Ministry of Defence;

    British Rail;

    British Transport Docks Board;

    The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority;

    The Royal Parks;

    The Port of London Authority;

    The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company; and

    The Port of Bristol Authority'.

    Mr. Taylor: After the long debate we had on New Clause 3 we now come to a frightening list of amendments and new clauses. I hope that it will not take too long to discuss them. It may be of some reassurance to those hon. Members who served on the Committee that someone who was not a member of the committee has read all the reports of their debates and was impressed by everything said.
    The Bill is a preview of a Bill which will be introduced for Scotland in the next Session. I should declare other interests. I was the adviser to the Scottish Police Federation until the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) invited me to join his Government for a brief period in a junior capacity. When I did that I had to hand over to a Liberal Member who has looked after it very well since then. Possibly because of my good work with the federation, I have been appointed an adviser to the Port of London Police Federation.
    The amendments and new clauses cover three specific points on which I hope the Government will be able to give me some assurance. The first point is covered by New Clause 4. The Minister will be aware that for some time those police forces which are set up under Private Acts of Parliament have been concerned about their status, particularly in view of comments made in public and, I am sorry to say, comments which were made during consideration of the Bill in Committee. Police forces such as the Port of London Police Federation were described sometimes as private forces, sometimes as semi-public forces, sometimes as special forces and sometimes as statutory forces. I was rather disappointed that in a letter which the Lord Harris sent to me following a letter I sent to the

    1821
    Minister he referred to the Port of London Police Federation as "an employers' police force"
    I think the Minister will accept that the definition of "an employers' police force" is probably the most objectionable of all. The report of the Royal Commission on the Police in 1962 recorded a number of judgments in which it was stated quite clearly as a statement of law the relationship of a constable to the watch committee or other appointing body. By these judgments, there can be no master-servant relationship involving a constable, and the Port of London Police Federation would resent being regarded in law as employees.
    Therefore, particularly in view of the number of security organisations which have been growing up and which are different from a body of constables, it would be helpful to have a new definition of bodies like the Port of London Police. In New Clause 4, I suggest the definition of what I call a non-Police Act force. That would be defined as a body of constables maintained by an authority or company under a Private or Public Act of Parliament within the Police Act 1964. That would automatically exclude groups like Securicor, which are entirely different. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that she will take steps by means of these proposals or other means to provide a definition in law appropriate to a body like the Port of London Police and similar bodies.
    New Clause 5 would take a further step. Even if the Minister accepted the new clauses and the amendments, that would not ensure that the police in non-Police Act forces would be in the same position as other policemen. Clause 37 of the Police Act says:
    "Subject to the provisions of this section, a member of a police authority who is dealt with for an offence against discipline may appeal to the Secretary of State.
    That safeguard is greatly appreciated by police forces generally. But even if the amendments were accepted, a Port of London constable would not be in the same position when it came to an appeal as someone in the "Met". For him, the appeal would be to the Port of London Authority, whereas a constable in the "Met" could appeal to the Secretary of State. The amendments would give the same right of appeal.
    1822
    The Minister has said that the Bill as drafted enables non-Police Act forces to be brought within the scope of the Bill, subject to their agreement. In Amendment No. 34 I propose that a number of such authorities should be brought in automatically. I set them out as a new schedule in Amendment No. 42.
    The forces that I have suggested are those which come under the Ministry of Defence, British Rail, the British Transport Docks Board, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the Royal Parks, the Port of London, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and the Port of Bristol Authority. They would be brought in within 12 months. That is not a comprehensive list, but under Amendment No. 35 I suggest that other such forces could be brought in under similar arrangements to those in Clause 6.
    I believe that these arrangements are reasonable. It would be wrong to drive a further wedge betwen the police forces under local authorities and the "Met" and those bodies like the Port of London Police, when the latter carry out the normal functions and responsibilities of the former.
    I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to reassure me on the points that I have raised. If she cannot accept the new clauses and amendments, I hope that she will say that steps will be taken to accept them in principle.
    9 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: One of the most unanimous views reached by the Committee, or the view nearest to total unanimity, was that the very kind of force which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has described as non-Police Act forces, such as those maintained by the nationalised industries and some others, ought to be included in the same kind of complaints procedure as police forces maintained by local authorities, and by the Home Secretary in the case of the Metropolitan Police. There was wide acceptance of that view which in Committee led the Under-Secretary, quite rightly, to make a concession, the fulfilment of which we find in the Government's new clause.
    The very strong feeling of the Committee that we should not allow one part of

    1823
    the police service in. the United Kingdom to be left out of such a procedure is reflected in many of the forces concerned. A great many police federations representing such forces have indicated their wish that their members should be part of this scheme. Some forces have made that clear. Others were more reluctant to do so, but they have now seen the Committee's determination in this respect.
    I am glad that the hon. Member for Cathcart has moved his new clause and drawn attention to bodies like the Port of London Authority. I was in correspondence with it during the Committee proceedings and the federation representing members of that force made it absolutely clear that its members wished to be brought within the ambit of the Bill and to be subject to the same restraints, discipline and complaints procedure as any other kind of police force. It is a commendable view which seems to be general in such forces.
    Since the Committee stage I have had correspondence with other forces and I recently had a letter from the River Tees Police Association, the chairman of which says clearly:
    "We all wish you luck when you take up the subject of the Police Bill regarding our wish to be listed with other police forces for police discipline and complaints procedure."
    It is already clear that there is a wish among these forces to be brought within the procedure.
    In Committee the hon. Lady, responding to the feeling which had been expressed, said:
    "I now accept that it is the view of the Committee that they should be included in the Bill, and undertake to include some mandatory provisions to this effect."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 25th March 1976; c. 914.]
    Those provisions are to be found in Government Amendment No. 36, one of the group we are now discussing.
    Perhaps this is an unusual use of a mandatory provision. It has both strengths and weaknesses. Its strength is that it is wider than the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Cathcart, because it can refer to any body of constables and thus cover a whole range of forces of this kind, including some I have mentioned that were not included in the hon. Member's list,
    1824
    although the British Airports Authority police were included in it.
    The weakness of such a mandatory provision is that it is dependent on the decision of the Secretary of State after consulting the board. He has freedom to decide whether or not to impose the provisions of the Bill on a police force. The assumption is that within 12 months the force will be operating under the originally envisaged provisions of the Bill. If the force does not do so within that period, the Secretary of State may require it to do so. But discretion is left with him as to whether he does it at all or in any particular case. I must tell the hon. Lady—I hope that the Patronage Secretary's representative will not distract her as we are reaching such an important point—-that she needs to make the position a great deal clearer. I have no doubt that her intention is to give effect to what the Committee wished, but there would appear to be considerable doubt on the face of the Bill if we merely accept the Government amendment. That is why I have sought to impose upon the Secretary of State the duty of making these provisions.
    There is really no advantage to the Government, to the board, to the police forces concerned or to the public in leaving any element of doubt about whether a force carrying out police duties under a properly constituted authority, with proper powers and in most cases wearing uniforms identical to those of regular police, is to come within the same complaints procedure. From everybody's point of view, it is desirable that the public should know that they can register complaints and have them investigated in the same way as they can act against any other police force.
    We are bound to ask why the Government have not gone all the way and made clear in the Bill that all forces are to be included, how we can be sure that all such forces will be included, and whether the Secretary of State will use his powers in this way and to this extent, as was clearly the wish of the Committee.
    There is a very unfortunate degree of dependence on the actions of a subsequent Secretary of State. Who are we to know who will be Secretary of State for the Home Department in years to come? There is the expiry of the 12

    1825
    months during which the voluntary provision will apply before we even reach that stage, and then there will be a period during which any number of things could happen, and the same Government or a different Government could present us with a different Secretary of State. Any assurances that we are given must have that doubt hanging over them. However much we respect the good faith of the hon. Lady, the present provision is less than we had hoped for. It is for that reason that I ask the House to give some thought to an alternative amendment.
    Mr. Aitken: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on the way in which they have put forward these very important amendments.
    The nub of the question is one of status and terminology. It is most regrettable that Lord Harris, in his letter, should have used, the phrase "an employers' police force" Nothing is more alien to the whole spirit of the police and the forces that we are now discussing than that they should be thought to be in the position of employed men. In fact, a large number of legal judgments—particularly in the case of Fisher v. Oldham Corporation—have made it clear that there is no question of a master-and-servant relationship as far as a constable is concerned. I regret that a Minister of State, Home Office, should not have been knowledgable about that important point.
    As regards the status of the special police forces, it is important that we get that clearly labelled under one generic head. The new clause, which suggests that they should be labelled as "Non-Police Act forces", provides a sensible and wise label. It would be most unfortunate if there were to be any question of discrimination. One has only to cast one's mind back to the outrageous Cannon Street railway bombing and to remember the magnificent co-operation between the British Transport Police and the Metropolitan Police to realise that those two forces shared the dangers, and shared the glory of the success afterwards, by co-operating together absolutely fully and closely.
    The idea that one police force should be thought to be in one category and
    1826
    another in a different category is absolutely wrong. I entirely support my lion. Friend's suggestion that it is essential that a constable of the Port of London Police, the railway police or any other of the police forces should be in the same position as a Metropolitan Police constable or any other constable, with the same right of appeal. All the non-Police Act forces must be brought under the Bill as soon as possible.
    The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed accurately represented the strong feelings of the Committee that the provision concerning non-Police Act police forces should be mandatory. However. as we look at the Bill as it has emerged and the Government amendments, we see that it is not a mandatory provision but a discretionary provision. As the hon. Member rightly said, to some extent the future of these police forces and their status is at the mercy and the whim of a future Secretary of State for the Home Department. We really need assurances from the Under-Secretary this evening that in spirit at least it will be a mandatory provision.
    Finally, I should like to press the important question of special constables. The hon. Lady will remember that throughout our debates it was constantly drawn to her attention that special constables, who are playing a more and more important rôle in co-operation and work with regular police forces, should be treated in exactly the same way as ordinary police officers in regard to complaints made against them. As my hon. Friends will know, I speak from personal experience, having been a special constable. It is perfectly possible for there to be an arrest with a special constable holding one arm of the villain and a regular police officer holding his other arm. In any subsequent complaint it would be absurd if the regular police officer could be complained against but the special constable could not be complained against.
    We raised that very illustration and others like it so often in Committee that it seems regrettable that the hon. Lady has ignored our representations on this point and that there is no Government amendment to cover the situation of special constables. On these important amendments and new clauses, we still need the hon. Lady to clarify matters

    1827
    considerably. I hope that she will now do so.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): During the debate on Clause 6 in Standing Committee I gave an undertaking that we should put down amendments designed to introduce some mandatory provisions into Clause 6. This we have now done, and our amendments will serve to achieve broadly the same purpose as this group of amendments put down by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). We agree that the larger police forces that we are discussing, including those listed in the proposed new schedule, should come within the new scheme introduced by the Bill—if not voluntarily, then compulsorily. I shall return to them in a moment.
    I cannot agree with the proposal in the second of the new clauses in this group of proposals that the Home Secretary should in future act as the appellate authority for members of these police forces, maintained by authorities such as ports authorities. The appeals procedure set out in Section 37 and Schedule 5 of the Police Act 1964 is an integral part of the whole of the disciplinary arrangements for the regular police forces as set out in the Act or in regulations made under it. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to isolate this appeals procedure from the rest of the disciplinary provisions and graft it on to the various private discipline codes applying to employers' police forces for which the Home Secretary has no responsibility. The discipline code for these police forces, including any provision for appeals, must clearly remain a matter for the employing authority concerned.
    I am aware that the general question of the status of these police forces is sometimes raised, but this is an issue far outside the scope of the present Bill, which is concerned only to provide an independent element in the existing complaints procedures. Nothing in the Bill affects the final responsibility of the authorities concerned for the internal management and discipline of their own body of constables. The amendment on appeals proposed by the hon. Member is therefore inappropriate, and I hope that he will
    1828
    be willing to withdraw it as well as his other amendments whose general purpose, as I have indicated, is reflected in the Government's own amendments to clause 6, to which I now turn.
    Clause 6 of the Bill provides that the board may enter into arrangements with authorities maintaining forces. There was very strong pressure in Committee for these arrangements to be mandatory, and I undertook to consult again the Departments concerned and to table some form of mandatory provision. Consultations have accordingly taken place with the Departments responsible for the main forces concerned. These forces are the British Transport Police, the Royal Parks Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Police and the police employed by various ports authorities answerable to the Department of the Environment. It is now agreed that these forces should all come within the scope of the new scheme, and arrangements will be made accordingly.
    As to the nature of the mandatory provision which we undertook to provide, hon. Members will see from the amendment that we have chosen to take default powers. Its effect is that if, within 12 months after the coming into force of Clause 6, voluntary arrangements, as envisaged in subsection (1), have not been made between the board and an employing authority, the Secretary of State will have power to make the arrangements by order after consulting the parties concerned.
    The main reason for proceeding in this way is to leave the Secretary of State some discretion on how best to deal with more than a dozen very small local bodies of constables which still exist and over which the Home Office has no departmental responsibility. Perhaps I may give some examples. They include the Manchester Docks Police, the Port of Bristol Authority Police, the Dover Harbour Board Police, Milford Docks Company Police, Falmouth Docks and Engineering Company Police, Felixstowe Docks and Railway Company Police, park constables, canal constables, and university constables. We are not sure that we have complete information about all these small groups, and it will take some time to acquire it.

    1829
    A force may have as few as four members. I agree that, so far as a local resident is concerned, the size of the particular force is irrelevant to his complaint, but it seems to be necessary for the Secretary of State to have some discretion to decide whether it is justifiable to incur the administrative expense and effort involved in setting up formal arrangements between the board and each of these small forces.
    There was some query in Committee about the provision in Clause 6(2) for financial arrangements to be made—
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Lady be kind enough to recognise the position of the one force that I quoted—there are others—the River Tees Police force? It may well be that members of such forces are left in considerable uncertainty and that the governing authorities may be in doubt whether they wish to take part in the scheme. It would be of the greatest assistance—it may be very necessary—if the Home Office were to come quickly to a view as to whether it is likely to use the compulsory powers in those instances. If that does not happen, a great deal of doubt will hang over some fairly large forces for quite a long time.
    Dr. Summerskill: Ideally we should like to proceed by voluntary methods. That is what we shall be doing to a large extent. This will involve consultation on a wide scale with different forces. Compulsory methods will be used only as a last resort.
    There was concern about the provision in Clause 6(2) for financial arrangements to be made so that the board could charge the authorities concerned for its services in the handling of complaints. Although that provision seemed to us correct when the participation of the employers' forces in the scheme was to be voluntary, it seems inappropriate when Parliament has decided that participation should be compulsory. The amounts in some cases would have been small and might not have justified the cost of collection. Therefore, we have proposed to delete the original subsection (2).
    It may be argued, and it has been, that the default provision in the amendment is not mandatory as it would operate only at the Secretary of State's discretion.
    1830
    The Secretary of State would, however, be well aware—indeed, he is aware—that it was the wish of Parliament that the main forces we are talking about should be drawn within the new scheme. He has undertaken to act accordingly.
    There are a number of important powers in the Police Act 1964 which in terms give the Secretary of State a discretion to act, but in practice they impose a duty upon him. It is unrealistic to think, for example, that the Secretary of State would not make disciplinary regulations for police forces under Section 33, or refuse to make an amalgamation order under Section 21 when requested by two police authorities to do so.
    As I have explained, there are small bodies, often established under local legislation, where administrative difficulties would arise in bringing them within the proposed complaints procedure as well as disproportionate expense. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State will not exercise his discretion lightly He will consider the matter with the utmost care before reaching a decision on whether power to impose arrangements should be waived in certain cases.
    I see that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is now in the Chamber. As I am on my feet, I shall take up the point which I presume he will make in the context of the amendment whose effect would be to allow only six months to the employing authorities instead of 12 to enter into voluntary agreement with the board for complaints against members of the private police forces concerned to be dealt with by the board. Thereafter, the Secretary of State, by virtue of the powers conferred by the new subsection (2), would be able to impose such arrangements by order.
    The Government have every intention of bringing the main forces within the scope of the scheme set out in the Bill. Given that a number of employers chiefly concerned are either Government Departments or bodies answerable to a Government Department, there is no question but that the working out of the necessary arrangements will begin on a voluntary basis as soon as possible.
    We expect this lead to be followed by authorities which may be less closely in touch with the Government, although it will take a little time to identify all the

    1831
    police forces concerned and to inform them of Parliament's wishes.
    That apart, the board will obviously take a little time to get run in on its main task. There is obviously room for debate on what in the circumstances is a reasonable length of time. We believe that 12 months rather than six months is a reasonable and practical period to allow for the voluntary arrangements to be worked out between the board and the authorities concerned. There is no question of our asking for a mandate for a leisurely pace. I assure the House that the necessary arrangements will be worked out as soon as possible.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) for having missed the open-parts of their speeches. However, I think that I can be extremely brief, because the hon. Lady has fulfilled in full the undertakings that she gave in Committee on this point.
    I wish to comment briefly on three matters. First, if in the next six months to 12 months there were an occasion when two police officers—one of them working for the British Transport Police and the other for, say, the Leicestershire police—were supervising football hooligans on a train and a complaint were made against them of having assaulted those football hooligans and the regular Leicestershire police officer were to be put through the whole rigour of the Police Complaints Board and the British Transport policeman were not, the federated ranks of the police certainly would not put up with it. It cannot be right that when two officers, though perhaps working for somewhat different forces, are doing the same job and are subject to the same accusation by the same people, the constable of the regular police service should be put through one procedure and the British Transport policeman should be put through another. I beg the hon. Lady, who has given all the undertakings needed, to move expeditiously. I can promise her that, if disparate arrangements are made for policemen in British Transport, the docks, or the various bodies referred to by my hon. Friend, they will be seen by the police service to be unjust and unacceptable.
    1832
    My suspicion—this is my second point—arises largely from the abrasive way in which the Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constables) Bill was brought forward. That was a major new departure, because it provided for a particular set of statutory policemen to be armed and, for the first time, to be given the powers and duties of hot pursuit on suspicion into the homes, if need be, of citizens. Yet the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Police did not even deign to consult the Police Federation before that legislation was brought before this House.
    I think that was wholly wrong. Indeed, when the Minister who replied to that particular debate was charged by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and myself on this matter—I do not quote his words exactly, but I think I sum up his meaning accurately—he said that the Atomic Energy Authority was not keen on having its chaps subject to the same complaints procedure. Hon. Members on both sides put it to the Energy Minister that it was a question not of whether the authority was keen, but of what Parliament decided. The matter was not dealt with in that Bill. We were promised that it would be dealt with in this.
    I think that the hon. Lady has fulfilled her undertaking. We are told that she will fulfil the undertaking by voluntary arrangements. From what I have been told by the relevant Ministers, there is nothing voluntary about it at all. The Atomic Energy Authority, for example, was not very keen. Parliament must tell the authority that it must come in, and that it should be included in the Bill now if the rest of the police service is to be included.
    The hon. Lady tells us that the Home Office has to go through a year of negotiations and consultations to find out what police forces we have. This should have been done before this Bill was brought anywhere near Parliament. To be told at this stage, after years of consultation and preparation have gone into the Bill, that there are a number of police forces which the Home Office does not even know about, is an extraordinary way of proceeding. I hope the hon. Lady will tell her officials that this is one more example of their coming to

    1833
    Parliament without having done their homework.
    There can be no question of the various statutory police forces in the amendments being asked: they must be told. They should be included in the Bill in the same way as the regular police. The hon. Lady has said that if they do not come in voluntarily, they will be made to come in. That is fine. Unfortunately, as the amendment indicates, the Home Secretary can revoke that. He can make them come in, but by Order he can let them out as well. Parliament should decide that they must come in and stay in and that there should be no revocation.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: What does my hon. Friend mean by "regular police"? We have had references tonight to "statutory police", "private police", and now we have "regular" and "irregular police". Would it not solve the problem if the Government accepted by my splendid new clause?
    Mr. Griffiths: I understand my hon. Friend's new clause and of course I support him. But I believe that the Government have achieved the main purpose in their amendment and I have already thanked them for it.
    But I do not like this power of the Secretary of State—which means his officials—to revoke it if they wish. This is a matter for Parliament to decide, not for the police forces which think that they should be excluded from the Bill.
    Once there have been consultations between the chairmen of the nationalised industries concerned and the Government, there should be no way in which these police forces can be let out. There should be no escape clause. Once in, always in—that is the best rule.
    Sir Bernard Braine: The Minister told us that the Home Office was not really aware of all these forces. This is a most extraordinary revelation and shows a lack of grip and control of the situation. Until we know how many forces are involved, it is impossible to come to a decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is absolutely right to hammer home the fact that this is a question for Parliament, and it should not be left to the arbitrary decisions of Ministers who do not even know how many police forces exist.
    Mr. Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend and I underline his view.
    It is essential that the special constables be included in the Bill as well. This matter was referred to in Committee. In a society where violence is becoming normal, it will be more and more necessary to call upon special constables to supplement the activities of what I must call the regular police.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Rubbish. Withdraw that term.
    Mr. Griffiths: All right—I will call them the police as most people understand them.
    It will be inevitable in the future that more and more specials will be called in to supplement the police, whether it is in order to contain football hooliganism, supervise demonstrations, industrial and political, or help fight the rising tide of neighbourhood crime.
    In those circumstances there are bound to be occasions when a police constable, accompanied by a special constable, will come into friction with members of the public. From time to time the public will complain about the way in which they have been treated by these officers. The complaint may centre on assault or irregularities of any kind.
    We could not tolerate a situation in which the constable is put through the wringer of the complaints board while the special constable is not. It makes no sense to the public that there should be different arrangements for two officers. It is exceedingly damaging to the morale of one policeman for him to be subject to a set of procedures while the other is not. In any case, it is inequitable and Parliament should not allow it.
    9.30 p.m.
    I hope that the Under Secretary will not allow the debate to conclude without dealing with my point about specials. I realise that the point cannot be met in this Bill and I do not ask her to do that. But there must be some indication about how the specials should be treated when complaints are made.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I intervene briefly to amplify the intervention I made a few moments ago. The House has been given the most extraordinary information, namely, that the Home Office does not

    1835
    know the total number of non-Police Act forces in the country. These are forces as small as four men, but many substantially larger, whose members wear a uniform and who are charged with police duties, albeit of a limited kind within a limited area.
    Any man who wears a uniform and appears to act as a policeman is judged by the general public to be a policeman. If he behaves in a way which gives rise to a complaint, the general public or the complainant will not distinguish between a non-Police Act policeman and a regular officer. Unwittingly we have uncovered a most unsatisfactory situation, and thank God we have.
    The Minister must give the House an assurance that the Government take this matter most seriously and that no exceptions will be made. Anybody charged with police duties must be brought within the ambit of the Bill, and Parliament must insist upon that. I hope that we shall have that assurance.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: I thank the Minister for what she said and for her amendment. I accept that the subject of the status of non-Police Act forces probably goes wider than the Bill. I hope that when the Bill is out of the way and the hon. Lady has completed the negotiations under Clause 6 she will be able to meet myself and representatives of the Port of London Police Federation to discuss this issue, which, I accept, probably does not come within the Bill.
    I turn now to the disciplinary procedures. As long as there is no closer link between the Home Office and the non-Police Act forces, it will be difficult to have disciplinary proceedings for Police Act and non-Police Act forces which are comparable to each other or are directly related. Therefore, I accept the point made by the Under-Secretary. If she can assure me that she will arrange for the discussion I have sought, I shall be glad to seek to withdraw the motion after she has spoken.
    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am increasingly concerned about this because recent experience has shown that some private police forces have shortcomings. Within recent memory there was the British Airports Authority Police.
    1836
    but the manner in which it discharged its task, particularly at London Airport, did not meet with universal approbation, to such an extent that it was swept away and, after considerable debate in the House, was replaced by the regular police force.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Shame.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is entitled to think it a shame that the British Airports Authority Police was replaced by the regular police force, but I do not agree with him.
    We do not know whether the list in Amendment No. 42 is exhaustive. Good heavens, I found that the Port of Bristol Authority and the Royal parks have their own police forces. I knew that the Royal parks had a sort of commissionaire with a uniform of his own, but I did not think that these people constituted a police force. It would be interesting to learn how different are their functions from those the people who wear yellow bands and control traffic. We should not leave this issue to a private conversation between my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart, the Minister and the Port of London Police Authority after the Bill has been enacted. That will be too late. The argument should be thrashed out thoroughly here and now.
    The Under-Secretary has had plenty of time to send her minions to find out how many private police forces there are. They have had ample time to send out for that information. The hon. Lady has no excuse for not finding this out by now. If she has not done that, she is in no position to reply to the debate.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is wrong to talk of private police forces and the regular force? Is it not better to have bodies of sworn constables having a definition of their own? That is what I want to discuss with the Minister.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No. A private police force is a police force which is not public in the normal sense of the word. By that, I mean that it is not publicly accountable. The Port of Bristol Authority is not publicly accountable in the same way as the regular police. The

    1837
    regular police forces, except the Metropolitan Police, are accountable to their police authorities. The Metropolitan Police are accountable to the Home Secretary.
    The Royal parks police force is in the nature of a private police force because the control over it and its chain of command are private and relate to the structure of the Royal parks rather than to rules laid down by the Police Acts.
    Anyone who suggests that the British Rail police are publicly accountable has had no experience of British Rail. They are not publicly accountable, as the House knows to its cost. Its police force is accountable to British Rail, not to a Minister, a police authority or to any elected body. That is why it is properly called a private police force. Moreover, if my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart finds himself walking along a railway line he might be prosecuted for trespassing on private, not public, property. Therefore, it is legitimate to refer to the regular police forces as such and to describe as private police forces those whicsh are controlled by, and answerable only to, bodies which are not public bodies.
    Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend is making a powerful and convincing argument. He could add that the regular police forces are subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary. I believe that the other forces to which he referred may invite Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary to inspect them, but it is only by invitation. There is an important distinction. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to press his argument.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have every intention of doing so, because the existing complaints procedure in the regular police, which many people consider adequate for their needs, does not exist for the private police forces. How members of the public are protected against ill-discipline in private police forces, I do not know. What is more important is that members of the public do not know.
    That is the first necessity, long before we apply our minds to any alterations in the complaints procedure against the regular police forces. After all, they are
    1838
    under the control of elected bodies, which can inquire into alleged abuses. But what defence does any member of the public have against a private police force, except by grace of its employer? That is why it is so important, when we are purporting to legislate to have an acceptable complaints procedure, that we should not allow to be excluded from it areas in which a change is most urgently needed, if indeed a change is necessary.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am listening carefully to the many arguments advanced on these six amendments and two new clauses.
    I am sympathetic to the amendment of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 36. We believe that 12 months is a reasonable and practical period to allow for the voluntary arrangements to be worked out, but we want to get on with the matters as quickly as possible. and therefore we shall accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment to make the period six months, if that is the wish of the House.
    I shall continue to keep in touch with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and receive written or oral representations from him on any matter that he would like to raise. One matter that he raised was the question of definition. The definition is in the Bill. We are talking about any authority
    "maintaining a body of constables, not being a police authority".
    Some concern was expressed about my saying that we had no precise knowledge of the small forces of constables. I did not want to weary the House with all the small forces that we know about. Park constables can be appointed by local authorities to enforce provisions as to parks made under the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907. They have no jurisdiction in relation to the enforcement of the general law. Canal constables can be appointed by any two justices of the peace on the application of the proprietors of a canal or navigable river. University constables can he appointed by Oxford and Cambridge universities. Their number may fluctuate, with perhaps six in one term and two in another. This illustrates the variety which can exist under that definition.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
    9.45 p.m.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am trying to deal with two new clauses and six amendments. I believe in equality of opportunity, and if I give way to one hon. Member, I shall have to give way to all of them. Perhaps I may be allowed to try to retain my sequence of thought.
    Criticism was made of the Government amendment, which gives the power to the Secretary of State to revoke an order. This is a very important power under Clause 6. An order tailored to the disciplinary system of the constabulary in question would contain detailed provisions, and changes in the system might call for changes in the order. It would be quite unsatisfactory, in the event of the order having to be verbally amended, if the appropriate way to proceed were to revoke the existing order and make a new one. This is obviously the most practical way to proceed, and that is why that part of the Government amendment has been included.
    I was questioned yet again about the special constable, whose importance I am the first to recognise. But, as most people here will know, the special constable came up again and again in the Committee stage of the Bill, and again and again I pointed out that the scope of the present Bill—I have said it again in my first speech on these amendments today—is concerned only to provide an independent element in the existing complaints procedures.
    The Bill as it stands does not cover such complaints against special constables, because Section 49 of the 1964 Act, which is the starting point for the new machinery, does not apply to special constables. However, the chief constable of a force has discretion to dismiss a special constable under Section 16 of the Police Act 1964, or to reprimand him.
    Obviously, we shall reinforce this point with special advice which will also make it clear to chief officers that where the investigation of a complaint against a special constable is relevant to a parallel complaint against a regular officer, the chief officer should make the relevant material available to the board to ensure that the board is in full possession of the facts. If a complaint against a special
    1840
    constable is substantiated, it will still be open to the chief officers, as it is now, either to reprimand him or to dismiss him.
    I have noted the points made about special constables, but I can only repeat that—as I think the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds appreciated—it is not possible to include special constables.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 8

      USE OF POLICE FEDERATION FUNDS
      'It is hereby declared that Police Federation funds may properly be used to prosecute cases of defamation against the police arising in the course of a complaint made against a police officer or officers'.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]
      Brought up, an read the First time.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.
      When a Minister makes so graceful an acceptance as on the last group of proposals, the least one can do in response is to move the next matter briefly. I again wish to declare an interest, because this clause specifically concerns the financial affairs of the Police Federation, with which I have a connection.
      The point of the clause is to ensure that the Secretary of State carries out his undertaking that the Police Federation will be allowed to use its voluntary funds for the purpose of taking action against those who by their complaints defame individual police officers. Let me say why the Police Federation feels the need for these new powers.
      At the point when a complaint is made against a police officer, he immediately suffers damage. Whether that complaint be justified or not, he at least starts to suffer. He suffers because in many cases he is suspended from duty. If that happens, in many cases he loses his overtime. He can no longer go on courses which may lead to his promotion, and in many other ways he suffers in his profession simply from being accused. Equally, his wife and children come under the finger of suspicion in their

      1841
      neighbourhood and suffer damage immediately from the point at which the accusation is made.
      In nine cases out of ten the accusations against police officers are proved on the evidence to be malicious, vexatious, frivolous or unfounded. But in ten cases out of ten the police officer once he is accused suffers immediate damage. Therefore it must be right as a matter of justice that an officer who is shown to be wrongly accused but who is none the less damaged should be able to seek in the courts civil damages for any damage he can show he has suffered. That is the heart of the new clause.
      I suspect that we shall be told that the clause as drafted is inadequate. But I shall be more than satisfied if the Minister says that before the Bill completes its final stages in Parliament—I am thinking particularly of the other place—draft regulations will be laid to amend the rules of the Police Federation to enable it to use voluntary funds for this purpose.
      I put forward the clause to elicit from the Minister the assurance that the regulations will be suitably amended to embrace this purpose—and quickly.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: This is a necessary clause but it only scratches the surface of the problem. Actions for defamation are ruinously expensive. The clause would allow the Police Federation to use certain of its funds to maintain an action where it is believed that a police officer has been defamed maliciously. Nevertheless, the extent to which this clause could be used in practice would not be wide, because Police Federation funds are by no means unlimited and actions are unpredictable.
      It would be a fair compromise if the Government, in introducing this much more draconian procedure, had accompanied it by a procedure whereby, if the Police Complaints Board found a complaint to be unfounded and made untruthfully and maliciously, there would then be an action for defamation brought at public expense.
      I am disappointed that the Home Secretary did not think it right to achieve a balance of that kind by inserting a provision on these lines into the Bill. I point this out en passant unless it is thought that by accepting New Clause 8
      1842
      police officers will be protected from malicious complaints. They will not. The new clause provides only a tiny and inadequate remedy because the federation's funds are quite inadequate.
      I wish to see the new clause accepted, but I do not see why subscriptions from police officers should have to be used for this purpose. I believe that it is the duty of the State, which is setting up this extraordinarily elaborate and expensive complaints procedure, to finance actions for defamation when the procedure shows that a complaint has been made maliciously.
      Hon. Members may not know, but at a conference this morning members of the Police Federation threw out a recommendation that they should support the Bill. If the Home Secretary had thought it right, even at that late hour, to put down a new clause providing that public funds should be used to prosecute actions for defamation where there were malicious complaints, the feeling that the new procedure is slanted against police officers, rather than being impartial between complainant and the police officer complained against, would be much less likely to be a representative feeling throughout the police service.
      Mr. Mikardo: The suggestion of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) goes a hit too far. I can envisage all sorts of problems of definition, including, for example, definition of the word "malicious".
      As I crossed swords in a friendly way with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on an earlier clause, it is incumbent upon me to say that when this subject was considered in Committee some of my hon. Friends and I though that the hon. Member was on to a very fair point. I add my view to that of the hon. Member in expressing the hope that the Government will accept the new clause or make alternative arrangements to meet the point.
      Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend gave an assurance in Committee that this matter would be dealt with by means of an amendment to the Police Federation Regulations 1969, after consultations with the federation. He also gave an undertaking that the necessary amending regulation would be laid before Parliament before the Police Bill came into force.

      1843
      The Police Federation Regulations are made under Section 44 of the Police Act 1964. Regulation 19 concerns the use of federation funds and sets out the areas in which they may be used in the interests of individual officers belonging to the federation.
      We propose to amend the Regulations to enable the federation to use its funds to defray legal expenses incurred by a member in bringing an action for libel or slander in respect of a complaint made against an officer under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964. I accordance with the Government's assurance given to the Committee, a draft amendment to these Regulations has already been sent to the federation. Consultations on it are in progress and will be completed as soon as possible.
      There is no need for any legislation to enable the Regulations to be amended in the sense required. As I have explained, discussions are in train. There is no question of the undertaking to meet the federation's wishes on this point not being honoured.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State. She has met in full the undertaking given by the Secretary of State. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) for his support.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this days Sitting, the Police Bill and the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded wih, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]

  POLICE BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Mr. William Whitelaw (Penrith and The Border): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Home Secretary what are the Government's intentions about the later proceedings on the Bill tonight? We did not oppose the business motion, and we wish to see progress made. We have only just finished the new clauses and are about to embark on the amendments. What are the Government's intentions?
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Government's intentions are to get the Bill if they can reasonably do so. We have made fairly slow progress, but in the course of discussing the new clauses we have covered a wide field. I have the feeling that we might now begin, without hurrying and without lack of proper consideration, to move more quickly through the amendments. I noticed considerable restraint on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the House during the last two debates. I hope very much that we shall get the Bill tonight, but let us see how we get on for a short time.

  POLICE BILL
    Clause 1

      THE POLICE COMPLAINTS BOARD
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Prime Minister'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we are taking Government Amendments Nos. 3 and 43.
      Mr. Jenkins: The amendment deals with the question of who should be the appointing authority for the Police Complaints Board. I understand that the Committee expressed an almost unanimous lack of confidence in myself as an appropriate appointing authority, but I take no exception to that. I regard the judgment as being institutional rather than personal. There was a feeling that the appointing authority should be a Minister who was somewhat more detached from the police, standing a little further back. At that stage we gave the undertaking that an amendment would be put down proposing an appointing authority other than the Secretary of State.
      The Committee discussed the possibility of the Lord Chancellor being the appropriate appointing authority. We have considered that suggestion and I have gone so far as to discuss it with my noble Friend, but he is not enthusiastic about the proposal. On reflection, we do not think that it is appropriate. The Lord Chancellor is concerned only with judicial appointments or certain appointments calling for legal qualifications, and I do not think that this should be regarded as a judicial or legal appointment.
      Therefore, we wish to propose to the House, and I hope that the House will accept, that the Prime Minister should be the appropriate authority. That meets in full the undertaking which we gave in Committee. Historically, the Prime Minister has even closer connections with the police than I have. But the objection is ex officio rather than personal, and I do not think that that point is valid even if anyone wishes to press it.
      Amendment No. 1 gives the Prime Minister responsibility for appointing members of the board. Amendment No.
      1846
      3 gives the Prime Minister power to appoint the chairman and the deputy-chairman. Amendment No. 43 gives the Prime Minister power to dismiss board members in the narrow circumstances described in paragraph 3(4) of the Schedule.
      The other matter which possibly arises under these amendments is the question of consultations about the appointments. I do not think that these consultations should be statutory. If they are statutory we get near to a right of veto, which the House would not wish to advocate and which would not be right for an independent board. I assure the House that the Government's intention is to have full consultations with the bodies concerned. We hope that we shall establish a board which will command the confidence of those who have to work closely with it on the professional side of the police service.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Despite the self-effacing and pleasant manner in which the right hon. Gentleman moved the amendment, I am not at all sure that the House should accept it. I rise to express disappointment at the Government's failure to take the opportunity to demonstrate their concern to secure an utterly independent element in the procedure for investigating complaints. That is surely without precedent in a major Bill such as this. It was agreed by all sides that, whoever appoints the new board, it certainly should not be the Minister designated in the Bill.
      Indeed, in keeping with the generally poor presentation of the Bill and the lack of effective consultation in Committee, we did not know who would be the appointing Minister. All we were agreed upon was that the Home Secretary should not have these powers. We are setting up entirely new machinery for investigating complaints against the police, and we are agreed that it should be as independent as we can possibly make it. On that there is no division in the House. But how does one ensure full public confidence in the independence of that machinery and at the same time—we agreed in Committee that this was important—ensure full police confidence that it will be conducted fairly? For these are the key requirements.

      1847
      One would have thought that the Government, before the Bill was drafted. before it was given a Second Reading, at least before it went into Committee and certainly before it was considered tonight, would have realised how undesirable it would be to appoint a political Minister—the Home Secretary—who is the police authority for the largest police force in the country, comprising one-fifth of the police service. He is also the final appeal authority for a disciplinary offence in the Metropolitan Police.
      All this is, of course, no reflection upon the person of the right hon. Gentleman, the present holder of the office. I refer solely to the responsibilities he carries. Moreover, there was no provision in the Bill, as far as I am aware, for him to consult the local authority associations, the police authorities or the police staff associations about whom he appoints. Nor is there such a provision now that it is decided that the appointing officer shall be no less a person than the Prime Minister. It was only in Committee that we secured the promise that the Home Secretary would not appoint to the board any ex-police officers. Presumably this now extends to the Prime Minister.
      The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikado) may recall that in Committee I pointed out that the police service was insisting that not only should no ex-police officers be appointed to the board but that no member of the staff of the board should be an ex-police officer. That in itself is an indication of the desire of the police service that the new machinery should be truly independent from the very beginning. Even now, there is no guarantee of that. Yet while the Home Secretary has conceded the one—I must not trespass on later amendments—he has not conceded the other.
      Many of us thought in Committee that there was a simple way out of the difficulty of demonstrating that the board should be as free from political influence as possible. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, in a notable speech early today, implied correctly that what was important was not the facts themselves but what people believed the
      1848
      facts to be, and that justice not only had to be done but should be seen to be done. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) wanted an ombudsman as the appointing officer. That was an attractive idea which appealed to many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
      But if the appointing officer has to be a Minister—I do not quarrel with that, nor does the organisation that I represent—it is the Lord Chancellor who is uniquely fitted for the task. He holds together all the diverse but essential elements of the constitution—the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. In that capacity, he has to maintain the most careful balance. Like all his predecessors in that high office in modern times, the present holder does this with great flair and distinction, as not only the lawyers in this House will recognise.
      It is not too much to claim that the Lord Chancellor's office is one of the bastions of liberty, as is the principle of locally-constituted police forces, run at arm's length from the Home Secretary, who must never be allowed to become a Minister of the Interior controlling a national police force. It is the Lord Chancellor who appoints the judges, the magistrates and many tribunals. It is not the Home Secretary and it is most certainly not the Prime Minister.
      The Prime Minister, indeed, is the most political figure we can envisage. He is a political animal par excellence. I am not talking about the present incumbent any more than I am talking about his predecessor. A politician gets to the top of the greasy pole only by being the most political of political animals.
      In one sense the Prime Minister is an improvement on the Home Secretary because of the latter's police responsibilities. To that extent the Prime Minister is a tiny bit more detached, to use the Home Secretary's word, than the Home Secretary himself. But how can we be sure that he or a future Prime Minister will not behave in a political way in appointing the members of the board? I ask that question for one simple reason. Where is the provision in the Bill to impose upon the Prime Minister the duty of consulting the local authorities, which, outside the Metropolitan Police area are the police authorities? Where is the

      1849
      safeguard against the appointment of persons chosen because they are politically acceptable to the Government of the day?
      One may say that these dangers are very remote, but, as someone much wiser than I said years ago:
      "Dangers by being despised grow great."
      We must ensure, therefore, that, in this field above all, there are proper safeguards from the word "go". If the appointing Minister has to be the Prime Minister, we want the safeguards I have mentioned written into the Bill.
      The right hon. Gentleman is the most reasonable of men. He has been a humane and efficient Home Secretary and we greatly respect him. Therefore, he must not take amiss anything I am saying in this regard. But I will not take from him, and I suggest that the House should not take from him, the assurance that "Of course, we will take soundings. Of course, there will be verbal consultations and so on." Let me say here and now, on this as on other aspects of the Bill, that the police organisation as a whole—my hon. Friends who represent other parts of the police service can correct me if I am wrong—wants adequate safeguards written into the Bill. It is in the interest of the public, too, that there should be adequate safeguards in the Bill and proper parliamentary control.
      I conclude, therefore, by asking for the assurance that it is the intention of the Government to consult the police staff associations and local authority associations about these appointments. Would it not be better, even at this eleventh hour, to give the House an undertaking that in another place an appropriate amendment will be put down to ensure that statutory provision for these consultations will be made?
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr Maxwell-Hyslop: The objection to having the Prime Minister substituted for the Secretary of State is very similar to the objection to having the Secretary of State himself. Who are the officials who will advise the Prime Minister? They will be the same Home Office officials as advise the Home Secretary, so it is a change in form rather than in reality. That is my real objection. They will be the same officials who advise on the
      1850
      appointment of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. It is an in-house job, and it is still an in-house job if it is done by the Prime Minister because he will be advised by exactly the same officials.
      We can only break the circle of this being an in-house job by having someone who is used to taking the canon of impartiality in his selection, and that is primarily the Lord Chancellor. He does not just appoint judges from the legal profession. He is also the Minister who appoints magistrates and laymen throughout the country. He is clearly the Officer of State who should appoint the members of a Police Complaints Board. I very much hope that the Government and the Secretary of State, who is visiting the House at the moment, will even at this late hour see fit to withdraw this amendment and give an undertaking that in another place an amendment will be used to substitute the Lord Chancellor for the Home Secretary. That is the appropriate course of action to be taken.
      What on earth is gained substituting the Prime Minister for the Home Secretary when the same advisers will advise, those not noted for selection procedures based largely on the concept of impartiality and acceptability. That is not their primary function in the Home Office, but it is the primary function in the Lord Chancellor's department, and that is how we are likely to get acceptability both by the public and by the police rather than by having this in the political gift of Ministers of the Crown. I believe it is agreed on all sides that the Lord Chancellor acknowledges a duty to Parliament which is different in nature from the duty of a political Minister, be he the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the First Lord of the Treasury.
      Both the Home Secretary and the First Lord of the Treasury are highly political animals. Were they not, they would not get there. It is not primarily the characteristic of being a highly political animal that elevates a man, or, possibly at some date, a woman, to the office of Lord Chancellor. It is qualities other than those of a conspicuously successful politician.
      The present First Lord of the Treasury, who is also Prime Minister by reason of

      1851
      that fact, has a background which, apart from anything else, would disqualify him from making such an appointment. I should have thought that one would not expect an ex-employee of the Police Federation to be the person who appoints the Police Complaints Board, yet that is what the Government are proposing. So it is unsuitable ad hominem, quite apart from being unsuitable in principle.
      I hope very much, therefore, that the Secretary of State, instead of leaving the House with the dilemma of whether it should accept an amendment that it does not want because it does not achieve what it does want, or else reject it because it does not want that either, will agree to withdraw the amendment and give an undertaking to substitute in another place an amendment which will have the effect of the Lord Chancellor making these appointments rather than the unsuitable office of Secretary of State for the Home Department or the unsuitable office of First Lord of the Treasury.
      Mr. Norman Tebbit: I find myself much in agreement with those of my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate, particularly following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). It is no disrespect to the present Prime Minister to remind the House that he was an adviser to the Police Federation. Some other Prime Minister some day may also have been an adviser to the Police Federation. Even worse, it is possible that one day we may have as Prime Minister a man who has been a police officer. I say "even worse", but I think that that would be a very good background for a Prime Minister—and perhaps even better for a Chief Whip. However, certainly it would be no disqualification from being Prime Minister to have served in the police force.
      How bizarre it would be, however, if an ex-policeman were appointing the members of this board, and not only appointing members as an ex-policeman but appointing them to a board of which one of the disqualifications for membership was that of being an ex-policeman. That is a bizarre situation that could arise. It is very unlikely to arise if we decide to accept the good sense in the speeches of my hon. Friends and to make
      1852
      a Law Officer, and particularly the Lord Chancellor, the responsible person for appointments to the board.
      After all, it is extremely unlikely—though not, I suppose, impossible—that among all the qualifications and experience of a Lord Chancellor would be that he had been either a policeman or an adviser to the Police Federation. Therefore, we would be treading on much safer ground. The Lord Chancellor also has another great advantage in these matters. He is not a Member of this House. It is important for us to remember that.
      As you know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes this House becomes mildly excitable about various things. It becomes mildly excitable on what one would call a short-term basis. The excitement fades away quite quickly. However, in the moment of excitement great harm can be done. I recollect a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box and referring to a High Court judge as a trigger-happy judicial fool. That is not the sort of thing one would expect to happen in the other place. It may be that it is a good thing for these things to be said. It may be that it is a bad thing. That is not a matter that we are discussing, in general terms, this evening. But it underlines what I say. This House is excitable. Sometimes it finds itself trapped into making quick comments of a most injudicious nature about judicial matters. It would be tragic if one day in this House a Prime Minister or even a Leader of the Opposition were trapped by party passions into making comments about the appointment of members to this board which everyone regretted subsequently, as I believe everyone regretted subsequently the remarks which I quoted just now.
      It is unlikely that that would happen at the other end of the corridor. That is one of the advantages of the other place. Its Members are generally—
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Asleep.
      Mr. Tebbit: Not asleep. Many of them, having been here and seen this place at its worst, are perhaps a little more placid when they are reincarnated at the other end of the corridor. So I think that it would be a great advantage if these appointments were made and were likely to be questioned at some

      1853
      time at the other end of the corridor, rather than here.
      I also agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton when he said that, if the Prime Minister made these appointments it would be essentially an in-house job. Not only would it be a matter of the same advisers advising, though almost inevitably that would be the case; I think that it is highly likely that some Prime Minister at some time might observe casually to his Home Secretary that he had this little problem of appointments and that the Home Secretary had a lot of experience and knew many of the people involved. In that way, we would be back to the situation, in essence, which the Committee agreed was undesirable. It may be that I am naive about these matters, but I do not believe that it is likely that a Prime Minister would put this point to a Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor, because he is a different animal from those of us who are currently in this House, and certainly a different animal from the sort of man who becomes Prime Minister, would not lightly accept advice from a Prime Minister or even seek it. I think that the House would be wise to think again about this and that the Home Secretary would be wise to reconsider whether he has it right.
      I was not a member of the Standing Committee. Perhaps it is remiss of me and of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton that we did not put down an amendment to make it possible for the House to vote on this issue in a way which would make sense as opposed to a way which would make nonsense by going back to another position which everyone agreed was wrong. The only person who can solve the dilemma is the Secretary of State. He can do it by saying that he will think again and, in their Lordships' calm House—those tranquil waters so rarely disturbed by passion—come back with a better solution than this amendment.
      Mr. Sims: This issue is central to the whole Bill. The object of the exercise in which we are engaged is to introduce an independent element into the investigation of complaints against the police. For that reason, the independent aspect is extremely important. It is essential that this board is independent and that it is seen to be independent, and its inde-
      1854
      pendence will be judged on the basis of the people appointed to it and those who make the appointments.
      The Government accepted the objections raised in Committee to the proposal that the Secretary of State should make the appointments. I hasten to assure the right hon. Gentleman that, of course, there were no personal grounds for those objections.
      The objections were three-fold: first, that the Secretary of State has general responsibility for the police; secondly, that he is the police authority for the Metropolitan Police; and, thirdly, that he is a political figure. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) pointed out, the Prime Minister also is very much a political figure. He is a party politician. None of us would doubt his impartiality in making these appointments, be he the present incumbent or any other. But it is not the view which we in this House hold that matters. What is important is that people outside this House should believe that these appointments are being made impartially. We have to convince the Press, the legal profession, the police, and not least the public at large, especially those members of the public who are likely to make the complaints, that this is an independent board that is independently appointed.
      10.30 p.m.
      It is fair to say that the present incumbent of the office of Prime Minister is a man not without a background of some political controversy. In the course of our discussions in Committee when we debated whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department should make these appointments, I offered the Committee the sobering prospect that the present Leader of the House might become Home Secretary and might make these appointments. After raising that matter we were faced with the prospect of the same gentleman becoming Prime Minister. I am sure that none of us in the House would doubt that if he did so he would make them impartially, but can we be sure that the country would consider the right hon. Gentleman to be independent of any party bias?
      I feel that this is a strong objection. Although I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has moved some way towards meeting the arguments that came forward

      1855
      in Committee, I feel that a number of objections can be laid against the proposal that the Prime Minister should make the appointments. The point has already been made by my hon. Friends that the present incumbent of the office has held a position as adviser for the Police Federation. Then there is the question of whether the Prime Minister would have his own Department and his own staff to advise him, or whether he would not be making Home Office recommendations while wearing another hat.
      On all the grounds that I have put forward I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter and give further thought to the suggestion that the Lord Chancellor would be a far more suitable person to make these appointments. He is independent. He is considered throughout the country to be independent and above the party battle. He is the head of the judiciary, and the fact that he appoints magistrates and makes appointments to judicial positions justifies his making these appointments. He is especially well equipped to do so with his experience and the staff that surrounds him.
      A formidable case has been put forward by my hon. Friends, and I hope that the Home Secretary will be prepared to give the matter further consideration. Perhaps he will give an undertaking that the general feeling that has come forward this evening will be met at a later stage in the Bill's passage.
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have listened to the debate with interest, but I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the amendments, which are the only ones before it. If it does not do so, it is possible that the Lord Chancellor may show his independence by not moving an amendment in the other place—I am sure that he would be very reluctant not to do so—and we should then be back with the Home Secretary.
      I found the contrast between the complete political detachment and judicial nature of noble lords and Lord Chancellors in another place and politicians in this place to be a little idealised in the presentation of some of the remarks that have been made in the debate. Two of the past six Lord Chancellors have been past Home Secretaries, and most of the others
      1856
      have played a considerable part in the House, and often a partisan role. I should not like to lay any excessive claim to calmness and a judicial approach, but I am prepared to say that I am at least as calm as one of the past two Lord Chancellors.
      The Prime Minister, whoever he may be, is used to making appointments which are not notably political. The Prime Minister, for example, appoints all the bishops and all the governors of the BBC. There is a whole range of appointments of that kind where the degree of impartiality is not queried.
      I shall take note of the arguments that have been put forward. I point out that there was no unanimity in favour of the Lord Chancellor in Committee. I hope that the House will accept the amendments as going a reasonable distance to meet the view that has been put forward.
      Sir Bernard Braine: Will the right hon. Geneleman deal with my point about the necessity for statutory consultation?
      Mr. Jenkins: I give an undertaking that there will be full consultation. I shall be very disappointed if we do not produce a board which is manifestly independent and commands confidence. I cannot draw a line between statutory consultation and something very near a right of veto. That would go contrary to the other arguments about the totally independent nature of the board which the hon. Gentleman and others put forward so eloquently.
      Mr. Whitelaw: Obviously, as the Secretary of State said, the House is in a difficulty. If we were to reject the amendment, we should be back with the Home Secretary again. Personally, I should not object to that. Clearly, that is not the wish of the House, nor of the Committee, as I understand it. As there is no proposal before the House relating to the Lord Chancellor, I must advise my hon. Friends that to vote against the Prime Minister means that we go back to the Home Secretary. If that is what some of my hon. Friends want, they have not expressed it in what they said. On the whole, I think that we must look at this matter on that basis. Before the matter goes to another place, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether the Prime Minister, as opposed

      1857
      to the Lord Chancellor, is the right person.
      The Home Secretary said that some Lords Chancellors were calmer than others and that others were more political. Who could deny that? We have all had experience of Lords Chancellors of one kind or another. Some of them have been highly political and, in my experience, some have not been the calmest. I think that we must all accept that. Nevertheless, something attaches to the Lord Chancellor's position which is, in substance, rather different from the Prime Minister's position. The Prime Minister inevitably appoints many different people to many different positions. But he is the most highly political figure in the country, because he has been determined to get to, and has got to, that position.
      The Lord Chancellor—however political Lords Chancellors may have been in the past and whatever their actions—is regarded as being above politics. But that is not strictly accurate. The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet and, as such, takes an active part in politics. The suggestion that he is as far removed from politics as some have tried to make out could not, I think, be substantiated, and I do not make that point. On the other hand, he is the head of the judiciary. That makes him not only important, but different from anyone else. Indeed, as he appoints magistrates, and so on, there is a strong argument for considering the Lord Chancellor.
      I understand all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the case for the Prime Minister, but I think that there is a stronger case in the long run for the Lord Chancellor on the simple basis that he is not in the normal run of politics and therefore does not have to express political views.
      I should like to follow what the Home Secretary said about certain Lords Chancellors in the past. Those who attain the position of Lord Chancellor—those who have been the most political and those who were not the calmest of people—seem somehow to withdraw from the political battle in a way which surprises us. That they have done that makes the point that perhaps the Lord Chancellor is rather different and can be regarded by the general public as different in kind
      1858
      from the Prime Minister, who is inevitably a very political figure.
      Mr. Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman and others have spoken of the duty of the Lord Chancellor to appoint lay magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a very large proportion of these magistrates are chosen on a political basis.
      Mr. Whitelaw: There are arguments about that, and I do not wish to pursue them with the hon. Gentleman now. If I do, I shall be accused of deliberately seeking to prolong discussions on the Bill, which is the last thing I want to do.
      Sir Bernard Braine: But the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has raised a very important point. Public and political opinion generally accepts that it is desirable that people of differing political views and allegiances should be appointed to the Bench. The Lord Chancellor sees that a proper balance is kept. This is a perfect example of his impartiality.
      Mr. Whitelaw: Obviously, my hon. Friend has answered the point. Far be it from me to add anything to what he has said.
      Clearly, the House is in the position that if it tries to reject the amendment, it will go back on what the Committee wanted. The Home Secretary has sought to meet what was said in Committee by proposing the Prime Minister, and it would be churlish of us to reject this. But, in view of the arguments which have been put forward, is it wise that the Prime Minister should be the person responsible? Perhaps the Home Secretary would consider, before the Bill finishes in another place, that perhaps the Lord Chancellor will be the wisest person to have in the end. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will not like it. Nevertheless there are powerful arguments which suggest that he might be a better person than the Prime Minister. I hope this will be considered very carefully.
      Mr. Tebbit: I do not want to overstate the fact that ermine may have the same effect as librium, but if we were to go back to the Home Secretary by voting on this tonight, there might be some noble Lord lively enough to move amendments in another place to put in the Lord Chancellor's name. This would have the

      1859
      advantage that when the Bill came back to this place, we would have a second chance—after considerable thought—to leave in the Lord Chancellor, or to go back to the Home Secretary's recommendation of the Prime Minister.
      Mr. Whitelaw: I am getting a little confused as to where I am. On the whole, I think that it would be unwise to oppose the amendment at this stage, because, after all, the Home Secretary has sought to meet the views expressed in committee. The House should let this amendment pass, but at the same time should say that when the Bill is passing through another place, the Home Secretary should consider whether it would be right to have second thoughts, and perhaps decide on the Lord Chancellor in the end.
      Amendment agreed to.
      10.45 p.m.
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 10, at end insert:
      '(2) The members of the Board shall not include any person who is or has been a constable in any part of the United Kingdom.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With it we may also take Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, at end insert 'or colonies'.
      Dr. Summerskill: During the debate on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend made it clear that serving police officers would not be appointed to the Police Complaints Board. A number of hon. Members in Standing Committee were of the opinion, however, that former service as a police officer should also be a bar to appointment, and this is a view we undertook to consider. We had originally thought that it might be unfortunate if an otherwise suitable candidate were barred from appointment merely because at some time in the past he had served as a police officer, perhaps only for a very short time. But we have established that the Police Federation in particular is strongly of the Committee's general opinion, and this amendment accordingly provides that no serving or former member of a police force in the United Kingdom may be a member of the board.
      The exclusion is comprehensive. It covers not only a member of a police
      1860
      force within the meaning of the Police Act 1964 or a special constable appointed under that Act but also a regular constable and a special constable within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and a member of a private constabulary such as the transport police.
      Mr. Alison: Will the Under-Secretary comment on Amendment (a) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)? Is there any reason why the proviso should not apply to the United Kingdom and Colonies? As an experienced police representative, he has good reason for proposing the amendment. There was an unfortunate case recently of a police officer of one of the colonies having proved unsatisfactory in terms of personal integrity. I will not mention any names. The House will know about this sad colonial case.
      Dr. Summerskill: There is a good reason why we cannot accept Amendment (a). The debate in Standing Committee touched on service in police forces abroad, for example, in the Hong Kong police, but it scarcely seemed necessary to make any special provision in this respect. It is obvious that it is service in a United Kingdom police force which would most likely call into question the impartiality of a candidate for membership of the board, and in the event of a candidate presenting himself who had police service abroad the Prime Minister would undoubtedly have regard to the general principle contained in the Government amendment No. 2. It has to be borne in mind, moreover, that service in a police force abroad would differ considerably in conditions and circumstances from police service at home. In addition, the chances are that United Kingdom citizens who had served in police forces abroad would, at some time or another, also have served in a United Kingdom force, and so would fall in any case under the ban imposed by this amendment.
      An additional objection to the amendment is that, whatever sympathy we may have with its principle, we have to ask whether it goes far enough. Why ban a former colonial police officer but not one who served in a dominion force? We must also consider police service in

      1861
      independent countries which were formerly British territories, or police service in any foreign country. So, in considering the problem we decided that the line had to be drawn somewhere and that for all practical purposes the line drawn in the Government amendment is the right one. Cases of candidates with police service elsewhere are likely to be rare in practice and could be suitably dealt with if the need arose.
      Mr. Beith: Having tabled in Committee an amendment almost identical to that which has now been moved, I thank the Under-Secretary for acceding to the view which was put to her both inside and outside the Committee. It is sometimes difficult for people outside the police service to recognise that there is deep feeling in the police forces that it would be unsatisfactory to have ex-policemen exercising this role. By agreeing to their request she is strengthening the independence of the board in the eyes of the public.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 3 in page 1, line 13, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Prime Minister'.—[Dr. Summer-skill.]
      Mr. Alison: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 2, at end insert—
      '(5) Salaries of the Board to be determined by the Secretary of State under paragraph 4 of the Schedule shall in no case exceed £2,400 per annum in respect of part-time members, £4,000 per annum in respect of full time members and in the case of the Chairman of the Board no more than £7,500 per annum'.
      My hon. Friends and I regard this amendment as one of substance and importance. The terminology of it need not mislead hon. Members. We seek to limit the possible range of salaries of certain of the officers of the board in future, but it is really a device to secure a reasonably comprehensive debate on the cost of the board. It is important to debate that because at this time, as at no other, we need to consider value for money. The Bill as it stands does not provide good value for money.
      I must remind the House of how extraordinarily ineffective the new machinery will be, and I shall illustrate that by using some key statistics relating to what will be involved in the new complaints machinery.
      1862
      I take the complaints in the Metropolitan Police area as the basis of my argument because those complaints represent one-third of the total work load of all complaints. To see the national picture one simply needs to gross up my figures by about three.
      In the Metropolitan area in 1975 there were about 4,300 finalised complaints. Taking that as the overall figure, I shall tell the House what happened to those cases, how they were disposed of and what the Police Complaints Board's work load will be. About 1,700 of those 4,300 cases were referred, as possible criminal cases, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That means that virtually all were ruled out of the ambit of the complaints board. They were thrown out of the window. That leaves about 2,500 prima facie non-criminal cases which might be admissible as cases to be referred to the complaints board. Of that number, only 55—a tiny fraction—resulted in disciplinary charges against an officer by the chief officer.
      Why were there so few? The reason is simple. They involved Mrs. Jones complaining that P.C. Bloggins had been rude to her. There was no outside witness, and no disciplinary charge could be preferred. That type of case will make up the vast bulk of the work load of the complaints board.
      If the board asks why disciplinary proceedings were not taken, the police will explain that there was no evidence, that it was a knock-for-knock account. In only a few cases will the board say that disciplinary charges should have been preferred. In most cases it will come to the same conclusion as the police.
      That is the work load with which our brave new board will have to contend. It will involve a vast churning bureaucracy, a huge amount of extra work and the setting up of a new piece of Civil Service manpower.
      We were told when the Bill was published at the beginning of the year that the board would cost £300,000 a year and involve the appointment of one assistant secretary, two legal assistants, two principals and 21 other staff. That was before a year's inflation of 20 per cent, and before the new ceiling on wages and salaries of £4 a week and 2½ per cent. Both the Police Federation

      1863
      and the Association of County Councils were convinced that £300,000 was ludicrously wide of the mark anyway, and that the cost would be at least £1 million—for the transmission of 2,500 cases by post from the Metropolitan Police alone. We gross up that figure by three to obtain the national picture. There will be a flow of cases backwards and forwards just to rubber-stamp a decision that there is no basis for preferring a charge.
      The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr Mikardo) made a fair point in Committee when he said that having one man languishing in prison was worse than having 10 guilty men on the loose. I entirely agree. One innocent man in prison is unacceptable and inexcusable in any society. One can say that to avoid that hazard it is worth spending some money. But there is a corollary on the cost side which applies with equal validity. We have moved into a new era in public expenditure. I shall quote the definitive references in the Public Expenditure White Paper. Paragraph 16 of Part 1 says that the public expenditure programmes for 1977–78 onwards originally forecast in an earlier White Paper
      "have been substantially revised. In this the Government's main aim has been:
      —first to stabilise the total level of spending on the expenditure programmes for the time being, so that enough resources are available for increased exports and investment;
      —second, to give priority to expenditure for improving industrial productivity and efficiency, and hence to increase the rate of growth of resources."
      I go on to quote what I consider to be a key passage in paragraph 17:
      "This means that in all programmes, including the social programmes, very strict tests of priority have had to be applied. The Government's purpose in making these hard decisions was to ensure that the increase in national output in the next three or four years is not appropriated for use in the public sector, but instead is available to put the balance of payments right, to provide for increased productive investment, and to allow a modest rate of increase in private consumption."
      11.0 p.m.
      It is the aim of the public expenditure programme to hold the programme steady and then to increase the outlay on productive investment. It is that which it will promote. The effect of this in public expenditure is stark. If one looks at the Table 1.2 in the White Paper one finds
      1864
      that between the current financial year, 1976–77, which covers the first year of the Police Complaints Board operation, through, as the Americans say, 1979–80, there is forecast a cut of £4 million in overseas aid, a cut of £114 million in nationalised industries capital expenditure, a cut of £225 million in roads and transport, a cut of £200 million in housing, a cut of £70 million in other environmental services, as they are called, a cut of £240 million in education, and a cut of £33 million in health and personal social services. This means that items in the social budget like, let us say, invalid vehicles and other benefits, health centre development and the upgrading of long-stay wards in mental handicap and mental illness hospitals will all come in for pruning in the interests of restricting resources to provide for export and capital investment.
      At this moment of all moments, should we launch into a net increase of public expenditure of at least £1 million to set up an abortive, bureaucratic, time-consuming, irrelevant purposeless piece of bureaucracy, solely to rubber-stamp the decision of the police when there is no case to answer in a trial?
      Dr. Summerskill: I am not clear how the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) brings £1 million into the amendment. It speaks of £7,500, £4,000 and £2,400, but the hon. Member speaks of £1 million in relation to the amendment.
      Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady's question leads me to think that she has only just stopped reading her brief and started listening to my speech. I am tempted to start at the beginning again and go right through it. I have told her already—
      Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is right. I submit that the hon. Gentleman is making a speech about whether it is right, at a time when we are restricting public expenditure, to set up a Police Complaints Board at all. That is a Second Reading or Third Reading matter. I put it to you humbly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is nothing to do with the amendment which the hon. Gentleman is purporting to move.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Frankly, it was in my mind that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) was quite

      1865
      wide of the amendment. I think he has covered the point and will not repeat his speech from the beginning.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am always anxious to help but we are in a position of incomes policy and the purpose of my amendment is to make certain that this group of people who are to be lumbered on us will not be exempted from the incomes policy. My hon. Friend is, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, entirely in order in having regard to the total financial and economic situation in which we find ourselves.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Member for Barkston Ash to pursue his point, but he should get down to the terms of the amendment now.
      Mr. Alison: I shall obviously have to stick more closely to the terms of the amendment. If the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, who is an old hand at these games, wishes me to do so, I can tot up the items and show that they come to much too high a figure in relation to what ought to be spent in this direction.
      This is not the moment at which to be launching into expenditure on board salaries of this sort. We ought not to be thinking of spending up to £l million a year when services are being cut in so many other directions.
      If we are to cut the money spent on long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped—where the walls need painting, and curtains and cupboards need to be provided—we ought not to be spending money in the way proposed in the Bill. I may have common ground to some extent with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow in this respect. The priorities are wrong. It is more important to go ahead with social expenditure of the sort I have mentioned and to hold back the expenditure which will result from the Bill.
      We all agree that justice needs to be done. It must also be seen to be done. It is not a priority objective at the present time that we should sacrifice expenditure in a whole range of crucial social areas in order to set up a board which will please no one, which will not contain the sort of safeguard sought in an earlier new clause, and will simply result in
      1866
      paper-chasing by a lot of new civil servants.
      The amendment seeks to put a restraint on the salaries of the board officers. Indeed, it might well deter many of them from accepting office. The Bill is a travesty of the policies of the Government concerning priorities for expenditure. It is for that reason that I have moved the amendment, and I hope the House will accept it.
      Mr. Mikardo: As the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) was good enough to refer in a somewhat commendatory way to some observations I made earlier, it may seem churlish for me to be rude, as I shall be, about his speech. But what he said illustrates perfectly a charge I made earlier, which was resented by the hon Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine).
      My charge was that in general hon. Members opposite have paid lip-service throughout the Committee stage and throughout this debate to the desirability of having a Police Complaints Board, but they really do not want it at all. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash said that, as we are now in a situation in which public expenditure is being cut, this is not the time at which to introduce a Bill of this sort. In other words, he was saying that the Bill should be scrapped.
      Hon. Members opposite have said over and over again that they are in favour of the Bill. They are in theory but they are not in practice. They want to get married without having to consummate the marriage. Their position has been exposed over and over again. I do not need any lectures from the hon. Member for Barkston Ash about cuts in public expenditure. He and his colleagues supported the Government in their cuts in public expenditure. I did not, and will not. I do not need lectures on that score. But here we are talking not about public expenditure generally but about an amendment which limits the salaries that may be paid to members of the board.
      The board is to consist of not fewer than nine members, one of whom will be chairman. Let us not worry about the figure of £l million mentioned. If the hon. Member had confined himself to the subject of the amendment, as you

      1867
      told him to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House would have seen that what he was talking about assumed half the members to be full-time and half part- time. The calculation is one times £7,500. four times £4,000 and four times £2,400. That comes to £33,100—only about 3 per cent. of the £1 million reached by the hon. Gentleman in his flight of fantasy.
      If I were not convinced earlier that Conservative Members do not want this board however much they pay lip-service to it, if I were not convinced before that they were being two-faced about the matter, this amendment now convinces me. They know that one cannot recruit people at these salaries.
      Where is one to look for these people? What head-hunting organisation is one to employ to find people to give full time to this job—a job that demands an expertise and carries a great deal of responsibility—for £4,000 per year? Looking round the House, I do not think that there are more than about 30 Members who are good enough to undertake the job—and we get a great deal more than £4,000 a year. I do not see how one can attract people better than we are in this House at salaries a great deal less than those paid to hon. Members.
      Therefore, I do not think this is a serious amendment. It is a wrecking amendment. It says "We will have a Police Complaints Board, but will put the salaries at a level to make it impossible to recruit members for it." There. fore, it will not be set up and will not happen. Let us forget all the hoo-ha about whether the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor should appoint. I ask the hon. Member for Barkston Ash where he can find people to do the job for £4,000.
      I suggest that the amendment is a bad joke and the Opposition know that it is not a serious amendment. If this matter is pressed to a Division, it would indicate with absolute clarity to the country that every time Opposition Members say that they are in favour of clarity, every time they say that they are in favour of independent police investigation procedures, they are not telling the truth.
      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: There has been some harmony between the hon. Member
      1868
      for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and me on the Bill. I am sorry if that harmony is to be at least temporarily disrupted.
      I drafted this amendment with the utmost seriousness. I did so because I think that the House should have regard to the situation of constituents. We all know that a very large number of our constituents find it hard to make ends meet. By the time they have met rising expenses, rent, electricity and the rest, many of my constituents have nothing left. They would take it very hard if the House, late at night, set up a new board whose nine members were to be paid very high salaries. If we were convinced that it was indispensable to have these large salaries in order to recruit people, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow would have a point. But I do not believe it is indispensable.
      We want people on the board who are willing to invest a little of their time, not just for the money but because they believe in it. I have deliberately framed the amendment on the assumption that the people who will serve on the board will come from a variety of walks of life and will feel they are contributing something to the public interest. Their salary must recognise the importance of their duties, but it will probably not be the whole of the increment they receive.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I have been following the hon. Member's argument closely. Would he condemn Cadbury Schweppes Ltd for giving £76,000 to a former director? Is that not the sort of extravagance about which he is complaining?
      Mr. Griffiths: Not entirely. Cadbury Schweppes Ltd's salaries are paid from the earnings of a private firm. We are handing out taxpayers' money. There is a great difference between money earned by work and effort and that handed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who puts his hand into the taxpayer's pocket and takes the money regardless of whether the taxpayer agrees.
      Mr. Mikardo: When the Bill is passed and the Prime Minister is making the appointments and looking for people, I am thinking of trespassing on a 50-year friendship with my right hon. Friend and recommending the appointment of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds

      1869
      (Mr. Griffiths) to the board. Would he accept—at £4,000 a year?
      Mr. Griffiths: I would accept for a great deal less, except that my parliamentary duties would preclude me from accepting the appointment. Of course, the Prime Minister must make his own decision.
      I did not take part in the previous debate and I do not wish to go back over what was said except to mention that I am never in favour of increasing the patronage of any Minister, including the Prime Minister.
      The Government claim that the board will be financed for £300,000. I have told them that is moonshine. There is no chance of it being done inside £300,000. Of that sum, £133,000 will be devoted to salaries. No doubt much of it will go to permanent staff. That is as it should be. But, according to the Minister, the chairmen and members of the board are to receive £96,000 between them. At a time when we are making so many cuts in social services, do hon. Members really believe that a board whose nine members will share £96,000 a year should receive such a high priority? Which hon. Gentleman will say to his constituents that he has tonight agreed to the payment of £96,000 to nine men?
      Mr. George Cunningham: I would pay for it by taking the £150,000 of taxpayers' money which we give to the Conservative Opposition to help them to do inadequate research for their work in this Chamber. That would give us enough money and a bit left over.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Having made that proposal, I am sure that he will apply it equally to the funds made available to all parties. I hope, therefore, that he will take up the matter with Ministers on his own Front Bench.
      Mr. George Cunningham: I have done so.
      Mr. Griffiths: They repudiated the suggestion. The hon. Gentleman has experts on reputation on his own Front Bench. There is no need for me to repudiate it. The £96,000 for salaries for the members of the Board would be entirely acceptable in different circumstances.
      1870
      The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow will see on the Notice Paper a later amendment in which we propose that the implementation of the Bill should be postponed for one year. There is no argument that the board is needed and no argument that a proper salary should be paid to those who serve, but in our present national circumstances we should be wise to defer this less-than-indispensable expenditure for some time.
      In my relatively small county of Suffolk we have had to meet the Government's demands for reductions in local expenditure. We have been able to achieve a saving roughly comparable to the new expenditure which the Bill generates, of just on £300,000 in this fashion. We have cut expenditure on homes for spastic children. We have saved a good deal by stopping the spastic homes programme. We have saved a little more by cutting our meals on wheels for elderly people living in isolated villages. We have stopped the provision of home helps.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is creating some difficulty for the Chair. Without going into details of what has been done in a district council or county council, it is sufficient to make a passing reference to it. Let us get down to the question of the amount which is stated in the amendment. It is unnecessary to give details of the cuts. There is a smile on the hon. Gentleman's face, but I know that he appreciates what I am saying.
      Mr. Griffiths: The smile on my face, Mr. Deputy Speaker, simply shows that when you intervene I respond with gladness.
      To provide for these payments to the members of the board there have to be offsetting cuts in public expenditure elsewhere. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made plain that there is to be no overall increase in public expenditure. If there is to be an increase in public expenditure to pay these salaries, there must be a corresponding decrease elsewhere. I am illustrating the cuts which are needed to save the amount to be spent on salaries alone for the members of the board.
      The amendment proposes figures which make a good deal of sense in present circumstances and which can be increased in a year's time if we can afford it. For a part-time member, who will not need

      1871
      to attend more than two-and-a-half days a week, I have suggested an emolument of precisely the amount received by a fully-trained constable when he takes up his duties. I think that is perfectly fair. A police constable is expected to risk his life and face up to all the demands of the police service today, whether of terror, crime or demonstration, and for that he receives £2,400 a year. It is perfectly reasonable that a part-time member of the board who, I would hope, is contributing something to the public interest because he believes in it would not demand for his services more than a police constable gets for the full-time duty which he performs. I think that is a reasonable figure in the circumstances. I would like to hear from hon. Gentlemen whether they believe that a part-time member of the board ought in the circumstances, to receive more than a full-time police constable.
      Mr. George Cunningham: I am always delighted to oblige the hon. Gentleman. Would he give us more information in respect of police pay? I presume that in making the speech he has made tonight, as well as on other occasions, he very much believes in what he is saying as well as in the public necessity for saying the things he does. Is he not, however, in receipt of a salary in respect of his functions which is paid for out of the contributions of hard-pressed police officers and police constables? In order that we can compare the other salaries he is receiving would the hon. Gentleman care to say how much he is paid at the moment by the Police Federation?
      Mr. Griffiths: I shall be delighted to do so. I am receiving precisely what the Prime Minister received when he was the consultant adviser to the Police Federation many years ago. The amount which is provided by the Police Federation for the task which I am glad, statutorily, to perform is substantially less than— [Interruption.] I do not think the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) understands that the federation is a statutory body. It is set up by Act of Parliament and is a statutory body. The amount in question is substantially less than the lowest figure I have suggested in the amendment. I have met the point of the hon. Gentleman totally. I would be happy indeed if those
      1872
      who are prepared to work part-time on the board would accept the same figure.
      Mr. George Cunningham: What figure does the hon. Gentleman get?
      Mr. Griffiths: I have given the hon. Gentleman the answer I intended to give. This is a matter for the Police Federation.
      I will continue, if I may, with the remaining figures that I have proposed. I have suggested that a full-time member should receive a payment of £4,000 per annum. That is perfectly reasonable in present circumstances because it approximates to the figure which is paid to a full-time inspector of the police service. A police inspector has a general duty within his sub-division to deal with all matters of administration, public order, prosecutions and the rest. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a full-time member of the board should not, in our present national circumstances, be paid more than an inspector of the British police. In the case of the chairman I have picked a figure which is approximately equal to that of a superintendent of police. I need not elaborate upon that. I have calibrated these figures in respect of the police service itself.
      The Government are proposing £96,000 for the nine members of the board. I believe that that is quite excessive. If this were explained to our constituents, I believe that they would accept the further proposition which we on this side of the House are making, that it would be wise to leave it for one year before these proposals were implemented.
      11.30 p.m.
      If the board would plainly give us value for money, I should have no hesitation in saying that the sums proposed by the Government should be accepted. But, unfortunately, there will be a wide variety of circumstances in which the board will do no more than shuffle paper and achieve precisely no result.
      Therefore, we should have regard to the fact that there is a growing tide of opinion which believes that there are far too many people telling other people to mind their own business about the public purse. For that general reason, as well as for the particular ones which my hon. Friends and I have suggested, I hope that the amendment will be pressed and that the Government will accept that this is not the time when another group of

      1873
      people on patronage should receive sums of money vastly in excess of what the majority of our constituents would regard at this time as justified.
      Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has made a point—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has not given way; he has finished his speech. I think that we should proceed. Did the hon. Gentleman wish to take part in the debate? If so, I shall call him.
      Mr. Cryer: No.
      Mr. Alison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be very disappointing if the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) were to be deprived of the opportunity to make a speech. It is clear that he is pregnant with important information—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong The hon. Member for Keighley wished to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
      Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) suggested that the Opposition were being two-faced about the Bill. If that is so, I suppose, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and to the police force, that might not be inappropriate, because the police force, if not two-faced about the Bill, is certainly schizophrenic about it. Many different views are expressed in the police about whether this is a good or a bad Bill. Let the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow not to be too keen to use expressions like "two-faced", because the attitude to the Bill of many of us on this side of the House is one of considerable disquiet.
      We have a problem here. I shall not go far into the issue of public expenditure, but we do not know how much money is involved in the Bill. What I am particularly concerned about is the sums dealt with by the amendment. I am concerned about the possibility of a new round of public expenditure, more money for patronage in the hands of the Prime Minister. Some of my hon. Friends recently have been inquiring into the amounts of money available as pat-
      1874
      ronage in the hands of Ministers; they are extraordinarily large. The Bill would increase them, and I do not like that. The amendment would put some limit on them.
      If the figures which have been bandied about are correct, the amendment would cut to roughly one-third the sum for this purpose which was suggested by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee—from about £90,000 to about £30,000. Few of us would lightly suggest that we should throw an extra £60,000 into the pot of public expenditure.
      I had the same thought come into my mind as was taken up by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow—namely, is this a wrecking amendment? Is it necessary to ask "Are these salaries too little to get full-timers?" They are much too much for anything second rate, and there is no room for second-raters in this job.
      It is instructive to compare these sums, which have been dealt with with contempt by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, with the salaries which are paid to our full-time police officers. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, if I had to choose between pinning my faith on a police officer or on the hon. Gentleman, I should put my faith in a senior police officer. Indeed, I go further: if I had to choose blind between pulling out the name of a senior police officer in whom to put my trust or pulling out blind the name of an hon. Member, I should probably choose to pick blind a police officer. There are fewer of them that I distrust than hon. Members that I distrust thoroughly.
      The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has come pretty close to the line in telling us what he thinks of our police force. He says that these salaries are not good enough for those who will poke and pry into whether the police are doing their job properly and shuffle bits of paper, but good enough for members of the police force. I do not agree with that, and neither should any police officer, or senior police officer.
      I am worried about the whole concept of paying these people. After all, we are finding ourselves saddled with board after board, race relations experts and sexual discrimination experts—I chose my words carefully. Boards and commissioners are laid one upon another.

      1875
      There will be increasing numbers of professional full-time recipients of complaints. We know that to justify their salaries and expenses, if they find they are not getting enough work they will go about the countryside saying "Complain more because there is not enough work for us to do." [Interruption.] Labour hon. Members mention personalities. It is not for me to defend names. I should be tempted to call hon. Members something impersonal that in common parlance would be very personal. I am not here to defend any person who sits on any board. I would have away with the whole damned lot of them. I would have away with this lot as well. But if we cannot have away with them, we should ensure that the board is not a burden on public expenditure which cannot be afforded, and which insults our police officers by its members drawing salaries vastly in excess of those of the police officers whose conduct they will be investigating.
      Sir Bernard Braine: I intervene briefly to support the amendment in the sense that I think the House is owed an explanation by the Government of the cost of the board and its staff. We are told in the Explanatory Memorandum that the cost in the first year—if complaints escalate, as we expect them to do when the new machinery gets under way, the cost will rise substantially—will be about £300,000. On the basis of the existing rate at which complaints are being made against the police, we calculated, if I remember correctly, that each member of the board would have to handle no fewer than eight and a half cases per day. There is provision for part-time members of the board. Believe it or not, we were told in Committee that some of these people might work at home. So we have the ludicrous possibility of confidential files being taken by part-time members of the board to their homes.
      Mr. George Cunningham: Prime Ministers.
      Sir B. Braine: I have heard of cases where Prime Ministers have been careless about confidential documents. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw me, I will go into more detail than I intended.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that it will be within the ambit of the amendment that we are discussing.
      Sir B. Braine: I have been a Member long enough to know that I can remain on my feet only as I am in order.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the position.
      Sir B. Braine: I am glad that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, appreciate my position. In fact, I think that you know me well enought now to appreciate that I never challenge a ruling from the Chair, that I always seek to keep within the rules of order, and that I do not normally rise to my feet to make other than serious remarks. I am engaged, despite the intervention of an hon. Gentleman who sees fit only to come into the Chamber at this late hour, in trying to draw to the attention of the House the difficulty of assessing the proper remuneration.
      The burden being placed upon the nine members of the board—whether they be full-time or part-time—will be considerable. The figures suggested in the amendment may be totally inadequate to attract men and women of the right calibre. Indeed, the Prime Minister, who now has this fresh patronage in his hand, may find it difficult enough to appoint to the board people who would be ready to undertake the heavy burden that I have described. That is all the more reason for ensuring that there are statutory safeguards in the Bill to see that the right consultations take place in order that people of adequate quality and capacity are appointed.
      It seems almost impossible for the House to make up its mind whether the salaries mentioned in the amendment. or sums of a greater or less amount, are adequate in the absence of any proper knowledge of what the board's total operations will cost. This matter should engage the attention of the House of Commons when there is grave anxiety both here and in the country at large about public expenditure generally.
      I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State, in her reply to the debate, will be able to relate what is sought in the amendment to the realities of the cost of the operations of the board and

      1877
      the need to attract into its service men and women of the right calibre. The absence of adequate information throughout has hampered us in our proper judgment of the Bill. I beg the hon. Lady to be frank with the House and to give us a great deal more information about the cost than has been forthcoming so far. We shall then be able to judge objectively and fairly whether the figures in the amendment are adequate.
      11.45 p.m.
      Mr. Cryer: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I do not want to join in the filibuster that the Opposition are putting forward.
      Mr. Alison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it your view that the Opposition have been engaging in a filibuster?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my view, Members have been making their contributions in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.
      Mr. Cryer: When hon. Members opposite put forward suggestions that public expenditure and salaries should be cut, we should look at their motives. We do not want people outside to get the impression that they are prepared to advocate low salaries for others but are not prepared to remove themselves from that category or to remove themselves from the patronage which they criticise. It is quite true that they are not within the purview of the Prime Minister's patronage, but the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), in addition to his parliamentary salary of £5,750 a year, is Associate Editor of the International Aviation Review, Public Affairs Adviser to Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., and Parliamentary Adviser to Walter Judd (P.R.) Ltd.
      Mr. Alison: On a point of order. 1 am enjoying the hon. Member's contribution, but I must ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order, on this amendment relating to salaries of members of the board, to read out a long list of extracts from the official Register of Members' Interests?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) will not pursue that line of
      1878
      argument. He has made his point, and I expect he is happy with his contribution.
      Mr. Cryer: I would have thought that it was highly relevant.
      Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful that my services are considered worth while by so many people. There is another entry to go into the new Register. I am Assistant Director of Information for the National Federation of Building Trades as well. All these people find that my services are valuable. That is in sharp contrast to hon. Members on the other side of the House. They are only tired trade union hacks, who would not be employable outside this House at a decent salary.
      Mr. Cryer: Of course I will try to avoid the sort of personal abuse in which the hon. Member is indulging. Members of the Opposition have advocated that salaries should be cut in accordance with their amendment. In our view, the amendment would mean that the job would not attract people who would carry it out in the way we want. Therefore, it is relevant to examine the motives of those who are putting forward this amendment. If their motives are merely an attempt to wreck this section of the Bill, we can vote accordingly. But if their motives spring from a genuine concern about the sort of people on the board, and the salaries they will get, we might alter our votes.
      It is quite legitimate to look at the point of view of the sort of people who are advocating only moderate salaries for important positions. If they are saying that other people should do this job at a very low salary, while they are lining their pockets as fast as they can with a number of parliamentary adviserships and directorships in addition to being paid by the taxpayers, whom they purport to defend, to the tune of £5,750 a year plus extras, we have a right to question their motives. When people stand up and advocate that others should not receive high salaries while they are getting untold doubloons, we have a right to say that this seems a little hypocritical.
      It seems quite legitimate to point out that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), in addition to being consultant to the Police Federation, for which he refuses to disclose how

      1879
      much he is paid, is also consultant to Cremer and Warner, Brandts Ltd., Caravans International, and, until September 1975, Felixstowe Dock—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in addition to which he is a director of Lecalite Ltd., Redman Heenan Ltd., Barber Green Ltd., Natural Gas Tubes Ltd. and Crane Fruehauf (Overseas) Ltd.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would appeal to the hon. Member to consider whether when he reads out these lists he is not filibustering. I think that he has covered the point sufficiently.
      Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If this point is to pursued, let it be seriously pursued. The whole tenor of the speech by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was that people should be paid what policemen only are paid. It casts some doubt on the validity of his argument if it turns out that he does not practice what he preaches.
      Mr. Alison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will agree that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has tapped a rich vein of debate in bringing in the list of Members' interests. I hope that he will pursue the point long enough for my hon. Friends to secure a copy of the Register because there are a number of interesting entries that we should like to read out. I hope that would be in order, because the night is young and we shall have plenty of material to discuss.
      Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Tempting as it may be to go through the financial interests of all hon. Members, I am sure that you would not regard that as proper or within the rules of order. Since the remarks by me and my hon. Friends were directed at public expenditure, it is irrelevant to introduce matters of personal income, however welcome I find the advertisements for my much-sought-after talents.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When 1 referred to the hon. Member for Keighley filibustering I was referring only to the length of the list he was reading from. If we are to work through the whole
      1880
      list we shall be here until the morning on that alone. I hope that he will respond to the general desire to get on with the amendment.
      Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your advice, which is sensible and soundly-based. It has been worth taking five minutes to expose the dual standards of Conservative Members in claiming to want to save public expenditure. If they had applied their own standards to the Bill they would not have tabled the amendment.
      The sooner we can get rid of these outside interests the sooner we shall avoid debates like this and accept amendments based not on hypocrisy but on their true worth.
      Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) went to the heart of the matter when he showed that the amendment would, if carried, seriously jeopardise the chance of a good board. The common factor of all the Conservative speeches was that they were anti-board. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) made his favourite speech, his "Clause I shall not stand part of the Bill" speech which he makes at the drop of a hat. We have heard it many times. He does not like the board and therefore he seeks to bring it within the terms of this amendment.
      The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) revealed himself in his last sentence when he said that the board would not be giving value for money. He has already decided that it will not, even though it is not yet set up.
      The amendment is being used to make the board less powerful and less influential and to destroy it. The amendment proposes low limits for the importance of the board's work and the responsibility of its members. Apart from that important, fundamental point, it is unprecedented to put the salaries of the chairman and members of a board into any Bill. But I am not saying that precedents should never be set.
      The salaries of the members and chairman of the Police Complaints Board will be comparable with those of other public boards such as the Sex Discrimination Board and the Race Relations Board. Such salaries are higher than the figures

      1881
      in the amendment and they are unlikely to be reduced.
      To restrict the Police Complaints Board alone to an unnaturally low level of payment would obviously have an adverse effect on our ability to recruit members of the necessary calibre. The Minister for the Civil Service, under the provisions of paragraph 4 of the schedule, must give his consent to the scale of remuneration for board members, and it seems best to leave him to exercise the necessary co-ordination and control over the levels of salaries in the public sector generally. He is already doing that and will continue to do it. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Aitken: In attacking our amendment the Under-Secretary has used some unfair and extraordinary arguments. She is no less than Lady Bountiful when it comes to handing out taxpayers' money but she is Lady Godiva when she is clothing her arguments in a degree of veracity or respectability.
      The point of the amendment is to reduce the rather generous salaries offered to the members of the board from a total of £96,000 to £30,000. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), in the context of looking at the

      Division No. 151.]

      AYES

      [12 midnight

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Goodhart, Philip

      Penhaligon, David

      Alison, Michael

      Hastings, Stephen

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Hordern, Peter

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Beith, A. J.

      Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd & W'df'd)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Benyon, W.

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Sims, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter

      Loveridge, John

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Mather, Carol

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Tebbit, Norman

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Viggers, Peter

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Moate, Roger

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Eyre, Reginald

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Neubert, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Forman, Nigel

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Anthony Berry and

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

      NOES

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Mendelson, John

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mikardo, Ian

      Bates, Alf

      Eadie, Alex

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Bean, R. E.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Newens, Stanley

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Noble, Mike

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      George, Bruce

      Ogden, Eric

      Cartwright, John

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Parry, Robert

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hardy, Peter

      Pearl, Rt Hon Fred

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Harper, Joseph

      Pendry, Tom

      Cohen, Stanley

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      John, Brynmor

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Cryer, Bob

      Lamond, James

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Davidson, Arthur

      McCartney, Hugh

      Roper, John

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      McElhone, Frank

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Deakins, Eric

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Selby, Harry

      Dormand, J. D.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      list of Members' interests, becomes a good second to other Members' interests.
      Mr. Mikardo: In the first place, that is not true, and, in the second place, I was not saying that people should be paid less than myself.
      Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman was saying that salaries of £7,500 and £4,000 a year were contemptuous. He must live in Millionaires' Row. Those salaries are adequate and good for the duties expected. It is perfectly honourable and respectable for a party like mine, which has consistently argued for cuts in public spending, to say that the line should be drawn somewhere, and certainly it should be drawn for a board that will cost over £300,000. One only has to add up salaries, secretarial, postal, office administration and travel costs to find that the figure of £300,000 is a complete fraud. The Minister has not levelled with the House. It is the wrong scheme at the wrong price. There are many cheaper ways of introducing an independent element into the board, including using the Ombudsman or a lay observer.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 64.

      Sllkin Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tinn, James

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Spearing, Nigel

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mr. David Stoddart and

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wrigglesworth, Ian.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
      We have debated a number of the most important amendments and disposed of them. One of the features of the Bill is that it seems possible to make the same speech equally relevantly on every amendment. I think it can be said that we have broken the back of the Bill, but a fair number of amendments remain. After a pause the House may, I feel, be prepared to deal expeditiously with the remaining amendments at a later stage.
      Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that the Home Secretary is right. In view of my past experience in this House, I shall forbear making any further comments on the position as a result of the voting figures we have just had. I think that the House on another occasion could deal expeditiously with the rest of the Bill. I think that the Home Secretary is wise in those circumstances to propose the motion.
      Question put and agreed to
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Coinmittee), to be further considered this day.

  FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT
  12.12 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I beg to move,
  That the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 26th April, be approved.
  Family income supplement is a benefit for the lower-paid working family with at least one dependent child payable if the family's normal gross weekly income is below amounts prescribed by Parliament. The weekly rate of the benefit is one half of the amount by which the family's total weekly income falls below the appropriate prescribed amount, subject to a maximum payment.
  The draft regulations provide for the prescribed amounts and maximum weekly
  1884
  payments to be increased with effect from 20th July 1976, a year after the last up-rating. Regulation 2 increases the prescribed amount for a one-child family by £7·50 from £31·50 to £39, for a two-child family by £8·50 from £35 to £43·50, for a three-child family by £9·50 from £38·50 to £48, and so on, the amount for each additional child being £4·50 higher instead of £3·50 as at present. Regulation 3 increases the maximum weekly payment for all families by £1·50. Thus the maximum for a one-child family will be £8·50 a week, for a two-child family £9 a week, for a three-child family £9·50 a week, the amount increasing, as now, by 50p for each additional child.
  The effect of increasing the prescribed amounts—subject to the new maximum payments and to the Family Income Supplements (Child Interim Benefit) (Consequential) Regulations 1976, which provide for awards current at the uprating date to be adjusted to take account of child interim benefit—will be to increase the weekly sums payable to existing payees. Two-parent beneficiaries with one child will receive an extra £3·70 or £3·80 a week after rounding, while one-parent beneficiaries with one child will receive an extra £3 a week on top of their child interim benefit of £1·50 a week. For larger families the increase will be 50p higher for each additional child. For the small number of families receiving maximum payments the increases will be limited to £1·50. But the higher prescribed amounts will help those families to remain on the maximum rate when they come to renew their awards even though their gross weekly income has gone up since their last annual award was determined.
  On previous upratings of the supplement the qualifying income levels have been increased broadly in line with prices, with the result that, as the earnings of the low-paid outstripped prices, the supplement has reached progressively fewer people until only about 60,000 needy families are getting this help. The increase we are now proposing is expected to restore the relativity between average gross earnings and the prescribed amounts

  1885
  which existed in 1971 when the scheme was introduced and to bring into entitlement a considerable number of families who are at present excluded because their incomes are over the existing limits. Furthermore, the new qualifying income levels will ensure that families now getting the supplement who have received up to a £6 pay rise during the year will continue to be entitled to the benefit when their current awards expire. Overall, in the period immediately following the up-rating we expect that some 85,000 families will receive family income supplement at a total cost, including the uprating, of about £19 million. This compares with a cost of £13 million for the year from July 1975 and will thus represent an improvement in real terms.
  As in previous years, the change-over to the new rates will be affected with the minimum of inconvenience to beneficiaries. Families already holding payment books at the old rate will be asked to return them for over-stamping; new claims received between 25th May and 20th July will be assessed under both sets of prescribed amounts with awards determined at she old rate until 19th July and at the new rate thereafter.
  During this difficult economic period the Government consider it essential to maintain tile scope of a benefit which is so directly geared to working families bringing up children on very low incomes. As long as this means-tested benefit has a role to play in helping working families in need, we are determined that the supplement will be effective. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to commend these regulations to the House.
  12.17 a.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It has been difficult to get any information from the Government in recent weeks about their policy intentions on family poverty and family support. Therefore, it is reassuring that the Government have come forward with some measures in this respect.
  It is also reassuring, if rather surprising, to see that what is being brought forward is an uprating of the Conservative-introduced means-tested family income supplement. No longer do Labour Members attack this innovation of the Conservative Government but, instead, Labour Ministers acknowledge its con-
  1886
  tinuing rôle in support of low-paid families. Indeed, there were cheers from a surprising part of the House, just below the Government Gangway, when the Minister announced the extent of the increase in the supplement.
  However, having got this measure, one would like to fit it into some scheme of Government policy for family incomes support and to relate it to some kind of strategy. But, unfortunately, it is clear that this ad hoc up rating relating to the circumstances of the moment is a temporary stop-gap and does not fit sensibly into a long-term strategy for family support. Indeed, I begin to fear that the Government no longer have any longterm strategy and are getting into a hopeless muddle as they try to envisage how they will handle the subject of family support in the next few years.
  To put the regulations in context, one has to look at policies of successive Governments in the last few years leading to FIS and its uprating. The Conservative Government pursued a clear policy. They came to office pledged to increase family allowances, but found on examination that the cost of doing that would be disproportionate to the help which it would give to low-paid families. The result was that it was the last Conservative Government that brought in family income supplement—and at that time in the teeth of fierce opposition from Labour Members. The supplement as devised by the Conservative Government was meant to be a temporary measure. It was an immediate way of dealing with problems of the low-paid families while we prepared our tax credit scheme. We got as far as the Green Paper on the tax credit scheme and planned that FIS should be phased out when a new and better scheme of tax credits, not means-tested, could be introduced.
  When the present Government came to power, they inherited that position with the tax credit scheme admittedly in a comparatively early stage of preparation. They scrapped any further work on the proper integration of the tax system with the social security system and legislated last year to produce the child benefit. We supported that Act in principle because it at least represented the child benefit part of our tax credit scheme.
  Since then, mainly because of their mismanagement of the economy which is in a

  1887
  dreadful state—though the Minister at the Dispatch Box is not responsible for that—the Government have got themselves in a great mess and have postponed the introduction of the new child benefit until April 1977, producing a succession of excuses, but not the real one--the economic crisis. They have even referred as an excuse to difficulties with high alumina cement in buildings which would be vital to the scheme.
  It has been extremely difficult to get a clear statement from the Government about the future of FIS, family allowances and the child tax allowances, all of which were originally meant, by both sides to be consumed by a new and better system of child benefits.
  The Government have made no announcement about the level of child benefit, which is the most critical thing that people interested in these matters want to know. The Government have delayed discussions and legislation. There is nothing in the Finance Bill about the child tax allowance, and we have had some pretty delphic answers to Questions in the House.
  Now that they have been thrown totally off course on the child benefit scheme, the Government have produced FIS regulations again and made clear that they are more committed than any previous Government to using FIS as the main weapon for the foreseeable future to alleviate child poverty and for family support.
  The Minister's remarks could have been neatly abbreviated by saying that this increase was necessary to ensure that anyone who had a £6 pay increase last year would not be made worse off if he is a FIS beneficiary. On that basis, the FIS increases look generous, but they are a bad omen for the general policy because of the shortcomings of this means-tested benefit, which was why we saw it as a temporary measure.
  It throws a grave light on the Government's intentions on child benefits. From the information we have been able to extract—it is like drawing teeth when one goes through the columns of Hansard looking for such information—it appears that, at nil cost in public expenditure terms, the child benefit will
  1888
  be £2·34 per child in April 1977. The level leaked to the Press, in an attempt to test the temperature of reactions, has been £2·50.
  But if FIS were to go and family allowances and child tax allowances were put together in a new child benefit of £2·50 per week per child, the FIS recipients would be dramatically worse off. Consequently, one can see how difficult it would be with the new levels to consider getting rid of FIS in the child benefit scheme.
  In a Written Answer yesterday, I was told that a child benefit for a FIS family would have to be £8·90 a week to match the value of FIS. The annual cost to the Exchequer would be £4,000 million.It clearly is an understatement to say that it cannot be done. The fact that the FIS benefits are being set at this level indicates that the Government are giving up all prospect of ending FIS and are beginning to us it as a weapon. It is no surprise to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) received a Written Answer which stated baldly:
  "The Family Income Supplement Scheme will continue after the introduction of child benefits."—[Official Report, 17th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 422.]
  Family income supplement will be retained after April 1977 because otherwise child benefits would have to be set at a hugely unrealistic level if the beneficiaries of FIS were not suddenly to be made poorer by the withdrawal of FIS with the introduction of child benefits.
  The regulations emphasise that the Government are committed, as someone allowed The Times and The Guardian, but not Parliament, to know, to a very modest level of child benefit, and their main weapon will be FIS. The Child Benefit Bill will turn out to be a public relations exercise for the foreseeable future because economic mismanagement and the state of the economy have overtaken it and there is no way of financing it properly. Means-tested FIS will be the method used by the Government for the foreseeable future to get money to lower-paid workers with families.
  The Labour Government should reflect that they have nailed their flag firmly to the only mast left standing in their policy—means-tested FIS for family

  1889
  support. They find that this Conservative used car is running much better and will continue to run much better and more reliably than the Socialist limousine produced last year in the Child Benefit Bill, which will remain gleaming in the showroom for the foreseeable future. What a light that sheds on Government policy after April 1977! I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that he is stuck with means-tested benefit of the kind abhorred by his party in the past.
  Let us consider what is meant by the use of FIS as the main means of family support from July 1977. Let us consider what is wrong with heavy dependence on FIS in the context of the Government's economic and tax policy. In comparing FIS eligibility levels with the tax thresholds and the tax liabilities of low-paid workers, one snag is the overlap of FIS with tax and the effect that has on recipient families.
  It is clearly a nonsense that the Government should hand out FIS to families on the basis that their earnings are regarded as inadequate to maintain their families and, at the same time, take back income tax at the standard rate of 35p in the pound on the basis that their earnings are so substantial that they can afford that amount of taxation towards bloated public expenditure. That overlap between FIS and income tax is the most important source of the poverty trap about which there is such growing legitimate concern. It existed when we were in office but it has become worse in the last two years and the regulations make it dramatically worse.
  If FIS beneficiaries earn an extra £1 at their work, that £1 becomes subject to income tax, they lose 50p. of their FIS entitlement, they may lose part of their rent and rate rebates and part of their free school meals entitlement. FIS beneficiaries who earn an extra £1 may find themselves worse off because they lose more than the £1 by way of tax and loss of benefits.
  The Government acknowledge that 50,000 heads of families are already—before the regulations come into effect—in theory worse off every time they earn an extra £1 and in practice worse off taking account of the 12-month delay in registering FIS entitlement. This is the
  1890
  problem of means-tested family support together with such appallingly low tax thresholds as this Government have set. Government spokesmen in the past have blamed all this on means-tested benefits. It is actually a combination of means-tested benefits and tax—a combination of the Government raising the benefit levels much faster than the tax thresholds. This Government have consistently raised benefits much faster than tax thresholds and have made the poverty trap much deeper and much worse.
  This year's Budget, and this regulation, will go a long way towards making matters worse. Child tax allowances are to go up by £60 fo reach child as a result of the Budget and the Finance Bill. The family income supplement eligibility limits in this regulation will go up by substantially more. Putting it another way, last year the gap between FIS and tax thresholds was roughly £9; this year it is £12.
  The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 75,000 people will in future be worse off for every pound they earn. instead of the 50,000 I have mentioned. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that fact, because today the Chancellor attempted to explain a meeting he had with the Child Poverty Action Group. In a long reply to a Written Question he said the poverty trap would get no worse. He added:
  "In practice, however, no one getting a £6 rise will lose FIS in consequence, compared with his entitlement a year earlier, because the increases in the FIS income limits will in all cases be more than £6."—[Official Report. 19th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 570–1.]
  The Chancellor gives that as his argument for saying that the poverty trap is not worsening. He is using an extraordinary definition of "the poverty trap" I do not think he, or whoever provided the answer for him, understands this point. I accept that this regulation will mean that no one getting £6 a week more will be worse off as far as FIS entitlement is concerned. But it is a fact that the FIS eligibility levels will now be even higher above the tax thresholds, and because the child tax allowances have been put up less than FIS, the result is—I ask the Minister to confirm this—that this regulation and the Budget will in fact worsen the position.

  1891
  This regulation, and the Budget, will mean that a greater number of FIS recipients will be paying tax than were paying last year. This is another step towards discouraging the family man to get into work or to keep in work or to work harder. It puts more people than ever into a position where extra effort and earnings are simply not worth it. This is the first real flaw in the regulation. The answer is a proper child benefit scheme paid to all those in work and out of work at an adequate level. The Government's economic mismanagement has meant they have had to abandon this as a target.
  The next deficiency relates to the position of single-parent families. The regulation provides us with an important opportunity to discuss a group which is still not discussed often enough in the House. One-parent families have become increasingly dependent on family income supplement. When we alter the rates of FIS we ought to bear in mind that this is the main help which will go to working one-parent families in our community. They are an ever-rising proportion of the beneficiaries—32,000 out of 62,000 in October 1975.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey produced, in a Written Answer on 25th February, a statistic showing that the proportion of FIS beneficiaries who are one-parent families has increased from 32 per cent. of all beneficiaries in 1971 to over 50 per cent. More than half of them are now one-parent families. They will look to this regulation to see what the Government will do for them. They will also look to the child interim benefit, which is the most appalling confidence trick foisted on them in the Child Benefit Bill last year, which gives full value to a few one-parent families and leaves a few worse off.
  This regulation makes it much more difficult for the Government to deny that a number of one-parent families will be worse off if they claim child interim benefit.
  Child interim benefit is taxable. It is taken from those who receive supplementary benefit. The Minister has been trying to deny that there are many people who are worse off as a result of these factors. But in July this year the FIS
  1892
  entitlement will be reassessed, and when one-parent families are reassessed for income supplement in July, child interim benefit will be taken into account and will count towards income for FIS purposes.
  Every one-parent family which has applied for child interim benefit which also receives FIS will not get the full benefit of this FIS uprating. If any one-parent family has applied for and has received the benefit, it will normally reduce its FIS by 70p or 80p. But in some cases applying for child interim benefit will put some one-parent families above the eligibility limit for FIS in this regulation and deprive them of entitlement to FIS; that is, where FIS would have been 80p or less. So their loss is 80p. But if they lose FIS, they also lose the free pint of milk for each child, worth 60p a week, and they will lose their automatic entitlement to free school meals, although they may retain entitlement on their income if they apply for it. When one couples the effect of child interim benefit and tax on FIS claims, they may be worse off.
  Let me quote the clear explanation from the Child Poverty Action Group's memorandum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which it submitted a few days ago. This passage illustrates the point:
  "The tax threshold, for example, for a one-child family is now £26'63 a week, but the FIS eligibility levels have been raised to £39 a week. In table 2 we presented the tax threshold together with the FIS eligibility limits for a one, two and three child family. The effect on a family's income if it falls between the tax threshold and the FIS eligibility limit is as follows. For each £1 increase in earnings, a family will pay 35p in tax, 5ip in national insurance, and risk losing 50p in FIS. This is a marginal tax rate of 90¾ per cent. and takes no account of other means-tested benefit—such as free school dinners which are valued at 75p a week for each child—which the family may also lose as its income rises".
  A tax-paying, FIS-receiving one-parent family which has been so misguided as to apply for child interim benefit runs the serious risk of being worse off. Worse still, their tax codings are adjusted on the basis that they are receiving child interim benefit when many of them are not applying for it, and the Treasury is taking no steps to warn people that their codes have been changed or that they should not apply for benefit. One-parent

  1893
  families will not get the full benefit of this regulation if they have claimed child interim benefit. Therefore, as a result of this regulation, a number of one- parent families will be worse off if they claim the child interim benefit.
  I turn to another anomaly—and I am sorry to take time, but time was saved on the preivous legislation we discussed and we do not often get the chance to talk about family poverty. I am afraid that time has already been taken up by the number of flaws to be found in this measure. The next one to which I draw the Minister's attention is the failure to raise the maximum amount of family income supplement payable in line with the other increases in the regulation. At present, the maximum amount of FIS that any beneficiary can receive is £7, plus 50p for each additional child. That maximum, by definition, affects the very poorest families who apply for FIS. There would become an entitlement to more than that maximum only if the gap between the prescribed amount and actual earnings was very large.
  The increase in prescribed amounts in the regulation is quite generous, and, as the Minister has said, most beneficiaries will get an extra £3·70 or £3·80, plus 50p for each additional child, paid as extra family income supplement, but the maxi- mum amount rule is not going up by that much. It is increased from £7 to £8·50. If a person is already subject to the maximum rule, and he is subject to it if his earnings are a long way below the FIS eligibility requirements, it is impossible under the regulation to get more than £1·50 each week however many children the beneficiary may have.
  The National Council for One-Parent Families has prepared some estimates which I ask the Minister to confirm or deny. No doubt he has seen them. The council states that at present there are 6,000 beneficiaries subject to the maxi- mum amount rule who will get only the extra £1.50, and that a further 20,000 will be affected because they will be brought up against the maximum amount ceiling for the first time. They will get more than £1·50 but less than the full increase that the eligibility levels would otherwise allow.
  Therefore, the regulation is least attractive of all for the lowest-paid
  1894
  families applying for family income supplement. The reason is that the maximum amount has not been raised in line with the other prescribed amounts. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the maximum amount has not been raised in line with the other prescribed amounts so that the poorest families will find themselves less well treated than they might otherwise expect. Presumably this has been done to save money. What is the saving that has been achieved by this feature of the changes that the Minister has announced?
  I have asked quite enough specific questions of that sort, but I ask the Minister to give us a fuller account of the Government's policy and reasoning than he has been able to give so far, and his apologies for the regulation's deficiencies.
  Finally, I ask the Minister to tell the House how many claimants he expects to take up this means-tested benefit. The total number of claimants has been dropping. One snag with means-tested benefits is that many who are entitled to them do not apply. The take-up for FIS is estimated to be only about 75 per cent.
  The Government's budget for advertising FIS has been dropping. In the past I always thought that was because the Government did not like FIS as it was a Conservative measure. When in Opposition they made hostile speeches about it. I thought that they had decided not to advertise it so that there would be a low take-up, so that they could say what an iniquitous innovation it was. But the Government are now using FIS as their main policy, as the main hope they can offer to low income families and all low income groups.
  That means that means testing is back in vogue. The Government's strategy for an alternative child benefit scheme is on the point of total collapse. As they are stuck with this means-tested benefit, I hope that it will have a proper advertising budget. I hope that steps will be taken to bring the new levels to the attention of families who can benefit from them, and that something will be done to increase the take-up. As the Government are forced to resort to FIS, they must make the best use of it. They must try to get the best out of a very bad job.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. Bruce George: It is a pleasure to see so many hon. Members present tonight. I remember the corresponding debate last year when tripartite talks took place between my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), who I hope will be with us again soon, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and myself. The sudden rush of Members into the Chamber is a clear indication of the developing enthusiasm on both sides of the House for the Government's family policy.
  I never cease to marvel at the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, and I have observed him at a distance for over two years. He always seems to manage to portray the previous Government's policy in a scintillating light and to attack this Government's policy in what he perceives to be a devastating way. The man on the Clapham omnibus or the man in the Public Gallery looking down quite impartially might get the impression that the previous Government's record on family policy was successful beyond belief. But we, who view matters more dispassionately, are fully aware of the true effects of those policies. I compliment the Labour Government on their efforts to relieve and to combat family poverty, despite increasingly difficult economic circumstances.
  We have a strategy on poverty, but, with the problems facing the Government, regrettably we have to divert somewhat from the overall grand strategy. I hope that the concept of family income supplement, which many Labour Members bitterly opposed, at the time that it was introduced, will be abandoned and that we shall see something much better in its place.
  I have an ambivalent attitude to the raising of the family income supplement. I compliment the Government on the largest increase so far in the prescribed rates. Nevertheless, I dislike the principle underlying the concept of the family income supplement.
  Last year the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda—these phrases were not echoed tonight—said:
  "We on this side of the House have consistently made clear our dislike of the Family Income Supplement Scheme, based as it is on a means test."—[Official Report, 15th May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 846.]
  1896
  I do not want to see a regular patching-up of something that I regard as unworthy. I do not see this as a regular debate in the way that we see debates on Rhodesia, for instance—perennial events that never seem to end.
  I hope that debates on the family income supplement will not go on much longer. I hope that the Government will implement their theoretical approach—namely, that the family income supplement is destined for elimination. I hope that it will be eliminated in the not-too-distant future. I welcome the rise in payments, but I hope that this debate will be another swift step towards the ultimate demise of FIS. I hope that it will be phased out as swiftly as possible with the minimum financial disadvantage to the thousands of families who at present are forced to live under the scheme.
  I note that the numbers receiving FIS have been dropping. About 47,000 families were in receipt of family income supplement just after it was introduced. Having reached a peak of 101,000 in 197–3, the figure has gone down. In a Written Answer to me, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), said:
  "Almost 59,000 families were receiving family income supplement in February 1976 and it is estimated that the number will rise to 85,000 immediately after July 1976."—[Official Report, 29th April 1976; Vol. 910. c. 160.]
  It would appear that there has been a general downturn in the number of recipient families. That downturn is being halted, regretfully, for reasons of which we are aware, from July 1976.
  The hon. Member for Rushcliffe said that the advertising of FIS had declined. I pointed out in last year's debate that it had declined. But the supreme irony is that when the Conservative Government spent more on advertising FIS, the takeut, rarely limped above 50 per cent. Yet, with the decline in advertising, which I deplore, I am assured that the figure has reached 75 per cent. I do not want to cast too many doubts on the technique of analysis of the Family Expenditure Survey, but I should like more evidence of the fact that the take-up has reached 75 per cent.
  I hope that time is running out for the family income supplement. A possible explanation for the decreasing

  1897
  numbers in receipt of family income supplement is the success of the Government's recent pay policies, which have concentrated on helping the low-paid.
  In the recent publication "The Poor and the Crisis", to which the hon. Member for Rushcliffe referred, the Child Poverty Action Group, in a post-Budget memorandum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote of Government initiatives in pay policy:
  "The policy has had the effect of reducing the rate of inflation, while at the same time giving pay increases which have benefited substantially low-paid workers, particularly those claiming means-tested benefits."
  It goes on to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has distributed benefit from tax concessions so as to favour families with children.
  It says of the second stage of the incomes policy:
  "Again, the formula which has been agreed, has favoured the low-paid."
  I do not want people outside to get the impression, given by Tories, that the Government's policy is to the disadvantage of the low-paid. In fact, it is quite the reverse. A combination of Government initiatives has led to modest gains for the poor, and I hope that in the next 12 months we shall see further and greater improvements.
  Mr. Ivor Clemitson: While my hon. Friend is on the point on raising the wages of the lower-paid, and the other side of the coin—assisting low-paid families—would he say a word about the attitude of the Opposition to the Employment Protection Bill when it was going through the House? I remember sitting on the Committee on that Bill when the Opposition put down amendments which tried to weaken its effect, even though the Bill, which is now an Act, was designed in many respects to help the lower-paid to raise their wages.
  Mr. George: I agree entirely. I do not blame the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. If all the Conservatives had his approach to social policy, the plight of the poor would not have been as bad as it was under the previous administration.
  In commenting further on the Child Poverty Action Group's publication, the
  1898
  last thing 1 want to suggest is that the group is uncritical of the Government. It is right that the Government should be subject to critical scrutiny from outside organisations. The report points out that with the fall in the tax threshold there are still anomalies of families paying tax even though they are eligible for FIS.
  Families are paying tax even though their income is below the rate at which they would claim if they were not working or were drawing supplementary benefit. The tax threshold for a one-child family is £26·63, whereas the FIS level is £39 and the supplementary benefit level £32·25. For a two-child family, the tax threshold is £31·45, the FIS level £43·30, and the supplementary benefit level £35·85. For the three-child family, the tax threshold is £36·17, the FIS level £48, and the supplementary benefit level £39·45.
  A further absurdity is that, although there has been a small increase in the tax threshold for families with children, the Chancellor has also increased the eligibility levels for FIS. One consequence has been the increase in the bands of income over which families are caught in the poverty trap. This needs looking at very carefully. I am deeply concerned about it. The Government have estimated that there will be an increase of 25,000 who will be caught, on top of the existing 50,000.
  Anxiety has been expressed also by Mrs. Margaret Bramall, of the National Council for One-Parent Families. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on the document she has put out and the Press release in various newspapers today. She says:
  "Discrimination against the poorest has to stop."
  She goes on to say that a further 20,000 poor families will not get the full increases in FIS, and about 6,000 will get an extra £1·50 regardless of how many children they have. Therefore, tens of thousands of lone-parent families will be worse off from 20th July 1976. She says that the great majority of the lone parents will get less than their full entitlement, and that the poorest of those with the most children will be hardest hit. She adds that FIS is of vital importance to working lone families. It has become a one-parent family benefit because the Government

  1899
  have failed to provide one-parent family allowances. In conclusion, she says
  "Yet another poverty trap has been laid by the Government … Any lone parent who pays tax and claims Family Income Supplement ought to give up their Child Interim Benefit from 20 July, 1976, and inform the tax office at once."
  One-parent families deserve a full explanation about what is happening. FIS was conceived as a small measure and it has been limited in its impact. In 1975 expenditure on it was only £11·4 million. It has never reached the large core of poor families, who have been oblivious of the existence of FIS. As a means-tested benefit it has deterred those who are too proud to claim. The complexity of filling in the forms has been a not insignificant deterrent to claiming and FIS, child benefit and family allowances together can create a degree of bemusement to people who are potential recipients.
  FIS has not helped the majority of the poor. It has done little to encourage employers to raise wages. Therefore, I do not regard FIS with the same euphoria as might other hon. Members. I desperately hope that the child benefit, which is to be announced, will be generous when introduced in 1977, and I hope that it will be regularly reviewed. If it is not, I hope that it will be sufficiently high to offset the effect of long delays between upratings.
  FIS is, at worst, a device to supplement poverty wages—that is, for those who work to earn their poverty. In 1972 the report "Two-Parent Families in Receipt of FIS" came out. This revealed for the first time the occupation breakdown of workers receiving FIS. It showed that a high proportion of such workers were employed in agriculture and related industries and a high proportion in distributive trades. It also showed that the low-paid came from the industries where the workers were badly unionised. We must not look simply to FIS to combat family poverty. We must aim to get higher wages in many industries.
  A good report was recently produced by the Low-Pay Unit on wages councils. It showed that the wages councils, of which there are 46, determine very low wages, and that a high proportion of establishments under the aegis of wages councils do not even pay this pittance. It
  1900
  shows that the wages councils inspectorate is much too small, and that the numbers in it have declined. In 1975 there were only 128 wages council inspectors to inspect more than 500,000 establishments. In addition, 90 per cent. of all establishments were not investigated by the councils, inspectorate in 1975. That represents 419,000 firms. Millions of pounds were under-paid to workers covered by the councils in 1975. Of the small number of firms investigated, 11,000 were proven to have underpaid. The wages councils inspectorate recovered over £600,000 from those companies. Of the establishments visited, 22.1 per cent. failed to display the prescribed notices informing staff of their minimum rates. None of those companies was prosecuted. If I did not display the requisite documents on my car, I would be prosecuted—and deserve to be. But these companies are not paying their workers the basic minimum wage, nor are they informing them about it.
  The Government must do a great deal further to strengthen the wages councils. They must increase the size of the inspectorate, and introduce more sanctions against companies which fail to keep within the law. There must be more prosecutions, and more publicity to inform workers in the low-paid industries about their rights.
  If family incomes supplement is renewed next year, I hope that it will be again a large increase, but I also hope that the Government are working on a scheme to phase it out. It has some advantages but, like pre-fabs, built after the war, it was intended to be a temporary measure. Prefabricated buildings lasted year after year, long after they should have been demolished. The Government should devise a strategy so that poverty can be eradicated and family income supplement eliminated when the resources are available.
  1.1 a.m.
  Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) shares one thing in common with the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in accusing the Government of a lack of strategy towards FIS.
  The Government have made clear their dislike of means-tested benefits generally. We have made solid progress in reducing dependence on means-tested benefits by

  1901
  introducing the non-contributory invalidity scheme and the mobility allowance. Our object is, to reduce payments of such means-tested benefits as soon as resources permit. That applies to FIS, which we do not regard as a permanent benefit. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe also regarded FIS as temporary—in that both sides are united.
  On the grounds of cost and the heavy tax burden involved, it must be recognised that the paying of social benefits on a non-selective basis is impracticable for the foreseeable future. For some time we shall need to rely on means-tested benefits, including FIS, to help low-income families. So long as FIS has a role to play in helping working families in need we are determined that the supplements will be effective.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: That is all very well as a general statement of policy but the Government have so far not removed any means-tested benefits and they are proposing to introduce a new one—support for school transport. The regulation increases the dependence on this benefit for the foreseeable future. Will the Minister tell us of a new attitude which relates to the practicalities of what the Government are doing?
  Mr. Deakins: I mentioned two important examples of non-means-tested benefits which were introduced by this Government but not even considered by the previous Conservative Government.
  I shall now deal with the poverty trap issue since it worries me as a Minister who is new to the Department. There have been misunderstandings about the action taken to eliminate the poverty trap. Many people, including pressure groups, say that following a rise in pay there is an automatic immediate reduction in means-tested benefits because of tax and higher national insurance contributions. That is not the case for tax paying families. Every £1 of increased earnings will be subject to an immediate reduction of 40·75p in income tax and national insurance contributions. But FIS will remain unaltered until the 12-month anniversary of the last award, because it is fixed for 12 months. That is, a change in family circumstances or income does not affect the amount of FIS in payment
  1902
  over a 12-month period. As it is up-rated every 12 months, it will have been increased some time during the currency of the pay award—sometimes before, sometimes after. The value of increased earnings is taken into account only at the end of the 12 months, and is then compared with a new and higher income level. For this reason the number of people affected by this poverty trap is very small.
  As for the family income supplement in relation to the tax threshold, it is true that ever since the introduction of FIS in August 1971, or the date on which it effectively began, prescribed amounts for FIS have, with two small exceptions, been above the tax thresholds, under both the previous Conservative Government and the two Labour Governments. The two exceptions were in August 1971 and April 1972. The prescribed amount for a four-child family was then marginally below the tax threshold for such a family, but, apart from the prescribed limit, it has always been for one-, two-, three- and four-child families and others above the tax threshold. Therefore, it is not a new problem, as the hon. Gentleman tried to imply, but a problem that has existed ever since FIS started.
  The question of tax thresholds can be tackled in two ways. Obviously, there is a case for raising them specifically to alleviate problems of family poverty, but, to put the problem the other way round, surely it is not wrong to pay a benefit to people who are above the tax threshold. I do not think that any of the poverty pressure groups are claiming this, nor—to be fair—is the hon. Gentleman.
  Those who take the benefit for granted and criticise the tax are being rather unfair. Surely the tax burden at any particular level is given and accepted, and the benefit given, which is tax-free, helps to mitigate it.
  I know that the matter of one-parent families is a source of concern not only to the hon. Gentleman but to my hon Friends. The hon. Gentleman made the point that one-parent families were increasingly dependent on FIS, and said that nearly 51 per cent. of one-parent families last year—the last time we did a calculation—were beneficiaries of FIS. That is not quite correct. Fifty per cent. of FIS beneficiaries are one-parent families, but of one-parent families only

  1903
  a relatively small proportion are in full-time work. Most of them cannot do the requisite 30 hours a week.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a very important point about the interaction between the child interim benefit—CRIB—and FIS. Although CRIB can cause loss of benefit in particular weeks, the effect of not taking it into account until July is that over the year from April this year to April next year as a whole—the tax year—taxpaying families receiving both FIS and CHIB will not generally lose by comparison with those who do not claim or are not entitled to this benefit.
  Because of the interaction between taxable and non-taxable and means-tested and non-means-tested benefits, it is not possible to assess the effect of claiming child interim benefit in every case. But only in unusual circumstances over the year April 1976 to April 1977 could a person or family be worse off as a result of claiming the benefit. To be put in this position, a lone parent would not only have to be paying tax and receiving a combination of means-tested benefits but her circumstances—it is usually a woman—would have to remain unchanged throughout the year. That is, she would have to remain in work, pay tax and continue to qualify for housing rebates as well as FIS.
  Moreover, the overall effect of up-ratings of FIS and other means-tested benefits is to give every family a worthwhile improvement in its resources over the year.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Taking up the point the Minister made, he says that everybody will be better off over the whole year because from now until July 1976 the child interim benefit will not be affected through FIS, but will some who are receiving it and paying tax not be well advised to claim child interim benefit now and to cease claiming it in June? If so, will he take steps to publicise that, so that people can get the maximum benefit from child interim benefit, which the Government are constantly saying is a worthwhile thing?
  Mr. Deakins: There would not be time, with only two months before it comes into effect, but we have given notice that CHIB would be taken into
  1904
  account in the operation of FIS in July. It will be up to the individual family. It is a complicated problem and many families will need advice but there is no advice which can be given generally by the Government or any organisation. However, I strongly recommend a pamphlet written by Mr. Lewis of the National Council for One-Parent Families, which sets out as clearly as I have seen in a document, official or unofficial, considerations which one-parent families should bear in mind in considering their attitude to FIS and CHIB and the uprating this year.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I endorse what the Minister says about the clarity of Mr. Lewis's pamphlet. Is he saying, as a Government Minister standing at the Dispatch Box that Mr. Lewis's figures and conclusions are wholly accurate?
  Mr. Deakins: I cannot say that they are wholly accurate for every individual family, but the bulk of general recipients and individual families to whom the pamphlet is directed can rely on the excellent advice in it, but obviously there may be individual cases which one cannot cater for in the three or four pages of detailed explanation which Mr. Lewis gave.
  I shall quote CHIB because it is vital to introduce CHIB quickly to help the poorer families. We recognise that we are dealing with a scheme with rough edges and that some families, particularly families in work on means-tested benefits, might not gain overall. The important point is that it is expected that some 200,000 will gain financially through claiming CHIB, and the total income of CHIB recipients will in all cases be larger than before its introduction because of the increased child tax allowances, the FIS uprating and the likely changes in the needs allowances for housing benefits this autumn.
  Hon. Members, the National Council for One-Parent Families and the Child Poverty Action Group have raised the important point about maximum grant payable in FIS. It has been a feature of FIS since its introduction, and the nature of the scheme makes it necessary. FIS is a benefit in support of poor working families with a minimum of inquiry and a quite simple means test. It is

  1905
  run on a postal basis from a central office in Blackpool, and, once awarded, runs for 12 months regardless of change in circumstances in that period. There is no intention to gauge the supplement, but the process needs a broad-brush approach with low administration costs. It inevitably has rough edges. If, because of the large payments, we were unable to allow the benefit to run on unchanged by changed circumstances, one great attraction of the scheme would be lost. Since the Government took office the maximum payments grant has kept pace with inflation. With uprating, this relationship should be maintained.
  I now come to the point about the earnings of low-income families over the past year. I could give the House a lot of detailed information, but it would be wrong at this late hour to go into too much detail. With regard to the benefits to varying categories of one-child families who are not receiving CHIB but have received the full £6 increase in the current year, in 1976 a family which is now earning £20 a week—a very low wage indeed—having received the full £6 increase, will now have a total income, because of the FIS maximum, of £28·50, and will have had an increase over the comparable figure last year of 35·7 per cent. The one-child family not receiving CHIB, on £25·30 a week currently, having received a £6 increase also in the past year, will now get an increase of £7, making £32 a week, which is a 26·5 increase on last year.
  I quote those examples and percentages to show that in general the lower income families, if they have had £6 a week, have benefited more than the higher income families.
  It is very difficult to make accurate estimates of the take-up of FIS, but, if we start with the first year, it is estimated that the take-up in 1972 was about 50 per cent. In 1973, it increased to about two-thirds. In 1974 it is estimated to be about three-quarters. That is still not good enough, but it shows that over the period since FIS was introduced there has been an improvement in take-up.
  Currently about 59,000 to 60,000 families are getting FIS, and, with the uprating in the regulations, about 85,000 will be expected to take up the benefit.
  With regard to publicity, a national Press and television advertising cam-
  1906
  paign will be carried out when the prescribed amounts go up in July. The total expenditure on the campaign is estimated at £175,000. Information about the scheme will also be given to potential beneficiaries who claim other social security benefits during the year. Leaflets and posters will be distributed to post offices, local authority offices, citizens' advice bureaux and so on.
  In addition, where claims were received after October 1975 which failed because the family's income was above the 1975 prescribed amount, those claimants who were rejected will be identified and invited to re-apply for FIS for July if their income at the date of the previous claim was below the prescribed new income levels.
  Lastly, the document from the National Council for One-Parent Families, circulated to a number of Members in preparation for the debate, was not sent to my Department, as far as I am aware, or to me as a Minister or Member of Parliament. But, thanks to the good offices of my hon. Friend, I was given a copy of it today. It would be inappropriate and unfair of me to comment on what is obviously a well-thought-outdocument, or to attempt to go into it in great detail at this late stage on the basis of only a few hours' acquaintance with it. The council deserves more than an off-the-cuff and perhaps rather offhand and even slightly inaccurate reply. We shall be considering very carefully the proposition put forward in the document.
  My hon. Friend's last point brought an echo of acclamation almost on this side of the House, and I hope it will be supported by the Opposition. It was that the main problem in dealing with family poverty, where people are in work, is that of low wages. It is not basically a problem of tax thresholds or means-tested benefits. If wages could be higher for the lower-paid quintale of the population, we would do more to alleviate family poverty than by any other step that the Government or our society could take.
  My hon. Friend said that we should strengthen wages councils. That is not my direct responsibility, but I shall see that his remarks are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the

  1907
  Secretary of State for Employment. Suffice it to say that I shall do my best when considering future strategy—and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe was right to say that we need a strategy—to lay down a strategy that will seek to alleviate family poverty.
  Such a strategy must not only take account of benefits—means-tested and non-means-tested—and of tax and tax thresholds; it must also take account of low, sometimes poverty, wages paid not merely to one-parent families but to low wage-earners generally, many of whom are in two-parent families with a large number of children. If we adopt that tripartite or three-pronged approach to alleviate family poverty, we shall get somewhere. If we can carry the Opposition with us, we shall have done a good deal.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.

  COMPANIES No. 2 BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committeed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  COMPANIES (No. 2) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to companies and, in connection therewith, to amend the law relating to the registration of business names, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of that Art.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

  WAYS AND MEANS

    COMPANIES (No. 2)
    Resolved,
    That any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to companies may—

    (1) require the payment of fees to the registrar of companies in respect of matters specified by regulations made under that Act;

    (2) authorise the registrar of companies to charge fees for any services provided by him otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation imposed on him by law;

    (3) provide for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of fees payable to the registrar of companies in pursuance of that Act.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instrument, &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
    SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND)
    That the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (Private Jurisdiction, &c.) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]

    AGRICULTURE
    That the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 602), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
    Question agreed to.

  COUNCIL HOUSES, LUTON (SALE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  1.18 a.m.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I rise to support the campaign that will stop Luton's Tories selling off council houses and to seek to enlist the support of my hon. Friend the Minister in that campaign.
  Even before they have met, Luton's new Tory councillors have shown that they are a bunch of housing wreckers who intend to do to the homeless and those on the housing waiting list what

  1909
  hooligans in "bovver boots" do to people they manifestly dislike. In their public statements they have made it clear that they intend to bring to housing policies in Luton their own distinctive brand of illiterate Poujadism backed by a small-town, bloody-minded meanness of spirit.
  Their housing policies can be summed up in a trice: stop the building of new council houses wherever possible and sell off land, force rents to astronomical heights and run down the council's housing stock by the indiscriminate sale of council houses at a discount.
  Tonight I want to concentrate on the harm that will be done to Luton by the sale of council houses. In passing, however, I note that the hammer of council tenants, Mayor Lester—who, like his colleagues, treats them as second-class citizens—has already announced that Labour's proposal to build homes for 2,500 families at Bramingham Wood will be scrapped. He has said that, if the land is to be used for housing at all, the Tories intend to build privately for sale at £25,000 to commuters from Luton. Unfortunately, their message to the people of Luton on the waiting list is "Damn you, Jack—we're all right".
  The arguments against the sale of council houses are as follows. It reduces the pool of accommodation to rent at a time when housing to rent constitutes the town's greatest need. It damages mobility and threatens the industrial expansion of towns such as Luton because of a shortage of rented accommodation. While it helps a few of the poor, it damages the interests of the majority of the poor. It may increase public expenditure because the cost of council houses gradually decreases, whereas tax relief on mortgages rises rapidly because of the frequency of reselling.
  Older people who buy council houses will find themselves in difficulty when they reach pensionable age. The random freeholds resulting from the sale of council houses creates immense problems in redeveloping estates. It makes no sense for councils to sell existing houses for £10,000 and to have to replace them for £15,000. The policy of selling newer houses can create council ghettos.
  All these facts are too well known to need repetition. Between them, they form
  1910
  an overwhelming case against the sale of council houses, particularly in Luton, where there are 4,000 families on the housing waiting list, which is increasing at the rate of 10 families a week.
  Everyone in the House knows that the more houses that are sold, the fewer the relets that are available for people on the waiting list. In towns like Luton, relets form the major part of housing provision for people on the waiting list because of the shortage of building land and the small new building programme. Substantial sales of council houses could create a major crisis which could have serious social consequences for Luton which no one, not even the Tories in the town, would want.
  An analysis of the figures is frightening. In the past five years the council has provided 4,074 homes through a combination of new building and relets. About 63 per cent. of this provision is through relets. If there are extensive sales of council houses in Luton, this supply of relets will dry up and other Tory policies will lead to the drying up of the supply of new homes.
  The House should have the full figures. In Luton in 1971–72 there were 320 completions and 622 relets. The respective figures for subsequent years were as follows: 1972–73, 178 and 456; 1973–74, 280 and 471; 1974–75, 284 and 494: and 197–6, 418 and 551. In those five years there have been 1,480 completions and 2,594 relets.
  One is bound to conclude that Messrs. Lester, Dunington and Hickinbottom are saying to the people on the waiting list who come to my surgery and literally cry because they cannot get a council house "Carry on crying". I cannot help these people because there is not the supply of council houses available.
  It is no wonder that the Government issued Circular 70/74, which advised local authorities:
  "it is generally … wrong for local authorities to sell council houses. The first duty of a local authority is to ensure an adequate supply of rented dwellings."
  Instead of accepting this sensible advice, Luton's Tories, inspired by malice, political bigotry and a Lady Young—I am not sure which of those is the worst—have decided to embark on a collision course with the Government and the decent people of Luton.

  1911
  I should like to ask the Minister 10 questions. First, what is current Government policy on this issue? Secondly, can he confirm that powers exist—and state what they are—to require authorisation from his Department for the sale of council houses and that this authorisation can be withheld? Is it correct that he can withdraw the general consent which has operated for many years? Is he prepared to impose formal restrictions in areas of great housing need such as Luton where Tory councils act irresponsibly?
  Will my hon. Friend take steps to stop the sale of all council houses, whether in areas of housing need or otherwise, al prices below market prices? Is he aware that many discounts on the sale of council houses more than reflect the restriction on the value of houses arising from the local authorities' right of preemption and from restrictions on the re-sale price? Will he issue guidance on discount selling to prevent Tory councils cheating ratepayers and indulging in political bribery?
  Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is open to any ratepayer to seek to surcharge local councillors where houses are sold below their market value? When does he intend to make a full statement and issue a comprehensive circular on this matter? Will he condemn Luton's Tories in their irresponsible actions?
  Like the rest of my colleagues in the Labour Party, I believe in home ownership. When I was a civil servant in the Ministry of Housing working under my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the then Labour Government built more private houses and council houses than have been built at any time in our history before or since. That is the way we should proceed. There should be democratic local control of council estates. Council tenants should join councillors on tenants' committees to deal with maintenance and planning matters such as bus stops, telephone kiosks and community facilities. That is the way forward, not by the irresponsible sale of council houses.
  1.31 a.m.
  Mr. Ivor Clemitson: Like many other people in Luton I have a painful adjustment to make, but the painfulness of my adjustment is as
  1912
  nothing compared with that of many other people, because I have a decent home in which to live. Since I became a Member of Parliament and until a fortnight ago I was used to a Labour-controlled borough council which built hundreds of council houses, planned future development, bought dwellings on the open market and did not sell council houses. When a constituent came to my surgery wanting a council I knew that there was some glimmer of hope, but what hope will there be now?
  What hope will anyone be able to offer in the next few years if the Conservatives who now control the council put through their declared housing policy—or perhaps it is more accurate to describe it as a non-policy? The building of council houses must slump, particularly if the Bramingham Wood development is axed. At the same time, council houses will be sold. That must mean fewer council houses to go round. At the same time. the population of the town is growing, the waiting list is growing and more houses become uninhabitable.
  What advice and what hope shall I be able to offer to young couples with kiddies living in rooms or in one of the old houses in the town, of which there are many in my constituency, where the damp rises just as surely as the spirits sink? Do I say "Go and buy a house. Do not tell me that you cannot afford it."? It would be fine for them to be able to buy their own house, and we should give them every encouragement to do so, but the plain, hard fact is that many people are not in a position to buy their own house. Must my hon. Friend and I say to them "I am sorry, you will have to wait longer, so long perhaps that your children will spend all their childhood in conditions which no decent town and no decent country should tolerate."?
  The Government's position is that there is no question of an absolute bar on the sale of council houses. It is not written on tablets of stone that council houses shall never be sold. The Government's policy is that council houses should be sold only when the waiting time has been reduced to a month or two.
  That is certainly not the position in Luton. We have the worst housing problem in Bedfordshire, as the recent county

  1913
  structure plan consultative document showed. The council under Labour worked hard and valiantly to get to grips with this problem, but the council would be the first to say that the end of the tunnel is a very long way off.
  For the new masters of the council to propose the sale of council houses is gravely mistaken. I appeal to the Minister to use whatever powers he has to dissuade them from this policy, which can only exacerbate a heart-rending problem. I hope that the message comes out loud and clear from the debate that the Government do not approve of the council's policy and that that message will dispel any mistaken ideas of Conservative leaders on Luton Council. General consent must not be taken as general approval.
  As I understand it, the Government have said that they want a selective approach to this problem, taking into account the differences in each local situation. If this is so, the simple question is: what is the Government's attitude to the situation in Luton, where by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that the sale of council houses can be justified under the Government's criteria?
  1.36 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) has been fortunate to secure a second debate within four months on the housing situation in Luton, which underlines his concern and, indeed, the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson). I understand that his involvement in housing, one way or another, goes back over many years, and he has made a forceful speech tonight.
  On the previous occasion, on 27th January, the particular aspects which both hon. Members raised were the Luton Borough Council's need for more housing land, its freedom to decide for itself the size of any increase in the rents of its houses, and the improvement and rehabilitation of the older and worse provided elements in the council's housing stock. My hon. Friend was particularly anxious about the outcome of the borough council's application to build about 300 houses on a site at Pastures
  1914
  Way. This proposal had been notified to the Department as a substantial departure from the development plan and was called in for decision by my right hon. Friend in view of objections raised by other parties.
  I promised my hon. Friend at the time that we recognised the urgency of the matter, and, as he knows, a decision was announced shortly afterwards that the borough council's proposal should be allowed. In coming to that decision, we were deeply conscious of the council's difficulty in finding enough suitable land to provide for local housing needs, a difficulty which was eloquently and powerfully expounded by my hon. Friend in the debate.
  Tonight my hon. Friends have raised a different and specific issue affecting Luton, namely, their concern at the implications for families and other people in need of housing in Luton if the Conservative group, now that the Conservatives are in a majority on the borough council, carry out its electoral promise to allow tenants of council houses to buy their homes. My hon. Friend has expressed his concern about the effect of sale of council houses in Luton in strong and emotive terms. It is an emotive subject, because people in desperate need of accommodation have every right to strong feelings.
  I regret very much the sloganising on the issue by Tory spokesmen, including those at Luton. The Government's policy, however, is not based on emotion or on slogans. The Government's approach is, rather based on a rational and considered approach to the very difficult issues that selling council houses raise. Perhaps I ought to add that this issue has been blown up by the Opposition out of all proportion. Whatever is done about council house sales, the effect on those in real need will be very marginal indeed.
  I shall come to those issues in a moment. But first there is a general point that ought to be made. During the recent local government election campaign, the Tories made it clear that if they were returned to office they would institute a policy of selling. However mistaken some of us may believe the local electorates to have been, the fact remains that they have, in several places, elected

  1915
  councils that are committed to reintroduce selling. I think that a Government who have shown their faith in local democracy would have to consider very carefully before thwarting the expressed wish of a local government electorate. That does not mean, however, that the Government do not have powers to regulate the sale of council houses and that we shall ignore our consequent responsibilities, which we, in turn, have been elected to carry out. The review of this matter, which is being carried out in parallel with the housing finance review, will certainly be addressed to this issue, among others.
  The Government made clear their policy on sale of council houses in the Supply debate on Tuesday. It is the first duty of local housing authorities to ensure an adequate supply of rented accommodation. This, in our view, rules out the indiscriminate sale of rented houses regardless of local need. Whether or not the selling of council houses is right is a matter that must be determined, locality by locality, in the light of local housing needs and conditions as a whole and, in particular, in the light of the local unmet need for rented accommodation. Where there is an unmet need, we are clear that local authorities should give priority to meeting this need rather than selling existing rented stock.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the granting of the so-called "discounts" on the sale of council houses. I know that many of my hon. Friends are dubious about this practice of granting these discounts. It has been suggested that they are, in fact, a subsidy to the particular people who purchase their house. The practice of granting such discounts was on that the Labour Government instituted in 1967. It helps to put tenants who purchase council houses on a par with sitting tenants in the private sector who have security of tenure.
  Where local authority houses have been sold and discounts allowed, the practice has been to impose restrictions on resale. Now, it is a general principle that disposal of publicly-owned property should be at market value; and it was on the basis that such conditions have been held to have the effect of reducing market value that we allowed the practice in 1967.
  1916
  It may be that in Luton the better course would be to build for sale rather than sell the existing stock. As hon. Members may know, the granting of discounts so as to reduce the market value at which dwellings are sold is possible not only on the sale of existing stock but also with houses built specifically for sale. My Department would be glad to offer Luton Borough Council advice in the procedures and benefits of building for sale.
  It is this kind of consideration that authorities ought to take into account in deciding their policy on sales and, indeed, on the terms on which they should sell, if they do. The Government will, therefore, be looking to Luton Borough Council to formulate its policy accordingly, as we would, indeed, all other authorities in the country.
  My hon. Friend has argued that with a waiting list of around 4,000 it would be not just folly, but unjust and wrong for the council to reduce the stock of housing that it has available for letting by selling off some of those houses to existing tenants.
  The background is that Luton has grown very fast. Its population has increased by about 26,000 in the last 15 years. It is still an area of considerable population and housing pressure. No doubt the housing list of 4,000 in Luton stems partly from this influx in population. It has to be set against between 500 and 600 houses becoming available each year for reletting. To bridge the gap, the previous council—and I congratulate it on this—embarked on a big increase in the building programme, which was scheduled to result in some 800 new dwellings being started this year and more than 600 next year. The previous council had set its face against selling off any of its houses and I believe that in the past seven years only 104 houses have been sold. Luton's total stock is 11,500 council houses. This is an indication of the conditions in the light of which the new council will have to make its decision on sales.
  My hon. Friend asked a number of questions. They were good questions. Some of them I have already dealt with in detail. For the rest, there are general powers in the scabbard, but whether rattling them is the right approach to the situation we are discussing remains to be seen.

  1917
  We can be sure that the council will take note of what my hon. Friend has so eloquently said in the House. But, in any case, on assuming the mantle of office, the new majority group in Luton will have the benefit of the wider information and outlook which full access to official resources inevitably gives a majority group. We hope that the new Luton Borough Council will make the fullest use of the resources and will take a decision
  1918
  that is pragmatic rather than doctrinaire. The needs of the people of Luton should be their first priority.
  I shall give detailed consideration to the points made by my hon. Friends and will be in touch with them if I think that any further advice will be helpful.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Two o'clock

HOME DEPARTMENT
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Remand Centre (North Weald)
  Remand Centre (North Weald)
  Methanol
  Methanol
  Identification (Criminal Cases)
  Identification (Criminal Cases)
  Police (Firearms)
  Police (Firearms)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Urban Deprivation
  Urban Deprivation
  Film Censorship
  Film Censorship
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Brazilian President (Visit to United Kingdom)
  Brazilian President (Visit to United Kingdom)
  Fires (Deaths)
  Fires (Deaths)
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Lotteries
  Lotteries
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Crime (London)
  Crime (London)
  Radio Repeater Station, Crystal Palace
  Radio Repeater Station, Crystal Palace
  Immigration Statistics and Policy
  Immigration Statistics and Policy
  STATISTICS OF ADMISSON AND EMBARKATIONS
  STATISTICS OF ADMISSON AND EMBARKATIONS
  Nationality Law (Review)
  Nationality Law (Review)
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Foreign Diplomat (Allegation)
  Foreign Diplomat (Allegation)
  Indecent Displays
  Indecent Displays
  Law Courts (Buildings)
  Law Courts (Buildings)
  Ugandan Resettlement Board
  Ugandan Resettlement Board
  Lisa Hayder
  Lisa Hayder
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Asians (Vouchers)
  Asians (Vouchers)
  Passports
  Passports
  Electoral Deposit
  Electoral Deposit
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  CBI AND TUC
  CBI AND TUC
  JERUSALEM
  JERUSALEM
  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL ENTERTAINMENT)
  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL ENTERTAINMENT)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL CONDUCT)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL CONDUCT)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  SINGAPORE
  SINGAPORE
  DISABLED AND ELDERLY PERSONS
  DISABLED AND ELDERLY PERSONS
  TAXATION, WAGES AND SCHOOL MEAL PRICES
  TAXATION, WAGES AND SCHOOL MEAL PRICES
  ONE-PARENT FAMILIES
  ONE-PARENT FAMILIES
  MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  GOVAN
  GOVAN
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HEADS OF GOVERNMENT
  OPEC STATES
  OPEC STATES
  NATIONAL CONSUMER COUNCIL
  NATIONAL CONSUMER COUNCIL
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)
  NATIONALITY LAW
  NATIONALITY LAW
  RHODESIA (BRITISH PASSPORT HOLDERS)
  RHODESIA (BRITISH PASSPORT HOLDERS)
  CABINET OFFICE
  CABINET OFFICE
  RETIREMENT AGE
  RETIREMENT AGE
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Animals (Smuggling)
  Animals (Smuggling)
  European Community (Council of Agriculture Ministers Meeting)
  European Community (Council of Agriculture Ministers Meeting)
  Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)
  Iceland (Fisheries Dispute)
  Poultry Meat Inspection
  Poultry Meat Inspection
  Asbestos (Beer Filtering)
  Asbestos (Beer Filtering)
  Foxes
  Foxes
  Birds (Carriage by Rail)
  Birds (Carriage by Rail)
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Frozen Cod
  Frozen Cod
  Cereals (Stocks)
  Cereals (Stocks)
  Coast Protection (Oil Spills)
  Coast Protection (Oil Spills)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Tickets (Sport and Recreation)
  Tickets (Sport and Recreation)
  Glue
  Glue
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Prestcold Ltd.
  Prestcold Ltd.
  Chain Stores (Sales Checks)
  Chain Stores (Sales Checks)
  Wages and Profits
  Wages and Profits
  SMALL CLAIMS COURTS
  SMALL CLAIMS COURTS
  CIVIL LIABILITY (PEARSON COMMISSION)
  CIVIL LIABILITY (PEARSON COMMISSION)
  LAWYERS (PENSIONABLE POSTS)
  LAWYERS (PENSIONABLE POSTS)
  HAMPSTEAD ESTATE (DISPOSAL)
  HAMPSTEAD ESTATE (DISPOSAL)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Teachers (Cleveland)
  Teachers (Cleveland)
  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  Teacher-Pupil Ratios
  Capital Authorisation
  Capital Authorisation
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ministerial Offices (East Kilbride)
  Ministerial Offices (East Kilbride)
  Book Production
  Book Production
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
ENERGY
  Nuclear Fuel Rods
  Nuclear Fuel Rods
  Fuel Supply (Disconnections)
  Fuel Supply (Disconnections)
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Cost
  Cost
  Bills (Committee Stage)
  Bills (Committee Stage)
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Arbroath, Ninewells and Stracathro (Health Services)
  Arbroath, Ninewells and Stracathro (Health Services)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Carbophenothion
  Carbophenothion
  North-East Radial Route (Dundee)
  North-East Radial Route (Dundee)
  North Sea Hyperboric Centre
  North Sea Hyperboric Centre
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
TRADE
  Light Bulbs (Imports)
  Light Bulbs (Imports)
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Paper
  Paper
  South African Bureau of State Security
  South African Bureau of State Security
  Export Credits
  Export Credits
  Oil Tanker "Urquiola"
  Oil Tanker "Urquiola"
  Companis (Political Contributions)
  Companis (Political Contributions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Diplomatic Service (Staff Expenses)
  Diplomatic Service (Staff Expenses)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  British Petroleum Company
  British Petroleum Company
  Economic Development Councils
  Economic Development Councils
  Hereditary Benefits
  Hereditary Benefits
  War Service (Pensions)
  War Service (Pensions)
  Superannuation Funds
  Superannuation Funds
DEFENCE
  Land
  Land
  Survival Tests (Icelandic Waters)
  Survival Tests (Icelandic Waters)
  Overseas Service Men (Parents' Deaths)
  Overseas Service Men (Parents' Deaths)
  Royal Navy (Debate)
  Royal Navy (Debate)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
ENVIRONMENT
  Waterways
  Waterways
  Liverpool (House Building)
  Liverpool (House Building)
  Railways (Private Sidings)
  Railways (Private Sidings)
  M42
  M42
  Motor Cyclists (Accidents)
  Motor Cyclists (Accidents)
  Computers (Local Government)
  Computers (Local Government)
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Housing (Overcrowding)
  Housing (Overcrowding)
  A63 (Traffic Census)
  A63 (Traffic Census)
  Planning Applications (London)
  Planning Applications (London)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Construction Industry (Apprentices)
  Construction Industry (Apprentices)
  Rates (Yield)
  Rates (Yield)
  British Transport Police
  British Transport Police
  Crime (Transport Services)
  Crime (Transport Services)
  Hampton Hill
  Hampton Hill
WALES
  Bilingual Schools
  Bilingual Schools
  Llangwyfan Hospital
  Llangwyfan Hospital
  Abergele Hospital
  Abergele Hospital
  Community Health Service Council Representation (Clwyd)
  Community Health Service Council Representation (Clwyd)
EMPLOYMENT
  Pay Settlements
  Pay Settlements
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Apprentices (Scotland)
  Apprentices (Scotland)
  Paper and Board
  Paper and Board
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Women
  Women
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Alfred Herbert Ltd.
  Alfred Herbert Ltd.
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Holiday Pay
  Holiday Pay
  Vacancies (Hartlepool)
  Vacancies (Hartlepool)
  Wages Inspectorate
  Wages Inspectorate
  Employment Agencies Act 1973
  Employment Agencies Act 1973
  Construction Industry (Cleveland)
  Construction Industry (Cleveland)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Income and Wealth (Royal Commission)
  Income and Wealth (Royal Commission)
  Employment Protection Measures
  Employment Protection Measures
  Halifax Building Society (Chairman)
  Halifax Building Society (Chairman)
INDUSTRY
  Government Aid
  Government Aid
  Whale Products (Substitutes)
  Whale Products (Substitutes)
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Prestcold Ltd.
  Prestcold Ltd.
  Steel Prices
  Steel Prices
  British Leyland (Share Prices)
  British Leyland (Share Prices)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  European Community Grants
  European Community Grants
  Debt Collection
  Debt Collection
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Influenza
  Influenza
  Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee
  Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee
  Chiropody (Market Harborough)
  Chiropody (Market Harborough)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Children in Care (Knowsley)
  Children in Care (Knowsley)
  Canada
  Canada
  War Widows' Pensions
  War Widows' Pensions
  Children's and Old People's Homes (Cleveland)
  Children's and Old People's Homes (Cleveland)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Dental Decay
  Dental Decay
  National Health Contributions (Employers)
  National Health Contributions (Employers)
  Nurses (Cleveland)
  Nurses (Cleveland)
  Dentistry
  Dentistry
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Industrial Injuries Scheme
  Industrial Injuries Scheme
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  War Service (Benefits)
  War Service (Benefits)
  Disablement (Sunningdale Seminar)
  Disablement (Sunningdale Seminar)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Japan (Trade)
  Japan (Trade)
  Diplomats (Allowances)
  Diplomats (Allowances)
  Diplomats' Children (Education Allowance)
  Diplomats' Children (Education Allowance)
  Malawi (British Passport Holders)
  Malawi (British Passport Holders)
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Corunna
  Corunna
  Hong Kong (British Passport Holders)
  Hong Kong (British Passport Holders)
  British Passport Holders
  British Passport Holders
  British Youth Council
  British Youth Council
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Greece
  Greece

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

" A MAN CALLED INTREPID "
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 whether the book entitled A Man Called Intrepid (Macmillan, London, 1976) was submitted to them in advance of publication, and whether they consider that it contained official secrets which should not have been published.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the author of A Man Called Intrepid is a Canadian subject and the book was first published in the United States of America. It was not submitted in advance of publication in the United States. The answer to the second part of the Question is, No. The book appears to be based on the recollections of individuals and on material already published.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I am not aware whether he has read it, but it is a magnificent book and well worth reading. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the story of Noor lnayat Khan, about that very brave George Cross girl, is given in detail and that the author of the book called Madeleine—her field name—was never even asked whether she would allow most of her book to be published? I am wondering whether there is any way, except by asking this Question, of letting it be known that she was not asked, which I think was regrettable. May I also ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that all the girls who were so brave in SOE, and so many of whom gave their lives for freedom, were all trained in this country? This also ought to be on the record.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question. In passing, may I say that I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for referring to me as her noble friend. But we are not discussing the alternatives. We are discussing only this single book which was not published in this country.

POST OFFICE: MAIL COLLECTIONS
3.7 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 they accept that the public interest is served by the Post Office's organising weekend collections so that often there is no outgoing mail from 9.30 a.m. Saturday until early on Monday morning.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I believe that the public interest is best served by an economically viable postal service. This may sometimes entail changes which reduce the quality of service; in this case the change is subject to review after a year.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this change was made against the advice of the Post Office Users' National Council, that it was against the advice of the Union of Post Office Workers and that it was against the advice of British industry? Is this symptomatic of open government? Is the noble Lord confident that the Post Office have correctly assessed the financial consequences?—because recently they have not been very clever about getting their figures right. Have the Post Office worked out just how many people will not now be able to send letters and buy postage stamps because this valuable service has been withdrawn?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is that this has nothing to do with open government. As

1459
the noble Lord knows, this is a matter for decision by the Post Office management. The answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question is that any calculations are a matter for the Post Office.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, since the Post Office appears to have made a profit of £100 million, what is the use of making such a profit and then taking this measure? Does it mean that, if the Post Office make a profit of £200 million, we shall post a letter on Saturday morning and it will not arrive until the following Friday?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, my noble friend will know that the figure of, I think, £150 million is speculation in the Press. No figure has yet been announced by the Post Office. My noble friend may care to note that, whatever profit is made, the speculation is about the telecommunications business, not about the postal business with which this Question is concerned. Therefore it bears no relevance to this Question. In any event, whatever profit is earned will be earned on assets of approximately £5 billion and a turnover of £2.5 billion. Against this, a figure of £150 million does not seem to me to be at all unreasonable.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain whether official mail despatched from Select Committees of this House travels first class and, if so, why such a communication mailed from this House last Friday, the 14th, was not delivered in Edinburgh until Tuesday the 18th?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Earl will know, this is a matter for the Post Office. I know that the Post Office management are anxious to investigate any instances of delayed delivery and, if the noble Earl cares to let me have the envelope of the communication, I will ask the Post Office to look into the matter.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that many people have time to answer a great deal of their mail only at the weekend? I live in Chelsea and on the letter boxes there is a notice stating that there will be no collections on Sunday. If the Post Office
1460
have to save money, would it not be better to cancel the Saturday collection and have a Sunday collection instead so that the mail would be delivered on Monday morning?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Lord may know, the Post Office have said that, per unit of mail collected, the costs of collecting mail on Sunday are six times higher than the costs of collecting mail on Saturday. That is the Post Office figure, not mine. I merely give it to the noble Lord for his information. The noble Lord may also like to know that I understand from the Post Office that approximately 5 million letters are normally collected on Sundays as opposed to 185 million letters collected in an average week, Monday to Saturday.
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, when my noble friend asks for details of some fault to be submitted to him, is he not contradicting what he said earlier, incorrectly, that this has nothing to do with Her Majesty's Government? Does not the noble Lord know that all the affairs of nationalised industries—the Post Office, et cetera—can be debated in another place and, presumably, in your Lordships' House? Would he please reconsider this matter?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I do not think I ever said that your Lordships' House is not able to debate any matter that your Lordships see fit to debate. What I said was that matters which are the day-to-day responsibility of nationalised industries—in this case the management of the Post Office—are not matters for which Government Ministers are responsible or in which the Government see fit to interfere. I believe that if the nationalised industries are to be run sensibly by reasonable people they must be given a decent measure of commercial freedom by Governments of both Parties.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, while the day-to-day management of the business of the Post Office may be the responsibility of the Post Office, have the Government inquired for their own information whether the Post Office is satisfied that any savings made as a result of the withdrawal of these services will not be less than the loss of revenue to be expected?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I confess that there are times when it seems to me that noble Lords opposite apply two standards: one to private industry and the other to the nationalised industries. The Government are under constant attack from noble Lords opposite for placing too great a burden on private industry in terms of form filling and requests for information, and yet here we have a decision which is clearly within the management responsibility of the Post Office and the noble Lord is asking me whether I have asked for extra information which would increase their burdens. As has been made clear already in this exchange, before these changes were made the Post Office consulted the Post Office Users' National Council and other bodies which they are under a duty to consult. It is true that the Post Office Users' National Council did not recommend that this particular change should be made, but consultation does not mean dictation.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell this House how much money the Post Office thinks it is saving by not having a Sunday collection?
Lord MELCHETT: The saving is £8 million, my Lords.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while no one would deny that the management have the right to make the ultimate decision, where the unanimous view outside is against what is done they ought at any rate to try to meet what is suggested? For example, could they not have a collection box at each sorting office where people could take their own letters and avoid the six-fold cost of collection? "Do it yourself is the general mode nowadays and if we could do that we could save money and at the same time have the service.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware from my original Answer, this particular saving is to be reviewed after one year and no doubt the many representations which will be made to the Post Office Users' National Council—which is the right body to which representations should be made, and not myself—will be considered by the Post Office and by the Post Office
1462
Users' National Council after the one year period.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent these restricted week-end services will impose additional burdens on the telephone service?
Lord MELCHETT: No, my Lords; I am afraid I do not have that information.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, in consideration of this exercise and the costs involved, can the noble Lord give any indication of the importance given to the loss of national effort by the inconvenience of letters written on a Sunday not being collected? And does he remember—but he does not, of course—the objections to the abolition of a Sunday delivery, which many of us will remember, when those who cared to work hard could work on Sundays (after they had been to church), deal with their mail and have it delivered next day, and so the national effort as a whole gained a lot from that which it now loses?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if the noble Lord can produce any figures showing the effect on the national effort involved by this reduction of service—after the reduction of service has had some effect on the national effort—I am sure that I and the Post Office will be interested to see them.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the Government cannot entirely opt out from the efficiency of monopolies such as the Post Office, which is part of the essential infrastructure of a civilised and industrial society? Does it not seem high-handed, against all the advice, just to close down this service? As has been suggested, there are some compromises which could be made, such as the gathering and the taking of letters to the Crown post offices, which would save some money and would still provide a skeleton service for those who are deeply anxious to continue to use a week-end service.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am very interested in what the noble Lord has to say but these are matters for the Post Office and not for the Government. The Government do not opt out of responsibility for the nationalised industries, but

1463
as I have said already, we believe that if they are to be run efficiently the management of the Post Office and other nationalised industries must be given a chance to do just that. I know that the noble Lord enjoys taking every opportunity in this House of making Party political points against the nationalised industries, but I would remind him that in doing so he is attacking a large proportion of the workers, the top management and middle management of this country. If that is what he wants to do he is of course at liberty to do so, but I believe he does this country no good at all by doing so.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am prepared to take lessons in patriotism from the noble Lord when he is a little maturer.
The Lord BISHOP of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, will it encourage the noble Lord to know that he has at least one friend in this House who welcomes the change because he now no longer has a guilt complex for not writing letters on a Sunday? Will the noble Lord also be encouraged that many of my parishioners assert that the reason why they regret the passing of the Sunday post is that now their wives expect them to do a little more housework in the kitchen on Sundays?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, we have spent ten minutes on this Question. However interesting and however partisan the exchanges may have been, I would suggest that we move to the next Question.

OCAM: LINKS WITH UNITED KINGDOM
3.20 pm.
Lord MERRIVALE: 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—
(1) what links they propose to establish with OCAM (Organisation Commune Africaine & Mauricienne), bearing in mind this organisation's present concentration on economic, scientific,
1464
technical and cultural matters, the Convention of Lome, and the desire of non-francophone countries to play a greater part in OCAM; and
(2) whether they will make available information on existing economic and cultural co-operation between this country and OCAM Member States.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, we have no plans to establish links with OCAM itself in the foreseeable future, though we hope to develop stronger links with the Member States both directly and through multilateral organisations of which we are a member. The information required to answer the second part of the noble Lord's Question is lengthy and I shall, therefore, with the leave of the House, arrange for it to be included in the Official Report.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister, particularly for the second part of his Answer. Will he take it from me that I am particularly interested in information being made available, especially by the relevant Ministries and Departments, on the existing co-operation between this country and the OCAM French-speaking States in the economic and cultural fields? Furthermore, in view of the fact that most of these countries wish to diversify their relationships, should we not endeavour to play a more decisive and positive role towards such desirable increased co-operation?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I know of the interest in this matter of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and I can assure him we are doing everything we can, and which is appropriate to promote the objects he has in view.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister confirm whether the Seychelles are now applying to join OCAM, as indicated in some publications, and in view of this fact—we shall be supporting financially to some extent the Seychelles after they have gained their independence—whether for this reason more interest than previously could be shown in OCAM, as presumably now it will not only remain a francophone grouping.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no final information as to the intentions of the Seychelles Government after they achieve their independence. There is some suggestion they might apply for membership of the OCAM. I think their attachment would only marginally dilute the francophonic character of the Organisation. It might make up for the fact that the francophonic membership of the Organisation has fallen recently from 16 to 10.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, following on what my noble friend has just said with regard to the Seychelles, and in view of the fact that Mauritius has been a member of OCAM since 1973, and that the noble Lord the Minister did say it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to have closer links with this Organisation, would he not bear in mind

UK BILATERAL AID

Gross Disbursement

£000

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

Benin

Grants

13

—

—

—

—

Loans

—

—

—

—

—

TA

17

13

31

39

58

TOTAL

30

13

31

39

58

Ivory Coast

Grants

—

—

—

27

—

Loans

—

—

—

535

—

TA

37

41

39

62

89

TOTAL

37

41

39

624

89

Senegal

Grants

—

—

12

—

—

Loans

—

—

—

—

—

TA

58

44

60

78

136

TOTAL

58

44

72

78

136

Gabon

Grants

114

27

—

—

—

Loans

—

—

—

—

—

TA

11

6

—

—

—

TOTAL

125

39

—

—

—

Rwanda

Grants

—

—

—

—

13

Loans

—

—

—

—

—

TA

13

12

10

1

19

TOTAL

13

12

10

1

32

CAR

Grants

9

2

—

—

—

Loans

—

—

—

—

—

TA

16

11

—

—

—

TOTAL

25

13

—

—

—

Mauritius

Grants

598

95

Cr 2

Cr 13

Cr 4

Loans

894

716

1,285

1,809

1,784

TA

210

451

569

579

426

TOTAL

1,702

1,262

1,852

2,375

2,206

that, possibly in view of the Lomé Convention, one could endeavour to try to have at least closer links with the secretariat in Bangui in view of the many concrete projects for which this Organisation has been responsible? It is not just a talking shop; it has concrete projects to its advantage, and therefore, is recognised as being very useful by the Member countries who are part of the Organisation.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS,Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS, Yes, indeed, my Lords. The Lomeé Convention, among other things, brought both sets of the associable States on much the same terms with the EEC, of which we are a Member. That is the route for increased co-operation, bilaterally and multilaterally, that this country should explore.
Following is the information referred to:

Upper Volta

Grants

—

30

13

21

—

Loans

—

—

—

—

—

TA

2

8

7

6

27

TOTAL

2

38

20

27

27

Togo

Grants

—

29

23

12

—

Loans

—

—

—

—

—

TA

34

30

41

51

67

TOTAL

34

59

64

63

67

Niger

Grants

26

10

8

2

—

Loans

—

—

—

—

—

TA

20

39

18

14

6

TOTAL

46

49

26

16

6

TRADE FIGURES

UK IMPORTS FROM

UK EXPORTS TO

(£1,000)

OCAM COUNTRIES

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

Benin

892

483

54

458

183

1,555

1,737

2,031

3,605

7,144

Central African Republic

387

575

739

515

287

204

95

317

409

342

Gabon

1,569

2,506

11,108

28,397

3,759

1,050

1,808

2,833

3,565

2,828

Ivory Coast

9,091

8,946

15,228

19,928

18,836

3,524

4,106

3,937

6,529

12,288

Mauritius

17,347

27,015

28,294

47,012

103,080

8,349

8,118

10,538

19,648

23,984

Niger

38

108

123

1,381

1,485

430

1,381

577

3,380

2,667

Togo

426

170

174

542

366

3,476

2,582

3,009

3,831

10,432

Senegal

3,118

2,569

3,000

9,637

14,359

2,169

2,536

2,694

3,255

5,659

Upper Volta

24

24

19

356

718

90

110

167

414

299

Rwanda

625

514

522

640

2,516

362

348

284

534

559

CULTURAL CO-OPERATION
We have no cultural conventions with any of the OCAM countries.
The British Council have resident representatives in Senegal and Mauritius. Both arc primarily concerned with English Language teaching but the office in Mauritius also provides support to various cultural activities and organisations.
Assistance in English Language teaching is also given to several OCAM countries under the Ministry of Overseas Development's small bilateral aid programme.
The British Council are in touch with the Gabonese Government about technical and English Language courses for Gabonese students in the United Kingdom to be paid for by Gabon. The British Council expect a second Gabonese delegation at the end of May: discussions are at a very early stage, and it is unlikely that Gabonese students will begin courses before 1977.

POST OFFICE: USE OF SOVIET SHIP
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. May I just apologise, because I got the information from the Post Office after I put down the Question which, of course, was the object of the exercise.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when she is to receive the information promised from the Post Office on the use of a Soviet ship in carrying mail, and the details originally requested in her Question on 10th May 1976.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, this is a matter for the Post Office. who tell me that they wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, on 17th May.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, could I then ask whether the very long letter, which does not really answer all the questions I asked, could be published in Hansard, so that the rest of the world may know what really happened about that Soviet ship carrying British mail? Could I please have the whole of the letter published in Hansard?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, may I first say how delighted I am to learn from the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North

1469
Tyneside, that the letter arrived. Secondly, may I say that if the noble Baroness would care to put down a Question for Written Answer on this matter, I am sure the necessary arrangements can be made.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is there any reciprocity in this matter? Can my noble friend the Minister say whether British ships occasionally carry Soviet mail and, if not, why not?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think that is another question. If my noble friend Lord Shinwell would care to put down a Question, I will endeavour to find out the information.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, why does my noble friend say it is another question? It is related to the subject, is it not? Or is he simply running away from it?
Lord MELCHETT: No, my Lords, I am not running away from it. The Question on the Order Paper deals with the receipt by the noble Baroness opposite of a letter about Soviet ships carrying British mail. My noble friend wants to ask me a question about British ships carrying Soviet mail, and I think that is a different question.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that this reciprocity does exist? Further, is he aware that in the days when I used to work for my living, I frequently received letters from the Soviet Embassy, and they were carried by a British postman?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, very politely, whether he is aware that the Question so rightly asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was one of the questions asked by me in the original Question? I still have not received the answer, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has got the answer, and I would like the answer.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, may I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, very politely, that I have her original Question in front of me and it does not appear to me that that Question raised the issue which my noble friend has now raised.

NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE AND BIRMINGHAM MUNICIPAL BANK BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES BILL [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): 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. (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Establishment and general function of Development Board for Rural Wales]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from (" as ") to end of line 16 and insert (" having regard to their character and proximity to the said counties and districts, the Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, from time to time designate after consultation with the local authorities in the area for which the Board is at that time responsible and those in the area or areas which it is proposed to designate.")
The noble Lord said: We have tabled this Amendment in order to protect, and indeed advance, the interests of the local authorities in the area for which the Board is to be responsible. We are aware that the area for which the Board is responsible is not a fixed entity but one which may be expanded at will by the Secretary of State. Therefore, we feel that in the area as it stands initially, and as it is subsequently expanded or, indeed, reduced, the Secretary of State should have the benefit of the advice of the local authorities so greatly affected by his decisions on the extent of the area which is to be administered by the Board.
We have worded the Amendment in order to make it proper that the Secretary of State shall extend the area only to other areas of a similar character to that of the area for which the Board is originally

1471
responsible. We introduce the Statutory Instrument procedure with an eye to our third Amendment, which links the extension and reduction of the area, which are fundamental to the working of the Bill, to the Affirmative Resolution procedure in Parliament. I think, though brief, that is probably a sufficient introduction for the discussion of this Amendment. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Elton, back into the Celtic fringe which he has illuminated in our recent debates upon Welsh affairs. May I also inform the Committee that I have had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, saying that he is unavoidably absent through family illness, which I hope will go satisfactorily, and it may well be that we shall have the benefit of the assistance of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, as we did on the Second Reading debate. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has also written to me to express his regret that, through absence abroad, he cannot be present.
The main purport of the first Amendment is to require the Secretary of State to consult local authorities before designating additional areas. I can assure the Committee at once that that consultation will and would take place; there is every intention to consult local authorities before adding to the Board's area. But if the Amendment is accepted it could indeed have the effect of unnecessarily restricting the desirable consultations which ought to be undertaken before designating an extension of the area of the Board. It would not, for instance, be sufficient to consult only those local authorities within the Board's area or proposed area. It is interesting that the Consultation Document relating to the Government's present proposals elicited replies from no less than 29 local authorities, and altogether 58 bodies responded to that Document. It is a comforting thought that there is no lack of vigorous, involved and concerned democratic and indeed representative activity in Wales and indeed in England, which is a vital feature of our democratic way of life.
Local authority organisations would in any event have to be consulted. For
1472
example, the Government will be consulting the Welsh Counties Committee—that is the committee of county councils—and the Council for the Principality, which represents the borough and district councils, in making five of the appointments to the Board itself. The Welsh Development Agency would have to be consulted, because any extension of the Board's area would result in the probable transfer to the Board of advance factories which the Agency administers. I think the noble Lord will readily recognise that many other bodies would also be interested—agricultural bodies, the TUC, the CBI, the environment interests, the Land Authority for Wales and indeed other bodies. Similar consultation and advice would be sought and no doubt given in regard to any proposal to reduce the Board's area, consultation about which is the object of the second Amendment. I hope, therefore, that in the light of these assurances, which I give on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the Government, the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press this matter to a Division.
Lord CHAMPION: Could I learn from my noble friend whether it is the intention that the consultation in this regard will take place only with the bodies that are representative of local authorities and not with the county councils and the districts which would be immediately involved in such an extension of the area? This seems to me to be of some importance. I have received a communication about this from my local county council, who feel very deeply that they ought to be consulted if such an extension is to take place which would involve their area. I think we ought to go beyond consulting the national bodies, the bodies that are representative of local authorities as a whole, and come down to the root of the matter, the people who will be actually involved.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. As I said, the intention is that there will be consultation with the Welsh Counties Committee, on which the relevant county councils will be represented. I will draw attention to the concern of my noble friend that the county councils directly involved should be sure to have a place in the consultations.
Lord ELTON: In his reply to this Amendment, the noble and learned Lord assumed that the terms of the Amendment were exclusive, and that nobody might be consulted whom the Secretary of State was not enjoined to consult in the terms of the Bill as it would be amended by the Amendment. That was not the intention, nor indeed would it be the effect of the Amendment, and if it were so interpreted by the Secretary of State he would be at fault. However, it is nice to have on the record the specific undertakings of the noble and learned Lord, to the audible approval of those sitting close to him who shared his feeling that we had wanted to restrict rather than to expand.
I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and which I think he is to raise later on a specific Amendment. We are concerned that the local authorities themselves—and they are defined later in the Bill—should be consulted, rather than that this consultation should be supplanted by consultation with any body either actually or by purport representing these authorities. We are engaged in the exercise of rendering democracy more effective. The most democratic institutions concerned here are the local authorities. It would seem proper that they should be brought into the consultation by Statute. If we can count on their being brought in anyway, 1 think it might be a waste of Parliamentary time to insist at great length that this should go into the Bill, since we know that we can rely on the undertakings of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
However, there is implicit in this clause a power which rests in the Secretary of State alone, after taking advice. If the Board is to have little impact on Wales it may be that that is enough, but if in fact it is to have the dynamic and regenerative effect, which is hoped for it by all, and claimed for it by some, then it becomes an instrument of Government in which Parliament has an interest. If its effective area is to be increased, or indeed reduced, by the Secretary of State, having taken advice which he may or may not act upon, then at Report stage we may find it necessary to take the opportunity to make this a move which he can make only with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament. I will give the noble and learned Lord an
1474
opportunity for rejoinder by sitting down before I withdraw the Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not address myself to the third Amendment, to which the point just made by the Lord relates. It may be convenient for the purposes of discussion, as he has indicated, that we should consider that at this point in the debate. Amendment No. 3 is in two parts. The first requires:
" The power to make an order "
should include the
" power to vary or revoke any order …"
and should be exercisable by Statutory Instrument. That power is already provided for in Clause 27(1) of the Bill which provides:
The power to make regulations or orders … shall be exercisable by statutory instrument."
Clause 27(4) provides:
" Any power to make an order … includes a power … to vary or revoke the order."
The second part of the third Amendment requiring that the orders shall be by Affirmative Resolution procedure, in my submission takes the extent of Parliamentary control rather further than is strictly required. Negative Resolution procedure is, I would submit, sufficient and effective control exercisable by Parliament in this particular field.
The Committee will see in due course that in regard to Clause 10, which deals with the provision of increase of public funds for the Board, the necessity for Affirmative Resolution procedure is spelt out and is required. I submit that for the purposes we are now considering we shall certainly be following precedent if the matter is dealt with by way of Negative Statutory Instrument procedure, and the burden upon Parliamentary time, and indeed the burdens that would be imposed by way of time delays, et cetera, required by the Affirmative Resolution procedure would be unhelpful to the achievement of the work of the Board, which I note the noble Lord also hopes will be successful and effective.
I entirely agree with him, looking at the matter generally, that of course it is essential to carry the people around, the communities around, in this project; that is at the very heart of the plan. As I ventured to say on Second Reading, it would be an idle exercise merely to throw another planner into the works, and it is

1475
intended that this Board should be closely in touch with the people of Mid Wales whom it is intended to help. I hope accordingly that my assurances that the Parliamentary procedures by way of Statutory Instrument and the control that is given by the Negative Resolution procedure, coupled with the assurances I have given about consultation, will reassure the noble Lord and my noble friend that there is no intention to bulldoze these proposals through the community but that there will be full consultation with those who will be concerned both directly and indirectly.
Lord CHAMPION: My noble and learned friend did not reply to the invitation that was held out to him by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that he might consider the possibility of including this provision in the Bill. It is nice to have an undertaking given in the Committee, but I always like to see it in an Act of Parliament so that eventually I can refer to it as part of the Act. I just wondered whether my noble and learned friend might respond to the invitation of the noble Lord opposite to consider this matter again between now and Report, and perhaps, after further consideration, include some appropriate words in the Bill itself.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, I shall willingly comply with the first part of my noble friend's request that it should be considered. However, I am afraid that I cannot give him an undertaking that we will spell out into the Bill the bodies, one by one, that need to be consulted. There are several counties, county councils, for instance, affected in the area, and although of course there will be consultation I was hoping that my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite would be satisfied that my own assurances, speaking on behalf of the Government, were sufficient to make them content. I will certainly consult with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales between now and the Report stage, and we can look at this matter again at that point of time, but I fear without undertakings on my part.
Lord ELTON: I have listened with close attention to what the noble and learned Lord said. I am grateful to him for expanding, as perhaps I should have
1476
done, the debate to cover our third Amendment. I brought in the matter of the order procedure because it is in fact mentioned in the third line of our first Amendment. Since we are on that ground, I recognise that the provision for variation and revocation of orders would in some sense be superfluous since it is covered elsewhere; namely, in Clause 27. However, I should like to commend him to consider carefully the words of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, which must bear greater weight coming through his right ear, where he now sits, than if it comes from in front of him. Secondly, I would ask him to reflect between now and Report on his remarks about the amount of time that would be wasted, or the superfluity of the Affirmative Resolu-tion procedure in Parliament where the Secretary of State intends to vary the area covered by the Development Board.
It seems to me, first of all, that it is very unlikely indeed that there will be a series of small and piecemeal adjustments. I would imagine the intention of this power is to extend by a considerable area perhaps the area of a county, or to reduce it by a significant portion, and that this will not happen often. A Negative order is an order upon which one may have a debate; an Affirmative order is an order on which one must have a debate. In other words, the mesh of the net is a good deal smaller with an Affirmative order.
It is arguable that if it was such an important change to the conditions in which the local inhabitants live they would be unlikely not to notice a Negative order. But I should like time to consider this between now and Report and to see what in fact are the provisions for the publication of an intention of an order, and whether, as sometimes happens even with the present planning regulations, planning orders, although subject to publicity, do come by surprise on people who are closely affected by them from time to time. One would not wish this to happen. It is a matter of how government is administered. I should like, therefore, while withdrawing the Amendment at this stage, to claim your Lordship's indulgence if I feel that I should return to the matter at Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.48 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, after (" measures ") insert

1477
(" as agent of, or after consultation with, the Welsh Development Agency ").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 brings us on to the matter of the relationship between the Welsh Development Agency and the Board. It is, therefore, the intention of the Amendment to probe this, and to give the noble and learned Lord an opportunity to clarify one or two points which were raised at Second Reading on which we are still somewhat in the dark. The effect of the Amendment is to make an insertion on page 2, line 6, which makes the Board act, in some respects, either as the agent of, or after consultation with, the Development Agency. It therefore stands in one area as a subordinate of, and in the other as an equal of, the Welsh Development Agency, but at no stage can the policies of either fail to take note of those of the other.
This may seem elementary and I am sure that it will be advanced that, since both organisations are run by people of intelligence and good will, the consultations will take place. It is however the function of Parliament to provide a machinery which will be effective even if there is a lapse on the part of the intelligence, good will or concentration of the people running it. I suppose it would be possible to set up the whole organisation with scarcely one clause in the Bill and say that it would be run by people of good will and intelligence, and hard working at that, and that nothing further need be said. But I think that if it is not to be in the Statute Book, then it should be in Hansard, and we wait with interest to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say about this. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I wish to declare my interest as the chairman of the Development Commission which will in effect be handing over the powers in the Bill to the new Development Board for Rural Wales and, in accordance with the conventions of the Committee, I will not be talking about the work of my own body, the Development Commission. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed, for what the noble Lord is suggesting is that this body, the Development Board for Rural Wales, should in some way become the agent of the Welsh Development Agency.
1478
The noble Lord should reflect that the essence of the Bill is that it is broadening the activity of the Newtown new town Board; it is confusing when the description and the name are the same. Newtown is a new town, in terms of the new town Acts, in Wales and the essence of the Bill is that it is broadening the activity of the Board of Newtown to cover a much wider area and to take over the work that my organisation does in the area. It would be most inappropriate for the board of a new town to be in some way the agent of the Welsh Development Agency. No other new town board—and I use the words in the general sense—in the whole of this country is the agent of some other agency. Where will this stop? If the noble Lord says that there should be consultation with it, surely that is provided for in the terms of the Bill because there will be contact with the Welsh Development Agency all the way through and there will he an identity of membership. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on the essence of what this body is doing and will then realise that the Amendment is not appropriate.
Lord ELTON: Perhaps the Committee will permit me to answer the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, at this stage. I said at the outset that it was a probing Amendment, and probing Amendments are not pressed, so the noble Lord may rest assured on that. I would draw his attention to Clause 21(4) where the Agency is specifically appointed an agent for the Development Board for Wales, so this principle is already in the Bill. It is nothing new. It is simply that we wish to see that there are no interstices where it is not clear in what capacity or what relationship with the Board and the Agency the Development Board is acting.
Lord NORTHFIELD: In the provision Clause 21, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred, it is not a direction or limit on the work and role of the proposed new Board; it is just a provision that on an odd occasion this sort of relationship may be useful for ad hoc purposes. The noble Lord is trying to make it a general subordinate of the Welsh Development Agency, and that would be totally inappropriate.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I hesitate to intrude on what is developing into a most interesting but somewhat

1479
exclusive exchange. I see the point of the Amendment, if it is a probing one; probing Amendments are a Parliamentary technique that is valuable to ascertain precisely what is best to do in order to make more workable a Bill which has broad support. At the same time, my noble friend Lord Northfield has answered many of the points that I felt I needed to answer, particularly the last point he made most cogently; that is, that what is provided in the Bill in the form of agency status for the Board is ad hoc—it is a particular item of activity which is placed in that position and relationship—and that the central purpose of the Bill is to create a Board which will be charged with a quite special responsibility, that of promoting the wellbeing of rural Wales.
On Second Reading the proposals for a new Board were described by my noble and learned friend as a two-pronged attack on the development problems of Wales, the Welsh Development Agency being seen as a method of dealing primarily with industrial matters and with the larger problems of the urbanised areas of Wales, and the Development Board being seen as operating on a smaller and more intimate scale appropriate to the needs of the area it serves. Those of us who are familiar with the area as now designated well understand the need for what I would call a particularist body with certain powers to tackle particular problems in that particular area. Indeed, the Board will have powers that are not available to the Agency. I will not go through them but will give a few examples. It will have power to create schemes or to make provision for housing subsidy, as under Clause 16, to improve the infrastructure of the area, to undertake and complete the development of Newtown and of any other new town designated within its area—this links with the point made by Lord Northfield—and a number of other powers which the Agency does not have. It would he necessary to engage in quite a surgical operation to change the nature of the Agency in order to make it an appropriate parent body from which could be devolved agency activity by the Board.
The heart of the noble Lord's remarks was, I thought, a proper endeavour to find how consultation and co-ordination will proceed and I can assure him at once
1480
that it is accepted that the Board will concert its efforts most closely with those of the Agency. This is already recognised and embodied in the proposals in the Bill, particularly the proposal to appoint to the membership of the Agency the Chairman of the Board and this proposal, we think, goes perhaps a little further in some respects than the suggestions made in the form of the Amendment by the noble Lord. Indeed, we think it would be more effective, in that we shall have in the Agency the leader of the Rural Board, the Chairman of the Board, so that there will be that very strong and authoritative link between the two. Clause 2(6) requires the Board before it prepares or submits proposals to the Secretary of State to consult local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Board to have an interest and advice is to be issued by the Secretary of State to both the Agency and the Board to ensure that their activities are closely co-ordinated. I feel that that is an indication of the closeness and thoroughness of the consultation and of the coordination of activity that will be possible between the two bodies.
We have looked carefully at the state of opinion in Wales in regard to this proposal that the Board should in some way be subordinate to the Agency. We do not find that more than a minority opinion was ever expressed in favour of that particular relationship. Indeed, the vast majority of representative opinion and, certainly, local authority opinion was against it and, of those who express themselves as in favour of something on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, most did not persist at all strongly with their arguments. So, all in all, with the assurances that I have been able to give on behalf of the Secretary of State and the Government and the fact that there is in Wales no more than a small and rather indeterminate body of opinion in favour of this change, I hope that the noble Lord will rest content with the fact that he has extracted the assurances which he set out to obtain.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I shall of course read with close attention everything he has said. I feel that to give the exchange of opinions the right balance I should draw attention to the fact that the effect of the Amendment would not necessarily be to make the

1481
Board subordinate to the Agency, but to make it subordinate to the Agency when the Board did not consult the Agency on equal terms. It would not be the intention to put the Board into a subordinate position but merely to ensure that it should march in step with the Agency. The noble Lord has gone far to explain how this will be done. There may be some nuts and bolts about which I should like to ask him and I may perhaps do so in correspondence, because this is either a very simple or a very technical matter according to how one looks at it.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord. Of course his experience in the Foreign Office has given him the flair for reducing what might have been an aerated conversation to common sense and productive exchanges. I just wonder whether the intrusion of the Foreign Office on to the Front Bench at this time in such a senior and commanding role foreshadows anything about the role of Wales after devolution. I hope not. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.4 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No.5:
Page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. Amendment No. 5, in the names of my noble friend Lord Elton and myself, is merely a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 6 which, as the Committee will see, contains an entire new clause. It has been drafted—and we hope that it has been correctly drafted and is relevant—on the basis of a similar piece of legislation, the Highlands and Islands Development Act, which refers to another possibly to be devolved part of the United Kingdom, Scotland. The Committee will see that there are two major points in this Amendment. First, we want to make sure that the Secretary of State has to consult with the Board and then to take action. We believe that this process of consultation wherever the Secretary of State is concerned is essential and we are not entirely satisfied that there are, in the clause as it stands, adequate safeguards for this process of consultation. As the new clause seeks to suggest, we wish to ensure that
1482
the Secretary of State is merely to give directions of a more general character in regard to his functions and duties, leaving the details of the policy to the Board itself.
The clause also refers to the Consultative Council which we shall be mentioning later on in the course of the Committee's discussions. That again was lifted straight from the Highlands and Islands Development Board in Scotland. In our Consultative Council, we have included agricultural interests which we intend to be a little wider than mere farming interests. We hope that the Consultative Council and the process of consultation which we believe to be relevant also to rural Wales will include landowners, farm workers, forestry workers and other industrial workers who might be concerned. Most importantly, we wonder why Wales should not have the same type of Council and processes of consultation as have already been established in Scotland, where they have, I believe, been very effective. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Once again, I want to draw the attention of noble Lords opposite to the fact that the precise purpose of the Bill is to broaden the activities of a new town corporation into a surrounding rural area. What noble Lords are doing by this Amendment is to graft a new advisory body on to one of our new town organisations. With respect, I do not feel that that, on an individual Bill, is the sort of thing which should be clone by a back door. First, this is a matter of principle that we should approach widely if we intend to do it, rather than by doing it in the case of one particular new town. That would be the effect of the Amendment.
Secondly, I suggest that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear on Second Reading that this Development Board for rural Wales will,
" be appointed by, and accountable to, the Welsh Assembly."—[Officia/ Report, 6/5/76; col. 6541
Are we now going to have, from an Opposition which does not want any more proliferation of bodies, a Welsh Assembly watched over by a Consultative Council watching over a new town's activities in a broader area? I suggest that, if the noble Lord will look at the Amendment in terms of its practical effects, he will see that it is most inappropriate.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: We are, for convenience, now discussing three Amendments, Nos. 5, 6 and 41. They relate, in effect, to the present subsection (6)——
Lord LYELL: I alluded to what we intended in Amendment No. 41 because I believed that the Consultative Council was better defined in Amendment No. 41, but I did not move that Amendment and I hope that I made clear what was intended.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am entirely in accord with the noble Lord that we have, as part of our procedure, the happy possibility of discussing, without formally moving the Amendment or clause in question, those matters which can, for convenience, be discussed together. Then, when we come to taking the voices in due course, the Lord Chairman will see that we are kept properly in our places and do not decide matters in advance of their being arrived at in their proper and normal place.
Coming to the matters which we are discussing, the basis of the discussion is the present provision in Clause 1(6) that,
" The Secretary of State may, subject to paragraph 17 of that Schedule,"—
that is, Schedule 1—
"give the Board directions as to the discharge of its functions, and it shall be the duty of the Board to give effect to any such directions."
What is proposed is to limit the expression "directions" by giving power only to give directions of a general character; also, the consultation must be with the Board. The difficulty is that it would not be sufficient merely to have a power to give general directions. Clause 27(5) gives the Secretary of State power to give directions either general, or specific, or conditional, or subject to conditions, and does not restrict the power to giving general directions only. The difficulty is that, first, specific directions have to be given from time to time, and, secondly, general directions have sometimes been found to be specific in nature, and then the litigious minded can intervene and say that the direction would be ultra vires. Accordingly, I think it better for the efficient relationship between the Secretary of State and the Board, and for the running of the Board itself, that the language of subsection (6) should remain; namely, the power to give the Board directions.
1484
Consultation with the Board is suggested, indeed required, in the Amendment. The Committee will see that paragraph 17 of Schedule 1, which relates to this matter, provides that:
" Before giving any direction to the Board under section 1(6) … the Secretary of State shall consult the chairman of the Board (or, if the chairman is not available, the deputy chairman of the Board) unless he is satisfied that, on account of urgency,… consultation is impracticable."
That seems to us to be an effective way of dealing with matters, instead of having a requirement that the whole Board should necessarily be consulted. The chairman, or, alternatively, his deputy, is more likely to be available than would be all the members of the Board gathered together. There may well be occasions when there might not be sufficient time for consultation with the whole Board. If this structure is to operate effectively, it would be undesirable if the Secretary of State had to be restricted in his power to exercise powers of direction by a statutory requirement to consult the Board in all cases, and one can imagine the delays that could result from that requirement. The provisions of Clause 1(6) and paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 are precedented in Sections 4, 2 and 3 of the New Towns Act 1965.
I turn now to the suggestion that a consultative council be brought on to the scene. I agree with my noble friend Lord Northfield that this would be adding a body to a scene in which, in the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was complaining about the proliferation of authorities, although he put it in rather more elegant language. I fear that that would indeed be so; it would be mounting Pelion upon Ossa in a field where there are indeed a large number of authorities already in existence.
I have every sympathy with the idea behind the Amendment: that there should be the maximum local participation in the work and activities of the Board, but I doubt whether a consultative council, constituted as suggested in the Amendment, would be effective. I also doubt whether it would be acceptable to elected local authorities. Many bodies other than local authorities and those connected with agriculture would have an interest in the work of the Board and would seek representation on it.

1485
The Government's proposals for the constitution of the Board permit the appointment to it of members with wide experience of the locality, and of people of the kind to whom the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was referring. The Board is to consist of no fewer than 11 members. The Highlands and Islands Development Board is a smaller body, having only six members, while this Board will have no fewer than 11 and no more than 13. I consider that that number should suffice to allow the appointment of members who would reflect the interests of the area as a whole. As I have already indicated, provision has already been made for five members to be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with organisations representative of local authorities in Wales. That is provided for in paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 1. To put the matter at its lowest, it is highly likely that several of the members of the Board will have an interest in agriculture. In an area so dominated by agriculture it would be astonishing if that were not the case, and I am confident that, in making his appointments, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will seek to secure a wide representation of local interest on the Board and will give consideration to any nominations he receives.
Under the terms of Clause 2(6) of the Bill, it is already the case that the Board is required to consult widely on any proposals before submitting them to the Secretary of State for approval. So there will he a massive opportunity for consultation. We shall want to see some action. We do not want to clutter up the machine with a massive series of interviews, and consultations here and there, all required as a statutory provision, restricting both the power of the Board itself to get on with the job and the Secretary of State in playing his part.

As my noble friend Lord Northfield pointed out, and as I said on Second Reading, it is the intention that after devolution the Board will be fully accountable to the elected Welsh Assembly, and like my noble friend I should think that that would indeed diminish the need for a consultative council. However, in introducing this aspect I am looking into the long, uncertain, and perhaps far future, but what I mention is something which the Government certainly have in mind. In all those circumstances I hope that the noble
1486
Lord will feel that the matters which cause him concern are reasonably provided for in the provisions of the Bill as it stands.
Viscount SIMON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on one aspect of this matter. I was not greatly impressed by the argument of the noble and learned Lord, that there would not be time to consult the Board and that it would be sufficient to consult the chairman or, if he was not available, the vicechairman—or, presumably, if he was not available, nobody. I do not conceive that the Secretary of State will be rushing to give him directions right, left and centre, and I should have thought that there was no real difficulty about consulting the Board. Presumably, if he gives notice that he wishes to consult the Board a meeting of the Board can be convened, whatever its arrangements are, and the Board can be consulted. I should have thought that that aspect of the Amendment was one which we ought to consider afresh if we do not settle it today.
With regard to the rest of the Amendment, I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord and with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, though in his case perhaps for slightly different reasons. He has twice emphasised to the Committee that the main object of the Bill is to extend the new town procedure in rural Wales, but that is only one of the objects of the rural Board. There are those who think that perhaps the extension of the new town procedure is not the best way to proceed. But with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I think that it is quite unnecessary to introduce a new consultative body because, as the noble and learned Lord said, at a later date the Assembly will be in existence; and, even before that, here is a new body which will be widely representative, and there really seems to me no reason whatever to set up another body which they have to consult.
Lord PARRY: Despite the freedom and the courtesy of your Lordships' Committee, there are some straight lines which one has to tread, and, as a member of the Welsh Development Agency, I, too, would observe the Addison Rules. I wish to say, though, having been born in Wales and having lived all my life there, that the sense of urgency felt there is for action which will resolve the problems which the

1487
Bill is designed to meet. There is a great sense of urgency in Wales; and I welcome the intention of my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench, not because of service in foreign fields, such as London, but because of his experience, identity and empathy with the problems of rural and industrial Wales. It is in this sense that I should like to say that there is evidence already that the attentions of the Bill would remove some of those very bodies which are complained of when noble Lords make the point that they do not wish to create further bodies.
I have before me a list of 12 bodies currently functioning in Wales in areas in part covered by some of the provisions of the Bill, and some of these will be removed immediately if the Bill becomes an Act. I will not quote them all, but, for example, there is the Development Commission, which will be going because we are here setting up the Development Board for Rural Wales. The Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, the county councils body, is likely to go; the Mid Wales Development Corporation is to be dissolved; the Welsh Development Authority, in Wales, will take over some of the activities which are now devolving on the COSIRA body, which is being withdrawn into England; and there is, of course, a very important body, the Land Authority for Wales, which has been described to me (without, of course, wishing to refer to the noble Baroness who is its chairman) as the handmaiden to all these bodies.
We wish to see these bodies come under the control of the Welsh Assembly; and I believe that the best way in which we can help to stimulate the growth is to follow the guidance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to put into operation the two-pronged attack of which he and his noble friend on the Front Bench have spoken here this afternoon. To spearhead this attack we have to bring together the agencies which are at present working, so that we can resolve the problems which have rested with us in Wales all our lifetime.
Lord ELTON: Noble Lords opposite may have interpreted our intentions a little wrongly in their response to the Amendment that my noble friend has
1488
ably advanced. We are aware that Schedule 1, paragraph 17, lays down provisions, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, for consultation with the chairman; but, like the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches, we do not see why the Board itself should not be consulted if it is to be directed by a direction from the Secretary of State which it must by Statute follow. Moreover, since the Board is to be appointed by the Secretary of State himself, albeit following advice taken from other bodies, then it seems that there may be some good reason for having another body to be consulted on an occasion such as this.
Noble Lords speak as though this was some great innovation. We are in fact following the Highlands and Islands Development Act, Section 2(1), and the provisions made there. So the noble Lord does not have to look very far from his own Bench for the authorship of the organisation which he used as a precedent later on in the arguments which he himself advanced. I agree that we do not want a proliferation of authorities. Authorities have executive power: the Consultative Committee would not. It may be argued that we do not want a proliferation of bodies, either. What I do think should be quite clear at this stage of the afternoon is that, although we are aware of this sense of urgency which has just been referred to with eloquence and relevance by the noble Lord, Lord Parry, to act in haste in the half-day or the two half-days on which we are to consider this legislation is not to meet that urgency. We want to look at this in some detail.
Finally, I should like the noble and learned Lord to make some response to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, which has also been referred to earlier in this debate; and I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, if I may, that I am aware that he tried courteously to get in touch with me earlier on, but it has not been possible for me to establish contact (which in fact would have been helpful to both of us) owing to pressure of work both here and elsewhere. But he said, as I heard him, that it was the intention of the Bill to extend the activities of the Newtown Corporation into the surrounding country. That is not how we on this side see the intention of the Bill at all.

1489
Perhaps we could be put right about that as well.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: On the last point, I am bound to say that I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, as to the general objects and purposes of the Board, but it is certainly the case that a crucial part will be taking over the Newtown powers and organisation, though it is intended to have a wider range of activities in both the industrial and the social field of the kind that the Bill has indicated. I do not know that my noble friend Lord Northfield was seeking to limit its aims and objects in any way by the terms of his intervention.
I am sorry that I cannot, as at present advised, meet the suggestion so moderately made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I have little doubt that on matters of importance the Secretary of State would consult the Board as a whole, but a statutory duty that in respect of all directions there should be consultations with the Board as a whole could provide difficulty in the operation of the Board in its relationship with the Secretary of State, and vice versa. I am afraid, therefore, that as at this moment I cannot indicate that I would accept that suggestion. However, lam willing to talk with my noble friend the Secretary of State to see whether it could be indicated that, as a general intention, the purpose would be to consult with the Board; that, in conditions of difficulty or urgency, he should then be able to act as indicated in the Schedule. I am certainly willing to discuss that possibility with my noble friend the Secretary of State and to deal with it when we come to consider this again at the Report stage.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Since the noble Lord was questioning what I had said about the new town effect of my remarks, perhaps I should explain what I was trying to say; namely, that when one looks at this Bill one must have regard to the fact that a major effect of it is on the new town of Newtown—that is, that its area of activity is being broadened. Therefore, every Amendment has to be looked at, not only because of its effect on the rural areas but also because of its effect on the functioning of that new town. That is why I do not want to see, if I may say so,
1490
Amendments which affect the whole new town movement (I use those words with small letters; all the new towns) brought in as a side wind on some other Bill, because that would be the effect of some of the Amendments that the noble Lord has been moving.
4.30 p.m.
Lord OGMORE: I have listened to this discussion with some interest, having a long acquaintance with Wales, and, I must say, with a completely open mind —a vacant mind to some extent—on this subject. I must support the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. The problem in Wales for a long time has been not the possibility of a dearth of consultation but too much consultation. In fact, if we had someone to put on to the situation in Wales Mr. Churchill's label, "Action this day!"things would have been much better. Lloyd George once called us a nation of quarrelsome nightingales. At all events, I do not think there is likely to be any lack of consultation or discussion in any matter affecting Wales. Therefore, I feel that the less that we have in the way of new consultative bodies, the better.
We are, in this case, in the same position as we were some years ago in this House when the Local Government Bill came in. We had in the back of our minds the knowledge that in Wales and Scotland there would be Assemblies in the near or distant future and we were trying to fit in how these local government bodies would operate within the sphere of the Assemblies. We are the same today. We know the Assembly will be coming forward in a few years and we do not know quite how these various bodies mentioned in the Bill will fit in. We have heard that they will fit in somehow. I suggest that it would be better to leave the matter in as broad terms as possible, as the noble and learned Lord has suggested. Any attempt as in the Amendments to create another new body, the Development of Rural Wales Consultative Council, would be a great mistake.
Some years ago I remember speaking in this House and mentioning part of this area where there was a total population in a county of 18,000, with 22 local authorities. They could, if they had

1491
wanted, have had 30 local authorities. We must realise that it is not a problem in rural Wales of too few bodies; it is a problem of too many bodies. I welcome the day when the Assembly will be brought into being to bring all these bodies into one, as it were, and then cut away from a lot of the peripheral bodies at present constituted. I would ask the Committee to reject the Amendments and to support the Government in this particular issue.
Lord LLOYD: It is some time since I addressed your Lordships' House, but as a de-tribalised Welshman and as an ex-Under-Secretary of State for Welsh Affairs, I feel that it is possibly permissible to say just a word on this question. I must say, frankly, that I entirely support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Ogmore. The trouble in Wales in the past has been that we have had far too many committees, far too many bodies, far too many people consulting, and far too little done. I should like to see in rural Wales a great deal more done and a great deal fewer committees. That is all I need say on this Amendment; but if my noble friends were to press it then I am afraid that I should have to support the noble and learned Lord.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say how agreeable it is that two—I was going to use the unkind word "authentic" —Celtic voices have been raised in support of my resistance to these Amendments. I doubt not the good will that inspires them, but, as a Welshman, I am aware of our strengths in the matter of expressing opinion and of our weakness.
Lord LYELL: May I say, as an adopted Celt for the purposes of this Bill, that I have learned that the Welsh Members of this House are particularly learned and they always seem to be particularly eloquent. I sought in moving my Amendment merely to safeguard what we saw as the consultative functions of the Secretary of State before he directed the Board to take a particular action. Nevertheless, we do see that there is a need for action in this Board and the dangers of an additional tier or layer of consultation. Particularly in view of the eloquence that it has brought forth and the long time that this Amendment has taken this afternoon, I think it
1492
would be the Committee's wish that I should beg leave to withdraw this particular Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
" Directions and advice to the Board.

.—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Board, give to the Board directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance of their functions, and the Board shall give effect to any such directions.

(2) To advise the Board on the exercise and performance of their functions, there shall he constituted a Development of Rural Wales Consultative Council (in this Act referred to as "the Council").

(3) The provisions contained in Schedule (Provisions as to the development of Rural Wales Consultative Council) to this Act shall have effect in relation to the Council."

The noble Lord said: I had thought that I had moved this Amendment in conjunction with Amendment No. 5, which has just been withdrawn. I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee that I do not move Amendment No. 6.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Beihelvie): One can speak to more than one Amendment but one should, in fact, move the Amendments in rotation.
Clause 2 [Duties of the Board]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, leave out lines 20 to 22.
The noble Lord said: This also is a probing Amendment the intention of which is to elicit an explanation of the position of Her Majesty's Government and it is a paving Amendment for the later Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List to leave out Schedule 2. The two Amendments together, in effect, ask the Government to make clear what is the status of the personnel who are dealt with under Schedule 2; that is to say, members and staff of dissolved development corporations. I thought it best to tackle the subject in this way to enable

1493
the noble Lord to pick out any points of complexity in the Schedule which need elucidation.
As I read it, it amounts in fact to a guarantee of continuation of employment; and there are similar provisions for other personnel later in the Bill. I think that the noble Lord might find it opportune at this stage to explain how it is that if the function of the Board is not to be the function of the dissolved development corporation, it is not necessary to replace skills already in existence there with other skills relevant to other areas of authority. The answer may be that it is intended to recruit these skills elsewhere and to make them additional within the rather narrow terms of the extent to which the Government have said that the total staff may be expanded in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum and in the Consultative Document.
I think that it is fair to say that there are some in Wales who feel that this is an opportunity for a revision of structure, for the importation of new skills by advertisement and recruiting and also an opportunity to give to the Board, by means of recruiting these skills whether in addition to or in the place of those already there, a stature, an importance obviously equal to that of the Agency. I do not wish to be contentious about this. I repeat that it is a probing Amendment. I hope it will provide an opportunity for the noble Lord, whose skills as a Celt I did not wish to belittle when I emphasised those of his in the foreign affairs fields. He may welcome this opportunity.
4.40 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS:The purpose of this Amendment would be to delete the provision in Clause 2(4) which applies to Schedule 2, making provision with regard to members or staff of development corporations dissolved by order under the provisions of subsection 2(2). There is one such development corporation in the Board's area, the Mid Wales Development Corporation. While there may be varying views as to how large new towns' policy and activity may loom in the new Board's programme, nevertheless it will be part of it. How far it will extend is a matter for opinion at the moment and from experience of the workings of the Board and the needs of the area. However that may be,
1494
there is need to make provision for the transfer of staff from the old organisation to the new one. Schedule 2 makes provision which is generally applied in circumstances where one statutory body is subsumed by another. This is the position in the transition we are effecting in this area. The precedent for this which immediately comes to mind is that embodied in Schedule 2 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975.
As regards staff, an obligation is imposed on the Board by Schedule 2 to employ each person transferred to it on terms and conditions which, taken as a whole, are no less favourable than those on which they were employed by the development corporation at the time of transfer, until such time as new terms and conditions of employment are issued. Should staff suffer a loss or reduction in their emoluments, paragraph 3 gives the Secretary of State the power to pay compensation. As regards members of the Board of the Mid Wales Development Corporation who may now lose their position, the Secretary of State may pay—and this is a permissive power—compensation for loss of office to any member of that development corporation dissolved by an order under this Act.
I do not know whether the noble Lord wants me to go further in response to his probing. I recognise the need to make clear what we intend to do about the staff and possibly about the members of the old corporation. He may have in mind what happens to the services which the Cwmbran Development Corporation have been rendering to the Mid Wales Development Corporation. That has been assistance which has been rendered to the Mid Wales Corporation, and the staff of the Cwmbran Development Corporation at no time were part of the staff of the Mid Wales Corporation and therefore do not come into this transfer from one corporation to another. I mention that just in case the noble Lord had that in mind. His central point was: what do we intend to do about staff; what is the precedent? It is very respectable and indeed recent. This is the right way to get the continuity leading to the point where new terms and conditions are negotiated.
The noble Lord raised the point about recruitment of new personnel and, in

1495
particular, new skills. We recognise the validity of that point. It is less valid in an area like this where the difficulty may well be to retain existing skills rather than to make available opportunities for new personnel to exercise their skills. In many areas of local government, not least rural area, the difficulty is to recruit—certainly at some levels—the skills which are necessary. I think we would be very well advantaged if we were able to transfer to the Board most, if not all, of the skills and the personnel which have hitherto served the bodies which are now to be subsumed. I would lay the emphasis from my own experience and impressions on that side of the matter rather than to look unduly for opportunities to attract what is sometimes called "new blood". Certainly it would he new personnel which might not be available.
The noble Lord asked whether this was a guarantee of indefinite continuation of employment. Of course this is not so. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 contemplates loss of employment in consequence of the dissolution of the development corporation. This is a genuine point of compensation because of what happens as a result of statutory action; namely, the ending of one corporation and its subsumation in another. So there is no open-ended guarantee of continuation of employment. I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord has moved and spoken to this Amendment. I hope that have given him at least part of the information that he has been seeking.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged for that very helpful response. In short, there are many employees who will wish to know what is to happen to them. The noble Lord has made that clear. A lot of people are affected by the new body and they will wish to know how it is served, and whether it is to be the same people doing the same job with the same "in" and "out" trays in front of them. The noble Lord has answered that and reassured them as well. I am obliged for his response and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.48 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 33, leave out (" such ") and insert (" all ")
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 together, because they seem to be fairly simple and relevant. The technical term is that they hang together. The purpose of these three short Amendments is merely to tighten up Clause 2(6)(b) and its particular provisions on the processes of consultation about any proposals of the Board for, first of all, the economic, and then the social development of the area in Clause 2(1)(b):
" for the economic and social development of the area or any part of it;".
As Clause 2(b) is drafted, we believe, in spite of what we have been discussing earlier, that there is a danger that action might be a little precipitate. Before the Committee decides this particular point we feel that we should like to hear the noble and learned Lord's opinion on whether further consultation should be necessary when the Board is going to take action as part of its duties, which we regard as wholly admirable. We believe every local authority which may have its powers impinged should be consulted. For that reason, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of the Amendment is to require the Board, before preparing or submitting proposals to the Secretary of State for approval, to consult all other local authorities and all other bodies as appear to the Board to have an interest. This Amendment, I submit, does not really impart any greater precision in the Board's discretionary power to consult, but it could be interpreted as suggesting that, for example, all other local authorities should be consulted, however minimal their interest. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Lyell: does this mean, for instance, that every community council, district council or county council is to be consulted? I imagine the noble Lord would regard that prospect as really so burdensome and disruptive of the work of the Board as to be, putting it at its lowest, ill-advised. But if the intention is to consult with all and sundry, the clause in its amended form, if accepted, would be contradictory. On the one side, it appears

1497
to require consultation with all local authorities, yet leaves the Board with discretion to consult those who are likely to be affected by the Board's proposals.
In my submission, the intention of the Bill as it stands is quite clear; namely, that the Board will exercise its discretion in deciding what bodies it will consult. But, of course, it must consult with the planning authorities. That is the crucial requirement, and that is provided for in Clause 2(6)(a). Again, I think there is a great danger in so over-elaborating the machinery of consultation that nothing will work, nothing will move and Mid Wales will relapse into a prolonged slumber.
Lord LYELL: I am most grateful for the very lucid explanation the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just given to us. I would hasten to point out to the Committee that in no way do we seek to allow Mid Wales to relapse into slumber. We merely thought there might be some intermediate bodies, district councils perhaps, which might in some cases find their interests subordinated by actions which might be too precipitate. In some cases the Board might be tempted to cut corners, and it was this that we were slightly worried about. However, the noble and learned Lord has pointed out that our Amendment could be ill-advised, and of course we defer to him in his opinion on such matters and in the interpretation of the law. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.54 p.m.
Lord LYELL: Before we allow this clause to become part of the Bill, I should like to make one or two comments regarding the duties of the Board, as they are set out. We should be grateful for some comments on the relationship between the Board and the Welsh Develop
1498
ment Agency. These two bodies may well overlap in their work and activities for the benefit of Mid Wales, and we feel there may be need for a little clarification as to the powers and duties of the new Board, particularly in relation to the possible overlapping powers of the Welsh Development Agency in some aspects. We believe there is a need to be a little clearer as to where the duties of the two authorities will overlap and may possibly interlock. This is not a particularly serious matter, of course, since we agree that both bodies are seeking to work for the benefit of Mid Wales, and particularly of the rural districts. However, we should like to see where there is the possibility of the overlapping of duties and powers, as set out in Clause 2, and to know what are the margins and the borders of those various duties.
Lord GORONWY-RO BERTS: I would hope to emulate the noble Lord's brevity and conciseness in putting what could be rather a complex and comprehensive question and reply. I entirely agree with him that it is necessary progressively to make clearer all the time what the relations of the two bodies should be. These will become more clear as they co-operate together and co-ordinate certain activities. Without attempting a spot summary of the contents of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and of the Bill now before us, listing the points of difference and of activity, plus the points of consultation and co-ordination, I could not do that today. But I think the noble Lord has done a service in emphasising that clarity is needed in regard to the purpose, powers and activities of bodies of this kind.
One has to remember, of course, that when the Assembly comes into being—the Assembly to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has already begun to appoint people; and of course I took his remark in the spirit in which he made it—it will be running this particular Board and, therefore, ensuring that it coherently concentrates on the duties which the Bill imposes upon it: those are to attend particularly to the developmental needs of the rural areas of Wales, beginning with the designated area that we have in mind. Naturally, as the noble Lord has suggested, from time to time, there will be a certain overlap, but only where that is organically necessary. We would hope that the specific gravity of the activities of the Agency, on the one hand, and of the Board, on the other, would be understood by them in the terms of the two enactments, and indeed in the terms of the Directives which they receive from time to time from the appropriate Minister.

1499
I can only give the assurance that, where there is overlapping, we very much hope that it occurs as a result of the need for co-ordinated activity. We are trying to provide, by a certain common membership, particularly at the authoritative level —the chairman of one body being a member of the other body—that this overlap does not become confusing and untidy. But I take the point. It is necessary constantly to make clear what is the ambit of activity and purpose when we set up these bodies. I have every confidence that, if I may borrow a phrase which the noble Lord used, with the intelligent and practical people who will be attracted to service on this Board, such as those attracted to service on the Welsh Development Agency, there will be no real difficulty about ensuring that coordination and consultation do not degenerate into wasteful overlapping.
Viscount SIMON: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can explain a little further the words he used. We have already heard that the Assembly will in due course be appointing the Board, but the noble Lord has just said that the Assembly will be running the Board. Of course, we cannot understand this till we have the legislation setting up the Assembly, but that would seem to imply that the Assembly as such will be an executive body. Otherwise, I do not see how it will run the Board.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: A much more accurate way of putting it is that the Board would be answerable to the Assembly.
Lord PARRY: Perhaps I may be forgiven for raising this point. It seems to me, if I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, correctly, that he spoke of the urban Board for Wales and the rural Board for Wales, which might account for some of the misunderstanding that seems to be attaching to the Front Bench opposite. Did the noble Lord use the term "urban Board"?
Lord LYELL: Not consciously.
Lord PARRY: The point I am making is that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, also
1500
said earlier that it was possible the negative influences might be missed in Wales. The impression should be corrected that these Boards are in some way opposed to one another, in that one looks after the urban areas and the other the rural areas. In fact, they are both national Development Boards having similar interests, and where those interests overlap they will be co-ordinated. In fact, the word "concert" not only appears in the Bill but has appeared over and over again in the discussion. It is a fact that where there are areas of overlap they have already been noticed and inquired into, so there are people who are aware of possible difficulties arising and who have already engaged in these.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for his kind welcome to my simple query as to possible confusion over the duties of the Board. I understand that this is what the Board must or shall do as part of its remit, and that this does not necessarily cover the powers. I referred in the course of my remarks to the powers, which I see on closer scrutiny come under the next clause that we are to discuss, so I was possibly a little out of order. I hope I am in order in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Parry. I do not remember using the term "urban Board". I had understood that this Development Board for Rural Wales would have other interests and duties which might not lie exclusively in a rural field, and might lie in light industries or service industries. I am quite clear in my mind as to the duties of the Board.
There is one further point of confusion which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. When the Assembly is ultimately set up, as I believe it will be, in the next few years, we shall once again need to have a further session of winnowing out possible overlaps and confusions. But it seems to me that should there be any common membership of this Board and the Welsh Development Agency, and any further agencies or authorities that are set up to report to the Welsh Assembly, or if any members of the Welsh Development Agency or of the Board are also members of the Assembly, the word "confusion" will be pre-eminent in the discussions on the duties of the Board.

1501
Nevertheless, I am very grateful for the explanations which the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has given.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [General powers of the Board]:
5.5 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert (" other than for agricultural or horticultural purposes ").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading, it was clear that the Government had taken on board the lesson learned in 1965; that is, that any inclusion of agriculture within the purview and power to intervene of a statutory body in this area would be immensely unpopular. The Government and the noble and learned Lord were at pains to point out that there was no such intention; that the Government would not do this; that the Bill would not be used for this purpose. The effect of Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 —and 1 think it would be to the convenience of the Committee if I spoke also to Amendment No. 35—would be to put that statement into the Bill. They would not alter in any way any function which the Government say they wish this Board to perform.
We are aware that this is a rural and therefore an agricultural and, to a lesser extent, horticultural district; that it is the function of the Board to underpin the rural—that is to say, the agricultural and horticultural—activities of the society which lives therein, and to maintain its numbers in good health, economic, physical and moral. But it is not the function of the Board to participate in agricultural or horticultural activities, and we have been given an assurance that it will not do so. Therefore, I beg to move an Amendment which will put this point of view specifically into the Bill without altering anything else at all.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I hope that the noble Lord will allow me once again to chide him for putting forward Amendments which are really impractical. If he will pay regard to the duties of this Board, which may be to acquire land in order to develop houses attached to a new town, he will realise that it is often the case that
1502
land has to be bought in large quantities at a certain time. One has sometimes to buy up a whole farm in order that part of it shall be later developed for housing purposes. It would be totally impractical to insist that, having acquired that land, the Board was unable to manage it for agricultural purposes until such time as it wished to use part of it.
What does the noble Lord want? Does he want it to lie waste? Does he not want the land, if it has to be acquired in that way, to be used properly? I am sure that all that is needed in a case like this is a statement of intent that the Government do not intend a Board to enter into the business of agriculture and nobody would expect a Board to want to do so. Anybody building a new town knows that one has at times to acquire land in that way, and the best thing one can do until it is used or disposed of is to manage it as profitably as possible in the public interest. Therefore, I submit to the noble Lord that his Amendment, which may have good intentions, is impractical.
Viscount SIMON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the Amendment. But I see the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has explained and there must be some way of getting around these. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is trying to ensure is that the undertaking which was given, that this Bill was not intended for the purpose of going into agriculture or interfering with it, will be observed. As the noble Lord has said, I accept the point of view that there may at times be difficulty in acquiring land for housing or for a factory without temporarily acquiring some agricultural land which is aftenvards to be returned to agriculture. I do not believe that difficulty can be insurmountable if the Board is concerned with acquiring the land which it needs for this purpose. It may be that the wording of the Amendment will need to be modified but I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will be able to confirm that the intention is that the Board should not enter into the agricultural field. He will recollect, as we all do, the objections which were raised to an attempt to do this some years ago, an attempt which eventually foundered largely because of the tremendous objection from the agricultural

1503
interests in the area. I hope that some means can be found to write into the Bill in an acceptable form, with sufficient flexibility to meet the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, the assurance we were given on Second Reading that this was not the intention of the Bill.
Lord COLL1SON: Some time ago I found myself in very great trouble with noble Lords on the opposite side of the House because I said in connection with land acquisition for building purposes that one could not exclude agricultural land—even, at times, good agricultural land. That was considered heresy and almost treason. I am sure that noble Lords realise that, together with my agricultural colleagues, I want our land to be preserved for agricultural purposes and for amenity purposes, too. Therefore, when they hear what I have to say noble Lords must not think that again I am uttering heresy.
As it has been moved, the Amendment is quite impossible. It cannot be that an authority of this kind cannot ever, under any circumstances, acquire or operate upon agricultural land. This would be an absurdity. I listened with interest to what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said. It may be that we can find a better form of words and I leave that task to my noble colleagues on the Front Bench. However, as an agriculturalist, I want to make the point again that, much as we love the land and want to see it used for agriculture, we cannot take up the position that never, under any circumstances, can an authority acquire agricultural land for amenity purposes.
Lord ELTON: If I may intervene, there is no suggestion in the Amendment that agricultural land should not be purchased. The suggestion is that the land should not he purchased for agricultural purposes. That is different.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: May I check with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that he is taking together Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 35 and ask him, through the Chairman, what are his intentions regarding Amendment No. 16?
Lord ELTON: I think that Amendment No. 16 merits separate discussion.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Therefore we are addressing ourselves to Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 35. The first of these three Amendments, which have a common purpose, is general in intention and its purpose is to confine the Board's activities to non-agricultural purposes. This Amendment would preclude the Board from acquiring, holding, managing, developing or disposing of land or other property for agricultural or horticultural purposes. I am advised, however, that its effect would be wider than that intention. It would also hamper new town development by preventing the Board from managing, as agricultural units, land acquired for new town development which it is not yet ready to develop. This applies to a lesser extent to land that it will acquire for development outside new towns.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, sought assurances. The noble Viscount asked for alternative drafting. I do not think that better drafting than that which is contained in this provision is possible. Perhaps noble Lords will not press this when they have once more heard specifically the points of assurance which the Government have already made very explicit. However, I repeat these assurances. The assurance given in the Consultative Document,Rural Wales, which outlined the Government's proposals for the Board—that the Board will not engage in agriculture, forestry and fishing—can be repeated and is now repeated. It is not intended that the Board should acquire land for the purpose of managing it as a farm. The Board will need to acquire land, sometimes farmland—it will not be the first development corporation, this time in the form of a Board, to do this and to have to do it—for the development of any new town in its area, and elsewhere within its area for industrial and housing development in support of its general function; otherwise what is the object of the Bill? The Board, however, would be unduly hampered in its work if it were denied by status the power, having acquired land for its principal purposes, to manage it, if necessary, as agricultural land until such time as it was required for development purposes.
I think that so far I carry the noble Lord and the noble Viscount with me. The

1505
point of specific assurance that they seek—if the intention, having bought agricultural land, is not to farm it but to use it for developmental purposes—is what happens in the meantime, for the shorter or the longer period, between the purchase and the possibility of development? What does the Board do with the land? I join my noble friend in saying that the Board should be free to make the best and most obviously practical and feasible use of such land while it is in its possession awaiting development.
The purpose of this Board is not agriculture but development. Agricultural and horticultural activity come into this in a marginal but essential way and I will deal with that point in a moment. I hope that we shall take the same view about the powers of this Board in regard to agricultural land which it has acquired as we have so far about the powers, in this respect, of development corporations and that we shall not exempt it from taking a very reasonable and, indeed, necessary power to deal with agricultural land which comes within its possession in the way and for the purposes I have indicated. If the Board is inhibited from proceeding in this way, one can imagine results which I am sure no one here would wish to happen; that is, it could not even use land for horticultural purposes which are necessary in connection with the development of a new town or, indeed, of a housing estate.
If this is deleted from Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 35, then all that power is taken away and we return to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, as to whether there is an alternative drafting which will satisfy all of us. I do not think there is because the drafting grows from the experience of the past. I defer to my noble friend, who is an expert in these matters, but I think it ranges back to 1912 and it would be difficult to indicate an example of abuse in this matter. No development corporation can fairly be shown to have acquired agricultural land and then to have used it for any purpose except development purposes or the marginal but necessary horticultural or interim agricultural purposes. To redraft this power for the Bill is perhaps being rather specific and somewhat over-censorious as to the prospective activities of a Welsh Board. I think a Welsh Board may very
1506

well contain people and carry ideas in regard to the proper use of agricultural land and who should use it and perhaps —and certainly in Mid Wales—be more careful about the husbanding of agricultural land. My noble friend Lord Collison emphasised this point.
Of course there is a very strong feeling in the countryside and among the kind of people who will be serving on this Board that the acquisition of precious agricultural land must not lightly be undertaken. I will not take the Committee through all the checks and statutory provisions for public inquiries and the proper consultation of agricultural interests which are embodied in a whole series of Statutes. There is a very strong feeling in the countryside that agricultural land must be carefully husbanded and used for the best possible purposes. Indeed, I would say that the survival of this essential rural area—an area of agriculture and amenity, bounded by Cardigan Bay and Offa's Dyke and to the North by the old Caernarvon and Denbighshire boundaries and the northern boundaries of Glamorgan, and, I think, Carmarthen in the South—its development as an agricultural and amenity area, which is how we want it to be preserved and developed, depends on there being a certain amount of urban industrial development. This means that a certain small amount of agricultural land in the area shall be acquired by the Board in order to provide the services, the facilities, the buildings—and I am referring now to Amendment No. 13—that are necessary in order to serve the survival of the countryside. The countryside will not survive in vacuum; it must be serviced, especially today, and Mid Wales is a classic example of agriculture and amenity declining as the little urbanity available there has declined.
In a way I would say that we need to invest a little precious farmland in the survival of the countryside. It is inescapable that we should detach here and there a few acres and on occasion a little more than we want to, in order to create the basis for an attractive life for the young people of the area. I value very much the way in which these Amendments have been moved. I accept that Amendment No. 16 should be moved and discussed separately. I hope that what I have said on the other three Amendments

1507
will help to supplement what assurances the noble Lord will need on Amendment No. 16.
Lord ELTON: May we get one thing clear at the outset: On this side of the Committee it is our wish to establish, as I think I said earlier, a healthy community in this area and we are anxious that if the Bill comes into being it shall come into being effectively. One necessary prerequisite for this is that it should have the confidence of the agricultural community which in the end it is to serve. It is that community which requires the assurances for which I have been asking—not merely this Committee—and I would submit that it is no good going into a field full of rabbits, carrying a gun and telling them that you only intend to shoot pheasants. What we are intending to do is to stop up the barrel which might shoot the rabbits.
Having said that, I think possibly the noble Lord opposite underestimates the ingenuity of his drafting staff. If they look at (I would say) the fifth paragraph in Hansard of what he has just said, they will also find the paraphrase of a drafting which would satisfy us. Neither we nor the Government wish the Board to indulge in large agricultural undertakings. It is clear that it may he necessary to purchase relatively—and I stress, relatively—large tracts of agricultural land prior to using them for development for residential, industrial or amenity purposes. I see no reason why some such proviso should not be the basis of an approach to an acceptable Amendment. Of course, I should like to take advice and to reflect before committing myself to accepting it, but I think it is necessary to make it clear that there are not the means to indulge in commercial agricultural activities; where the parcel of land is required to be bought for development—and, of course, it is always questionable whether it is advisable to do this if there are other means—and there are no other means, then it should he clear that that is the only purpose for which it can be retained. Indeed one would reflect on whether the Board should in that case act as landlord rather than manager or farmer.
Lord NORTHFIELD: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, I can see the drift of his argument: He would like
1508
to suggest that an Amendment be found which would put a restriction on purposive acquisition of agricultural land; but he used the word "horticultural" as well. That, for example, is an Amendment which, in any event, would prevent the new town corporation, or the body which is to succeed it, having its own tree nursery to grow the shrubs, as every such body has, in order to carry out its landscaping programme. How will the noble Lord get round that, whatever Amendment he tries to draft?
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord has kindly anticipated what I was about to say. I see no difficulty at all in making a provision for that purpose, which is, in fact, an amenity purpose. I have already covered that. There is a distinction between growing trees to plant in parks and growing trees to sell. I am sorry; I do not wish to delay the Committee in a continuing debate on this subject. This is something which can be looked into when the House is not sitting and an Amendment can be drafted with this end in view. I do not think we can hammer it out syllable by syllable, subsection by subsection on the Floor of the House.
We have conducted this exchange to a celestial commentary which happily has left us dry, if somewhat diminished in stature. I hope that something of this grandeur will come through the columns of Hansard as the draftsmen read what the noble Lord has said, so they may produce an acceptable Amendment. But the principle is quite clear. We wish to reassure those concerned that they are not being faced with a juggernaut which will compete with them in their chosen field, or consume what is in effect their raw material, their capital investment, unless it is necessary so to do in order to make the whole of that rural area viable. We accept that there is need for some expansion. Possibly we concede that expansion in the industrial sphere as being on a slightly more modest scale than do noble Lords opposite, but that is a matter for policy; it is not a matter for legislation. It would be possible to put into the Bill an Amendment, on which I would he happy to give my views to the noble Lord afterwards, and which would enable Her Majesty's Government to present it to the people affected by it so that they can preserve their credibility without any

1509
difficulty at all. Having said that, and as no other noble Lords wish to intervene further, will the noble Lord bear in mind until Report stage what I have said? I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.32 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 7, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
(" (d) to provide finance—

(i) for the taking by any local authority or statutory undertakers of such measures as the Board considers will contribute to the economic or social development of that area; or

(ii) for such activities of other persons as the Board considers will contribute to the social development of that area; ").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, and with this I think we might take Amendment No. 36, if that is agreeable to your Lordships' Committee and to the noble Lord opposite.
Lord LYELL: Yes, of course.
Lord GORONWY - ROBERTS: Perhaps we might also take Amendment No. 42. It might be convenient if we address ourselves to the matters arising from those three Amendments which are proposed from this Bench and, of course, to move them in order as they are reached. The purpose of the Amendments is to extend the range of purposes for which finance may be provided by the Board from the category of services for land to the wider purposes included in the range of measures the Board considers will contribute to the economic or social development of the area.
As the clause is at present drafted the measures taken by local authorities and statutory undertakers may go beyond
" … the provision of services for any land or other property;".
How far these measures will go beyond what is contained in that phrase is a matter of opinion. I should not think that it will in any way loom large in the totality of the action taken by those two bodies or authorities. The present provision would enable the Board to provide financial assistance, for example to a local authority, in undertaking expenditure to provide access to an area
1510
for development, or to a statutory undertake in extending a sewage works to meet the needs of anticipated developments, but would not cover other responsibilities of those bodies which the Board might well wish to assist.
The amended provision would empower the Board to provide financial assistance for the acquisition by a local authority or statutory undertaker of any land for any purpose that, in the view of the Board, would contribute to the development of the area. The amended provision would enable the Board to assist a local authority to take advantage of an opportunity to purchase land required to open up an area for commercial or for residential development, where the local authority is not in a position to finance the purchase itself. In the case of small local authorities with small resources, we have often seen an inability to purchase at the right time land which everybody knows is likely to be necessary for needed development of the kind I have described. Mid Wales is eminently such an area. If its powers were not really enlarged, but defined in the way we suggest in these Amendments, the Board could step in and help in cases of that sort. It would also enable the Board to contribute sums towards the provision of local services along the lines of action taken by development corporations in new towns.
The consequential amendments of Clause 31 will be required to bring forward to that clause the definition of "local authority". At present, this is contained in Schedule 3, at page 55, lines 39 to 42. Powers such as it is now proposed to give to the Board are available to development corporations under Section 3(3)(a) of the New Towns Act 1965. Development corporations can contribute to any expenditure incurred by any local authority or statutory undertaker in the performance of their statutory functions, including the acquisition of land. This power has been used widely, but with discretion.
In exercising this power, the Board will complement and support the work of local authorities and statutory undertakers. There is no intention that it will in any way usurp their powers. The power would be used as a pump-primer, initiating developments which the authorities themselves are anxious to undertake, but which could be

1511
stultified because of the lack of resources. The intention of the Amendment is to empower the Board to assist the financing of key infrastructure and other projects on which the further development of a particular area may depend, and along lines of the powers already available to development corporations.
Generally, the Secretary of State—in this case, the Secretary of State for Wales—does not intervene, and does not wish to influence the decisions taken by individual local authorities or statutory undertakers. He would not seek power to assist local authorities and statutory undertakers in a particular area. The power now being sought would be a necessary ingredient of the general powers of the Board, which is to be established to deal with the particular problems of rural Wales.
Although that is the basis of the need for these Amendments, I do not see that they strengthen the powers of the Board as much as define them in such a way that the purpose of the Bill is clarified, and the functions of the Board are thereby clarified also. I hope that the noble Lord and the Committee generally will find it possible to support these Amendments.
Lord LYELL: I am sure the Committee will be very grateful for the very full way in which the noble Lord, Lord GoronwyRoberts, has set out this series of Amendments, and, of course, we agree with him that it is for the convenience of the Committee that we should take the three Amendments together. I note that the noble Lord did speak earlier of drafting precision. Looking first of all at Amendment No. 14, it seemed at first glance to be very vague; it seemed to many of us to lack the conciseness of the earlier clause. Various doubts arose in our minds as to why this Amendment was necessary. I must admit that the noble Lord's explanations have gone some way to clarifying those doubts in my mind, but I think the Committee will see that there are other points and other worries that we have.
The noble Lord referred to "anticipated developments", local authorities seeking to acquire land, quite legitimately and quite reasonably, for purposes which they could foresee in the future. As we understood it, this would also imply anticipated borrowing. The noble Lord
1512
referred to the opportunities to purchase land for development which I think he said may or might occur. This seemed to me just a little vague. The noble Lord's words were "as everybody knows". If there is a definite need and a definite desire for, I think he said, access to be acquired and land to be opened up, I would understand that the local authority, and indeed the Board, would have these powers and that finance would be available. We are seeking reassurances. What new powers is the local authority seeking through these clauses, if indeed any new powers are being sought? Is it not the case that the Board already has powers to acquire land and to utilise funds which it has borrowed, and indeed it can delegate to local authorities these powers to acquire land, to develop land, to hold land for any purposes which may be necessary. I wonder why the local authorities need this new power. I think the noble Lord will be able to set at rest our doubts on this.
With regard to Amendment No. 14, there are two other points I should like to ask the noble Lord about, and I am sure he can clear them up. First, does the term he has brought in, "statutory undertakers", mean the same as "any other body of a public nature" in the old subsection (3)? Some of us have doubts as to whether it is as precisely drafted as we would hope, but we have discussed drafting, and the noble Lord might be able to set our minds at rest on that. Secondly, there is reference in the Amendment to "other persons". Could he enlighten us as to the significance of those "other persons"; I think it is in paragraph (ii). I apologise that these points are a trifle detailed, but there are these three or four points which give us cause for concern.
Viscount SIMON: Before the noble Lord replies could I ask him one question. I think the Amendment is a very valuable one. But when we talk about providing finance, the Board's own finances are obtained, as I understand it, by loans from the Secretary of State. I take it that the finance that will be supplied to the local authorities or other people concerned will also be by way of loans, and that the local authority, or whoever it is, will have the responsibility of repaying the loan to the Secretary of State. Otherwise,

1513
it would seem that the Secretary of State would in effect be giving money to local authorities and so relieving ratepayers of what they would normally have to pay, for sewerage services or whatever it is.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I can at once assure the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that no new powers are conferred by Clause 3 on the local authorities or indeed the statutory undertakers. As to the other bodies of a public nature, again one is in a difficulty about attempting a list or a schedule. I am not sure whether I would be helpful if I were to attempt at this stage to address myself to that particular point. But I see the importance of it, and I rather think there will be a number of opportunities, in the course of the Committee stage and certainly on Report, to be more helpful than I think I can be at the moment. I think I have answered the question on powers as succinctly as possible. I have quite a paragraph here, but I repeat the exemplary brief sentence which has providentially reached me from higher sources, which is that no new power for a local authority is contained in Clause 3.
What is provided in the Amendment is that the Board should be enabled to provide finance to enable a local authority or a statutory undertaker to exercise its existing powers in relation to some programme or project which at that time, or possibly for some time, might prove impossible for the authority or the undertaking to tackle because of lack of resources. It is the power of the Board to assist local authorities or statutory undertakers to exercise their existing powers that we are speaking of. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for his contribution. I am sure we shall want to consider what he said very carefully between now and the closing stages of this Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.48 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment
No. 15:
Page 4, line 20, leave out paragraph (g).
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 15 it is necessary to refer to Amendment No. 16, but one cannot move them together because one is
1514
dependent upon the decision we make on the other. The paragraph which this Amendment aims to strike out of the Bill is that which gives the Board authority "to carry on any undertaking or business". As drafted, it seems that the Board can turn its hand to any occupation which it feels would amuse or enlighten it. I know this is not the purpose of the Bill, but it is necessary to draft legislation in a form in which it is safe to put it on the road, as it were. We on this side are extremely alarmed by the breadth of the powers which this subsection gives to the Board. It may be argued that there are areas within this vast area which are precluded to the Board by other parts of the Bill. I should like to know what they are. Even if they are very large, I do not think that we could accept this subsection in its present form. That, in sum, is our objection to it.
The noble Lord may suggest that we should substitute some other Amendment. He may say that amputation is brutal surgery, and that what we want is something more ameliorative. In that case I shall listen with interest to hear what that ameliorative process may be. But this subsection, as it now stands, seems to us to be similar to the powers which local authorities recently and unsuccessfully sought to gain. We do not believe that they are necessary to the Board, nor do we believe that the Board requires them, nor
do we think that the Board wishes to attract to it the suspicions of those who feel it may be tempted to use powers which it does not in fact intend to make use of. I beg to move.
5.51 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Once again I rise to suggest to the noble Lord that he is suggesting an Amendment which will have unfortunate consequences if it were carried. Let us take an example of the area in which the Board will operate. To my knowledge, one of the things that that area lacks is a bus service—or other areas may well lack a bus service. This is a problem that faces every new town particularly those which are primarily rural; that is, they are small enough for what one might call an urban-sized bus service to be impossible, and, therefore, for a bus service to be totally unprofitable in the accepted sense. The National Bus Company does not want to run it; local bus operators do not want to run it, and

1515
so a New Town Corporation, which is what this body will be in the area of Newtown, is forced back, willy-nilly, on the job of providing a small bus undertaking which will not only serve that small town but probably link it to rural areas.
In a debate not many weeks ago, noble Lords on both sides of the House were saying that we want imaginative new proposals to allow bus services to be run, or substitutes for bus services to be run, in the rural areas. This is one area that needs that kind of help. It may well be that there is no alternative than that the Board shall run exactly that kind of undertaking. It would be most unfortunate if the power to solve a desperate social problem in that area were taken out of the Bill. The noble Lord will get poor thanks in that part of Wales for that sort of excision from the Bill.
Let me take another example. It often happens that in undertaking developments of this kind car parks are needed. If the people on the outskirts can drive in and shop in the new town because of the car parking carefully provided that is something which makes a new town rather attractive. Very often it is not proper or sensible for this to be provided as some sort of subsidised service; it may need to be provided in some limited form as an undertaking, perhaps even by a small limited liability company under the control of the relevant Board. That again would be totally taken away from the powers of the Board if this Amendment were passed.
May I take another example. In cases like this it often happens that the only way—and I speak with some experience of this—in which certain developments in the town, and perhaps even in the wider rural area which the Bill covers, can be taken is in a joint enterprise with private enterprise. Sometimes in order to attract a first hotel to anew town the Corporation—and this body would be its successor and, therefore, the same conditions would apply —needs to say, "Well, the only way we are going to get a hotelier to come in here is to take a certain equity in with it, or we will never have an hotel".
A further example is that it sometimes happens that if, for example, the body wished to give advice—and this is part of the Bill, and it certainly would apply in
1516
any similar area —to local small industry and set up a service for that purpose, the very body which is mentioned in part of the Bill, COSIRA, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, is in fact a private limited liability company. It is a public service run in that form, and nobody takes any objection to it. But if this Amendment were passed, that too would be excluded from possibility. I say to the noble Lord that once again he has strayed from thinking what might be desirable into a path which leads him into something totally impracticable, and in fact deeply against the interests of an area which needs sometimes an injection of this kind of activity in order to get development going. I plead with him not to press this Amendment.
Lord de CLIFFORD: I was not going to address your Lordships' Committee on this matter, but having listened to the noble Lord who has just spoken I must agree with what he said about buses in these rural areas. I think he is completely right. But the Bill does not say that. The Bill allows him to set up a chemist's business, refineries, laundries—anything he wants to do. Nobody is objecting to the fact that somebody must put some things in. All my noble friend is asking is that the Government should consider how we can get a right balance in this matter.
Lord PARRY: The emphasis is helpful and welcome that we all share the common purpose that we wish to see these developments take place, and wish to see this area revivified. I think that there is undue suspicion of what is in fact a holding clause. It is a clause which is intended only to reserve powers in hand which are in fact already conferred upon the new towns, and are in use, as my noble friend Lord Northfield has so eloquently told us. It would be a nonsense to create for the Principality a Rural Development Board which had less strength in reserve than the New Town Corporations that exist at the present time. If there is confidence in this House in the ability of the people administering the New Town Corporations; if there is confidence in their ability to work within the framework, then there should be equal confidence that it is not the intention of this clause to do more than to give the Rural Development

1517
Board the right to do those things which are at present vested in the New Town Corporations.
5.58 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: The effect of this Amendment would surely be to deny to the Board the power to carry on any undertaking or business. The Board is not being given any power which has not already been available to bodies exercising similar powers elsewhere, as we have just heard. The Development Corporations are empowered under the New Towns Act 1965, Section 3(2)(d) to carry on a business or undertaking in or for the purposes of a new town. The Mid Wales Development Corporation, of which this Board would be a kind of successor state, has used these powers for the purpose of extending the availability of public transport in the area, so my noble friend's first example was particularly apposite. In fact, I do not know what the state of public transport in that area would be had it not been for the fact that the Mid Wales Development Corporation was able to exercise this power at least in this regard.
It is a matter of subjective and possibly ideological choice as to what kind of activity a public corporation should engage in; not that it should not be enabled to engage in such activity when private initiative falls short, no doubt for justifiable reasons, of supplying in an area what is, after all, a basic need. Not only is this power contained in the New Towns Act, under which development corporations operate, but also the Highlands and Islands Board is empowered,
… to carry on or set up a business which will contribute to the economic or social development of the Highlands and Islands".
That is in Section 6 of the Highlands and Islands (Scotland) Act 1965.
We must decide whether, in relation to this area in Mid Wales alone—not in the Highlands of Scotland and not in relation to new towns in England—this power can be accorded. I do not think the Committee will accept that position, particularly, I stress again, as the intention is that the Board will exercise the power only where it is unable to interest developers or businessmen in a proposition which the Board considers is in the
1518
interests of the area. Its role will be one of reluctant entrepreneur, forced to undertake a business because of lack of interest from the private sector and in small-scale projects suitable to the economy of a rural area.
The bus service is an excellent example. It is a small affair, but of immense importance to the local people who depend on it. If nobody comes along to provide it or if somebody who has provided it finds it impossible to continue—because the resources of even the most close-knit families, even in rural Wales, can be so disrupted, by death or illness, that a family service of that sort may suddenly and abruptly cease —then in such a situation, unless somebody comes along and says, "I will take this on as an enterprise", it is a matter of good sense and good policy that a Board able to step in to conduct such business in such circumstances is empowered to do so. Envisaging Mid Wales, one cannot imagine that the Board would reach out for a vast variety of direct action in the field of business. One can imagine that its discussions will necessarily, by the circumstances of the area, be about the necessary basic amenities as well as the statutory services, and good luck to it if it can find somebody, a private entrepreneur, to provide it, but if it cannot, to go ahead and itself try to provide it.
It is certainly not the intention that the Board will seek to take over from the Welsh Development Agency its function, the function of the Agency, of establishing industry, reorganising industries and generally acting as a pump-primer for industrial development in rural Wales, and this is one of the emerging points of clarity as between the operations of the Board and of the Agency. We constantly strike these facts of difference between their purpose and operations. I hope that we can carry the whole Committee with us in entrusting to a Board in Mid Wales the same powers as we have for so long entrusted to our friends in Scotland and to the new town corporations in England.
Lord ELTON: The noble Lord's last argument was probably his strongest, although it did not altogether persuade me. Nor do I think it will persuade the Mid Wales Area Committee of the CBI which has made representations of some alarm on exactly this subject, and they are not

1519
alone. It is quite clear that where people live in an area governed by a local authority, that local authority should have the power to provide the services which one expects a local authority to provide, such as a bus service—as we happen to have pitched on that example—and are able, I suppose, to fall back on the resources of the National Bus Company if this proves possible. I do not know. But it seems to me that when, for example, the Corporation of Birmingham wanted powers like these and were turned down because they were too sweeping, it seems rather odd that they should be permitted in this instance. We do not wish to inhibit the services which the community has a right to expect, but we wish to exclude from the Board the temptation and ability to indulge in competitive commercial operation when the competition exists; that, I should have thought, was common ground.
On Second Reading we went in great detail into the fact that the whole area is dependent for its survival on employers of very small numbers of people, very small businesses, enterprises which in this day when so many people, unlike myself, think that big is beautiful, many people may think are not viable. I think that they give to the area which we are trying to preserve precisely the character we are trying to preserve and I do not see that we further the purposes either of that population or of the Government, as expressed in the Bill, by giving them powers to carry on "any undertaking or business." It cannot be beyond the wit of mortal man and especially not beyond the wit of those whom I see ranged in such impressive order opposite me to devise a power which will not alarm those who believe that some competitive element should be preserved in the private sector without the threat of public money. I ask the noble Lord whether he will consider this a little further, whether he can meet us in any way, whether he insists that this body must be empowered to carry on any business or undertaking which, however bland and unthreatening it may appear, when it is translated to us by the admittedly Celtic and therefore superior rhetoric of noble Lords opposite, still, when one reads it, means that they can do anything. We do not think that they should be able to do anything but only some particular things which will serve the community without
1520
threatening the competitive basis on which it rests. Cannot the Minister think about this between now and Report?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I am sure that I can try, especially assisted by noble Lord, Lord Elton, who might indicate to me in what way the powers conferred on new towns under the New Towns Act 1965 differ from the powers which we propose to extend to this body. That would be most helpful. Perhaps he could, secondly, indicate to me—not necessarily now but when we get together to think about these things—in what way the phrase I quoted from the Highlands and Island (Scotland) Act 1965,
" … to carry on or set up a business which will contribute to the economic or social development of the Highlands and Islands",
is inapplicable to us in Mid Wales. Certainly I should like a free seminar with the noble Lord to see whether we can in this regard improve on the phrasing of the New Towns Act 1965 and the Highlands and Islands (Scotland) Act 1965, both of which successfully survived the attentions of the Conservative Government from 1970 to 1974.
Lord ELTON: I am glad to be met, even if only a quarter of the way down the path. I do not know whether a "free seminar" will describe our discussions.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Knowing the noble Lord's background, I used the words to mean that he would be giving me a free seminar.
Lord ELTON: I should never presume to such arrogance in an area in which the noble Lord is so excellent. I do not think it will resemble that, but the frank and friendly discussions which we shall have will, I am sure, be productive. As a preliminary to that, I feel that I should say that we have a certain hesitancy about the way in which noble Lords opposite look at this piece of legislation. The New Towns Act deals specifically with new towns. This Bill is dealing with a very large rural area and what is proper to a relatively small and densely populated area is not necessarily relevant to a large and sparsely inhabited area. However, that is something which we can discuss and I feel that it would be wise to do so.

1521
I hope I have managed to convey to the noble Lord the fact that, on this and the last group of Amendments to which I spoke, we on this side of the Committee have fairly strong feelings and we feel that we are not alone either in the Committee or on this side of Offa's Dyke. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will pay particular attention to anything that he can do to ameliorate—and I use the term from our side of the Committee—this piece of legislation.
Viscount SIMON: Before the noble Lord asks lea1ve to withdraw the Amendment, as I imagine he is about to do, may I suggest both to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, that, in considering this difficult matter, it is largely a question of giving people confidence? The noble Lord might consider introducing into the Bill the words quoted from the Highlands and Islands Development Act which to a certain extent limit the undertakings and businesses which can be engaged in.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I shall certainly consider that suggestion. The thought had crossed my mind. I can give no gurantees until I have survived the seminar of which I spoke, but possibly the phrasing in the Highlands and Islands Development Act—which is a broadly analogous area—might be careul1y looked at to see whether we cannot adapt or use it in this connection.
Lord ELTON: I have never before attended a seminar at which all those present wished to be pupils and none to lead. However, I look forward to this novel experience. I am grateful to the noble Lords on both sides of the Committee who have already contributed their thoughts. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.14 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 21, leave out paragraph (h).
The noble Lord said: The Amendment relates to subsection (1)(h). Here, we are not in such an aggressive mood. In military phraseology, we are fighting for information. In other words, I should
1522
like to probe this matter, reserving judgment for a later stage. In particular, I wish to see whether what I surmise to be the intentions of the powers given under this subsection are correct. The paragraph reads:
" to do anything which is likely to facilitate the discharge of the Board's functions or is incidental or conducive to their discharge."
I do not want to delay the Committee long on this point and I do not expect that the noble Lord will need to reply at length. However, it is, on the face of it, a fairly permissive power and we should like some indication of the way in which the noble Lord sees it being put into effect. I beg to move.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: The purpose of the clause is to allow the Board to do anything which is likely to facilitate the discharge of the Board's functions or is conducive or incidental to their discharge. Examples would be the promotion of publicity for the area, the undertaking or the commissioning of research and the provision of advisory services in relation to the Board's functions. The provision is well precedented and is found in one guise or another in the New Towns Act 1965 and in the Highlands and Islands Development Act 1965. This provision goes no further than that in those two Statutes.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. I believe that, when I have had a chance to read it, I shall find it satisfactory, though I am always very loath to commit myself at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment
No. 18:
Page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: The Amendment seeks to delete subsection (2). The subsection enables the Board to exercise its powers in relation to paragraphs (c), (d) and (h) of the previous subsection. Paragraph (d) has now been altered outside the area for which the Board is responsible. Again, what I am seeking is reassurance. I assume that the intention is that the Board shall be enabled, for instance, to have a tourist promotion office outside the area where it is operating,

1523
to promote—one would hope, in co-operation with the Welsh Tourist Board—the tourist industry inside the area. It may also be intended that land for providing services ancillary to the area should be used for the area—for instance, if a new new town (if I may be forgiven the tautology) is on the edge of the Board's area, it may be necessary for the waste disposal, the sewage works, the catchment area for water or the disposal of drainage to be outside its area, much as the Central Electricity Generating Board had to have a catchment area inside the Snowdonia National Park for which this House gave permission three or four years ago. Are those the two categories into which these powers, when exercised, would fall? Are they related to promotion and service? If there are others, I should be most obliged if the noble Lord can tell us what they are.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, I think that that puts it fairly. In case I may be misleading the Committee or the noble Lord, I should say that the way in which the Board may exercise certain of its powers outside the designated area—namely, the powers under Clause 3(1)(c), (d) and (h)— can best be illustrated by examples. I have three before me which may be helpful. Clause 3(1)(c) is intended to allow the Board to provide services or equipment on or in connection with land. There may be occasions where it is necessary to go outside the designated area to provide, for example, an access road or a sewer for the area itself. It may be particularly necessary to do that on the perimeter of this particular area. I certainly think that this will be so in the North-West. So there is a provision which will allow the Board, if it is necessary in order to serve the area, to proceed marginally outside that area.
Paragraph (d) enables the Board, with the consent of the Treasury, to provide finance for local authorities and undertakings. The Board may wish to assist a local authority or statutory undertaker to provide a service for land in its area that that requires work to be done marginally outside that area—for example, a sewer or a gas supply. Clause 3(1)(h) enables the Board to do anything which is likely to facilitate the discharge of the Board's functions, or is incidental to them. We made that point when we exchanged ideas
1524
on the last Amendment. Examples of such activities that the Board may wish to carry out outside its area are promotion and research. It may wish to mount an exhibition stand at a trade fair at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham, or may wish to engage a university situated outside its area to undertake research related to its area.
The present designated area contains a university, or rather a constituent college of the University of Wales, which has extensive facilities for research, particularly of a social and economic character. But the Board might wish to commission a piece of research which might be best done by some other research centre, and I could call in mind one or two possibilities in that regard; and indeed, the University of Birmingham is not far situated from this area and, I am told, draws a number of its students from the area. The clause, specifically in regard to the provisions in paragraphs (c), (d) and (h) of subsection (1), provides for reasonable powers for operating outside the area in order to serve and promote the area itself.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord who has said much that I wished to hear said and to have in the record for those to read who are not familiar with this ground. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.22 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 27, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19. It may be helpful if with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 23, which involves the insertion of a new clause after Clause 6. The purpose of the Amendment which we now commend to the Committee is to substitute the new clause for Clause 3(3) in order to achieve two additional purposes. The first is to enable a local authority, development corporation, or other public body, without necessarily becoming the agent of the Board, to place its staff at the disposal of the Board. The second purpose is to enable the Board to appoint a registered housing association its agent to carry out the Board's housing function. The new

1525
Clause 6 then includes the power for the Board to exercise its powers through other public bodies, presently contained in Clause 3(3), and, additionally, achieves the two purposes I have mentioned.
As regards the first purpose, there is currently an arrangement whereby Cwmbran Development Corporation make available their staff to the Mid Wales Development Corporation. Cwmbran do not act in any agency role in this respect, however, so that there is no question, in the case of the Board, of the exercise of its powers through the Cwmbran Development Corporation. But it is anticipated that the Board will continue for some time the arrangement for the use of the Cwmbran staff, and the new subsection (3) gives the Board the necessary power to do this. Such power was not contained in Clause 3(3), which was confined to the exercise of the Board's powers through another public body. With regard to the second purpose I have mentioned, registered housing associations have been included in the bodies which can act as agents for the Board because it is desired that they, as well as local authorities, should assist the Board in the provision of housing for incoming key workers. To do so it is necessary for there to be a separate reference to a registered housing association to act as the agent of the Board in this respect, as a registered housing association is not a "body of a public nature for the purposes of subsection (1). This new clause will retain the powers in Clause 3(3) and add to those powers the two purposes which I have outlined.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I should like to use this opportunity to welcome Amendment No. 23, with particular regard to the Housing Corporation. We should offer warm thanks to the Housing Corporation for what it has undertaken in this part of Mid Wales in recent months. The situation was that the housing completion figures under a number of the authorities in the area needed to be boosted to enable development to take place successfully. After negotiations, and despite being restricted, like every other public body in this difficult financial period, in the new undertakings into which it can enter, the Housing Corporation has very kindly moved into this area of central Wales. Latest reports reaching me indicate that
1526
the corporation is setting up programmes in Welshpool, Rhayader, Brecon and other key growth towns of central Wales. This development is due to the enthusiasm of the Housing Corporation and of its regional representative, and it will add a new dimension to the housing programme in central Wales. The work is being done in partnership with, and with the support of, the local authorities which are responsible for housing. This is very good news indeed.
We should thank the Housing Corporation most warmly for coming into this area and for helping to ensure that development will get under way in the coming years. It is to be welcomed that the particular function of the housing associtions, which are now shepherded by the Housing Corporation, is being spelled out in the proposed new clause, and that they will be fully accepted as part of the new venture of improving this part of central Wales. I am delighted to see this new clause containing this important point, and it is pleasant to be able to pay tribute to the Housing Corporation at this time.
From my knowledge—and I know this area intimately from many visits to all these key towns and from trying to see their problems—these key towns all need a steady injection of employment opportunities. I am leaving aside Newtown, of course; I am talking about the smaller-growth towns. There are half a dozen of them—Aberystwyth, Bala, Rhayader, Welshpool, Brecon and Llandrindod Wells; I think those are the half a dozen. They all need a steady injection of job opportunities matched with a steadily-moving housing programme which will hold the young people who would otherwise leave these towns and their surrounding rural areas. These towns are the catchment points for young people who would otherwise leave the whole region, and it is a very good programme, if I may say so. It is very heartening indeed that in recent months we have been able to attract in the Housing Corporation to take a share of the burden. I am very grateful to my noble friend for pushing this clause along, and I hope it will have the full support of the Committee.
Lord LYELL: After the notable intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I should like to thank the

1527
noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for explaining this Amendment, or this series of two Amendments, so very clearly. Originally, I had considerable doubts about the very wide powers that the Government were seeking to obtain in subsection (1) of the new clause, and in particular the words:
" and that authority, corporation or body shall have power to do whatever is necessary".
However, I think the Committee have gone through such concepts at considerable length this afternoon, and I would not want to pursue this point tonight.
There is a more specific point in subsection (3) of the new clause, where it says that any
" body of a public nature may, on being so requested by the Board, place the services of its staff at the Board's disposal …"
Of course, we support this interchangeability of staff, particularly between the Board as it may be set up and any other existing authorities, but we should like to know, if it is possible for the noble Lord to clarify this point for us, whether the staff is going to be temporarily or permanently attached to the Board from, it might be, the Welsh Development Agency, the Mid Wales Development Corporation or, it might be, an existing smaller authority.
We should like to know what will be the format of the staff and, if it is foreseeable, how many of them will be temporarily or permanently attached to the Board. Furthermore, when staff are made available to the Board, who will be responsible for the cost of employing that staff'? There is this particular worry that we have, in these times, of the burden on the rates, and we should not like to see the Board taking new powers, which it may need, to use the existing staff of local authorities or other existing authorities, thereby pushing up the rates which are paid by ratepayers and taxpayers to these authorities. Otherwise, we are quite grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy Roberts, for explaining this rather complicated series of Amendments, but we shall look forward to hearing what he has to say.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clausew 4 [New towns within the Board's area]:
6.34 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 13, leave out from (" Act ") to (" and ") in line 15.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a purely drafting Amendment which does not involve any change of substance. It is designed to remedy a defect in the existing definition of "the new towns code" in Clause 4(2). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Acquisition of land]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 34, leave out (" purchase ") and insert (" acquisition ").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, with which it might be convenient to discuss No. 22 and, indeed, the Manuscript Amendment, if that is permissible. These are minor drafting Amendments, the purpose and effect of which is to bring the wording of subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 5 into line with that of subsection (5) and other references in the Bill. The purpose is to make the wording of subsection (6) consistent with that of subsection (5) by substituting "acquisition" for "purchase" at all the material points to which I have referred. It has no matter of substance, but is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 35, leave out (" purchase ") and insert (" acquisition ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved, as a Manuscript Amendment, Amendment No. 22A:
Page 6, line 41, leave out (" purchase ") and insert (" acquisition ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause: Assistance to the Board from public authorities and others

—(1) The Board may appoint a local authority, development corporation of a new town or any other body of a public nature to discharge any of the Board's functions on its behalf and that authority, corporation or body shall have power to do whatever is necessary to enable it to discharge the functions it is so appointed to discharge.

(2) The Board may, with the consent of the Housing Corporation, appoint a registered housing association to discharge on behalf of the Board the Board's function of providing housing under section 3(1) of this Act.

(3) For the purpose of assisting the Board to discharge its functions (whether in pursuance of subsection (1) above or otherwise), a local authority, development corporation of a new town or other body of a public nature may, on being so requested by the Board, place the services of its of its staff at the Board's disposal on such terms as may be agreed with the Board.

(4) In this section "housing association" and, in relation to it, "registered" have the same meanings as in the Housing Act 1974 as that Act applies to England and Wales.

The noble and learned Lord said: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 23, which has already been debated.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Financing of the Board out of public money]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 9, line 21, leave out (" to reimburse the Board for expenditure incurred by it in ") and insert (" in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the Board for the purpose of ")
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Secretary of State the power to pay to the Board sums in respect of expenditure to be incurred in addition to sums in respect of expenditure already incurred by the Board for the purpose of meeting its obligations or discharging its functions. The normal practice for the financing of a grant-aided body such as this Board is to provide finance at regular intervals from the grant-in-aid against estimates of expected expenditure.
As at present drafted, the clause precludes the Secretary of State from making such advances. Reimbursement of the expenditure of the Board in arrears would
1530
place the Board in the position of having to resort to its temporary borrowing powers to finance current expenditure. That, clearly, would involve the incurring of unnecessary expense and would also result in the Board being constantly in the red "which would be an unhappy state of affairs. This modest Amendment is intended to remedy that situation.
It may be convenient to discuss with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 25 and 26; and I think that what I have already said covers all three. I may say that the provision for payment in advance of expenditure is well precedented. The Secretary of State, under the provisions of Section 42 of the New Towns Act 1965, for instance, may make grants for the purpose of enabling a development corporation to meet any current expenditure. Again, the Secretary of State is empowered, under the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, to pay sums to the Agency in respect of the exercise of their functions. Extension of the present power only to reimburse the Board will not reduce the financial control exercised by the Secretary of State over the Board. The Board remains fully accountable to the Secretary of State for expenditure incurred and the Secretary of State will himself make payments with the consent of the Treasury. The effect of the Amendment is to remove an unnecessary and undesirable restriction on the power of the Secretary of State to grant aid to the Board. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: We should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for the clarity with which he moved the Amendment. He has explained it briefly and with admirable conciseness. He may be surprised to know that we do, in general, agree that in such a case a Board may well need to spend a little in advance of its actual borrowing requirement in order to see that such development will take place as might be desirable. Subject to the usual Treasury scrutiny, I am sure that we are happy with this Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: For me to say that what the noble Lord has said takes me by surprise would be most ungenerous. I concede that bursts of reasonableness do emanate from the Opposition Front Bench from time to time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 9, line 24, after (" incurred ") insert (" or to be incurred ").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 25 formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 27, leave out from (" is ") to end of line 28 and insert (" expenditure incurred or to be incurred for that purpose.")
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 26 formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.46 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 9, line 28, at end insert:
(" (3) Any expenditure incurred by the Board in consequence of subsection (1) of clause (Assistance to the Board from public authorities and others) is, for the purposes of this section, expenditure incurred in discharging the Board's functions.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is, in our opinion, somewhat more concise and briefer than Amendment No. 23 which we have already discussed. This Amendment seeks merely to redefine the new clause as far as are concerned (in the first subsection) the very wide power that has already been spoken about. In subsection (3) where expenditure were to occur as a result of delegation of power from the Board to any other authority, we were concerned that such expenditure should not fall on the local taxpayer but where possible should be borne by the general funds and the general borrowings from the Board. However, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that such funds should come from the borrowings which are set out in Clause 10 which we are about to discuss. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: With respect, I submit that the proposed provision—that expenditure incurred by the Board in discharging its functions through another public body should be considered as expenditure incurred in discharging the Board's function—is unnecessary. It does no more than to state what, I submit, is the obvious conclusion
1532
to be drawn from the present provisions in the Bill. In appointing a local authority, development corporation or any other public body to discharge its functions, the Board is in fact discharging its functions through such body. It is delegating its functions to such body. Any expenditure which the Board incurs pursuant to any such arrangement is inevitably incurred in the discharge of its functions.
I submit that it is very important that this Amendment should be resisted for the reason that its inclusion would tend to confuse the basic distinction between the exercise of functions as of right and the exercise of functions on an agency basis. That distinction is apparent in subsection (1) of the new clause which was inserted after Clause 6 and approved by the Committee. The Amendment which is now proposed would cast doubt upon the obvious interpretation of that provision.
It may be that the Amendment was inspired by Clause 9(2) of the Bill. That provision was inserted for the sake of caution to provide for continuity on the dissolution of a development corporation. It was thought that an argument could arise that obligations initially assumed by a development corporation might not be accepted as obligations of the Board for the purposes of Clause 9 upon the dissolution of such development corporation: but that provision should not be taken as a precedent for an Amendment such as the one proposed which. I submit, is not only unnecessary but could cause confusion between the exercise of its functions by the Board and the delegation of functions for which clearly a Board would be financially answerable.
Lord ELTON: I hope that this might be the right stage at which to get elucidation. One of the worries behind this Amendment is this. The Board asks a local authority to provide it, let us say, with a detailed demographic or climatological map of the area. Two or three draughtsmen in the planning department of that authority may spend six months collating information and making the map. As a result of this, two or three other draughtsmen have to be brought in to discharge the functions which those draughtsmen would ordinarily have been discharging. What we should like to

1533
know is whether the rate bill will go up by the amount of these original three draughtsmen's salaries; or is that a charge on the Board which the local authority can levy, can require them to pay? One of the purposes of the Amendment is to establish whether, in fact, this is a sum which will fall on the rates and is not part of the Clause 10 financial provisions or whether it is a part of the maximum £40 million. It is a small matter in respect to the functioning of the Bill; but it could be a largish matter as regards a small local authority.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I would have thought that where that work was done for and at the request of the Board, the cost involved and the payment to the draftsmen would clearly be the responsibility of the Board under the provisions of Clause 10. Your Lordships may have observed that I looked in the direction of the place at the right of the Throne and received an affirmative nod; so what I have said seems to be accurate. I hope that may reassure the noble Lord.
Lord LYELL: We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord. We are particularly grateful for the indications he received from the place on the right of the Throne. With that, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
6.50 p.m.
Lord ELTON: I should like to intervene at this point in search of knowledge. Maybe I should have given the noble and learned Lord warning of the questions, but as I asked them at Second Reading I hope that was sufficient advance warning. At column 663 of Hansard on 6th May, relating to the finances—and I take it this is an appropriate time to raise the matter—I said:
"… we should like to be told, first of all, from which votes these funds will be drawn, since it will not only be from the two funds to which the noble and learned Lord alluded, and where they figured in the public expenditure White Paper."
I was unable to be present—a necessary discourtesy as noble and learned Lord will recall—for his reply, and to remonstrate or remind him at the time. I read the reply with care and am still not certain of the answer to these two questions.
1534
I also asked whether the budgeted figure of from £25 million to £40 million included the old Mid Wales Development Corporation budget, and if so, to how great a sum? That was also a question to which he did not at the time have the means to reply. I further asked: what were the other funds referred to in the Consultative Document, at paragraph 21? My fifth question was regarding the staff costs of the Board: what they would be and how they would compare with the combined staff costs of the bodies whose functions the Board is to take over.
These are specific questions. I ought to have given notice of them; I feel equally the answers ought to be on record. It may be that the noble and learned Lord and his advisers anticipated my sustained curiosity and that he has the brief in his hand. It may be he would like to reply later and, since there is no "stand part" procedure at Report stage, he may feel it more in the interests of the Committee if I put down some probing Amendments at Report stage to elicit the answers. They are answers we should like to know, and it will be helpful to the other place to have them in advance since they are principally concerned with the finances of this operation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I can answer a good many of the difficult and important questions that the noble Lord has raised. First of all, from what votes will the Board's funds be drawn? The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at page 4 indicates that the sums provided will not involve additions to public expenditure but will be made available by means of transfers from provisions elsewhere. The funds of the Board will be drawn principally from financial provisions for relevant activities of organisations in the area of the Board; namely, the Mid Wales Development Corporation, the Development Commission and the Welsh Development Agency, first, for factory building and, secondly, for COSIRA activities which the Board will undertake as agent of the Welsh Development Agency.
I was asked about the funds from EEC sources and whether they would be taken into account. That was not expressly asked this evening but the noble Lord asked about it before. The answer is that the Board as a public body might be able to obtain regional development fund grants

1535
for suitable infrastructure projects and to borrow monies from EEC sources. It is not intended that the Board should be he vehicle for administration of EEC grants to individual businesses. As to the risk and fear that there might be competition for funds between the Board and the Welsh Development Agency, the question was asked: if there was, to which body would the Minister give preference? The need for close co-ordination of the activities of the Agency and the Board as recognised by the provisions of the Bill. Clause 21(2) and (3) relate to the appointment of the chairman of the Board to the Agency. Only in certain fields—that is to say, factory building—are there parallel activities in different parts of Wales. One of the main functions of the Secretary of State will be to adjudicate between claims of limited resources. He has the power in the final resort to direct the Board and Agency to accept his decision.
The question was raised whether the budget figure of from £25 million to £45 million includes the old Mid Wales Development Corporation budget, and, if so, to how great a sum. The Mid Wales Corporation budget is included. I am informed that expenditure in the year 1976–77 will be of the order of £3.2 million. Then, as to the question: what will the staff costs of the Board be, and how will they compare with the combined staff costs of the bodies whose functions the Board is to take over?—administrative costs are not separately funded. The effects of manpower are covered in the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Committee will have seen that they are indeed modest. As I said on Second Reading, we do not see the burgeoning of a new and vast army of civil servants as a result of what is proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked whether it could be made clear that there is no intention to surcharge the rates to pay for housing subsidies. That goes beyond what he asked today. The Board is being placed on the same footing as the development corporations, which means that the Secretary of State will make up by way of grant that part of the housing subsidy equivalent to the rate fund contribution paid by local authorities for local authority housing.
I hope that I have accurately read out the answers to the questions that the
1536
noble Lord put to me and that they have been adequately dealt with. If I have given him more information than he asked for, that is a rare display of generosity from these Benches!
Lord ELTON: The accuracy of the noble Lord's self analysis is matched only by the touching humility with which it has been given. There are only two supplementary questions which I want to raise, although the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has another. The noble and learned Lord gave a short list of the sources of the funds. I should like to know whether it was exhaustive. I am not talking about "peanuts", but whether there are any large sources of funds that he has not mentioned. I think the answer will he. "No".
Regarding FEOGA, I shall be interested to know the arrangement of grants and loans from here. If the Board approaches the European body direct, then the budgetary ceiling imposed upon it by Clause 10 is not affected. But if that payment is made by way of central Government, that increases the indebtedness of the Board to the central Government as it would then become the lending or granting agency. This would in fact reduce not only, it is true, the cost to the central Government in other areas of the Board's activities, but also circumscribe the ability of the Board to act with greater force than if only the £25 million or £40 million were affected. I hope that I make myself clear on this. If the money is taken direct from Europe to Wales, central Government accounting is not involved. It is only Central Government accounting to which the budgetary clause relates. Therefore, this would be European money, additional to Central Government money; whereas if the structure of the European agencies, the grant-aiding and lending agencies, requires that the recipients of the loans and grants should be Central Government agencies, it seems to me that the money will go through Westminster and will technically increase the amount that Wales owes to Westminster. They will in turn reduce the financial resources available to the new Board.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: As to the first question, I think I have listed all the sources and funds. Alas! there are no

1537
secret or undisclosed funds we can hope to draw upon. I only wish there were. As to the second matter, whereas the question raised by the noble Lord was perfectly clear, I am afraid I am not presently in a position to answer it. I should be glad to communicate with the noble Lord in writing as to the machinery whereby finance comes through the EEC. I will communicate with the noble Lord either directly or, if it is preferred, we can perhaps refer to it at Report stage, if the interest in the point is sufficiently general.
Lord ELTON: I should have thought the interest was fairly material.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: In that case I should be very happy—if the noble Lord finds a means of raising the point again, and with his usual skill, I have no doubt he will do so—to provide the information.
Lord LYELL: I wonder whether I might raise the question of the Budget for the first year 1976–77. The noble and learned Lord said he thought it would be in the region of £3·2 million. Would he be able to inform us at some future time about this?—because I understand it will be difficult to give a detailed answer tonight.
It would be useful to know the year-by-year expenditure for the next five years, and whether it is likely to be rising sharply. We wonder whether we could be given some information on the pattern of the expenditure. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to help us at a later stage.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly, in so far as we can do so. How accurate and reliable forecasting over a future period would be really entails looking into the crystal ball—and the crystal ball sometimes presents a distorting image.
Lord ELTON: But we work on a budgetary system, do we not? Can the noble and learned Lord not tell us the figure?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I will try to do so, but at this stage it will have to be in the domain of estimate, obviously. However, I will certainly see that the information is provided.
Lord LYELL: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will produce a very accurate and distortion-free crystal ball, and we look forward to receiving this information.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Limit on public money made available to the Board]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord LYELL: I should like to make one point on Clause 10. We note that the limit on total borrowings at present is £25 million, and I understand there is a possible limit of £40 million. We are also able to see from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that there are only to be 55 staff and we should like to commend the Government for taking what might be called a very lean attitude towards the staffing of the Board. It seems to us that even on the first year's budget, each member of the staff will be responsible for a mere £60,000 worth of additional expenditure. I do not think any of us here would grudge this additional expenditure, particularly in relation to rural Wales, where we hope the value to be derived from it will be exceptionally high. I understand the total population which may derive benefit from the funds of the Board will be in the region of 200,000. Could the noble and learned Lord confirm that figure—again at a future time?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, certainly, we do not see that the creation of the Board will result in any substantial increase in the number of civil servants. On my present information, the figure which the noble Lord gave is expected to be about the right one.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Powers of entry]:
6.56 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 11, line 39, leave out (" 48 hours ") and insert (" 5 days ").
The noble Lord said: We now come to ground which the noble and learned Lord

1539
and I have previously visited together. I remember the virtuous and sonorous way in which he said he did not be responsible for the death of Welsh lambs, as I recall. I hope it may be for the convenience of the Committee to assume that, as the noble and learned Lord is familiar with the ground—although it may be necessary to return to the charge—and as, after consideration, he conceded exactly the points of this Amendment, and as this is the same territory, the same farmers and the same ewes, in fact, are concerned, the noble and learned Lord will be able to concede without further cudgelling or cajoling from me.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The manner in which the noble and learned Lord has moved this Amendment is immensely seductive, but I wonder whether I could persuade him to arrive at some compromise figure which I would be prepared to look at between now and the Report stage.
The effect of the Amendment is to extend the required period of notice for entry on to land from 48 hours to five days in respect of non-residential land: that is, farmers' fields; and from seven days to 14 days in the case of residential land. Looking at precedents, the New Towns Act 1965 provides for only 24 hours' notice to be given in all cases before authorised persons may enter on land to survey it; and that is all that is really contemplated here. That includes both residential and non-residential land. That provision was in the New Towns Act as part of the various powers provided for development corporations to enable them to get through as soon as possible the preparatory work required before work can be started on the new town. Of course, there will be new town elements in the work of this Board.
The Bill's provisions do follow the precedent of the Highlands and Islands Development Board which similarly require notice of 48 hours in respect of non-residential premises and seven days for residential premises. We have suggested 48 hours and five days. It was thought right to provide a less stringent provision than that in the New Towns Act, and we have endeavoured in the clause we are debating to strike a balance
1540
between the need for the Board to be able to proceed with its operations as soon as possible and the need to protect the rights of the citizen.
It is quite true that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with his customary persuasiveness, achieved the figures that he has included in his Amendment. But there is a difference between the operations of the Welsh Development Agency and the expedited procedures which are provided in the New Towns Act for the acquisition and development of land for new towns purposes, and we followed the Highlands and Islands Board precedent as a middle course between the extremes of 24 hours and the longer period required for the Agency. However, I am prepared to look again at the matter to see whether we can meet what is suggested. Obviously, we do not want to ride roughshod over the comforts and reasonable consideration of occupants of land, especially residential land. So if the noble Lord is prepared to be content with my undertaking to look at this again, at Report stage, this time with a view to making some advance towards him, I shall be very happy to do so.
7.11 p.m.
Lord ELTON: I think I must tell the noble and learned Lord that what we achieved in the Welsh Development Agency Act was, in itself, in the nature of a compromise, because my Scottish friends settled for five days, whereas I would have had seven. I must say that I am genuinely disappointed, regardless of the charm with which the noble and learned Lord has rebuffed me. I would not dilate upon it now, were it not for the fact that at Report stage one can speak only once in an exchange and there may be matters that we wish to clear up between us, which require each of us to exchange information with the other.
Therefore I should like to say this. Clause 13(3) states that:
" The power conferred by subsection (1) above "—
which is the power of entry—
" includes power to search and bore for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the subsoil or the presence of minerals in it",
and this, in turn, means that machinery and a number of people will be required. This is an area in which sheep are raised,

1541
and I think it is necessary to remind the noble and learned Lord of the argument which I adduced earlier, that the farmer who has stock in an area which happens, for instance, to be infected with lamb dysentry or pulpy kidney, and has reason to suppose that his stock is not immune and that the protective vaccines are ineffective or that he has not applied them in time, or, indeed, if he has reason to believe for any other cause that areas of his farm are not suitable for lambing, will require to find somewhere else to lamb his ewes. This may mean droving them very slowly a great distance after a great many telephone calls, and that is something which takes time.
We are here in the realm of practicality, and I have chosen the sheep farmer only because he seems to me the most obvious and cogent example. I am not crying in aid any vague or general right of the citizen to be free of the invasion of officialdom; your Lordships have heard sufficient arguments on those grounds. I am saying that there are circumstances, particularly in the likely sites of new towns, where sheep have to be on enclosed land for a period, where the available enclosed land is in limited supply and may amount to one enclosure of a few acres, with a hovel and a thatched shelter in one corner, and the only alternative place may he unsuitable for agricultural reasons, with which, as a shepherd with eight years' experience, I shall not bore your Lordships, but there are many. If a man is told, "My machinery is coming in tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow", and he cannot move them, the result will be that the flock will panic and they will slip lambs. That is all I am saying.
I am saying that this is giving a power which, if it is unreasonably exercised, will result in financial loss and a certain emotional shock and displeasure to the farmer. There are other forms of husbandry, and I should have thought the provision which I have suggested would protect those as well, but as a shepherd I felt that I could best argue the case of the sheep farmer. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will refresh his mind of the debate on the Welsh Development Agency, but I would think it less than generous if we arrived at a compromise on a mathematical basis, because I do not think that mathematics are what we are after. The fact that you have X in one solution and Y
1542
in another does not mean that you want X plus half-Y, if I have got my algebra right, as the just solution. This is rather like Solomon cutting the baby in half; you do not get the result that you want. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will relent and give us our Amendment at Report stage.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly undertake to examine what the noble Lord has said. I know that he speaks from long and possibly bitter experience as a shepherd who watched his flocks, no doubt by day and by night. But without seeing the implications of this for new town development, I cannot at this stage make this concession. As I have said, under the New Towns Act only 24 hours' notice was provided for. But I certainly undertake to look sympathetically, between now and Report stage, at what has been said.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Before my noble and learned friend sits down will he, in having these discussions and giving further thought, pay particular regard to the emergency nature of the need for entry in some cases? In some cases, it would he quite dangerous to go too far in the direction suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord ELTON: I am mystified and very interested by the last intervention. Whether it would be necessary to discover within 48 hours that minerals were or were not present on a farm could only, I should have thought, be a matter of substance in the Klondike.
Lord NORTHFIELD: The noble Lord has not read the remainder of the clause. It does not deal only with entry in order to seek minerals.
Lord ELTON: It may be to seek town clerks—I do not know. I hope that this will be reflected on between now and Report stage, and I look forward to the noble and learned Lord's concession then. I do not want to delay the Committee longer. The noble and learned Lord can look at great length at what we said. I may say that his concession on the last Act was warmly applauded in his native hills, and I am sure that that brought a flush of pleasure to him which he will be anxious to repeat.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: As I am always eager for a welcome in the valleys, I shall certainly bear that in mind.
Lord ELTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29:
Page 11, line 40, leave out (" 7 ") and insert (" 14 ").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment goes hand in hand with the previous Amendment, and again I wait with tears of anticipation in my eyes.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): As I have no notice of any point to be raised on Clauses 15 to 21, I propose to put them before the Committee en bloc.
Clauses 15 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Transfer to the Board of industrial property of the Welsh Development Agency]:
7.18 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON: moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 16, line 1, leave out from (" to ") to (" industrial ") in line 2.
The noble Lord said: Breathless from our unaccustomed rapidity of progress, we now turn to an Amendment which seeks to elucidate the use of the phrasing of the Bill. My purpose is succinct and brief. I simply want to know whether the meaning of the subsection will be altered if we leave out the words, "property of the following descriptions, that is to say". There must be a reason for putting them in, and I should like to know what it is, because that will enable me better to understand the Bill. I should have thought that,
" This section applies to industrial sites, factories and land used for industrial purposes "
would have exactly the same import as the sentence if it were left entire. If it does not, there must be a purpose which I do not apprehend and I should like to know what it is.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The explanation is twofold. First, the word "property"—
" property of the following descriptions, that is to say, industrial sites, factories and land used for industrial purposes "—
is a useful generic term to cover those diverse forms of property; and, secondly, because it is referred to in two other parts of the clause (in line 10 and again in line 14 running into line 15) that it avoids repeating in those lines the words 1 have just quoted, it is more convenient and, for the purposes of brevity, useful to repeat the generic word " property " which embraces all those forms of property. That is the only explanation for the way the clause is drafted. I think it is a sensible way to deal with it, otherwise it means repeating three times the category one, two and three kinds of properties. I am glad to say the explanation is as simple as that.
Lord ELTON: I agree entirely with the aims of this phraseology. I am always seeking brevity in Bills and I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for showing how this has been brought about. Therefore it pleases me very much, since I believe that this is the last Amendment with which we shall be dealing this evening, to thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply, and, happily, to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we seem to have made very good progress on this Bill and it may be convenient to your Lordships if we halt here. I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL [H.L.]
7.22 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—[Baroness Stedman.]
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1 [Restriction of importation and exportation of certain animals and plants.]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 3, leave out from (" item ") to end of line 4 and insert (" to which Schedule 3 to this Act for the time being applies.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this Amendment should also be taken Amendment No. 36 to Schedule 3. These are drafting points and simply bring the wording into line with paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 1(1) and the beginning of Schedules 1 and 2. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Restriction of movement of certain live animals after importation]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 en bloc:
Page 6, line 7, leave out from (" at ") to end of line 9 and insert (" specified premises until such time as the Secretary of State may require or permit the animal to be moved to other specified premises or revoke the direction.")
Page 6, line 7, leave out from beginning of line 10 to end of line 11 and insert (" Where a direction has been given under subsection (1) above in relation to an animal, and has not been revoked by the Secretary of State, any person who, knowing that a direction has been so given,—")
Page 6, line 12, leave out first (" it ") and insert (" the animal ").
Page 6, line 14, leave out (" the ").
Page 6, line 21, leave out first (" it ") and insert (" the animal).
Page 6, line 22, leave out from (" from ") to (" in ") in line 23 and insert (" specified premises in the absence of, or otherwise than in accordance with any condition attached to, such a requirement or permission as is referred to ").
Page 6, line 25, leave out (" it ") and insert (" the animal ").
Page 6, line 27, leave out (" the ").
Page 6, line 30, leave out (" the ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 en bloc. The Amendments will make it quite clear that when the Secretary of State gives permission for an animal to be moved from premises which he has previously specified, he can either specify new premises or revoke the direction. The Amendments also make it clear that the Secretary of State has the power to require an animal to be moved. By Amendment No. 7 it will be an offence not only to move the animal without
1546
permission but also to do so otherwise than in accordance with any conditions attached to the permission. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome this tightening up of the control arrangements for the truly endangered species of live animals. The remainder of the Amendments in this group are consequential drafting Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:
Page 6, line 31, at end insert (" (and in whatever manner) ").
Page 6, line 33, leave out from (" section ") to end of line 34.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 should be taken with Amendment No. 12. The Amendments are pure simplifications of the drafting, and with the permission of the House I beg to move together Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 34, at end insert—
" (3A) Before he specifies any premises for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State shall consult one or more of the scientific authorities.
(3B) The Secretary of State shall not specify any premises for those purposes unless they are suitable to be so specified, that is to say, are such that in his opinion the animal in respect of which he proposes to give, or has given, a direction under this section may suitably be kept there.
(3C) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State may, at any reasonable time and (if required to do so) upon producing evidence that he is so authorised, enter—

(a) any premises in order to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether they are suitable to be, or to remain, specified for the purposes of this section;

(b) any premises which are for the time being so specified in relation to any animal in order to ascertain whether the animal is being kept there.

(3D) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting under subsection (3C) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that during our earlier discussions on this Bill, the Government undertook to consider various proposals for strengthening the provisions relating to "specified premises" in Clause 5. This Amendment does four

1547
things. It requires the Secretary of State to consult at least one of the scientific authorities before specifying the premises; it requires him to be satisfied that the premises are suitable for the particular animal concerned; it provides a right of entry at any reasonable time for a person authorised by the Secretary of State; and it provides for a penalty if anyone wilfully obstructs entry by an authorised person. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this Amendment meets the various points which were made.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Craigton and myself, I should like to express gratitude to the noble Baroness for the way in which the Government have met these points.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, as one on this side of the House who has pressed for Amendments, may I express my appreciation of the way in which the Minister has met so many of the points which have been urged from our Back-Benches. I should also like to say how deeply impressed I have been by the extraordinary thoroughness with which the Minister has dealt with the problems regarding this Bill and to pay my tribute to the way in which she has conducted the proceedings.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Citation, interpretation, commencement, repeals, extent, etc.]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 26, leave out (" and 5(1) ") and insert (", 4(1) and 5(1) to (3C) ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon both Amendment No. 11 which was moved at the Report stage and Amendment No. 13 which has been moved today. Clause 9(2) applies certain provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland by substituting references to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, where appropriate, for references to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert—
(" ( ) In this Act a reference to a dead animal of any particular kind includes a reference to the body of an animal of that kind—

(a) which is frozen, dried or preserved by chemicals, or

(b) which, although not complete (whether because it has been eviscerated or because it has had the whole of its inside removed and has been stuffed, or for any other reason), is substantially complete and externally substantially resembles the complete body of an animal of the kind concerned.

( ) In this Act a reference to a dead plant of any particular kind includes a reference to a plant of that kind—

(a) which is frozen, dried or preserved by chemicals, or

(b) which, although for any reason not complete, is substantially complete and externally substantially resembles a complete dead plant of the kind concerned.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 52 and 54. The Amendment would extend the definition of dead animals and plants to include frozen, dried and preserved specimens and to include specimens which are substantially but not entirely complete. I have brought forward this Amendment in response to that which was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, on Report. The effect would be to make it clear that controls are placed on substantially complete specimens of all the species covered by Schedules 1 and 2. The references to dried and preserved bodies in paragraphs 15 and 17 of Schedule 3 therefore become superfluous and can be deleted. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard will be very grateful to the noble Baroness for having met his points. May I ask one question which the noble Baroness may not be able to answer now, in which case perhaps she would write either to my noble friend or to me, or ask me to put it down in the form of a Question for Written Answer. After the words in the Amendment:
"In this Act a reference to a dead animal "
come the words:
" of any particular kind".
This point is causing a little worry to some of my noble friends. I know that

1549
the noble Baroness said that all dried bodies would not escape, but people are frightened that dried and eviscerated bodies might escape. Are all of the animals in Schedule 1 covered by this Amendment?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords. As I said in my answer, this means that the controls are placed on specimens of all the species covered by Schedules 1 and 2. Indeed the Amendment would also remove one of the doubts which I think the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, had, that skins stuffed by taxidermists and herbarium pressed plants are also covered by this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Animals the importation and exportation of which are restricted]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 10, line 30, column 2, after ("rat") insert (" (otherwise known as black rat)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is the first of a series of minor Amendments to Schedule 1 following our decision at Report stage to adopt reverse listing; it adds an alternative common name. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 14, line 36, leave out (" Accentor ") and insert (" Prunella ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. These Amendments substitute what I am advised are the more appropriate scientific names for the species concerned. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 18,19 and 20 en bloc:
Page 14, line 38, at end insert—
(" Zosterops senegalensis Yellow white-eye ").
Page 15, line 5, at end insert—
(" Any domestic form of Canary ").
Serinus canaria.
Page 16, line 10, at end insert—
(Ploceus vitellinus Vitelline masked weaver "),
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments 18, 19 and 20
1550
en bloc and to speak to Amendment No. 31. These Amendments add four species of birds to the list for which licences will not be required. They are not covered by the Convention and we are now advised that there is a significant trade. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:
Page 17, leave out lines 11 and 12.
Page 17, leave out line 15.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 together. These Amendments delete from the list of exceptions three species of reptile which the scientific authority for animals now advises us are in need of control. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Baroness for leaving out the iguana, which is very good news, some of my noble friends and other learned advisers have asked me why the Government's good intentions as shown in these Amendments have not also been extended to the rhesus monkey on page 10, line 17, because although I know the rhesus monkey is usefully used in medical research, there is possibly a question that it might become a very rare species. I should like to receive an assurance from the noble Baroness that her advisers will be looking at this point, but I should also like to thank her for these Amendments.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the scientific authority will be looking at all these species and keeping them under survey.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 17, line 21, leave out (" Lacerta ") and insert (" Podarcis ").
Page 17, line 22, leave out (" Lacerta") and insert (" Podarcis ")
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28 en bloc:
Page 17, line 40, column 2, insert—
Page 17, line 40, (" Common African house-snake ")
line 44, column 2, insert—
line 44, column 2, (" Corn snake ").
leave out line 46 and insert—
(" Lampropeltis Common king snake ") getulus
Page 18, line 21, column 2, insert—
Page 18, line 21, column 2, (" Spanish terrapin ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like also to move, with Amendment No. 25, Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 en bloc, and to speak to Amendments Nos. 30, 32 and 33. All these Amendments simply insert common names for the species concerned. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 18, leave out line 41.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29 and also to speak to Amendment No. 34. These Amendments move the species concerned from one place in the Schedule to what I am advised is a more appropriate position. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
Page 18, line 43, column 2, insert—
Page 18, line 43, column 2, (" Yellow-bellied toad ")
Page 18, line 43 at end insert—
(" Discoglossus pictus Painted frog ")
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 19, line 26, column 2, insert—
Page 19, line 26, column 2, (" European common toad ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 19, line 27, column 2, insert—
(" Giant toad ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 19, line 30, at end insert in column 1—(" Atelopus ignescens ")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 19, lines 37 and 38, leave out column 2.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35, which, thankfully, deletes a rather pompous common name. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Items the importation and exportation of which are restricted]:
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 24, line 3, at end insert—
(" This Schedule applies to the following items, namely:—")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 37 to 44 en bloc.
Page 24, line 12, after (" Elephantidae ") insert (" elephants ").
line 13, after (" Suidae ") insert (" (pigs) ").
line 24, after (" monoceros ") insert (" (narval) ").
line 15, after (" rosmarus ") insert (" (walrus) ").
line 19, after (" Rhinocerotidae ") insert (" (rhinoceroses) ").
line 26, after (" Elephantidae ") insert (" (elephants) ").
line 27, after (" Rhinocerotidae ") insert (" (rhinoceroses) ").
leave out lines 40 to 42 and insert—
(" Genetta genets)
Paradoxurus (palm civets)
Viverra (civets); ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 37 to 44 en bloc and also to speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57 and 58. I wish, however, to speak separately to Amendment No. 45, which as well as providing common names brings in a new point. This group of Amendments will provide common names as well as scientific names for the kind of animals referred to in Schedule 3, thus bringing it into line with the present form of Schedule 1. The final note makes it clear that the common names are given for guidance only and it is the scientific names which have legal force. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to raise a question on Amendment No. 44. This deals with what I moved at the Report stage in

1553
my Amendment No. 24 dealing with the otters. The noble Baroness expressed the hope that the Government might be able to make some move in this direction. I know the time has been short and she has been very busy and we have not had time to speak on this subject, but I should like to ask her what the "state of play" is in the Ministry on this point. I do not want to repeat all the arguments which I adduced at the Report stage because they are all in Hansard, but imports of 15,000 skins in one year and 22,000 in another year show that this is a very endangered species, and I should not like this block of Amendments to go by without some reference from the noble Baroness as to whether, in the last week, since Report stage, the Government have come to any conclusion.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, since the Report stage we have had only a little time to do quite a lot of work to get this Bill into some shape to send down to the other place. We have started discussions which are now proceeding with the trade on the question of otters, to see whether we can perhaps get a voluntary agreement on how far we can go. If we can do anything about it we hope to get an Amendment moved in another place.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships perhaps I may say that if we were to get an agreement on a voluntary ban it would be a big step forward, but the question arises as to whether it would be a good precedent to set for other cases where there could be a problem of identification and/or licensing. I should like to receive an assurance from the Government that they intend to introduce licensing provisions at some stage and that they will not seek to introduce other voluntary bans of this nature on other products.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure that would be the wish of the Department when we get as far as that.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 25, leave out lines 2 to 36 and insert—
(" Acinonyx jubatus (cheetah)
Arctogalidia trivirgata (small toothed palm civet)
Chrotogale owstoni (Owston's banded civet)
Crocuta crocuta (spotted hyena)
Felis bengalensis (leopard cat)
Felis colocolo (pampas cat)
Felis geoffroyi (Geoffroy's cat)
Felis guigna (kodkod)
Felis jacobita (mountain cat)
Felis marmorata (marbled cat)
Felis nigripes (African black footed cat)
Felis pardalis (ocelot)
Felis planiceps (flat headed cat)
Felis rubiginosa (rusty spotted cat)
Felis serval (serval)
Felis silvestris (European wild cat)
Felis tigrina (little spotted cat)
Felis viverrina (fishing cat)
Felis wiedii (margay cat)
Fossa fossa (Malagasy civet)
Hemigalus derbyanus (banded palm civet)
Hyaena brunnea (brown hyaena)
Mungos mungo (banded mongoose)
Panthera nebulosa (clouded leopard)
Panthera onca (jaguar)
Panthera pardus (leopard)
Panthera tigris (tiger)
Panthera unica (snow leopard)
Poiana richardsoni (African linsang)
Ursus maritimus, otherwise known as
Thalarctos maritimus (polar bear)
Vicugna vicugna (vicugna)
Viverricula indica (small Indian civet);
(c) any animal of the sub-species Felis lynx pardina (Spanish lynx).")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment provides the common name for the spotted cats and other animals having readily recognisable fur skins already controlled under paragraph 5(b). It also makes one small change of substance. There is some doubt about the taxonomic status of the lynx. The Bill as drafted controls the separate species of Felis lynx and Felis pardina, but I am now advised that the Felis lynx is common and, in general, has no spots on its fur. On the other hand, Felis pardina, although sometimes referred to as a species, is more appropriately described as the sub-species Felis lynx pardina—the Spanish lynx. It is rare, and does have spots on its fur. It thus seems more appropriate to clarify the situation by specifying the sub-species only. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having told us that, I am left with a slight fear. Spain is one of the countries which is very keen on the Convention, and has put the Spanish lynx pardina on the list. I am not happy to see the Felis lynx being taken out because, to be quite honest, although the noble Baroness says she thinks that this animal

1555
is in plentiful supply, is that really the case? That is the particular lynx being exploited at the moment. Canada, Russia and Northern Europe are the homes of this particular form of cat, and I am a little worried. I am not so certain that we are not taking advantage of the goodwill of Spain in putting it on the list, while the other countries have not. I should like the assurance of the noble Baroness that the Government will look at this point. One country has been good about this Convention, and the others are saying there is no shortage. I wonder whether that is really the case.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, what
I said was that the Felis lynx is common and
in general has no spots on its fur. Felis pardina is the spotted lynx. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, said, we will have another look at it, but I am told by my advisers that we are taking the correct course now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 46 and 47:
Page 25, line 38, after (" vicugna ") insert (" (vicugna) ")
line 40, after (" vicugna ") insert (" (vicugna) ")
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to these two Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 26, line 2, after (" vicugna ") insert (" (vicugna) and any coat or jacket made wholly or partly of any such fabric.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment will extend the controls to cover coats and jackets made of vicuna fabric, in addition to the fabric itself. Your Lordships will remember our debate on Report, and the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, about vicuna goods. Our inquiries since then have disclosed that it is generally possible to detect vicuna fibre in a garment without damaging it. Therefore, it is a practical proposition to control coats and jackets. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for this point. As she says, it is in response to a question I asked, and I am most grateful. However, may I just put in a quibble. Are waistcoats covered, too?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I should have thought that that would have depended on the interpretation of "coats", but I will look at it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 26, line 4, after (" noschiferus ") insert (" (musk deer) ")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I
have already spoken to this Amendment, and I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 26, line 6, leave out (" any of ")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is purely drafting, and the wording is superfluous. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 26, line 7, after (" Reptilia ") insert (" (reptiles) ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 26, line 8, leave out paragraph 15.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 26, line 12, after (" Cheloniidae ") insert (" (sea turtles) ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when dealing with Amendments Nos. 37 to 44. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 26, line 13, leave out paragraph 17.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 26, line 13, leave out paragraph 17.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 26, line 16, leave out (" (otherwise known as Papuina pulcherrima) ") and insert (", otherwise known as Papuina pulcherrima (green tree snail)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when dealing with Amendments Nos. 37 to 44. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 26, line 19, leave out from (" birds") to end of line 36 and insert (", other than excepted plumage.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) above, excepted plumage means—

(a) plumage which is that only of a bird of any
of the following species, namely—

Chrysolophus pictus (golden pheasant)

Phasianus colchicus (ring-necked pheasant)

Struthio camelus (ostrich)

Sturnus vulgaris (starling);

(b) plumage which is that only of a bird of any
domestic form of any of the following species, namely—

Anas platyrhynchos (domestic duck)

Anser anser (domestic goose)

Anser cygnoides (Chinese goose)

Cairina moschata (Muscovy duck)

Columba livia (domestic pigeon)

Gallus gallus (domestic fowl)

Meleagris gallopavo (turkey)

Numida meleagris (Guinea fowl);

(c) plumage which consists only of the down feathers of any bird of the species Somateria mollissima (eider duck);

(d) plumage which consists only of the train feathers of any bird of the species Pavo cristatus (peacock);

(e) plumage none of which falls outside subparagraphs (a) to (d) above.").

The noble Baroness said: This Amendment redrafts paragraph 19 of the Schedule relating to plumage and revises the free list. The list at present in paragraph 19 has been carried forward from earlier legislation, and has long been recognised as out of date. Species no longer in trade or which have become endangered have been deleted. Moreover, the term "a bird used as part of the human diet" has been replaced by a specific list of domestic birds.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendments Nos. 57 and 58:
Page 26, line 40, after (" Cyatheaceae ") insert (" (tree ferns) ").
line 40, at end insert—
(" NOTE: In this Schedule, any common name which appears in brackets after a scientific name is included by way of explanation only; in the event of any dispute or proceedings, only the scientific name concerned is to be taken into account.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these two Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Amendment (privilege) made.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have now reached the last stage in the passage of the Bill through this House. We had a substantial interval between Second Reading and Committee stage to allow time for extensive consultation with the conservation bodies, trade interests and others. It is clear to all Members of the House that these consultations have been most fruitful, because of the number and importance of the Amendments we have debated. I am most grateful to your Lordships for the keen interest shown by your Lordships in the subject, and I am sure in most respects we now
have a much better Bill. The Government Amendments today were designed to meet many of the points raised in earlier debates. However, there are a few points of substance outstanding, and it might be helpful if I mention briefly those which we have undertaken to consider, but on which we have not yet reached a final decision.
One of these is the extension of the principle of reverse listing to mammal skins. The problem here is to draw up a list of excepted species which is large enough to avoid unnecessarily hampering the trade, yet sufficiently coherent and recognisable to Customs to enable them to enforce controls. I am bound to say that this is still proving difficult, and my advisers are still working on the problem.
Another small point still to be resolved is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, about possible duplication between this Bill and the import restrictions in the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967. We are looking into that. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord

1559
Mowbray and Stourton, we are also looking at the possibility of controlling otter skins, and turtle products such as the inner shell, the meat and oil, in addition to the outer shell and skin which are already controlled.
Finally, it would be wrong not to mention the two Amendments moved on Report stage by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, which would enable private prosecutions to be brought for what are essentially import offences. It may be that Clause I cannot be allowed to stand as it is now in this respect, because I am advised that Customs and Excise may be debarred in some circumstances from bringing prosecutions, but that in itself may be no more than a drafting point. As for the principle involved, the Government will wish to reconsider the position most carefully, but I can assure your Lordships that we shall pay full regard to the weight of feeling in this House, and to the many arguments advanced in the debate.
For the future, we hope to make further minor improvements to the Bill during its passage through another place. We shall have the power, after the Royal Assent, to alter the Schedules by order at any time. In my view, it is likely to take several years before the Convention to which this Bill relates achieves all its intended objectives. But the firm foundation that this Bill will give us should strengthen our hand in the international effort to prevent the extinction by indiscriminate trade of rare species of wildlife. I can assure the House that we shall continue to consult the voluntary conservation bodies and the trade interests whenever any significant change is proposed either in the Schedules to the Bill or in any administrative arrangements.
As I explained during Second Reading, we have delayed ratification of the Convention so as to be able to take with us as many of our dependent territories as possible. We shall, however, ratify in good time to ensure that our delegation can play a full part at the first conference of the parties to the Convention, which is going to be held in Switzerland in November of this year. Our scientific authorities have been working for some time on the United Kingdom contribution to this conference.
1560
My hope now is that this Bill can go forward to another place and can be enacted before the Summer Recess. I am sure that noble Lords would not wish it to leave this House without expressing our thanks to the officials and to the voluntary organisations for their co-operation so far as we are concerned in our dealings with this Bill. I hope that those of your Lordships who are venturing abroad this summer will remember one thing: there is a very serious omission from the list of excepted animals in Schedule 1, homo sapiens, so please do not forget to apply for your export licences before you go away. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Stedman.)
7.52 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, as a homo sapiens, I hope going away shortly, I must remember the advice of the noble Baroness. I would like to thank her very much for the way she has conducted the Third Reading. I should like to make a couple of small points on matters which, if we had had more time, I would have put down. The Opposition were in a tricky position; we do not like having unnecessary Amendments on Third Reading. I did not want to put down any Amendments until we had seen the Government's Amendments. One or two people in the House have said to me, "Are you not shocked and horrified that the Government have put down all these Amendments late, the night before?" I have had to say quite honestly that I am not, because I think in this case the Government have done extremely well. On Report we were all hoping that we might see what the Government were able to do, but we were all quite prepared to accept that the Minister would not be able to get her officials and experts to do what she wanted to do in the time available. We all agreed that, if it could be done before the Bill got to the Commons, that would be adequate. In the circumstances, I should like to say from the Opposition Front Bench that, although it was too late for us to look at it and interpret it in this particular case—and I hope this will not be a precedent for any other cases—we fully appreciate why it happened like this, and I for one am grateful.

1561
One of the Amendments which we might have put down would have been to strengthen the second Amendment which we carried last week on Report. We think it might be stronger if we treated it like the Amendment made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in Clause 1(3), lines 8 to 12, ending with the word "Act" in line 12. What we would have suggested, and I hope my friends in another place will put this down, is that the same lines should be put in Clause 1(10) to bring it into parallel with subsection (3); subsection (10) would be prefaced by the same words as are in subsection (3). That is one thing we should have liked to do had we had time.
There is one small point which I would make while I am speaking. It concerns my old Amendment No. 12 about the ports. I am looking at the Hansard of 13th May, column 1103. I should like the noble Baroness to bear in mind the two middle paragraphs of that page about the breach of specific customs offences. I should just like attention given to it; I do not want to reiterate all the arguments.
Turning to the general principles, I can only say that I think the whole House should be grateful to the noble Baroness, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, for the way she has handled this Bill. It was a new subject for her; she was plunged into the deep end. She has done extraordinarily well, and so has her Department. Her Department had to liaise with many other Ministries and Departments of State, not to mention such official bodies as Customs and Excise, who are very independent and jealous of their rights and privileges; rightly so, because they believe that their duties are carried out much more efficiently by sticking to those rights. Let me be quite clear: when we have been talking about Customs and Excise, I do not in any way denigrate them. They are arguing totally from their hearts, and they believe that what they are defending is right. On the other hand, we think there ought to be some wider action available to the public at large, in aid of the general good, in this case of the endangered species and their products.
It would be unfair, while I am paying tributes, not to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, without whose
1562
earlier Bills the Government might not have been prodded so effectively. I think the whole House and the country at large owe a great debt of gratitude to him, and that splendid society, the Friends of the Earth, who have been in the background for so long prodding at this particular measure.
A Third Reading where we have not been able to do everything we would have liked to do had the time been available is not ideal. But I think we can rest on our laurels; we have done all right. The fact is that we want the Bill passed quickly in order that we can ratify the Convention and take part this coming winter in all these discussions and have our views heard. It is for our colleagues in the Commons to continue the pointers we have made. There are plenty of pointers, and I am sure they will be able to take them up. Once again I would thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and all those other noble Lords who have helped and advised us on this matter.
7.58 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, during the Second Reading debate I made some critical remarks about the Department of the Environment, with particular reference to the failure to consult as fully as I felt they should have done with the voluntary bodies responsible for conservation. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Baroness very much indeed for what she herself described as the extensive and fruitful discussions she has had with these bodies, whose views have been invaluable. It was very pleasant indeed to hear, and I am sure the conservation bodies themselves will be very glad to hear her assurance that this consultation will be continued after the Bill becomes an Act. The voluntary organisations are very often the first people to hear of a threat to even a common species. They have no axe to grind at all, and I am sure they can be very helpful indeed to the Government, and will be.
I should like to make a few remarks about three matters in the Bill as briefly as I can; first, about possible changes to the Schedules. Clause 3 allows for the Schedules to be altered after consultation with the scientific authority. This is, of

1563
course, only right and proper. However, the Government do not seem to think that this advice is necessarily sufficient, and they propose, I gather, before making an order, to consult the trade, presumably to cross-check the advice they have had from the scientific authority. I am doubtful whether this is necessary, but if it is necessary I would not want to quibble about it. It must be remembered, and will, I am sure, be agreed, that in most cases the consultation will be about restrictions in trade, and this has the effect of giving what I might call an early warning to the trade that restrictions, or even a total ban, are likely to be imposed.
There was an interesting example of this recently, which proves the point I am making, where ocelot skins were concerned. In the first 10 months of 1975 more than 27,000 ocelot skins were imported into this country. It then became known in October that restrictions were to be imposed. In the next two months another 50,000 skins came in; almost as many in each of the next two months as had come in in the previous 10 months. This shows that, if the trade has early warning that restrictions are to be imposed where a species is regarded as being endangered, they can, so to speak, get in under the wire, and have plenty of time to do so. This is accentuated by the fact that the Department of the Environment has a policy of honouring contracts already entered into before the date controls become operative. The traders therefore have time and warning in which to enter into further long-term "commitments" which would take them well beyond the date when the restriction is law.
While I accept the reasons for consultations and for honouring of contracts, I feel that this latitude is unnecessary. I would ask the noble Baroness whether she would be good enough to look again at this question, to see whether it might be possible to make sure that, after an order has been laid, it is operative as soon as it has been laid on the Table for the necessary length of time. It might be operative for only a limited period—say, three months or six months—and if during that time the Government were convinced that the advice that they had from the Scientific Authority was wrong, it would lapse.
1564
I think that perhaps the whole purpose of the Bill could be largely outwitted unless some thought is given to this. I would ask the noble Baroness to be good enough to consider whether it is just possible that this is a comment that is worth considering and that an Amendment might be appropriate in another place.
I should like to say where the Schedules are concerned that I appreciate the speed with which the Government worked. I fully understand that they were working under pressure, and that the Schedules even now are not complete in every way. I was just looking at the first Schedule and I was surprised to find that the mallard, greylag goose, muscovy duck, turkey, and domestic pigeon do not appear as common birds. I may have made some mistake; I had the canary down as well, but I see that that that was one of the Amendments which the noble Baroness moved. There is still tidying-up to be done; that is inevitable. Perhaps a small number of birds and animals may still be on the list of common birds and animals, which travel badly—like some wines—and which, although comparatively common, might well be considered for removal from the list of birds and animals that are common.
Where the Schedules are concerned, I raised on Second Reading—I certainly intended to do so—the question of birds' eggs. It seems illogical on the face of it that birds should be in Schedule 1, but that their eggs, which may well be fertile eggs, are not. I know that there is a very difficult problem of recognition here, and that if one is to control the import of eggs one can only control the import of a whole group of eggs. It so happens, for example, that all the birds of prey are endangered species, and it might well be a step in the right direction to control all the eggs of birds of prey and of owls, which would be quite an easy thing to do. I fully recognise that where a very rare duck, or very rare pheasant, is concerned, because most pheasants' eggs look the same, as most ducks' eggs look the same, it might be impossible, much as we should like to prevent the import of eggs of very rare birds of that kind. But I think in certain groups, for instance of birds of prey, it might be possible to do this. I would very much hope that the Government would look at this matter.

1565
Secondly, I want to welcome most warmly the decision to allow rights of private prosecution under this Bill. The noble Baroness made it clear that the Government have an open mind about this, although some doubts. I very much hope that the Government will not seek to reverse these two Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, to Clause 1. I hope that Customs and Excise will see them not as any infringement of their authority, or questioning of their efficiency, but rather as complementary to their work, and affording them some welcome relief in carrying it out.
An example of how private prosecutions can help the authorities has been very clearly shown in both Wild Birds Protection Acts, with which I was closely concerned. The second Act, which was taken by the late Lord Hurcomb through your Lordships' House, I handled in the other place. Under these Acts private prosecutions frequently occur, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds works very closely with the police without any problems arising at all. I do not see why, in exactly the same way, private prosecutions should not be brought where this Bill is concerned. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness say that the Government have an open mind about this. She did at one stage mention the possibility of drafting points making these Amendments more acceptable, and I guess she may have had in mind that the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton does not include the words which appear in lines 8 to 10 of Clause 1(3), which make it absolutely clear that the right of private prosecution in no way overrides the duties of Customs and Excise under the 1952 Act. That is the second point I wish to raise.
The last point is a brief one about ports of entry. I welcome too the decision to restrict ports of entry, and I welcome it on several grounds. I very much hope that this permissive power will be applied, and from what the noble Baroness said she obviously has an open mind about this too. I think that Customs and Excise would agree that in many cases identification is an expert matter, whether one is speaking about commons species or rare and endangered species of fauna and flora or, for that matter, the immensely large
1566
range of inanimate objects which pass through Customs. Surely, therefore, it would be better to limit the assistance needed from the experts who are bound to be called in, to a few ports of entry and at places where suitable reception centres and staff are available. Could not this easily be done in exactly the same way as the Ministry of Agriculture has laid down in regulations under the 1974 Rabies Order? These are applied solely, I agree, for health purposes, as indeed are the new controls to prevent the introduction of avian diseases, especially Newcastle disease. I think that the Minister of Agriculture limited the imports under both these headings to nine seaports and eight airports. I would express the strong hope that Her Majesty's Government will take advantage of this excellent amendment of the Bill restricting ports of entry in exactly the same way.
I realise, of course, that the scope of this Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has told us when moving the Amendment, "allows us to consider the welfare of endangered species only". I think those were her exact words. I should have emphasised the word "endangered." It "allows us to consider the welfare of endangered species only". But I think that common sense and humanity both dictate that in protecting endangered species we should not expose common species to unnecessary risks or unnecessary suffering. Therefore, I believe that a very welcome side effect of restricting ports of entry would be that there would be less cruelty and less suffering, and that in this way we would be strengthening the Transit of Animals Order 1973, which has already proved extremely valuable.
I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time. Having made those points about the Amendments to the Schedules, about the timing and their effectiveness, about the right of private prosecutions and about the importance of restricting ports of entry, I would only add that this is an excellent little Bill and I wish it a safe and speedy passage through another place into law.
8.10 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, this is an occasion for some celebration. The passage of the Bill has required a period of gestation rather longer than that

1567
of any ordinary mammal. It was two and a half years ago that we started on it and at this point we can feel that the job has been well done and done in a splendid spirit of co-operation. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, made some kind remarks about me and all I would say is that the only reason why I introduced the Bill in the first place was because I was asked if I would do so, the person who asked me having thought that I would be stubborn enough to go on with it however long it took. It is not my stubbornness but the co-operation of others which has succeeded in getting the Bill through this House. It would be wrong not to acknowledge the part that Lord Mowbray and Stourton has played in this matter. He has enlivened us with quips and kept us amused, but all the time he has kept the serious objective in view. It has been particularly refreshing to have the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, who knows far more about this than I do, come along and do as much as he has done and we are grateful to him.
As has been pointed out, we are particularly indebted to my noble friend Lady Stedman. I know how much she has done and all who have been in contact with the Bill realise the hard work she has put in. The Department has played an exceptional part. The members of the Department have frequently been disturbed with the various proposals that have been put forward, as a Department should be, and they have worried about details, but at no time have they failed to carry on. They have worked extremely hard and we are extremely grateful to them for producing the Bill in a form which we can all now accept and feel that it is something well worth while. We have taken the first step in this House in putting on to the Statute Book a Bill which will be of absolutely basic significance in the preservation of species throughout the world, and this is very much to the credit of all those who have worked so hard on it.
Lord Chelwood mentioned the use of the scientific authorities. We have under Clause 2 the setting up of scientific authorities, and it should be clear that these authorities should be the ones who really determine what is going to be done in this field. While it is highly important to consult other people—there is no
1568
objection to consulting the trade—it is vital to consult all the conservation bodies, without which we should not have had the Bill. It is important to remember that we are about to pass a Bill which is concerned with the conservation of species. This is a matter which is based on scientific evidence and it is something which fundamentally must remain of scientific evidence. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind that Clause 2, which sets up these authorities, is an extremely vital part of the Bill. This is a Bill which we must pass, and we now hope that the other place will deal with it well and faithfully and that it will become an Act very soon.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ENDANGERED SPECIES BILL [H.L.]
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Endangered Species Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be withdrawn.—(Lord Wynne-Jones.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and Bill withdrawn accordingly.

COITY WALLIA COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee; Special Report made, and to be printed. Bill recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
WRITTEN ANSWERS

  PAY RESEARCH UNIT: CONFIDENTIALITY
  Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What progress has been made in their review of the alleged need for confidentiality with regard to the comparability studies of the Pay Research Unit.
  Lord SHEPHERD: This matter is under consideration, but as I explained to the noble Lord in the debate on the Civil Service (Hansard, 11th December 1975) this is a sensitive area in which it is

  1569
  necessary to proceed with caution. The Pay Research process is at present suspended. The intention is to complete the study of the question, and to discuss it with the interested parties before the suspension is lifted.

CIVIL SERVANTS AND POWERS OF ENTRY
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will enumerate the Acts of Parliament, including the relevant sections thereof, which give civil servants power to enter, by force if necessary, private business premises and dwellinghouses; and state the number of occasions when forcible entry has been made by civilian officials during any recent period for which the information is available.
Lord JACQUES: Officers of Customs and Excise have carefully delineated powers of entry, using force if necessary, for the purposes of detection and prevention of tax evasion and smuggling, under the provisions of the following Acts of Parliament:
Customs and Excise Act 1952—Sections 71, 106, 248, 249 and 296.
Finance Act 1967—Section 5 and Schedule 6.
Hydrocarbon Oil (Customs and Excise) Act 1971—Section 22.
Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1972—
Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Finance Act 1972—Section 37 and Schedule 7.
Customs and Excise officers have found it necessary to use their powers of forcible entry only in isolated cases, most of which concerned the smuggling of prohibited drugs.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPART MENT: ACTIVITIES AND GRANTS
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of the activities and grants of the Ministry of Overseas Development are concerned with aid
1570
programmes for fishing, and fishing research and development, and in which recipient countries; and what proportion of such activities and grants are administered by the Rural Development Department.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: About 0·2 per cent. of the aid programme is being spent on fisheries research and development. The Ministry is concerned in fisheries projects in the following 40 countries:

No. of

No. of

Country

projects

Country

projects

Antigua

1

Malta

1

Bahrain

1

Mexico

2

Bolivia

1

New Caledonia

Botswana

2

(South Pacific

Brazil

3

Commission)

1

Brunei

1

Nigeria

2

Burundi

1

Pakistan

1

Cayman

Peru

3

Islands

1

Philippines

1

Dominica

1

Portugal

1

Egypt

1

St. Helena

1

Falkland

El Salvador

1

Islands

1

Seychelles

3

Fiji

1

Solomon

The Gambia

2

Islands

3

Ghana

2

Sudan

3

Gilbert Islands

4

Tanzania

1

India

1

Tonga

1

Indonesia

1

Tristan Da

Jamaica

1

Cunha

1

Kenya

1

Tunisia

1

Lesotho

2

Tuvalu

1

Malawi

3

Zambia

1

In addition, fisheries research staff have been provided to the East African Community. There are also fisheries research and training projects in this country. Dependent upon their nature, these projects are administered either by Natural Resources Research Department or by the appropriate Geographical Department in the ODM, not through the Rural Development Department.
House adjourned at a quarter past eight o'clock.